Lack of intrinsic postzygotic isolation in haplodiploid male hybrids despite high genetic distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Evolutionary biologists have long been interested in understanding the mechanisms underlying Haldane’s rule. The explanatory theories of dominance and faster-X, which are based on recessive alleles being expressed in the heterogametic sex, have been proposed as common mechanisms. These mechanisms predict that greater hemizygosity leads to both faster evolution and greater expression of intrinsic postzygotic isolation. Under these mechanisms, haplodiploids should evolve and express intrinsic postzygotic isolation faster than diploids because the entire genome is analogous to a sex chromosome. Here, we measure sterility and inviability in hybrids between Neodiprion pinetum and N. lecontei , a pair of haplodiplopids that differ morphologically, behaviorally, and genetically. We compare the observed isolation to that expected from published estimates of isolation in diploids at comparable levels of genetic divergence. We find that both male and female hybrids are viable and fertile, which is less isolation than expected. We then discuss several potential explanations for this surprising lack of isolation, including alternative mechanisms for Haldane’s rule and a frequently overlooked quirk of haplodiploid genetics that may slow the emergence of complete intrinsic postzygotic isolation in hybrid males. Finally, we describe how haplodiploids, an underutilized resource, can be used to differentiate between mechanisms of Haldane’s rule.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".