Journal of Mammalogy, 87(4):643–662, 2006

SPECIATION IN MAMMALS AND THE GENETIC

SPECIES CONCEPT
ROBERT J. BAKER* AND ROBERT D. BRADLEY
Department of Biological Sciences and the Museum, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-3131, USA

We define a genetic species as a group of genetically compatible interbreeding natural populations that is
genetically isolated from other such groups. This focus on genetic isolation rather than reproductive isolation
distinguishes the Genetic Species Concept from the Biological Species Concept. Recognition of species that are
genetically isolated (but not reproductively isolated) results in an enhanced understanding of biodiversity and
the nature of speciation as well as speciation-based issues and evolution of mammals. We review criteria and
methods for recognizing species of mammals and explore a theoretical scenario, the Bateson–Dobzhansky–
Muller (BDM) model, for understanding and predicting genetic diversity and speciation in mammals. If the BDM
model is operating in mammals, then genetically defined phylogroups would be predicted to occur within species
defined by morphology, and phylogroups experiencing stabilizing selection will evolve genetic isolation without
concomitant morphological diversification. Such species will be undetectable using classical skin and skull
morphology (Morphological Species Concept). Using cytochrome-b data from sister species of mammals
recognized by classical morphological studies, we estimated the number of phylogroups that exist within
mammalian species and hypothesize that there will be .2,000 currently unrecognized species of mammals. Such
an underestimation significantly affects conclusions on the nature of speciation in mammals, barriers associated
with evolution of genetic isolation, estimates of biodiversity, design of conservation initiatives, zoonoses, and
so on. A paradigm shift relative to this and other speciation-based issues will be needed. Data that will be effec-
tive in detecting these ‘‘morphologically cryptic genetic species’’ are genetic, especially DNA-sequence data.
Application of the Genetic Species Concept uses genetic data from mitochondrial and nuclear genomes to
identify species and species boundaries, the extent to which the integrity of the gene pool is protected, nature of
hybridization (if present), and introgression. Genetic data are unique in understanding species because the use of
genetic data 1) can quantify genetic divergence from different aspects of the genome (mitochondrial and nuclear
genes, protein coding genes, regulatory genes, mobile DNA, microsatellites, chromosomal rearrangements,
heterochromatin, etc.); 2) can provide divergence values that increase with time, providing an estimate of time
since divergence; 3) can provide a population genetics perspective; 4) is less subject to convergence and
parallelism relative to other sets of characters; 5) can identify monophyly, sister taxa, and presence or absence of
introgression; and 6) can accurately identify hybrid individuals (kinship and source of hybrid individuals, F1s,
backcrosses, direction of hybridization, and in concert with other data identify which hybrids are sterile or
fertile). The proposed definition of the Genetic Species Concept is more compatible with a description of
biodiversity of mammals than is ‘‘reproductively isolated species.’’ Genetic profiles of mammalian species will
result in a genetic description of species and mammalian diversity, and such studies are being accelerated by
technological advances that reduce cost and increase speed and efficiency of generating genetic data. We propose
that this genetic revolution remain museum- and voucher specimen–based and that new names are based on
a holotype (including associated tissues) deposited in an accredited museum.

Key words: Bateson–Dobzhansky–Muller model, cryptic species, cytochrome b, genetic isolation, Genetic Species Concept,
hybrid zones, phylogroups, reproductive isolation, speciation in mammals

Taxonomic and systematic literature pertaining to issues

concerning species, speciation models, and whether species
even exist in nature is voluminous. Even if one restricts the
* Correspondent: [email protected] review to vertebrates and narrows the topics to species concepts
and how to theoretically recognize species, the literature is
Ó 2006 American Society of Mammalogists impressive (e.g., Claridge et al. 1997; Coyne and Orr 2004;
www.mammalogy.org Howard and Berlocher 1998; Wheeler and Meier 2000).
643
644 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 87, No. 4

Further, the definition of ‘‘species’’ includes remarkable dis- basis for recognition of most allopatrically distributed species
parity concerning complexity, criteria, and application. For of mammals.
example, 4 definitions include phraseology such as ‘‘re- Before 1985 and the onset of DNA data sets, most
productively isolated from other such groups’’ (Mayr descriptions of extant species of mammals were based on
1942:120), ‘‘tokogenetic entities that function in the phyloge- morphological analyses of museum voucher specimens and
netic system’’ (Wiley and Mayden 2000:74), ‘‘the smallest their associated databases. As early as the 1960s, other data
aggregation . . . diagnosable by a unique combination of sets (chromosomes, allozymes, scanning electron microscopy,
character states’’ (Wheeler and Platnick 2000:58), and ‘‘small- etc.) to discriminate species were available, but they were
est monophyletic groups deemed worthy of formal recogni- championed by few mammalian systematists because they
tion’’ (Mishler and Theriot 2000:47). Employing such variation often required extensive expertise, expensive equipment,
and associated criteria in an application of ‘‘species concepts’’ specific types of samples (in vitro incubated bone marrow,
would clearly alter the number of recognized species. specially fixed tissues, etc.), or even laboratory colonies not
Complexity of species definitions is not new; the 1st volume available to the systematics community at large. Further, most
of the Journal of Mammalogy contained evidence of philo- mammalogists concerned with recognition of species and their
sophical differences between Merriam (1919) and Taverner relationship to other Linnaean taxa were affiliated with natural
(1920) on how to delineate species of mammals. Merriam history museums. This affiliation allowed individuals to share
opposed efforts to invoke the ‘‘criterion of intergradations’’ as comparative material and permitted systematists to examine
a measure of hybridization between morphological types, closely related species across geographic ranges of taxa under
whereas Taverner (1920:126) stated ‘‘the species is a definite study. Therefore, in almost all cases, the most comprehensive
entity and its essential quality is its genetic isolation.’’ Merriam’s data set available for comparison of potential species was
(1919:7) position was typological and interpreted by Engstrom voucher specimens housed in natural history museums.
et al. (1994:181) as a defense of the Morphological Species It is possible that the study of voucher specimens using
Concept. Engstrom et al. (1994) proposed Taverner’s (1920) classical morphology has resulted in a complete and accurate
position as recognition for the Biological Species Concept. list of species of mammals and that more modern molecular
However, we interpret Taverner’s position as more likely to data sets will not reveal many additional species or redefined
embrace the Genetic Species Concept (Bateson 1909) than the species boundaries from those recognized in Wilson and
Biological Species Concept. This difference in opinion by Reeder (1993, 2005). However, we argue that there is sub-
mammalogists, at the time of the origin of the American Society stantial evidence demonstrating that this is not true.
of Mammalogists, indicates that species recognition has been
a protracted evaluation of species models and their applications.
As noted by Engstrom et al. (1994), Merriam’s species concept GENETIC DATA AND SPECIES RECOGNITION
resulted in recognition of 2 genera and 78 species of brown bears IN MAMMALS
(Ursus arctos) that currently (Hall 1984) are recognized as Methodological advances in molecular biology have led
a single species. Interestingly, a single species of brown bear to generation of several genetic-based data sources. These
originally was advanced by Allen (1876) in his seminal work on included karyotypic (Hsu 1979; Patton 1967) and starch-gel
intraspecific geographic variability in mammals. allozymic data (Hubby and Lewontin 1966; Lewontin and
>Mammalogists, for the most part, have avoided debate on Hubby 1966) developed in the mid-1960s and DNA-sequence
species concepts, but most investigators follow a particular data in the mid-1980s. Examination of these data sets dem-
species definition. Most catalogues and checklists of species, onstrates that there are cryptic species of mammals that would
such as Wilson and Reeder (1993, 2005), generally are not con- likely not be recognized based solely on classical studies of
structed under a single species concept but reflect diversity morphology of voucher specimens housed in museums.
in philosophy of individual authors. Consequently, they appear Cryptic species of mammals identified by karyotypes and
to be accepted with little reference or adherence to species allozymes.— There are several examples of mammals that are
definitions and with little concern for conceptual standards sympatric and behave as separate species that probably would
(species concepts). Historically, there has been moderate to not have been recognized without data from karyotypes and
strong support for the Biological Species Concept among allozymes. These include Thomomys bottae–umbrinus (Patton
mammalogists (Mayr 1942). However, there has been a trend and Dingman 1968), Sigmodon arizonae–hispidus–mascotensis
in recent issues of Journal of Mammalogy toward application (Zimmerman 1970), Macrotus californicus–waterhousii (Davis
of the Phylogenetic Species Concept defining monophyletic and Baker 1974), Mus domesticus–musculus (Capanna et al.
clades in phylogenetic trees identified by shared derived 1976), Rhogeessa genowaysi–tumida (Baker 1984), Lasiurus
character states as species. Reasons that the Biological Species ega–xanthinus (Baker et al. 1984), Sorex araneus–coronatus–
Concept has been accepted widely among mammalogists granaries (Hausser et al. 1985; Searle 1988), and Peromyscus
include the fact that all mammals are sexually reproducing beatae–boylii–levipes (Houseal et al. 1987; Schmidly et al.
and most are diploid (polyploidy is rare—Gallardo et al. 1999; 1988). In those examples and others noted in Corbet (1997),
Svartman et al. 2005). Further, there is an historical acceptance differences that distinguish 2 or more species were chromo-
that a certain level of morphological difference indicates 2 somal and allozymic. Many of those species were sympatric,
reproductively isolated species (Corbet 1997), which is the with no karyotypic or allozymic evidence of hybridization. If
August 2006 BAKER AND BRADLEY—GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT 645

hybridization was present, most hybrids were less fertile than have been hashed, rehashed, and tweaked in the literature, and
nonhybrids and introgression was restricted to a narrow zone, it is not our goal to establish a new concept. It is our goal,
indicating that genetic isolating mechanisms had evolved. however, to organize ideas from the published literature into
Consequently, there was justification for recognition of 2 or a pragmatic perspective to explore patterns of genetic variation
more species. Although chromosomal and allozymic data are in mammalian taxa and to accurately identify species and
useful in systematics, neither method provides as much species boundaries to better understand mammalian systemat-
resolution as DNA-sequence data nor are they used as ics, evolution, and biodiversity. This perspective is intimately
frequently today as are DNA-sequence methods. linked to the power of resolution that DNA-sequence and
Cryptic species of mammals identified by DNA sequences.— molecular data provide to document species boundaries,
Over the last 2 decades, a broad-based DNA-sequence data set hybridization, monophyly, introgression, and so on.
has become available to examine biodiversity and speciation We define genetic species as a group of genetically com-
in mammals. This data set is a product of methodological patible interbreeding natural populations that is genetically
advances associated with automated DNA sequencing, poly- isolated from other such groups. Under our definition of the
merase chain reaction, universal primers, GenBank, human Genetic Species Concept, speciation is the accumulation of
genome project, biological informatics, software to analyze genetic changes in 2 lineages (Bateson 1909) that produce
such data (reviewed 3 February 2006 at http://evolution. genetic isolation and protection of the integrity of the 2 re-
genetics.washington.edu/phylip/software.html), and genetic re- spective gene pools that have independent evolutionary fates.
source collections associated with voucher specimens. DNA Therefore, the process of speciation depends on divergence in
sequencing is available at nearly all research and educational genes, the genome, and chromosome structure (Check 2005),
institutions and with GenBank and biological informatics and species exist when the integrity of 2 gene pools is protected
(Baker et al. 1998), studies of local populations or favorite as a consequence of genetic differences in their respective
species are possible for many researchers even at smaller genomes (e.g., as outlined in the Bateson–Dobzhansky–Muller
institutions with limited budgets and no museum collections. [BDM] model but not restricted to those conditions).
Initial results from DNA-sequence databases indicate that A comparison of our definition of the Genetic Species
cryptic species are more common in mammals than previously Concept to the Biological Species Concept, Morphological
thought. Some species that have been recognized and described Species Concept, and Phylogenetic Species Concept is
or justified using DNA-sequence data include Loxodonta presented in Table 1. How does our definition of the Genetic
cyclotis (Roca et al. 2001), Carollia sowelli (Baker et al. Species Concept differ from the Biological Species Concept?
2002), Neotoma macrotis (Matocq 2002), Myotis occultus Under the Biological Species Concept, the definition is ‘‘a
(Piaggio et al. 2002), Notiosorex cockrumi (Baker et al. 2003), group of interbreeding natural populations that is reproductively
Lophostoma equatorialis (Baker et al. 2004), Peromyscus isolated from other such groups’’ (Mayr 1942:120). In contrast,
schmidlyi (Bradley et al. 2004a), Reithrodontomys bakeri genetic isolation is the primary feature of the Genetic Species
(Bradley et al. 2004b), Lagidium boxi (Spotorno et al. 2004a), Concept. Because members of interbreeding populations that do
and Thylamys cinderella (Braun et al. 2005). not have reproductive or genetic isolation are recognized as
To summarize, there is evidence that species of mammals conspecifics and because populations that are reproductively
are unrecognized, and a database of DNA sequences for most and genetically isolated are recognized as distinct species, these
mammalian species is now attainable, financially feasible, definitions overlap between the 2 concepts. Where the 2
and rapidly being compiled. It is our position that the DNA concepts differ is when genetic isolation exists but reproductive
database permits substantially more resolution to understand isolation does not. In this special case, the Biological Species
species presence and boundaries than any previously available Concept (sensu Dobzhansky [1937] and Mayr [1942], but see
database. The DNA database permits application of the Genetic the definition of Coyne and Orr [2004] in chapter 1) would
Species Concept to understand mammalian biodiversity. recognize the former as conspecific but the Genetic Species
Although scientific breakthroughs to generate the DNA Concept would recognize 2 different species. Although we
database are relatively recent (last 25 years), the Genetic know of no example in mammals where reproductive isolation
Species Concept (Bateson 1909) is not new, and along with the has evolved without genetic isolation, it is possible for genetic
Typological and Biological Species Concept (Dobzhansky isolation to evolve without reproductive isolation (Table 2).
1937; Mayr 1942), is among the oldest species concepts. There also are differences in levels of interbreeding (hybrid-
ization) between 2 genetic species. These can range from
production of no hybrids to all sterile hybrids, to a hybrid zone
GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT (or zones) that have all combinations of possible crosses with all
There are multiple definitions and descriptions of what could individuals fertile and with introgression being trivial beyond
be interpreted as a Genetic Species Concept (Avise and Ball that zone. In cases where the integrity of the 2 gene pools is
1990; Baker and Bickham 1986; Bateson 1909; Butlin 2005; maintained, it is our position that these gene pools represent
Dobzhansky 1950; Masters and Spencer 1989; Mayden 1997; genetic species. Clearly, examples with extensive hybridization
Mayr 1969; Muller 1939; Nei 1976; Schilthuizen 2000; with fertile hybrids do not fit the definition ‘‘species are
Simpson 1943; Taverner 1920). Most of the ideas that relate reproductively isolated from each other’’ (Mayr 1942:120). We
to speciation models (including the Genetic Species Concept) predict that when genetic profiles become available for
646 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 87, No. 4

TABLE 1.—Criteria for recognition and comparisons between the Biological, Morphological, Phylogenetic, and Genetic Species Concepts
(modified from Cracraft 1997:333). The Genetic Species Concept is as defined in this paper. Criteria 1–9 are from Cracraft’s original table, ex-
cept that 4 has been restructured. The interpretations for 1–9 of the Biological Species Concept and the Phylogenetic Species Concept are
from Cracraft’s table, whereas the Morphological Species Concept interpretations are by the authors of the present study. All interpretations
for 10–14 and the Genetic Species Concept in 1–14 are those of the present authors.

Biological Morphological Phylogenetic

Criterion or circumstances Species Concept Species Concept Species Concept Genetic Species Concept
1. Diagnosably distinct populations Sometimes Most times Always Yes, if genetic distances are
recognized as a separate species typical of sister species
2. Species unit often includes Yes, subspecies concept Yes, subspecies concept Never, subspecies Yes, subspecies relevant but
diagnosable allopatric populations widely accepted widely accepted concept not relevant defined genetically
3. Species represent terminal taxa Sometimes Sometimes Always Always
that can be used in phylogenetic and
biogeographical analysis
4. Inherently provides accurate No No Yes Yes
historical information
5. Gene flow among species Rarely, if ever Not directly Sometimes Acceptable
6. Reproductively isolated populations Always Always Always Always
recognized as separate species
7. Extensively hybridizing, diagnosably Rarely Rarely Almost always Yes, if integrities of the
distinct populations important for 2 gene pools are protected
establishing species status
8. ‘‘Potential’’ interbreeding of allopatric Yes Yes, estimated by morphological Never Yes, estimated from genetic
populations important for establishing divergence distance of nuclear and
species status mitochondrial DNA
9. Delimitation of areas of endemism Coarse, less precise Coarse, less precise Fine, more precise Fine, more precise
10. Inter- and intraspecific genetic Sometimes Rarely Sometimes Always, with adequate
biodiversity documented sampling
11. Estimate of time of origin No Sometimes, if fossils Sometimes Always
available
12. Provides foundation for No Yes, through voucher Sometimes Always
Barcode Initiative specimens/binomial names
13. Resolves geographic limits for No No Sometimes, if gene Always, with adequate
cryptic species trees are used sampling
14. Can be influenced by local Yes, if morphology Yes Yes, if morphologic No
environmental conditions database used database used

populations currently recognized as conspecifics (Wilson and ization that may or may not merit recognition of specific status
Reeder 2005), numerous examples of genetically isolated but the point is that the hybrid zones will display varying
populations that are not reproductively isolated will be degrees of hybridization, introgression, and so on, and each
identified. Recognizing these examples as genetic species will will need to be evaluated on its own genetic structure. In these
be the best means to describe biodiversity in mammals. examples, considerable reproduction occurs between individ-
The 1st reported example in mammals that we know of where uals of different species, including fertility of F1 and backcross
genetic isolation was documented but reproductive isolation individuals (Table 2), yet 4 of these examples are recognized as
was not present was a study of pocket gophers of the genus species in Wilson and Reeder (2005). We propose that these
Thomomys (Patton and Dingman 1968). To justify recognition examples of hybridization between species pairs more closely
of species status despite absence of reproductive isolation, fit our definition of the Genetic Species Concept than they do
Patton and Dingman (1968:11) stated that recognition ‘‘of the 2 a concept focused solely on reproductively isolated popula-
forms as distinct species is in greater accord with the biological tions. The extent of hybridization in mammals that will be
inferences. This interpretation allows for a greater appreciation revealed by examination of genetic data from future studies
and understanding of the past historical events [and] present will document numerous examples that fit the definition of the
distribution.’’ We further develop the idea that recognition of Genetic Species Concept proposed herein.
these ‘‘genetic species’’ provides more information for under- Alternatively, one could argue, as have Coyne and Orr (2004),
standing biodiversity than relegating them to subspecific status. that the Genetic Species Concept is equivalent to the Biological
Species (Table 2) that are not reproductively isolated but Species Concept or that the Genetic Species Concept is a subset of
appear to be genetically isolated include mule deer and white- the Biological Species Concept. Coyne and Orr (2004) redefined
tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus–virginianus), pocket gophers the Biological Species Concept to allow hybridization and some
(Thomomys bottae–townsendii and Geomys bursarius–knox- reproduction between 2 species and extensively discussed
jonesi), African elephants (Loxodonta africana–cyclotis), and isolating mechanisms that would permit such hybridization.
tent-making bats (Uroderma bilobatum–davisi). The final For the most part, we agree with the interpretations of Coyne and
example, Peromyscus leucopus–texanus, has a level of hybrid- Orr (2004), and their additions of hybridization to the Biological
August 2006 BAKER AND BRADLEY—GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT 647

TABLE 2.—Characteristics of hybridization documenting absence of reproductive isolation in 4 species and 2 possible species of mammals. Note
how characteristics of hybridization vary among species. Hybridization in mammals is common even in distantly related taxa (Van Gelder 1977).

Thomomys Geomys Odocoileus Loxodonta Uroderma Peromyscus

Characteristics bottae
townsendiia bursarius
knoxjonesib virginianus
hemionusc africana
cyclotisd bilobatum
davisie leucopus
texanusf
Cytochrome-b distance (%) 11.3 11.2 1.3 ? ;2 ?
Fertile F1s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Backcrosses present Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Evidence of reduced fertility in Yes? Yes No No Yes ?
hybrids
Hybrid zone asymmetrical Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Haldane’s rule evidentg No Yes No No No No
Cytoplasmic nuclear disequilibrium Yes ? Yes Yes Yes No
Crosses nonreciprocal Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
Kaneshiro’s hypothesis meth No Yes ? ? Yes No
Past introgression evident ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Morphological species evident Yes No Yes Yes No No
Chromosomal differences Yes Yes No No Yes Yes
Allozymic differences Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
Sister taxa in gene trees No No No Yes Yes Yes
Recognized as 2 species in
Wilson and Reeder (2005) Yes Yes Yes Yes No No
a
Patton and Smith 1990.
b
Bradley et al. 1991.
c
Bradley et al. 2003; Cathey et al. 1998.
d
Roca et al. 2001, 2005.
e
Hoffmann et al. 2003.
f
Van Den Bussche et al. 1993.
g
Haldane 1922; heterogometic sex is infertile.
h
Kaneshiro 1983; hybridization is asymmetrical with females of peripheral isolates mating with males of central species.

Species Concept overlaps with our definition of the Genetic permit extensive hybridization between species, it is critical to
Species Concept. However, we interpret reproductive isolation as the study of mechanisms and processes involved in evolution of
invoked by Mayr (1942) as the end point in a series of genetically protection of the integrity of gene pools to distinguish cohorts
based events. Mayr’s perspective of genetics and speciation is of species that are reproductively and genetically isolated from
reviewed by Provine (2004:1045), and he concluded that Mayr those that are only genetically isolated, especially when there is
thought speciation ‘‘boiled down to the genetics of natural extensive fertility among hybrid individuals (Table 2). Studies
populations,’’ which is compatible with our position; however, addressing mechanisms of speciation in animals have focused on
Mayr’s focus was on reproductive isolation rather than genetic Drosophila (reviewed by Coyne and Orr 2004). The ability to
isolation. A classification of reproductive isolating barriers is sequence entire genomes and the variety of model systems in
presented by Coyne and Orr (2004:28) and Avise (2004:324). natural species of mammals where hybridization occurs but
Under the Genetic Species Concept, genetic isolation results the integrity of the gene pool is protected (Table 2) permits
as 2 genomes diverge to the point that they are genetically examination of speciation in mammals using methods such as
distinct and no longer share a common evolutionary fate. There those in chapter 2 of Coyne and Orr (2004).
are multiple ways that genetic isolation can result in premating We hypothesize that hybridization will be common among
or postmating mechanisms. These include, but are not limited genetic species of mammals and to imply that they are
to, sequence divergence in genes that are not functional in ‘‘reproductively isolated’’ is inaccurate. By our definition, these
combination with genotypes in the sister species (reviewed in 2 phylogroups are genetic species if the integrity of the gene
Coyne and Orr 2004); cytoplasmic–nuclear incompatibility pools of the 2 phylogroups is protected. Unless there is a
(Asmussen et al. 1987); genetic changes that lead to behavioral redefinition of ‘‘reproductive’’ that states that reproductive iso-
changes or changes in pheromones and odors associated with lation equals genetic isolation in the presence of hybrids, or
conspecific recognition (Wickliffe et al. 2003); chromosomal alternatively, if the definition of the Biological Species Concept
rearrangements that produce infertile or less-fertile hybrids becomes ‘‘a group of interbreeding natural populations that
(Baker and Bickham 1986; White 1978); genetic changes that is reproductively and/or genetically isolated from other such
alter timing or levels of gene expression; and disruption of groups,’’ there is an incompatibility in the dictionary definition
coadaptive gene complexes (Shaw 1996). and the commonly understood usage of the phrase ‘‘re-
The distinction between ‘‘genetically isolated and reproduc- productive isolation’’ and the species status proposed for the
tively isolated’’ and ‘‘genetically isolated but not reproductively Biological Species Concept by Coyne and Orr (2004). After all,
isolated’’ is significant to understanding many evolutionary it is the Biological Species Concept we are discussing, not the
processes, including speciation. If, as described above (Coyne Reproductive Species Concept, and adding the word ‘‘genet-
and Orr 2004), the Biological Species Concept is redefined to ically’’ to more accurately describe speciation as envisioned in
648 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 87, No. 4

Coyne and Orr (2004) and further developed herein is a more individuals, F1s, backcrosses, extent of introgression, and di-
accurate description of speciation in mammals. rection of hybridization), and in concert with use of other data
How does our definition of the Genetic Species Concept can provide an estimate of the level of fertility of F1 hybrids
differ from the Phylogenetic Species Concept? There are and subsequent hybrid crosses.
several different definitions of the Phylogenetic Species Con- Other conceptual considerations.— In addition to genetic
cept, but one definition is ‘‘the smallest population or group of versus reproductive isolation, there are some other points sup-
populations within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry porting the uniqueness of a Genetic Species Concept. First,
and descent and which is diagnosable by unique combinations there are additional implications from the Genetic Species
of character states’’ (Cracraft 1997:329). Although this is a Concept as related to other concepts, such as the Evolutionary
popular and useful definition, its application does not usually Species Concept (Simpson 1961). For example, the definition
include evidence of separate evolutionary fates or isolation. of Wiley (1978:18) or Wiley and Mayden (2000) of ‘‘a single
Although there is overlap in the application of the Genetic lineage of ancestor–descendant populations which maintains
Species Concept and Phylogenetic Species Concept in use of its identity from other such lineages and which has its own
monophyly and sister-species status, in the application of the evolutionary tendencies and historical fate,’’ does not allow
Genetic Species Concept proposed herein, there is greater for recognition of speciation over time within an ancestor–
emphasis on supporting data for isolation and proof that there descendant lineage as would be predicted to occur with
is protection of the integrity of the gene pool. adequate time for such genetic divergence to evolve.
We chose to use ‘‘Genetic Species Concept’’ because we Second, the so-called Barcode Species Initiative (Hebert and
think this definition better describes variation present in nature. Gregory 2005), that a few hundred base pairs from a single gene
Our definition is built upon 1) genetic speciation, 2) genetic from a few individuals can identify presence or absence of a
definition of species, 3) genetically defined phylogroups, 4) evi- species, has been highly criticized (Ferguson 2002; Moritz and
dence of protection or integrity of gene pools in the presence Cicero 2004; Roca et al. 2005) and is not the Genetic Species
of hybridization, 5) significance of genetic differentiation in Concept embraced in this paper (although viewing genetic
phylogroups that are not morphologically distinct, 6) the way divergence in a single gene is the 1st step in our application).
genetic data offer better resolution than any other systematic Conceptually, the Barcode Initiative cannot resolve presence–
database, 7) the way breakthroughs in genetic methods will absence of species or the extent of isolation between 2
result in DNA profiles that will be used to define species and mitochondrial gene modifications without additional data to
species boundaries, and 8) application of genetic data. Our understand inter- and intraspecific variation within and between
position is that studies of these phylogroups through molecular species. Further, sole use of a mitochondrial gene does not resolve
methods will provide an opportunity to understand evolution of questions about hybridization, gene flow, and introgression. With
isolating mechanisms, role of ecological features in speciation, a proper genetic profile for all the species of concern, it will be
and many other poorly understood evolutionary phenomena. possible to use a single metric to identify species; to determine
Our position is best described by Brookfield (2002:107: not boundaries of species and intraspecific variation and to insure the
seen, cited in Coyne and Orr 2004:25): accuracy of implementation for the Barcode Initiative. We propose
The essence of the ‘‘species problem’’ is the fact that, while many
that such a genetic profile is the most critical step in the application
different authorities have very different ideas of what species are, of the Genetic Species Concept.
there is no set of experiments or observations that can be imag-
ined that can resolve which of these views is the right one. This GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT, THE
being so, the ‘‘species problem’’ is not a scientific problem at all, BATESON–DOBZHANSKY–MULLER MODEL,
merely one about choosing and consistently applying a conven- AND SPECIATION IN MAMMALS
tion about how we use a word. So, we should settle on our favor-
ite definition, use it, and get on with the science. Part of the theoretical basis for the Genetic Species Concept
is embodied in the BDM model that was 1st outlined nearly
Resolving power of the Genetic Species Concept.— The
a century ago by Bateson (1909) and was further defined by
Genetic Species Concept provides a unique level of resolution
Dobzhansky (1934) and Muller (1939). In the BDM model
for systematists to study the number of species and species
(Gavrilets 2003), accumulation of genetic changes in 2 separate
boundaries. Toward this resolution, use of genetic data 1) can
populations results in 2 species. The following from Coyne and
quantify genetic divergence from many different aspects of the
Orr (2004:269) explains the process:
genome (mitochondrial and nuclear genes, protein-coding
genes, regulatory genes, mobile DNA, microsatellites, chro- Consider two allopatric populations that evolve independently.
mosomal rearrangements, heterochromatin, etc.); 2) can pro- Each experiences many substitutions over long periods of time
vide divergence values that have increased with time providing until the populations become distinct genetically. If we could
take a diverged gene from one population and place it in the
an estimate of time since divergence; 3) can provide a popu-
genome of the other, would it work? It is easy to imagine that
lation genetics perspective of the magnitude and types of
the gene might be reasonably effective on this related genetic
divergence; 4) is less subject to convergence and parallelism background. It is also easy to imagine that it would not work
than use of any other set of characters; 5) can accurately well. But it is hard to imagine that it would often work better than
identify monophyly and sister taxa; and 6) can accurately on its own genetic background. This simple asymmetry forms the
identify hybrid individuals (kinship and source of hybrid basis of Dobzhansky and Muller’s model. Genes within a popula-
August 2006 BAKER AND BRADLEY—GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT 649

tion are selected to work well together while genes from different BDM model with resulting species either maintained or slightly
populations have not been tested together. On average, then, we altered by local selective forces or drift.
expect a mixture of genes from two species to be less well ad- How common is the evolution of genetic changes within
justed than those from a single species. Hybrid sterility or invari- currently recognized conspecific groups that might contain
ability might therefore be a simple byproduct of the divergence unrecognized species? Avise and Walker (1999) noted that
of genomes that are geographically isolated. Nowhere do we have
most species consist of 2 mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
to suggest that natural selection opposed any step in this process.
geographically defined, genetically distinct populations that are
What is the relevance of this model to understanding speciation distributed much like that implied in typical subspecies maps in
in mammals? To answer this question, it is necessary to know, if Hall (1981). Avise and Walker (1999) called these geographic
the BDM model is operative in mammals, what kind of patterns of subdivisions ‘‘phylogroups.’’ We interpret these genetically
genetic divergence and genetic isolation would be expected. It is defined, wide-ranging geographic populations as suggesting a
well documented that even in stable geologic times, allopatric substantial time since a common ancestor was shared by the
populations are present in most mammalian species, and gene flow 2 or more phylogroups. During the last 5 years, we and others
between or among these populations is not possible. Barriers (Table 3) have used the cytochrome-b gene to provide a relative
producing allopatry are sometimes obvious, such as water estimate of time since isolation for the pattern of phylogroups
between islands and mainlands, mountains between lowlands, observed by Avise and Walker (1999).
forests between grasslands, grasslands between forests, and so on. How are maternal lineages typically distributed in mamma-
Other situations that potentially result in allopatric populations are lian species? Is most of the intraspecific genetic variation in
climatic changes associated with cycles of ice ages and interglacial the mitochondrial genome distributed within most local pop-
periods that changed distributions of habitat types for long periods ulations or is the major component of mtDNA variation dis-
of time. Assuming these periods of allopatry were of sufficient tributed in geographically defined contiguous regions? We
time for populations to accumulate genetic changes that produce partitioned divergence values for the mitochondrial cytochrome-
isolation, the BDM model would produce genetic species through b gene into intrapopulational and intraspecific components
normal genetic divergence over time (see the works of Fitzpatrick (Table 3). Clearly, most populational studies for geographic and
[2004] for why reproductive isolation may be more rapid in local variation in mtDNA haplotypes do not reveal a high level
mammals than in birds or other vertebrates, and Gavrilets [2003] of intrapopulational variation but do reveal a high level of
for mathematical models of relationships of factors affecting intraspecific variation that is geographically defined. These
evolution of genetic isolation). If during these cycles of allopatry, values are compatible with predictions of the BDM model of
selective conditions were stabilizing on allopatric populations that well-defined geographic phylogroups that result from genetic
were conspecific at the beginning of allopatry, then it would be changes expected to accumulate during periods of allopatry.
expected that genetic isolation would be accompanied by minimal Distance values for populational, intraspecific, and sister species
morphological evolution and divergence. The examples in the (Table 3) are essentially the same pattern of variation shown by
sections described above in ‘‘Cryptic species of mammals . . .’’ fit Bradley and Baker (2001: figures 2, 4, 5, and 7).
predictions of evolution of species through the BDM model under How many phylogroups are present in mammalian species
stabilizing selection. If 1 of the allopatric populations defined in Wilson and Reeder (1993). For this calculation, we
experienced different directional selection or if sufficient genetic used the species list in Wilson and Reeder (1993) because
drift was present, then morphologically distinct species would be several of the conspecific phylogroups that were present in the
expected. This would include most of the closely related and 1993 edition are recognized as species in Wilson and Reeder
morphologically poorly defined species recognized in Wilson and (2005) based on our definition of the Genetic Species Concept.
Reeder (2005). We outlined the frequency of such phylogroups in 61 species
We hypothesize that speciation by the BDM model is the (.1%) of mammals (Table 4). Sister species of mammals that
primary means of genetic isolation for many mammalian spe- have been recognized as species based on morphology often
cies. Such genetic isolation often will not be accompanied by have cytochrome-b distance values .5% and this magnitude of
morphological divergence at the level that is typically thought divergence in the cytochrome-b gene has been associated with
to indicate reproductive isolation in allopatric populations taxa recognized as species (Bradley and Baker 2001).
(Corbet 1997). Within mammals, there is a pattern of Phylogroups with a genetic divergence (distance) of .5%
morphological similarity or identity between closely related occurred in 32 of 61 species (Table 4), and several species as
species where the primary distinction is size and other minor defined in Wilson and Reeder (1993) consisted of 3
differences in morphological traits. For example, most species phylogroups (8 species), 4 phylogroups (3 species), and 5
of Peromyscus essentially look alike. Further, the complexity phylogroups (3 species). Within the 61 species, there were 55
of identifying species using morphology without an under- phylogroups with values .5% divergence in the cytochrome-
standing of geographic or locality information is problematic. b gene (Table 4). This result is similar to that reported for
For species of Peromyscus, Myotis, Sorex, and Crocidura, it is mammals by Avise and Walker (1999: figure 2). If the
difficult to develop keys that distinguish each species from its frequency of phylogroups per species (55 phylogroups/61
congeners based solely on morphology. We hypothesize that species or 0.90 phylogroups/species) is a reasonable estimate
most speciation within these groups is a result of allopatrically for the total number of phylogroups in the remainder of the
isolated populations experiencing consequences outlined in the 4,629 species in Wilson and Reeder (1993), then there will be
650 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 87, No. 4

TABLE 3.—Genetic variation at different taxonomic levels from the mitochondrial cytochrome-b gene for marsupials, bats, rodents, and
artiodactyls. Values were obtained from published studies; in some cases, we calculated means and ranges. Values are sample size in parentheses,
followed by mean and range of DNA sequence values as a percentage.

Intergeneric
Genus Population Intraspecific (non
sister species) Sister taxa Citation
Marsupials
Marmosa (1) 1.2 (1) 8.7 Steiner and Catzeflis 2003
Thylamys (5) 1.7 0.5
3.1 (19) 18.1 10.0
28.4 (2) 12.0 11.8
12.2 Braun et al. 2005
Marsupial total (2) 1.5 1.2
1.7 (1) 18.1 (2) 10.4 8.7
12.0
Bats
Artibeus (2) 1.4 0.8
1.9 (18) 9.5 6.5
13.9 (3) 7.3 3.6
10.5 Guerrero et al. 2004
Carollia (3) 1.9 1.0
2.4 (5) 2.3 1.3
5.3 (8) 8.4 4.8
12.1 (1) 3.7 Hoffmann and Baker 2003
Glossophaga (12) 1.4 0.2
3.8 (5) 2.2 0.7
5.9 (7) 11.7 10.1
13.5 (2) 9.6 8.4
10.7 Hoffmann and Baker 2001
Mesophylla (1) 1.1 Porter and Baker 2004
Myotis (2) 2.3 2.1
2.5 (3) 3.3 2.3
3.8 Rodriguez and
Ammerman 2004
Myotis (1) 2.2 (1) 5.1 Piaggio et al. 2002
Myotis (4) 0.6 0.0
1.7 (68) 15.7 11.5
18.7 (6) 7.6 4.0
11.2 Stadlemann et al. 2004
Pipistrellus (3) 1.4 0.2
2.4 (7) 14.8 10.6
16.5 (1) 6.7 Benda et al. 2004
Plecotus (1) 14.7 Juste et al. 2003
Vampyressa (1) 1.6 (1) 11.6 Porter and Baker 2004
Vampyriscus (1) 1.2 (1) 12.8 Porter and Baker 2004
Bat total (2) 1.7 1.4
1.9 (10) 1.6 0.6
2.3 (5) 12.0 8.4
15.7 (10) 8.3 3.3
14.7
Rodents
Akodon (5) 6.6 2.9
10.4 (1) 8.1 Pardiñas et al. 2003
Arvicanthis (9) 12.8 9.2
14.9 (2) 8.3 8.2
8.4 Ducroz et al. 2001
Baiomys (3) 1.1 0.2
1.5 (2) 4.7 2.8
6.5 (1) 11.6 Amman and Bradley 2004
Cavia (2) 7.6 7.2
7.9 (1) 3.1 Spotorno et al. 2004b
Chinchilla (1) 5.9 Spotorno et al. 2004a
Cynomys (4) 0.2 0.1
0.5 (8) 4.9 2.9
6.1 (2) 1.3 1.2
1.3 Harrison et al. 2003
Eupetaurus (1) 12.2 Yu et al. 2004
Hodomys (1) 0.00 (1) 0.00 Edwards and Bradley 2002
Lemniscomys (11) 12.9 12.4
13.7 (2) 5.7 3.3
8.0 Ducroz et al. 2001
Marmota (8) 1.0 0.0
2.2 (87) 13.7 6.7
19.4 (4) 5.8 1.2
7.7 Steppan et al. 1999
Microtus (16) 2.0 0.2
4.4 (65) 10.8 5.1
12.8 (6) 6.8 4.3
11.1 Jaarola et al. 2004
Neotoma (8) 0.5 0.0
1.1 (11) 1.9 0.6
4.0 (42) 11.6 7.8
13.7 (3) 8.1 7.2
9.3 Edwards and Bradley 2002
Oecomys (9) 9.7 7.0
11.0 (1) 7.7 Belchior de Andrade and
Bonvicino 2003
Oxymycterus (3) 0.6 0.2
1.3 (41) 7.8 6.1
14.2 (4) 3.6 1.9
6.8 Hoffmann et al. 2002
Peromyscus (6) 2.5 1.1
4.3 (13) 11.5 8.6
14.2 (2) 7.7 7.7
7.7 Durish et al. 2004
Peromyscus (3) 1.7 1.5
2.1 Tiemann-Boege et al. 2000
Peromyscus (2) 1.0 0.5
1.4 (1) 0.9 (78) 11.6 3.3
16.3 (5) 5.8 2.8
10.2 Bradley et al. 2004a
Reithrodontomys (3) 0.5 0.2
0.7 (6) 1.6 0.2
2.7 (52) 14.0 7.5
17.2 (4) 11.6 8.5
13.5 Bradley et al. 2004b
Sigmodon (2) 1.4 0.4
2.4 (7) 2.0 0.2
4.0 (52) 16.9 12.3
21.7 (3) 13.0 10.6
19.5 Carroll et al. 2005
Spermophilus (28) 0.7 0.0
4.0 (76) 13.8 7.1
17.5 (4) 5.9 1.3
11.3 Harrison et al. 2003
Thrichomys (1) 0.0 (3) 1.5 0.3
3.2 (5) 8.9 7.4
10.0 (1) 6.5 Braggio and Bonvicino 2004
Rodent total (7) 0.6 0.0
1.4 (14) 1.5 0.0
4.7 (16) 10.9 4.9
16.9 (19) 7.3 1.3
13.0
Artiodactyls
Kobus (2) 1.9 0.6
3.1 (5) 8.6 7.8
9.4 (1) 0.3 Birungi and Arctander 2001
Odocoileus (1) 1.3 Bradley et al. 2003
Artiodactyl total (1) 1.9 (1) 8.6 (2) 0.8 0.3
1.3
Table total (35) 1.0 0.0
3.8 (132) 1.5 0.0
6.5 (687) 12.8 2.0
28.4 (73) 6.3 0.3
19.5

.4,100 such phylogroups in mammals. If 50% of these phylogroups is likely characteristic of the unstudied 4,000þ
phylogroups have evolved sufficient nuclear divergence species of mammals. For species such as Carollia brevicauda
through the process of the BDM model to be genetically (n ¼ 24), Glossophaga soricina (n ¼ 38), Dermanura glauca
isolated from the other such groups within a so-called (n ¼ 35), and Uroderma bilobatum (n ¼ 57), there is probably
‘‘species,’’ then the number of unrecognized species in Wilson an adequate geographic sampling to estimate the number of
and Reeder (1993) is .2,000. phylogroups (Table 4). However, there are 16 species in Table
There are several assumptions made in deriving an estimate 4 for which only 4 individuals have been sequenced. Such
of .2,000 currently unrecognized genetic species of mammals. small samples may underestimate phylogroups. Second, essen-
First, we are assuming that the estimated number of tially all species in Table 4 have been studied for intraspecific
August 2006 BAKER AND BRADLEY—GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT 651

morphological variation before Wilson and Reeder (1993). We Before DNA-sequence data, the best-defined hybrid zones
interpret this as meaning that this group of species is rep- were the result of our recognizing chromosomal rearrangements,
resentative of taxa for which obvious morphological species and there is extensive literature concerning gene flow and
would have been detected without DNA-sequence data. Many maintenance of such zones (Honeycutt and Yates 1994). Studies
of the other 4,000þ mammalian species have been poorly of hybrid zones and hybrids have provided insights
studied and probably contain a greater percentage of un- into evolution of isolating mechanisms such as Kaneshiro’s
recognized species than the taxa in Table 4. Third, species in hypothesis (Bradley et al. 1991; Kaneshiro 1983; cf. Patton
Table 4 are rodents, bats, and shrews with small body sizes. At and Smith 1990), sexual differences in fertility (Haldane’s
least theoretically, bats are much more vagile than are rodents rule—Coyne 1992), origin of evolutionary innovations
and shrews. However, if large vagile mammals such as bovids, (Arnold and Emms 1998; Butlin 1998), rare alleles (Bradley et
felids, elephants, and cetaceans have a much lower frequency al. 1993), and genome imprinting (Monk and Surani 1990). Hy-
of phylogroups than do small mammals, this would result in brid zones in mammalian phylogroups defined by genetic
our overestimating the number of phylogroups. Most mamma- changes predicted by the BDM model will permit experimental
lian species, however, are rodents, bats, and shrews (70% of the designs to study these and other evolutionary phenomena.
4,629 species in Wilson and Reeder [1993]). A substantial There are 5 significant conclusions from the above dis-
portion of the remaining 30% are not large, highly vagile cussion. First, focus on genetic isolation rather than re-
mammals; if large, highly vagile mammals have significantly productive isolation results in a broader conceptual definition
fewer phylogroups than the species in Table 4, there will be of a species. Second, if the BDM model is operating in mam-
a reduction in this estimate, but the overview will remain that mals experiencing stabilizing selection, then genetically
there is a substantial number of unrecognized species of isolated populations will evolve that will not be easily de-
mammals. Further, studies of African elephants (Loxodonta tectable using classical studies of skin and skull morphology.
africana) suggest that they were distinguished by phylogroups Third, if the number of unrecognized cryptic species is any-
indicating that not all large mammals are absent of genetically where near the above estimate of .2,000, there has been a
defined phylogroups (Roca et al. 2001). significant underrepresentation of mammalian species; further-
The factor that could greatly alter the estimate of .2,000 more, that underestimation significantly affects conclusions on
unrecognized species is the assumption that 50% of these the nature of speciation in mammals, barriers associated with
phylogroups represent species as defined by the application of the evolution of genetic isolation, estimates of biodiversity, designs
Genetic Species Concept. Certainly an insufficient number of of conservation initiatives, zoonoses, and so on. A paradigm
species has been studied with a thorough genetic profile to shift relative to these and species-based issues will be needed.
adequately estimate how many of the phylogroups with a genetic Fourth, the only type of data that will be effective in detecting
divergence . 5% will result in data that documents complete these ‘‘genetic species’’ is genetic, especially DNA-sequence
genetic isolation. The choice of 50% for calculation is poorly data. If this is true, it becomes important to develop methods to
defined statistically and will be better understood by genetic recognize morphologically cryptic genetic species and species
studies of other phylogroups with .5% divergence. boundaries. Fifth, it should be remembered that the above
Genetic isolation is not simply an off-and-on switch because discussion is concerned primarily with speciation by the BDM
genetic changes in allopatric populations are accumulated model. There are other speciation modes and processes that
slowly across the genome and may involve a substantial result in undetected species of mammals. Any estimate of the
number (estimated at 200 for Drosophila—Presgraves 2003) of number of unrecognized species of mammals would need to
loci affecting isolation. Accumulation of adequate change in include consequences of speciation by these other processes.
independent sister lineages that results in genetic isolation will
be a chance event occurring rapidly in some cases but requiring
long periods of separation in other cases. Genetic isolation APPLICATION OF THE GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT
resulting from the BDM model will be expected to produce Speciation is a genetic process and the status of a species is
intermediate and incomplete stages of reproductive isolation best decided with genetic data. Even in cases where the species
before the completion of reproductive isolation. We predict that are not distinguishable based on morphological features (cryptic
genetic profiles of interactions between members of mamma- species), such as Rhogeessa genowaysi/tumida, it can be easy to
lian phylogroups will reveal examples of complete genetic identify genetic species because they are sympatric with no
isolation and examples of essentially no genetic isolation even hybrids (Baker 1984). Beyond such simple cases, the diverse
with the same genetic divergence in the mitochondrial marker nature of biological entities may cause difficulties in applying
used to select phylogroups for more intensive study. But, more any species concept because examples are not clear cut (Corbet
commonly in phylogroups with .5% genetic distance in the 1997, Hudson and Coyne 2002, Mayden 1997, Wiens and
cytochrome-b gene, various combinations of genetic isolation Penkrot 2002). What is new concerning application of genetic
will be apparent. As a result, when phylogroups are sympatric, data is that the dataset can provide greater resolution to identify
there will often be hybridization, and data documenting the and understand hybridization and introgression, past and
genetic basis for any level of isolation will be difficult to present (Jones et al. 1995). Decisions under the Genetic Species
organize into well-defined stages (Table 2). Genetically defined Concept will be based on larger and more complex datasets
hybrid zones will be common. involving multiple mitochondrial and nuclear markers, which
652 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 87, No. 4

TABLE 4.—Species of mammals for which data on genetic variation (%) in cytochrome-b data has been generated from different
geographic localities that could potentially identify phylogroups that represent different species. n ¼ number of specimens sampled. Potential
unrecognized species are the number of phylogroups in that species with variation . 5% minus 1 for the phylogroup that contains the holotype
for the species.

Species as defined in Intraspecific phylogroups Potential

Wilson and Reeder (1993) n that are .5% unrecognized species Source
Bats
Carollia brevicauda 24 2 1 Hoffmann and Baker 2003
Carollia castanea 17 4 3 Hoffmann and Baker 2003
Carollia perspicillata 20 None 0 Hoffmann and Baker 2003
Carollia subrufa 2 None 0 Hoffmann and Baker 2003
Dermanura anderseni 5 None 0 R. J. Baker, in litt.
Dermanura glauca 35 5 4 R. J. Baker, in litt.
Dermanura phaeotis 18 2 1 R. J. Baker, in litt.
Dermanura toltecus 9 None 0 R. J. Baker, in litt.
Glossophaga commissarisi 4 None 0 Hoffmann and Baker 2001
Glossophaga leachii 3 None 0 Hoffmann and Baker 2001
Glossophaga longirostris 8 None 0 Hoffmann and Baker 2001
Glossophaga morenoi 4 None 0 Hoffmann and Baker 2001
Glossophaga soricina 38 2 1 Hoffmann and Baker 2001
Mesophylla macconnelli 10 None 0 Porter and Baker 2004
Micronycteris hirsuta 12 None 0 C. A. Porter, pers. comm.
Micronycteris megalotis 26 5 4 C. A. Porter, pers. comm.
Micronycteris minuta 7 2 1 C. A. Porter, pers. comm.
Mormoops blainvillii 2 None 0 Lewis-Oritt et al. 2001a
Mormoops megalophylla 5 None 0 Lewis-Oritt et al. 2001a
Noctilio albiventris 4 3 2 Lewis-Oritt et al. 2001a
Noctilio leporinus 9 None 0 Lewis-Oritt et al. 2001a
Pteronotus davyi 4 3 2 Lewis-Oritt et al. 2001b
Pteronotus gymnonotus 3 None 0 Lewis-Oritt et al. 2001b
Pteronotus macleayii 2 None 0 Lewis-Oritt et al. 2001b
Pteronotus parnellii 9 4 3 Lewis-Oritt et al. 2001b
Pteronotus personatus 5 None 0 Lewis-Oritt et al. 2001b
Pteronotus quadridens 2 None 0 Lewis-Oritt et al. 2001b
Uroderma bilobatum 57 None 0 Hoffmann et al. 2003
Vampyressa pusilla 9 2 1 Porter and Baker 2004
Bat total (29 species) 353 34 23
Shrews
Notiosorex crawfordi 48 3 2 Baker et al. 2003
Sorex bendirii 6 None 0 O’Neill et al. 2005
Sorex palustris 22 2 1 O’Neill et al. 2005
Shrew total (3 species) 76 5 3
Rodents
Baiomys musculus 13 2 1 Amman and Bradley 2004
Baiomys taylori 9 None 0 Amman and Bradley 2004
Geomys arenarius 2 2 1 Sudman et al. 2006
Geomys attwateri 3 None 0 Sudman et al. 2006
Geomys breviceps 3 2 1 Sudman et al. 2006
Geomys bursarius 10 4 3 Sudman et al. 2006
Geomys personatus 13 5 4 Sudman et al. 2006
Geomys pinetis 3 2 1 Sudman et al. 2006
Geomys texensis 3 None 0 Sudman et al. 2006
Neotoma albigula 18 2 1 Edwards and Bradley 2002
Neotoma floridana 14 2 1 Edwards and Bradley 2002
Neotoma lepida 7 2 1 Edwards and Bradley 2002
Neotoma mexicana 16 3 2 Edwards and Bradley 2002
Neotoma micropus 10 2 1 Edwards and Bradley 2002
Peromyscus boylii 34 3 2 Bradley et al. 2004a;
Tiemann-Boege et al. 2000;
R. D. Bradley, in litt.
Peromyscus difficilis 7 3 2 Durish et al. 2004
Peromyscus eremicus 4 None 0 Durish et al. 2004
Peromyscus gratus 7 2 1 Durish et al. 2004
August 2006 BAKER AND BRADLEY—GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT 653

TABLE 4.—Continued.

Species as defined in Intraspecific phylogroups Potential

Wilson and Reeder (1993) n that are .5% unrecognized species Source
Peromyscus leucopus 4 None 0 Durish et al. 2004
Peromyscus maniculatus 4 None 0 Durish et al. 2004
Peromyscus melanophrys 6 None 0 Durish et al. 2004
Peromyscus pectoralis 10 2 1 Durish et al. 2004
Peromyscus spicilegus 5 None 0 Durish et al. 2004
Peromyscus truei 9 2 1 Durish et al. 2004
Reithrodontomys fulvescens 13 2 1 Bradley et al. 2004b;
R. D. Bradley, in litt.
Reithrodontomys sumichrasti 3 None 0 Bradley et al. 2004b;
R.D. Bradley, in litt.
Reithrodontomys microdon 7 3 2 Bradley et al. 2004b;
R. D. Bradley, in litt.
Sigmodon hispidus 47 3 2 Carroll et al. 2005
Sigmodon mascotensis 5 None 0 Carroll et al. 2005
Rodent total (29 species) 289 48 29
Grand total (61 species) n ¼ 718 Phylogroups .5% ¼ 87 Potential new species ¼ 55

will be more resolving; however, in some cases there will be b gene, when viewed against an appropriate database from
apparent incongruencies. Using such datasets to determine other genetically defined species and subspecies with similar
species will require an interpretive component and knowledge life histories and biological characteristics, will have an accu-
of molecular evolution. The following ‘‘application’’ is not racy rate as great as any other single character used to identify
presented in a rigid context but in the spirit of developing species or populations for study.
a working set of criteria to be used to discriminate species in In Bradley and Baker (2001), we conclude that a genetic
light of natural genetic variability and tremendous amounts of distance , 2% was typical of populational and intraspecific
data that will be detected by new sophisticated techniques. variation, whereas values .10% usually were distributed in
We expanded the criteria of Bradley and Baker (2001) into geographically discreet phylogroups typical of different bi-
a framework for interpreting significance of genetic diver- ological species. It was not our intent to imply that a value .10%
gence and resolving presence or absence of 2 genetic species. always indicates 2 biological species or that , 2% always
Specifically, we address issues of identifying unrecognized identifies conspecific populations. Rather, we suggested that if
species, genetic variation associated with phylogroups, and the goal is to efficiently recognize cryptic or currently un-
sympatric versus allopatric populations. recognized genetic species of mammals, examples of phy-
Identification of populations with greatest probability of logroups within a single species of mammal where the genetic
representing an unrecognized species.— We used distance divergence in the cytochrome-b gene is .10% will be the best
values for a protein-coding gene as evidence that populations group for study, and additional data (nuclear genes or
have been isolated from each other for sufficient time to have morphological variation) should be collected to determine if an
speciated by the BDM model. For mammals, the cytochrome- unrecognized species exist. Alternatively, if other phylogroups
b gene has proven to be an appropriate marker, but other have a 2% divergence, then there is a lower probability of the
markers (cytochrome oxidase I, etc.) also may be applicable. presence of unrecognized species. A genetic distance of 5% will
To establish a distance value that had a high probability of have a greater probability than 2% but less probability than 10%.
being associated with the completion of speciation, we used In light of the above discussion, there are numerous examples
variation in distance values of cytochrome-b distinguishing where ,5% distance value is present in sister species of
sister species recognized as such by data other than genetic. mammals that had been recognized by morphological variation
Populations that are distinguished by distance values equal before study with molecular methods. A value of ,5% will often
to or greater than is typical of sister species listed in Wilson and identify unrecognized genetic species if data in Table 3 from
Reeder (2005) merit further study using other molecular loci or sister taxa are predictive. Becoming genetically isolated by
methods to determine their stage of speciation. This step is the mutations at multiple loci as proposed in the BDM model will not
most misunderstood and criticized (Ferguson 2002; Mayden be an ordered process during which a certain amount of time or
1997; Will et al. 2005) of the effort to identify species through genetic divergence in something as simple as the cytochrome-
genetic distance because critics conclude that a certain distance b gene will always yield the same percentage of genetic isolation
value in a single gene will not always resolve the presence or for phylogroups under study. There is nothing unique or special
absence of 2 species. We agree that the failure rate of a single about .5%; it is a subjective value chosen from the review of the
metric (especially from the mitochondrial genome) to identify published genetic distances for mammals. The value selected
species may be high, although Hebert and Gregory (2005:857) may be more predictive if variations in distance values are
claim a success rate of 96% for birds. Yet we also conclude that calculated by selected species cohorts with common generation
a single metric, such as the genetic distance of the cytochrome- time, metabolic rate, body size, and so on.
654 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 87, No. 4

Populational and geographic variation of phylogroups.— is not critical. We interpret the unique genetic character states
After 2 monophyletic populations with an appropriately high present in each respective phylogroup, beyond the hybrid
genetic divergence (.5%) are identified, the next step is to zones, as evidence that genetic divergence that distinguishes
generate distance values from the cytochrome-b gene of multiple phylogroups has evolved in the absence of significant genetic
individuals from populations with sufficient geographic sampling introgression from the other. Unless the hybrid zone is of recent
to understand how pairwise distance values are distributed in the origin, a narrow geographically restricted hybrid zone is evi-
taxon under study. A major issue is to determine if haplotypes dence of genetic isolation and consequently both phylogroups
that are defined by a high level of genetic distance are distributed have a high probability of an independent evolutionary fate. If
in geographically defined phylogroups and to resolve geographic respective members of these 2 phylogroups are morphologi-
limits of each phylogroup. At this point, it is necessary to cally unique from each other, the case for species status is
determine if phylogroups under study are sympatric, parapatric, further justified. The less well defined and greater the width of
or allopatric. Application of the Genetic Species Concept for a hybrid zone and the higher the frequency of introgression
allopatric groups uses a different set of criteria and experimental in both mitochondrial and nuclear markers, the stronger the
design than for sympatric phylogroups. evidence is for justifying intraspecific variation as the proper
Sympatric phylogroups.— The experimental design to re- classification for the significance of phylogroups under study.
solve specific status of sympatric phylogroups is to determine As detailed genetic profiles become available, considerable
whether hybridization between the 2 phylogroups is present. If debate will be necessary to find an acceptable level of charac-
individuals of the phylogroups are sympatric and no hybrids teristics of hybrid zones and introgression that is permitted for
are present, or if F1s are sterile, then 2 species exist. If F1s are genetic species as compared to variation appropriately assigned
fertile, then the extent of introgression needs to be determined. to a single species.
Extensive hybridization between 2 genetic species is permis- Some authors (Helbig et al. 2002:521–522) have referred to
sible under some conditions, as described below. narrow hybrid zones as support for recognizing semispecies
References cited above in ‘‘Cryptic species of mammals rather than species. Using the definition of Helbig et al. (2002),
identified by DNA sequences’’ are studies that address mule deer and white-tailed deer (Carr et al. 1986; Cathey et al.
hybridization and introgression. This is a rapidly developing 1998) would be recognized as semispecies because there is
field that is linked closely to advances in biological informatics historical introgression of the mitochondrial genome, multiple
and genome sequencing. Much of the available software that hybrid zones have been identified over a wide geographic area,
can document sister taxon relationships, monophyly, hybrid- and there is no evidence of loss of fertility in hybrid individuals.
ization (direction and extent), introgression, and unique genetic We reject the implementation of semispecies because, when
features is reviewed at http://evolution.genetics.washington. compared to the proposed definitions above, the appreciation of
edu/phylip/software.html; last accessed 3 February 2006. A the biodiversity in mammals is better described by assignment of
complete genetic profile for populations and species that may specific status. It is significant that mule deer and white-tailed
or may not be specifically distinct will provide more resolution deer are recognized as distinct species based primarily on
than any other comparable data set. Detailed genetic profiles morphology, behavior, and ecological limits. Mule deer and
generated for ‘‘species’’ (Table 2) reveal that a complex of white-tailed deer clearly have their own evolutionary fate and are
intermediate stages of genetic and reproductive isolation will adapted for specific ecological situations. From a biodiversity
be described and each of these will provide an opportunity to and conservation standpoint, it is most logical to recognize such
better understand the process of speciation. entities as white-tailed and mule deer as species.
Parapatric hybrid zones, integrity of the gene pool, and Allopatric phylogroups.—Allopatric populations or phy-
species status.— Genetically distinct phylogroups (initially logroups are problematic for application using most species
identified by variation in the cytochrome-b gene) are geo- concepts (allopatry is less a problem for some definitions of the
graphically distributed and will often have parapatric hybrid Phylogenetic Species Concept that are not concerned with
zones (Table 2). Concerning parapatrically distributed phylo- documentation of reproductive or genetic isolation of species).
groups, the criterion for species recognition versus intraspecific The most informed decisions for allopatric populations will be
status is this: if in the narrow zone of contact no hybrids or only made by using the magnitude of genetic distance that typically
sterile hybrids are produced, then 2 species exist. Existing is present in sister species for 1 or more genetic markers. Known
studies indicate that these genetically defined phylogroups sister species recognized from nonmolecular data sets must be
often will have parapatric hybrid zones (Table 2). We propose studied to determine the range of genetic distance values for
that 2 phylogroups represent species when hybridization is multiple loci that will serve as standards for estimating specific
restricted to a limited geographic area, and outside the hybrid status of allopatric phylogroups. It would be ideal for sequence
zones respective phylogroups are defined by unique and con- data sets generated for DNA motifs to contain multiple
cordant statistically supported monophyletic clades based on examples of sister-species comparisons to more accurately
mitochondrial and nuclear genetic variation. What is crucial is estimate the range of genetic distances corresponding to
protection of the integrity of the gene pool in that, although divergence events from taxa with different generation times,
hybrid individuals are present, introgression beyond the hybrid deme sizes, life expectancy, vagility and dispersal, body size,
zone is not significant. In this definition, the nature of breeding strategies, and so on. It is well documented that there
hybridization (fertile F1s, backcross individuals, or whatever) are different rates of molecular evolution in different taxa and
August 2006 BAKER AND BRADLEY—GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT 655

understanding these differences will be valuable in fine-tuning species is complex and care should be taken to make sure that
the probability of genetic isolation (Steppan et al. 2004) in the rules to create a valid species-level name are followed.
allopatric and parapatric phylogroups. Sequence data must Phylogroups and undescribed species.— Members of the bat
involve only single speciation events (i.e., sister taxa compar- genus Carollia provide an example of the type of genetic
isons; Table 3 and Fig. 1, to be discussed below). Data from variation present in mammalian species and the implication
sister species to serve as a standard will be most valuable if they of that variation to the Genetic Species Concept and to current
represents distance values from different markers and loci such species catalogues (e.g., Wilson and Reeder 1993, 2005).
as mtDNA, introns, exons, amplified fragment length poly- Members of Carollia are among the most commonly collected
morphism (AFLP)-type data (Giannasi et al. 2001), and species in the New World tropics, resulting in sufficient
Y-linked markers (Cathey et al. 1998). Minimally, there should voucher specimens in museums to study intra- and interspecific
be 1 marker each for mtDNA and nuclear DNA. For allopatric geographic morphological variation (Fleming 1988; McLellan
populations, use of phylogenetic principles and methods to 1984; Pine 1972). It might be expected that the number of
generate gene trees that document sister taxa and examples of species and species boundaries would be well defined for such
paraphyly (Hoffmann and Baker 2003) can be used to resolve an often-studied common bat, but this is not the case. In
species boundaries. This is compatible with the Phylogenetic 1993, only 4 species (brevicauda, castanea, perspicillata, and
Species Concept where nonmonophyletic populations would be subrufa) were recognized (Koopman 1993). Today, 9 species
recognized as different species (Hoffmann and Baker 2003). are recognized, with the description of colombiana (Cuartas
Genetic species, morphological analysis, and species-level et al. 2001), sowelli (Baker et al. 2002), monohernandezi
names.— If genetic data are interpreted as justifying specific (Muñoz et al. 2004), manu (Pacheco et al. 2004), and benkeithi
recognition of a previously unrecognized species, then it (Solari and Baker 2006). Three of these new species
becomes important to document the level of morphological (colombiana, manu, and monohernandezi) were recognized by
distinction that is present in the 2 newly distinguished sister classical skin and skull methods; 2 of these species (sowelli and
species (Wiens and Penkrot 2002). It is important to note that the benkeithi) probably would not have been recognized by studies
magnitude of morphological distinction that distinguishes the 2 is of museum voucher specimens without genetic data and were re-
probably small because these were recognized as conspecifics cognized through application of the Genetic Species Concept.
As often will be typical, the initial description of genetic
before genetic data documented species distinction. The most
variation in Carollia had small samples (n ¼ 10) and limited
powerful way to determine morphological differences between
geographic sampling (Wright et al. 1999). Even with that small
the 2 species is to use museum voucher specimens for which
sample and only data from the cytochrome-b gene, because
genetic data document genetic species status. In many cases,
of paraphyly in C. brevicauda it was possible to detect that
there will be specimens in natural history museum collections for
C. brevicauda was probably comprised of 2 different species
which there are no genetic data, and morphological features of
(ultimately C. brevicauda and C. sowelli). To make all C.
individuals documented by genetic data will be valuable in
brevicauda (sensu Koopman 1993) monophyletic, which is
identifying these voucher specimens to specific status.
a standard for species definitions, would require the inclusion of
When a previously unrecognized species is identified using
C. perspicillata (Fig. 1). C. brevicauda and C. perspicillata are
genetic data, it is necessary to determine the appropriate sympatric (often collected in the same mist net at the same time)
species-level name. This procedure is outlined in the 4th over a wide geographic area including much of South America
edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and Middle America. Based on morphology, these 2 species do
(International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1999). not hybridize (Pine 1972); therefore it would be inappropriate to
In most cases, the previously unrecognized species will be a include C. brevicauda and C. perspicillata in a single species.
genetically defined phylogroup within a species recognized in Morphological features distinguish the clade of C. brevicauda
Wilson and Reeder (2005). The holotype for that species will sister to C. perspicillata from the clade basal to these 2 (Fig. 1),
be a member of 1 of the 2 phylogroups and that phylogroup evidence that further justifies recognition of the basal clade as
will retain that species name. Basically, if there is a species- a separate species (Baker et al. 2002). No species-level name
level name or names (either junior synonyms or currently was available for members of the basal clade. Therefore, a new
recognized subspecies) available that was described based on species, C. sowelli (Baker et al. 2002), was described. Wright et
a specimen of the alternative phylogroup then the oldest al. (1999) had suggested further study was merited based on the
available name has priority (senior synonym) and would be genetic distance between the 2 specimens of C. castanea.
elevated as the appropriate species name. Species-level names Intraspecific genetic distance (8.7%) between the 2 individuals
that might be applicable are listed as synonyms (Wilson and of C. castanea was greater than the values that distinguished
Reeder 2005); however, it is necessary to determine if the members of the only other sister-species comparisons in that
synonyms present were based on a specimen of the newly tree (perspicillata-brevicauda, 4.1–4.8%).
recognized species (Gardner and Hayssen 2004). If no species- A follow-up paper on genetic variation in Carollia
level name is available, then it is appropriate to describe and (Hoffmann and Baker 2003; Fig. 1) was designed to better
name a new species following the rules of the International understand phylogenetic clades in 5 species of Carollia and
Code of Zoological Nomenclature (International Commission examined 66 specimens of the genus to provide a more detailed
on Zoological Nomenclature 1999). Description of a new geographic sampling. That study defined the species bound-
656 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 87, No. 4
August 2006 BAKER AND BRADLEY—GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT 657

aries between C. sowelli, which was distributed from Panama nuclear and mitochondrial genetic markers, extent of hybrid-
north through Mexico, and C. brevicauda, which was dis- ization, and sympatry at boundaries at geographic limits.
tributed from Panama south into South America, and it showed Genetic data would then form the basis for decisions relative to
that C. brevicauda and C. sowelli both were sympatric with the presence or absence of species, subspecies, or non–
C. perspicillata. It also documented 4 phylogroups within taxonomically recognized geographic variation. Such data from
C. castanea with divergence values . 5% and that those phylogroups with smaller distance values for the cytochrome-
phylogroups were more distant from each other than were b gene would be valuable in understanding how often this
C. sowelli, C. brevicauda, and C. perspicillata from each other. magnitude of genetic divergence is accompanied by genetic
The type locality for C. castanea is in Central America, and isolation and speciation. This information is important in further
no other species-level names are available for C. castanea documentation of the underestimation of the number of species
(Pine 1972). present in the species listed in Wilson and Reeder (2005).
It is important to have both nuclear and mitochondrial In Bradley and Baker (2001) and this paper, we have
markers to document presence or absence of species. For the summarized data available for genetic distance values of the
phylogroup of C. castanea that was distributed in Peru and cytochrome-b gene for sister species (Table 3). Use of sister
Bolivia, such a nuclear marker existed in the presence of a species helps filter out the amount of genetic change that is
unique karyotype, different from that of the other members phyletic rather than that involved in evolution of genetic
of the genus. Although there was minimal morphological isolation and speciation. In Fig. 1, the only example of sister-
divergence between this phylogroup with a unique karyotype species relationships where morphologically determined species
and the phylogroup of which the holotype of C. castanea was were present for examination are C. perspicillata-brevicauda.
a member, concordance between mitochondrial and nuclear We have marked the portion of the tree during which all
markers was used as justification for description of the species members of C. brevicauda (A in Fig. 1) and all members of C.
C. benkeithi (Solari and Baker 2006). The description of C. perspicillata (B in Fig. 1) examined in the gene tree could have
benkeithi leaves 3 other phylogroups within C. castanea (C. accumulated genetic change that produced genetic and re-
castanea sensu stricto and clades ‘‘1?’’ and ‘‘2?’’ in Fig. 1) that productive isolation for C. brevicauda and C. perspicillata from
have genetic distance values . 5% in the mitochondrial each other. The distance values representing the period when
cytochrome-b gene. Interpretation of these high values remains genetic isolation evolved between C. brevicauda and C.
problematic because there are few data from the nuclear genome perspicillata are relatively short in comparison to their in-
or from morphology that distinguish clades ‘‘1?,’’ ‘‘2?,’’ and C. traspecific values (Fig. 1). The point of this observation is that if
castanea sensu stricto from each other. In this case sensu stricto the distance values in this gene tree have predictive value about
refers to the phylogroup that contains the holotype for the the time required for speciation, that time is small relative to the
species-level name castanea. If it should prove that the level of overall changes in the remainder of the tree revealing genetic
genetic distance in the nuclear genome is typical of, or greater diversification in Carollia. Avise and Walker (1998; Avise
than, the amount that distinguishes other sister species of 2004:352) calculated a temporal ceiling and floor (our A and
Carollia or other phyllostomid bats, then it will be appropriate B branches in Fig. 1) on the duration of speciation. This
to recognize these 3 phylogroups as species: C. castanea, which calculation was derived from an estimate of separation between
will then be distributed in middle America and northern South sister species minus the estimate for intraspecific variation. We
America; clade ‘‘1?’’ presently known only from Panama; and agree that this is the most accurate way to calculate the duration
clade ‘‘2?’’ from eastern Ecuador and Peru (R. J. Baker, in litt.). of speciation. We considered duration of speciation for sister
Other genetic variation present in species of Carollia indicate 2 species as an alternative to the 1st step value of genetic distance
phylogroups in C. sowelli (labeled 1 and 2 in C. sowelli clade; between sister species for application of the Genetic Species
divergence values ¼ 3.6%), 2 in C. brevicauda (labeled 1 and 2 Concept. Calculation of this value for the sister species C.
in C. brevicauda clade; 2.3%), and 3 less well-defined brevicauda and C. perspicillata would reduce the distance
phylogroups in C. perspicillata (clades 1, 2, and 3; 2.4%; values substantially. However, the ceiling–floor values are
Fig. 1). Even though the probability of 2 species is less than if dependant upon sample size, and representation of the in-
the distance value was . 5%, these phylogroups could be traspecific diversity will vary accordingly. We think the most
explored for limits of geographic distribution, concordance of pragmatic 1st step is to use the .5% genetic distance for the

FIG. 1.—Phylogram of genetic relationships among species of the bat genus Carollia based on complete DNA sequences from the mito-
chondrial cytochrome-b gene. This maximum-likelihood tree depicts phylogroups and genetic distance (horizontal length of each clade)
pertinent to illustrating the application of the Genetic Species Concept. This figure was developed from data and figure 3 of Hoffman and Baker
(2003). Information from a parsimony analysis (significant bootstrap values  70 above a clade) and a Bayesian analysis (significant posterior
probability values  95 below a clade) were superimposed on the tree to illustrate support values for nodes and clades. Values not provided were
not statistically significant. Combined distance values of A (shared common ancestry of all specimens of C. brevicauda) and B (shared common
ancestry of C. perspicillata) represent the ‘‘duration of speciation’’ value of Avise and Walker (1998). Abbreviation for each specimen: Cbr ¼
C. brevicauda, Cp ¼ C. perspicillata, Cso ¼ C. sowelli, Csu ¼ C. subrufa, Cca ¼ C. castanea, and Cbk ¼ C. benkeithi. Numbers by vertical
lines within species identify intraspecific phylogroups referred to in the text. Glyphonycteris sylvestris was used as the outgroup.
658 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 87, No. 4

cytochrome-b gene because in many cases there will not be an Such a difference would be compatible with Patterson’s (2000)
adequate estimation of intraspecific variation, plus the .5% observation concerning the rate of descriptions of new species
is an acknowledged crude estimate and is not an end point. of mammals versus birds. Nonetheless, birds, amphibians,
Calculation of the duration of speciation values will be an reptiles, and fishes will likely have a pattern of underestimation
estimation of time associated with accumulation of genetic adjusted for the rate of evolution of hybrid sterility and events
changes required for isolating mechanisms to evolve, as well as that cause allopatric populations, relative to that observed for
an estimate of a paleontological time frame during which the mammals (Avise and Walker 1999). For invertebrate taxa,
genetic changes of speciation occurred (Klicka and Zink 1997). because they have been studied less intensively than mammals
and because generation time may be much shorter resulting in
a faster rate of genetic evolution, which can result in genetic
CONSEQUENCES OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE isolation, we hypothesize that the underestimation of bio-
GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT diversity is significantly greater than for mammals.
Number of recognized species.— In a comparison between the Level of research efforts required to implement the Genetic
Biological Species Concept and the Genetic Species Concept, the Species Concept.— The level of genetic study that we propose
beginning and end points of speciation will be congruent in for each species of mammal (of which there are .5,000—
definition of species. Panmictic populations with unlimited gene Wilson and Reeder 2005) will require a substantial amount of
flow will be recognized as conspecifics, and populations that are labor and resources. But that is based on our current methods
totally isolated (genetic and reproductive) will be recognized as 2 and, even with those, almost every issue in the Journal of
distinct species. Many phylogroups present in mammals and Mammalogy, Molecular Ecology, and Molecular Phylogenetics
morphologically distinct taxa (Van Gelder 1977) will not be and Evolution, for example, contains multiple publications
totally reproductively isolated but will be sufficiently genetically using genetics to define species boundaries and species. DNA
isolated to provide protection of integrity of alternative gene sequencing of whole genomes for multiple species is becoming
pools. The extent that this is true will be the extent that the strict less expensive, easier, and faster (Chan 2005; Zwick 2005),
application of the Biological Species Concept (sensu Mayr 1942) and such technological advances will result in a new research
and the Genetic Species Concept will produce different landscape for the interface of genetic information and studies
conclusions on the number of species present and the geographic on mammalian systematics, biodiversity, speciation, and so on.
limits of species. Application of the Genetic Species Concept will As a result, genetic profiles will soon be generated for many, if
result in a greater number of recognized species than will the not most, mammalian species. A primary limiting factor will be
Biological Species Concept. availability of tissues for DNA isolation from a sufficient
Based on our discussion of the BDM model, implementation of number of specimens and geographic localities to document the
the Genetic Species Concept has resulted in a substantial number level of genetic isolation, hybridization, introgression, species
of unrecognized cryptic species (Fig. 1). Nonetheless, determining boundaries, and so on for mammals. Technical advances are
specific status of allopatric populations using the Genetic Species needed to be able to perform these studies on museum voucher
Concept will be similar to application of the Morphological specimens, and such advances will likely soon occur. Although
Species Concept. The systematic community today accepts that if use of sequence data from museum voucher specimens would
a certain level of morphological divergence distinguishes 2 not entirely solve the need for additional collecting, it would
allopatric populations, then 2 biological species exist. Although address the majority of issues concerning species diversity.
that conclusion creates stability and, from a probability standpoint, An aspect of this change in the study of mammalian diversity
may or may not be correct .50% of the time, in each case is that many new ‘‘mammalian systematists’’ will have little
justification involves few or no supporting data that document knowledge of the natural history and diagnostic features of
reproductive isolation (see ‘‘Application of the Genetic Species the organisms they are studying (Schmidly 2005). This new
Concept’’ for our method of discerning species presence–absence concept of an organism may be a bit of tissue in the bottom of
using genetic distance values typical of sister species). In our a plastic cryotube. It is our opinion that mammalian systematics
comparison of the Genetic Species Concept and the Phylogenetic must retain its historical association with and dependency on
Species Concept (Table 1) the greatest number of species probably museum voucher specimens. We hope that this new breed of
will be recognized by the Phylogenetic Species Concept because, systematists will embrace the museum concept and cooperate
at least in some definitions, application of that concept is not with a museum accredited by the American Society of Mam-
concerned with evidence of reproductive or genetic isolation. This malogists or other appropriate society to document their studies
comparison is not simple, however, because the definition of by depositing voucher specimens and tissues (Ruedas et al.
a species in the Phylogenetic Species Concept is so variable 2000; Salazar-Bravo et al. 2006). This action not only will
(Wheeler and Meier 2000). serve to validate their current studies but will provide material
Implications of the Genetic Species Concept to higher for future studies.
zoological taxa.— If the hypothesis of Wilson et al. (1975) and
Fitzpatrick (2004) that mammals evolve hybrid sterility faster ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
than do other vertebrates through genetic divergence as We thank S. Hoofer, D. Wilson, J. L. Patton, J. Coyne, E. Lessa,
proposed in the BDM model is true, then there may be more P. Larsen, F. Hoffmann, H. Genoways, C. Phillips, R. Chesser, J. Bull,
rapid speciation in mammals than in other vertebrate groups. J. Bickham, S. Solari, L. Ammerman, R. Pfau, A. Brown, F. Bronson,
August 2006 BAKER AND BRADLEY—GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT 659

M. Knapp, H. Mantilla, H. Meeks, V. Swier, R. K. Baker, and the BATESON, W. 1909. Heredity and variation in modern lights. Pp. 85–
Principles of Systematics class at San Angelo State University for 101 in Darwin and modern science (A. C. Seward, ed.). Cambridge
discussions and critical reviews. We thank F. Hoffmann for assistance University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
with Fig. 1. We thank L. Bradley and T. Ginter for technical BENDA, P., P. HULVA, AND J. GAISLER. 2004. Systematic status of
assistance. Financial support was provided by J. Sowell, A. Brown, African populations of Pipistrellus pipistrellus complex (Chirop-
the Texas Tech University’s Biological Database Program, and the tera: Vespertilionidae), with a description of a new species from
National Institutes of Health (DHHS A141435-01) to RDB. Cyrenaica, Lybia. Acta Chiropterologica 6:193–217.
BIRUNGI, J., AND P. ARCTANDER. 2001. Molecular systematics and
phylogeny of the Reduncini (Artiodactyla: Bovidae) inferred
LITERATURE CITED from the analysis of mitochondrial cytochrome-b gene sequences.
ALLEN, J. A. 1876. Geographic variation among North American Journal of Mammalian Evolution 8:125–147.
mammals especially in respect to size. Bulletin of the U.S. BRADLEY, R. D., AND R. J. BAKER. 2001. A test of the Genetic Species
Geological and Geographical Survey of the Territories 2:309–344. Concept: cytochrome-b sequences and mammals. Journal of
AMMAN, B. R., AND R. D. BRADLEY. 2004. Molecular evolution in Mammalogy 82:960–973.
Baiomys (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae): evidence for a genetic sub- BRADLEY, R. D., F. C. BRYANT, L. C. BRADLEY, M. L. HAYNIE, AND
division in B. musculus. Journal of Mammalogy 85:162–166. R. J. BAKER. 2003. Implications of hybridization between white-
ANDRADE, A. F. B., AND C. R. BONVICINO. 2003. A new karyological tailed deer and mule deer. Southwestern Naturalist 48:654–660.
variant of Oecomys (Rodentia: Sigmodontinae) and its phylogenetic BRADLEY, R. D., J. J. BULL, A. D. JOHNSON, AND D. M. HILLIS. 1993.
relationship based on molecular data. Genome 46:195–203. Origin of a novel allele in a mammalian hybrid zone. Proceedings
ARNOLD, M. L., AND S. K. EMMS. 1998. Paradigm lost: natural hy- of the National Academy of Sciences 90:8939–8941.
bridization and evolutionary innovations. Pp. 379–389 in Endless BRADLEY, R. D., D. S. CARROLL, M. L. HAYNIE, R. M. MARTINEZ,
forms: species and speciation (D. J. Howard and S. H. Berlocher, M. J. HAMILTON, AND C. W. KILPATRICK. 2004a. A new species of
eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. Peromyscus from western Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy 85:
ASMUSSEN, M. A., J. ARNOLD, AND J. C. AVISE. 1987. Definition and 184–1193.
properties of disequilibrium statistics for associations between nu- BRADLEY, R. D., S. K. DAVIS, AND R. J. BAKER. 1991. Genetic control
clear and cytoplasmic genotypes. Journal of Genetics 115:755–768. of premating-isolating behavior: Kaneshiro’s hypothesis and asym-
AVISE, J. C. 2004. Molecular markers, natural history, and evolution. 2nd metrical sexual selection in pocket gophers. Journal of Heredity
ed. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 82:192–196.
AVISE, J. C., AND R. M. BALL. 1990. Principles of genealogical BRADLEY, R. D., F. MENDEZ-HARCLERODE, M. J. HAMILTON, AND
concordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. Pp. 45– G. CEBALLOS. 2004b. A new species of Reithrodontomys from
67 in D. J. Futuyma and J. Antonovics, eds. Oxford Surveys in
Guerrero, Mexico. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech
Evolutionary Biology, vol. 7. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
University 231:i þ 1–12.
United Kingdom.
BRAGGIO, E., AND C. R. BONVICINO. 2004. Molecular divergence in the
AVISE, J. C., AND D. WALKER. 1998. Pleistocene phylogeographic effects
genus Thrichomys (Rodentia, Echimyidae). Journal of Mammalogy
on avian populations and the speciation process. Proceedings of the
85:316–320.
Royal Society of London, B. Biological Sciences 265:457–463.
BRAUN, J. K., R. A. VAN DEN BUSSCHE, P. K. MORTON, AND M. A.
AVISE, J. C., AND D. WALKER. 1999. Species realities and numbers in
MARES. 2005. Phylogenetic and biogeographic relationships of
sexual vertebrates: perspectives from an asexual transmitted genome.
mouse opossums Thylamys (Didelphimorphia, Didelphidae) in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96:992–995.
southern South America. Journal of Mammalogy 86:147–159.
BAKER, R. J. 1984. A sympatric cryptic species of mammal: a new
BROOKFIELD, J. 2002. Review of genes, categories, and species by Jody
species of Rhogeessa (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Systematic
Zoology 33:178–183. Hey. Genetic Research 79:107–108 (not seen, cited in Coyne and
BAKER, R. J., AND J. W. BICKHAM. 1986. Speciation by monobrachial Orr 2004).
centric fusions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences BUTLIN, R. K. 1998. What do hybrid zones in general, and in the
83:8245–8248. Chorthippus parallelus zone in particular, tell us about speciation?
BAKER, R. J., R. M. FONSECA, D. A. PARISH, C. J. PHILLIPS, AND F. G. Pp. 367–378 in Endless forms: species and speciation (D. J. Howard
HOFFMANN. 2004. New bat of the genus Lophostoma (Phyllosto- and S. H. Berlocher, eds.). Oxford University Press, Oxford,
midae: Phyllostominae) from northwestern Ecuador. Occasional United Kingdom.
Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 232:i þ 1–16. BUTLIN, R. K. 2005. Recombination and speciation. Molecular
BAKER, R. J., J. A. GROEN, AND R. D. OWEN. 1984. Field key to Ecology 14:2621–2635.
Antillean bats. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech Uni- CAPANNA, E., A. GROPP, H. WINKING, G. NOACK, AND M. V. CIVITELLI.
versity 94:1–18. 1976. Robertsonian metacentrics in the mouse. Chromosoma
BAKER, R. J., M. B. O’NEILL, AND L. R. MCALILEY. 2003. A new (Berlin) 58:341–353.
species of desert shrew, Notiosorex, based on nuclear and mito- CARR, S. M., S. W. BALLINGER, J. N. DERR, L. H. BLANKENSHIP, AND
chondrial sequence data. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas J. W. BICKHAM. 1986. Mitochondrial DNA analysis of hybridization
Tech University 222:i þ 1–12. between sympatric white-tailed deer and mule deer in West Texas.
BAKER, R. J., S. SOLARI, AND F. G. HOFFMANN. 2002. A new Central Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 83:9576–9580.
American species from the Carollia brevicauda complex. Occa- CARROLL, D. S., L. L. PEPPERS, AND R. D. BRADLEY. 2005.
sional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 217:i þ 1–12. Biogeography and phylogenetics of three species of Sigmodon.
BAKER, R. J., ET AL. 1998. Bioinformatics, museums and society: Pp. 87–100 in Contribuciones Mastozóologicas en Homenaje
integrating biological data for knowledge-based decisions. Occa- a Bernardo Villa. (V. Sanchez-Cordero and R. A. Medellı́n eds.).
sional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University 187:i þ 1–4. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.
660 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 87, No. 4

CATHEY, J. C., J. W. BICKHAM, AND J. C. PATTON. 1998. Introgressive GIANNASI, N., R. S. THORPE, AND A. MALHOTRA. 2001. The use of
hybridization and nonconcordant evolutionary history of maternal amplified fragment length polymorphism in determining species
and paternal lineages in North American deer. Evolution 52: trees at fine taxonomic levels: analysis of a medically important
1224–1229. snake, Trimeresurus albolabris. Molecular Ecology 10:419–426.
CHAN, E. Y. 2005. Advances in sequencing technology. Mutation GUERRERO, J. A., E. DE LUNA, AND D. GONZALEZ. 2004. Taxonomic
Research 573:13–40. status of Artibeus jamaicensis triomylus inferred from molecular
CHECK, E. 2005. Patchwork people. Nature 7062:1084–1086. and morphometric data. Journal of Mammalogy 85:866–874.
CLARIDGE, M. F., H. A. DAWAH, AND M. R. WILSON (EDS.). 1997. HALDANE, J. B. S. 1922. Sex-ratio and unisex sterility in hybrid
Species: the units of biodiversity. Chapman & Hall, London, United animals. Journal of Genetics 12:101–109.
Kingdom. HALL, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America. Vols. 1,2. 2nd ed.
CORBET, G. B. 1997. The species in mammals. Pp. 341–356 in John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Species: the units of biodiversity (M. F. Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and HALL, E. R. 1984. Geographic variation among brown and grizzly
M. R. Wilson, eds.). Chapman & Hall, London, United Kingdom. bears (Ursus arctos) in North America. Special Publication,
COYNE, J. A. 1992. Genetics and speciation. Nature 355:511–515. Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas 13:1–16.
COYNE, J. A., AND H. A. ORR. 2004. Speciation. Sinauer Associates, HARRISON, R. G., S. M. BOGDANOWICZ, R. S. HOFFMANN, E. YENSEN,
Inc., Publishers, Sunderland, Massachusetts. AND P. W. SHERMAN. 2003. Phylogeny and evolutionary history of
CRACRAFT, J. 1997. Species concepts in systematics and conservation the ground squirrels (Rodentia: Marmotinae). Journal of Mamma-
biology—an ornithological viewpoint. Pp. 325–340 in Species: lian Evolution 10:249–276.
the units of biodiversity (M. F. Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and M. R. HAUSSER, J., F. CATZEFLIS, A. MEYLAN, AND P. VOGEL. 1985. Spe-
Wilson, eds.). Chapman & Hall, London, United Kingdom. ciation in the Sorex araneus complex (Mammalia: Insectivora).
CUARTAS, C. A., J. MUÑOZ, AND M. GONZÁLEZ. 2001. Una nueva Acta Zoologica Fennica 170:125–130.
especie de Carollia Gray, 1838 (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) de HEBERT, P. D. N., AND T. R. GREGORY. 2005. The promise of DNA
Colombia. Actualidades Biológicas 23:63–73. barcoding for taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54:852–859.
DAVIS, B. L., AND R. J. BAKER. 1974. Morphometrics, evolution and HELBIG, A. J., A. G. KNOX, D. T. PARKIN, G. SANGSTER, AND M.
cytotaxonomy of mainland bats of the genus Macrotus (Chiroptera: COLLINSON. 2002. Guidelines for assigning species rank. Ibis 144:
Phyllostomatidae). Systematic Zoology 23:26–39.
518–525.
DOBZHANSKY, T. 1934. Studies on hybrid sterility. I. Spermatogenesis
HOFFMANN, F. G., AND R. J. BAKER. 2001. Systematics of bats of the
in pure and hybrid Drosophila pseudoobscura hybrids. Proceedings
genus Glossophaga (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) and phylogeog-
of the National Academy of Sciences 19:397–403.
raphy in G. soricina based on the cytochrome-b gene. Journal of
DOBZHANSKY, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia
Mammalogy 82:1092–1101.
University Press, New York.
HOFFMANN, F. G., AND R. J. BAKER. 2003. Comparative phylogeog-
DOBZHANSKY, T. 1950. Mendelian populations and their evolution.
raphy of short-tailed bats (Carollia: Phyllostomidae). Molecular
American Naturalist 84:401–418.
Ecology 12:3403–3414.
DUCROZ, J. F., V. VOLOBOUEV, AND L. GRANJON. 2001. An assessment
HOFFMANN, F. G., E. P. LESSA, AND M. F. SMITH. 2002. Systematics
of the systematics of arvicanthine rodents using mitochondrial
of Oxymycterus with description of a new species from Uruguay.
DNA sequence: evolutionary and biogeographical implications.
Journal of Mammalogy 83:408–420.
Journal of Mammalian Evolution 8:173–206.
HOFFMANN, F. G., J. G. OWEN, AND R. J. BAKER. 2003. mtDNA
DURISH, N. D., K. E. HALCOMB, C. W. KILPATRICK, AND R. D.
BRADLEY. 2004. Molecular systematics of the Peromyscus truei perspective of chromosomal diversification and hybridization in
species group. Journal of Mammalogy 85:1160–1169. Peters’ tent-making bat (Uroderma bilobatum: Phyllostomidae).
EDWARDS, C. W., AND R. D. BRADLEY. 2002. Molecular systematics Molecular Ecology 12:2981–2993.
and the historical phylobiogeography of the Neotoma mexicana HONEYCUTT, R. L., AND T. L. YATES. 1994. Molecular systematics.
species group. Journal of Mammalogy 83:20–30. Pp. 287–309 in Seventy-five years of mammalogy (1919–1994)
ENGSTROM, M. D., J. R. CHOATE, AND H. H. GENOWAYS. 1994. (E. C. Birney and J. R Choate, eds.). Special Publication 11, The
Taxonomy. Pp. 179–199 in Seventy-five years of mammalogy American Society of Mammalogists.
(1919–1994) (E. C. Birney and J. R. Choate, eds.). Special Pub- HOUSEAL, T. W., I. F. GREENBAUM, D. J. SCHMIDLY, S. A. SMITH,
lication 11, The American Society of Mammalogists. AND K. M. DAVIS. 1987. Karyotypic variation in Peromyscus boylii

FERGUSON, J. W. H. 2002. On the use of genetic divergence for from Mexico. Journal of Mammalogy 68:281–296.
identifying species. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 75: HOWARD, D. J., AND S. H. BERLOCHER (EDS.). 1998. Endless forms:
509–516. species and speciation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United
FITZPATRICK, B. M. 2004. Rates of evolution of hybrid inviability in Kingdom.
birds and mammals. Evolution 58:1865–1870. HSU, T. C. 1979. Human and mammalian cytogenetics: an historical
FLEMING, T. H. 1988. The short-tailed fruit bat: a study in plant–animal perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
interactions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. HUBBY, J. L., AND R. C. LEWONTIN. 1966. A molecular approach to the
GALLARDO, M. H., J. W. BICKHAM, R. L. HONEYCUTT, N. KOHLER, AND study of genic heterozygosity in natural populations. I. The number
R. A. OJEDA. 1999. The first polyploid mammal: tetraploidy in a of alleles at different loci in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics
South American desert rodent. Nature 401:341. 52:203–215.
GARDNER, A. L., AND V. HAYSSEN. 2004. A guide to constructing and HUDSON, R., AND J. A. COYNE. 2002. Mathematical consequences of
understanding synonymies for mammalian species. Mammalian the genological species concept. Evolution 56:1557–1565.
Species 739:1–17. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 1999.
GAVRILETS, S. 2003. Perspective: models of speciation: what have International code of zoological nomenclature. 4th ed. Natural
we learned in 40 years? Evolution 57:2197–2215. History Museum, London, United Kingdom.
August 2006 BAKER AND BRADLEY—GENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT 661

JAAROLA, M., ET AL. 2004. Molecular phylogeny of the speciose vole MULLER, H. J. 1939. Reversibility in evolution considered from
genus Microtus (Arvicolinae, Rodentia) inferred from mitochon- the standpoint of genetics. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge
drial DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution Philosophical Society 14:261–280.
33:647–663. MUÑOZ, J., C. A. CUARTAS, AND M. GONZÁLEZ. 2004. Se describe una
JONES, J. K., Jr., R. D. BRADLEY, AND R. J. BAKER. 1995. Hybrid nueva especie de murciélago del género Carollia Gray, 1838
gophers and some thoughts on the relationship of natural hybrids to (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) de Colombia. Actualidades Biológicas
the rules of nomenclature and the Endangered Species Act. Journal 26:80–90.
of Mammalogy 76:43–49. NEI, M. 1976. Mathematical models of speciation and genetic
JUSTE, J., ET AL. 2003. Mitochondrial phylogeography of the long- distance. Pp. 723–765 in Population genetics and ecology
eared bats (Plecotus) in the Mediterranean Palaearctic and (S. Karlin and E. Nevo, eds.). Academic Press, Inc., New York.
Atlantic Islands. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 31: O’NEILL, M. B., D. W. NAGORSEN, AND R. J. BAKER. 2005.
1114–1126. Mitochondrial DNA variation in water shrews (Sorex palustis
KANESHIRO, K. Y. 1983. Sexual selection and direction of evolution Richardson, 1828, Sorex bendirii (Merriam, 1884)) from western
in the in the biosystematics of Hawaiian Drosophilidae. Evolution North America: implications for taxonomy and phylogeography.
30:740–745. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:1469–1475.
KLICKA, J., AND R. M. ZINK. 1997. The importance of recent ice ages PACHECO, V., S. SOLARI, AND P. M. VELAZCO. 2004. A new species
in speciation: a failed paradigm. Science 277:1666–1669. of Carollia (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) from the Andes of Peru
KOOPMAN, K. F. 1993. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 137–241 in Mammal and Bolivia. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University
species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference (D. E. 236:1–16.
Wilson and D. M. Reeder, eds.). 2nd ed. Smithsonian Institution PARDIÑAS, U. F. J., G. D’ELIA, AND S. CIRIGNOLI. 2003. The genus
Press, Washington, D.C. Akodon (Muroidea: Sigmodontinae) in Misiones, Argentina. Mam-
LEWIS-ORITT, N., C. A. PORTER, AND R. J. BAKER. 2001a. Molecular malian Biology 68:129–143.
systematics of the family Mormoopidae (Chiroptera) based on PATTERSON, B. D. 2000. Patterns and trends in the discovery of neo-
cytochrome-b and recombination activating gene 2 sequences. tropical mammals. Diversity and Distribution 6:145–151.
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 20:426–436. PATTON, J. L. 1967. Chromosomal studies of certain pocket mice,
LEWIS-ORITT, N., R. A. VAN DEN BUSSCHE, AND R. J. BAKER. 2001b. genus Perognathus (Rodentia: Heteromyidae). Journal of Mam-
Molecular evidence for evolution of piscivory in Noctilio malogy 48:27–37.
(Chiroptera: Noctilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy 82: PATTON, J. L., AND R. E. DINGMAN. 1968. Chromosome studies of
748–759. pocket gophers, genus Thomomys. I. The specific status of
LEWONTIN, R. C., AND J. L. HUBBY. 1966. A molecular approach Thomomys umbrinus (Richardson) in Arizona. Journal of Mam-
to the study of genic heterozygosity in natural populations. malogy 49:1–13.
II. Amounts of variation and degree of heterozygosity in PATTON, J. L., AND M. F. SMITH. 1990. The evolutionary dynamics of
natural populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Genetics 54: the pocket gopher Thomomys bottae, with emphasis on California
595–609. populations. University of California Publications in Zoology 123:
MASTERS, J. C., AND H. G. SPENCER. 1989. Why we need a new xviii þ 1–161.
Genetic Species Concept. Systematic Zoology 38:270–279. PIAGGIO, A. J., E. W. VALDEZ, M. A. BOGAN, AND G. S. SPICER. 2002.
MATOCQ, M. D. 2002. Morphological and molecular analysis of Systematics of Myotis occultus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae)
a contact zone in the Neotoma fuscipes species complex. Journal inferred from sequences of two mitochondrial genes. Journal of
of Mammalogy 83:866–883. Mammalogy 83:386–395.
MAYDEN, R. L. 1997. A hierarchy of species concepts: the denoue- PINE, R. H. 1972. The bats of the genus Carollia. Technical
ment in the saga of the species problem. Pp. 381–424 in Species: Monograph, Agricultural Experimental Station, Texas A&M
the units of biodiversity (M. F. Claridge, H. A. Dawah, and M. R. University 8:1–125.
Wilson, eds.). Chapman & Hall, London, United Kingdom. PORTER, C. A., AND R. J. BAKER. 2004. Systematics of Vampyressa and
MAYR, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia Uni- related genera of phyllostomid bats as determined by cytochrome-
versity Press, New York. b sequences. Journal of Mammalogy 85:126–132.
MAYR, E. 1969. Principles of systematic zoology. McGraw-Hill, PRESGRAVES, D. C. 2003. A fine-scale genetic analysis of hybrid in-
New York. compatibilities in Drosophila. Genetics 163:955–972.
MCLELLAN, L. J. 1984. A morphometric analysis of Carollia PROVINE, W. B. 2004. Ernst Mayr: genetics and speciation. Genetics
(Chiroptera, Phyllostomidae). American Museum Novitates 2791: 167:1041–1046.
1–35. ROCA, A. L., N. GEORGIADIS, AND S. J. O’BRIEN. 2005. Cytonuclear
MERRIAM, C. H. 1919. Criteria for the recognition of a species and genomic dissociation in African elephant species. Nature Genetics
genera. Journal of Mammalogy 1:6–9. 37:96–100.
MISHLER, B. D., AND E. C. THERIOT. 2000. The phylogenetic species ROCA, A. L., N. GEORGIADIS, J. PECON-SLATTERY, AND S. J. O’BRIEN.
concept (sensu Mishler and Theriot): monophyly, apomorphy, and 2001. Genetic evidence for two species of elephant in Africa.
phylogenetic species concepts. Pp. 44–54 in Species concepts and Science 293:1473–1477.
phylogenetic theory: a debate (Q. D. Wheeler and R. Meier, eds.). RODRIGUEZ, R. M., AND L. K. AMMERMAN. 2004. Mitochondrial DNA
Columbia University Press, New York. divergence does not reflect morphological difference between
MONK, M., AND A. SURANI (EDS.). 1990. Genomic imprinting. Myotis californicus and Myotis ciliolabrum. Journal of Mammalogy
Company of Biologists, Ltd., Cambridge, United Kingdom. 85:842–851.
MORITZ, C., AND C. CICERO. 2004. DNA barcoding: promise and pit- RUEDAS, L. A., J. SALAZAR-BRAVO, J. W. DRAGOO, AND T. L. YATES.
falls. Public Library of Science, Biology 2:1529–1531. 2000. The importance of being earnest: what, if anything,
662 JOURNAL OF MAMMALOGY Vol. 87, No. 4

constitutes a ‘‘specimen examined?’’ Molecular Phylogenetics and TIEMANN-BOEGE, I., C. W. KILPATRICK, D. J. SCHMIDLY, AND R. D.
Evolution 17:129–132. BRADLEY. 2000. Molecular phylogenetics of the Peromyscus boylii
SALAZAR-BRAVO, J., C. J. PHILLIPS, R. D. BRADLEY, R. J. BAKER, T. L. species group. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 16:366–378.
YATES, AND L. A. RUEDAS. 2006. Letter to the editor: voucher VAN DEN BUSSCHE, R. A., R. K. CHESSER, M. J. HAMILTON, R. D.
specimens for SARS-linked bats. Science 311:1099–1100. BRADLEY, C. A. PORTER, AND R. J. BAKER. 1993. Maintenance of a
SCHILTHUIZEN, M. 2000. Dualism and conflicts in understanding narrow hybrid zone in Peromyscus leucopus: a test of alternative
speciation. BioEssays 22:1134–1141. models. Journal of Mammalogy 74:832–845.
SCHMIDLY, D. J. 2005. What it means to be a naturalist and the future VAN GELDER, R. G. 1977. Mammalian hybrids and generic limits.
of natural history at American museums. Journal of Mammalogy American Museum Novitates 2653:1–25.
86:449–456. WHEELER, Q. D., AND R. MEIER (EDS.). 2000. Species concepts
SCHMIDLY, D. J., R. D. BRADLEY, AND P. S. CATO. 1988. Morphometric and phylogenetic theory: a debate. Columbia University Press,
differentiation and taxonomy of three chromosomally characterized New York.
groups of Peromyscus boylii from east-central Mexico. Journal of WHEELER, Q. D., AND N. I. PLATNICK. 2000. The phylogenetic species
concept (sensu Wheeler and Platnick). Pp. 55–69 in Species
Mammalogy 69:462–480.
concepts and phylogenetic theory: a debate (Q. D. Wheeler and
SEARLE, J. B. 1988. Selection and Robertsonian variation in nature:
R. Meier, eds.). Columbia University Press, New York.
the case of the common shrew. Pp. 507–531 in The cytogenetics
WHITE, M. J. D. 1978. Modes of speciation. Freeman Press, San
of mammalian autosomal rearrangements (A. Daniel, ed.). Alan
Francisco, California.
R. Liss, New York.
WICKLIFFE, J. K., V. H. LEE, E. SMITH, B. TANDLER, AND C. J. PHILLIPS.
SHAW, K. L. 1996. What are good species? Reply to Mallet. Trends in
2003. Gene expression, cell localization, and evolution of rodent
Ecology and Evolution 11:174. submandibular gland androgen-binding protein. European Journal
SIMPSON, G. G. 1943. Criteria for genera, species, and subspecies in of Morphology 40:257–260.
zoology and paleontology. Annals of the New York Academy of WIENS, J. J., AND T. A. PENKROT. 2002. Delimiting species using DNA
Sciences 44:145–178. and morphological variation and discordant species limits in spiny
SIMPSON, G. G. 1961. Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia lizards (Sceloporus). Systematic Biology 51:69–91.
University Press, New York. WILEY, E. O. 1978. The evolutionary species concept reconsidered.
SOLARI, S., AND R. J. BAKER. 2006. Mitochondrial DNA sequence, Systematic Zoology 27:17–26.
karyotypic, and morphological variation in the Carollia castanea WILEY, E. O., AND R. L. MAYDEN. 2000. The evolutionary species
species complex (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) with description concept. Pp. 70–89 in Species concepts and phylogenetic theory:
of a new species. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech a debate (Q. D. Wheeler and R. Meier, eds.). Columbia University
University 254:i þ 1–16. Press, New York.
SPOTORNO, A. E., J. P. VALLADARES, J. C. MARIN, R. E. PALMA, AND WILL, K. W., B. D. MISHLER, AND Q. D. WHEELER. 2005. The perils of
C. ZULETA R. 2004a. Molecular divergence and phylogenetic rela- DNA barcoding and the need for integrative taxonomy. Systematic
tionships of chinchillids (Rodentia: Chinchillidae). Journal of Biology 54:844–851.
Mammalogy 85:384–388. WILSON, A. C., G. L. BUSH, S. M. CASE, AND M. C. KING. 1975. Social
SPOTORNO, A. E., J. P. VALLADARES, J. C. MARIN, AND H. ZEBALLOS. structuring of mammalian populations and rate of chromosomal evolution.
2004b. Molecular diversity among domestic guinea-pigs (Cavia Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 72:5061–5065.
porcellus) and their close phylogenetic relationship with the Andean WILSON, D. E., AND D. M. REEDER (EDS.). 1993. Mammal species
wild species Cavia tschudii. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. 2nd ed.
77:243–250. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
STADLEMANN, B., L. G. HERRERA, J. ARROYO-CABRALES, J. J. FLORES- WILSON, D. E., AND D. M. REEDER (EDS.). 2005. Mammal species of
MARTINEZ, B. P. MAY, AND M. RUEDI. 2004. Molecular systematics the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. 3rd ed. Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
of the fishing bat Myotis (Pizonyx) vivesi. Journal of Mammalogy
WRIGHT, A. J., R. A. VAN DEN BUSSCHE, B. K. LIM, M. D. ENGSTROM,
85:133–139.
AND R. J. BAKER. 1999. Systematics of the genera Carollia and
STEINER, C., AND F. M. CATZEFLIS. 2003. Mitochondrial diversity and
Rhinophylla based on the cytochrome-b gene. Journal of Mammal-
morphological variation of Marmosa murina (Didelphidae) in
ogy 80:1202–1213.
French Guiana. Journal of Mammalogy 84:822–831.
YU, F., ET AL. 2004. Molecular phylogeny and biogeography of woolly
STEPPAN, S. J., R. M. ADKINS, AND J. ANDERSON. 2004. Phylogeny and
flying squirrel (Rodentia: Sciuridae), inferred from mitochondrial
divergence-date estimates of rapid radiations in muroid rodents cytochrome-b gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and
based on multiple nuclear genes. Systematic Biology 53:533–553. Evolution 33:735–744.
STEPPAN, S. J., ET AL. 1999. Molecular phylogeny of the marmots ZIMMERMAN, E. G. 1970. Karyology, systematics, and chromosomal
(Rodentia: Sciuridae): tests of evolutionary and biogeographic evolution in the rodent genus Sigmodon. Michigan State Univer-
hypotheses. Systematic Biology 48:715–734. sity Biological Series 4:385–454.
SUDMAN, P. D., J. K. WICKLIFFE, P. HORNER, M. J. SMOLEN, J. W. ZWICK, M. E. 2005. A genome sequencing center in every lab.
BICKHAM, AND R. D. BRADLEY. 2006. Molecular systematics of European Journal of Human Genetics 13:1167–1168.
pocket gophers of the genus Geomys. Journal of Mammalogy
87:668–676. Submitted 13 February 2006. Accepted 31 March 2006.
SVARTMAN, M., G. STONE, AND R. STANYON. 2005. Molecular cyto-
genetics discards polyploidy in mammals. Genomics 85:425–430. Visiting Associate Editor was David M. Leslie, Jr.
TAVERNER, P. A. 1920. A test of the subspecies. Journal of
Mammalogy 1:124–127. This was a fast-tracked manuscript.