perfect Yin–Yang harmony: (1) species cannot coexist
unless they are reproductively isolated and (2) a lack
of coexistence (allopatry), is necessary for the origin of
new species. See Mayr (1942: 226), especially the last
two sentences:
‘. . . isolating factors can be classified, broadly speaking, into
two large groups, i.e. geographic and reproductive barriers.
The latter are frequently referred to as biological or physi-
ological isolating mechanisms. There is a fundamental differ-
ence between the two classes of isolating mechanisms, and
they are largely complementary. Geographic isolation alone
cannot lead to the formation of new species, unless it is
accompanied by the development of biological isolating mecha-
nisms which are able to function when the geographic isola-
tion breaks down. On the other hand, biological isolating
mechanisms cannot be perfected, in general, unless panmixia
is prevented by at least temporary establishment of geo-
graphic barriers.’
Having attained this clear and dichotomous view it
was hard to shake. Mayr was a master of the data.
By then, it was known that hybridization between
species occurred regularly, albeit very rarely on a
per-individual basis in natural populations. Mayr
styled all such hybridization as an unnatural conse-
quence of secondary contact between formerly isolated
entities; hybridization became a pathological ‘break-
down of isolating mechanisms’ in his chapter ‘The
Biology of Speciation’ (Mayr, 1942: 258). He rejected
any idea that hybridization might contribute to adap-
tive evolution, especially hybrid speciation. Further-
more, because in 1942 he was concerned only with
animal speciation, and animal chromosomes were still
poorly known, he was able to argue that speciation by
any sort of polyploidy was in essence absent.
What about evidence for nongeographic (sympatric)
speciation? Mayr (1942) devotes a whole chapter to
this topic and rejects all the evidence for sympatric
ecological races and incipient species that were in
contact and yet remained stably coexisting below the
level normally considered species. Huxley (1942) in
the same year considered such cases as excellent
evidence for sympatric coexistence of incompletely
reproductively isolated entities, which demonstrated
a Darwinian continuity between varieties and species.
The evidence included rodents like Peromyscus in
different habitats, altitudinal races in birds, seasonal
races in insects, host-related race formation in para-
sites, and explosive fish speciation in the African
rift-valley lakes and Lake Baikal. Mayr (1942: 199)
dismisses all this in terms such as:
‘No evidence exists for most so-called ecological races that
would indicate whether they are merely phenotypical or
whether their morphological differences have a genetic
basis; . . . No process is known which would permit the devel-
opment and perfecting of biological isolating mechanisms in
“ecological races”; Whenever two neighboring . . . subspecies
are distinguished by strong ecological differences, it can
nearly always be shown that these differences were acquired
prior to the period of geographic contact and that the present
contact is a secondary condition; There is, at the present time,
no well-substantiated evidence that would prove . . . the devel-
opment of interspecific gaps through habitat specialization.
The cases recorded as such have all the characteristics of
secondary intergradation.’
Mayr can perhaps be defended in that his own and
Huxley’s cited examples of species in statu nascendi
were by today’s standards not well characterized,
and, with no molecular markers available, there was
no possibility of verifying multilocus genetic diver-
gence. But, in the absence of proof, was it fair that
Mayr rejected so strongly the idea of sympatric diver-
gence, and also that ecological selection could some-
times be stronger than gene flow? I think not – there
were too many niggling pieces of circumstantial evi-
dence against Mayr’s views. At the end of his chapter
on nongeographic speciation, he perhaps realizes that
he is ‘pushing the envelope’ too far on the basis of
existing data:
‘Certainty as to the relative importance of sympatric specia-
tion in animal evolution cannot be expected until a much
greater body of facts is available than at present.’ (Mayr, 1942:
215)
But this statement of doubt did not prevent much
firmer claims in later works in 1963 and 1970. It
seems clear that Mayr took the view he did on the
basis of that beautiful symmetry, rather than on the
basis of data. Unfortunately, he knew the data well,
and described its inconclusiveness extremely convinc-
ingly. Generations of evolutionary biologists for
decades afterwards were brought up on Mayr’s text-
books, and this, I argue, was to cause a catastrophic
delay in the progress of understanding speciation.
I use the word ‘unfortunately’ because it is turning
out that Mayr was wrong about this. Mayr himself
eventually agreed that some examples of sympatric
speciation, such as cichlids in African crater lakes,
were likely, although still arguing that allopatric spe-
ciation was by far the most common mode (Mayr, 1999:
xxx–xxxi). Ecological forms can and do coexist in
nature in spite of gene flow (Jiggins & Mallet, 2000;
Berlocher & Feder, 2002; Drès & Mallet, 2002; Mallet,
2008a); hybridization and introgression between
species is common, and can contribute to speciation,
even in nonpolyploids (Arnold, 1997; Buerkle et al.,
2000; Coyne & Orr, 2004; Mallet, 2005a, 2007); explo-
sive speciation of fish in single lakes now seems most
likely to involve at least some important processes in
sympatry (Schluter & Nagel, 1995; Seehausen, 2004);
sympatric speciation and ‘reinforcement’ are today
viewed as likely and indeed confirmed processes,
WAS DARWIN WRONG?
13
© The Author
Journal compilation © 2008 The Linnean Society of London,
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008,
95, 3–16