Abstract

Splitting or lumping of species is a concern because of its potential confounding effect on comparisons of biodiversity and on conservation assessments. By comparing global lists of species reported by previous authors to lists of the presently recognized species that were known to those authors, a simple ratio can be used to describe their relative splitting or lumping of species. One group of ‘model’ organisms claimed for the study of what species are and how to recognize them is bumblebees. A comparison of four bumblebee subgenera shows: (1) an early phase (up to and including 1931) showing splitting, in which taxonomy was dominated by a typological concept of invariant species with heavy reliance on colour-pattern characters; (2) a middle phase (1935–98) showing lumping, associated with a shift to a polytypic concept of species emphasizing morphological characters, often justified with an interbreeding concept of species, but only rarely associated directly with process-related characters; and (3) a recent phase (after 2000), using a concept of species as evolutionarily independent lineages, as evidenced by corroboration from integrative assessment, usually including evidence for coalescents of species in fast-evolving genes compared with morphology. Analysis of splitting or lumping should help to improve biodiversity comparisons and conservation.

中文翻译：

---

新的分裂/集总指数反映了应用于大黄蜂的物种概念的历史（昆虫纲：蜜蜂科）

摘要

物种的分裂或集中是一个令人担忧的问题，因为它可能对生物多样性的比较和保护评估产生混淆影响。通过将以前作者报告的全球物种清单与这些作者已知的目前公认的物种清单进行比较，可以使用一个简单的比率来描述它们的相对分裂或物种集中。声称研究什么是物种以及如何识别它们的一组“模型”生物是大黄蜂。四个大黄蜂亚属的比较表明：(1) 早期（直到 1931 年并包括 1931 年）显示分裂，其中分类学由高度依赖颜色图案特征的不变物种的类型学概念主导；（2）中间阶段（1935-98）显示集中，与向强调形态特征的物种多型概念的转变相关联，这通常与物种的杂交概念相吻合，但很少与过程相关特征直接相关；(3) 最近阶段（2000 年之后），使用物种作为进化上独立谱系的概念，综合评估证实了这一点，通常包括与形态学相比，快速进化基因中物种结合的证据。拆分或集中分析应有助于改进生物多样性比较和保护。正如综合评估的佐证所证明的那样，通常包括与形态学相比，快速进化基因中物种结合的证据。拆分或集中分析应有助于改进生物多样性比较和保护。正如综合评估的佐证所证明的那样，通常包括与形态学相比，快速进化基因中物种结合的证据。拆分或集中分析应有助于改进生物多样性比较和保护。