Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40719227›Full record

ArticleAnnals of human genetics2025

The History of the Panmictic Population Concept and Its Legacy in Contemporary Population Genetics.

Andy Walton, Alex Aylward, Mark G Thomas, Adam Rutherford

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of human genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andy WaltonUCL Genetics Institute, Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0003-3438-5244
Alex AylwardFaculty of History, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7551-9710
Mark G ThomasUCL Genetics Institute, Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2452-981X
Adam RutherfordUCL Genetics Institute, Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2782-9954

Funding

Adelphi Forum
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The panmictic population concept is at the heart of population, evolutionary and conservation genetics. However, in nature, true panmictic populations are vanishingly rare. As an idea conceived for modelling evolutionary dynamics, it has been thought that the assumption of panmixia was formalised during the development of the Modern Synthesis. Here, we show that while the idea's longevity is almost certainly due to its mathematical convenience, it became embedded in evolutionary thought much earlier, initially as a way to reconcile long-standing essentialist ideas with the advent of Darwin's theories. Though the principles of essentialism and reversion have been largely rejected, these ideas persist in shaping assumptions made about populations in contemporary genetics research, including how they are conceptualised and sampled. This legacy has important implications for the interpretation of genomic findings in human evolution, conservation and medicine. From an evaluation of this history and its legacy, we contend that while the panmictic population concept has been, and continues to be useful, with the generation of terabytes of genomic data in the 21st century, its utility is likely to diminish as the need for continuous space models grows.

Indexed as

Genetics, PopulationBiological EvolutionHistory, 19th CenturyHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansModels, Geneticcontinuous spaceisolation by distancemodern synthesispanmictic populationpopulation geneticspopulation modellingpopulation thinking

Identifiers

PMID40719227
PMCPMC12336970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.