4.8 Review

Genes and speciation: is it time to abandon the biological species concept?

Journal

NATIONAL SCIENCE REVIEW
Volume 7, Issue 8, Pages 1387-1397

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwz220

Keywords

speciation; species concept; gene flow; geographical isolation; allopatry

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [91731301, 31600182, 31830005, 31730046]
  2. National Key Research and Development Plan [2017FY100705]
  3. Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation [2019A1515010752]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [17lgpy99]
  5. Chang Hungta Science Foundation of Sun Yat-Sen University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The biological species concept (BSC) is the cornerstone of neo-Darwinian thinking. In BSC, species do not exchange genes either during or after speciation. However, as gene flow during speciation is increasingly being reported in a substantial literature, it seems time to reassess the revered, but often doubted, BSC. Contrary to the common perception, BSC should expect substantial gene flow at the onset of speciation, not least because geographical isolation develops gradually. Although BSC does not stipulate how speciation begins, it does require a sustained period of isolation for speciation to complete its course. Evidence against BSC must demonstrate that the observed gene flow does not merely occur at the onset of speciation but continues until its completion. Importantly, recent genomic analyses cannot reject this more realistic version of BSC, although future analyses may still prove it wrong. The ultimate acceptance or rejection of BSC is not merely about a historical debate; rather, it is about the fundamental nature of species - are species (and, hence, divergent adaptations) driven by a relatively small number of genes, or by thousands of them? Many levels of biology, ranging from taxonomy to biodiversity, depend on this resolution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available