vix.ing · top · new · best · stats

Can we agree on an ecological classification of subterranean animals?

2008/06/01 by Boris Sket, Boris Šket · 352 citations
Earth and Planetary Sciences · Environmental Science · #Aquatic Invertebrate Ecology and Behavior #Biology #Cave #Ecology #Epigeal #Habitat #Marine Biology and Ecology Research #Obligate #Population #Subterranean biodiversity and taxonomy #Terminology

paper · open access · doi:10.1080/00222930801995762

published in Journal of Natural History 42(21-22), 1549-1563 (Taylor & Francis)

openalex publication_date 2008/06/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/31

Abstract

That the ties between any obligate subterranean species and the hypogean environment depend on the interplay of a species' own physiological characteristics and all of the ecological characteristics of the adjacent epigean habitat(s), including biotic factors, has been emphasized. The reasons why troglomorphy cannot be included within criteria for classifying cave dwellers have been demonstrated. After a review of historic classifications, standardized definitions of the most widely used terms are proposed. The most easily recognized are four categories which are terminological approximations of the classic Schiner‐Racovitza terminology: (1) troglobiont is a species or population, strictly bound to a hypogean habitat; (2) eutroglophile is an essentially epigean species, but able to maintain a permanent subterranean population; (3) subtroglophile is inclined perpetually or temporarily to inhabit a subterranean habitat but is bound to the surface for some biological functions (e.g. feeding); (4) trogloxene is a species only occurring sporadically underground.

Cited by

Related