Premium
Best available science still supports an ancient common origin of Devils Hole and Devils Hole pupfish
Author(s) -
Sağlam İsmail K.,
Baumsteiger Jason,
Smith Matt J.,
LinaresCasenave Javier,
Nichols Andrew L.,
O'Rourke Sean M.,
Miller Michael R.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
molecular ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.619
H-Index - 225
eISSN - 1365-294X
pISSN - 0962-1083
DOI - 10.1111/mec.14502
Subject(s) - divergence (linguistics) , biology , evolutionary biology , genealogy , epistemology , ecology , history , philosophy , linguistics
The age of DHP and how pupfish colonized Devils Hole have always been a topic of interest. Recently, two different publications (Martin, Crawford, Turner, & Simons, [Martin, C. H., 2016] & Sağlam et al., [Sağlam, İ. K., 2016]) tackled this issue using genomic data sets and demographic models but came to widely different conclusions. In their comment, Martin and Höhne ([Martin, C. H., 2017]) argue that our results (Sağlam et al., [Sağlam, İ. K., 2016]) were misleading because we used inappropriate calibration information and biased a priori assumptions. They then re‐analysed our data using a “biologically informed” mutation rate prior and concluded that our data support a much younger age of DHP (12.6 kya) as opposed to 60 kya reported in our study. Below we will summarize why their arguments do not hold up and explore some of the inconsistencies between their claims and what was actually presented in our study. Furthermore, we will demonstrate their re‐analyses provide no new information compared to what was presented in our original manuscript and reinforce our estimate of a 60 kya divergence of DHP as outweighing competing hypotheses.