This article was downloaded by:[Louisiana State University Libraries] On: 4 July 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 794443203] Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Systematic Biology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713658732 Delimiting Species without Monophyletic Gene Trees L. Lacey Knowles a; Bryan C. Carstens a a Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Museum of Zoology, 1109 Geddes Avenue, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

First Published on: 01 December 2007 To cite this Article: Knowles, L. Lacey and Carstens, Bryan C. (2007) 'Delimiting Species without Monophyletic Gene Trees', Systematic Biology, 56:6, 887 — 895 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/10635150701701091 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10635150701701091

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: [Louisiana State University Libraries] At: 18:14 4 July 2008 O:10.1080/10635150701701091 DOI: online 1076-836X / print 1063-5157 ISSN: Copyright Biol. Syst. Blkihn 2005). (Balakrishan, boundaries species other purported of ques- accuracy raising from the about 2004b), tions Marshall, delimited and (Sites species data are of sources with criteria incongruent exclusivity 2005). from Nielsen, often Turelli, and identified and Matz species 2004; Hudson Indeed, Ciero, 2002; and Moritz Coyne, 2003; and Nei, Hudson and (Takahata data 1985; use genetic the to applied about thresholds concerns (dis- of significant theory raises below) genetic cussed population How- well-established 2004). ever, (Janzen, taxonomy and traditional description of endeavor species time-intensive the to biodiversity— opposed of as assessments rapid provide dis- that species covery for DNA barcoding) DNA of (i.e., approaches variation sequence screening exemplified high-throughput as of the delimitation, use by species the in propelled has markers application genetic of ease al., Such (Mayr, 1963). et compatibility reproductive Herbert assessing unfeasi- of sometimes 1995; tasks (and ble) Shaw, difficult the to and contrast in Baum 2003), (e.g., species definitions ex- unambiguous of Such provide 2004a). may Marshall, criteria as and clusivity Sites such in exclusivity, reviewed genetic tering; clus- of genetic of degree level or monophyly reciprocal some complete on based may boundaries be species species. about delimit conclusions to example, used For is threshold genetic some where eetesaeotnue oifrseisboundaries, species infer to used often are trees Gene 66:8–9,2007 56(6):887–895,
c eprldnmco ieg pitn ngntcdt.[olsec;gnaoia icr;gnaoia pce concept; species the genealogical of discord; effects genealogical the of opposed [Coalescence; consideration as data. explicit species, sorting.] genetic an diagnosing lineage require for on incomplete will data splitting trees; which of gene lineage delimitation, sources species of other for to dynamic evidence sizes complementation species temporal other population of separate of source effective exclusion with a realistic the as consistent of to effectively not) range used a are be might (i.e., (or the data parameterization are Both model processes. lineages accurate genetic gene require r of sorted inferences variance incompletely such approach stochastic model-based and whether a high notably, lineages, determining most the discussed; that for are account here delimitation essential into outlined species approach is take coalescent-based with the to of problems failure sensitivities and primary and utility occurred, two speciation avoids how also species and approach inferring at model-based affects (aimed explicit species studies r of an recent size Using other population extracted. effective with be the consistent to nevertheless relative are divergence results r of the timing delimitation, the for species how time accurate namely requisite effective, the be before will long approach identified accurately be can r species derived preliminary reciprocal a recently of from results probability very r The the sorting. that calculate lineage suggest to incomplete widespread used study despite is species simulation that delimit study theory to used same This be the also differentiation. that can monophyly show genetic we of Here probabilistically. patterns modeled is influences history speciation thresholds genetic of because timing results a the status how species in account bias the into species, inevitable r between take derived an recently incongruence that explicitly with shows of not morphology—especially clearly examples do like also sources empirical theory other numerous genetic to population there compared but are data such only from Not inferred monophyly. boundaries reciprocal as such criterium, Abstract.— oit fSseai Biologists Systematic of Society ltv optniltmso iegnefrteprotdseis.I stega admtvto fti td)ta genetic that study) this of motivation (and goal the is It species). purported the for divergence of times potential to elative when from arising detection species can in and biases persists inherent divergence data—the species genetic with of applied signal are a thresholds trees, genetic gene when monophyletic esult of lack the despite that showing elationships), with coalescent-based both the which sampling, under of conditions importance the into the investigation indicates thorough also a Withstanding study individuals. The and loci speciation. to following egards achieved be to monophyly eciprocal with trees gene equating than Rather species. delimit to used be might data genetic how in shift fundamental a epresents pce reo aigseissau nsm eei hehl,terltosi ewe h eetesadtespecies the and trees gene the between relationship the threshold, genetic some on status species basing or tree species eateto clg n vltoayBooy uemo olg,10 edsAeu,Uiest fMichigan, of University Avenue, Geddes 1109 Zoology, of Museum Biology, Evolutionary and Ecology of Department eei aaaefeunl sdt eii pce,weeseissau sdtrie ntebsso nexclusivity an of basis the on determined is status species where species, delimit to used frequently are data Genetic eiiigSeiswtotMnpyei eeTrees Gene Monophyletic without Species Delimiting n ro,M 80-09 S;Emi:[email protected] (L.L.K.) [email protected] E-mail: USA; 48109-1079, MI Arbor, Ann .L L. ACEY K OLSAND NOWLES 887 pcainbfr pce ol edlmtdi 5loci 15 size ( population if effective an after delimited with species years be in sampled million were would 1 species than before more speciation take would monophyly it reciprocal strict Turelli,criterion, a and under Hudson example, 2002; For Coyne, 2003). and probability multi- (Hudson of high loci sample a ple a at be monophyly will reciprocal observing there of before diver- species initial the of after gence required is time of amount stantial sub- a that (Hudson, indicate Wakeley, 2006) theory 2002; Rosenberg, genetic 1992; expecta- population Analytical speci- from problems. derived of of tions process variety actual a the creates and ation species delimit Yet, to such flow. criterion used exclusivity criteria gene the between a disconnect no inherent with the assuming delimited monophyly, be reciprocal might as taxa all even- time so tually 1990), the Ball, and as (Avise polyphyly increases monophyly of speciation since towards state loci splitting initial all lineage an upon example, from transition For a taxa. undergo disparate ap- across broad most of plicability approach Perhaps utilitarian reasons. a of provide they variety notably, a for appealing itively eie pce iltn og nicvrdudra under undiscovered go to tend will recently Consequently, species 2002). derived proportion- Coyne, increases and recognized (Hudson before ally be pass would must species that years the of number the populations, B N xlsvt rtrafrseisdlmtto r intu- are delimitation species for criteria Exclusivity R e )o YAN f 0,0,asmn n eeainaya.I larger In year. a generation one assuming 100,000, .C C. ARSTENS Downloaded By: [Louisiana State University Libraries] At: 18:14 4 July 2008 fgntcdvrec OradOr 96 usnand Hudson 1996; Orr, patterns and on (Orr significant divergence isolation genetic biologically reproductive of of in impact un- involved the process events account the into to tak- thereby ing reference differentiation, genetic explicit of patterns on genetic derlying based the of is interpretation data framework, this In Marshall, 2004a). and Sites in (reviewed boundaries to species data which infer genetic probabilistically, use that approaches modeled previous from is differs history species species the to approach coalescent-based simula- a preliminary delimitation. of a explore study We with tion lineages; 2005b). possibility 2005a, are intriguing con- Queiroz, this species species de that 1997; (most Mayden, fundamentally reached recipro- agree been before that cepts has long suggests delimited monophyly finding be cal This can 2006). lineages Carstens, Pearl, species and and Knowles Liu 2007a; 2007; Knowles, tree and 2006; gene Knowles, Carstens a and despite Maddison tree), in 2005; Salter, and species sorting (Degnan the lineage his- (i.e., incomplete the splitting widespread about species of information the tory provide that demonstrates genealogies clearly bound- work species gene recent a about fact, information also In 1)—clearly provide aries. is not genealo- it (Fig. gene do However, discordant tree gies topology. that believe in species to differ a misconception may should with two tree equated the gene A be 1997). not discor- speciation (Maddison, gene-tree the species-tree problem the below dance as (i.e., known be- also divergence coalesce event), species species a dis- the within by that low lineages misled is gene be reason if principles) necessarily cordance a over- exclusivity will be perhaps delimitation on can species (and overreliance trees the notion gene for caused pervading monophyletic difficulties One of come. the lack how the species to by illustrate polymorphism to ancestral of delimitation retention the by discor- to also potential is boundaries processes considered. species the and trees genetic (ii) gene between and random dance account, di- of species into contribution of taken process is the vergence (i) that species requires for data delimitation genetic of use and Effective Panchal 2007). 2003; Beaumont, Turelli, and Hudson 2001; and Maddison, Knowles (e.g., inference utility historical for the rules general limits of gene processes large genetic the to of polymorphism), variance due ancestral stochastic boundaries of retention species be- or and concordance flow species trees complete of gene of process tween lack the the of (e.g., aspects divergence in- accommodate the Despite to problematic. tent be may (Wiens 2002), property Penkrot, categorical dichotomous and absolute a an or than 2003) rather ba- al., key the 10 et the as (Herbert as barcoding rules such DNA general delimitation, of species ances- et of use until Hickerson sis the (e.g., tree Similarly, sorted 2006). gene fully al., a has in polymorphism reflected tral faithfully not are r 888 cpoa oohl rtro ic pce boundaries species since criterion monophyly eciprocal h e etr fteapoc rsne eei that is here presented approach the of feature key The posed challenge the on specifically focus we Here × r l sdin used ule SYSTEMATIC BI ttsi igoe rmgntcdt sn exclusivity species using when data possible genetic criteria. from not diagnosed is is endeavor status an Such Maddison, 2002). and Masta (e.g., interpreted independent be might among sets data boundaries (of species congruence of 1992), thereof) (Hudson, stochastic- lack processes inherent genetic the of account ity into taking Queiroz, and de 2005b) apparent; become differen- to for species required between time tiation of amount di- the species of (e.g., dynamic vergence the how reflect data considering genetic coalescent-based perspective By of patterns a delimitation. this species of is for investigation it approach the and motivates 2007), that (e.g., Sorenson, species and diagnosing of for Payne lines important independent very via is evidence ev- boundaries corrob- other species contrary, of of the exclusion To oration the delimitation. to species data advocat- for genetic not idence of are use we However, the accurate. ing be to likely inferences are such whether evaluate can data researchers indi- genetic the how vidual and how species of delimit show to effectively to One used is be coalescence). might paper this lineage of of goals process primary a dy- to speciation/extinction a namic from transition the on boundaries based species infer to species within trees sorted gene fully are when application al., coalescent-based et a Pons for also 2006, (see delimitation coalescent-based species chal- effect for with the approaches developments the of future and some and flow discuss lenges We gene processes). incor- (e.g., mutational be model of principle the genetic in into by could porated lineages processes gene additional of loss drift, stochastic delimita- the on exclu- species focuses sively study of this Although accuracy evaluated. (see be can the splitting tion lineage 2004), of Knowles, context also historical specific a un- data der such observing inter- of likelihood is the thereof) on based lack preted (or (ii) differentiation and genetic criterion), contrast because reciprocal-monophyly (in a splitting on bio- relying lineage the to captures of it event approach relevant the logically with delimited species be originated recently can very because (i) regards: two history species the 1997). with (Maddison, trees lineages gene species equating of than divergence be- rather the relationship and the trees on gene tween attention focuses approach 2007), al., this et Edwards 2007a; Knowles, Pearl, and and Carstens Liu 2006; 2002; mod- Rosenberg, (e.g., an- 2002; with Yang, and probabilistically of Rannala As sorting relationships drift. full evolutionary genetic the eling by for time polymorphism sufficient there cestral which been for species not to has applied be can Coyne, approach here the proposed and However, 2003). Turelli, Hudson and Hudson 2003; 2002; Rosenberg, 1992; trees gene estimat- (Hudson, of for monophyly reciprocal occurred). basis of probability the has the forms ing speciation theory coalescent that same (i.e., The splitting likelihood lineage the evaluate of to 2005) Salter, issue). and (Degnan his- tory this particular a framework under Queiroz probabilities coalescent gene-tree estimate a to de uses approach 2003; the Specifically, Gavrilets 2002; Coyne, h eut fti rlmnr td r rmsn in promising are study preliminary this of results The LG VOL. OLOGY 56 Downloaded By: [Louisiana State University Libraries] At: 18:14 4 July 2008 ftesuyi nwehr()tehsoyo pce iegneo h n pce iegscnb itnuse rm()telc fdivergence of lack the (b) from distinguished be can lineages species B and A the of divergence species lineage. of AB history the the (a) of whether on is study the of 2007 olsec ihnteseiste soni e)wt oa redphfo ott i fI o h et n N(ntergt,weeN where right), the (on 4N and left) the (on IN neutral of by tip species to per root individuals) from (i.e., depth copies tree gene total five a with with simulated red) were in trees (shown Gene tree 100,000. loci. species sampled the among within discord coalescence of degree the and locus F F IGUR IGUR E E .Mdl ftehsoisue ntesmltost vlaetecaecn-ae praht pce eiiain hr h focus the where delimitation, species to approach coalescent-based the evaluate to simulations the in used histories the of Models 2. .Eape fgn re o eetydvre pce hwn h ee ficmlt ieg otn xetdfraysingle any for expected sorting lineage incomplete of level the showing species diverged recently for trees gene of Examples 1. KN O LSADCRTN—SN EEI AAFRSEISDELIMITATION SPECIES FOR DATA GENETIC CARSTENS—USING AND WLES 889 = Downloaded By: [Louisiana State University Libraries] At: 18:14 4 July 2008 sn ieiodrtots et wt ereo free- of degree (3) 1 and (with tree); tests species test trees the likelihood-ratio gene a (i.e., the using history of species probabilities the splitting the given lineage of products of the likelihood separate from the not] Salter, calculating [are and (2) are (Degnan 2005); COAL B program and the A using where lineages) model species a specified each (i.e., for tree tree gene the of computing probability the (1) involves lineages. approach species coalescent-based separate are This B and A species whether of under locus each of of product trees a The gene the tree. from gene probabilities modeled of the is set 2) a (Fig. from lineage probabilistically species single lin- a species versus separate in of eages history tree a gene is, history—that a species of topology the Takahata, r consider 1988; Nei, we and Here Pamilo 1989). of species; popula- the number effective of the the size tion given and (i.e., divergence since history gene generations specific particular a a yield under to tree coalesce would lineages gene 2006). Knowles, and Maddison also (see trees gene simu- the lated in sorting and lineage incomplete loci of among levels differing discordance topological of amounts ing constant. remained lengths V branch species-tree total relative of the range depths, a across simulated gene were the trees Although 1990). Hudson, gene 1982; without (Kingman, process flow neutral-coalescent a the under of ulated performance sim- Yule were trees the Gene 2a). a evaluating (Fig. approach chosen for coalescent-based were under taxa B target and simulated the A as lineages was species the simulation where model, the in used af- species per species. delimit sampled to ability loci the of fected how examine number to the varied also increasing was individual sam- loci each of in number pled the depths, time For different the the 1). of (Fig. sorting—i.e., each monophyletic reciprocally lineage not are incomplete trees by gene caused is considered delimitation here species with am- the associated because biguity examined, are generations) 6N than depths tree less the (i.e., histories species of former. shallow the relatively in because Only sorting lineage recent times incomplete of for divergence levels higher difficult deeper increasingly to data compared genetic on based delimitation species makes which differs, depths different sorting incomplete lineage of tree (i.e., level the different which depths in conditions These tree to correspond total times). of divergence range species simu- a were under genealogies gene lated of splitting, timing lineage of the the signal of recover accurately to effect ability the the on divergence examine species To loci). sampled monophyletic not recently at are which delimiting species (i.e., for species approach derived coalescent-based a of 890 lto oispoaiiyudrdfeetmdl fa of models different under probability its to elation rigtettlseiste et eutdi differ- in resulted depth species-tree total the arying pcfi itr ste sdt vlaetelikelihood the evaluate to used then is history specific olsetter a rvd h rbblt that probability the provide can theory Coalescent tree) species the (i.e., splitting lineage of history The A iuainsuywsue oeaut h accuracy the evaluate to used was study simulation T sso eaaeSeisLineages Species Separate of ests M ETHODS SYSTEMATIC BI seTbe1,wt h raett h es mutof amount least respectively. the 6N, and to 1N greatest at sorting the lineage incomplete with depths these 1), of any Table at locus (see given any monophyly for reciprocal expected of not is probability high A 100,000). size of population occurred effective have an would with population ago B generations and effective 186,000 A the between split than the greater (i.e., size times six is gence species between generations 100,000, A 31,000 of of size divergence population a effective and an with generations 100,000 species of for depth tree be total would a 1N where of of equivalent 6N, depth the a and generations; 4N, in 3N, expressed is 2N, time 1N, of times), depths divergence at different specifically (i.e., depths species-tree tal 2). (Fig. speciation versus splitting no lineage of models the among to distinguish ability reduced the indi- consequently, each and tree, of gene probabilities vidual lower the samples offset to additional have the Therefore, would through trees. gained dramatically gene information possible loci) the of to number opposed the (as increases individuals species of per number sampled the increasing Moreover, Tavar´ coancestry and 1995). the Donnely the 1990; of (Hudson, as because individuals decrease among increases will divergence individuals of more time of sampling through information the in gain potential Wakeley the tradeoff; 2006; this of consideration (Felsenstein reflects design sampling history chosen The species 2006). coalescence given allele a inde- of providing for process for the of critical realizations is pendent loci information, multiple additional of some sampling provide in- of might sampling Although dividuals 1989). Takahata, also Knowles, see and 2006; (Maddison in- sorting lineage with gene relationships complete population estimating for sampling design about recommendations the each in following sampled species were representing individuals Multiple split- 2a). replicate, lineage (Fig. of ting history each the under for loci, unlinked sampled simulated gene multiple were and species, trees each in sampled five representing individuals process, neutral-coalescent a by ulated had history species true the which in identified. been sets data propor- of the recording coalescent- tion by the evaluated of was approach Accuracy known based splitting. the lineage recovery of to ability history the on the process of differ- stochasticity coalescent inherent 50 the of of effects taking the thereby each account into details), for for below (i.e., see loci configurations; divergenceent sampled species of of number data time and each replicate for 100 es- simulated rate), were to error sets (i.e., false-negative delimited the effectively timate be could species rived of model of a model than the speciation. higher no of significantly likelihood is splitting the lineage whether assess to dom) n Fg ) hra tadpho N pce diver- species 6N, of depth a at whereas 2), (Fig. B and h eeteswr iuae cosarneo to- of range a across simulated were trees gene The sim- were species per copies gene five with trees Gene To LG VOL. OLOGY ubro niiul n oiUe nSimulations in Used Loci and Individuals of Number drs h usino hte h eetyde- recently the whether of question the address 56 e, Downloaded By: [Louisiana State University Libraries] At: 18:14 4 July 2008 pce,adete igelcso 0lc eesqecdi each in sequenced were loci 10 per or sampled locus were single individuals individual. a 10 either versus and 5 species, when depths tree species 2007 et ou 0lc ou 0loci 10 1.02 4.48 7.73 locus 1 0.252 0.184 0.123 loci 10 6N 7.11 5N 3.29 4N 9.81 3N locus 1 2N 1N Depth loMdio n nwe,2006). Knowles, and Maddison also (see lineages loci species across clear separate thereof) two lack constitutes not locus, (or necessarily one concordance is any of degree for trees—it the copies or gene gene of the clustering the of whether based inspection diagnosed be visual cannot on species 1), Turelli, (Fig. lin- incomplete sorting and of eage level Hudson this un- With 2002; 2002). highly Rosenberg, Coyne, 2003; therefore and is Concor- (Hudson incredibly loci 1). likely and (Table independent low, considered across very are is dance loci A locus multiple species single if any of small for monophyly B reciprocal and of probability the nwe,20,frdtiso o oueMESQUITE stochasticity). use mutational and to A coalescent how both on and model Maddison details to (see for study 2006, this in Knowles, included vari- not mutational was individuals; ance avoid of to modeling approximation explicit exponential fully an mod- uses Coalescence which ule, Neutral Mesquite’s using were trees generated Gene efforts. di- sampling of different time and each vergence for simulated were sets data replicate 100 g o tN ol orsodt Ndivergence 1N a locus). to nuclear a correspond for would mtDNA generations for 4N ago divergence a for results of time (e.g., the divergence decreasing by loci nuclear for gener- expectations to ate scaled be can (mtDNA) plotted DNA be- mitochondrial results differ for loci; might nuclear results versus the mitochondrial how tween consider to scalar used inheritance be an can Similarly, year. population per effective generation assuming ago, an one years 500,000 with diverged that species 500,000 of a size 1N to at results apply the would their example, in For results differ size. which the population species allows effective across apply N to by study this trees of species all scaling 2007b), Knowles, and Carstens 2005; Martin, and al., DeChaine et Won 2005; 2005; Edwards, or- and studies Jennings same 2000; empirical al., many the et (Milot in in on observed descendant) as is magnitude and value of der this ancestral Although (i.e., simulations. species all all for used ttelvlo pce iegneeaie here, examined divergence species of level the At sn EQIE(adsnadMdio,2004), Maddison, and (Maddison MESQUITE Using T osatefciepplto ie( size population effective constant ABLE pce eiiainwt rwtotMonophyly? without or with Delimitation Species .Poaiiyo eirclmnpyyars h different the across monophyly reciprocal of Probability 1. × × × ape e pce ape e species per sampled species per sampled 10 10 10 5 R − − − niiul 0Individuals 10 Individuals 2 3 3 SLSAND ESULTS KN 3.31 1.47 8.30 O × × × × × × LSADCRTN—SN EEI AAFRSEISDELIMITATION SPECIES FOR DATA GENETIC CARSTENS—USING AND WLES 10 10 10 10 10 10 − − − − − − 10 12 15 21 6 8 D ISCU 5.90 2.55 6.91 6.22 SSION .6 1.48 1.86 0.165 0.106 × × × × N 10 10 10 10 e )o − − − − 2 2 3 4 f 0,0 was 100,000 5.08 1.15 2.47 8.75 × × × × × × 10 10 10 10 10 10 − − − − − − 10 13 16 22 33 8 yrdcn h as-eaieerrrt ie,fiueto failure (i.e., rate error false-negative the reducing by here, presented as model, r probabilistic ex- a ap- relaxed Using coalescent-based proach. the the to with compared delimited splitting) criterion clusivity be lineage of could times time species 10 actual before than the more beyond take (i.e., would longer it words, other Coyne, In and 2002). (Hudson passed has generations 3.76N possibly high until be not a would monophyly, delimitation species reciprocal of probability showing zero proba- loci effectively 50% sampled the of criterion of is and exclusivity relaxed loci low, a with multiple Even very 1). (Table at is monophyly locus of mono- single bility reciprocal any of at recent probability such phyly With the 3). (Fig. events, species speciation per sets data loci the three of fact, just 90% In with almost species. in per delimited sampled were virtually loci species 10 in the with delimited sets were data gener- 100,000 the species of all 31,000 the size just species), population of the effective for lineages an B with and ago, di- ations A a the to corresponds of shallow which vergence 1N, very (e.g., the separate depths at tree the even species Interestingly, delimit 5). to (Fig. decrease failures species) divergence a (i.e., in all false-negatives resulted Across loci in 4). of sampling (Fig. increased ex- species loci times, of each number in and 3) amined (Fig. divergence tim- were species the of species both ing the on depending which differed in delimited sets correctly data pro- replicate the probability, of separate high portion a the with Although recovered different were examined. species the divergence all of across times approach coalescent-based the iegnetm,rnigfo oa pce redph(e i.2 of 2) Fig. (see specific depth a tree for 6N. species simulations to total of 1N set a a from represents increases ranging line sampled time, each divergence loci loci; of 10 number to the 1 false- from the as showing decreases efforts, rate sampling error different with negative B and A species ing peet infiatavnei pce delimitation species in advance significant a epresents h n iegswr ucsflydlmtdwith delimited successfully were lineages B and A The F IGUR E .Acrc ftecaecn-ae prahfrdelimit- for approach coalescent-based the of Accuracy 3. 891 Downloaded By: [Louisiana State University Libraries] At: 18:14 4 July 2008 h ifrn ie ersn ie ubro oisampled. loci of efforts; number sampling given all a for represent increases lines different divergence the species decreases rate since error time false-negative the the showing as B, and A species of tion fpoessta a eivle nlnaesplitting lineage in involved be may that diversity a processes course, of of is, of There retention polymorphism. the to ancestral due sorting incomplete widespread there when is delimitation genetic species of fo- of difficulty here the on stochasticity considered cused inherent models probabilistic the The as processes. well differen- as genetic consideration of explicit tiation, patterns an underlying on processes based the is of data genetic the interpretation of the keys): dichotomous and rules, general 10 monophyly, reciprocal (e.g., applying criteria with exclusivity problems primary the of some overcomes trees. gene estimated the with errors when are or variation there genetic insufficient ef- is there be when gene trees unresolved not of may because species data delimiting for genetic fective example, For on presented based data). delimitation results genetic species the to approach impact any (and also here could mu- the process of tation Stochasticity obvious. general be such not the when may delimitation boundaries on species for directly data genetic bears of utility question nonmonophyletic This pos- from trees. the delimitation gene exploring species in of interested sibility this were of we goal the rather not study; was This study. in extensive possible space be an not without parameter will This the delimited. to be may guide species which a provide 2006; not does al., ing, et 2006). Gompert al., et (e.g., Meier 2006; high al., et quite Hickerson be can suggest r 892 cgieseisbudre) hc miia studies empirical which boundaries), species ecognize h praht pce eiiainpeetdhere presented delimitation species to approach The promis- although study, simulation preliminary The F IGUR E rbblsi oesfrSeisDelimitation Species for Models Probabilistic .Efcso h iigo iegneo cuaedelimita- accurate on divergence of timing the of Effects 4. SYSTEMATIC BI × r ule, tn pce seas ose l,20) o example, For 2006). ( pop- size al., effective the ulation of et estimates as Pons such parameters also delim- critical for accurately (see model to species the critical in iting be used also parameters sorting the will lineage estimating sampling incomplete but extensive 5), of (Fig. face the has in only ited not individuals and a loci multiple of sampling on 2004). discussion Knowles, a see (for selection speciation model of process the of account nonetheless be r but only will separate, boundaries species a Inferred issue. is pro- important involved which be Deciding might flow). cesses gene of probabilistically with each modeled divergence 2006), be (e.g., al., principle) et (in Riesberg al., could 2006; which et al., Marshall et 2004; Omland Wiens, 2006; 2002; Penkrot, and (Wiens h ifrn pce iegnetmsaemre ihtedifferent the with marked are the bars. times to on shaded divergence (shown failures added species or are different false-negatives, loci ac- the of more in number as gains species) the incremental delimit are in There decrease species. (i.e., delimit curacy to ability the fects oe(rls)poal ihahsoyo pcainversus are speciation of trees history a with gene probable less) whether (or more determine will species between lal oteetn httemdlue sa accurate an is used model the that extent the to eliable infiatipc nwehrseiscnb delim- be can species whether on impact significant F W LG VOL. OLOGY IGUR t rbblsi oesfrseisdelimitation, species for models probabilistic ith E .Eaiaino o h diinlsmln flc af- loci of sampling additional the how of Examination 5. N e )r ltv otetmn fdvrec ( divergence of timing the to elative x ai) where -axis), T 56 ) Downloaded By: [Louisiana State University Libraries] At: 18:14 4 July 2008 xmnd o xml,rte hnrligo on es- carefully point on be relying of timates to than rather cal- needs example, to probabilities For used tree examined. model gene the the and culate histories species’ actual between mismatch the potential a to sensi- conclusions the the of of tivity empirical exploration an any approach, In this of 1997). application (Maddison, splitting lineage no 2007 odrslsaepsil ihamds ubro loci of number modest a 4). with (Fig. possible are that results suggest mito- good results on our only However, rely sequences. studies chondrial these if diverged that recently studies are of majority the for r possible be not bound- will species aries of assessment accurate an unfortunately a for replicates the of r 50% than less The in were delimited problem—species correctly 5). this overcome to (Fig. sufficient DNA ap- not efforts mitochondrial is the of barcoding size currently population DNA effective is smaller in and upon taken relied con- proach the is that typically locus—is noting single what performance—a worth poorest is the 2005; It with number Nielsen, dition 2006). and the Matz al., on also et see depends Hickerson 3; clearly (Fig. loci test sampled the of of data. power genetic any with The to species delimiting important at are aimed highlight endeavor that results considerations the general study, some preliminary this in sidered and coalescent the of stochasticity the mutation). gene the by is in caused noise lineages the trees species overcome to separate strong the sufficiently not additional of without signal (i.e., ap- the loci sampling, become of addition might the divergence with parent species of signature histor- models estimated the ical whether similar investigate trees to under evolution gene molecular simulated of with data two from nucleotide augmented trees from be gene might (e.g., collected loci) example, data For empirical explored. the be and similarly (Hudson 2002)—can data more Coyne, adding species by change the would conclusions—whether status Moreover, the 5). of Fig. robustness (e.g., the study preliminary illus- as our interest, by of trated species sufficient putative provide the will delimit to strategy power sampling a whether exam- ine to simulations use times), can divergence investigator individual to any of relative range sizes specific population (e.g., effective conditions historical par- a of 4)—the For set dependent. (Fig. ticular context is divergence species delimit species to of ability and context 3) (Fig. specific effort sepa- sampling the the the on detect depends to species) (failure rate rate error false-negative conclusions. the The of robustness the and species delimiting a 2007a). Knowles, and examined Carstens (see be can these parameters of population-genetic estimates critical surrounding intervals confidence the l ngntcdt o eiiigseiswe they when species delimiting for data genetic on ely that implies This 3). (Fig. 1N of divergence species ecent rmwr o xlrn ohtesaitclpwrfor power statistical the both exploring for framework vnwt h iie cp fprmtrsaecon- space parameter of scope limited the with Even provides approach proposed the that noteworthy is It h s fGntcDt o pce Delimitation Species for Data Genetic of Use The N e and T ,a KN ag fprmtrsaeta spans that space parameter of range O LSADCRTN—SN EEI AAFRSEISDELIMITATION SPECIES FOR DATA GENETIC CARSTENS—USING AND WLES ftegenome). the of be would r species the time, r enough are data discover Given genetic the to interpreted. how from failing arises (i.e., clearly species) error new false-negative al., gene This evolving et neutrally trees. of Zigler rely monophyly reciprocal that 2005; methods the under Shaw, on recognized be and not Mendelson would 2005), diver- 2003; via al., arising et Sorensen those 2000; Schluter, as 1999; Turner, (e.g., selection Carstens such gent 2006; 2007b), al., Knowles, et Meier are and (e.g., data species re- genetic example, evolved which For cently 2006). in al., et way Hickerson the (e.g., interpreted reflects data of type when delimitation a species in biases avoiding for portant im- especially are Star- analyses Comparative 2007). 2005; Sorenson, Shoemaker, Sites and 2003b; Ross r 2003a, 2004b; al., Marshall, et Wiens and Dettmann (e.g., 2002; signal Penkrot, historical for and context in a differences provides types identifying data multiple infer of sideration to used data of r limitations the inherent actual the and the highlights boundaries splitting between species lineage discord misled in of be result history to that potential large processes The rather by 2002). be in Coyne, might observed and period be (Hudson this not and will markers, a differentiation neutral in result where 2001) time al., lag et Turelli the di- 2003; in neutral (Gavrilets, Differences versus vergence selected originated. species) between recently recognize dynamics have to temporal fail taxa to will the tend (i.e., if will conservative divergence too DNA de- be neutral then on divergence, speci- based driven If cisions the selectively species. on involves among based divergence ation inferences neutral are of data process genetic on to based important tion is it status, r species about interpretations and Carstens 2006; species’ 2007a). the Knowles, Knowles, of and estimated representation reliable the (Maddison a whether histories not) tell is to (or is way tree no evolutionary is different there have histories, 2007). loci Degnan, the and because (Kubatko Moreover, divergence about of inferences history misleading the positively in species across result recent data can with nucleotide loci the expected of (as concatenation discordant divergence) are trees loci gene the of when that shown evolution- have will Studies of history. 2003) ary representations al., “better” et Rokas yield (e.g., necessarily data concatenated the of sis is It 2006; 2007). Pearl, al., et a and Edwards evo- 2007a; Liu Knowles, 2002; modeling and Carstens Rosenberg, on Rannala 2002; Yang, studies (e.g., and probabilistically recent relationships to lutionary concordant— similar completely is not are which trees even gene species, the delimiting though for information valuable vides clmnpyya aho h ape oi(n most (and loci sampled the of each at recip- monophyly of ocal criteria exclusivity genetic the using ecognized and Payne 2006; al., et Marshall 2006; Hedin, and ett Con- character. or 4) Fig. (e.g., locus single a on elying delimita- species about recommendations that ecognize imthbtenteseisbudr n specific a and boundary species the between mismatch itk otikta obnn h oifra analy- an for loci the combining that think to mistake eadeso hc prahi sdfrmaking for used is approach which of Regardless pro- loci independent in contained information The 893 Downloaded By: [Louisiana State University Libraries] At: 18:14 4 July 2008 s h eerhwsfne yaNtoa cec onaingrants Foundation LLK. Science to National DEB-07-15487) a and by (DEB-04-47224 funded inviting for was Wiens research John The thank and us. symposium opportu- the the in participate appreciate the to also nity calculating We spe- for monophyly. program a reciprocal his of and sharing probability for input, Hudson their Dick to for thanks reviewer cial anonymous an and Barraclough, 894 iaeydtrie hte pce onaiswl be correctly. will ul- inferred boundaries which species model, whether the determines parameterizing timately to critical be will successful because it here, to described rein- approach key the 2006), also of implementation is al., species design for et data Sampling single-locus Pons delimitation. using of 2005; danger Nielson, the forcing and (see individuals Matz and loci also to of regards importance with the both sampling, indicates study 2005a, the Queiroz, other However, (de account (and 2005b). into boundaries taken is species data) of the sources and data between genetic congruence of the degree the influencing di- temporal mension the when sources al., morphology) other (e.g., et information by of suggested Meier boundaries species corrobo- 2006; of important provide ration al., then can et data Genetic Hickerson 2006). (Hudson 2002; avoided Coyne, be and interpreted—can are data genetic how from species arising with conclusions associated delimitation—misleading problems common the that there- criteria fore, and, exclusivity rules), general on and rely thresholds genetic to as necessary (such not is it con- that findings firm These loci. among discordance and sorting lineage incomplete widespread despite possible, is probabilistic- tation delimi- the species accurate from that indicate results approach modeling Preliminary 2006). al., Pons 2006; et al., et Hickerson 2005; Nielson, and Coyne, Matz and 2002; processes (Hudson genetic boundaries of species variance inferring high when the for account to ure species of detection the r in data—biases genetic on delimitation based species Sites with problems primary 1992; ad- here two presented dresses al., al., approach The et 2006). Hickerson et al., 2005; et Meier al., Moritz 2006; pop- et (e.g., DeSalle in 1997; increase data Crandall, and the genetic with of concern ularity pressing species, delimit of to issue used an methods the fo- on have attention Conse- identification cused 2006). of species al., conservation in et Gompert discrepancies the quently, 2003; as al., et well (Hey de as diversity 2004; 2005b), al., et 2005a, Agapow 1992; Queiroz, al., et (Moritz involved speciation processes in delimitation. the of are study species such, the as to and, linked of biodiversity inextricably of issue unit basic the the are Species beyond extend (Sites ramifications that important species has delimit which 2004b), to Marshall, used and method the by influenced gpw .M,O .P iid-dod,K .Cadl,J L. J. Crandall, A. K. Bininda-Edmonds, P. R. O. M., P. Agapow, flcigwe n o pcainocre n fail- and occurred speciation how and when eflecting fseiscneto idvriysuis .Rv il 79:161–179. Biol. Rev. Q. studies. biodiversity on impact concept The 2004. species Purvis. A. of and Marshall, C. J. Mace, M. G. Gittleman, hti eonzda pce onayi eymuch very is boundary species a as recognized is What We hn ebr fteKolslb onWes Tim Wiens, John lab, Knowles the of members thank A CK C NOWLEDGMENTS R ONC EFERENCES LUSIONS SYSTEMATIC BI eta,J ,D .Jcbo,E unr .Pige n .W Taylor. W. J. and Pringle, A. Turner, E. Jacobson, J. D. R, J. Dettman, ge- multilocus A 2003a. Taylor. W. J. and Jacobson, J. D. R., J. Dettman, Taxon- trinity: unholy The 2005. Siddal. M. and species. Egan, G. of M. concept R., DeSalle, modern the and Mayr Ernst solution. 2005b. their K. Queiroz, and de problems species Different 2005a. K. the Queiroz, under distributions de tree Gene 2005. Salter. A. L. and H., J. Degnan, fragmentation of cycles Historic 2004. Martin. P. A. and G., E. DeChaine, spe- and distributions Shifting 2007b. Knowles. L. L. and C., B. Carstens, phylogeny species Estimating 2007a. Knowles. L. L. and C., B. Carstens, the on perspectives Genealogical 1995. Shaw. L. K. and A., D. Baum, species and boundaries species concepts, Species 2005. R. Balakrishnan, A usn .R 90 eegnaoisadtecaecn rcs.Pages process. coalescent the and genealogies Gene barcoding 1990. R. DNA R. Hudson, 2006. Moritz. C. and Meyer, P. C. Harrison. J., G. M. R. and Hickerson, Butlin, K. R. Arnold, L. 2003. M. DeWaard. Waples, R. S. R. J. J., and Hey, Ball, L. S. Cywinska, A. N., D. P. Hebert, Shapiros. M. A. and Forister, L. 40 M. Fordyce, in A. J. learned Nice, C. C. we Z., Gompert, have What speciation: of Models 2003. S. Gavrilets, Do estimates: likelihood coalescent of Accuracy 2006. J. Felsenstein species High-resolution 2007. Pearl. K. D. and Liu, L. V., S. Edwards, Tavar´ S. and P., Donnely, enns .B,adS .Ewrs 05 pcainlhsoyof history Speciational 2005. Edwards. V. B S. Lond. and Soc. Royal. B., Trans. W. Phil time. Jennings, the is Now 2004. the H. D. overrules Janzen, Stochasticity 2003. Turelli. M. and R., of R. consequences Mathematical Hudson, 2002. Coyne. A. of J. segregation and the R., and R. trees Hudson, species trees, Gene 1992. R. R. Hudson, ie .C,adM .Bl,J.19.Picpe fgnaoia con- genealogical of Principles 1990. Jr. Ball, R. M. and C., J. vise, 03.Rpoutv slto n hlgntcdvrec in divergence r phylogenetic and isolation Reproductive 2003b. model eukaryote the in recognition species phylogenetic to approach nealogical Soc. R. Trans. Phil. 360:1905–1916. barcoding. B. DNA and delimitation, species omy, 102:6600–6607. USA Sci. Acad. Natl. Proc. 26:67–70. BioEssays 59:24–37. Evolution process. coalescent 58:113–127. Evolution DNA. mitochondrial in expansion and Ecol. Mol. change. climate rapid 16:619–627. during divergence species ciation: An sorting: from lineage example incomplete despite probabilities gene-tree from Missouri. Stephenson, Louis, G. St. A. Gardens, and Botanical Hoch Missouri C. eds.). (P. biosystematics plant to proaches 289–303 Pages problem. species 54:689–693. Biol. Syst. tropics. the from view A identification: York. New Press, 45– University Oxford Pages eds.). taxonomy. Antonovics, biological and concepts 67 species in cordance 1–44 parameter broad over 55:729–739. species Biol. animal Syst. new space. discover to fail often will 18:597–603. Evol. Ecol. Trends biology conservation. in and uncertainty species confronting and Understanding 2003. Lond. Soc. B R. Proc. barcodes. DNA through identifications Biological 15:1759– Ecol. Mol. butterfly. blue Karner 1768. the of tale cautionary systematics: The molecular using conservation for units Identifying 2006. 57:2197–2215. Evolution years? Evol. Biol. Mol. loci? more or sequences, more 23:691–700. sites, more need we 104:5936– USA Sci. Acad. Natl. 5941. Proc. concatenatioin. without trees 29:401–421. Genet. Rev. Annu. neutrality. under 57:2721–2741. Evolution karyote. utaingasfice ( finches grass Australian 359:731–732. coalescence and 57:182– draft, Evolution DNA. 190. mitochondrial genetic versus loci drift, nuclear for times Genetic rule: “three-times” 56:1557–1565. Evolution concept. species genealogical the 131:509–512. Genetics alleles. ancestral York. New Press, University Oxford eds.). Antonovics, vlto 59:2033–2047. Evolution ospora LG VOL. OLOGY 270:313–321. in in xodsre vltoaybooy(.J uum n J. and Futuyma J. (D. biology evolutionary survey Oxford : xodsre vltoaybooy(.J uum n J. and Futuyma J. (D. biology evolutionary survey Oxford oprn ehd fseisrcgiini oe eu- model a in recognition species of methods Comparing Neurospora Melanoplus ansissmintheus Parnassius . .19.Caecnsadgnaoia structure genealogical and Coalescents 1995. e. vlto 57:2703–2720. Evolution rshpes yt il,56:400–411. Biol., Syst. grasshoppers. Poephila in ) xeietladmlclrap- molecular and Experimental nerdfo hrygn trees. gene thirty from inferred Pploia)ifre using inferred (Papilionidae) Neu- 56 Downloaded By: [Louisiana State University Libraries] At: 18:14 4 July 2008 oiz . .J cnie,adD .Wk.19.Eouinr rela- Evolutionary 1992. Wake. B. D. and Schneider, J. C. C., pitfalls. and Moritz, Promise barcoding: DNA 2004. Cicero. C. and C., and Moritz, Phylogeography 2000. Hobson. A. K. and L. H. Gibbs, E., Milot, arthro- an in speciation Rapid 2005. Shaw. L. K. and Quantify- C., T. 2004. Mendelson, Rausher. D. M. and Inouye, D. B. C., T. Mendelson, barcoding DNA 2006. Ng. L. K. P. and Vaidya, G. Shiyang, K. R., Meier, Press, University Harvard evolution. and species Animal 1963. E. Mayr, denouement The concepts: species of heirarchy A 1997. species L. for R. Mayden, test ratio likelihood A 2005. Nielsen. R. and V., M. Matz, diversi- driving selection Sexual 2002. Maddison. P. W. and E., S. Masta, MESQUITE: 2004. 2006. Sites. J.W. Maddison. and Sites, L. J. Benavides, R. E. Arevalo, E. C., D. J. Marshall, and P., W. Maddison, despite phylogeny Inferring 2006. Knowles. L. 46:523–536. L. Biol. and P., Syst. W. trees. Maddison, species in trees Gene 1997. P. W. Maddison, Reconstruct- trees: gene from trees Species 2006. Pearl. K. D. and L., Liu, es- phylogenetic of Inconsistency 2007. Degnan. H. J. and S., L. Kubatko, phylogeography. Statistical population- 2002. Maddison. a P. W. and Inferring L., L. 2007. Knowles, Carstens. C. B. and L., L. Knowles, 13: phylogeography, statistical of Appl. field burgeoning Process. The 2004. L. Stochastic L. Knowles, coalescent. The 1982. C. F. J. Kingman, 2007 aca,M,adM .Bamn.20.Teatmto n evaluation and and automation trees The 2007. Beaumont. gene A. M. and between M., Panchal, Relationships 1988. Nei. M. of effect and P., The Pamilo, speciation: for Waiting 1996. Orr. H. L. and A., H. Orr, of signatures Genetic 2006. Peters. L. J. and Baker, M. reproductive J. of E., Patterns K. 2004. Omland, Tiffin. P. and Olson, S. M. C., L. Moyle, inhp ihnthe within tionships 2:1529–1531. Biol. PLoS ( petechia warbler droica yellow the of populations northern of structure genetic cricket Hawaiian new of 433:375–376. explosion Nature an revealed. behind species force likely The pod: Evolution isolation. reproductive of evolution the 58:1424–1433. in patterns ing 55:715–728. and Biol. variability Syst. intraspecific success. high identification of low tale A Diptera: in taxonomy and Massachusetts. Cambridge, eds). Wilson, R. M. York. and New 381–422 Dawah, Hall, Pages A. and Chapman H. problem. Claridge, species F. the (M. biodiversity of saga the in Lond. Soc. R. Trans. Phil. B data. sequence DNA on based membership 99:4442–4447. USA Sci. Acad. Natl. Proc. spiders. jumping in fication 60:1050–1065. Evolution complex. dae) characters the Mendelian of for lizards using methods Comparing species: Delimiting http://mesquiteproject.org. A 55:21–30. Biol. Syst. sorting, lineage incomplete State Ohio #53, using report phylogeny Technical University. species distributions. a tree of gene estimated distributions posterior Bayesian ing 56:17– Biol. Syst. 24. coalescence. under data concatenated from timates 11:2623–2635. Ecol. Mol. montane in 61:477–493. Evolution tests grasshoppers. statistical-phylogeographic for model divergence 17:1–10. Biol., Evol. J. 235–248. fnse ld hlgorpi nlss vlto 61:1466–1480. Evolution analysis. phylogeographic clade nested of 5:568–583. Evol. Biol. Mol. trees. species 50:1742– Evolution 1749. speciation. to time the on subdivision population World ( New ravens and Old holarctic of history Population divergence: intermediate 58:1195–1208. Evolution genera. angiosperm three in isolation 41:273–291. Biol. Syst. interpretation. species 360:1969–1974. oua ytmfreouinr nlss eso 1.01. Version analysis. evolutionary for system modular .Ml cl 9:677–681. Ecol. Mol. ). ovscorax Corvus clprsgrammicus Sceloporus naiaeschscholtzii Ensatina KN O LSADCRTN—SN EEI AAFRSEISDELIMITATION SPECIES FOR DATA GENETIC CARSTENS—USING AND WLES .Ml cl 15:795–805. Ecol. Mol. ). Sumt:Phrynosomati- (Squamata: ope ofimtering the confirm comples In h nt of units The Den- us soit dtr onWiens John Editor: Associate Guest Sea 2005. Lessios. A. H. and Levitan, R. D. McCartney, A. M. S., K. Zigler, W W W W T Tu T T Speciation 2003. Payne. multiple reveal genealogies B. Multilocus 2006. Hedin. R. M. and J., and Starrett, Sefc, M. K. D., M. Sorenson, renaissance A species: Delimiting 2004b. Marshall. C. J. delimiting and W., for J. criteria Sites, Empirical in 2004a. boundaries Marshall. C. species J. Testing and W., 1997. J. Crandall. Sites, A. K. and W. J. Sites, University Oxford radiation. adaptive of ecology native The 2000. in D. Schluter, delimitation Species 2005. Shoemaker. D. D. and G., K. Ross, two in concor- genealogies gene neutral topological of shapes The of 2003. A. probability N. Rosenberg, The 2002. A. N. Rosenberg, Genome-scale 2003. Carroll. B. S. and plant King, of N. Williams, nature L. B. The A., 2006. Rokas, Baack. J. E. and Wood, E. T. H., L. Rieseberg, divergence species of estimation Bayes 2003. Yang. Z. and B., Rannala, S. Duran, P. D. Cardoso, A. Gomez-Zurita, J. Barraclough, G. T. J., Pons, the at systematics Integrative 2007. Sorenson. D. M. and B., R. Payne, kht,N,adM e.18.Gn eelg n aineo inter- of variance and genealogy Gene 1985. Nei. M. and N., akahata, Con- populations: related three in genealogy Gene 1989. N. akahata, re,G .19.Epoieseito fArcnccldfihs Pages fishes. cichlid African of speciation Explosive 1999. F. G. urner, is umte 9Nvme 06 eiw eund1 aur 2007; January 16 returned reviews 2006; November 19 submitted First n .J,A iaudr .Wn,adJ e.20.O the On 2005. Hey. J. and Wang, Y. Sivasunder, A. Y.-J., on, Co., & Roberts introduction. An theory: Coalescent 2006. J. akeley, es .J,adT .Pnrt 02 eiiigseisuigDNA using species Delimiting 2002. Penkrot. A. T. and Am. J., it? study J. we iens, should how and speciation is What 2004. J. J. iens, nlacpac 1Ags 2007 August 21 acceptance final 102:6581– Evolution compatibility. USA gamete 59:2399–2404. genetic predicts divergence Sci. population bindin urchin Acad. A Natl. species: Proc. cichlid divergence. 6586. Malawi of Lake analysis of origin spiny in limits species ( lizards discordant and variation morphological and 163:914–923. Nat. Colorado. Village, UK. Greenwood Oxford, Press, University Oxford eds.). May, M. R. 1 Tr 110:325–344. Genetics differences. nucleotide populational Genetics trees. population and gene 122:957–966. between probability sistency 16:583–604. Ecol. turret California spider the 424:928– in complexity biogeographic Nature and species cryptic indigobirds. parasitic brood in 931. switch host by 18:462–470. Evol. Ecol. Trends biology. systematic in issue 35:199–227. Syst. Evol. Ecol. Rev. Ann. species. 11:1289–1297. Biol. Conserv. studies. biodiversity UK. Oxford, Press, 14:3419–3438. Ecol. Mol. ants. fire American South a 57:1465–1477. in Evolution polyphyly model. and coalescent paraphyly, monophyly, of 61:225– Probabilities Biol. species: Popul. Theor. trees. species and trees 247. gene of dance 425:798–804. ture Na- phylogenies. molecular in incongruence resolving to approaches 440:524–527. Nature species. from sequences DNA using 164:1645–1656. sizes Genetics loci. population multiple ancestral and times undescribed of taxonomy 55:595–609. DNA Biol. the Syst. Sequence- insects. 2006. for Vogler. P. delimitation A. and species Sumlin, based D. W. Kamoun, S. Hazell, quail- of phylogeny molecular and finches songs, Plumage, level: species r 13–129 li . .H atn n .A on.20.Ter n speciation. and Theory 2001. Coyne. A. J. and Barton, H. N. M., elli, nsEo.Eo.16:330–343. Evol. Ecol. ends nrdatsriversi Antrodiaetus Ortygospiza Sceloporus in vlto fbooia iest A .Mgra and Magurran E. (A. diversity biological of Evolution .Ss.Bo.5:9 91. 51:69– Biol. Syst. ). . ul rt r.Cu 217:4–26. Club Orn. Brit. Bull. Mglmrhe nrdetde.Mol. Antrodieatidae). (Mygalomorphae, 895