Talk:WikiJournal of Science/Peripatric speciation
Author: Andrew Z. Colvin, et al.
Colvin, A; et al..
First peer reviewer
This review was submitted on 12 June 2018, and refers to this previous version of the article
This is a nice review that addresses an interesting topic regarding one kind of speciation (peripatric) in wide range of biological groups, from arthropods, molluscs and birds to bryophytes and spermatophytes (cited as examples of this speciation process). Peripatric speciation also refers to the speciation events that occur when a small group of members colonize a new habitat, or if a peripheral part of the range fragments off and gets isolated. I found the work very interesting and completed. I have made a number of recomendations and a few comments in the manuscript.
The article presents a logical structure (definition, history, models, evidences). Perhaps it is very evident but I would add a section or line about the etymology of the word.
A important recent example between Macaronesian islands seems to be found among species of the genus Scrophularia (Valtueña et al., 2017). They studied 5 S. lowei and 25 S. arguta populations to determine the relationship of both species and to infer the geographical origin of S. lowei. Add to “Other islands” section.
A period of allopatry is widely believed to be essential for the evolution of reproductive isolation. However, strict allopatry may be difficult to achieve in some cosmopolitan, spore-dispersed groups, like mosses. In Nieto-Lugilde et al. (2018), we examine the genetic and genome size diversity in Mediterranean populations of the moss Ceratodon purpureus s.l. (worldwide distribution) to evaluate the role of allopatry and ploidy change in population divergence. This example is on continent but maybe you can considered Spanish Sierra Nevada Mountains like a "island".
- Minor comments
In the 2nd paragraph “The concept of peripatric speciation was first outlined by the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr in 1954.” This information is redundant with the first paragraph of History section. And the reference is ausent.
In section “Model”, “Peripatric”, “The effects of genetic drift on small populations”. It is very difficult for us to tell after the fact what role genetic drift played in the divergence of the two populations, so gathering evidence to support or refute this mode is challenging (https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evo101/VC1cPeripatric.shtml).
Must be the “Evidence” secction, “Evidences”?
2nd line of "Species patterns on continents" section: “However, studies concerning the Californian plant species Clarkia biloba and C. biloba strongly suggest a peripatric origin.” It has repeated the same species, must be Clarkia biloba and C. lingulata?
Gymnopithys leucaspis is not cited in the text, only in figure. In the text said Sciaphylax hemimelaena.
Specify that Myrmeciza hemimelaena is a synonyms of Sciaphylax hemimelaena.
“The red spruce has significantly lower genetic diversity in both its DNA and its mitochondrial DNA than the black spruce.” add “nuclear” DNA
“Peripatric speciation has been researched in both laboratory studies and nature.” it is repeated two times.
None declared any conflicts of interests
Revisions made: adjusted Mayr reference in regard to history of the topic; added "from nature" to evidence section; added ‘Elepaio diagram in regard to textual discussion of the example; added Scrophularia example and Macronesian examples suggested by reviewer; included recent references of those subjects; corrected biloba to lingulata; replaced Sciaphylax hemimelaena image with actual species and not related species; explained previous name of Sciaphylax hemimelaena; added "nuclear DNA" to distinguish from mitochondrial DNA; rephrased lead to Laboratory evidence section. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 12:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Second peer reviewer
anonymous peer reviewer
This review was submitted on 13 June 2018, and refers to this previous version of the article
I found this article on peripatric speciation to be accurate and thorough. In particular, the ‘Evidence’ section is extremely detailed and well done, and the article is very well referenced. One thing that I think could be expanded is the underlying population genetic theory on peripatric speciation. For example, the idea of then genetic revolution (fundamental to Mayr’s ideas) is missing from the article. The concept of drift breaking co-adapted gene complexes was one of the mechanisms that Mayr proposed for the patterns he saw with divergent species in geographical peripheral positions. Although the ‘Laboratory experiments’ section contains some text on the controversy over peripatric speciation (or more accurately, founder effect speciation), I think it might be good to include more discussion of the fact that peripatric speciation (or at least Mayr’s formulation of it involving genetic revolutions and an important role for drift) remains controversial.
- Specific comments
Peripatric speciation is usually considered one of two types of allopatric speciation (along with vicariant speciation). Mayr (1982 and earlier references) referred to it as a type of allopatric speciation.
I would suggest including some of the original observations on bird distributions in Papua New Guinea (kingfishers, etc) that led Mayr to propose this theory.
One model (sometimes included as a type of peripatric speciation) that I think is missing from this page is ‘budding speciation’ (see papers by Gotlieb on Clarkia California plants). This budding can be either on the periphery of the progenitor species’ range (in which case it is classic peripatric speciation) or within the range (but not in sympatry).
The specific phylogenetic signature expected from peripatric speciation is that the progenitor species is paraphyletic with respect to the derivative species. I think this is a more accurate way of stating it than using plesiomorphic and apomorphic, which are typically used to talk about character evolution (rather than phylogenetic topological patterns per se). This is basically what the next sentence says, but I would recommend eliminating the plesiomorphic and apomorphic text, or using these words to refer to phenotype rather than phylogeny.
‘Centrifugal speciation’ Section
I have the same comments above regarding the use of ‘plesiomorphic’ and ‘derived’.
Thank you for your suggestions and comments. I made several corrections, modifications and additions. I included Verne Grant's quantum speciation as well as it appears that the literature discusses this as a form of budding speciation. Andrew Z. Colvin (discuss • contribs) 22:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Revisions made: corrected parts about the phylogenetic signature as suggested by reviewer; expanded history of the idea adding Mayr's observations and E.B. Ford's ideas; clarified controversial nature of drift and founder effects; added full sections on "budding" (and the related quantum) speciation. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 13:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Minor grammar corrections; link fixes that did not convert correctly from Wikipedia; reference data such PMC identifiers; removed repetitive links; image fixes and replacement of low quality ones; replaced PNG images with SVGs where possible; minor textual clarifications; removed redundant reference usage; heading level changes. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 13:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)