Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species. The biologist Orator F. Cook coined the term in 1906 for cladogenesis, the splitting of lineages, as opposed to anagenesis, phyletic evolution within lineages. Charles Darwin was the first to describe the role of natural selection in speciation in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species. He also identified sexual selection as a likely mechanism, but found it problematic.
There are four geographic modes of speciation in nature, based on the extent to which speciating populations are isolated from one another: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric. Speciation may also be induced artificially, through animal husbandry, agriculture, or laboratory experiments. Whether genetic drift is a minor or major contributor to speciation is the subject matter of much ongoing discussion.
Rapid sympatric speciation can take place through polyploidy, such as by doubling of chromosome number; the result is progeny which are immediately reproductively isolated from the parent population. New species can also be created through hybridisation followed, if the hybrid is favoured by natural selection, by reproductive isolation.
In addressing the question of the origin of species, there are two key issues: (1) what are the evolutionary mechanisms of speciation, and (2) what accounts for the separateness and individuality of species in the biota? Since Charles Darwin’s time, efforts to understand the nature of species have primarily focused on the first aspect, and it is now widely agreed that the critical factor behind the origin of new species is reproductive isolation. Next we focus on the second aspect of the origin of species.
Darwin’s dilemma: Why do species exist?
See also: Darwinism
In On the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin interpreted biological evolution in terms of natural selection, but was perplexed by the clustering of organisms into species. Chapter 6 of Darwin’s book is entitled “Difficulties of the Theory.” In discussing these “difficulties” he noted “Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?” This dilemma can be referred to as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space.
Another dilemma, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin pointed out that by the theory of natural selection “innumerable transitional forms must have existed,” and wondered “why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth.” That clearly defined species actually do exist in nature in both space and time implies that some fundamental feature of natural selection operates to generate and maintain species.
Effect of sexual reproduction on species formation
It has been argued that the resolution of Darwin’s first dilemma lies in the fact that out-crossing sexual reproduction has an intrinsic cost of rarity. The cost of rarity arises as follows. If, on a resource gradient, a large number of separate species evolve, each exquisitely adapted to a very narrow band on that gradient, each species will, of necessity, consist of very few members. Finding a mate under these circumstances may present difficulties when many of the individuals in the neighborhood belong to other species. Under these circumstances, if any species’ population size happens, by chance, to increase (at the expense of one or other of its neighboring species, if the environment is saturated), this will immediately make it easier for its members to find sexual partners. The members of the neighboring species, whose population sizes have decreased, experience greater difficulty in finding mates, and therefore form pairs less frequently than the larger species. This has a snowball effect, with large species growing at the expense of the smaller, rarer species, eventually driving them to extinction. Eventually, only a few species remain, each distinctly different from the other. The cost of rarity not only involves the costs of failure to find a mate, but also indirect costs such as the cost of communication in seeking out a partner at low population densities.
In the contrasting case of organisms that reproduce asexually, there is no cost of rarity; consequently, there are only benefits to fine-scale adaptation. Thus, asexual organisms very frequently show the continuous variation in form (often in many different directions) that Darwin expected evolution to produce, making their classification into “species” (more correctly, morphospecies) very difficult.
One example of natural speciation is the diversity of the three-spined stickleback, a marine fish that, after the last glacial period, has undergone speciation into new freshwater colonies in isolated lakes and streams. Over an estimated 10,000 generations, the sticklebacks show structural differences that are greater than those seen between different genera of fish including variations in fins, changes in the number or size of their bony plates, variable jaw structure, and color differences.
During allopatric speciation, a population splits into two geographically isolated populations (for example, by habitat fragmentation due to geographical change such as mountain formation). The isolated populations then undergo genotypic or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to dissimilar selective pressures; (b) they independently undergo genetic drift; (c) different mutations arise in the two populations. When the populations come back into contact, they have evolved such that they are reproductively isolated and are no longer capable of exchanging genes. Island genetics is the term associated with the tendency of small, isolated genetic pools to produce unusual traits. Examples include insular dwarfism and the radical changes among certain famous island chains, for example on Komodo. The Galápagos Islands are particularly famous for their influence on Charles Darwin. During his five weeks there he heard that Galápagos tortoises could be identified by island, and noticed that finches differed from one island to another, but it was only nine months later that he reflected that such facts could show that species were changeable. When he returned to England, his speculation on evolution deepened after experts informed him that these were separate species, not just varieties, and famously that other differing Galápagos birds were all species of finches. Though the finches were less important for Darwin, more recent research has shown the birds now known as Darwin’s finches to be a classic case of adaptive evolutionary radiation.
In peripatric speciation, a subform of allopatric speciation, new species are formed in isolated, smaller peripheral populations that are prevented from exchanging genes with the main population. It is related to the concept of a founder effect, since small populations often undergo bottlenecks. Genetic drift is often proposed to play a significant role in peripatric speciation.
Case studies include Mayr’s investigation of bird fauna; the Australian bird Petroica multicolor; and reproductive isolation in populations of Drosophila subject to population bottlenecking.
In parapatric speciation, there is only partial separation of the zones of two diverging populations afforded by geography; individuals of each species may come in contact or cross habitats from time to time, but reduced fitness of the heterozygote leads to selection for behaviours or mechanisms that prevent their interbreeding. Parapatric speciation is modelled on continuous variation within a “single,” connected habitat acting as a source of natural selection rather than the effects of isolation of habitats produced in peripatric and allopatric speciation.
Parapatric speciation may be associated with differential landscape-dependent selection. Even if there is a gene flow between two populations, strong differential selection may impede assimilation and different species may eventually develop. Habitat differences may be more important in the development of reproductive isolation than the isolation time. Caucasian rock lizards Darevskia rudis, D. valentini and D. portschinskii all hybridize with each other in their hybrid zone; however, hybridization is stronger between D. portschinskii and D. rudis, which separated earlier but live in similar habitats than between D. valentini and two other species, which separated later but live in climatically different habitats.
Ecologists refer to parapatric and peripatric speciation in terms of ecological niches. A niche must be available in order for a new species to be successful. Ring species such as Larus gulls have been claimed to illustrate speciation in progress, though the situation may be more complex. The grass Anthoxanthum odoratum may be starting parapatric speciation in areas of mine contamination.
Sympatric speciation is the formation of two or more descendant species from a single ancestral species all occupying the same geographic location.
Often-cited examples of sympatric speciation are found in insects that become dependent on different host plants in the same area.
Budding speciation has been proposed as a particular form of sympatric speciation, whereby small groups of individuals become progressively more isolated from the ancestral stock by breeding preferentially with one another. This type of speciation would be driven by the conjunction of various advantages of inbreeding such as the expression of advantageous recessive phenotypes, reducing the recombination load, and reducing the cost of sex.
Methods of selection
Reinforcement, sometimes referred to as the Wallace effect, is the process by which natural selection increases reproductive isolation. It may occur after two populations of the same species are separated and then come back into contact. If their reproductive isolation was complete, then they will have already developed into two separate incompatible species. If their reproductive isolation is incomplete, then further mating between the populations will produce hybrids, which may or may not be fertile. If the hybrids are infertile, or fertile but less fit than their ancestors, then there will be further reproductive isolation and speciation has essentially occurred (e.g., as in horses and donkeys).
The reasoning behind this is that if the parents of the hybrid offspring each have naturally selected traits for their own certain environments, the hybrid offspring will bear traits from both, therefore would not fit either ecological niche as well as either parent. The low fitness of the hybrids would cause selection to favor assortative mating, which would control hybridization. This is sometimes called the Wallace effect after the evolutionary biologist Alfred Russel Wallace who suggested in the late 19th century that it might be an important factor in speciation.
Conversely, if the hybrid offspring are more fit than their ancestors, then the populations will merge back into the same species within the area they are in contact.
Reinforcement favoring reproductive isolation is required for both parapatric and sympatric speciation. Without reinforcement, the geographic area of contact between different forms of the same species, called their “hybrid zone,” will not develop into a boundary between the different species. Hybrid zones are regions where diverged populations meet and interbreed. Hybrid offspring are very common in these regions, which are usually created by diverged species coming into secondary contact. Without reinforcement, the two species would have uncontrollable inbreeding. Reinforcement may be induced in artificial selection experiments as described below.
Ecological selection is “the interaction of individuals with their environment during resource acquisition”. Natural selection is inherently involved in the process of speciation, whereby, “under ecological speciation, populations in different environments, or populations exploiting different resources, experience contrasting natural selection pressures on the traits that directly or indirectly bring about the evolution of reproductive isolation”. Evidence for the role ecology plays in the process of speciation exists. Studies of stickleback populations support ecologically-linked speciation arising as a by-product, alongside numerous studies of parallel speciation, where isolation evolves between independent populations of species adapting to contrasting environments than between independent populations adapting to similar environments. Ecological speciation occurs with much of the evidence, “…accumulated from top-down studies of adaptation and reproductive isolation”.
It is widely appreciated that sexual selection could drive speciation in many clades, independently of natural selection. However the term “speciation”, in this context, tends to be used in two different, but not mutually exclusive senses. The first and most commonly used sense refers to the “birth” of new species. That is, the splitting of an existing species into two separate species, or the budding off of a new species from a parent species, both driven by a biological “fashion fad” (a preference for a feature, or features, in one or both sexes, that do not necessarily have any adaptive qualities). In the second sense, “speciation” refers to the wide-spread tendency of sexual creatures to be grouped into clearly defined species, rather than forming a continuum of phenotypes both in time and space – which would be the more obvious or logical consequence of natural selection. This was indeed recognized by Darwin as problematic, and included in his On the Origin of Species (1859), under the heading “Difficulties with the Theory”. There are several suggestions as to how mate choice might play a significant role in resolving Darwin’s dilemma.
New species have been created by animal husbandry, but the dates and methods of the initiation of such species are not clear. Often, the domestic counterpart of the wild ancestor can still interbreed and produce fertile offspring as in the case of domestic cattle, that can be considered the same species as several varieties of wild ox, gaur, yak, etc., or domestic sheep that can interbreed with the mouflon.
The best-documented creations of new species in the laboratory were performed in the late 1980s. William R. Rice and George W. Salt bred Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies using a maze with three different choices of habitat such as light/dark and wet/dry. Each generation was placed into the maze, and the groups of flies that came out of two of the eight exits were set apart to breed with each other in their respective groups. After thirty-five generations, the two groups and their offspring were isolated reproductively because of their strong habitat preferences: they mated only within the areas they preferred, and so did not mate with flies that preferred the other areas. The history of such attempts is described by Rice and Elen E. Hostert (1993). Diane Dodd used a laboratory experiment to show how reproductive isolation can develop in Drosophila pseudoobscura fruit flies after several generations by placing them in different media, starch- and maltose-based media.
Alternatively, these observations are consistent with the notion that sexual creatures are inherently reluctant to mate with individuals whose appearance or behavior is different from the norm. The risk that such deviations are due to heritable maladaptations is very high. Thus, if a sexual creature, unable to predict natural selection’s future direction, is conditioned to produce the fittest offspring possible, it will avoid mates with unusual habits or features. Sexual creatures will then inevitably tend to group themselves into reproductively isolated species.
Few speciation genes have been found. They usually involve the reinforcement process of late stages of speciation. In 2008, a speciation gene causing reproductive isolation was reported. It causes hybrid sterility between related subspecies. The order of speciation of three groups from a common ancestor may be unclear or unknown; a collection of three such species is referred to as a “trichotomy.”
Speciation via polyploidy
Polyploidy is a mechanism that has caused many rapid speciation events in sympatry because offspring of, for example, tetraploid x diploid matings often result in triploid sterile progeny. However, not all polyploids are reproductively isolated from their parental plants, and gene flow may still occur for example through triploid hybrid x diploid matings that produce tetraploids, or matings between meiotically unreduced gametes from diploids and gametes from tetraploids (see also hybrid speciation).
It has been suggested that many of the existing plant and most animal species have undergone an event of polyploidization in their evolutionary history. Reproduction of successful polyploid species is sometimes asexual, by parthenogenesis or apomixis, as for unknown reasons many asexual organisms are polyploid. Rare instances of polyploid mammals are known, but most often result in prenatal death.
Hybridization between two different species sometimes leads to a distinct phenotype. This phenotype can also be fitter than the parental lineage and as such natural selection may then favor these individuals. Eventually, if reproductive isolation is achieved, it may lead to a separate species. However, reproductive isolation between hybrids and their parents is particularly difficult to achieve and thus hybrid speciation is considered an extremely rare event. The Mariana mallard is thought to have arisen from hybrid speciation.
Hybridization is an important means of speciation in plants, since polyploidy (having more than two copies of each chromosome) is tolerated in plants more readily than in animals. Polyploidy is important in hybrids as it allows reproduction, with the two different sets of chromosomes each being able to pair with an identical partner during meiosis. Polyploids also have more genetic diversity, which allows them to avoid inbreeding depression in small populations.
Hybridization without change in chromosome number is called homoploid hybrid speciation. It is considered very rare but has been shown in Heliconius butterflies and sunflowers. Polyploid speciation, which involves changes in chromosome number, is a more common phenomenon, especially in plant species.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, who studied fruit flies in the early days of genetic research in 1930s, speculated that parts of chromosomes that switch from one location to another might cause a species to split into two different species. He mapped out how it might be possible for sections of chromosomes to relocate themselves in a genome. Those mobile sections can cause sterility in inter-species hybrids, which can act as a speciation pressure. In theory, his idea was sound, but scientists long debated whether it actually happened in nature. Eventually a competing theory involving the gradual accumulation of mutations was shown to occur in nature so often that geneticists largely dismissed the moving gene hypothesis. However, 2006 research shows that jumping of a gene from one chromosome to another can contribute to the birth of new species. This validates the reproductive isolation mechanism, a key component of speciation.
There is debate as to the rate at which speciation events occur over geologic time. While some evolutionary biologists claim that speciation events have remained relatively constant and gradual over time (known as “Phyletic gradualism” – see diagram), some palaeontologists such as Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould have argued that species usually remain unchanged over long stretches of time, and that speciation occurs only over relatively brief intervals, a view known as punctuated equilibrium.
Evolution can be extremely rapid, as shown in the creation of domesticated animals and plants in a very short geological space of time, spanning only a few tens of thousands of years. Maize (Zea mays), for instance, was created in Mexico in only a few thousand years, starting about 7,000 to 12,000 years ago. This raises the question of why the long term rate of evolution is far slower than is theoretically possible.
The resolution to Darwin’s second dilemma might thus come about as follows:
If sexual individuals are disadvantaged by passing mutations on to their offspring, they will avoid mutant mates with strange or unusual characteristics. Mutations that affect the external appearance of their carriers will then rarely be passed on to the next and subsequent generations. They would therefore seldom be tested by natural selection. Evolution is, therefore, effectively halted or slowed down considerably. The only mutations that can accumulate in a population, on this punctuated equilibrium view, are ones that have no noticeable effect on the outward appearance and functionality of their bearers (i.e., they are “silent” or “neutral mutations,” which can be, and are, used to trace the relatedness and age of populations and species.) This argument implies that evolution can only occur if mutant mates cannot be avoided, as a result of a severe scarcity of potential mates. This is most likely to occur in small, isolated communities. These occur most commonly on small islands, in remote valleys, lakes, river systems, or caves, or during the aftermath of a mass extinction. Under these circumstances, not only is the choice of mates severely restricted but population bottlenecks, founder effects, genetic drift and inbreeding cause rapid, random changes in the isolated population’s genetic composition. Furthermore, hybridization with a related species trapped in the same isolate might introduce additional genetic changes. If an isolated population such as this survives its genetic upheavals, and subsequently expands into an unoccupied niche, or into a niche in which it has an advantage over its competitors, a new species, or subspecies, will have come in being. In geological terms, this will be an abrupt event. A resumption of avoiding mutant mates will thereafter result, once again, in evolutionary stagnation.
In apparent confirmation of this punctuated equilibrium view of evolution, the fossil record of an evolutionary progression typically consists of species that suddenly appear, and ultimately disappear, hundreds of thousands or millions of years later, without any change in external appearance. Graphically, these fossil species are represented by lines parallel with the time axis, whose lengths depict how long each of them existed. The fact that the lines remain parallel with the time axis illustrates the unchanging appearance of each of the fossil species depicted on the graph. During each species’ existence new species appear at random intervals, each also lasting many hundreds of thousands of years before disappearing without a change in appearance. The exact relatedness of these concurrent species is generally impossible to determine. This is illustrated in the diagram depicting the distribution of hominin species through time since the hominins separated from the line that led to the evolution of our closest living primate relatives, the chimpanzees.
For similar evolutionary time lines see, for instance, the paleontological list of African dinosaurs, Asian dinosaurs, the Lampriformes and Amiiformes.
- Berlocher 1998, p. 3
- Cook, Orator F. (March 30, 1906). “Factors of species-formation”. Science. 23 (587): 506–507. doi:10.1126/science.23.587.506. PMID17789700.
- Cook, Orator F. (November 1908). “Evolution Without Isolation”. The American Naturalist. 42 (503): 727–731. doi:10.1086/279001.
- Via, Sara (June 16, 2009). “Natural selection in action during speciation”. PNAS. 106 (Suppl 1): 9939–9946. doi:10.1073/pnas.0901397106. PMC2702801. PMID19528641.
- Mayr 1982, p. 273
- Darwin 1859
- Sepkoski, David (2012). “1. Darwin’s Dilemma: Paleontology, the Fossil Record, and Evolutionary Theory”. Rereading the Fossil Record: The Growth of Paleobiology as an Evolutionary Discipline. University of Chicago Press. pp. 9–50. ISBN978-0-226-74858-0.
One of his greatest anxieties was that the “incompleteness” of the fossil record would be used to criticize his thory: that the apparent “gaps” in fossil succession could be cited as negative evidence, at the very least, for his proposal that all organisms have descended by minute and gradual modifications from a common ancestor.
- Stower, Hannah (2013). “Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma”. Nature Reviews Genetics. 14 (747): 747. doi:10.1038/nrg3614.
The near-simultaneous appearance of most modern animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion suggests a brief interval of rapid phenotypic and genetic evolution, which Darwin believed were too fast to be explained by natural selection.
- Bernstein, Harris; Byerly, Henry C.; Hopf, Frederic A.; et al. (December 21, 1985). “Sex and the emergence of species”. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 117 (4): 665–690. doi:10.1016/S0022-5193(85)80246-0. PMID4094459.
- Hopf, Frederic A.; Hopf, F. W. (February 1985). “The role of the Allee effect in species packing”. Theoretical Population Biology. 27(1): 27–50. doi:10.1016/0040-5809(85)90014-0.
- Bernstein & Bernstein 1991
- Michod 1995
- Michod 1999
- Hockey, Dean & Ryan 2005, pp. 176, 193
- Koeslag, Johan H. (May 10, 1990). “Koinophilia groups sexual creatures into species, promotes stasis, and stabilizes social behaviour”. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 144 (1): 15–35. doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(05)80297-8. ISSN0022-5193. PMID2200930.
- Koeslag, Johan H. (December 21, 1995). “On the Engine of Speciation”. Journal of Theoretical Biology. 177 (4): 401–409. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1995.0256. ISSN0022-5193.
- Poelstra, Jelmer W.; Vijay, Nagarjun; Bossu, Christen M.; et al. (June 20, 2014). “The genomic landscape underlying phenotypic integrity in the face of gene flow in crows”. Science. 344 (6190): 1410–1414. doi:10.1126/science.1253226. PMID24948738.
The Phenotypic Differences between Carrion and Hooded Crows across the Hybridization Zone in Europe are Unlikely to be due to Assortative Mating.— Commentary by Mazhuvancherry K. Unnikrishnan and H. S. Akhila
- Ridley, Mark. “Speciation – What is the role of reinforcement in speciation?”. Retrieved 2015-09-07. Adapted from Evolution (2004), 3rd edition (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing), ISBN978-1-4051-0345-9.
- Maynard Smith 1989, pp. 275–280
- Mayr 1988
- Williams 1992, p. 118
- Maynard Smith, John (December 1983). “The Genetics of Stasis and Punctuation”. Annual Review of Genetics. 17: 11–25. doi:10.1146/annurev.ge.17.120183.000303. PMID6364957.
- Clapham, Tutin & Warburg 1952
- Grant 1971
- Baker, Jason M. (June 2005). “Adaptive speciation: The role of natural selection in mechanisms of geographic and non-geographic speciation”(PDF). Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 36 (2): 303–326. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2005.03.005. PMID19260194.
- Kingsley, David M. (January 2009). “Diversity Revealed: From Atoms to Traits”. Scientific American. 300 (1): 52–59. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0109-52. PMID19186749.
- Sulloway, Frank J. (September 30, 1982). “The Beagle collections of Darwin’s finches (Geospizinae)”. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology. 43 (2): 49–58.
- Jerry A. Coyne; H. Allen Orr (2004). Speciation. Sinauer Associates. p. 105. ISBN978-0-87893-091-3.
- Lawson, Lucinda P.; Bates, John M.; Menegon, Michele; Loader, Simon P. (2015). “Divergence at the edges: peripatric isolation in the montane spiny throated reed frog complex”. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 15 (128): 128. doi:10.1186/s12862-015-0384-3. PMC4487588. PMID26126573.
- Mayr 1992, pp. 21–53
- Tokeshi, M. (1999). Species coexistence : ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell Science. p. 27. ISBN0632061464. OCLC47011551.
- “Speciation: The Origin of New Species | Learn Science at Scitable”. www.nature.com. Retrieved 2020-02-16.
- Endler 1977
- Tarkhnishvili, David; Murtskhvaladze, Marine; Gavashelishvili, Alexander (August 2013). “Speciation in Caucasian lizards: climatic dissimilarity of the habitats is more important than isolation time”. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 109 (4): 876–892. doi:10.1111/bij.12092.
- Liebers, Dorit; Knijff, Peter de; Helbig, Andreas J. (2004). “The herring gull complex is not a ring species”. Proc Biol Sci. 271(1542): 893–901. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2679. PMC1691675. PMID15255043.
- “Parapatric speciation”. University of California Berkeley. Retrieved 3 April 2017.
- Feder, Jeffrey L.; Xianfa Xie; Rull, Juan; et al. (May 3, 2005). “Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Bush and the complexities of sympatric speciation inRhagoletis“. PNAS. 102 (Suppl 1): 6573–6580. doi:10.1073/pnas.0502099102. PMC1131876. PMID15851672.
- Berlocher, Stewart H.; Feder, Jeffrey L. (January 2002). “Sympatric Speciation in Phytophagous Insects: Moving Beyond Controversy?”. Annual Review of Entomology. 47: 773–815. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145312. PMID11729091.
- Machado, Heather E.; Pollen, Alexander A.; Hofmann, Hans A.; et al. (December 2009). “Interspecific profiling of gene expression informed by comparative genomic hybridization: A review and a novel approach in African cichlid fishes”. Integrative and Comparative Biology. 49 (6): 644–659. doi:10.1093/icb/icp080. PMID21665847.
- Fan, Shaohua; Elmer, Kathryn R.; Meyer, Axel (February 5, 2012). “Genomics of adaptation and speciation in cichlid fishes: recent advances and analyses in African and Neotropical lineages”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 367 (1587): 385–394. doi:10.1098/rstb.2011.0247. PMC3233715. PMID22201168.
- Niemiller, Matthew L.; Fitzpatrick, Benjamin M.; Miller, Brian T. (May 2008). “Recent divergence with gene flow in Tennessee cave salamanders (Plethodontidae: Gyrinophilus) inferred from gene genealogies”. Molecular Ecology. 17 (9): 2258–2275. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03750.x. PMID18410292.
- Martens, Koen (May 1997). “Speciation in ancient lakes”. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 12 (5): 177–182. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(97)01039-2. PMID21238028.
- Joly, E. (9 December 2011). “The existence of species rests on a metastable equilibrium between inbreeding and outbreeding. An essay on the close relationship between speciation, inbreeding and recessive mutations”. Biology Direct. 6: 62. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-6-62. PMC3275546. PMID22152499.
- Feder, Jeffrey L.; Roethele, Joseph B.; Filchak, Kenneth; et al. (March 2003). “Evidence for inversion polymorphism related to sympatric host race formation in the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella“. Genetics. 163 (3): 939–953. PMC1462491. PMID12663534. Retrieved 2015-09-07.
- Berlocher, Stewart H.; Bush, Guy L. (June 1982). “An electrophoretic analysis of Rhagoletis (Diptera: Tephritidae) phylogeny”. Systematic Zoology. 31 (2): 136–155. doi:10.2307/2413033. JSTOR2413033.
- Sætre, Glenn-Peter (2012). Reinforcement. eLS. doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0001754.pub3. ISBN978-0470016176.
- Ollerton, Jeff (September 2005). “Speciation: Flowering time and the Wallace Effect”(PDF). Heridity. 95 (3): 181–182. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800718. PMID16077739. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2007-06-05. Retrieved 2015-09-07.
- Howard D. Rundle and Patrik Nosil (2005), “Ecological speciation”, Ecology Letters, 8 (3): 336–352, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2004.00715.x
- Dolph Schluter (2001), “Ecology and the origin of species”, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16 (7): 372–380, doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02198-X, PMID11403870
- Jeffrey S. McKinnon; et al. (2004), “Evidence for ecology’s role in speciation”, Nature, 429 (6989): 294–298, doi:10.1038/nature02556, PMID15152252
- Dolph Schluter (2009), “Evidence for Ecological Speciation and Its Alternative”, Science, 326: 737–740
- Panhuis, Tami M.; Butlin, Roger; Zuk, Marlene; et al. (July 2001). “Sexual selection and speciation”(PDF). Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 16 (7): 364–371. doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(01)02160-7. PMID11403869.
- Darwin, Charles; A. R. Wallace (1858). “On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection”(PDF). Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology. 3 (9): 46–50. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1858.tb02500.x.
- Darwin, Charles (1859). “4”. On the Origin of Species (1st ed.). p. 89.
- Eberhard, W. G. (1985). Sexual Selection and Animal Genitalia. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
- Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). A Quahog is a Quahog. The Panda’s thumb. More reflections in natural history. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 204–213. ISBN978-0-393-30023-9.
- Miller 2013, pp. 177, 395–396
- Nowak 1999
- Hiendleder, Stefan; Kaupe, Bernhard; Wassmuth, Rudolf; et al. (May 7, 2002). “Molecular analysis of wild and domestic sheep questions current nomenclature and provides evidence for domestication from two different subspecies”. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 269(1494): 893–904. doi:10.1098/rspb.2002.1975. PMC1690972. PMID12028771.
- Rice, William R.; Salt, George W. (June 1988). “Speciation Via Disruptive Selection on Habitat Preference: Experimental Evidence”. The American Naturalist. 131 (6): 911–917. doi:10.1086/284831.
- Rice, William R.; Hostert, Ellen E. (December 1993). “Laboratory Experiments on Speciation: What Have We Learned in 40 Years?”. Evolution. 47 (6): 1637–1653. doi:10.2307/2410209. JSTOR2410209. PMID28568007.
- Gavrilets, Sergey (October 2003). “Perspective: Models of Speciation: What Have We Learned in 40 Years?”. Evolution. 57 (10): 2197–2215. doi:10.1554/02-727. PMID14628909.
- Dodd, Diane M. B. (September 1989). “Reproductive Isolation as a Consequence of Adaptive Divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura“. Evolution. 43 (6): 1308–1311. doi:10.2307/2409365. JSTOR2409365. PMID28564510.
- Kirkpatrick, Mark; Ravigné, Virginie (March 2002). “Speciation by Natural and Sexual Selection: Models and Experiments”. The American Naturalist. 159 (S3): S22–S35. doi:10.1086/338370. ISSN0003-0147. PMID18707367.
- Koukou, Katerina; Pavlikaki, Haris; Kilias, George; et al. (January 2006). “Influence of Antibiotic Treatment and Wolbachia Curing on Sexual Isolation Among Drosophila melanogaster Cage Populations”. Evolution. 60 (1): 87–96. doi:10.1554/05-374.1. PMID16568634.
- Symons 1979
- Langlois, Judith H.; Roggman, Lori A. (March 1990). “Attractive Faces Are Only Average”. Psychological Science. 1 (2): 115–121. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00079.x.
- Phadnis, Nitin; Orr, H. Allen (January 16, 2009). “A Single Gene Causes Both Male Sterility and Segregation Distortion in DrosophilaHybrids”. Science. 323 (5912): 376–379. doi:10.1126/science.1163934. PMC2628965. PMID19074311.
- Ramsey, Justin; Schemske, Douglas W. (November 1998). “Pathways, Mechanisms, and Rates of Polyploid Formation in Flowering Plants”. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 29: 467–501. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.29.1.467.
- Otto, Sarah P.; Whitton, Jeannette (December 2000). “Polyploid Incidence and Evolution”(PDF). Annual Review of Genetics. 34: 401–437. CiteSeerX10.1.1.323.1059. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.34.1.401. PMID11092833.
- Comai, Luca (November 2005). “The advantages and disadvantages of being polyploid”. Nature Reviews Genetics. 6 (11): 836–846. doi:10.1038/nrg1711. PMID16304599.
- Wendel, Jonathan F. (January 2000). “Genome evolution in polyploids”. Plant Molecular Biology. 42 (1): 225–249. doi:10.1023/A:1006392424384. PMID10688139.
- Sémon, Marie; Wolfe, Kenneth H. (December 2007). “Consequences of genome duplication”. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development. 17 (6): 505–512. doi:10.1016/j.gde.2007.09.007. PMID18006297.
- Soltis, Pamela S.; Soltis, Douglas E. (June 20, 2000). “The role of genetic and genomic attributes in the success of polyploids”. PNAS. 97 (13): 7051–7057. doi:10.1073/pnas.97.13.7051. PMC34383. PMID10860970.
- Mavarez, Jesús; Salazar, Camilo A.; Bermingham, Eldredge; et al. (June 15, 2006). “Speciation by hybridization in Heliconius butterflies”. Nature. 441 (7095): 868–871. doi:10.1038/nature04738. PMID16778888.
- Sherwood, Jonathan (September 8, 2006). “Genetic Surprise Confirms Neglected 70-Year-Old Evolutionary Theory” (Press release). University of Rochester. Retrieved 2015-09-10.
- Masly, John P.; Jones, Corbin D.; Mohamed, A. F. Noor; et al. (September 8, 2006). “Gene Transposition as a Cause of Hybrid Sterility in Drosophila“. Science. 313 (5792): 1448–1450. doi:10.1126/science.1128721. PMID16960009.
- Minkel, J. R. (September 8, 2006). “Wandering Fly Gene Supports New Model of Speciation”. Scientific American. Retrieved 2015-09-11.
- Gould, Stephen Jay; Eldredge, Niles (Spring 1977). “Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered”(PDF). Paleobiology. 3 (2): 115–151. doi:10.1017/s0094837300005224. JSTOR2400177. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2014-06-24. Retrieved 2015-09-15.
- Laws 2010, pp. 210–215
- Williams 1992, chpt. 9
- Eldredge & Gould 1972, chpt. 5
- Mayr 1954, pp. 157–180
- Maynard Smith 1989, p. 281
- Gould 1980, pt. 4, chpt. 18
- Williams 1974
- Maynard Smith, John (March 14, 1964). “Group Selection and Kin Selection”. Nature. 201 (4924): 1145–1147. Bibcode:1964Natur.201.1145S. doi:10.1038/2011145a0.
- Dawkins 1995, chpt. 4
- Dawkins, Richard (December 1994). “Burying the Vehicle”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 17 (4): 616–617. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036207. ISSN0140-525X. Archived from the original on 2006-09-15. Retrieved 2015-09-15. “Remarks on an earlier article by [Elliot] Sober [sic] and David Sloan Wilson, who made a more extended argument in their recent book Unto Others : The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior“
- Dennett, Daniel C. (December 1994). “E Pluribus Unum?”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 17 (4): 617–618. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00036219. Archived from the original on 2007-12-27. “Commentary on Wilson & Sober: Group Selection.”
- Pinker, Steven (June 18, 2012). “The False Allure of Group Selection”. edge.org. Edge Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2015-09-15.
- Campbell 1990, pp. 450–451, 487–490, 499–501
- Ayala 1982, pp. 73–83, 182–190, 198–215
- McCarthy & Rubidge 2005