A Reappraisal of Tylenchina (Nemata) 1

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of 1987 A Reappraisal of Tylenchina (Nemata) 1. For a New Approach to the Taxonomy of Tylenchina Michel Luc Muséun1 national d'Histoire naturelle Armand R. Maggenti University of California - Davis Renaud Fortuner California Department of Food and Agriculture Dewey J. Raski University of California - Davis Etienne Geraert Instituut voor Dierkunde Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs Part of the Parasitology Commons Luc, Michel; Maggenti, Armand R.; Fortuner, Renaud; Raski, Dewey J.; and Geraert, Etienne, "A Reappraisal of Tylenchina (Nemata) 1. For a New Approach to the Taxonomy of Tylenchina" (1987). Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology. 109. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs/109 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Parasitology, Harold W. Manter Laboratory of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Tribune A REAPPRAISAL OF "IYL,ENCHINA (NEMATA) 1. FOR A NEW APPROACH TO THE TAXONOMY OF TYLENCHINA Michel LUC",Armand R. MAGGENTI**, Renaud FORTUNER***, Dewey J. RASKI** and Etienne GERAERT**** * Muséun1 national d'Histoire naturelle, Laboratoire des Vers, 61, rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris; ** Division of Nematology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA; *** California Department of Food and Agriculture, Analysis and Identification (Nematology), 1220 N. Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, USA, and **** Rijksuniversiteit Gent, Instituut voor Dierkunde, Ledeganckstraat 35, 9000 Gent, Belgium. Duringthe last three decades plant-parasitic Multiplication of genera also occurs in taxa nematodes have received increasing attention. This was containingnumerous species and where groups of due mainly to the discovery during the years between species can be defined, often using only one character 1943-1953 of the first efficient nematicides, DD, EDE and notof primary importance.Three examples maybe and DBCP. This discovery gave a strong impetus to cited ;in thegenus Hoplolaimus, some species may have established nematology laboratories and led tothe six nuclei (instead of the normal number of three) in the establishment of laboratories in previously " virgin ", or glandular part of the esophagus. Al1 other characters are nearly so, territoLes. As a result, there was an increase identical inthe two groups ofspecies, taking into in the numberof nematologists and taxonomicactivity. account specific variation. Nevertheless, the genus Bai- This is particularly truein those areas new to rolaimus hasbeen proposed for species having six nematology, because thesoi1 fauna is virtually unknown esophageal nuclei, Hoplolaimus being restricted to those and taxonomy is one of the few activities fitting with species having only three esophageal nuclei. Another limited material means, that too often is the situation of example in the genusHoplolaimus pertains to H. califor- young laboratories. nicus, in which the two enlarged phasmids are both As a proof of this impetusto taxonomy, we may refer posterior to thevulva instead of being situated with one to Figure 1 where the proposals for new generic taxa anterior to the vulva and the otherposterior; here too a of Tylenchina are summed up from 1913 to 1983. One new genus, Hoplolaimoides, has been proposed, based may see that theslope of the curve changesabruptly, in on this unique character for a single species. In thevery the years 1953-1957. homogeneous genus Radopholus, in two species out of Some of the recently proposed taxa we may cal1 about 30 the males are described as having a terminal " valid " taxa because theyrepresent well individualized instead of a subterminal bursa as is common to al1 the forms, notat al1 fittinginto heretofore described other species. This character alone has been used to corresponding taxa.At theopposite end of the propose the genus Neoradopholus to contain these two spectrum, too many taxa,mainly genera, have been species. proposed as new when anothersolution could have been These actions may stem from a preconceived idea to enlarge the definition of a preexisting corresponding about the optimal size of a genus. Some taxonomists taxon. In some cases one reads statements suchas : " the believe that a genus with more than 50 or 60 species genus C is proposed as new because it is intermediate becomes unmanageable and must be Split. We assume between genera Aand B "; in such cases the first action to the contrary that the number of species in a given . should have beento examine the possibility of fitting the genus may vary from one toany number. We agree that species of genera A and B together with the species of in large genera specific identification is difficult; how- genus C, in a single genus or, at least to enlarge the ever to facilitate the identification it is often possible definition of either genus A or B to include the species to define within the genus, << groups B having no taxo- of c. nomic value and no nomenclatural status, as did for * Nenzatologist of ORSTOM. *** Associate in Division of Nentatology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA. Revue Nématol. 10 (2) :127-134 (1987) 127 M. Luc, A. R. Maggenti, R. Fortuner, D. J. Raski & E. Geraert example Geraert (1965) for Purutylenchus or Mulvey (1972) for Heterodera. Excessive splitting of genera results in the accommo- 2 oc dation in one genus of only those species very close to each other; this leads to a oligomorphic D genera (we will define and discuss this concept below). Then,after division of a genus intoseveral genera, the original genus is often raised to the rankof subfamily to reestablish the relationships between these new genera. In turn subfamilies are raised to family rank, families to superfamily 15C rank, etc. This affects even suborders and orders as four new suborders (Sphaerulariina, Hexatylina, Myenchina, Criconematina) recently have been proposed within the orderTylenchida [Heteroderina (= Heteroderata) Skarbilovich, 1959 apparently has never been accepted by other taxonomists] and the suborder Aphelenchina has been raised to the rank of order, Aphelenchida. 1 oc We cal1 this phenomenon “ taxonomic inflation ” as taxa are devaluated at each step. As a consequence of this inflation the numberof suprageneric taxa becomes excessive in proportion to the number of genera. For example, in theclassification of Tylenchida proposed by Fotedar and Handoo(1978), 158 genera in the suborder Tylenchina are distributed into9 superfamilies, 32 families and 55 subfamilies; this represents ratios of 50 17.6 generaper superfamily, 4.9 per family,2.9 per subfamily. theIn most recent comprehensive classification (Siddiqi, 1986), the Tylenchida encompass 25 five suborders, eleven superfadies, 29families, 64 subfamilies (of which 24 are monogeneric) and 200 nominal genera. It is difficult to believe,when we compareNemata to other phyla, that the tylenchids igr?~ 1;) 2; 2;) 34 3; 4; 4; 54 5; 64 6; 7; 7Q 8; contain such a diversity of structures and forms thatso many generic and suprageneric taxa are needed to Fig. 1. Cumulative annual number of genera described in accomodate them. Tylenchids are very much alike in Tylenchina from 1913 to 1983. their anatomy. Maggenti(1981) rejectedthis inflationary approach, based principally onminute morphologic differences, andaccepted only seven families within biology and failure to apply principles of evolution Tylenchida based on their morphology and biology. accounts for the inflation of the suprageneric taxa and An undesirable consequence of this situation is that is most apparent at the generic level where genera are the definition of the suprageneric taxadiffers according proposed for thesake of identification and nothingelse. to each taxonomist. It is evident that the concept, and Forone hundred years after the publication of the content, of the family Tylenchidaeare very different Darwin’s “ Origin ” only one school of classification was for Fotedar andHandoo (1978) and for Maggenti(1981) recognizable, and seemingly the school had not well or Siddiqi (1986). It isnow impossible to cite a thought outmethodology (Mayr, 1981). The underlying suprageneric taxon, and insome cases a genus, without theme of classifications proposed during this periodwas adding “ sensu X ” or “ following Z ”. to base classification on phylogeny and thereby reflect degree of relationship. Inthe 1950’s and ~O’S, Therefore, thepresent status of the taxonomyof taxonomistsbegan to scrutinize andquestion the tylenchids is unstable and if new taxa continue to be seeming arbitrariness and lack of methodology of the proposed atthe rate that has prevailed for the last so-called Darwin system. As a result, two new schools 20 years,then the situation canonly become worse in the of taxonomy emerged. Numerical phenetics fmt articu- future. lated by Sokal and Sneath (1963) and cladistics, whose We believe that this presentunsatisfactory status has conceptual spokesmanwas Hennig (1950). Mayr (1981), resulted from the almost total lack of interest for the during this same period, brought a more explicit ar- evolutionary approach that seeks relationships on the ticulation

Load more