Assortative mating in hybrid zones is remarkably ineffective in promoting speciation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Assortative mating and other forms of partial prezygotic isolation are often viewed as being more important than partial postzygotic isolation (low fitness of hybrids) early in the process of speciation. Here I simulate secondary contact between two populations (‘species’) to examine effects of pre- and postzygotic isolation in preventing blending. A small reduction in hybrid fitness (e.g., 10%) produces a narrower hybrid zone than a strong but imperfect mating preference (e.g., 10x stronger preference for conspecific over heterospecific mates). This is because, in the latter case, rare F1 hybrids find each other attractive (due to assortative mating), leading to the gradual buildup of a full continuum of intermediates between the two species. The cline is narrower than would result from purely neutral diffusion over the same number of generations, largely due to the frequency-dependent mating disadvantage of individuals of rare mating types. Hybrids tend to pay this cost of rarity more than pure individuals, meaning there is an induced postzygotic isolation effect of assortative mating. These results prompt a questioning of the concept of partial prezygotic isolation, since it is not very isolating unless there is also postzygotic isolation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".