http://www.collembola.org/publicat/progress.htm
-
Last updated on
1999.09.27
by Frans Janssens
Kenneth A. Christiansen,
Department of Biology, Grinnell College, PO Box V3, Grinnell, IA 50112-0806, USA
 |
Fig.1. Troglomorphic features
Abstract
A symposium Taxonomy and Systematics of cave organisms in the 21st Century
a look ahead.
Preamble
This talk was presented at a Symposium on "Taxonomy and Systematics
of Cave Organisms in the 21st Century", held at the Convention of the
National Speleological Society in Sewanee Tennessee August 4th 1998.
Cave Biogeography
has a great need for more knowledge concerning the
phylogeny of cave Collembola (Fig.1) and the relationship between this and the
microgeographic distribution of species. The widespread distribution of
genera along with extremely limited dispersal of troglobitic or highly
troglomorphic species combined with ability to readily distinguish the cave
dependent (i.e. clearly adaptive) features from the cave independent
features gives a very unusual opportunity to distinguish between lineage
members and levels of evolutionary adaptation. We already have a very
large database for the form genus Pseudosinella
in our BUGS DELTA system
which could probably be used for such an analysis.
 |
Tab.1. Quantifying troglomorphy
In 1961 I developed a system for quantifying troglomorphy in cave
Entomobryidae (Tab.1). Much later Culver and I applied this system to all
described cave Entomobryidae found in North and Central America (Tab.2).
When this was done many interesting patterns were found. A most
characteristic one is seen here in the Sinella barri lineage, where the
most troglomorphic species occupy a small segment and as we radiate out
from there a series of spatially larger and less troglomorphic species
ranges occur (Fig.2). There is a major need for the application of
systems such of evolutionary and geographic analysis to the well studied
European and Japanese faunas.
Information, now totally lacking, is needed concerning the
relationship between genetic differentiation and morphological similarity
brought about by troglomorphic convergent and parallel evolution. In
 |
Fig.2. Levels of troglomorphy in cave populations of the S. barri lineage
particular we need information concerning the relationships between
specific nucleic acid sequences and the adaptive features seen in
troglomorphy. The functional Collembolist network we now have should
greatly facilitate such studies
Another fascinating problem concerns the mystery of how to explain
the occurrence of widely disjunct highly troglomorphic, troglobitic
species, having very similar cave dependent and cave independent features
but lacking any related less troglomorphic cave or surface species. An
excellent example of this is Pseudosinella espana and espanita.
An explanation encompassing a whole range of now extinct surface and cave
species stretching from the caves Southern Missouri where espana lives to
Central Kentucky and North central Tennessee (Fig.3) where espanita
lives, seems highly improbable. There are a number of cases of similar
disjunct forms in both North America and Europe.
 |
Fig.3. Levels of troglomorphy and locations of the four populations of the P. espana lineage
In areas outside of western Europe the inadequate nature of the
collections available for study remains a major problem for students of
cave Collembola. A few regions have been very well sampled and these
include most of the central and eastern parts of the U.S. but even here
very thorough collections shows many surprises. Thus when about 5 years ago
David Hubbard starting sending me Virginia cave Collembola I thought that I
already had a pretty good knowledge of what was there. I was astonished to
find in the materials he eventually sent 8 new species of the genus
Arrhopalites, which along with the three previously known species
represented the largest number of species of the genus found in any state
of the Union or any other region of equivalent size. His samples also
included 4 new species of Pseudosinella and a scattering of species of
other genera, including the first cave species of the genera Oncopodura
and Schaefferia found east of the Mississippi. Not all regions prove so
rich on close examination. Thus several hundred samples from The Missouri
cave project uncovered only a single undescribed subspecies. Nevertheless
sampling in some areas is very weak. This is particularly true of the Rocky
Mountain States which still represent a large lacuna in our knowledge of
U.S. cave Collembola faunas. Many other parts of the world are even less
well known and China and S. E. Asia have barely been scratched.
At present the biggest problem in Collembolan taxonomy is the
shortage of taxonomists outside Europe. The dominance of European
specialists has historical roots. Entomology in Europe has always been less
closely attached to applied Entomology than elsewhere. Thus people in
research positions were freer to follow their interests rather than the
interests of the citizenry. Since Collembola have no parasitic species and
very few agricultural pests this led to a small number of students of the
group outside Europe. The present day shortage in the U.S. is not as a
result of lack of interest but of lack of funding. Every year I get
inquiries from somebody wanting to start work on Collembola in the U.S. or
Canada. This poses a problem because I know full well if they continue work
in Entomology they will almost certainly end up studying Aphids or Corn
borers or some other group with direct clear human impact. In addition for
reasons somewhat less clear U.S. Soil science has tended to ignore the soil
arthropod meso and microfauna and concentrate on chemical, microbial and
macro fauna. This also makes it harder to get funding for Collembola
research. The situation is even worse if anyone wants to study
Collembolan taxonomy. Present funding is such that people interested in
alpha taxonomy are severely discouraged from pursuing this. Even within
Europe, with an ample supply of taxonomists, some are unable to get
employment or funds for research. The huge success of molecular biology,
leading to the commercial horn of plenty of molecular biological
biotechnology, has so strongly colored the funding picture that research
not using molecular techniques is virtually impossible to fund. Collembola
pose a very serious problem in this area since so many species are
extremely rare and difficult to collect. Earlier, the small size of
Collembola and the difficulty of rearing cave forms posed a serious problem
but newer techniques have greatly reduced this. Very few investigators have
started to work with molecular techniques in Collembola and none of these
has an interest in cave forms, probably partly because they prefer to work
with species whose collection is a bit less strenuous but probably mostly
because they are associated with organizations emphasizing soil science.
The great majority of Collembolan specialist work primarily with soil
forms.
Eventually the possibility exists of using computers and
biochemical analyses to overcome the shortage of working taxonomists but
this is unlikely to be available within the next 30 years for Collembola
studies. In caves a major problem which must be settled is the nature of
the cavernicole species. Is every discrete gene pool to be considered a
separate species, or only those which show some evolutionary adaptive unity?
Even if at some time in the future specimens captured in the field
may be quickly or even immediately analyzed using molecular techniques, and
then referred to a computer base system to see what species or population
they most closely resemble in DNA or protein structure, this would only be
useful if we could show the relationship between such an analysis and the
evolutionarily significant morphology, physiology and behavior - i.e.
troglomorphy. At present we are still a long way from this.
Molecular studies have been extremely valuable in determining
large scale relationships and at the other extreme relationships between
populations of a species of Collembola. They have been much less useful in
mid level taxonomy. Molecular techniques have also been particularly
valuable with larger organisms having limited distributions. Some such
groups tend to draw attention and thus be well collected (fish, amphibia,
large crustaceans, beetles and crickets are examples). They have been much
less used with smaller cave organisms, particularly arthropods such as
Collembola. They have never dealt with the questions of the genetic basis
of troglomorphic features and the genetic relationships among widely
dispersed troglophile and troglobite species. Advances in technology should
make these problems more amenable to analysis, but the question of
available funding, and thus research interest, remain unresolved.
What will biospeleological Collembola taxonomy be like in the next
30 years? Various scenarios come to mind and I shall present three ranging
from what I consider to be the most dismal to the most bright:
- Funding for taxonomy continues to focus more and more on genetic
studies. Eventually this leads to a relatively static or diminishing
knowledge of alpha and beta taxonomy of many groups such as Collembola. At
the same time there is a much greater facility for genetic analyses and
funding for such studies. The inability to match this information with
troglomorphic features leads to a characterization of cave populations
solely on the basis of genetic structure and the move towards abandoning of
binomial nomenclature in favor of characterization of populations and
eventually species as clusters of genetic formulae, stored and analyzed in
computers. The result is a diminished interest in cave microarthropods such
as Collembola as model systems for evolutionary and ecological study.
- Funding for taxonomy increases as The biological community
realizes that this is the essential first step for any ecological or
evolutionary analysis; however, this is largely on a contract or piecework
basis. This combined with relatively cheap and easily used molecular
techniques, as well as increased facility in using computer scanning
techniques for taxonomic analysis, results in a melding of genetic,
morphological and behavioral information to develop a new sound and widely
accepted picture of cave species as groups of evolutionarily and
genetically united taxa for the few researchers still studying evolution of
cave forms.
- An increasing number of researchers recognize that cave
organisms represent a unique possibility for recognizing the genetic basis
of adaptive features and distinguishing these genes from those representing
non or marginally adaptive ones. This combined with the new and easier
techniques outlined in scenario 2 results in cave organisms being widely
used to study evolution. The result is a very good picture of the
mechanisms and results of evolution in cave organisms and these become
widely used in general evolutionary and ecological studies.
Fondly do I hope that scenario 3 comes to pass and fervently do I
pray that scenario 1 not become reality.
 |
Tab.2. Quantifying troglomorphy in Entomobryidae of North and central America
Note:
While this was aimed at Biospelological systematics most would apply to
Collembola taxonomy in general.