data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bb897/bb897d100194873d6f12c3de533fb6a568c9872c" alt=""
Near the equator, the ages of sister-species pairs spanned the past 10 million years, with a mean age of 3.4 million years ago. As the distance from the equator increased, the upper limit and mean ages of sister species declined significantly. At the highest latitudes, all of the sister species diverged less than 1.0 Ma.It's widely known that there are far more species in the tropics than in temperate or arctic climates. How do we explain this apparent discrepancy?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d4eab/d4eab798c9c1ee96cf7c7af296551607bf34d24d" alt=""
The net effect is more species in the tropics even though speciation rates are higher in temperate zones.
John Wilkins is an expert on species. He points out that there's no universal definition of species. I wonder if this result isn't biased by different ways of recognizing species. Perhaps populations and sub-species are more easily named in temperate zones because there's more room for them to spread out into non-overlapping ranges. Does anyone know whether "species" in temperate zones are more likely to be similar in appearance than in the tropics?
In any case, the result is intriguing. It suggests that things move pretty slowly in hot climates. If you want some fast speciation action you need to move north to a cooler place.
Weir, J.T. and Schluter, S. (2007) The Latitudinal Gradient in Recent Speciation and Extinction Rates of Birds and Mammals. Science 315: 1574-1576.[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net; Cold is hot in evolution -- Researchers debunk belief species evolve faster in tropics]
No comments:
Post a Comment