For Quo_Vadis_Petre: sexual selection drives speciation in an Amazonian frog
#1
Quote:

Nature 444, 04-05 (2 November 2006) | doi:10.1038/44404a; Published online 1 November 2006

Evolutionary biology: Darwinian serenade

[Image: 44404a-i1.0.jpg]W. C. FUNK

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B doi:10.1098/rsbp.2006.3736 (2006)

A population of Amazonian frogs that woos with calls (Physalaemus petersi, pictured) seems to be splitting into several species as the females' preferences for different types of call diverge, report researchers at the University of Texas in Austin.

W. Chris Funk, now of the United States Geological Survey in Corvallis, Oregon, and his colleagues gathered genetic evidence to support the idea. They found, for example, that gene flow between groups that have a simple call composed of a single whine component (which Funk pronounces "Chu! Chu!") and groups that have a complex call containing a whine and a squawk ("Chu hanh! Chu hanh!") is 30 times lower than within these groups.

Speciation by sexual selection, although supported by theory, is hard to catch in action.

See Sexual speciation drives speciation in an Amazonian frog by Kathryn E. Boul, W. Chris Funk, Catherine R. Darst, et al.
Reply
#2
My reply to that would be that the frog still remains a frog. This seems to be another instance of microevolution.
Reply
#3
Quo_Vadis_Petre Wrote:My reply to that would be that the frog still remains a frog. This seems to be another instance of microevolution.

Quote:A population of Amazonian frogs that woos with calls (Physalaemus petersi, pictured) seems to be splitting into several species [emphasis mine] as the females' preferences for different types of call diverge, report researchers at the University of Texas in Austin.
According to you:

Physalaemus petersi
Microevolution
Physalaemus petersi preferring different type of call

Observed:

Physalaemus petersi
Speciation
→ Species preferring call “Chu! Chu!”
→ Species preferring call “Chu hanh! Chu hanh!”
→ Etc
Reply
#4
Natural selection is not the same as full-blown evolution.  Things can adapt without evolving.
 
 
Reply
#5
I didn't say I held such a position as you show in that diagram when I said this was an instance of microevolution, of which natural selection is part.
Reply
#6
GrumpyTroll Wrote:
Observed:

Physalaemus petersi
Speciation
→ Species preferring call “Chu! Chu!”
→ Species preferring call “Chu hanh! Chu hanh!”
→ Etc

From what you posted originally, it sounded like the frogs had the ability to make either type of call, but because some female frogs preferred one and some preferred the other, they're splitting into two groups (species, if you like). But there's no new genetic information here - it's actually losing information, since the genes for the other type of call would tend to die out. "Speciation" is not the same thing as "evolution", since you've still got two types of frogs here.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)