Talk:Haldane's rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Genetics (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Evolutionary biology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy). If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Adding to introduction[edit]

I propose new language for the entry preceding Haldane's definition. I think that it's important to note that this rule asserts itself not only during the early stages of speciation, but also in situations of secondary contact after allopatric speciation. Here is my proposed language:

Haldane's rule represents a remarkable observation in early stage of speciation. The rule also applies to two species which, after allopatric speciation has occurred, form hybrids when secondary contact in an area of sympatry results in incomplete reproductive isolation.

Please share your thoughts about my proposed changes. --Dialecticas (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"homozygous chromosome"[edit]

Apparently this expression needs to be disambiguated in a slightly entended description. Is there a biologist ready to help?--Wetman 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow[edit]

I don't really understand this paragraph. One possible rationalisation of the rule is that in two subspecies, a gene necessary for fertility or viability may be absent from the homozygous chromosome of one of the subspecies, and so not be transmitted to some hybrids with the heterozygous sex. As speciation progresses, this is likely to start with a reduction in fertility, and then of viability, of one of the sexes of hybrids, at which point the rule can be seen; if it then affects both sexes then the two subspecies stop being able to interbreed and become different species.

A gene necessary for fertility absent from one subspecies. What does that mean? If it is really valid, please rephrase and reinsert it. thanks. --Seb951 15:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Haldane's Law[edit]

also, and confusingly, given as: I have no doubt that in reality the future will be vastly more surprising than anything I can imagine. Now, my own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose. [1]. disambiguation needed at some point? Pseudomonas(talk) 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)