Re-examining Darwin’s thoughts on species

Oct 01, 2009
Radcliffe Fellow James Mallet says Darwin’s idea of speciation as a step in a continuum of differences reflects reality in nature. Stephanie Mitchell/Harvard Staff Photographer

James Mallet is out to rehabilitate Charles Darwin’s reputation on species. It may seem strange that such a founding father of modern biological thought as Darwin could run afoul of something so basic, but biologists over past decades, including such giants as Harvard’s Ernst Mayr, perceived Darwin’s understanding of species as somewhat fuzzy.

According to Mallet, Mayr, who was director of Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology through much of the 1960s, himself held a clear view that were distinct entities, the main biological unit on which evolution operated, and which only arose after populations were separated long enough that the differences that marked them as distinct species could accumulate.

Mallet, a professor of biology at University College London, is spending his fellowship year at the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study writing a book on speciation. In a talk delivered Wednesday (Sept. 30) at Radcliffe Gym, Mallet argued that Darwin’s views on speciation have been misrepresented, and, in addition, that biological evidence backs up Darwin’s actual views.

The dispute hinges on the idea of what exactly a species is. For Mayr and other biologists the issue was clear. For Darwin, Mallet says, it was another story.

Darwin did talk about species, but he also discussed lesser distinctions such as varieties, muddying the playing field a bit. Mayr, however, did his share of muddying the perception of Darwin’s thinking on speciation through Mayr’s selection of Darwin quotes, which Mallet said were sometimes out of context and fragmentary.

It does seem clear, however, that — regardless of which quotes were used — Darwin’s thinking on species was different from Mayr’s. As opposed to the bright lines that divide Mayr’s species, Mallet said that Darwin saw more of a continuum of differences, accumulating between different populations.

Mallet questioned how real the concept of species is in nature, saying that there are many examples of groups within the same species that are very different, and of different species that can — and do — mate and produce viable hybrid offspring.

The larch budmoth, for example, Mallet said, has two different “races” that are considered the same species. The two races, however, live on different host plants, one on larch, a conifer that sheds its leaves, and another on pines. They have different lifestyles, but the adults look very similar and they do hybridize. The pea aphid is another example, he said. The pea aphid, a single species, has several different races that live on different kinds of pea plants, but they live in the same area and hybridize.

Mallet offered other examples from snails to fish to birds to mammals, pointing to inshore and offshore forms of bottlenose dolphins and resident, transient, and offshore populations of killer whales. Even the world’s largest-ever animal, the blue whale, hybridizes with another ocean giant, the fin whale. One of these giant hybrids was caught and found to be pregnant.

“I think it’s clear from Darwin’s continuum of biodiversity, going from local variation and polymorphisms through … geographical races, hybridizing species, [distinct] species, and then genera, that the continuum is actually there,” Mallet said. “Darwin’s message was, ‘Look, this continuum says speciation is happening all the time, speciation is popping up everywhere.’”

Source: Harvard University (news : web)

Explore further: Oregon food label measure headed for recount

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

New Definition of 'Species' Could Aid Species Identification

Aug 24, 2006

Scientists at Texas Tech University argue that defining mammalian species based on genetics will result in the recognition of many more species than previously thought present. This has profound implications for our knowledge ...

Why didn't Darwin discover Mendel's laws?

Feb 27, 2009

Mendel solved the logic of inheritance in his monastery garden with no more technology than Darwin had in his garden at Down House. So why couldn't Darwin have done it too? A Journal of Biology article argues that Darwin ...

Butterfly evolution is studied

Dec 05, 2005

University College London scientists say they've found why so many species of butterflies live in Central and South America, as compared with other places.

Recommended for you

Oregon food label measure headed for recount

Nov 25, 2014

Tallies of the last remaining ballots show an Oregon measure that would require labeling of genetically modified foods lost by only 809 votes and is headed for an automatic recount.

How photosynthesis changed the planet

Nov 20, 2014

Two and a half billion years ago, single-celled organisms called cyanobacteria harnessed sunlight to split water molecules, producing energy to power their cells and releasing oxygen into an atmosphere that ...

From dried cod to tissue sample preservation

Nov 19, 2014

Could human tissue samples be dried for storage, instead of being frozen? Researchers are looking at the salt cod industry for a potential tissue sample drying technology that could save money without sacrificing tissue quality.

User comments : 1

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

frajo
3 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2009
We have microbes in our guts. The tallest trees can't live without the myriads of tiny organisms at its roots. Photosynthesis is a product of symbiosis. There is "horizontal gene transfer". Extremophiles are living practically everywhere...

Darwin is right. We are part of one highly complex continuum - called biosphere - on the local planet.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.