Taking our lumps.

In his review on Darwin's effect on Hooker's theories on lumping or splitting species (“Lumpers and splitters: Darwin, Hooker, and the search for order,” 11 December 2009, p. [1496][1]), J. Endersby appears to be a lumper himself. He fails to distinguish between the goals of taxonomy and population biology. The former seeks to recognize the results of evolutionary history based on constantly distributed characters, each of which is an hypothesis in its own right ([ 1 ][2]). The latter seeks to study species-in-the-making, necessarily focusing instead on traits variable within species. These distinct areas of science have been confounded since the neo-Darwinians of the 1940s ([ 2 ][3]). This confusion has resulted in a proliferation of species concepts, each tied to this or that favored process of speciation. Most of this conceptual controversy disappears when species are seen as statements of evolutionary history and restricted to the (hypothesized) instances of completed speciation. The fundamentals of such a historical species concept have their roots in the 17th-century writings of John Ray and are restated in the modern Phylogenetic Species Concept ([ 3 ][4], [ 4 ][5]). Every collected specimen, newly sampled population, or discovered character is an opportunity to critically test the evidential basis of our theories of species. This is a desirable source of controversy that will exist as long as species are scientific hypotheses and we continue to test them. The goal of taxonomists is not to arrive at an objective definition of species uniformly agreed upon by all, but rather to make species descriptions predictive hypotheses about the distributions of characters such that each is rigorously testable. Species descriptions are thus rejected or modified, like any other scientific theory, to fit available evidence, which is precisely why they are not “merely descriptive.” 1. [↵][6] 1. N. I. Platnick , Syst. Zool. 28, 537 (1979). [OpenUrl][7][Abstract/FREE Full Text][8] 2. [↵][9] 1. Q. Wheeler , Ed., The New Taxonomy (Syst. Assoc. Spec. Publ. 76, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2008). 3. [↵][10] 1. J. Ray , Historia Plantarum (Maria Clark, London, 1686). 4. [↵][11] 1. Q. Wheeler, 2. R. Meier , Eds., Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate (Columbia Univ. Press, New York, 2000). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1165915 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DSyst.%2BZool.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.2307%252Fsysbio%252F28.4.537%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Njoic3lzYmlvIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjI4LzQvNTM3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjI6Ii9zY2kvMzI3LzU5NjYvNjQzLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ== [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [11]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4 in text"