William Bateson, Richard Goldschmidt, and Non-Genic Modes of Speciation

Abstract

Sometimes a cross between two individuals that appear to belong to the same species produces a sterile offspring (i.e., their hybrid is sterile). Thus, the two individuals appear reproductively isolated from each other. If each could find a compatible mate, then new species might emerge. At issue is whether the form of hybrid sterility that precedes sympatric differentiation into species is, in the general case, of genic or non-genic origin. Several recent papers lend the authority of William Bateson to the genic hypothesis, referring to the "Bateson–Dobzhansky–Muller hypothesis". All these papers cite a 1996 paper that, in turn, cites a 1909 paper of Bateson. However, from 1902 until 1926 the latter espoused a non-genic hypothesis that today would be classified as "chromosomal". Analysis of Bateson's 1909 text reveals no recantation. Bateson's non-genic view was similar to that advanced by Richard Goldschmidt in the 1940s. However, Bateson proposed a contribution from parents of abstract factors that, together in their hybrids, complement to bring about a negative effect (hybrid sterility). In contrast, Goldschmidt proposed that normally parents contribute complementary factors making parental chromosomes compatible at meiosis in their hybrids, which hence are fertile (i.e., the parental factors work together to produce a positive effect). When the factors are not sufficiently complementary the parental chromosomes are incompatible in their hybrids, which hence are sterile. The non-genic Batesonian–Goldschmidtian abstractions are now being fleshed-out chemically in terms of DNA base-composition differences.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 16 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.