
Bifurcating phylogenies are frequently used to describe the evolutionary history of groups of related species. However, simple bifurcating models may poorly represent the evolutionary history of species that have been exchanging genes. Here, we show that the history of three well-known closely related species, Drosophila pseudoobscura, D. persimilis and D. p. bogotana, is not well represented by a bifurcating phylogenetic tree. The phylogenetic relationships among these species vary widely between different genomic regions. Much of this phylogenetic variation can be explained by the potential of different genomic regions to introgress between species, as measured in laboratory studies. We argue that the utility of multiple markers in species-level phylogenetic studies can be greatly enhanced by knowledge of genomic location and, in the case of hybridizing species, by knowledge of the functional or linkage relationships among the markers and regions of the genome that reduce hybrid fitness.
Genetic Markers, Recombination, Genetic, Genome, Species Specificity, Animals, Genetic Variation, Drosophila, Biological Evolution, Phylogeny
Genetic Markers, Recombination, Genetic, Genome, Species Specificity, Animals, Genetic Variation, Drosophila, Biological Evolution, Phylogeny
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 156 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% |
