Does divergent selection predict the evolution of mate preference and reproductive isolation in the tropical butterfly genus <i>Melinaea</i> (Nymphalidae: Ithomiini)?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies have shown that speciation can be facilitated when a trait under divergent selection also causes assortative mating. In Müllerian mimetic butterflies, a change in wing colour pattern can cause reproductive isolation. However, colour pattern divergence does not always lead to reproductive isolation. Understanding how divergent selection affects speciation requires identifying the mechanisms that promote mate preference and/or choosiness. This study addresses whether shifts in wing colour pattern drives mate preference and reproductive isolation in the tropical butterfly genus Melinaea (Nymphalidae: Ithomiini), and focuses on five taxa that form a speciation continuum, from subspecies to fully recognized species. Using genetic markers, wing colour pattern quantification, male pheromone characterization and behavioural assays of mating preference, we characterize the extent of genetic and phenotypic differentiation between taxa and compare it to the level of reproductive isolation. We show strong premating isolation between the closely related species M. satevis and M. marsaeus, in addition to genetic and phenotypic (colour pattern and pheromones) differentiation. By contrast, M. menophilus and M. marsaeus consist of pairs of subspecies that differ for colour pattern but that cannot be differentiated genetically. Pheromonal differentiation of subspecies was significant only for M. marsaeus, although most individuals were indistinguishable. Melinaea menophilus and M. marsaeus also differ in the strength of assortative mating, suggesting that mate preference has evolved only in M. marsaeus, consistent with selection against maladaptive offspring, as subspecific 'hybrids' of M. marsaeus have intermediate, non-mimetic colour patterns, unlike those of M. menophilus which display either parental phenotypes. We conclude that a shift in colour pattern per se is not sufficient for reproductive isolation, but rather, the evolution of assortative mating may be caused by selection against maladaptive intermediate phenotypes. This study suggests that mate preference and assortative mating evolve when adaptive, and that even in the early stages of divergence, reproductive isolation can be nearly complete due to mating preferences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".