Assessing Modes of Speciation: Range Asymmetry and Biogeographical Congruence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lynch [1989,in“Speciation and Its Consequences” (D. Otte and J. A. Endler, Eds.), pp. 527–553, Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, proposed a methodology for assessing the frequency of occurrence of various modes of initiating species formation, using a combination of phylogenetic relationships and relative size of geographic ranges for sister species and sister groups. Historical biogeography provides an alternative criterion for assessing modes of species formation. Species whose distributions conform to a general (replicated in multiple clades) pattern of area relationships are deemed to be the result of vicariance (including microvicariance) regardless of the details of current geographic range. Species exhibiting unique biogeographic distributions are the result of peripheral isolates speciation and postspeciation dispersal. Lineage duplications indicate sympatric speciation. An empirical assessment of this alternative approach was performed using the most recent phylogenetic trees and geographical distribution data on the Mesoamerican poeciliid fish comprising the generaXiphophorusandHeterandria. The single area cladogram produced by secondary Brooks Parsimony Analysis indicates 3 vicariant events (accounting for seven extant species and the common ancestor of the northern swordtails, which are not further analyzed) and at least 13 episodes of peripheral isolates speciation. Two of the 10 areas considered in previous analyses are vicariant areas of endemism, 1 is historically unique due to a single episode of peripheral isolates speciation, and the remaining 7 have reticulated histories of speciation. The results corroborate inferences of speciation modes made by Lynch for the same data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".