Talk:Sympatric speciation

message: According to Garden Strawberry, the modern garden strawberry is a cultivated octaploid species that resulted from the deliberate cross of two wild octaploid species, Fragaria virginiana and Fragaria chiloensis. The Wiki references do not indicate that the three cannot interbreed with each other.  The garden strawberry, therefore, does not appear to be an example of a new species which arose by sypatric speciation.  I confess, however, that I am no expert in this area.  If someone can provide an external verifiable reference to show the Wiki articles are wrong, I will gladly conceed to their superior expertise. --Nowa 21:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what I noticed about this article is that it never really gives a clear mention of what sympatric speciation is. But I don't think a hybrid cross becoming a new species counts as sympatric speciation. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 21:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a case of Hybrid speciation. And since it happens with human intervention, the sympatric speciation definition, applicable to natural populations, does not apply. GoEThe (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Strawberry Evolution

message: While the information in the article is interesting, very interesting, there is no description of what Sympatric speciation is. Readers who come across the page after following a link, for instance, probably want to know this. Rintrah 12:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've read this article multiple times and have no understanding of what sympatric speciation is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.231.151.178 (talk) 03:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual description

message: This redirect should be deleted as the term simply means 'living together'. Speciation is just one noun which the adjective can be placed before. Richard001 (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sympatric]]

message: The example of the Tennessee cave salamanders is an excellent one of parapatric speciation, or divergence with gene flow, but as the cave and surface salamanders occupy different habitats, it is certainly not sympatric speciation. 
I will propose to move this very nice example to a more fitting section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ockendeni (talk • contribs) 09:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples 

message: The example of the Tennessee cave salamanders is an excellent one of parapatric speciation, or divergence with gene flow, but as the cave and surface salamanders occupy different habitats, it is certainly not sympatric speciation. In fact, the authors recognize this as "sympatric speciation" is not in the title, abstract nor keywords. 
I will propose to move this very nice example to a more fitting section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ockendeni (talk • contribs) 09:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples 

message: There seems to be 2 main models explaining the sympatric speciation in a sexual species, which end up beeing similar: advantage of homozygotes, or advantage of extreme forms for a quantitative trait (eg big or small size, not medium), both tending to lead to heteromorphism. But this alone does not allow sympatric speciation: in absence of another, simultaneously appearing, factor preventing interbreeding, slightly differing subpopulation would constantly tend to homogenise back, or at the minimum not split into 2 clear subspecies, wouldn't they? (Just as they have always done in the past, remaining a single species.) 
Thus, I guess sympatric speciation requires both heteromorphic and interbreeding barrier factors, so-to-say in the same space-time; which at first sight seems unprobable. (Both can and do well appear independently.) What do you think?
In addition, supposed documented cases of sympatric speciation as listed in the article do not present facts allowing to conclude speciation appeared in sympatry. Instead, they only show cases of child species presently living in the same area. The obvious explanation that populations did live separated (allopatry, parapatry, peripatry) in past times looks simpler and far more probable to me. (Imagine Cristoforo Colombo be born in 1M years ;-) Again, what do you think? --denis "spir" (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factor preventing interbreeding? 

message: In the evidence section of this paper I think a portion could be dedicated to cichlid speciation in the African great lakes. The causes of this speciation are being studied and point to sexual selection and hybridization among many other possibilities that provide a background for why this speciation is occurring between similar species in the same lakes. Intersexual selection, or female choice in this case seems to be part of the cause of speciation. Hybridization combined with sexual selection also provides a way for a sub-population to form within a population. For example, species that breed in turbid water have lower sexual selection which increases the chance of mating between separate species possibly producing viable hybrid offspring. There is a lot of research about african cichlids that could be added to this article as evidence for sympatric and parapatric speciation by sexual selection and hybridization. Shuman.39 (talk) 22:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: African Cichlids

message: To better explain the speciation examples it would be beneficial to provide more information on how exactly each organism evolves to a separate species--ie: what forces drove it to that point? Or was it simply a relocation? Another suggestion would be to address whether or not sympatric speciation has 'undone' itself ever in a particular organism. Lastly it would be interesting to compare the types of organisms that have speciated in this manner. What do they have in common or were they just subject to varying evolutionary forces? 
Gravelle.8111 (talk) 03:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: I delete the following paragraph, it reflects and opinion and it includes terms such as "dogmatic ideology" which are not acceptable. Indeed, the reference in the final of the paragraph has been previously used to justify the controversy, not the apparently accepted position stated in the paragraph:
:"The dichotomy created by Ernst Mayr's dogmatic ideology about the necessity of a physical barrier in speciation is an artificial one. Because there is now empirical evidence of in situ, or fully sympatric speciation, evolutionary biologists interested in studying the phenomenon should shift their focus away from whether it can happen, and instead direct it towards figuring the mechanisms, and whether it may occur in non-isolated, marine or continental habitats.[33]"
Conjugado (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. For any historians of this page, it appears the text was added here. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sympatric speciation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100617232226/http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1eSympatric.shtml to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1eSympatric.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)