Skip to main content
PMC home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 1989;104(1):1–17. doi: 10.1007/BF01313804

Applying the species concept to plant viruses

M H V Van Regenmortel 1
PMCID: PMC7086710  PMID: 2647059

Summary

Plant virologists who maintain that the concept of species cannot be applied to viruses argue their case in terms of an obsolete concept of biological species defined by gene pools and reproductive isolation and applicable only to sexually reproducing organisms. In fact, various species concepts have been used by biologists and some of them are applicable to asexual organisms. The rationale for applying the species concept in virology is that viruses are biological entities and not chemicals: they possess genes, replicate, specialize, evolve and occupy specific ecological niches. The following definition is proposed: a virus species is a polythetic class of viruses constituting a replicating lineage and occupying a particular ecological niche. Such a definition of the species category does not and cannot provide a list of diagnostic properties for recognizing members of a particular virus species. It should also be stressed that a single property such as an arbitrary level of genome homology or the extent of serological relationship always fails to establish membership in a polythetic class. A binomial system of nomenclature is advocated in which the vernacular English name of the plant virus is adopted as the species name and the group name is assimilated to the level of genus. Adoption of this system would ensure that a universal classification system based on the classical categories of species, genus, and family becomes possible for all viruses.

Keywords: Ecological Niche, Reproductive Isolation, Plant Virus, Species Concept, Specific Ecological Niche

References

  • 1.Ball IR. On groups, existence and the ordering of nature. Syst Zool. 1983;32:446–451. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Beatty J. Classes and cladists. Syst Zool. 1982;31:25–34. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Beckner M. The biological way of thought. New York: Columbia University Press; 1959. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bernier R. The species as an individual: facing essentialism. Syst Zool. 1984;33:460–469. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Bishop DHL. The genetic basis for describing viruses as species. Intervirology. 1985;24:79–93. doi: 10.1159/000149623. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bock WJ. Philosophical foundations of classical evolutionary classification. Syst Zool. 1974;22:375–392. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bodmer WF. The evolutionary significance of recombination in prokariotes. Symp Soc Gen Microbiol. 1970;20:279–294. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Bridgman PW. The logic of modern physics. New York: Macmillan; 1927. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cowan ST. The microbiol species—a macromyth? Symp Soc Gen Microbiol. 1962;12:433–455. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ehrlich PR. Some axioms of taxonomy. Syst Zool. 1964;13:109–123. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ehrlich PR, Holm RW. Patterns and populations. Science. 1962;137:652–657. doi: 10.1126/science.137.3531.652. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ehrlich PR, Raven PH. Differentiation of populations. Science. 1969;165:1228–1231. doi: 10.1126/science.165.3899.1228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fenner F. Classification and nomenclature of viruses. Second report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Intervirology. 1976;7:1–115. doi: 10.1159/000149938. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Francki RIB. Plant virus taxonomy. In: Kurstak E, editor. Handbook of plant virus infections and comparative diagnosis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1981. pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Francki RIB. Current problems in plant virus taxonomy. In: Matthews REF, editor. A critical appraisal of viral taxonomy. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press; 1983. pp. 63–104. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gentry GA, Rana S, Hutchinson M, Starr P. Evolution of herpes and pox viruses and their hosts: a problem with the molecular clock. Intervirology. 1988;29:277–280. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ghiselin MT. A radical solution to the species problem. Syst Zool. 1974;23:536–544. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ghiselin MT. Biogeographical units: more on radical solutions. Syst Zool. 1980;29:80–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ghiselin MT. “Definition”, “character”, and other equivocal terms. Syst Zool. 1984;33:104–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ghiselin MT. Can Aristotle be reconciled with Darwin? Syst Zool. 1985;34:457–460. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gibbs AJ. Plant virus classification. Adv Virus Res. 1969;14:163–328. doi: 10.1016/s0065-3527(08)60562-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Gibbs AJ. How ancient are the tobamoviruses? Intervirology. 1980;14:101–108. doi: 10.1159/000149169. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Goldbach R, Wellink J. Evolution of plus-strand RNA viruses. Intervirology. 1988;29:260–267. doi: 10.1159/000150054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Gorman BM (1984) Application of evolutionary species concepts to viruses. Abstr Sixth Int Congr Virology, Sendai, p 388
  • 25.Grant V. Plant speciation. 2nd edn. New York: Columbia University Press; 1981. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Harrison BD. Usefulness and limitations of the species concept for plant viruses. Intervirology. 1985;24:71–78. doi: 10.1159/000149622. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hempel CG. Operationism, observation, and theoretical terms. In: Danto A, Morgenbesser S, editors. Philosophy of science. New York: Meridian Books; 1960. pp. 101–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Hengeveld R. Mayr's ecological species criterion. Syst Zool. 1988;37:47–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Hollings M, Brunt AA. Potyviruses. In: Kurstak E, editor. Handbook of plant virus infections and comparative diagnosis. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1981. pp. 731–807. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Holman EW. Recognizability of sexual and asexual species of rotifers. Syst Zool. 1987;36:381–386. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hull DL. The effect of essentialism on taxonomy—two thousand years of stasis. The Br J Philos Sci. 1965;16:1–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hull DL. The operational imperative: sense and nonsense in operationism. Syst Zool. 1968;17:438–457. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hull DL. Are species really individuals? Syst Zool. 1976;25:174–191. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kingsbury DW. Species classification problems in virus taxonomy. Intervirology. 1985;24:62–70. doi: 10.1159/000149621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kingsbury DW. Biological concepts in virus classification. Intervirology. 1988;29:242–253. doi: 10.1159/000150052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kitts DB. Can baptism alone save a species? Syst Zool. 1983;32:27–33. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kitts DB. The names of species: a reply to Hull. Syst Zool. 1984;33:112–115. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lambert DM, Michaux B, White CS. Are species self-defining? Syst Zool. 1987;36:196–205. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Levin DA. The nature of plant species. Science. 1979;204:381–384. doi: 10.1126/science.204.4391.381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Lovtrup S. The evolutionary species: fact or fiction? Syst Zool. 1979;28:386–392. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Luytjes W, Bredenbeek PJ, Noten AFH, Horzinek MC, Spaan WJM. Sequence of mouse hepatitis virus A59 mRNA 2: indications for RNA recombination between coronaviruses and influenza C virus. Virology. 1988;166:415–422. doi: 10.1016/0042-6822(88)90512-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Matthews REF. Classification and nomenclature of viruses. Fourth report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. 1982;17:1–200. doi: 10.1159/000149278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Matthews REF. The history of viral taxonomy. In: Matthews REF, editor. A critical appraisal of viral taxonomy. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press; 1983. pp. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Matthews REF. Future prospects for viral taxonomy. In: Matthews REF, editor. A critical appraisal of viral taxonomy. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press; 1983. pp. 219–245. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Matthews REF. Viral taxonomy for the nonvirologist. Ann Rev Microbiol. 1985;39:451–474. doi: 10.1146/annurev.mi.39.100185.002315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Matthews REF. Viral taxonomy. Microbiol Sci. 1985;2:74–75. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Mayr E. Animal species and evolution. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1963. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mayr E. Populations, species, and evolution. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1970. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mayr E. Biological classification: toward a synthesis of opposing methodologies. Science. 1981;214:510–516. doi: 10.1126/science.214.4520.510. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Mayr E. The growth of biological thought. Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Milne RG. The species problem in plant virology. Microbiol Sci. 1984;1:113–122. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Milne RG. Alternatives to the species concept for virus taxonomy. Intervirology. 1985;24:94–98. doi: 10.1159/000149624. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Milne RG. Species concept should not be universally applied to virus taxonomy—but what to do instead? Intervirology. 1988;29:254–259. doi: 10.1159/000150053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Mishler BD, Donoghue MJ. Species concepts: a case for pluralism. Syst Zool. 1982;31:491–503. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Murant AF. Taxonomy and nomenclature of viruses. Microbiol Sci. 1985;2:218–220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Rowe T. Definition and diagnosis in the phylogenetic system. Syst Zool. 1987;36:208–211. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Sattler R. Bio-philosophy. Analytic and holistic perspectives. Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo: Springer; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Shukla DD, Gough KH, Ward CW. Coat protein of potyviruses. 3. Comparison of amino acid sequences of the coat proteins of four Australian strains of sugarcane mosaic virus. Arch Virol. 1987;96:59–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Shukla DD, Inglis AS, McKern NM, Gough KH. Coat protein of potyviruses. 2. Amino acid sequence of the coat protein of potato virus Y. Virology. 1986;152:118–125. doi: 10.1016/0042-6822(86)90377-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Shukla DD, Ward CW. Amino acid sequence homology of coat proteins as a basis for identification and classification of the potyvirus group. J Gen Virol. 1988;69:2703–2710. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Simpson GG. Principles of animal taxonomy. New York: Columbia; 1961. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Sneath PHA, Sokal RR. Numerical taxonomy. The principles and practice of numerical classification. San Francisco: Freeman; 1973. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Sokal RR. The species problem reconsidered. Syst Zool. 1974;22:360–374. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Van Regenmortel . Serology and immunochemistry of plant viruses. New York: Academic Press; 1982. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Van Regenmortel MHV, Fraenkel-Conrat H. The plant viruses, vol 2: the rod-shaped plant viruses. New York: Plenum Press; 1986. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Van Valen L. Ecological species, multispecies, and oaks. Taxon. 1976;25:233–239. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Van Vloten-Doting L, Francki RIB, Fulton RW, Kaper JM, Lane LC. Tricornaviridae—a proposed family of plant viruses with tripartite, single-stranded RNA genomes. Intervirology. 1981;15:198–203. doi: 10.1159/000149232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Wiley EO. The evolutionary species concept reconsidered. Syst Zool. 1978;27:17–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Wiley EO. Is the evolutionary species fiction? A consideration of classes, individuals and historical entities. Syst Zool. 1980;29:76–80. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Wittgenstein L. Philosophical investigations. New York: Macmillan; 1953. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Archives of Virology are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES