The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The genic view of the process of speciation
Abstract
The unit of adaptation is usually thought to be a gene or set of interacting genes, rather than the whole genome, and this may be true of species differentiation. Defining species on the basis of reproductive isolation (RI), on the other hand, is a concept best applied to the entire genome. The biological species concept (BSC; Mayr, 1963) stresses the isolation aspect of speciation on the basis of two fundamental genetic assumptions – the number of loci underlying species differentiation is large and the whole genome behaves as a cohesive, or coadapted genetic unit. Under these tenets, the exchange of any part of the genomes between diverging groups is thought to destroy their integrity. Hence, the maintenance of each species’ genome cohesiveness by isolating mechanisms has become the central concept of species. In contrast, the Darwinian view of speciation is about differential adaptation to different natural or sexual environments. RI is viewed as an important by product of differential adaptation and complete RI across the whole genome need not be considered as the most central criterion of speciation. The emphasis on natural and sexual selection thus makes the Darwinian view compatible with the modern genic concept of evolution. Genetic and molecular analyses of speciation in the last decade have yielded surprisingly strong support for the neo-Darwinian view of extensive genetic differentiation and epistasis during speciation. However, the extent falls short of what BSC requires in order to achieve whole-genome ‘cohesiveness’. Empirical observations suggest that the gene is the unit of species differentiation. Significantly, the genetic architecture underlying RI, the patterns of species hybridization and the molecular signature of speciation genes all appear to support the view that RI is one of the manifestations of differential adaptation, as Darwin (1859, Chap. 8) suggested. The nature of this adaptation may be as much the result of sexual selection as natural selection. In the light of studies since its early days, BSC may now need a major revision by shifting the emphasis from isolation at the level of whole genome to differential adaptation at the genic level. With this revision, BSC would in fact be close to Darwin’s original concept of speciation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mayr, E. (1963) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674865327 · Cited by 10,175
The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene
Smith, J. M., & Haigh, J. (1974) · Genetical Research · doi:10.1017/s0016672300014634 · Cited by 3,415
Hitchhiking Under Positive Darwinian Selection
Fay, J. C., & Wu, C.-I. (2000) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/155.3.1405 · Cited by 1,819
Self-citationThe limits of selection during maize domestication
Wang, R.-L., Stec, A., Hey, J., Lukens, L., & Doebley, J. (1999) · Nature · doi:10.1038/18435 · Cited by 740
Genetic mapping of floral traits associated with reproductive isolation in monkeyflowers (Mimulus)
Bradshaw, H. D., Wilbert, S. M., Otto, K. G., & Schemske, D. W. (1995) · Nature · doi:10.1038/376762a0 · Cited by 416
Estimating the mating behavior of a pair of hybridizing Heliconius species in the wild
Mallet, J., McMillan, W. O., & Jiggins, C. D. (1998) · Evolution · doi:10.2307/2411085 · Cited by 57
Cited by
Abbott, R., Albach, D., Ansell, S., Arntzen, J. W., Baird, S. J. E., Bierne, N., Boughman, J., Brelsford, A., Buerkle, C. A., Buggs, R., et al. (2013) · Journal of Evolutionary Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2012.02599.x · Cited by 2,194
Landscape genetics: combining landscape ecology and population genetics
Manel, S., Schwartz, M. K., Luikart, G., & Taberlet, P. (2003) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/s0169-5347(03)00008-9 · Cited by 1,859
Cruickshank, T. E., & Hahn, M. W. (2014) · Molecular Ecology · doi:10.1111/mec.12796 · Cited by 1,061
Determinants of genetic diversity
Ellegren, H., & Galtier, N. (2016) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg.2016.58 · Cited by 874
Genealogical trees, coalescent theory and the analysis of genetic polymorphisms
Rosenberg, N. A., & Nordborg, M. (2002) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg795 · Cited by 750
Metadata
- Authors
- Wu, C.-I.
- Venue
- Journal of Evolutionary Biology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001-11-01
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 851-865
- ISSN
- 1010-061X (ISSN-L)
- 1420-9101
- OpenAlex
- W2119255538
- Cited by
- 1,276
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 16.05
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The genic view of the process of speciation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00335.x
- The paper
- Wu, C.-I. (2001). The genic view of the process of speciation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00335.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.