Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Letter
  • Published:

The nature of plant species

Nature volume 440, pages 524–527 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Many botanists doubt the existence of plant species1,2,3,4,5, viewing them as arbitrary constructs of the human mind, as opposed to discrete, objective entities that represent reproductively independent lineages or ‘units of evolution’. However, the discreteness of plant species and their correspondence with reproductive communities have not been tested quantitatively, allowing zoologists to argue that botanists have been overly influenced by a few ‘botanical horror stories’, such as dandelions, blackberries and oaks6,7. Here we analyse phenetic and/or crossing relationships in over 400 genera of plants and animals. We show that although discrete phenotypic clusters exist in most genera (> 80%), the correspondence of taxonomic species to these clusters is poor (< 60%) and no different between plants and animals. Lack of congruence is caused by polyploidy, asexual reproduction and over-differentiation by taxonomists, but not by contemporary hybridization. Nonetheless, crossability data indicate that 70% of taxonomic species and 75% of phenotypic clusters in plants correspond to reproductively independent lineages (as measured by postmating isolation), and thus represent biologically real entities. Contrary to conventional wisdom8, plant species are more likely than animal species to represent reproductively independent lineages.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Proportion of species taxa that correspond directly to phenotypic clusters compared on the basis of taxon, life history, mating system, polyploidy and contemporary hybridization.
Figure 2: Fraction of species taxa that represent reproductively independent lineages in major taxonomic groups of plants and animals.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Levin, D. A. The nature of plant species. Science 204, 381–384 (1979)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Raven, P. H. in Modern Aspects of Species (eds Iwatsuki, K., Raven, P. H. & Bock, W. J.) 11–29 (Univ. of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1986)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hickman, J. C. The Jepson Manual of Higher Plants in California (Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, 1993)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bachmann, K. Species as units of diversity: an outdated concept. Theory Biosci. 117, 213–230 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mishler, B. D. in Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays (ed. Wilson, R. A.) 307–316 (MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fisher, R. A. in Evolution as a Process (eds Huxley, J. S., Hardy, A. C. & Ford, E. B.) 84–98 (Allen and Unwin, London, 1954)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Diamond, J. M. Horrible plant species. Nature 360, 627–628 (1992)

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  8. Grant, V. in The Species Problem (ed. Mayr, E.) 38–90 (American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC, 1957)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mayr, E. A local flora and the biological species concept. Am. J. Bot. 79, 222–238 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McDade, L. A. Species concepts and problems in practice: Insight from botanical monographs. Syst. Bot. 20, 606–622 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E. & Raven, P. H. Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification (Academic, New York/London, 1974)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Wang, J. X., Liu, H. M., Hu, H. B. & Gao, L. Participatory approach for rapid assessment of plant diversity through a folk classification system in a tropical rainforest: Case study in Xishuangbanna, China. Conserv. Biol. 18, 1139–1142 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ridley, M. Evolution (Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1996)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mishler, B. D. & Donoghue, M. J. Species concepts: A case for pluralism. Syst. Zool. 31, 491–503 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sokal, R. R. & Sneath, P. H. A. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy (W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1963)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. Baker, H. G. Race formation and reproductive method in flowering plants. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 7, 114–145 (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Carman, J. G. Asynchronous expression of duplicate genes in angiosperms may cause apomixis, bispory, tetraspory, and polyembryony. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 61, 51–94 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McDade, L. A. & Lundberg, J. G. A new tabular and diagrammatic method for displaying artificial hybridization data, with an example from Aphelandra (Acanthaceae). Syst. Bot. 7, 13–25 (1982)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Arnold, M. L. Natural Hybridization and Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1997)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Morjan, C. L. & Rieseberg, L. H. How species evolve collectively: implications of gene flow and selection for the spread of advantageous alleles. Mol. Ecol. 13, 1341–1356 (2004)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Ehrlich, P. R. & Raven, P. H. Differentiation of populations. Science 165, 1228–1232 (1969)

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Whitlock, M. C. Fixation probability and time in subdivided populations. Genetics 164, 767–779 (2003)

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Levin, D. A. The Origin, Expansion, and Demise of Plant Species (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2000)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mayr, E. The Growth of Biological Thought (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1982)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Price, T. D. & Bouvier, M. M. The evolution of F1 postzygotic incompatibilities in birds. Evolution 56, 2083–2089 (2002)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Coyne, J. A. & Orr, H. A. “Patterns of speciation in Drosophila” revisited. Evolution 51, 295–303 (1997)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Russell, S. T. Evolution of intrinsic post-zygotic reproductive isolation in fish. Ann. Zool. Fenn. 40, 321–329 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sasa, M. M., Chippindale, P. T. & Johnson, N. A. Patterns of postzygotic isolation in frogs. Evolution 52, 1811–1820 (1998)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Presgraves, D. C. Patterns of postzygotic isolation in Lepidoptera. Evolution 56, 1168–1183 (2002)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Gray, A. P. Mammalian Hybrids: A Check-list with Bibliography (Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux Farnham Royal, Slough, England, 1972)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding for this work was provided by the US National Institutes of Health, the US National Science Foundation, and the Guggenheim Foundation (to L.H.R.). We thank M. Barker, S. Bickford, A. Buerkle, J. Burke, B. Gross, M. Moody, J. Strasburg, Y. Supir, M. Tseng and K. Whitney for helpful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript, and the Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research at CSIRO Plant Industry, Australia for providing office space and library resources for this project. W. Hastie, M. Hearn and M. Thornton, from the CSIRO Black Mountain Library, provided extensive bibliographic assistance. Author Contributions L.H.R. conceived of the literature surveys, T.E.W. and L.H.R. collected the data, and E.J.B. and L.H.R. conducted the data analyses. The manuscript was written by L.H.R. with comments and assistance from T.E.W. and E.J.B.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Indiana University, Indiana, 47405, Bloomington, USA

    Loren H. Rieseberg, Troy E. Wood & Eric J. Baack

Authors
  1. Loren H. Rieseberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Troy E. Wood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eric J. Baack
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loren H. Rieseberg.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Reprints and permissions information is available at npg.nature.com/reprintsandpermissions. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Methods

This file contains the Supplementary Methods and additional results. (DOC 101 kb)

Supplementary Table 1

Supplementary Table 1 nature04402-s2.doc Phenetic studies of plant species. (DOC 238 kb)

Supplementary Table 2

Phenetic studies of animal species. (DOC 119 kb)

Supplementary Table 3

Correspondence between crossability indices (CI), species taxa, and phenetic clusters. (DOC 85 kb)

Supplementary Table 4

Correspondence between species taxa and crossability indices (CIs) in plants. (DOC 211 kb)

Supplementary Table 5

Crossability indices (CIs) in plants (DOC 126 kb)

Supplementary Table 6

Correspondence between species taxa and crossability indices (CIs) in animals. (DOC 262 kb)

Supplementary Notes

This file contains additional references. (DOC 119 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rieseberg, L., Wood, T. & Baack, E. The nature of plant species. Nature 440, 524–527 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04402

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04402

This article is cited by

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing