The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sympatric Speciation in Phytophagous Insects: Moving Beyond Controversy?
Abstract
▪ Abstract Sympatric speciation is the splitting of one evolutionary lineage into two without the occurrence of geographic isolation. The concept has been intimately tied to entomology since the 1860s, when Benjamin Walsh proposed that many host-specific phytophagous insects originate by shifting and adapting to new host plant species. If true, sympatric speciation would have tremendous implications for our understanding of species and their origins, biodiversity (25–40% of all animals are thought to be phytophagous specialists), insect-plant coevolution, community ecology, phylogenetics, and systematics, as well as practical significance for the management of insect pests. During much of the twentieth century sympatric speciation was viewed as much less plausible than geographic (allopatric) speciation. However, empirical field studies, laboratory experiments, developments in population genetics theory, and phylogenetic and biogeographic data have all recently combined to shed a more favorable light on the process. We review the evidence for sympatric speciation via host shifting for phytophagous insects and propose a set of testable predictions for distinguishing geographic mode (allopatric versus sympatric) of divergence. Our conclusion is that sympatric speciation is a viable hypothesis. We highlight areas where more thorough testing is needed to move sympatric speciation into the realm of accepted scientific theory.
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
Phylogenies and the Comparative Method
Felsenstein, J. (1985) · The American Naturalist · doi:10.1086/284325 · Cited by 9,793
Cited by
Hybridization as an invasion of the genome
Mallet, J. (2005) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.02.010 · Cited by 2,196
Evolution and the latitudinal diversity gradient: speciation, extinction and biogeography
Mittelbach, G. G., Schemske, D. W., Cornell, H. V., Allen, A. P., Brown, J. M., Bush, M. B., Harrison, S. P., Hurlbert, A. H., Knowlton, N., Lessios, H. A., et al. (2007) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01020.x · Cited by 1,751
The Role of Reinforcement in Speciation: Theory and Data
Servedio, M. R., & Noor, M. A. F. (2003) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.34.011802.132412 · Cited by 939
Host races in plant–feeding insects and their importance in sympatric speciation
Drès, M., & Mallet, J. (2002) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1059 · Cited by 909
Sympatric Speciation: Models and Empirical Evidence
Bolnick, D. I., & Fitzpatrick, B. M. (2007) · Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095804 · Cited by 744
Metadata
- Authors
- Berlocher, S. H., & Feder, J. L.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Entomology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 773-815
- ISSN
- 0066-4170 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-4487
- OpenAlex
- W1891857422
- Cited by
- 791
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 3.26
- 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: Sympatric Speciation in Phytophagous Insects: Moving Beyond Controversy? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145312
- The paper
- Berlocher, S. H., & Feder, J. L. (2002). Sympatric Speciation in Phytophagous Insects: Moving Beyond Controversy? Annual Review of Entomology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.47.091201.145312
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.