Review Shedding subspecies: The influence of genetics on reptile subspecies taxonomy Shannon M. Torstrom a,b,⇑ , Kevin L. Pangle a , Bradley J. Swanson a,b a Department of Biology, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI 48859, United States b Applied Technologies in Conservation Genetics Laboratory, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI 48859, United States article info Article history: Received 19 November 2013 Revised 8 March 2014 Accepted 11 March 2014 Available online 22 March 2014 Keywords: Genetic distance Genetic techniques Integrative taxonomic species concept Subspecies concepts abstract The subspecies concept influences multiple aspects of biology and management. The ‘molecular revolu- tion’ altered traditional methods (morphological traits) of subspecies classification by applying genetic analyses resulting in alternative or contradictory classifications. We evaluated recent reptile literature for bias in the recommendations regarding subspecies status when genetic data were included. Review- ing characteristics of the study, genetic variables, genetic distance values and noting the species concepts, we found that subspecies were more likely elevated to species when using genetic analysis. However, there was no predictive relationship between variables used and taxonomic recommendation. There was a significant difference between the median genetic distance values when researchers elevated or collapsed a subspecies. Our review found nine different concepts of species used when recommending taxonomic change, and studies incorporating multiple species concepts were more likely to recommend a taxonomic change. Since using genetic techniques significantly alter reptile taxonomy there is a need to establish a standard method to determine the species–subspecies boundary in order to effectively use the subspecies classification for research and conservation purposes. Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................... 134 2. Methods ............................................................................................................ 136 2.1. Statistical analysis ............................................................................................... 136 3. Results.............................................................................................................. 136 4. Discussion ........................................................................................................... 137 5. Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 138 Acknowledgments .................................................................................................... 139 Appendix A.......................................................................................................... 139 Appendix B. Supplementary material .................................................................................... 140 References .......................................................................................................... 140 1. Introduction The subspecies classification may reflect evolutionary relation- ships or only the human need to categorize, but the influence of subspecies on other facets of biology and management demands that the factors affecting their designation be clearly understood (Starrett, 1958; Groves, 2012). The subspecies category was devel- oped to enhance understanding of geographic variation, speciation, and to refine taxonomic distinction. However, since the establish- ment of subspecies there has been controversy regarding its neces- sity (Mayr, 1982; Patten and Unitt, 2002; Hawlitschek et al., 2012) showcased by Mayr (1970) reclassifying 315 species to subspecies, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2014.03.011 1055-7903/Ó 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. ⇑ Corresponding author at: Central Michigan University, Brooks Hall Rm 217, Mount Pleasant, MI 48859, United States. E-mail addresses: shtorstrom@gmail.com (S.M. Torstrom), pangl1k@cmich.edu (K.L. Pangle), swans1bj@cmich.edu (B.J. Swanson). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 76 (2014) 134–143 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev