Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35845367›Full record

ReviewEcology and evolution2022

Empirical and philosophical problems with the subspecies rank.

Frank T Burbrink, Brian I Crother, Christopher M Murray, Brian Tilston Smith, Sara Ruane, Edward A Myers, Robert Alexander Pyron

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ecology and evolution, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Two new species ofPhytoKeys · 2026
    Article
  7. Rare PrimateAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. The GenusPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. Distinguishing species boundaries from geographic variation.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. DoTropical medicine and infectious disease · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. PhytoKeys · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Frank T BurbrinkDepartment of Herpetology American Museum of Natural History New York New York USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6687-8332
Brian I CrotherDepartment of Biological Sciences Southeastern Louisiana University Hammond Louisiana USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4033-9933
Christopher M MurrayDepartment of Biological Sciences Southeastern Louisiana University Hammond Louisiana USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4500-9052
Brian Tilston SmithDepartment of Ornithology American Museum of Natural History New York New York USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8782-6400
Sara RuaneLife Sciences Section, Negaunee Integrative Research Center Field Museum of Natural History Chicago Illinois USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9543-1297
Edward A MyersDepartment of Herpetology American Museum of Natural History New York New York USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5369-6329
Robert Alexander PyronDepartment of Vertebrate Zoology Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History Washington District of Columbia USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2524-1794

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Species-level taxonomy derives from empirical sources (data and techniques) that assess the existence of spatiotemporal evolutionary lineages via various species "concepts." These concepts determine if observed lineages are independent given a particular methodology and ontology, which relates the metaphysical species concept to what "kind" of thing a species is in reality. Often, species concepts fail to link epistemology back to ontology. This lack of coherence is in part responsible for the persistence of the subspecies rank, which in modern usage often functions as a placeholder between the evolutionary events of divergence or collapse of incipient species. Thus, prospective events like lineages merging or diverging require information from unknowable future information. This is also conditioned on evidence that the lineage already has a detectably distinct evolutionary history. Ranking these lineages as subspecies can seem attractive given that many lineages do not exhibit intrinsic reproductive isolation. We argue that using subspecies is indefensible on philosophical and empirical grounds. Ontologically, the rank of subspecies is either identical to that of species or undefined in the context of evolutionary lineages representing spatiotemporally defined individuals. Some species concepts more inclined to consider subspecies, like the Biological Species Concept, are disconnected from evolutionary ontology and do not consider genealogy. Even if ontology is ignored, methods addressing reproductive isolation are often indirect and fail to capture the range of scenarios linking gene flow to species identity over space and time. The use of subspecies and reliance on reproductive isolation as a basis for an operational species concept can also conflict with ethical issues governing the protection of species. We provide a way forward for recognizing and naming species that links theoretical and operational species concepts regardless of the magnitude of reproductive isolation.

Indexed as

gene flowgenomicsontologyreproductive isolationspeciessubspecies

Identifiers

PMID35845367
PMCPMC9271888

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.