Group selection and the development of the biological species concept

Mallet, James

doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0040

Cited by 18 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 51 publications

(72 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Williams (Dobzhansky 1970: 425-428;Mayr 1970: 114-119). Yet this understanding somehow failed to dent their holistic views that reproductive isolating mechanisms were important species-level adaptations, as we have already seen (see also Mallet 2010).…”

Section: Species As Integrated Adaptive Units or 'Superorganisms'mentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Darwinian sexual selection has been rehabilitated (Andersson 1994). The group selectionism of the biological species concept of the 1950s-1970s, and of Ghiselin's 'species as individuals' idea, has been highlighted a number of times (Kitcher 1984;Paterson 1985;Ruse 1987;Williams 1992;Mallet 2010).…”

Section: Species As Integrated Adaptive Units or 'Superorganisms'mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Dobzhansky's terminology reflects nineteenth century ideas of physiological selection already mentioned (Romanes 1886;Wallace 1889). Dobzhansky as late as 1970 argued for the evolution of hybrid sterility and inviability, as well as mate choice, via reinforcement (Mallet 2010).…”

Section: Species As Integrated Adaptive Units or 'Superorganisms'mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why was Darwin’s view of species rejected by twentieth century biologists?

Mallet

2010

Biol Philos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historians and philosophers of science agree that Darwin had an understanding of species which led to a workable theory of their origins. To Darwin species did not differ essentially from 'varieties' within species, but were distinguishable in that they had developed gaps in formerly continuous morphological variation. Similar ideas can be defended today after updating them with modern population genetics. Why then, in the 1930s and 1940s, did Dobzhansky, Mayr and others argue that Darwin failed to understand species and speciation? Mayr and Dobzhansky argued that reproductively isolated species were more distinct and 'real' than Darwin had proposed. Believing species to be inherently cohesive, Mayr inferred that speciation normally required geographic isolation, an argument that he believed, incorrectly, Darwin had failed to appreciate. Also, before the sociobiology revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, biologists often argued that traits beneficial to whole populations would spread. Reproductive isolation was thus seen as an adaptive trait to prevent disintegration of species. Finally, molecular genetic markers did not exist, and so a presumed biological function of species, reproductive isolation, seemed to delimit cryptic species better than character-based criteria like Darwin's. Today, abundant genetic markers are available and widely used to delimit species, for example using assignment tests: genetics has replaced a Darwinian reliance on morphology for detecting gaps between species. In the 150th J. Mallet anniversary of The Origin of Species, we appear to be returning to more Darwinian views on species, and to a fuller appreciation of what Darwin meant.

show abstract

Section: Species As Integrated Adaptive Units or 'Superorganisms'mentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Species As Integrated Adaptive Units or 'Superorganisms'mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why was Darwin’s view of species rejected by twentieth century biologists?

Mallet

2010

Biol Philos

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, ecological divergence entails both divergent selection and independent limitation. The primacy of reproductive isolation in sexual organisms is also clear, as independent limitation and divergent selection cannot cause divergence unless reproductively isolated entities are present or emerge as a consequence of divergent selection (Coyne & Orr 2004;Mallet 2010). However, both independent limitation and divergent selection can operate on broader taxonomic units subsuming several reproductively isolated species.…”

Section: Causes Of Diversificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolving entities: towards a unified framework for understanding diversity at the species and higher levels

Barraclough

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current approaches to studying the evolution of biodiversity differ in their treatment of species and higher level diversity patterns. Species are regarded as the fundamental evolutionarily significant units of biodiversity, both in theory and in practice, and extensive theory explains how they originate and evolve. However, most species are still delimited using qualitative methods that only relate indirectly to the underlying theory. In contrast, higher level patterns of diversity have been subjected to rigorous quantitative study (using phylogenetics), but theory that adequately explains the observed patterns has been lacking. Most evolutionary analyses of higher level diversity patterns have considered non-equilibrium explanations based on rates of diversification (i.e. exponentially growing clades), rather than equilibrium explanations normally used at the species level and below (i.e. constant population sizes). This paper argues that species level and higher level patterns of diversity can be considered within a common framework, based on equilibrium explanations. It shows how forces normally considered in the context of speciation, namely divergent selection and geographical isolation, can generate evolutionarily significant units of diversity above the level of reproductively isolated species. Prospects for the framework to answer some unresolved questions about higher level diversity patterns are discussed.

show abstract

“…Yet, despite its title, Darwin's opus 'On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection' (Darwin 1859) did not focus on the rise of new species, but instead emphasized natural selection as a mechanism for the adaptive change of populations in response to the prevailing conditions. Furthermore, Darwin highlighted the transition from populations to species as a gradual continuum (Mallet 2008) without formally treating the isolation factors that reduce gene flow among populations (Mayr 1942; see also Barraclough 2010;Mallet 2010). However, Darwin lacked an understanding of the genetic basis of heredity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speciation genetics: current status and evolving approaches

Wolf

Lindell

Backström

2010

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

161

165

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The view of species as entities subjected to natural selection and amenable to change put forth by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace laid the conceptual foundation for understanding speciation. Initially marred by a rudimental understanding of hereditary principles, evolutionists gained appreciation of the mechanistic underpinnings of speciation following the merger of Mendelian genetic principles with Darwinian evolution. Only recently have we entered an era where deciphering the molecular basis of speciation is within reach. Much focus has been devoted to the genetic basis of intrinsic postzygotic isolation in model organisms and several hybrid incompatibility genes have been successfully identified. However, concomitant with the recent technological advancements in genome analysis and a newfound interest in the role of ecology in the differentiation process, speciation genetic research is becoming increasingly open to non-model organisms. This development will expand speciation research beyond the traditional boundaries and unveil the genetic basis of speciation from manifold perspectives and at various stages of the splitting process. This review aims at providing an extensive overview of speciation genetics. Starting from key historical developments and core concepts of speciation genetics, we focus much of our attention on evolving approaches and introduce promising methodological approaches for future research venues.

show abstract

Group selection and the development of the biological species concept

Cited by 18 publications

References 51 publications

Why was Darwin’s view of species rejected by twentieth century biologists?

Why was Darwin’s view of species rejected by twentieth century biologists?

Evolving entities: towards a unified framework for understanding diversity at the species and higher levels

Speciation genetics: current status and evolving approaches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About