Skip to main content
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences logoLink to Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
. 2004 Mar 22;271(1539):561–564. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2003.2617

The role of subspecies in obscuring avian biological diversity and misleading conservation policy.

Robert M Zink 1
PMCID: PMC1691635  PMID: 15156912

Abstract

Subspecies are often used in ways that require their evolutionary independence, for example as proxies for units of conservation. Mitochondrial DNA sequence data reveal that 97% of continentally distributed avian subspecies lack the population genetic structure indicative of a distinct evolutionary unit. Subspecies considered threatened or endangered, some of which have been targets of expensive restoration efforts, also generally lack genetic distinctiveness. Although sequence data show that species include 1.9 historically significant units on average, these units are not reflected by current subspecies nomenclature. Yet, it is these unnamed units and not named subspecies that should play a major role in guiding conservation efforts and in identifying biological diversity. Thus, a massive reorganization of classifications is required so that the lowest ranks, be they species or subspecies, reflect evolutionary diversity. Until such reorganization is accomplished, the subspecies rank will continue to hinder progress in taxonomy, evolutionary studies and especially conservation.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (85.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Avise J. C., Nelson W. S. Molecular genetic relationships of the extinct dusky seaside sparrow. Science. 1989 Feb 3;243(4891):646–648. doi: 10.1126/science.243.4891.646. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Avise J. C., Wollenberg K. Phylogenetics and the origin of species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997 Jul 22;94(15):7748–7755. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.15.7748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Crandall KA, Bininda-Emonds OR, Mace GM, Wayne RK. Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends Ecol Evol. 2000 Jul;15(7):290–295. doi: 10.1016/s0169-5347(00)01876-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fry A. J., Zink R. M. Geographic analysis of nucleotide diversity and song sparrow (Aves: Emberizidae) population history. Mol Ecol. 1998 Oct;7(10):1303–1313. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00462.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Moritz Craig. Strategies to protect biological diversity and the evolutionary processes that sustain it. Syst Biol. 2002 Apr;51(2):238–254. doi: 10.1080/10635150252899752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Palumbi S. R., Cipriano F., Hare M. P. Predicting nuclear gene coalescence from mitochondrial data: the three-times rule. Evolution. 2001 May;55(5):859–868. doi: 10.1554/0014-3820(2001)055[0859:pngcfm]2.0.co;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Zink Robert M., Drovetski Sergei V., Questiau Sophie, Fadeev Igor V., Nesterov Evgeniy V., Westberg Michael C., Rohwer Sievert. Recent evolutionary history of the bluethroat (Luscinia svecica) across Eurasia. Mol Ecol. 2003 Nov;12(11):3069–3075. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01981.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary data file
15156912s01.pdf (184.2KB, pdf)

Articles from Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences are provided here courtesy of The Royal Society

RESOURCES