Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By News Staff | July 15th 2009 01:00 AM | 4 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
Speciation, where different populations of the same species split into separate species, is central to understanding evolution.

As would be expected in a complex process like evolution, it's difficult to observe in action.  A new study in American Naturalist says they have captured two populations of monarch flycatcher birds just as they arrive at that 'evolutionary crossroads' of speciation - and it involves a change in a single gene.

Monarch flycatchers are small, insect-eating birds common in the Solomon Islands, east of Papua New Guinea. Uy and his team looked at two flycatcher populations: one found mostly on the large island of Makira, the other on smaller surrounding islands. Besides where they live, the only discernable difference between the two populations is the color of their feathers. The birds on Makira have all black feathers. Birds on the smaller islands have the same black feathers, but with a chestnut-colored belly.

The question of whether these two populations are on the road to speciation comes down to sex. When two populations stop exchanging genes—that is, stop mating with each other—then they can be considered distinct species. Uy and his team wanted to see if these flycatchers were heading in that direction.

It would be all but impossible to try to catalog every occasion on which an all-black flycatcher mated with a chestnut-bellied. So biologist J. Albert Uy of Syracuse University and colleagues used another test.

Flycatcher males defend their mating territories. If a potential rival male enters another's territory, fights often ensue. If all-black males react less violently to chestnut-bellied males and vice versa, that's an indication that the two don't recognize each other as reproductive rivals. If they don't see each other as rivals, then one can assume that mating between members of the two populations is rare.

Uy and his team made all-black and chestnut-bellied taxidermy models. They used the models to invade mating territories in each population. As expected, when all-black birds were presented with all-black models, they attacked. But when all-black birds encountered chestnut-bellied models, they were much less likely to go on the offensive. The same scenario held for the chestnut-bellied birds.

That males from the two populations no longer view the other as a reproductive threat is a good indication that not much mating is taking place between the two groups. Their evolutionary paths are diverging, Uy and his team found—all because of a change in plumage.

That males from the two populations no longer view the other as a reproductive threat is a good indication that not much mating is taking place between the two groups. Their evolutionary paths are diverging, Uy and his team found—all because of a change in plumage.

The researchers then went a step further. They looked into the birds' genomes to see what genes may have played a role in the different plumage pattern. They found only one: the melanocortin-1 receptor gene (MC1R). The MC1R gene regulates the production of melanin, which gives skin and feathers their color. The all-black and chestnut-bellied birds had different versions of the MC1R gene, which gave rise to the plumage change.

That change appears to have been enough to create a reproductive barrier for flycatchers. Not every species is so picky, so a color change doesn't always drive speciation. Nonetheless, these results suggest that it can take as little as one gene, in the right spot in the genome, to cause a fork in the evolutionary road.


Comments

The evidence for "speciation" here is pretty weak. There's no sense in which the different coloured feathers might make them incompatible. Ironically the lesser aggressive response means that if a chestnut-bellied male did invade an all-black male's territory he would be much more likely to mate with an all-black female because he wouldn't be chased away. If anything this observation makes speciation less likely.

The claim "Their evolutionary paths are diverging, Uy and his team found—all because of a change in plumage" goes well beyond the evidence. People with different hair/eye colour also have a genetic difference. Blonds may have more fun, but that doesn't mean they are a different species!

Gerhard Adam's picture
There's no sense in which the different coloured feathers might make them incompatible.

What does compatibility have to do with it?  The only point is that if two sets of animals are no longer mating nor considered rivals for mates, then they are moving down a divergent path that MAY result in more significant changes including an inability to mate later (but it may not).

The article presents no evidence on mating habits. No evidence on male/female interactions at all - only male/male. There is an assumption that this laboratory finding relates to behaviour in the wild and to mate selection, but no evidence. Hence I say that the conclusion goes beyond the evidence. At best this is variation not speciation - compatibility comes in when one variety cannot mate successfully with the other, although hybridisation confuses things. The speculation about how speciation might occur is interesting, but it is only speculation - we are not seeing it as the article claims, we are imagining how it might occur. That might be a worthwhile exercise, but when I learnt science we were taught to be clear about the difference.

I'm still looking around for a definite observation of the emergence of a new species from an old one - one that uses sexual reproduction would be more interesting than asexual.

Gerhard Adam's picture
It sounds like you've got specific requirements for speciation in mind that aren't actually needed.

Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.