Journals / Turkish Journal of Zoology / 1999 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: supp3

The use of coefficient of difference (CD) in systematic zoology and the subspecies concept

Sistematik zoolojide farklılık katsayısı (CD) kullanımı ve alttür kavramı

Pages
769–773
Publication Date
2022-11-04
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It is questionable that the subspecies concept is operational for the Phylogenetic Species Concept.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The use of the Coefficient of Difference (CD), which was first suggested some 50 years ago, as a measure of difference of a single character between two populations is not recommended today on grounds of statisticial weakness, its inability to evaluate more than one character simultaneously, and the often discordant variation of the characters studied.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It is useful to utilize the statistically proven t-test or analysis of variance in cases when a few characters are studied, while multivariate distance measures such as Euclidian distance or discriminant function analysis will help determine differences between groups and taxon boundaries when many characters are studied.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is questionable that the subspecies concept is operational for the Phylogenetic Species Concept.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The use of the Coefficient of Difference (CD), which was first suggested some 50 years ago, as a measure of difference of a single character between two populations is not recommended today on grounds of statisticial weakness, its inability to evaluate more than one character simultaneously, and the often discordant variation of the characters studied. It is useful to utilize the statistically proven t-test or analysis of variance in cases when a few characters are studied, while multivariate distance measures such as Euclidian distance or discriminant function analysis will help determine differences between groups and taxon boundaries when many characters are studied. According to the latest version of the Biological Species Concept, subspecies are defined on the basis of geographical distribution, concordant characters, and unique diagnosable properties. However, there is no objective criteria that defines the boundaries of the subspecies category. It is questionable that the subspecies concept is operational for the Phylogenetic Species Concept.

Özet

Elli yıl kadar önce önerilen ve bir karakter açısından iki populasyon arasındaki farkın bir ölçüsü olan Farklılık Katsayısı'nın (CD) kullanımı, bu katsayının istatistiksel zayıflıkları, aynı anda birden fazla karakteri değerlendirmemesi ve çalışılan karakterlerin genellikle birbiriyle uyum içinde varyasyon göstermemeleri nedenleriyle günümüzde artık önerilmemektedir. Az sayıda karakter sözkonusu olduğu durumlarda, istatistiksel açıdan denenmiş t-testi veya varyans analizine başvurulması, çok sayıda karakter sözkonusu ise Euclid mesafesi gibi çok-değişkenli mesafe ölçüleri ya da ayrışım fonskiyonu analizi yoluyla gruplar arası farklılıkların ve takson sınırlarının belirlenmesi yararlı olacaktır. Biyolojik Tür Kavramı'nın son yorumuna göre alttür, coğrafi yayılış, uyumlu karakterler ve kendine özgü diyagnostik özellikler esaslarına göre tanımlanmaktadır. Ancak alttür kategorisinin sınırlarını belirleyen objektif bir ölçüt yoktur. Filogenetik Tür Kavramı'nda ise çalışılabilir bir alttür kavramının yeri olduğu tartışmalıdır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BİLGİN, C. C. (2022). The use of coefficient of difference (CD) in systematic zoology and the subspecies concept. Turkish Journal of Zoology, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: supp3, 769–773. https://ajindex.com/articles/616756

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. Mayr, E. (1969)
  2. Principles of Systematic Zoology, McGraw Hill,New York. 2.Mayr, E. & P.D. Ashlock (1991) Principles of Systematic Zoology,2nd edition, McGraw Hill, New York.3.Mayr, E. (1943)
  3. In J.A. Oliver, Status of Uta ornata lateralis, Copeia,p.102, 1943. 4.Fisher, R.A. (1939) The comparison of samples with possiblyunequal variances. Annals of Eugenics 9: 174-180,1939. 5.Sokal, R.R. & Rohlf, J. (1973) Introduction to Biostatistics,Freeman, San Fransisco.6.Abbott, L.A., Bisby, F.A. & Rogers, D.A. (1985)
  4. Taxonomic Analysisin Biology, Columbia U. Press, New York. 6.Abbott, L.A., Bisby, F.A. & Rogers, D.A. (1985)
  5. Taxonomic Analysisin Biology, Columbia U. Press, New York. 7.Sneath, P.H.A. & Sokal, R.R. (1973) Numerical Taxonomy,Freeman, San Fransisco. 8.Wiley, E.O. (1981) Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice ofPhylogenetic Systematics, Wiley, New York. 9.Mayr, E. (1963)
  6. Animal Species and Evolution, Harvard U. Press,Cambridge. 10. Avise, J.C. & Ball, R.M. (1990) Principles of genealogicalconcordance in species concepts and biological taxonomy. OxfordSurveys in Evolutionary Biology, 7:45-67, 1990. 11. O’Brien, S.J. & Mayr, E (1991) Bureaucratic mischief - Recognizingendangered species and subspecies. Science, 251 (4998): 1187-1188, 1991. 12. Cracraft, J (1983) Specires concepts and speciation analysis.Current Ornithology 1:159-187. 13. McKitrick, M.C. & Zink, R.M. (1988) Species concepts inornithology. Condor, 90: 131-140, 1998. 14. Zink, R.M. (1996) Species concepts, speciation, and sexualselection. J. of Avian Biology, 27: 1-6, 1996. 15. Mayr, E. (1993) Fifty years of research on species and speciation.Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 48: 131-140, 1993. 16. Hillis, D.M. & Moritz, C. (eds) (1990) Molecular Systematics,Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass. 17. Avise, J.C. (1994)
  7. Molecular Markers, Natural History andEvolution. Chapman & Hall, London. 18. Helbig, A.J., Seibold, I., Martens, J. & Wink, M. (1995) Geneticdifferentiation and phylogenic relationships of Bonelli’s WarblerPhylloscopus bonelliand Green Warbler P. nitidus. J. Avian Biology26: 139-153, 1995. 19. Seibold, I., Helbig, A.J. & Wink, M. (1993) Molecular systematicsof falcons (Family Falconidae). Naturwiss. 80:87-92, 1993