Taxonomy of Parthenogenetic Species of Hybrid Origin
Taxonomy of Parthenogenetic Species of Hybrid Origin
复制标题
杂交起源的单性生殖物种的分类
DOI：
10.1093/sysbio/34.3.359
复制
发表时间：
1985
影响因子：
6.5
通讯作者：
C. J. Cole
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
C. J. Cole
单性生物存在特殊的、往往是复杂的分类学问题，包括是否为某些克隆提供正式名称的基本问题。在过去，在形态上与其近亲不同的全雌性形式被命名并被视为任何其他形态上的物种。然而，随着人们越来越多地意识到某些克隆是杂交起源的，一些克隆依赖于共域双性(生殖色)同源体的精子来繁殖，哪些生物应该命名(哪些不应该命名)的问题变得更加难以解决(Maslin，1968；Schultz，1969)。最近，Dubois和Gunther(1982)强烈主张，依靠精子进行雌核发育或杂交生殖的所有雌性杂交起源形式不应被正式视为物种。他们为这类生物体和它们的双性祖先提出了克雷普顿和克雷普顿两个术语。他们的论点适用于脊椎动物中的单性鱼类和两栖动物，但不适用于孤雌生殖的爬行动物。在这篇论文中，我关注的是在没有精子的情况下，通过孤雌生殖独立繁殖的所有雌性形式。在脊椎动物中，这包括一些爬行动物(Cole，1975回顾)，其中研究最深入的蜥蜴具有多系起源，涉及两性祖先的种间杂交(Lowe和Wright，1966；Neaves，1969；Uzzell和Darevsky，1975；Parker和Selander，1976；Moritz，1983；Good and Wright，1984)。此外，对实验室饲养的个体的遗传分析表明，孤雌生殖蜥蜴的谱系确实是克隆的(Cole，1979；Dessauer和Cole，1980，Unpubl)。手稿；哈代和科尔，1981年)。在一些孤雌生殖无脊椎动物及其近亲中也发现了类似的现象(例如，Suomalainen等人，1976；White等人，1977)，这些现象可能比人们普遍认为的更普遍。由于这些动物在系统学的许多方面是相当非常规的，并且对于它们中的哪一个应该被命名存在不同的观点(Maslin，1968；Morafka，1977；B6hme，1982)，我在这里回顾基本问题，希望有助于为这些生物的统一分类处理达成共识。此外，我还为孤雌生殖物种的分类处理提出了具体的指导方针，在适当的情况下考虑到杂交起源，就像下面讨论的某些北美鞭尾蜥蜴(Cnemidophorus属；Teiidae)。
Unisexual organisms present special, often complex, taxonomic problems, including the basic question of whether to provide formal names for certain clones. In the past, all-female forms that were morphologically distinct from their closest relatives were named and treated as any other morphological species. With the growing awareness, however, that certain clones are of hybrid origin and that some depend on sperm from sympatric bisexual (gonochoristic) congeners in order to reproduce, questions of which organisms should be named (and which ones should not) became more difficult to resolve (Maslin, 1968; Schultz, 1969). Recently, Dubois and Gunther (1982) argued strongly that all-female forms of hybrid origin that depend on sperm for reproduction by means of gynogenesis or hybridogenesis should not be regarded formally as species. They proposed the terms klepton and synklepton for such organisms and their bisexual ancestors. Their arguments applied to the unisexual fishes and amphibians among the vertebrates, but not to the parthenogenetic reptiles. In the present paper, I focus on the allfemale forms that reproduce independently and in the absence of sperm, by parthenogenesis. Among the vertebrates, this includes a number of reptiles (reviewed by Cole, 1975) of which the most thoroughly studied lizards had a polyphyletic origin involving interspecific hybridization of bisexual ancestors (Lowe and Wright, 1966; Neaves, 1969; Uzzell and Darevsky, 1975; Parker and Selander, 1976; Moritz, 1983; Good and Wright, 1984). In addition, genetic analyses of laboratoryreared individuals demonstrate that lineages of parthenogenetic lizards are indeed clones (Cole, 1979; Dessauer and Cole, 1980, unpubl. manuscript; Hardy and Cole, 1981). Similar phenomena have been found among some of the parthenogenetic invertebrates and their relatives (e.g., Suomalainen et al., 1976; White et al., 1977), and these phenomena may be more widespread than is generally recognized. Since these animals are quite unconventional in many aspects of systematics and there are different views on which of them, if any, should be named (Maslin, 1968; Morafka, 1977; B6hme, 1982), I review basic issues here with hopes of contributing to a consensus for uniform taxonomic treatment of such organisms. Also, I propose specific guidelines for the taxonomic treatment of parthenogenetic species, accommodating hybrid origins when pertinent, as discussed next for certain North American whiptail lizards (genus Cnemidophorus; Teiidae).