= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC comments on Group selection update - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (58)
From what I understand, speciation takes much, much longer than normal mutation. Wouldn't that mean that species selection happens much slower, and by extension with much less effect. Do flowers speciate really fast? Does the more significant difference between the species allow it to evolve faster enough to make up for it?
Interestingly, yes, they often do. It's a thing called polyploidy, which happens very frequently in plants.
Edit: I'm thinking this must be (a big part of) why self-compatible nightshades speciate faster-- very difficult to start a new tetraploid species if you can't self-pollinate.
I also upvoted you for making an accurate prediction:)
The rates of speciation are hardly stable - it's a reason why there's so much controversy over the history of Deschampsia antarctica, a grass species growing in Maritime Antarctica, Subantarctic and in Chile, I think. People argue whether it was recently introduced to Antarctica (which is unlikely, given the gap between it and S America) or has survived there since before it grew the ice shield (which is unlikely, given how similar are plants from remote locations.)
If speciation rates were easily determined, this would not be much of a question.