Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36063161›Full record

ArticleJournal of evolutionary biology2022

Reproductive isolation is a heuristic, not a measure: a commentary on Westram et al., 2022.

James Mallet, Sean P Mullen

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evolutionary biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

James MalletDepartment of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3370-0367
Sean P MullenDepartment of Biology, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reproductive isolation is the heuristic basis of the biological species concept, but what is it? Westram et al. (this issue) propose that it is a measurable quantity, "barrier strength," that prevents gene flow among populations. However, their attempt to make the concept of reproductive isolation more scientific is unlikely to satisfy the diverse opinions of all evolutionary biologists. There are many different opinions about the nature of species, even under the biological species concept. Complete reproductive isolation, where gene flow is effectively zero, is regarded by some biologists as an important end point of speciation. Others, including Westram et al., argue for a more nuanced approach, and they also suggest that reproductive isolation may differ in different parts of the genome due to variation in genetic linkage to divergently selected loci. In contrast to both these approaches, we favour as a key criterion of speciation the stable coexistence of divergent populations in sympatry. Obviously, such populations must be reproductively isolated in some sense, but neither the fraction of the genome that is exchanged, nor measures of overall barrier strength acting on neutral variation will yield very precise predictions as to species status. Although an overall measure of reproductive isolation is virtually unattainable for these reasons, its early generation components, such as assortative mating, divergent selection, or hybrid inviability and sterility are readily measurable and remain informative. For example, we can make the prediction that to remain divergent in sympatry, almost all sexual species will require strong assortative mating, as well as some sort of ecological or intrinsic selection against hybrids and introgressed variants.

Indexed as

Genetic SpeciationReproductive IsolationGene FlowHeuristicsSympatrygene flowgenotypic clusterspeciationspecies conceptsympatry

Identifiers

PMID36063161

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.