What shapes the continuum of reproductive isolation? Lessons from <i>Heliconius</i> butterflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process by which species evolve can be illuminated by investigating barriers that limit gene flow between taxa. Recent radiations, such as Heliconius butterflies, offer the opportunity to compare isolation between pairs of taxa at different stages of ecological, geographical, and phylogenetic divergence. Here, we report a comparative analysis of existing and novel data in order to quantify the strength and direction of isolating barriers within a well-studied clade of Heliconius . Our results highlight that increased divergence is associated with the accumulation of stronger and more numerous barriers to gene flow. Wing pattern is both under natural selection for Müllerian mimicry and involved in mate choice, and therefore underlies several isolating barriers. However, pairs which share a similar wing pattern also display strong reproductive isolation mediated by traits other than wing pattern. This suggests that, while wing pattern is a key factor for early stages of divergence, it may become facultative at later stages of divergence. Additional factors including habitat partitioning, hybrid sterility, and chemically mediated mate choice are associated with complete speciation. Therefore, although most previous work has emphasized the role of wing pattern, our comparative results highlight that speciation is a multi-dimensional process, whose completion is stabilized by many factors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".