Deceiving insects, deceiving taxonomists? Making theoretical sense of taxonomic disagreement in the European orchid genus Ophrys

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ppees.2022.125686
Vincent Cuypers , Thomas A.C. Reydon , Tom Artois
{"title":"Deceiving insects, deceiving taxonomists? Making theoretical sense of taxonomic disagreement in the European orchid genus Ophrys","authors":"Vincent Cuypers ,&nbsp;Thomas A.C. Reydon ,&nbsp;Tom Artois","doi":"10.1016/j.ppees.2022.125686","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The orchid genus </span><span><em>Ophrys</em></span> is a textbook example of a taxonomic controversy, with the number of species recognised in different classifications varying from around 10 to over 350, causing confusion among researchers and enthusiasts. Here, we illustrate that there are multiple drivers behind that disagreement, representing debates and discussions of various nature, and then reflect on strategies to mitigate confusion among the users of <em>Ophrys</em> taxonomies, reconciling legitimate taxonomic debates with demands for clarity among the broader biological community. First, we distil six possible factors explaining taxonomic disagreement from general literature on taxonomic difficulties, and assess the importance of each of them for the <em>Ophrys</em> controversy. We then explore two strategies to reduce confusion among the users of the taxonomies in question. On the one hand, we illustrate the possibility of constructing a consensus-based reference taxonomy for external users, despite the ongoing taxonomic disagreement, and on the other hand we explore a ‘pluralist’ alternative, in which different classifications are allowed to coexist, but in an orderly manner. Doing so, we build a case for the <em>Ophrys</em> systematics community to reflect collectively on which strategy to adopt.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1433831922000282","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

The orchid genus Ophrys is a textbook example of a taxonomic controversy, with the number of species recognised in different classifications varying from around 10 to over 350, causing confusion among researchers and enthusiasts. Here, we illustrate that there are multiple drivers behind that disagreement, representing debates and discussions of various nature, and then reflect on strategies to mitigate confusion among the users of Ophrys taxonomies, reconciling legitimate taxonomic debates with demands for clarity among the broader biological community. First, we distil six possible factors explaining taxonomic disagreement from general literature on taxonomic difficulties, and assess the importance of each of them for the Ophrys controversy. We then explore two strategies to reduce confusion among the users of the taxonomies in question. On the one hand, we illustrate the possibility of constructing a consensus-based reference taxonomy for external users, despite the ongoing taxonomic disagreement, and on the other hand we explore a ‘pluralist’ alternative, in which different classifications are allowed to coexist, but in an orderly manner. Doing so, we build a case for the Ophrys systematics community to reflect collectively on which strategy to adopt.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欺骗昆虫,欺骗分类学家?欧洲兰属植物分类歧异的理论意义
兰花属(Ophrys)是分类学争议的教科书范例,在不同的分类中被认可的物种数量从10个左右到350多个不等,引起了研究人员和爱好者的困惑。在这里,我们说明了这种分歧背后有多种驱动因素,代表了各种性质的辩论和讨论,然后反思了减轻Ophrys分类法用户之间混淆的策略,调和合法的分类法辩论与更广泛的生物界对清晰度的要求。首先,我们从分类困难的一般文献中提炼出六个可能解释分类分歧的因素,并评估每个因素对Ophrys争议的重要性。然后,我们将探讨两种策略,以减少所讨论的分类法用户之间的混淆。一方面,我们展示了为外部用户构建基于共识的参考分类法的可能性,尽管分类法存在分歧;另一方面,我们探索了一种“多元”的替代方案,在这种替代方案中,不同的分类可以共存,但以有序的方式共存。这样做,我们为Ophrys系统学社区建立了一个案例,以集体反思采用哪种策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
期刊最新文献
Hyperbaric oxygen treatment promotes tendon-bone interface healing in a rabbit model of rotator cuff tears. Oxygen-ozone therapy for myocardial ischemic stroke and cardiovascular disorders. Comparative study on the anti-inflammatory and protective effects of different oxygen therapy regimens on lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury in mice. Heme oxygenase/carbon monoxide system and development of the heart. Hyperbaric oxygen for moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury: outcomes 5-8 years after injury.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1