Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
On oscillations and flutterings - A reply to Hamm and Fordyce
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Zoology.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6379-7905
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Zoology.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1253-2536
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Zoology.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4195-8920
2016 (English)In: Evolution, ISSN 0014-3820, E-ISSN 1558-5646, Vol. 70, no 5, 1150-1155 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The diversification of plant-feeding insects is seen as a spectacular example of evolutionary radiation. Hence, developing hypotheses to explain this diversification, and methods to test them, is an important undertaking. Some years ago, we presented the oscillation hypothesis as a general process that could drive diversification of this and similar interactions, through repeated expansions and contractions of host ranges. Hamm and Fordyce recently presented a study with the outspoken intention of testing this hypothesis where they concluded that the oscillation hypothesis was not supported. We point out several problems with their study, owing both to a misrepresentation of our hypothesis and to the methods. We provide a clarifying description of the oscillation hypothesis, and detail some predictions that follow from it. A reanalysis of the data demonstrated a troubling sensitivity of the "SSE" class of models to small changes in model specification, and we caution against using them for tests of trait-based diversification. Future tests of the hypothesis also need to better acknowledge the processes behind the host range oscillations. We suspect that doing so will resolve some of the apparent conflicts between our hypothesis and the view presented by Hamm and Fordyce.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 70, no 5, 1150-1155 p.
National Category
Evolutionary Biology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-139554DOI: 10.1111/evo.12927ISI: 000378946600017OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-139554DiVA: diva2:1072764
Available from: 2017-02-08 Created: 2017-02-08 Last updated: 2017-02-22Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Janz, NiklasBraga, Mariana PNylin, Sören
By organisation
Department of Zoology
In the same journal
Evolution
Evolutionary Biology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 57 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf