Molecular Markers and Taxonomic Explosion in Herpetology: More or Less Robust Taxonomy? True and False Advantages of DNA Markers

Abstract

Despite the increasing deficit of taxonomic expertise, the number of newly described species since the early 2010s has grown exponentially. This growth is related to the increased use of DNA markers in taxonomic descriptions. However, routine use of DNA markers in taxonomy did not bring practical taxonomy closer to the theory. Species are unique lineages with irreversible evolutionary pathways, and only the presence of distinct populations within the same geographic range, or at least the presence of narrow hybrid zones between the parapatric ranges is a conclusive evidence of evolutionary irreversibility. In the case of allopatric populations, only very high genetic distances, suggesting several tens of millions of years of independent evolution, can be used for validation of species status. This problem cannot be solved by the broader introduction of genomic phylogenies, which also fail to provide robust criteria for evolutionary irreversibility. We can hardly suppose that robust validation of species status is applicable to all or most of hundreds of thousands of animal species, including 20,000 amphibians and reptiles. Instead, practical taxonomy should concentrate on describing recognizable species, maintaining a trade-off between sufficiently detailed descriptions of world biodiversity and the applicability of these descriptions for practical use and metaanalyses, not pretending that formally described species reflect real lineages with independent and irreversible evolutionary pathways. Simultaneously, the non-critical elevation of the taxonomic status of individual geographic populations, contrary to the declared purpose of better-focusing conservation efforts, often has the opposite effect, leaving many formally described taxa outside the conservation umbrella.