David C wrote:
>that prevent viable mating. On the other hand, very close but
non-conspecific
>relatives are most likely to be mistaken for potential mates and thus
provide
>the greatest evolutionary incentive for developing barriers to
reproduction.
Hi David. Reading your post and the others made me curious about something.
Why would there be "the greatest evol. incentive for developing barriers to
reproduction" among non-specifics that are closely related (that may be able
to produce viable offspring)? It just wasn't obvious to me, and I'm curious
to know why.
I mean, because of what we know about "outbreeding" it would seem that if
the offspring were not sterile, they may even have some evolutionary
advantages over either species simply because of the influx of new genes.
After all, didn't new species evolve uniquely simply because different
sub-populations were separated geographically (or in other ways separated)
and slightly different environments resulted in different adaptations? (plus
random mutations in one sub-pop. versus another). Is there necessarily an
evolutionary disadvantage of mating with another closely related species?
Remembering of course that "species" (and all taxonomy really) is a human
construct.
Just curious!
Wendee
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wendee Holtcamp -- wendee@greendzn.com -- http://www.greendzn.com
Environment/Travel/Science Writer -- Poet -- Photographer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But the child's sob curses deeper in the silence than the
strong man in his wrath. -- Elizabeth Barrett Browning
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Apr 06 2000 - 00:13:33 EDT