Real species and ideology

[Michael Bayly]

Hi Richard,

The point you make from those scenarios is well taken.  I suppose that what I was trying to say is that in those cases where you can demonstrate that the two "messy" taxa are not most closely related (i.e., there are sufficient extant - or discovered - species, and appropriate markers for doing this), then you can invoke an explanation of introgression. 

If these conditions are not met, then either process (introgression/clinal variation) could be responsible for the given pattern. 

I suppose it is a process of elimination and appropriate genetic data could, in some cases, give you a useful answer.  


cheers,
Mike

----------------
Michael Bayly
Research Scientist in Plant Biosystematics
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa
PO Box 467 
Wellington, New Zealand
Ph: +644 381 7262
Fax: +644 381 7070



-----Original Message-----
From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On
Behalf Of Richard Pyle
Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 6:46 p.m.
To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: Real species and ideology


Thanks, Michael.

If I understand your point correctly, you're saying that the difference
between a morphocline and introgressive hybridization is that for it to be
thought of as a morphocline, the two differing populations must be
monophyletic with respect to all known extant populations; whereas if the
two populations are not monophyletic (or in some cases paraphyletic), then
it would be considered a case of introgressive hybridization, and not a
morphocline. Do I interpret you correctly?

But this actually touches on another conceptual problem with the reliance on
monophyly as a distinguishing factor for species boundaries.

Suppose we have a case of ((AB)(CD)).  If I follow your line of reasoning,
then a pattern of restricted gene flow observed between A & B, or between C
& D, might be thought of as a morphocline; but if we saw the pattern between
A & D (without involving B or C), then we'd feel confident in treating it as
introgressive hybridization.  (Please correct me if I misunderstood your
point).

I certainly understand the logic in that, but I want to come back to two
critical words I used in my first sentence above: "known extant".  Suppose
that B & C both had restricted population sizes, and both went extinct due
to human-induced habitat destruction.  If that happened, then A & D would
become "sister species" within the context of "known extant" populations.
Would the extinction events of B & C open up the possibility that gene flow
between A & D could be thought of as a morphocline, instead of introgressive
hybridization?  I can't see why it would, because the extermination of all
individuals of B & C has no effect on the evolutionary relationship between
A & D.

Now suppose that B & C went extinct before humans began cataloging the
natural world around us.  We would never have known they existed at all.  As
far as we could tell, A & D would be unambiguous sister species, and we'd be
left with the messy conundrum of deciding whether we were looking at a case
of a morphocline, or of introgressive hybridization.  That B & C ever
existed would have absolutely no impact on our interpretation of the
relationships between A & D.

Now suppose that B & C never actually went extinct, but instead inhabited a
part of the earth that Humans have a very difficult time accessing (a few
prime examples come to mind...)  For 250 years, we never knew the existence
of B & C -- we only knew of A & D, and our genetic data showed them to form
a clear monophyletic grouping with respect to all other known taxa.  The
zone of gene exchange between A & D could have been thought of either as a
morphocline between sister groups, or as introgressive hybridization between
sister groups.  But then some intrepid taxonomist goes out and discovers
populations of B & C, and genetic data show them to have the phylogenetic
relationships as defined above: ((AB)(CD)).  Would we then necessarily
eliminate the morphocline option for A & D altogether? What aspect of our
knowledge of the existence of B & C changed the relationship between A & D?

Aloha,
Rich


> A key part in differentiating the two patterns (morphocline vs.
> introgressive hybridization) can be an understanding of the
> broader relationships of the taxa involved.  You omitted the
> last, perhaps most critical, part of Curtis' statement on the
> mater. As he said:
>  "(It especially helps if the two intergrading species turn out
> not to be sister
> species!)"
>
> Populations that form part of a differentiating morphocline would
> be monophyletic or possibly paraphylethic - and this could be
> demonstrable with genetic data.
>
> On the other hand, introgressing taxa (previously distinct
> species that have come together and started to hybridise) need
> not be each others closest relatives - and this could also be
> demonstrable with genetic data (and suitable markers could then
> be used to investigate the extent of introgression).
>
> If the two "messy" (clinal or introgressing) taxa are most
> closely related (or even paraphyletic with respect to some
> peripheral isolate(s)) the problem is obviously a lot more
> complicated.  Either process could/would produce a similar
> pattern of variation (morphological or genetic), and the
> conundrum you are talking about still raises its head......
>
> Mike
>
>>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On
> Behalf Of Richard Pyle
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 April 2004 6:45 a.m.
> To: TAXACOM at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
> Subject: Re: Real species and ideology
>
>
> > It is often a non-trivial task to distinguish between two
> > subspecies separated by a morphocline, on the one hand, and two species
> > separated by an area of introgressive hybridization, on the other, but
> > genetic tools can often be brought to bear to sort out these issues.
>
> How would you distinguish the two separate patterns (morphocline of
> subspecies vs. introgressive hybridization) -- even with the best
> of genetic
> tools?  Indeed, is there anything fundamentally different between the two
> patterns, other than our artificial imposition of the rank
> "species" in one
> case, and "subspecies" in another?
>
> This gets right to the heart of my original question to you,
> about defining
> the terms "real" and "artificial" in an evolution/species context, and in
> supporting one perspective over the other.  This thread has taken a
> different direction than what I had hoped it would, but the above
> quote from
> Curtis brings it back to what I'm most interested in understanding.
>
> Aloha,
> Rich
>
> 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Visit the Te Papa website http://www.tepapa.govt.nz
The email message together with the accompanying attachments may be
CONFIDENTIAL. If you have received this message in error, please notify
mail at tepapa.govt.nz immediately and delete the original message. The
views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender,
except where the sender specifically states them to be views of Te Papa.  
Te Papa employs strict virus checking measures and accepts no liability
for any loss caused either directly or indirectly by a virus arising
from the use of this message or any attached file.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++