I thought this paper was very interesting, and the introduction is a nice approachable summary of some open questions in speciation in the context of sexual selection. Here’s an excerpt from the introduction:
Although the potential for speciation by sexual selection has long been acknowledged, theoretical work has identified two major challenges for this mechanism to occur when there is gene flow between incipient species: (i) the association between a genetic mating trait and a genetic preference can easily be broken down by recombination and (ii) assortative mating often degrades genetic variation in mating traits and preferences, which eliminates the polymorphisms that provide the basis for future divergence. Sexual imprinting—a phenomenon in which offspring learn parental phenotypes as the basis of their own mate preferences—presents a solution to the problem of recombination.
I haven’t read the Nature paper yet, but wanted to point out that the population genetic theory regarding why recombination often impedes speciation was, in part, elucidate in a highly influential paper written by none other than @Joe_Felsenstein.
“Eludicated”?? Actually my 1981 paper was not a new theory of speciation but an explanation of how population-genetic processes work in the standard view of speciation.
Apologies if I’m misplacing the credit for describing the population genetic effects of recombination on speciation, but don’t elucidate and explain basically mean the same thing?
In any case, I was simply trying to bring attention to your paper, which I first learned about during a lecture from Doug Futuyma a few years ago. He, at least, seemed to think it was pretty important!
Yes, but you didn’t say “elucidate”. You said “eludicate”. Shares a word root with “ludicrous”. (I was just trying to disclaim that my paper originated any new schemes for speciation).
Haha! I see now. Typo corrected.