Common misconceptions of speciation

Abstract Speciation is a complex process that can unfold in many different ways. Speciation researchers sometimes simplify core principles in their writing in a way that implies misconceptions about the speciation process. While we think that these misconceptions are usually inadvertently implied (a...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Evolutionary journal of the Linnean Society 2024, Vol.3 (1), p.kzae029
Hauptverfasser: Walker, Jonah M, van der Heijden, Eva S M, Maulana, Arif, Rueda-M, Nicol, Näsvall, Karin, Salazar, Patricio A, Meyer, Marco, Meier, Joana I
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 1
container_start_page kzae029
container_title Evolutionary journal of the Linnean Society
container_volume 3
creator Walker, Jonah M
van der Heijden, Eva S M
Maulana, Arif
Rueda-M, Nicol
Näsvall, Karin
Salazar, Patricio A
Meyer, Marco
Meier, Joana I
description Abstract Speciation is a complex process that can unfold in many different ways. Speciation researchers sometimes simplify core principles in their writing in a way that implies misconceptions about the speciation process. While we think that these misconceptions are usually inadvertently implied (and not actively believed) by the researchers, they nonetheless risk warping how external readers understand speciation. Here we highlight six misconceptions of speciation that are especially widespread. First, species are implied to be clearly and consistently defined entities in nature, whereas in reality species boundaries are often fuzzy and semipermeable. Second, speciation is often implied to be ‘good’, which is two-fold problematic because it implies both that evolution has a goal and that speciation universally increases the chances of lineage persistence. Third, species-poor clades with species-rich sister clades are considered ‘primitive’ or ‘basal’, falsely implying a ladder of progress. Fourth, the evolution of species is assumed to be strictly tree-like, but genomic findings show widespread hybridization more consistent with network-like evolution. Fifth, a lack of association between a trait and elevated speciation rates in macroevolutionary studies is often interpreted as evidence against its relevance in speciation—even if microevolutionary case studies show that it is relevant. Sixth, obvious trait differences between species are sometimes too readily assumed to be (i) barriers to reproduction, (ii) a stepping-stone to inevitable speciation, or (iii) reflective of the species’ whole divergence history. In conclusion, we call for caution, particularly when communicating science, because miscommunication of these ideas provides fertile ground for misconceptions to spread.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/evolinnean/kzae029
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>oup_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11590199</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/evolinnean/kzae029</oup_id><sourcerecordid>10.1093/evolinnean/kzae029</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2379-9bd4719514e0d4b105e0d8cbcb178a494c7906c2592e9858cf136b27ae80604a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkEFLw0AQhRdRbKn9Ax6k4Dl2djfJZk4iwapQ8KLgbdlsNrqa7IZsW9Bfb0pqrTdPb4Z57xt4hJxTuKKAfG42vrbOGeXmH1_KAMMjMmYiYRHy7OX4YB6RaQjvAMA5AwF4SkYcUwBB-Zhc5r5pvJs1NmjvtGlX1rsw89UstEZbtV3PyEml6mCmO52Q58XtU34fLR_vHvKbZaQZFxhhUcaCYkJjA2VcUEh6zXShCyoyFWOsBUKqWYLMYJZkuqI8LZhQJoMUYsUn5HrgtuuiMaU2btWpWradbVT3Kb2y8u_F2Tf56jeS0gSBIvYENhB050PoTLUPU5Db2uRvbXJXWx-6OHy7j_yU1BuiweDX7X-A3_WYfUg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Common misconceptions of speciation</title><source>Oxford Open</source><creator>Walker, Jonah M ; van der Heijden, Eva S M ; Maulana, Arif ; Rueda-M, Nicol ; Näsvall, Karin ; Salazar, Patricio A ; Meyer, Marco ; Meier, Joana I</creator><creatorcontrib>Walker, Jonah M ; van der Heijden, Eva S M ; Maulana, Arif ; Rueda-M, Nicol ; Näsvall, Karin ; Salazar, Patricio A ; Meyer, Marco ; Meier, Joana I</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Speciation is a complex process that can unfold in many different ways. Speciation researchers sometimes simplify core principles in their writing in a way that implies misconceptions about the speciation process. While we think that these misconceptions are usually inadvertently implied (and not actively believed) by the researchers, they nonetheless risk warping how external readers understand speciation. Here we highlight six misconceptions of speciation that are especially widespread. First, species are implied to be clearly and consistently defined entities in nature, whereas in reality species boundaries are often fuzzy and semipermeable. Second, speciation is often implied to be ‘good’, which is two-fold problematic because it implies both that evolution has a goal and that speciation universally increases the chances of lineage persistence. Third, species-poor clades with species-rich sister clades are considered ‘primitive’ or ‘basal’, falsely implying a ladder of progress. Fourth, the evolution of species is assumed to be strictly tree-like, but genomic findings show widespread hybridization more consistent with network-like evolution. Fifth, a lack of association between a trait and elevated speciation rates in macroevolutionary studies is often interpreted as evidence against its relevance in speciation—even if microevolutionary case studies show that it is relevant. Sixth, obvious trait differences between species are sometimes too readily assumed to be (i) barriers to reproduction, (ii) a stepping-stone to inevitable speciation, or (iii) reflective of the species’ whole divergence history. In conclusion, we call for caution, particularly when communicating science, because miscommunication of these ideas provides fertile ground for misconceptions to spread.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2752-938X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2752-938X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/evolinnean/kzae029</identifier><identifier>PMID: 39600713</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>UK: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>s on Speciation</subject><ispartof>Evolutionary journal of the Linnean Society, 2024, Vol.3 (1), p.kzae029</ispartof><rights>2024 The Linnean Society of London. 2024</rights><rights>2024 The Linnean Society of London.</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2379-9bd4719514e0d4b105e0d8cbcb178a494c7906c2592e9858cf136b27ae80604a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7726-2875 ; 0000-0001-7355-3130 ; 0000-0002-1968-4575 ; 0000-0003-4424-9695 ; 0000-0001-8988-0769 ; 0000-0002-2970-4189 ; 0009-0004-6459-7958 ; 0000-0002-7527-7165</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1598,4010,27900,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39600713$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Walker, Jonah M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Heijden, Eva S M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maulana, Arif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rueda-M, Nicol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Näsvall, Karin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salazar, Patricio A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meier, Joana I</creatorcontrib><title>Common misconceptions of speciation</title><title>Evolutionary journal of the Linnean Society</title><addtitle>Evol J Linn Soc</addtitle><description>Abstract Speciation is a complex process that can unfold in many different ways. Speciation researchers sometimes simplify core principles in their writing in a way that implies misconceptions about the speciation process. While we think that these misconceptions are usually inadvertently implied (and not actively believed) by the researchers, they nonetheless risk warping how external readers understand speciation. Here we highlight six misconceptions of speciation that are especially widespread. First, species are implied to be clearly and consistently defined entities in nature, whereas in reality species boundaries are often fuzzy and semipermeable. Second, speciation is often implied to be ‘good’, which is two-fold problematic because it implies both that evolution has a goal and that speciation universally increases the chances of lineage persistence. Third, species-poor clades with species-rich sister clades are considered ‘primitive’ or ‘basal’, falsely implying a ladder of progress. Fourth, the evolution of species is assumed to be strictly tree-like, but genomic findings show widespread hybridization more consistent with network-like evolution. Fifth, a lack of association between a trait and elevated speciation rates in macroevolutionary studies is often interpreted as evidence against its relevance in speciation—even if microevolutionary case studies show that it is relevant. Sixth, obvious trait differences between species are sometimes too readily assumed to be (i) barriers to reproduction, (ii) a stepping-stone to inevitable speciation, or (iii) reflective of the species’ whole divergence history. In conclusion, we call for caution, particularly when communicating science, because miscommunication of these ideas provides fertile ground for misconceptions to spread.</description><subject>s on Speciation</subject><issn>2752-938X</issn><issn>2752-938X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>TOX</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkEFLw0AQhRdRbKn9Ax6k4Dl2djfJZk4iwapQ8KLgbdlsNrqa7IZsW9Bfb0pqrTdPb4Z57xt4hJxTuKKAfG42vrbOGeXmH1_KAMMjMmYiYRHy7OX4YB6RaQjvAMA5AwF4SkYcUwBB-Zhc5r5pvJs1NmjvtGlX1rsw89UstEZbtV3PyEml6mCmO52Q58XtU34fLR_vHvKbZaQZFxhhUcaCYkJjA2VcUEh6zXShCyoyFWOsBUKqWYLMYJZkuqI8LZhQJoMUYsUn5HrgtuuiMaU2btWpWradbVT3Kb2y8u_F2Tf56jeS0gSBIvYENhB050PoTLUPU5Db2uRvbXJXWx-6OHy7j_yU1BuiweDX7X-A3_WYfUg</recordid><startdate>2024</startdate><enddate>2024</enddate><creator>Walker, Jonah M</creator><creator>van der Heijden, Eva S M</creator><creator>Maulana, Arif</creator><creator>Rueda-M, Nicol</creator><creator>Näsvall, Karin</creator><creator>Salazar, Patricio A</creator><creator>Meyer, Marco</creator><creator>Meier, Joana I</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>TOX</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7726-2875</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7355-3130</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1968-4575</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4424-9695</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8988-0769</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2970-4189</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6459-7958</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7527-7165</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2024</creationdate><title>Common misconceptions of speciation</title><author>Walker, Jonah M ; van der Heijden, Eva S M ; Maulana, Arif ; Rueda-M, Nicol ; Näsvall, Karin ; Salazar, Patricio A ; Meyer, Marco ; Meier, Joana I</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2379-9bd4719514e0d4b105e0d8cbcb178a494c7906c2592e9858cf136b27ae80604a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>s on Speciation</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Walker, Jonah M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Heijden, Eva S M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Maulana, Arif</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rueda-M, Nicol</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Näsvall, Karin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salazar, Patricio A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meyer, Marco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meier, Joana I</creatorcontrib><collection>Oxford Open</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Evolutionary journal of the Linnean Society</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Walker, Jonah M</au><au>van der Heijden, Eva S M</au><au>Maulana, Arif</au><au>Rueda-M, Nicol</au><au>Näsvall, Karin</au><au>Salazar, Patricio A</au><au>Meyer, Marco</au><au>Meier, Joana I</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Common misconceptions of speciation</atitle><jtitle>Evolutionary journal of the Linnean Society</jtitle><addtitle>Evol J Linn Soc</addtitle><date>2024</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>3</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>kzae029</spage><pages>kzae029-</pages><issn>2752-938X</issn><eissn>2752-938X</eissn><abstract>Abstract Speciation is a complex process that can unfold in many different ways. Speciation researchers sometimes simplify core principles in their writing in a way that implies misconceptions about the speciation process. While we think that these misconceptions are usually inadvertently implied (and not actively believed) by the researchers, they nonetheless risk warping how external readers understand speciation. Here we highlight six misconceptions of speciation that are especially widespread. First, species are implied to be clearly and consistently defined entities in nature, whereas in reality species boundaries are often fuzzy and semipermeable. Second, speciation is often implied to be ‘good’, which is two-fold problematic because it implies both that evolution has a goal and that speciation universally increases the chances of lineage persistence. Third, species-poor clades with species-rich sister clades are considered ‘primitive’ or ‘basal’, falsely implying a ladder of progress. Fourth, the evolution of species is assumed to be strictly tree-like, but genomic findings show widespread hybridization more consistent with network-like evolution. Fifth, a lack of association between a trait and elevated speciation rates in macroevolutionary studies is often interpreted as evidence against its relevance in speciation—even if microevolutionary case studies show that it is relevant. Sixth, obvious trait differences between species are sometimes too readily assumed to be (i) barriers to reproduction, (ii) a stepping-stone to inevitable speciation, or (iii) reflective of the species’ whole divergence history. In conclusion, we call for caution, particularly when communicating science, because miscommunication of these ideas provides fertile ground for misconceptions to spread.</abstract><cop>UK</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>39600713</pmid><doi>10.1093/evolinnean/kzae029</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7726-2875</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7355-3130</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1968-4575</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4424-9695</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8988-0769</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2970-4189</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0009-0004-6459-7958</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7527-7165</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2752-938X
ispartof Evolutionary journal of the Linnean Society, 2024, Vol.3 (1), p.kzae029
issn 2752-938X
2752-938X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_11590199
source Oxford Open
subjects s on Speciation
title Common misconceptions of speciation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T20%3A03%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Common%20misconceptions%20of%20speciation&rft.jtitle=Evolutionary%20journal%20of%20the%20Linnean%20Society&rft.au=Walker,%20Jonah%20M&rft.date=2024&rft.volume=3&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=kzae029&rft.pages=kzae029-&rft.issn=2752-938X&rft.eissn=2752-938X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/evolinnean/kzae029&rft_dat=%3Coup_pubme%3E10.1093/evolinnean/kzae029%3C/oup_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/39600713&rft_oup_id=10.1093/evolinnean/kzae029&rfr_iscdi=true