Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 57

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

THE IMPACT OF RANDOM AND LINEAL FISSION ON THE GENETIC DIVERGENCE OF SMALL HUMAN GROUPS: A CASE STUDY AMONG THE YANOMAMA

Smouse, Peter E, Vitzthum, Virginia J, Neel, James V·1981·Genetics

Abstract

Most of the genetic divergence that currently separates populations of Homo sapiens must have arisen during that long period when the local village (or band) was the basic unit of biological evolution. Studies of tribally intact Amerindian groups exhibiting such small-group organization have demonstrated marked genetic divergence between nearby villages. Some of this genetic radiation can be attributed to the effects of random genetic drift over time within these small demes. Some of it, however, might be better ascribed to the consequences of nonrandom genetic assortment at the time of village fission, a recurring event for such groups. Even random genetic assortment at the time of fission would lead to some genetic divergence, due to the finite size of the parent gene pool. We term the genetic consequences of random assortment the random fission effect. Routinely, village fission occurs along family lines, leading to even greater genetic divergence between the daughter villages. We use the term lineal fission effect to describe the genetic consequences of nonrandom assortment and contrast these results with those derived from random assortment.——A formal treatment of random and lineal fission effects is developed, first for the single-locus case, then for the multiple-locus extension. Using this formulation, three Yanomama fission events were examined. Fission in the Yanomama often involves a great deal of mutual hostility between the two factions, so that subsequent gene flow between the two daughter villages is minimal. The first two examples are typical of the Yanomama behavior norm, and are accompanied by a minimum of subsequent gene flow between the daughter villages. In these two cases, the observed divergence values are very large and are also very unlikely under random fission. The lineal fission effect is pronounced. The net impact of lineal fission is to reduce the effective size of the village at the time of fission by a factor of four, relative to expectation from random fission. The third example, however, involved an unusually amicable split of a village, followed by free genetic exchange between the fission products. This "friendly fission" yields an observed divergence value not much in excess of the expectation from random fission.—The long-term consequences of such fission bottlenecks in effective population size are discussed for both intra- and inter-tribal genetic diversity. It appears that the rate of genetic divergence for tribal and subtribal groups may have been somewhat greater than would be expected from classical drift arguments.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/genetics/98.1.179

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Smouse, P. E., Vitzthum, V. J., & Neel, J. V.
Venue
Genetics
Published
1981-05-01
Volume
98
Issue
1
Pages
179-197
ISSN
1943-2631
Cited by
57
References
0
Language
en

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