GENETIC DIFFERENTIATION DURING THE SPECIATION PROCESS IN DROSOPHILA

Evolution consists of changes in the genetic constitution (gene pool) of populations. The process of evolution may be seen in two ways-which have been called anagenesis and cladogenesis (Rensch, 1960). Changes occurring within a given phylogenetic line as time proceeds, are anagenetic evolution. They result in increased adaptation to the environment, and often reflect changes of the physical or biotic conditions of the environments. Cladogenesis occurs when a phylogenetic lineage splits into two or more independently evolving lineages. The great diversity of the living world is the result of cladogenetic evolution, which results in adaptation to a greater variety of niches, or ways of life. Among cladogenetic processes, the most decisive one is speciation, the process by which one species splits into two or more species. Species are groups of populations reproductively isolated from any other such groups. Species are independent evolutionary units. Adaptive changes occurring in an individual or population may be extended to all members of the species by natural selection; however, they cannot be passed on to different species. One of the most important questions in evolutionary genetics is the amount of genetic differentiation occurring in the speciation process. Speciation may occur by a variety of processes. In sexually reproducing organisms speciation most generally occurs according to the model of "geographic speciation." Two main stages may be recognized in this process. First, allopatric populations of the same species become genetically differentiated, mostly as a consequence of their adaptation to different environments. This genetic differentiation can only occur if the populations are geographically separated for some time, and there is no or very little migration between them. The second stage takes place when genetically differentiated populations come into geographic contact. If the gene pools of two populations are sufficiently different, progenies from interpopulational crosses are likely to have less fitness than progenies from intrapopulational crosses. Mating preferences are affected by genes. Alleles that decrease the probability of mating with individuals of a different population will, then, be selected against, while alleles increasing the probability of intrapopulational mating will be favored by natural selection. Eventually, the process may result in two reproductively isolated populations, and thus two different species. The question, "how much genetic differentiation occurs in the process of speciation," must be unfolded into two separate questions concerning the two stages of the process. The first question concerns the genetic differentiation occurring between allopatric populations that are likely to give rise to different species if and when they become, at least partially, sympatric. The second question refers to the amount of genetic differentiation taking place after sympatry, when the populations become reproductively isolated. 1 This is paper number XII in a series: "Enzyme variability in the Drosophila willistoni group." 2 Supported by NSF grant GB32895. 'Present address: Dept. of Biology, Brock University, St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada. 'Address: Department of Zoology, University of Indiana, Bloomington, Indiana.

[1]  T. Dobzhansky,et al.  Experiments on Sexual Isolation in Drosophila: I. Geographic Strains of Drosophila Willistoni. , 1944, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[2]  T. Dobzhansky,et al.  THE WILLISTONI GROUP OF SIBLING SPECIES OF DROSOPHILA , 1949, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[3]  T. Dobzhansky The chromosomes of Drosophila willistoni. , 1950, The Journal of heredity.

[4]  F. Salzano,et al.  A comparative study of chromosomal polymorphism in certain south american species of Drosophila , 1953, Heredity.

[5]  T. Dobzhansky,et al.  GENETICS OF NATURAL POPULATIONS. XXVIII. SUPPLEMENTARY DATA ON THE CHROMOSOMAL POLYMORPHISM IN DROSOPHILA WILLISTONI IN ITS RELATION TO THE ENVIRONMENT , 1959 .

[6]  T. Dobzhansky,et al.  DROSOPHILA PAULISTORUM, A CLUSTER OF SPECIES IN STATU NASCENDI. , 1959, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  T. Dobzhansky,et al.  Mating Preferences and Sexual Isolation Within and Between the Incipient Species of Drosophila Paulistorum , 1962 .

[8]  J. L. Hubby,et al.  Protein Differences in Drosophila. II. Comparative Species Genetics and Evolutionary Problems. , 1965, Genetics.

[9]  L. Ehrman DIRECT OBSERVATION OF SEXUAL ISOLATION BETWEEN ALLOPATRIC AND BETWEEN SYMPATRIC STRAINS OF THE DIFFERENT DROSOPHILA PAULISTORUM RACES , 1965 .

[10]  R. Lewontin,et al.  A molecular approach to the study of genic heterozygosity in natural populations. II. Amount of variation and degree of heterozygosity in natural populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. , 1966, Genetics.

[11]  T. Dobzhansky,et al.  Drosophila pavlovskiana, a Race or a Species? , 1967 .

[12]  J. L. Hubby,et al.  Protein Differences in Drosophila. IV. A Study of Sibling Species , 1968, The American Naturalist.

[13]  L. Ehrman,et al.  TRANSITIONAL POPULATIONS OF DROSOPHILA PAULISTORUM , 1969, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[14]  J. L. King,et al.  Non-Darwinian evolution. , 1969, Science.

[15]  Suh‐Yung Yang,et al.  PROTEIN POLYMORPHISM AND GENIC HETEROZYGOSITY IN TWO EUROPEAN SUBSPECIES OF THE HOUSE MOUSE , 1969, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[16]  C. Kastritsis A CYTOLOGICAL STUDY ON SOME RECENTLY COLLECTED STRAINS OF DROSOPHILA PAULISTORUM , 1969, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  G. Pasteur A BIOMETRICAL STUDY ON THE SEMISPECIES OF THE DROSOPHILA PAULISTORUM COMPLEX , 1970, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[18]  T. Dobzhansky,et al.  Enzyme variability in the Drosophila willistoni group. I. Genetic differentiation among sibling species. , 1970, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[19]  T. Dobzhansky,et al.  GEOGRAPHY OF THE SIBLING SPECIES RELATED TO DROSOPHILA WILLISTONI, AND OF THE SEMISPECIES OF THE DROSOPHILA PAULISTORUM COMPLEX , 1971, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[20]  R. Selander,et al.  Protein Variation and Systematics in Kangaroo Rats (Genus Dipodomys) , 1971 .

[21]  T. Dobzhansky,et al.  Polymorphisms in continental and island populations of Drosophila willistoni. , 1971, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[22]  R. Richmond Enzyme variability in the Drosophila willistoni group. 3. Amounts of variability in the superspecies, D. paulistorum. , 1972, Genetics.

[23]  J. Powell,et al.  Enzyme variability in the Drosophila Willistoni group. V. Genic variation in natural populations of Drosophila equinoxialis. , 1972, Genetical research.

[24]  J. Farris Estimating Phylogenetic Trees from Distance Matrices , 1972, The American Naturalist.

[25]  R. Selander,et al.  GENETIC VARIABILITY AND SIMILARITY IN THE ANOLIS LIZARDS OF BIMINI , 1972, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[26]  R. Richmond GENETIC SIMILARITIES AND EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE SEMISPECIES OF DROSOPHILA PAULISTORUM , 1972, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[27]  Masatoshi Nei,et al.  Genetic Distance between Populations , 1972, The American Naturalist.

[28]  J. Powell,et al.  Enzyme variability in the Drosophila willistoni group. IV. Genic variation in natural populations of Drosophila willistoni. , 1972, Genetics.

[29]  R. Selander,et al.  Genic Variation in Hybridizing Populations of Gophers (Genus Thomomys) , 1972 .

[30]  C. Falk,et al.  GENETIC DISTANCE AND EVOLUTIONARY RELATIONSHIPS IN THE DROSOPHILA OBSCURA GROUP , 1972, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[31]  R. Selander,et al.  Hybridization of Karyotypically Differentiated Populations in the Sceloporus Grammicus Complex (iguanidae) Karyotypic Variation in the Grammicus Complex Zone of Contact between P1 and F6 Methods and Materials Results Allozymic Variation Genic Heterozygosity and Similarity Genetic Analysis of the Cer , 2022 .

[32]  F. Ayala,et al.  Enzyme Variability in the Drosophila willistoni GroupVIII. Genetic differentiation and reproductive isolation between two subspecies , 1973 .

[33]  M. H. Smith,et al.  Biochemical polymorphism and systematics in the genus Peromyscus. VI. The boylii species group. , 1974, Journal of mammalogy.

[34]  L. G. Barr,et al.  Genetic variation in natural populations of five Drosophila species and the hypothesis of the selective neutrality of protein polymorphisms. , 1974, Genetics.

[35]  L. G. Barr,et al.  GENETIC AND REPRODUCTIVE DIFFERENTIATION OF THE SUBSPECIES, DROSOPHILA EQUINOXIALIS CARIBBENSIS , 1974, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[36]  J. Avise,et al.  BIOCHEMICAL GENETICS OF SUNFISH. I. GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION AND SUBSPECIFIC INTERGRADATION IN THE BLUEGILL, LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS , 1974, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[37]  J. Avise,et al.  Biochemical Genetics of Sunfish. II. Genic Similarity between Hybridizing Species , 1974, The American Naturalist.

[38]  F. Ayala,et al.  Genetic differentiation within and between species of the Drosophila willistoni group. , 1974, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[39]  F. Ayala,et al.  Evolutionary Divergence in the Genus Taricha (Salamandridae) , 1974 .