ReviewPhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2010
Group selection and the development of the biological species concept.
Review in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Hybrid apes in the Anthropocene: Burden or asset for conservation?People and nature (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2021Article
- Decolorization kinetics and mass transfer mechanisms of Remazol Brilliant Blue R dye mediated by different fungi.Biotechnology reports (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021Article
- Special Issue Editor's Introduction: "Revisiting the Modern Synthesis".Journal of the history of biology · 2019Article
- Genes versus phenotypes in the study of speciation.Genetica · 2011Article
- Speciation genetics: current status and evolving approaches.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2010Review
- Evolving entities: towards a unified framework for understanding diversity at the species and higher levels.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of what became known as the biological species concept began with a paper by Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1935, and was amplified by a mutualistic interaction between Dobzhansky, Alfred Emerson and Ernst Mayr after the second world war. By the 1950s and early 1960s, these authors had developed an influential concept of species as coadapted genetic complexes at equilibrium. At this time many features of species were seen as group advantages maintained by selection to avoid breakdown of beneficial coadaptation and the 'gene pool'. Speciation thus seemed difficult. It seemed to require, more so than today, an external deus ex machina, such as allopatry or the founder effect, rather than ordinary within-species processes of natural selection, sexual selection, drift and gene flow. In the mid-1960s, the distinctions between group and individual selection were clarified. Dobzhansky and Mayr both understood the implications, but their views on species changed little. These group selectionist ideas now seem peculiar, and are becoming distinctly less popular today. Few vestiges of group selectionism and species-level adaptationism remain in recent reviews of speciation. One wonders how many of our own cherished views on evolution will seem as odd to future biologists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.