The next management construct after vision, goal and mission, actively used in the strategic management process, is concept. To implement strategic management of the development of any business organization or government agency - any management object -important role plays a professionally designed concept.

If the mission gives general characteristics why the organization was created, its positioning in outside world and purpose, then the purpose of the concept is to determine the key areas of activity of the management object, which includes identifying ways and technologies for achieving set goals, highlighting the main factors for achieving them.

At the same time, the concept should not be confused with strategic or tactical planning, the purpose of which is specific activities to implement the strategy and solve short-term tasks or problems that have arisen. A well-thought-out concept is, first of all, the directions, priorities and technologies for the development of a managed object for the long term.

The concept should represent the most priority areas development of a management object for a specific period of time or until the set goal is achieved. It essentially serves as a general scenario for achieving goals that should also be clarified during the concept development process. In addition, the concept defines the paths of transition from the current position of the control object to the desired one in accordance with the goals set by the control subject.

A concept is a management structure that contains a general systemic representation of the paths of transition from the current position of the control object to the desired one.

The concept of development of a management object can be considered a kind of prologue to the development of a strategy for its development.

Types of concept

Just like the mission, the concept can be enlarged and detailed. Enlarged the concept gives only a general idea of ​​the ways of development of a management object or ways of solving a major management problem. Detailed the concept gives them a more complete picture.

The enlarged concept should contain the following components.

• 1. general description and assessment of the state of the control object and its position in the external environment.
• 2. Development goals of the management object for a given period.
• 3. Problems and tasks that must be solved to achieve strategic goals.
• 4. Paths and stages of achieving strategic goals.
• 5. Expected results and state of the control object at the end of a given period.
• 6. Indicators by which the degree of achievement of strategic goals can be assessed.
• 7. Characteristics of the management system that ensures the achievement of strategic goals.

The developed concept should develop general requirements for technologies and necessary resources, key factors that can ensure the achievement of the set strategic goals or, as they are called, key success factors. Since obtaining the expected results is impossible without effective management, the concept should provide for an organizational solution to issues arising in the process of implementing the strategy and implementing the strategic plans that will be developed on its basis.

Even a detailed concept, not to mention an enlarged one, does not require complete detail. It should contain thoughtful, comprehensively discussed ideas on how and due to what the transition from the current position of the control object to the desired one will take place.

A concept, just like a vision, can be trajectory And point.

Concept development, depending on the depth of elaboration of issues, may consist of several stages. Moreover, each subsequent stage differs from the previous one in greater depth of elaboration. When developing a concept, it is advisable to consider various alternative options development of the management object, their elaboration and evaluation. At the final stages of concept development, experimental verification of the main provisions of the concept may be provided, especially if we're talking about on the production of a new type of product, the introduction of new equipment or new technologies.

The developed and adopted concept is a completed document, on the basis of which a development strategy and a strategic action plan for its implementation are developed. The concept should outline the most preferable option among those considered during its development. If a decision is made on a deeper development of the concept, the developed version of the concept becomes the starting point for subsequent more in-depth and detailed development.

Let us take as an example the development of the concept of creating a car of the 21st century. models Prius, in accordance with the concept development technologies adopted by the company Toyota. It consisted of three stages. Was first developed general concept a new car, then a refined concept, and completed the development of a deeply detailed, detailed version of the concept.

The concept in the company is developed when it is necessary to solve a new, complex, intractable problem. The concept sets the vector of movement towards achieving the goal. It outlines general directions the work to be done, the general contours of the project, and the indicators to be achieved are determined only tentatively.

The original idea was simple - to develop an economical, compact car with the lowest possible fuel consumption, as opposed to bulky cars that have become gas guzzlers. At the same time, despite the relatively small dimensions of the model, its interior had to be roomy and spacious. At this stage of concept development, the requirements for the future car were determined:

• 1) the most spacious salop with minimum sizes car:
• 2) fuel efficiency.

At the second stage, the base model for further development was chosen Corolla, in which a gallon of gasoline was consumed in 30.8 miles. The goal was that a gallon of gasoline would last 47.5 miles for the new car, which is 50% higher than the existing car. Three months were allotted to develop a refined concept of the project. By the end of the period, the group not only presented ideas, but also completed drawings on a scale of 1: 2. The requirements for the future car were specified in comparison with the first stage of concept development:

• 1) spacious interior due to maximum length wheelbase;
• 2) relatively high seat placement for comfortable entry and exit from the car:
• 3) streamlined body shape with a height of 1500 mm;
• 4) fuel consumption - 47.5 mpg, etc.

The refined concept was the result of extensive research work and was supported by specific calculations of the parameters and characteristics of the future car. It was approved by the company's senior management.

At the third stage of concept development, it was planned to develop drawings of the future car. Six months were allotted for this. According to practice Toyota At the final stage of concept development, a prototype should be manufactured. However, Mr. Uchiyamada, who headed this stage, considered that there should be no rush to produce a prototype, since not everything was still clear. He wanted all possible alternatives for the project to be considered and evaluated before a final decision was made, which was called “concurrent design based on a range of alternatives.” The final decision was supposed to be made only after their consideration and assessment.

It was very important not to “drown” in discussing details. In particular, the discussion of the transmission took a lot of time. This was a dead-end path, to which the leader pointed out to the development group: “This needs to stop. Stop thinking about hardware. We engineers are used to thinking only about hardware. But we must decide what the concept of the future machine is, and not its material embodiment. Let's forget about hardware and return to the concept of a qualitatively new machine that needs to be created."

The brainstorming session led the developers to an understanding of the key problem - the need to create an environmentally friendly car. This problem was to become one of the main ones when developing the model. Prius. The fact is that until now it was possible to solve this problem within the framework of an electric vehicle. But then the car turned into a means for transporting too bulky batteries. The concept was saved by the idea of ​​a hybrid engine, with the help of which it was possible to realize an optimal connection between an internal combustion engine and an electric motor. The optimal mode of their sequential operation was determined using a built-in computer.

The idea of ​​​​creating a hybrid engine had been considered before, but was considered too risky, since it required many fundamentally new solutions. And the fact that the concept model of the new car led to the creation of a hybrid engine was the impetus for the start of its creation.

However, one idea, or rather the possibilities that appeared during its development, gave rise to others. Since a hybrid engine will be created, it is necessary to squeeze everything possible out of it in terms of economical fuel consumption, because a revolution in automotive energy consumption has become real. The new class engine opened up other possibilities in the layout of the created car.

At the request of the head of the concept development group, the best specialists companies. The principle of “parallel design based on a number of alternatives” was again used. 80 alternative hybrid engine options were considered. Of these, about 10 “viable” ones were selected. After the comparative analysis and evaluations, four options remained that were of greatest interest. Each of them was carefully studied using computer modeling, based on which the most preferable option was selected. Thus, the development of the concept was completed and it was possible to move on to the development and implementation of a strategy for organizing mass production of a car, the first in the world to have a hybrid engine.

To develop the concept, it is advisable to form a group, which may include both specialists in the relevant subject area and specialists who own the necessary management technologies. If the concept is intersectoral or multifunctional in nature, then specialists in the relevant fields should be included in its composition professional activity. The group leader must be given the necessary authority and be responsible for the document developed by the group.

All provisions of the presented concept must be justified. It is advisable to openly discuss the presented concept and take into account the proposals expressed during its preparation.

The greatest danger is the formal attitude to the development of the concept, its clearly expressed declarative nature. In this case, it cannot perform the functions of a document, taking into account which the strategy and strategic plans for its implementation are developed. The concept should not include provisions whose feasibility is questionable.

The purpose of developing the concept was to create a management structure capable of defining strategic goals and key directions for developing a strategy for the development of a management object (Fig. 4.11).

Topic 1.2 Marketing - management concept

The first marketing concept is the concept of production improvement. It is the oldest and argues that consumers will favor products that are widely available and affordable, and therefore management should focus on improving production and increasing the efficiency of the distribution system.

This concept is applied in two cases: firstly, when demand exceeds supply and secondly, when production costs are high and need to be reduced, increasing productivity and making the product available to the buyer.

The second concept is the concept of product improvement. It focuses production on improving quality and operational properties goods. However, it often leads to marketing myopia. Indeed, no matter how you improve a product, if there is no need for it or it has decreased, there will be no sales either.

The third concept is the concept of intensifying commercial efforts. It is also called the sales concept. Unlike the first two, which are based on improving production and profit of the company, the sales concept focuses on significant efforts in the field of sales and demand stimulation. The sales concept marks a turn towards traditional marketing. The first two concepts, although they force us to study the market, are still more applicable in mass production conditions. The intensification of commercial efforts strengthens the contacts of sellers with buyers, activates individual approach to the client and increases information about him. However, the sales concept also ignores the needs of the buyer and focuses on the needs of the seller.

The fourth concept, the traditional marketing concept, states that the key to achieving a firm's goals is to identify the needs and wants of target markets and provide the desired satisfaction in more efficient and productive ways than competitors. The concept of traditional marketing reflects the firm's commitment to the theory of consumer sovereignty. The company produces what the consumer needs and makes a profit by fully satisfying his needs.

The fifth concept, the concept of social and ethical marketing, is a more recent phenomenon. It states that the firm's mission is to identify the needs, wants, and interests of target markets and to provide desired satisfaction in ways that are more efficient and effective than competitors, while preserving and enhancing the well-being of the consumer and society as a whole. This concept is designed to connect the interests of society, consumers and producers. It overcomes the shortcomings of the traditional marketing concept and takes into account environmental degradation, shortages natural resources, global inflation and neglect of the social services sector.

From the above it follows that the continuity of the evolutionary process introduces significant difficulties in resolving the question of what is considered a species and what is not yet such. An in-depth study of species and their groups within their ranges reveals more and more difficult cases for taxonomists that require assessment of taxonomic status, but do not fit into the framework of the “species or not species” dilemma.
IN modern literature Mainly two species concepts are discussed and applied: biological and morphological (taxonomic). Both of them are designed to solve the same question: which population system should be considered as an independent species and which cannot yet be considered as such? In other words, they seek criteria to distinguish a species from a subspecies or any other intraspecific category. A taxonomist, armed with experience working with a particular taxon and an arsenal of methods, starting from the analysis of external characteristics of the phenotype and ending with the methods of karyology and RAPD PCR reaction, captures very subtle differences in the compared objects. Distinguishing between communities of organisms does not encounter any fundamental difficulties. The question is to assess the status (rank) of the observed differences. Both concepts try to solve this issue, but each solves it in its own way.
Biological species concept
The biological concept was formed in the 30s-60s of the XX century. based on the synthetic theory of evolution and data on the structure of species, mainly birds, mammals and, partly, insects. It is most fully developed in Mayr’s book “Zoological Species and Evolution” (1968). First of all, Mayr, following Simpson, proposed to distinguish between phyletic and divergent forms of evolution. Phyletic evolution - a change in time of successively successive generations, is not considered as a process of speciation. As stated above, according to Mayr, a species can only be defined in relation to another species synchronous with it, just as a brother can only be defined in relation to another brother or sister. Species-father and species-son relationships are excluded from consideration.

¦g
This exception is not entirely arbitrary. Since evolution is continuous, it is fundamentally impossible to objectively draw the line separating the original and daughter species. More precisely, this is possible in cases of instantaneous speciation, when reproductive isolation and discrete phenotypic differences in the number of chromosomes simultaneously arise between the original diploid and the daughter polyploid. With gradual speciation, the boundary is always arbitrary. It could be carried out more or less objectively if speciation were always saltation. A jump, even in the case of punctuated equilibrium, would mark the boundaries of species in time. However, as shown above, the rate of speciation varies over a very wide range, and at any rate of gradual speciation, it is impossible to discretely differentiate species in time. When comparing synchronous systems of populations diverging from each other, this is easier to do.
Mayr (1968, p. 32) formulated the biological concept in three points:
“I) species are determined not by differences, but by isolation; species do not consist of independent individuals, but of populations; Species can be defined more adequately on the basis of their relationship to populations of other species (“isolation”) than on the basis of the relationships between individuals within a species. The decisive criterion is not fertility in crossing, but reproductive isolation.”
From this quote it follows that in the biological concept, a species is considered as a genetically closed reproductive community that normally, in nature, does not exchange genes with other species. Unlike a species, a population is a genetically open community, at least potentially exchanging genes with other populations of the same species.
On the positive side The biological concept had a clear theoretical basis, well developed in the works of Mayr and other supporters of this concept. Establishing the presence of reproductive isolation in nature means the independence of the species. Clarification of species status in difficult cases is transferred from museums to nature, and since the mechanisms of isolation are diverse and different in different taxa, the biological concept has simultaneously become an extensive program of ethological, ecological and genetic research.
At the same time, this concept, developed mainly on higher vertebrates, insects and cross-pollinating plants, turned out to be “by definition” not applicable to all cases of non-biparental reproduction of living organisms. In asexual reproduction, selfing, or parthenogenesis, the offspring of one individual in each generation is reproductively isolated from the offspring of any other individual. This logically leads to a claim made by many proponents of bio-
Sh

logical concept that such organisms do not have species, or they are nominal, that is, they can be distinguished for the purposes of practical taxonomy. Another important limitation of the biological concept is noted above. Species that successively replace each other over time are not considered species. Therefore, the biological concept is almost not applicable in paleontology. It can only be applied by analogy, assuming that certain fossil animals or plants reproduced biparentally, as their modern descendants do. However, in this case, the results of divergence, that is, synchronous paleontological remains, must be compared. The inapplicability of the biological concept in paleontology can be argued even more categorically. Divergent evolution can be thought of as two (or more) phyletic evolutions, each of which leads to the separation of a “sibling” species. Therefore, the biological concept allows one to distinguish a species as genetically closed system, from genetically open intraspecific groups, only in recent (currently existing) forms of life.
The most obvious limitation of the applicability of the biological concept is in cases of broken (disjunct) areas modern species, and in cases of their secondary hybridization during the settlement process. A broken habitat, divided into two (or more) parts, means that it is impossible to verify the presence or absence of reproductive isolation. The biological concept prohibits testing by artificial crosses. An example of such a situation is the habitat of the reticulated roundhead Phrynocephalus reticulates (Fig. 77). This species of lizard from the agamidae family lives in the north-west of Turkmenistan, in Uzbekistan, between the Amu Darya and Syr Darya and in the Fergana Valley. It is believed that each territory is inhabited by a different subspecies. Regarding the subspecies,

living in the Fergana Valley, an assumption has been made about its species status. Roundheads are biparental, but to establish the status of their population systems living in different parts range, using a biological concept is impossible.
Examples of secondary hybridization between great tits and shrikes are given above. Among birds, which are better studied in this regard than other taxa, secondary hybridization is quite common. It is also known in mammals. In these situations, proponents of the biological species concept are forced to deviate from their principles. They propose to consider forms, the hybridization between which does not exceed 10%, as independent species; forms, the hybridization of which lies within the range of 11-95% of the concentration of hybrids, are proposed to be considered semi-species (Amadon, Short, 1976). From these positions, black and hooded crows in the hybridization zone are semi-species, and outside this zone, species are nonsense.
The foregoing does not mean that the biological concept is inapplicable for distinguishing species from intraspecific categories. Regarding recent biparental species with a continuous habitat, it is quite applicable. However, beyond the adequacy of this concept, one has to use the old morphological (taxonomic) concept, which Mayr criticized for the fact that its proponents operate not with the concept of isolation, but with the degree of differences between comparative aggregates.
When first describing species, when working with museum collections, which often do not have series sufficient for statistical processing, and when it is impossible to study isolation, the taxonomist actually operates on the degree of differences. However, he uses not a morphological, but a practical typological concept of species (see above). Giving or not giving species status to a particular object is determined expert assessment. A specialist in a given taxon, based on his experience, decides whether the level of observed differences is sufficient to suggest isolation (the presence of hiatus) and, on this basis, elevate the object to the rank of species. An example is the interpretation of reticulated roundhead population systems. Each subsequent researcher of the same taxon checks the conclusions of his predecessors and makes another revision of the systematic group he is studying.
Morphological concept of the species
The morphological concept of the species was indeed formed on the basis of the typological one, more precisely, on the basis of the multidimensional polytypic species. However, it represents a significant advance over these concepts.
The morphological concept, like the practical typological one, is based on the idea of ​​discreteness of species. Species rank is given

?
distribution time based on dated finds
PS breaks in the geological record
Rice. 78. Family tree of African hominids (from Johanson, Eadie, 1984)
systems of populations separated by hiatus from other similar systems of populations - other species. Ability to compare only recent ones synchronously existing species brings the morphological concept closer to the biological one. The question of species in paleontology remains unresolved. In practice, paleontologists often mistake breaks in the fossil record for species boundaries in phyletic evolution (Fig. 78).
Since reproductive isolation between species means discreteness of their gene pools, and discreteness of gene pools causes phenotypic discreteness, we can say that the morphological and biological concepts differ only in the aspects of consideration of discreteness. However, the approach from the point of view of phenotype allows us not to be limited to the study of isolation,
and thus avoid the limitations inherent in the biological concept. For example, the species specificity of agamic forms, supported by selection within the framework of their ecological specificity, cases of broken ranges and cases of secondary hybridization, insoluble for the biological concept, do not present difficulties for the morphological one. If the characteristics of individuals in such systems change smoothly, the studied individuals belong to the same species; if hiatus is detected, then the idea arises that they belong to different species. This idea usually needs to be verified and justified.
The most important requirement of the morphological concept is an adequate choice of characteristics by which the discreteness or non-discreteness of the compared populations is established. Availability

or the absence of hiatus should be detected by polygenic characteristics. The fact is that there are four types of discrete differences inherent in intraspecific variability and therefore unsuitable for distinguishing species. Each of these types of discreteness can be a source of error. Sexual dimorphism is a widespread phenomenon. Without knowing about its existence, a male and a female of the same species can be classified as different species. For example, Linnaeus described the drake and mallard duck Anas platy rhinos as different species. Discrete differences in stages of ontogenesis, especially in neotenic forms that have larval reproduction. The Mexican Ambystoma and its neotenic larva, the axolotl, have been described as different species of Ambystoma mexicanum and Syredon pisciformis. Discrete modifications: a spring, lighter modification of the butterfly Vanessa levana-prorsa, hatching from a wintered pupa (Ievana) and a brighter modification (prorsa), hatching in the summer from pupae that metamorphosed at more high temperature, have been described as different species. Discrete morphs of balanced genetic polymorphism. Two morphs of elephant beetles (Curculionidae) Chlorophanus viridis - green morph and Ch. graminicola - gray morph, as can be seen from the names given, were described as species. Then it turned out that both morphs exist in a single population, interbreed freely, and their color is split in the offspring as a monogenic trait.
Thus, only polygenic, quantitative characters can serve to reliably substantiate interspecific hiatus. However, in closely related species, many similar characters show either continuous or transgressive variability, which is difficult to distinguish from continuous. As a result, there is a need to enumerate different signs to verify the assumption of discreteness of the compared population systems. A response to this difficulty has been the search for traits that demonstrate discreteness better than polygenic traits of the phenotype. Over the past 30-40 years, the practice of taxonomy has included: karyological analysis, immunological analysis, the study of protein polymorphism, RAPD-PCR reaction and a number of less known methods. In many cases, the use of these methods made it possible to distinguish closely related species, which, when studying traditional characters for a given taxon, were represented as one species. Such species are called sibling species. Usually, after they have learned to be distinguished, further study reveals the morphophysiological and ecological uniqueness of these species.
However, a universal criterion for the species has not yet been found and is unlikely to ever be found. Divergence occurs according to the characteristics
which ensure the adaptation of each of the diverging forms to the conditions of their existence. These signs are always specific and cannot be isolated a priori. Since the morphological concept does not prohibit the study of any characteristics, including isolation, it is more universal and biological than biological. This concept is applied both in field research and when working with museum collections by most biologists who deal with taxonomy. That is why M.V. Mina (1986) proposed the name “taxonomic concept” for it - a more accurate name, but rarely used.
The weakness of the morphological concept lies in its lack of development theoretical foundations. Hiatus arises and increases with divergence. As divergence progresses, the genetic and morphogenetic definition of the definitive state of the phenotype traits gradually changes. What limits this gradualism is unknown. Explaining the discreteness of species by interspecific competition is not enough. A similar process, intergroup interpopulation competition, also operates within a species, but does not lead to discreteness. Explaining the lack of discreteness within a species by leveling the gene pools of populations with gene flow is also not enough. In agamic species there is no gene flow, and intraspecific variation in polygenic traits is continuous. It can be assumed that the limits of continuous variability are determined by two factors: the impossibility of further evolution due to the limitation internal resources organisms - the trade of principle, for evolution - the Holden-Semevsky principle, and counterbalance of selection vectors. However, in relation to the discreteness of species, this issue has not been studied.
Thus, in modern theory species, two concepts coexist: biological, which has limited application, but a clear theoretical basis, and morphological (taxonomic), much more universal, but does not have a developed theoretical basis. In cases of initial descriptions and (or) undeveloped taxonomy, researchers are forced to use a practical typological concept.

Biological species concept

Linnaeus' typological concept

The first concept of a species was proposed in 1735 by the founder of systematics as a science, Swedish biologist C. Linnaeus, in his work “The System of Nature.” Linnaeus was a creationist, that is, he believed that there are as many species as God created them, and that species remain unchanged from the moment of their creation. At the same time, Linnaeus knew that within species there are varieties, and organisms belonging to the same species are not identical to each other. On these grounds, he created a typological concept of the species, according to which any organism can be classified as a species if its characteristics correspond to those typical of all individuals of this species. In the time of Linnaeus and later, taxonomists often used the external characteristics of organisms and few characteristic features their morphological structure.

The typological concept does not reflect the fact that species arise and change in the process of evolution. It is not applicable in all cases where the species has a complex structure, but until now it has to be used when little is known about a particular species or when describing new species. A new species is usually described from one or a few newly discovered specimens based on comparison with representatives of already known related species. This has to be done based on external characteristics, since, according to the international code of taxonomy, type specimens of new species must be kept forever in museums and herbariums.

Polytypic concept of Semenov-Tyan-Shansky

As evidence accumulated, especially after the evolution of species was proven, it became clear that the typological concept was insufficient for understanding and characterizing a biological species. It became clear that population systems that differ greatly from each other - subspecies and races within a species - represent stages of speciation. The concept of a polytypic species arose - a species consisting of several subspecies. A. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky (1908) introduced into science an addition to Linnaean binary nomenclature species - trinary nomenclature, according to which each subspecies received a triple name, for example: Bufo viridis asiomontanus - Bufo - toad, viridis - green, asiomontanus - subspecies living in the mountains of Kyrgyzstan.

Biological species concept

Recognition of the variability of species and their differentiation in the process of evolution required finding criteria that would allow not only to compare individuals, as is done with the typological approach, but to find the boundary up to which diverging (diverging) population systems are still subspecies of the original species, and, having crossed which , they become independent species. In modern biology, this problem is solved from the standpoint of two competing concepts of species: biological and morphological (taxonomic).

The approach to defining a species from the perspective of a biological concept is based on genetic data. A species is considered as a closed reproductive community, a closed genetic system of populations, which normally in nature does not exchange genes with other similar systems - other species. Populations within a species, on the contrary, are genetically open communities of organisms. As a result of crossing individuals from different populations, they exchange genes. Therefore, the gene pool of the species is uniform. Consequently, the boundary between subspecies and species is marked by the level of reproductive isolation at which the exchange of genes ceases.

The biological concept was a huge step forward compared to the polytypic one. It is based on the study of reproductive isolation and species relationships in nature. On its basis, it was possible to distinguish many previously indistinguishable species, mainly the so-called twin species - species that cannot be divided according to the external characteristics usually used in the taxonomy of this group. However, this concept has very limited application. It is not suitable in all cases where asexual reproduction, self-pollination and self-fertilization occur, since there is no crossing and, therefore, no exchange of genes between populations. This concept is not applicable when populations of the same species are geographically separated.

Biological species

Type criteria

Structure and general signs kind

History of the development of the species concept. Modern concepts kind

A species is one of the main forms of organization of life on Earth and the basic unit of classification of biological diversity. The diversity of modern species is enormous. According to various estimates, about 2-2.5 million species (up to 1.5-2 million animal species and up to 500 thousand plant species) currently live on Earth. The process of describing new species continues continuously. Every year hundreds and thousands of new species of insects and other invertebrate animals and microorganisms are described. The distribution of species among classes, families and genera is very uneven. There are groups with a huge number of species and groups - even of high taxonomic rank - represented by a few species in the modern fauna and flora. For example, an entire subclass of reptiles is represented by only one species - the hatteria.

So the number of insect species is about 80% of the total number of animal species. Number ratio aquatic species plants (about 8%) to the number of land animals (about 92%) coincides with that in the animal world (7 and 93%, respectively). What do you think are the reasons for this phenomenon?

At the same time, modern species diversity is significantly less than the number of extinct species. Because of economic activity Humans cause a huge number of species to become extinct every year. Since conservation of biodiversity is an indispensable condition existence of humanity, then this problem is becoming global today. And in order to protect, we must know what we are protecting. The concept of “species” still remains one of the most complex and ambiguous biological concepts. The problems associated with the concept of biological species are easier to understand when viewed from a historical perspective.

The term "species" was first used by Aristotle (384-322 BC). However, this category was logical, not biological. The modern understanding of species in Aristotle corresponds to the concept of “breed”. Aristotle described about 500 breeds of animals. This interpretation of the species lasted until the 17th century.

The scientific study of the species began with the work of the English botanist J. Ray ("Historia plantarum", 1686), who formulated the idea of ​​a biological species. He also has the honor of introducing the term “species” into biology - species (from the Latin speciere - I examine, I examine). By J. Ray “The species identity of bull and cow, man and woman, follows from the fact that they come from the same parents; In plants, in the same way, the surest sign of belonging to the same species is their origin from the same plant. Forms belonging to various types, retain the unchanged character of their species and never one species arises from the seeds of another and vice versa. Thus, J. Rey (1686) formulated the idea of ​​a biological species as a collection of organisms that differ from each other no more than the children of the same pair of parents differ. Thus, Rey turned a logical category into a biological one.

However, the species became the main classification unit of biology only as a result of the work of K. Linnaeus. C. Linnaeus laid the foundations of modern taxonomy of living organisms (System of Nature, 1735). K. Linnaeus established that within a species, many essential characteristics change gradually, so that they can be arranged in a continuous series. However, between the two different types it is possible to detect a discontinuity in the distribution of features. In this regard, K. Linnaeus considered species as objectively existing groups of living organisms, quite easily distinguishable from each other. Species were identified at that time on the basis of differences between individuals in a limited number of external characteristics. This approach to studying the species is called typological. According to the typological concept A species is a collection of individuals that are identical to each other according to their specific characteristics. Each species is separated from other species by a hiatus, a break in the gradual change in characteristics. As collections of organisms, species actually exist in nature.

In practical taxonomy, the typological concept meant the need to compare an individual with a type specimen of a species - holotype (type specimen). Holotype is the individual from which the species was first described. The comparison was made based on external characteristics that were accessible for observation without dismembering the individual. This made it possible to use museum collections and create them while preserving holotypes. If the characteristics could not be correlated with any of the existing species diagnoses, then a description was made for this specimen. the new kind. At the same time, on the question of the origin of species, K. Linnaeus, like J. Ray, adhered to creationism, believing that all individuals of any species are the descendants of one initially created pair and after the act of creation not a single new species appeared on Earth.

In the first half of the 19th century. ideas about changes in species in the process of development of living nature began to emerge. A dilemma has arisen: either species without evolution, or evolution without species. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck denied the reality of the existence of species. Contrasting evolution with the immutability of species, Lamarck created nominalistic concept of species. Nomen – name, title. The views are not real. There are only their names, invented by people for their own convenience; in nature, only individuals exist. Charles Darwin in some statements considered them “artificial concepts invented for the sake of convenience,” in others he recognized the reality of the existence of species.

TO end of the 19th century century, the shortcomings of the typological approach became obvious: It turned out that animals from different places sometimes, although slightly, they differ quite reliably from each other. In accordance with established rules they had to be given status independent species. The number of new species grew like an avalanche. Along with this, doubt grew stronger: should different populations of closely related animals be assigned species status only on the basis that they are slightly different from each other? The formation of the synthetic theory of evolution in the first half of the 20th century led to a revision of a number of definitions and concepts in systematics. Thus, the population (biological) concept of species arose.

Biological concept of species. The biological concept was formed in the 30s-60s of the XX century. based on the synthetic theory of evolution and data on the structure of species. It is most fully developed in Mayr’s book “Zoological Species and Evolution” (1968).

Mayr formulated the biological concept in three points:

1. species are determined not by differences, but by isolation;

2. species do not consist of independent individuals, but of populations;

3. Species are identified based on their relationship to populations of other species. The decisive criterion is not fertility during crossing, but reproductive isolation.”

Thus, according to the biological concept A species is a group of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other similar populations. This concept is also called polytypic.

The positive side of the biological concept is its clear theoretical basis, well developed in the works of Mayr and other proponents of this concept. However, this concept is not applicable to species that reproduce sexually and in paleontology.

The morphological concept of the species was formed on the basis of a typological one, more precisely, on the basis of a multidimensional polytypic species. At the same time, it represents a step forward compared to these concepts.

According to her, the species is a set of individuals with hereditary similarity of morphological, physiological and biochemical characteristics, freely interbreeding and producing fertile offspring, adapted to certain living conditions and occupying a certain area in nature - habitat.

Thus, in modern literature, mainly two concepts of the form are discussed and applied: biological and morphological (taxonomic).