FROM MICRO- TO MACROEVOLUTION THROUGH QUANTITATIVE GENETIC VARIATION: POSITIVE EVIDENCE FROM FIELD CRICKETS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative genetics has been introduced to evolutionary biologists with the suggestion that microevolution could be directly linked to macroevolutionary patterns using, among other parameters, the additive genetic variance/ covariance matrix (G) which is a statistical representation of genetic constraints to evolution. However, little is known concerning the rate and pattern of evolution of G in nature, and it is uncertain whether the constraining effect of G is important over evolutionary time scales. To address these issues, seven species of field crickets from the genera Gryllus and Teleogryllus were reared in the laboratory, and quantitative genetic parameters for morphological traits were estimated from each of them using a nested full-sibling family design. We used three statistical approaches (T method, Flury hierarchy, and Mantel test) to compare G matrices or genetic correlation matrices in a phylogenetic framework. Results showed that G matrices were generally similar across species, with occasional differences between some species. We suggest that G has evolved at a low rate, a conclusion strengthened by the consideration that part of the observed across-species variation in G can be explained by the effect of a genotype by environment interaction. The observed pattern of G matrix variation between species could not be predicted by either morphological trait values or phylogeny. The constraint hypothesis was tested by comparing the multivariate orientation of the reconstructed ancestral G matrix to the orientation of the across-species divergence matrix (D matrix, based on mean trait values). The D matrix mainly revealed divergence in size and, to a much smaller extent, in a shape component related to the ovipositor length. This pattern of species divergence was found to be predictable from the ancestral G matrix in agreement with the expectation of the constraint hypothesis. Overall, these results suggest that the G matrix seems to have an influence on species divergence, and that macroevolution can be predicted, at least qualitatively, from quantitative genetic theory. Alternative explanations are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".