%0 Journal Article %1 avise1987intraspecific %A Avise, J C %A Arnold, J %A Ball, R M %A Bermingham, E %A Lamb, T %A Neigel, J E %A Reeb, C A %A Saunders, N C %D 1987 %J Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics %K empirical_genealogy mitochondria original phylogeography review %N 1 %P 489-522 %R 10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.002421 %T Intraspecific Phylogeography: The Mitochondrial DNA Bridge Between Population Genetics and Systematics %U https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.002421 %V 18 %X A recurring debate in evolutionary biology is over the extent to which microevolutionary processes operating within species can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary differences among species and higher taxa (36, 38, 45, 46, 53, 67, 68, 80). As discussed by Stebbins & Ayala (83), several issues involved must be carefully distinguished, such as (a) whether micro- evolutionary processes (e.g. mutation, chromosomal change, genetic drift, natural selection) have operated throughout the history of life (presumably they have); (b) whether such known processes can by themselves account for macroevolutionary phenomena; and (c) whether these processes can predict macroevolutionary trends and patterns. In another, phylogenetic sense, macroevolution is ineluctably an extrapolation of microevolution: Organisms have parents, who in turn had parents, and so on back through time. Thus, the branches in macroevolutionary trees have a substructure that consists of smaller branches and twigs, ultimately resolved as generation-to-generation pedigrees (Figure 1). It is through these pedigrees that genes have been transmitted, tracing the stream of heredity that is phylogeny. It would seem that considerations of phylogeny and heredity should provide a logical starting point for attempts to understand any connections of macroevolution to microevolution. Yet amazingly, the discipline traditionally associated with heredity and microevolutionary process (population genetics) developed and has remained largely separate from those fields associated with phylogeny and macroevolution (systematics and paleontology). Thus, several classic textbooks in population genetics (35, 39, 64) do not so much as index "phylogeny," "systematics," or "speciation," while the equally important textbooks in systematics (55, 81, 96) can be read and understood with only the most rudimentary knowledge of Mendelian and population genetics. Notwithstanding some evidence for recent increased communication between these disciplines (40, 71), too many systematists and population geneticists continue to operate in largely separate realms, employing different languages and concepts to address issues that should be of importance to all.

@article{avise1987intraspecific, abstract = {A recurring debate in evolutionary biology is over the extent to which microevolutionary processes operating within species can be extrapolated to explain macroevolutionary differences among species and higher taxa (36, 38, 45, 46, 53, 67, 68, 80). As discussed by Stebbins & Ayala (83), several issues involved must be carefully distinguished, such as (a) whether micro- evolutionary processes (e.g. mutation, chromosomal change, genetic drift, natural selection) have operated throughout the history of life (presumably they have); (b) whether such known processes can by themselves account for macroevolutionary phenomena; and (c) whether these processes can predict macroevolutionary trends and patterns. In another, phylogenetic sense, macroevolution is ineluctably an extrapolation of microevolution: Organisms have parents, who in turn had parents, and so on back through time. Thus, the branches in macroevolutionary trees have a substructure that consists of smaller branches and twigs, ultimately resolved as generation-to-generation pedigrees (Figure 1). It is through these pedigrees that genes have been transmitted, tracing the stream of heredity that is phylogeny. It would seem that considerations of phylogeny and heredity should provide a logical starting point for attempts to understand any connections of macroevolution to microevolution. Yet amazingly, the discipline traditionally associated with heredity and microevolutionary process (population genetics) developed and has remained largely separate from those fields associated with phylogeny and macroevolution (systematics and paleontology). Thus, several classic textbooks in population genetics (35, 39, 64) do not so much as index "phylogeny," "systematics," or "speciation," while the equally important textbooks in systematics (55, 81, 96) can be read and understood with only the most rudimentary knowledge of Mendelian and population genetics. Notwithstanding some evidence for recent increased communication between these disciplines (40, 71), too many systematists and population geneticists continue to operate in largely separate realms, employing different languages and concepts to address issues that should be of importance to all.}, added-at = {2019-03-11T17:57:12.000+0100}, author = {Avise, J C and Arnold, J and Ball, R M and Bermingham, E and Lamb, T and Neigel, J E and Reeb, C A and Saunders, N C}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2d3298c030f5960d269bfe0226d0a6d43/peter.ralph}, doi = {10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.002421}, eprint = {https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.002421}, interhash = {66a246831679ad2d5b58fc2b1c1cc8b2}, intrahash = {d3298c030f5960d269bfe0226d0a6d43}, journal = {Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics}, keywords = {empirical_genealogy mitochondria original phylogeography review}, number = 1, pages = {489-522}, timestamp = {2019-03-11T17:57:12.000+0100}, title = {Intraspecific Phylogeography: The Mitochondrial {DNA} Bridge Between Population Genetics and Systematics}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.18.110187.002421}, volume = 18, year = 1987 }