Recombination suppressors and the evolution of new species

Chromosomal rearrangements are often the only apparent difference between closely related species, although it is not clear whether they are a cause or a by-product of speciation. We suggest that changes in the pattern of recombination may provide a link between chromosomal rearrangements and speciation. In models of speciation by sexual selection and by reinforcement, recombination is a major barrier to the formation of new species, primarily because it opposes the establishment of linkage disequilibrium. Here we show that in both the Felsenstein (1981) and Kirkpatrick (1982) models, a recombination suppressor is able to enhance the processes leading to speciation and increase its own frequency in the population.

[1]  M G Ritchie,et al.  Setbacks in the search for mate-preference genes. , 1992, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[2]  J. Searle.  Factors responsible for a karyotypic polymorphism in the common shrew, Sorex araneus , 1986, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[3]  R. Lande.  Models of speciation by sexual selection on polygenic traits. , 1981, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[4]  Manfred Milinski,et al.  Sexual selection and the evolution of female choice , 1994 .

[5]  O. Taylor,et al.  THE EFFECT OF X‐CHROMOSOME INHERITANCE ON MATE‐SELECTION BEHAVIOR IN THE SULFUR BUTTERFLIES, COLIAS EURYTHEME AND C. PHILODICE , 1980, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[6]  R. Butlin.  Speciation by reinforcement. , 1987, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[7]  J. Seger.  UNIFYING GENETIC MODELS FOR THE EVOLUTION OF FEMALE CHOICE , 1985, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[8]  S. Foster,et al.  Female mating preference for large size in Coelopa frigida (seaweed fly) , 1992, Heredity.

[9]  M. West-Eberhard.  Sexual Selection, Social Competition, and Speciation , 1983, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[10]  N. Barton,et al.  THE PROBABILITY OF FIXATION OF A NEW KARYOTYPE IN A CONTINUOUS POPULATION , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[11]  H. Lewis.  The Origin of Diploid Neospecies in Clarkia , 1973, The American Naturalist.

[12]  B. Charlesworth,et al.  Selection of new inversions in multi-locus genetic systems , 1973 .

[13]  M. King.  Species Evolution: The Role of Chromosome Change , 1993 .

[14]  Yoh Iwasa,et al.  THE EVOLUTION OF COSTLY MATE PREFERENCES I. FISHER AND BIASED MUTATION , 1991, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[15]  J. Felsenstein.  SKEPTICISM TOWARDS SANTA ROSALIA, OR WHY ARE THERE SO FEW KINDS OF ANIMALS? , 1981, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[16]  R. Lande.  EFFECTIVE DEME SIZES DURING LONG‐TERM EVOLUTION ESTIMATED FROM RATES OF CHROMOSOMAL REARRANGEMENT , 1979, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  E. Mayr,et al.  Modes of Speciation , 1978, How and Why Species Multiply.

[18]  John Maynard Smith,et al.  Theories of sexual selection. , 1991, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[19]  George W. Beadle,et al.  An introduction to genetics , 1940 .

[20]  Jerry A. Coyne,et al.  Genetics and speciation , 1992, Nature.

[21]  N. Barton,et al.  The structure and maintenance of hybrid zones as exemplified by Podisma pedestris , 1980 .

[22]  P. O'donald.  The theory of sexual selection , 1962, Heredity.

[23]  A. Fraser,et al.  Simulation of genetic systems. XII. Models of inversion polymorphism. , 1967, Genetics.