Using appearance is a pretty good
proxy for the ability to interbreed, and much of the time it’s what taxonomists
still do, simply because doing the breeding experiments or measuring genetic
relationships among individuals is just too time-consuming.
But there are two classes of concerns
that arise.
On one hand, individuals belonging to the
same species can look very different.
Sometimes juveniles are hugely different from adults, like caterpillar and butterfly, elva and eel, or juvenile vs adult lancewood. In a New Zealand plant example, Jim Le Comte and Colin Webb (Le Comte & Webb 1981) showed experimentally that the speargrass Aciphylla townsonii is actually the juvenile form of A. hookeri. Different juveniles seem to be a feature of New Zealand plants, but they're common elsewhere too.
Sometimes juveniles are hugely different from adults, like caterpillar and butterfly, elva and eel, or juvenile vs adult lancewood. In a New Zealand plant example, Jim Le Comte and Colin Webb (Le Comte & Webb 1981) showed experimentally that the speargrass Aciphylla townsonii is actually the juvenile form of A. hookeri. Different juveniles seem to be a feature of New Zealand plants, but they're common elsewhere too.
Juvenile (left) and adult foliage of mataī (Prumnopitys taxifolia) |
White and blue viper's bugloss, Echium vulgare, growing side by side (Black Birch Range, Marlborough). |
Thirdly, local populations might adapt to special
conditions. On mine tailings,
where toxic heavy metals pollute the soil, plants may acquire tolerance,
and this could involve some differences in form or in underlying physiology, yet they still freely
mate with the non-tolerant individuals nearby. These are classified as ecotypes, but not as separate
species. The differences are maintained by strong selection, even in spite of free gene flow between the tolerant and intolerant plants.
Greene 1989). The underwater and aerial leaves of aquatic plants can be hugely different. Plants can have very different leaf shapes, or even leaf anatomy, depending on the amount of sunlight they’re receiving or even what season they’re in.
Greene 1989). The underwater and aerial leaves of aquatic plants can be hugely different. Plants can have very different leaf shapes, or even leaf anatomy, depending on the amount of sunlight they’re receiving or even what season they’re in.
Eryngium vesiculosum has very different leaves in summer (above) and winter (Webb 1984). |
In all four of these situations,
the result is two different looking plants growing together side by side,
giving the appearance of two distinct species that aren’t interbreeding. That’s just the sort of thing that gets
taxonomists and field botanists excited, because we always like to discover a new species.
On the other hand, the reverse
situation can arise. Two species
can look so similar that their existence isn’t even suspected until genetic
tests are done. These are called
cryptic species.
It’s important to be aware of these
possibilities, and in fact to rule them out as explanations before jumping to
the conclusion that the variation we’re observing is due to the existence of
more than one species. The idea
that two different-looking plants growing side by side must be different
species is simplistic, yet "side by side" has become a bit of a mantra in some circles.
One way to test these potential new
species is by growing different-looking plants together in uniform
environments—common garden experiments—and also growing genetically identical
plants in different environments—reciprocal clone transplants. These approaches were pioneered in the first half of last century by Swedish botanist Turesson and by American botanists Clausen, Keck, & Hiesey.
The speedwell hebe Veronica
lanceolata is widespread in the North
Island of New Zealand and a few parts of the South Island. Each region has its own form of the
species and, in general, adjacent populations are quite similar. With some familiarity, it’s possible to
tell from its appearance where a plant has come from. These differences are maintained in common garden
experiments, but I don’t regard these forms as different species because they
can cross freely, their flowers and fruits are very similar, the differences are quantitative rather than qualitative, they have the same chromosome number, and the changes are mostly gradual and continuous from place to place.
Veronica lanceolata in flower, Rimutaka Range. |
Each leaf is from a different population of Veronica lanceolata. |
South end of the Maungaharuru Range. |
There wasn’t room in the garden at home for a large randomised trial, so I sampled just a couple of plants of each type from sites only a few metres apart, and brought them home to grow in pots. I also pressed branches of each, to record and preserve how they had looked in the wild.
Collection 2834, small and large leaved plants just after potting, Feb 2011. |
Collection 2836, a small leaved plant just after potting, Feb 2011. The white plastic labels are 13 mm wide. |
Both surfaces of the largest leaves from each of the three plants (two from 2836 small), Sep 2012. |
With these speedwell hebes, the differences in growth form and leaf shape are striking, but they aren’t sufficient to compel rejection of the hypothesis that they’re the same species, because there are two different and simpler explanations—phenotypic plasticity and ecotypic differentiation—for that pattern. My simple experiment hasn't clearly demonstrated which is happening, because the experimental design and sampling are insufficient. But it's important to note also that these are quantitative differences—leaf shape and size—just the sorts of things that often vary in natural populations.
I'm sure it’s
possible to test species status scientifically and explicitly. That means starting with a testable hypothesis. It’s better to start with the
hypothesis that the two entities are conspecific, because any differences are evidence to the
contrary that would compel us to reject the hypothesis. If instead we start with the hypothesis that they’re
different species, it’s hard to imagine how many similarities between them would compel us to reject that
idea. And if we start with the hypothesis that there are two species, and then seek evidence to support the hypothesis, then we're not doing science, at least not as it was formulated by Karl Popper.
References
Garnock-Jones, P.J.; Molloy, B.P.J. 1983. Polymorphism and the taxonomic status of the
Hebe amplexicaulis complex (Scrophulariaceae). New Zealand Journal of Botany 20: 391–399.
Greene, E. 1989. A diet-induced developmental polymorphism in a caterpillar. Science 243: 643-646.
Le Comte, J.R.; Webb, C.J. 1981. Aciphylla townsonii — a juvenile form of A. hookeri (Umbelliferae). New Zealand Journal of Botany 19: 187–191.
Webb, C.J. 1984. Heterophylly in Eryngium vesiculosum (Umbelliferae). New Zealand Journal of Botany 22: 29–33.
Garnock-Jones, P.J.; Molloy, B.P.J. 1983. Polymorphism and the taxonomic status of the
Hebe amplexicaulis complex (Scrophulariaceae). New Zealand Journal of Botany 20: 391–399.
Greene, E. 1989. A diet-induced developmental polymorphism in a caterpillar. Science 243: 643-646.
Le Comte, J.R.; Webb, C.J. 1981. Aciphylla townsonii — a juvenile form of A. hookeri (Umbelliferae). New Zealand Journal of Botany 19: 187–191.
Webb, C.J. 1984. Heterophylly in Eryngium vesiculosum (Umbelliferae). New Zealand Journal of Botany 22: 29–33.
No comments:
Post a Comment