Premium
Homage to Felsenstein 1981, or why are there so few/many species?
Author(s) -
Butlin Roger K.,
Servedio Maria R.,
Smadja Carole M.,
Bank Claudia,
Barton Nicholas H.,
Flaxman Samuel M.,
Giraud Tatiana,
Hopkins Robin,
Larson Erica L.,
Maan Martine E.,
Meier Joana,
Merrill Richard,
Noor Mohamed A. F.,
OrtizBarrientos Daniel,
Qvarnström Anna
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
evolution
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.84
H-Index - 199
eISSN - 1558-5646
pISSN - 0014-3820
DOI - 10.1111/evo.14235
Subject(s) - allopatric speciation , biology , genetic algorithm , linkage disequilibrium , evolutionary biology , reproductive isolation , constraint (computer aided design) , divergence (linguistics) , disequilibrium , allele , genetics , population , haplotype , demography , linguistics , philosophy , sociology , gene , mechanical engineering , medicine , ophthalmology , engineering
If there are no constraints on the process of speciation, then the number of species might be expected to match the number of available niches and this number might be indefinitely large. One possible constraint is the opportunity for allopatric divergence. In 1981, Felsenstein used a simple and elegant model to ask if there might also be genetic constraints. He showed that progress towards speciation could be described by the build‐up of linkage disequilibrium among divergently selected loci and between these loci and those contributing to other forms of reproductive isolation. Therefore, speciation is opposed by recombination, because it tends to break down linkage disequilibria. Felsenstein then introduced a crucial distinction between “two‐allele” models, which are subject to this effect, and “one‐allele” models, which are free from the recombination constraint. These fundamentally important insights have been the foundation for both empirical and theoretical studies of speciation ever since.