<TITLE: Interactive Seminar in Evolutionary Biology: Species and Speciation
ACADEMIC DOMAIN: natural sciences
DISCIPLINE: biology
EVENT TYPE: seminar discussion
FILE ID: USEMD220
NOTES: 

RECORDING DURATION: 111 min 5 sec

RECORDING DATE: 21.11.2006

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS: 11

NUMBER OF SPEAKERS: 11

S1: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: male; AGE: 31-50

S2: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: junior staff; GENDER: female; AGE: 31-50

BS3: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: English (Trinidad and Tobago); ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 24-30

S4: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Estonian; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 24-30

S5: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Lithuanian; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 24-30

S6: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Spanish; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 24-30

S7: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Finnish; ACADEMIC ROLE: junior staff; GENDER: male; AGE: 51-over

S8: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Persian/Farsi; ACADEMIC ROLE: undergraduate; GENDER: male; AGE: 24-30

NS9: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: English (Lebanon); ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: male; AGE: 24-30

NS10: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: English (USA); ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 17-23

S11: NATIVE-SPEAKER STATUS: Russian, Lithuanian; ACADEMIC ROLE: masters student; GENDER: female; AGE: 24-30

SU: unidentified speaker

SS: several simultaneous speakers>


<S7> yeah okay er , today er the first paper was expected to be introduced by isabelle but she's not with us anymore so we are not going to have any introduction so of course we accommodate to this situation by just starting with a free round this free round is good because <NAME S2> and i understood on the basis of your summaries that the er the paper by turelli and others was really messy and difficult so what i'd like to hear from you is first what kind of difficulties you really had and of course you may give some even hard critiques about how messy it was or difficult to understand but try to take out also point out some positive aspects if you are able that wh- when you think about how speciation was understood and treated in textbooks in your school and even er on your er preliminary courses in the university , how much did you get about speciation what goes on in speciation and how it was understood so try to see the paper by turelli and others er , in in a way er using using simple scenarios and background er in that way you may find also some positive aspects not the bad ones you may have er pointed out in your summary so erm , have you any preferences , er who would like to start or we just start with happy <NAME S1> <SU> [@@] </SU> [always @@ just] , then (this) </S7>
<S1> well like you said er it was like er lots of facts but er i don't think they made a , er good job of of bringing them together in meaningful way and then they talk about lots of like comparing mathematical and herbal theories but but they don't really get into the mathematics at all just refer very v- vaguely to some , some theories er , but the good thing is is the list of references because </S1>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<SU> [if you read it seriously] </SU>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S1> [er well if you want to learn about] </S1>
<S7> [so they sounded similar sounded similar to @@] </S7>
<S1> [lots of different re- reading start reading the articles that they] refer to </S1>
<S7> <NAME S1> you are referring to similarity between this article and the book by <NAME> @@ </S7>
<S1> yeah , er well honestly speaking it er (reads) to me like they have just put together ju- a bundle of stuff to make one more item in their er list of publications </S1>
<S2> invited paper i guess it is , mhm-hm </S2>
<S1> yeah </S1>
<S11> for me it was it was kind of erm difficult to read when mhm they (are) speaking about the models and you if you don't know anything about that model and you heard it first time and then they spoke i don't know there are a lot of them so each time when i would like to agree or disagree with them i had to read this paper about that model and that's kind of difficult , then of course it was good to knew about those terms and how i- it could be distinguished in nature and which of them is more important in speciation but then for me it seems that you couldn't see you couldn't tell like those are more important because in that situation it's usually er er took first place than the other ones the other and y- you couldn't er think like that because it's only some cases and in nature it's completely mess , so i would agree with you that it's kind of putting everything in the wrong place and , from that point of view it was not so good </S11>
<NS10> i don't know i was very lost i felt like in this article i had to read it a couple of times and i'm still feeling pretty lost erm e- it was one of those articles that i i had to i would read it like an entire line of text and just totally re- i w- get to the last word and it would be , er forget what i just read so it was it was really hard for me erm i looked up a lot of words and i just i got pretty frustrated erm and i'm not really interested in what it had to say i guess i am interested but it's not really my my thing i would love to i like erm , theory with verbal communication much better than mathematical and they never even do even talk about mathematical options they just i don't know , i didn't feel so excited about this </NS10>
<S8> yeah i think also it was almost a bit er difficult but it took a long time to understand completely i needed to read it several times and yes and i just like this ma- mathematic er modelling quite much well expressed and despite it's maybe bit of confusion not so much , (well) really hard to , collect any of the ideas of the text or so <SU> mhm-hm </SU> it was quite different i think than other articles </S8>
<P:07>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<BS3> [i don't think] i have anything new to add it's i mean i agree with all of their statements before it was very difficult and i wasn't sure exactly what was connecting with what and i had a real problem summarising it but then actually @to be honest@ i wasn't so sure if it was just this this article or or just me because @i also@ i have had in was it the last cla- the last er articles i think it was the last one but i thought that was also quite difficult so i was ju- i was thinking maybe it's just me since i'm not like an e- evolution person maybe i just don't get it <SU-7> mhm </SU-7> but er well if other people are having problems also in understanding and connecting maybe the articles are quite er difficult reading maybe and that's comforting <SU> [@@] </SU> [@to to@] to know </BS3>
<NS9> er i felt like i was reading the abstract and conclusion of one paper with another paper in between them erm because the abstract and conclusion focus very much on math and the rest of the paper kind of vaguely mentions it in passing <BS3> exactly </BS3> <SU> mhm </SU> er possibly the most annoying thing to me about this paper aside from its lack of structure was the fact that they try to give it some kind of structure later by putting in five boxes each of which has a list of something like eight or ten references er and that doesn't make it slow when you read it you have to keep having to stop and read <BS3> [mhm-hm] </BS3> [something] entirely different <SU> mhm </SU> er having said all that let's go to the few good things in the paper erm they seem to actually have some vague willingness to treat isolating mechanisms properly the on this (xx) page they start talking about some of the limitations and not being able to know which isolating mechanisms may have been responsible for the divergence of species and then which ones follow it later and reinforce them and so forth and at the end they seem to have a very good attitude towards prediction they talk about not really expecting hard quantitative predi- predictions but some good qualitative non-intuitive <BS3> mhm </BS3> results <BS3> [mhm-hm (xx)] </BS3> [so th-] there were a few good things but you had to really look for them </NS9>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S4> yeah i i also have to agree with previous speakers but w- when i tried to write the summary then i i really felt that i'm not a theory person <BSU-3> [mhm] </BSU-3> [based] on this article because the other one was really interesting and clear <BSU-3> [mhm-hm] </BSU-3> [and then] the theoretical stuff was like oh my god i'm i'm just i'm too stupid or <BSU-3> [mhm-hm] </BSU-3> [@something@] but it's good to know that others also had problems @@ </S4>
<BS3> yeah it is </BS3>
<S5> i found it completely messy <SU-7> @@ </SU-7> er like structure-wise and er when i was trying to to read it second time and to think what is er the preference here what is the most important and then i was like yeah all those theories are in between so i just in my summary i was writing about allopatric and sympatric and parapatric speciation <BS3> uh-huh </BS3> because i couldn't take all the other things er and er of course they tried to do good job to make a review article including everything but for sure they didn't succeed </S5>
<S6> yeah i think they were trying to you know explain too many terms and at the end like not o- like any of them got to be explained completely so i felt that i would just ignore some of them and just focus on some others just you know to be able to get something out of that </S6>
<S11> yeah it's difficult to read when you every time you got this term you have to read it in a dictionary or search it in the wikipedia <S7> mhm-hm </S7> and then is when learning erm s- try to read it again uh-huh that th- this part i understood okay then you start to read another sentence uh-huh well wikipedia <BSU-3> @@ </BSU-3> @and@ it's starting <SU-7> [mhm-hm] </SU-7> [all over (xx)] so it's kind of </S11>
<NS9> i have a question on that note because on the second line of the article they say see glossary and that surprised me because you don't normally include a glossary in the article and then it surprised me even more because i couldn't find [the glossary] </NS9>
<SU-6> [there's no] yeah </SU-6>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S7> [that's] </S7>
<S2> [that] was actually in the </S2>
<BS3> [maybe it's later in the in the maga- (xx) journal] </BS3>
<S2> [in the in in the last page of the issue] and i [don't] </S2>
<S7> [yeah] that was a big mistake </S7>
<S2> [yeah i forgot to send it but] </S2>
<S7> [<NAME S2> and i made] we usually the glossary is always included within the article <NS9> mhm </NS9> but this is a special issue of speciation <NS9> [okay] </NS9> [and] that's why the glossary is at the end an- and we forgot to tell that [but anyway] </S7>
<S1> [but we have] our own [glossary] </S1>
<S2> [but] yeah [but i] </S2>
<S7> [(page)] [yes] </S7>
<BS3> yeah </BS3>
<S1> [mo-] [most of these] </S1>
<BS3> [this would have helped] [@@] </BS3>
<S1> [words a-] are there </S1>
<S7> but how many of [you remember] </S7>
<BS3> [would have helped] </BS3>
<S2> that [we sent] </S2>
<S7> [that] we have given you a fairly extensive glossary on evolutionary <S1> yeah </S1> <SU> [yeah yeah] </SU> [biology] <SU-6> [yeah of course] </SU-6> [some philosophical terms] and on developmental biology you should try to use that <SU> yes </SU> and i also told you in the beginning that it would be good if you sent <NAME S2> and me immediately a question on some term you don't understand and you are not going to find easily er in the web so we would be happy to er er explain you the term and include it to our dictionary @@ <BS3> mhm </BS3> so </S7>
<BS3> it's not that difficult to find these on the internet also but it <SU-6> [yeah] </SU-6> [just] takes a little bit more <S2> [takes more time yeah] </S2> [time than] if you had it <S7> [mhm-hm] </S7> [on your] [it's not] </BS3>
<S2> [but i i think it] would of course make this paper more readable if they explained it <BS3> [mhm-hm] </BS3> [or it] would be there <BS3> mhm </BS3> and not referring to the [last page] </S2>
<S6> [yeah but] because then you get lost <SS> [mhm mhm-hm] </SS> [like if you have to stop like so to speak] you look for something as in you don't remember what were you reading before </S6>
<SU> [but i] </SU>
<S11> [yeah but i] sorry mhm from other point of view if this is a article addressed to the people who are interested of in this topic and usually they already know all those terms <S6> yeah </S6> <BS3> [mhm] </BS3> [and you] know if you write those terms every time you are writing these articles (xx) </S11>
<S7> how many biologists are there who are not interested in speciation , that's pretty many but where i work everybody is @@ </S7>
<SU> @@ </SU>
<BS3> well i wouldn't say we wouldn't be we wouldn't be interested in speciation but maybe we don't know all of the jargon <S7> mhm </S7> we understand the definitions and and it's just the jargon <SU> [mhm sometimes] </SU> [some of them seem] very specialised <S7> mhm </S7> to <S6> yeah and (xx) </S6> evolution </BS3>
<S6> you just don't really need <BS3> [use them] </BS3> [it] <BS3> [yeah] </BS3> [yeah] if you are doing something and you just expect that your model is a species and that's all you @care@ [@@] </S6>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S7> yeah , i have a question about er your working methods how do you read this kind of article i mean how do you proceed to understand what's in it er anybody of you could start and then if somebody of you agree er yeah i do that way tell it and if there's somebody of you who do it another way please just come and tell it </S7>
<NS9> do you mean this article specifically [or generally] </NS9>
<S7> [yeah yeah yeah] you can use this article just as an example because this is not a normal article it's a review written by three top gurus in the field , very appreciated guys </S7>
<SU-4> and we [say it's not good] </SU-4>
<S7> [er so] [and and and] </S7>
<SU> [@@] </SU>
<SU-5> [yeah we are far too (xx)] </SU-5>
<S7> [er] we we of course we expect that this a good review three good guys writing something trying to tell us lots in er lots about speciation <BS3> mhm </BS3> so er , of course the structure of this review it's er pretty much the structure of any review published in tree er they expect er authors to include boxes <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> <S6> yeah </S6> a- and then then of course we should try to understand what's the function of the boxes is is the function of bo- boxes to er distract <SS> [@@] </SS> [our reading or or] is the function perhaps something else because this is this is typical paper which needs er specific reading kind of reading skills so i would like to hear your </S7>
<S1> well i usually first i just read it read er any article i just read it through once and then when i'm i'm familiar what it's about and what it's going to be later then i read it again and now tha- that i know what it's about i i i can underline the things that i thinking that are important an- and usually in this second reading i usually skip the er methods part or other kind of technical stuff that might not be all that central or or with this article er on the second reading i s- i skipped the boxes , er and i i think maybe er in this kind of article it mi- might be most useful to read the boxes or the boxes first so that i'm er sort of familiar a- about the things that the rest of the text is based on when i i'm reading like the first time <S7> mhm-hm y- </S7> but i don't usually need more than two <S7> yeah </S7> two times to read </S1>
<S7> do you make any notes and what kind of notes </S7>
<S1> no i just underline </S1>
<S7> yeah okay </S7>
<NS9> i like to read in this sort of article i like to read the boxes erm right around where either they're referred to in the text or where they i feel that they might be relevant because i'm already thinking in in that in that area so i can relate the boxes to the text erm but what i normally do is i do my underlining on the first read-through so i basically do one and a half readings of most articles i read through it and because generally i can understand what's happening in the article i underline or mark the areas that seem relevant so that when i'm coming back to do the summary i can focus on those areas and read them more thoroughly and that sort of thing with this article i actually couldn't underline anything because i had no idea what they were saying most of the <SS> [@@] </SS> [time] well no because er i it was honestly until it wasn't like after the very beginning of their conclusion that i realised what their argument [was] <BS3> [what was] yeah of course </BS3> <BS3> [(xx)] </BS3> [up until then] it was just an assembly of of erm ideas and facts and it wasn't coming together in any kind of way once i got to the conclusion i stopped and went back and sort of marked all of the bits that seemed <BS3> [mhm] </BS3> [worth] looking at which is er very unusual for me because i can usually understand what they are doing the first time through and then just give it a more thorough reading later </NS9>
<S8> so i usually underline as i read and then i make notes from those underlined parts but normally because there are many words more or less that i d- i don't know the meanings makes a bit of difficulty for the proper understanding so </S8>
<P:07>
<S7> mhm-hm </S7>
<S11> and i usually look at the structure just when i first have the article in my hand i look at the structure and the the the erm the name of the topics they wrote every time so i know what they're speaking about and then i start to read it but here it was kind of a bit different <BS3> [mhm] </BS3> [@@] and so even though i i know what they are speaking about and i see like the terms they they under- under- they wrote erm about each each topic here but still when i read it when i read it it was kind of difficult so you know it wasn't like similar to other times of reading arti- articles </S11>
<NS10> i usually go through once and skim and erm i circle words i don't know and then i put exclamation marks next to points that look important and i don't underline anything but i just write in the margins and then i go back and define my words in the margins so that i can see them over and over again as the words are repeated because i have a hard time @remembering@ and then erm usually i end up underlining the parts that i put an exclamation mark near sometimes those parts tend not to be as important as i thought they were originally that's usually what i do so i read it skim it once read it do it again then i re- reread all my underlined parts when i'm summarising and making sure i get it </NS10>
<S5> well usually i do pretty much the same way as <NAME NS10> does but this time i actually had to reprint the article and start to underlining again because once i read and i thought that it was important reading the second time i couldn't remember what was it all about <SS> @@ </SS> and what it had to do so i had to reprint and read a second time then it was kind of helping but w- at the end it doesn't help to write a good summary because it's too much stuff in one <BS3> [mhm-hm] </BS3> [place] and it's kind of it it looks like smaller parts like hybridisation and so on it it kind of should be smaller but when we wri- write even more than the original part so then you like think wh- what is you put the focus <BS3> yeah </BS3> at and i hope this is like one of the exceptional articles </S5>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S6> i i normally just read once and underline and then i only like the second time read the things that i thought it was important and trying like to understand and really just to get those just some ideas not to get to understand everything like just the very important ones and then i take notes about that , i don't really know if that's the good way of @@ </S6>
<S4> yeah i basically also read twice first time i just try to understand the general idea and if i don't know some meanings of the words then translating it to or searching and then second time just trying to really understand what's it about and and then summarising also </S4>
<BS3> mhm </BS3>
<S11> i developed some kind of new methods @when@ i was read this article i just thought that it's we- i every every time i when i read a sentence i forget about it <SS> [@@] </SS> [wh- what is it all about] so i just started er wri- wri- writing the summary when i was reading you know if i found something interesting i write down in the summary and then it like the summary was from some v- very difficult different er thoughts and then i tried to relate them to the structure of this and i don't know it was kind of interesting new method </S11>
<NS9> one thing in terms of summarising one thing that i do specifically for this class because we got paired articles i read both abstracts before i look at either article because then you know what both of them are about and you can when you are reading one article you have at least a vague idea of what the other article might be and how it might relate <SU> mhm </SU> and to try to connect them <S7> mhm </S7> and one thing i also do in general which nobody else seems to do i guess is that i i dialogue with authors in the margins er so see this is sort of <SS> [@@] </SS> [(concluding) @page@] erm with good ar- with really good articles i'll just have underlined points that i like with articles that i agree with i'll have a couple of notes where i wanna talk about it with an article like this i'm basically rewriting half the thing in @the margins@ <SS> @@ </SS> <S7> mhm </S7> er but i i find that useful not just for this class but in general because it i get my immediate reaction to a point even if it's simply that i misunderstood the point and i'm r- er writing something that's wrong i get my immediate reaction to it so when i come back i can i can figure out how that works </NS9>
<S2> so was the pa- paper too difficult do you want to raise any questions about speciation so that you you basically forgot about the main thing that you you were just struggling with the paper </S2>
<NS9> [i'm (xx) to raise a question] </NS9>
<S2> [(did the)] (xx) disturb [sometimes] </S2>
<BS3> [well] in my case pretty much i was lost with what were the main points and how to connect all the little pieces together so i'm not really sure if i <S2> mhm-hm </S2> got the whole idea of well at least from this paper on how allopatric speciation et cetera that they talked about the main points that they were supposed to have only talked about i'm not really sure if i got the main ideas but the next paper for next week o- i think it's it's also on speciation but in insects er that i have my introduction in on and that i think is quite clear and quite straightforward so i've started reading that already and i'm actually understanding a lot better the speciation terms from there but from this one erm i thought i- yeah it was too difficult for me to read to get er understand speciation </BS3>
<S7> mhm-hm </S7>
<S1> i don't think <BS3> [in my case] </BS3> [this is] not very introductory paper <S11> [no] </S11> [on] the subject so if if for example i already know quite a lot about this stuff so it was easier for me it was sort of frus- frustrating just , putting sort of sort of isolated items together <NS9> mhm </NS9> but er but but i think it er i can understand that that fos- for somebody who doesn't know so much it it is really difficult because they er or just refer to the er theories without really summarising or explaining the theories <SU> mhm </SU> so if if they are completely unfamiliar with then then it's difficult to follow what they are talking about </S1>
<NS9> yeah they are not making an effort i- to introduce it all they're they're erm going through all of the different kinds of speciation they wanna go through erm and the thing is it's it's structured as a review but at the same time they are making this argument about mathematical modelling so basically what they are doing is just trying to relate all of the theories to that or all the theoretical problems to mathematical modelling how good it is at addressing them rather than introducing the theory and the problems with it and so forth as you said er but i'm i'm uncomfortable with their overall point as well i don't think they're so right about the whole math thing and i think that this paper is an example of why they're wrong because they are saying mathematical modelling doesn't work and then they go through and get stuck in all of these little details and mathematical modelling isn't about little details mathematical modelling is about abstractions and general behaviour and qualitative properties of the system and i think that's what they are missing in terms of that , i mean i think if they'd written a paper specifically about mathematical modelling and a separate introduction to all of these theoretical problems and published them together then that would've been better and they would've gotten two papers instead of one </NS9>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S7> mhm yeah yeah my feeling is that <NAME NS9> er understood this paper in a different way as i did <NS9> mhm-hm </NS9> 'cause i i understand that this is this is a general review what's going on in the field because er when you contrast this with something that was just common business in in in speciation work er say a couple of decades ago so erm this shows hi- how diverse the field is <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> it- , it's not perhaps even er thought to be er say very detailed in the explanation of different er models and and approaches just trying to tell that there's so much happening so different things both <BS3> [mhm] </BS3> [theoretically] and and empirically so er @@ i really had fun in many places here i agree that this is a messy paper but i i just had really good laughs somewhere in in at places , i could just give an example here so they ha- has just told how much they tell about theory an- and and empirical work and they go from one side to another side anyway they are er much for theory but here's a nice er er sentence <BS3> [which page] </BS3> [i-] it's page 339 in this box four they end the ending paragraph starts <READING ALOUD> in summary theoretical studies show that reinforcement is clearly plausible which is reassuring given the growing evidence for its <SU> [@@] </SU> [occurrence] </READING ALOUD> @@ it's very <BS3> [yeah (xx) growing (in that)] </BS3> [reassuring that theory comes comes and is able to show] it's plausible when you have empirical er er evidence that it's @it's happening@ @@ i love this kind of expressions </S7>
<NS9> there's actually there's a similar one that caught my attention on page 333 </NS9>
<S7> yeah [i found a couple of @@] </S7>
<NS9> [where they are talking about sexual selection] <S7> yeah </S7> they say <READING ALOUD> the unfortunate result is that well-known cases of intrapopulation divert into male trades and female pre- preferences are virtually incompatible with every theory of sexual selection </READING ALOUD> </NS9>
<S7> @yeah@ </S7>
<BS3> and where was that </BS3>
<S7> yeah </S7>
<BS3> i don't know </BS3>
<S7> yeah </S7>
<NS9> it's yeah </NS9>
<S7> yeah so not only negative sides some say </S7>
<NS9> well i'm not sure laughing at a paper @is a positive@ [@thing@ @@] </NS9>
<S7> [@@] sometimes yeah erm i guess i may tell you how i usually read this kind of paper just to make it as easy as possible , just this i have some experience anyway so for me er this this is the best way but first i i read through the abstract and then i try to find out if there is some kind of er conclusion so that kind of chapter <BS3> [mhm-hm] </BS3> [here] they have conclusions <BS3> [mhm-hm (yeah there is) (xx)] </BS3> [and prospects so then i skip right there] and try to find out what what major points they perhaps have found they have tried to just raise in this article and and then i go through and look at those subtitles okay what kind of er <BS3> the structure yeah </BS3> yeah what what topics they are going to discuss and and then i have to decide whether i go an- and look at those boxes where they er try to explain specific models and and have some empirical results or whether i just start to skim through er the base text basic text <BS3> mhm </BS3> and i- i'm i really mean that i i skim through i try to find some er major terms some some words that that look that hey here's something interesting and i just mark mark that side and and sometimes it's it's enough just to know how much is in the paper to to start a discussion but to to to write a summary it's not @enough@ <BS3> no </BS3> er i i'm a bit (uncertain) i need to go in more detail this paper and , often i just make notes in the margin as here that's the usual way and underline and so on <BS3> yeah </BS3> er and and it's in most cases enough but writing a summary again and and preparing sometimes for these discussions i make notes , just simple notes dots dots dots an- an- and just no- not complete sentences just words <BS3> mhm </BS3> that i remember what are interesting perhaps interesting topics to discuss so but i i've just underlined the importance i see here that it's it's very good not to go straight away to read in detail <BS3> mhm </BS3> the whole article because y- you you spend so much time doing that without perhaps understanding anything what's going on so it's up to you how to try next time <BS3> well i </BS3> one way is to do it that you just look at the abstract and try to find some conclusive results or conclusions an- an- and then look at subtitles if there are some figures and tables i usually look at the figures and tables to see that okay they they should tell some main points of the results you have no results main points in that way here but in in in just say research papers you usually have tables and figures but anyway you know that i'm not an authority and i i don't even try to be that so @so@ so you have your own ways to to to read through an- an- and write summaries but <BS3> [but er] </BS3> [but you] may try a little easier way just looking at some main points and skimming it through and then finally go in more details </S7>
<BS3> and if er when i asked er roy siddal for advice on how to make it faster to to to do this homework because it takes me literally all day on saturday and all day on @sunday@ <S7> @@ </S7> to do this erm he did suggest that you look at first the the ab- the beginning the intro the abstract and then the the conclusions so you can get the idea of what the paper is about and then look at <S7> [mhm] </S7> [the] structure of it and then in going through it write concise notes of the main points but erm i think that helped a lot with the second paper that e- even though the second paper i thought was quite much easier to use but i did notice that i finished the second paper generally a bit faster than i usually do when i'm reading articles but it didn't seem to help very much with this article it i still got s- stuck reading this article for a really long time because yeah it's difficult to follow but that was generally the sa- the advice that roy siddal gave me and then just write really concise [notes] <S7> [mhm] yeah </S7> as you're reading it as to the main point that it's easier and faster to to write the summary he actually said use the notes like to write the summary so that you don't have to keep looking at the paper erm that it would which helps save time <S7> yeah </S7> and paraphrasing time but it still wasn't possible with this paper </BS3>
<S7> yeah but anyway er you made a very good point here just telling what roy said and especially that er you may use your notes while writing the summary not going i- in the paper and look at the <BS3> [mhm] </BS3> [details] because if you go back to the paper to the details how they say it <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> especially if you are not a native english speaker <BS3> mhm </BS3> you easily copy the sentences as such and that's a bad sin , one of worst sins you can do if you copy sentences after sentences <BS3> mhm </BS3> <S1> [i] </S1> [you] <SIC> plagiate </SIC> </S7>
<S1> i usually er start the summary by making a bulleted list <S7> yeah </S7> of the main <S7> yeah </S7> issues in a order i think that they should appear in the summary and then i replace each item with with a paragraph of the subject an- and usually it's a good idea not to start in the beginning of the writing it's usually easier to start start somewhere else </S1>
<S8> i think this way of skimming or reading abstract or conclusion it's more applicable to usual scientific papers but this kind of reading paper it it doesn't help that much in the type of because you will simply miss many ideas if you just skim or . but it's quite easy and (xx) for example this second paper it was quite easy <S7> mhm </S7> and just taking maybe two hours to get the whole idea </S8>
<S7> yeah </S7>
<S2> er i may tell you something about the journal tree which is which is erm it's not a normal paper where anybody can send a manuscript it's by invitation only basically and er these the i don- i don't really know this is a special issue on speciation and so somebody maybe this nicholas barton because he writes an introduction to the whole number this particular issue erm so maybe he has invited people to write on different aspects of speciation , now this past summer i heard a erm very interesting lecture by the editor of this journal <NAME> and she is really tough she doesn't let any paper go through unless she's like <MAKES AN ATTACKING NOISE> really tack- attacking it but i don't think she's done anything here i <S7> [@@] </S7> [mean maybe these] <S7> [looks like it @@] </S7> [these guys are] so big and <BS3> [famous] </BS3> [famous] and these papers have been invited that somehow her job she didn't you know put much effort on these and i think it shows </S2>
<BS3> she didn't feel that she could attack [(xx)] </BS3>
<S2> [yeah because i mean] she's really particular about er how the paper should be structured that's what she she talked about one and a half hours how it was about how to submit a paper to to tree and er what kind of paper you can submit and so forth but that she said that i'm behind every paper basically <S7> [mhm yeah] </S7> [you know that she puts her] time and er and to make it <BS3> [scrutinising yeah] </BS3> [relevant] available for people an- and so she could have helped quite a bit [with this] </S2>
<NS9> [i was] surprised because i've always liked tree and i've i've always enjoyed reading [articles (xx)] </NS9>
<S2> [but then i that's some i don't know] <NS9> yeah </NS9> but that's my explanation <S7> [mhm-hm] </S7> [why this] is difficult [(xx)] </S2>
<S5> [yeah because usually] review articles are so nice to read they are so informative and you <S2> [clear] </S2> [you really find] yeah clear you find out a lot and here it's like yeah they they they really write about many things but (it's too) you don't find it (xx) left with much of it </S5>
<S2> so this this er paper just shows something about these guys how they write <S7> yeah </S7> [than @anything else@] </S2>
<SU> [(xx)] [it's so important] </SU>
<S7> [yeah if if if there is no control] [@@] </S7>
<S2> [yes] </S2>
<BS3> maybe <S7> [yeah yeah] </S7> [yeah they are] really smart but <S7> mhm </S7> maybe it's difficult to put down their ideas on paper <S7> mhm-hm </S7> [you know] </BS3>
<S2> [but then a-] then again we read this paper by <NAME> and <NAME> that was quite you know easy reading </S2>
<S7> very well written </S7>
<SU> yeah </SU>
<SU-11> maybe [they only expect each other to read this paper] </SU-11>
<S2> [but they have an editor in this one] <SU-11> [@@] </SU-11> [yeah and i or <NAME>] is just there as a name @@ [if i don't] </S2>
<S7> [mhm] yeah it really [looks like] </S7>
<BS3> [but then] <S7> yeah </S7> but then is this then geared towards specially like professionals then this kind of article in this kind of paper so that could be maybe the other problem that well i know like i am not exactly a professional on evolution i don't know much about evolution so maybe they are taking it for granted that you know all these terms and you kno- have some idea of what's going on in the field and then </BS3>
<S2> well i think the idea of these boxes is to separate a little bit write a little more generally in the main <BS3> [mhm-hm] </BS3> [text] and then in the boxes give explanations <BS3> [mhm] </BS3> [but now] the boxes are too big and too broad <BS3> mhm </BS3> <S7> [mhm] </S7> [so] they don't really they they're not concise <BS3> [that's the idea (xx) yeah] </BS3> [enough so that why they are] <S7> [mhm] </S7> [difficult] at least that's what i feel </S2>
<S7> yeah , yeah i really have a feeling that the editor <NAME S2> told about she she has fallen into sleep here just voluntarily i think <BS3> ah </BS3> two great names because usually she and some other good editors they take care in this journal that people really write such that they are understood that that this this article should be understood by almost anybody interested in in in biology <BS3> [so it's not just] </BS3> [if they have some] basic schooling <BS3> [oh] </BS3> [they] need not be evolutionary [biologists] </S7>
<BS3> [so it's not] supposed to be geared just [to the people who are into] </BS3>
<S7> [no no not at all no] [and actual-] </S7>
<BS3> [reading] these [all the time] </BS3>
<S7> [yeah] we we have used this article once before several years ago when it was published and the critique was not so hard then <SU> @@ </SU> so so er we decided to take this once again because this is one of the few papers perhaps the the only paper that where where you have can get some er general overview what's going on in this field o- or speciation studies [er] </S7>
<S1> [well it] does illustrate that it's very com- complex subject that <S7> [yeah] </S7> [yeah] and that there is like many different ways [of] </S1>
<S7> [yeah] yeah and i i think that that's that's what <NAME S2> and i had in mind that you could get this basic understanding that it's not so simple as er is usually er er told </S7>
<NS9> and to be fair they do do a good job by identifying erm a lot of the the questions in speciation a lot of the work that's being done in it it's just that when i started reading it i didn't know it was well i guess i should have noticed that it said review at the top but other than that i didn't know it was a review article because they presented it as though they had an argument <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> so i thought it was going to be a review with an argument in it <SU> mhm-hm </SU> er and not just like a general survey <S7> [mhm] </S7> [and] the argument part was lacking i think they if they'd tried to make it just a proper review i think it would have been quite a good article </NS9>
<S7> yeah usually when i read even really good papers er when i look at my notes in the margins you usually see that i have a couple of shits there an- an- and something like moron and <SS> [@@] </SS> [some some some general comments i i need not explain what i] what i think about that i see only shit or moron or something like that <SU> [@@] </SU> [so so i i] then if i'm interested in details i go into details again but this er paper i have neither of those words i have just <FOREIGN> heh </FOREIGN> <SS> [@@] </SS> [and something like that @@] <BS3> [you're harsh critic] </BS3> [good places that] this is this is funny @@ but that's all so it's not it's not in all ways bad </S7>
<SU> mhm </SU>
<NS9> but it seems to me that on the very first page they're already shooting themselves in the foot <SS> @@ </SS> well if i was surprised to see them say that <READING ALOUD> given enough time speciation is an ine- inevitable consequence of populations evolving in allopatry because there are no forces acting to enforce reproductive compatibility </READING ALOUD> <S7> mhm </S7> and i mean three paragraphs before that they've been talking about isolation concepts <S7> mhm yeah </S7> and here they're talking about forces enforcing compatibility </NS9>
<S2> [mhm-hm] </S2>
<S7> [mhm] yeah </S7>
<NS9> that was when i started getting discouraged [to be honest] </NS9>
<S7> [@@] [yeah] </S7>
<S1> [er my] m- my biggest problem was that the er the they er stick to the isolation but i- but in the first paragraph after the abstract they are saying that er , er that it it should be privileged that there are other just as like important and in- interesting approaches but they still stick to this er isolation approach </S1>
<S6> yeah that that everything is based on something that they don't really believe in or i don't know i just got that <SS> [@@] </SS> [that idea] <S7> mhm-hm </S7> at the beginning i thought well maybe i shouldn't just read it @at all@ </S6>
<S7> yeah okay it seems that you have got as much as you should from this paper <SS> @@ </SS> er i mean that <BS3> [not that we could] </BS3> [you understand that] there are the speciation studies are a very complicated business er it's er it's in a phase of , kind of upraising upraising of many new ideas a- and and just th- it it's it's shifting from allopatric speciation to sympatric and parapatric speciation er and interest is shifting that way so i mean this gives some basic ideas what's going on <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> and and what you should learn later on is more details i mean case studies you are going to read through an- and write summaries and discuss so erm it's just this should give a general background to those more er say strictly , er strictly delimited studies or some that so i should be happy in some way about what you have got out of this , i think that one one major thing would be that think once more how you read papers an- and make notes , to be able to er @@ make two summaries in time @@ </S7>
<SU> (xx) i couldn't </SU>
<S2> which you have done quite nicely <S7> sure </S7> better than ever before you've sent your summaries more or less in time so that's very nice thank you for that </S2>
<NS9> can i just make a tangential comment before we leave this paper on the last page we have the beginning of <NAME> paper <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> following it and in the abstract he talks about reproductive isolate differences or genetic differences behind reproductive isolation and more ordinary <S7> mhm </S7> morphological and phenotypic differences i just i find that amusing distinction to make <S7> mhm </S7> reproductive isolat- that the gene- genetic chan- differences behind reproductive isolation are somehow special or privileged compared to everything else <S7> mhm </S7> in the organism <S7> yeah </S7> i was kind of excited about reading @that paper too@ <S7> mhm </S7> just to see what he says [but] </NS9>
<S7> [mhm] yeah one one more detail about reading papers of course i'm a long-time professional so i'm interested actually more broadly in these kinds of things so very often i go and check the references because they give references als- o- o- only using those ciphers <BSU-3> mhm </BSU-3> so i i check the reference what's the name of that do i know it already or i- or if it looks interesting er i er may go to our electronic library and even take the paper an- and skim through it but of course that takes much too much time to most of of you to do that to go to extra papers but if you sometimes er are more and more interested in evolutionary biology you may may even do that <BS3> yeah </BS3> check some extra papers </S7>
<BS3> and i guess for the presentation maybe that would be helpful </BS3>
<S7> yeah yeah for [pre- presentation it's even] </S7>
<BS3> [you usually have some (mhm-hm)] </BS3>
<S7> er i'd even encourage you i told you earlier that you may go and look some fresh papers which only you perhaps have read not anybody else here because it's not er that paper is not allotted to all of you so if you if you do the introduction you can easily use <BSU-3> [bring in new material] </BSU-3> [some] new examples so it's it's it's in way it's very refreshing , not to see during the intro the same examples as all of you have read just something new <BSU-3> yeah </BSU-3> , er i think that we all need a short break before we go on , would it be fine with you </S7>
<SU> yeah of course </SU>
<S7> how long </S7>
<S2> toilet break </S2>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<BS3> [10 to 15 minutes] </BS3>
<S7> sorry </S7>
<BS3> how long do we have 10 15 minutes </BS3>
<S2> okay </S2>
<S7> yeah </S7>
<S8> half past two </S8>
<S2> two-thirty </S2>
<BS3> yeah okay </BS3>
<15 MIN PAUSE IN THE SESSION>
<S2> so let's continue with the second paper which er <NAME NS10> will introduce so please <NAME NS10> </S2>

<NATIVE SPEAKER PRESENTATION by NS10, NOT TRANSCRIBED: INTRODUCES AN ARTICLE>

<S2> thank you </S2>
<NS10> <REFERRING TO COMPUTER> this twice </NS10>
<S2> yeah </S2>
<NS10> okay </NS10>
<S2> it er well it gives some text and then it er </S2>
<NS10> ah </NS10>
<NS10 WORKING ON THE COMPUTER, P:10>
<S2> yeah and now again okay good </S2>
<S7> yeah , this is an interactive seminar on species and speciation so first question of course could be why , er scientific paper research paper on one species <SS> mhm </SS> @@ </S7>
<BS3> well i think that like the the la- the person who did this study that the point was that in looking at that one species on those islands it er ex- like helps to er as an example of how erm endemic species occur and like speciation on islands at least </BS3>
<S8> yeah i think i- it clearly shows that it could be so much variation in only one species so it's easily can be expanded to speciation </S8>
<S2> mhm-hm </S2>
<S7> er one reminder here even though i may ask some questions when you , er give your opinion please don't always look at me <SS> @@ </SS> just look at the faces of other people too </S7>
<P:05>
<S11> yeah the differences are very high (xx) differences so , it's like an example and she's comparing it with other species other studies we know already so you can lay back and look at the islands for the geography they're using this species as a as a like a marker or something like that </S11>
<S2> comparative island geography 'cause i mean she's comparing to the rodents and that study as well </S2>
<S11> mhm </S11>
<NS9> i thought it was a really good case study on speciation <SS> mhm </SS> er i was a bit disappointed that she didn't notice that or at least she wasn't willing to say that <SS> mhm </SS> [erm] <S2> [allopatric] speciation </S2> er yes she's writing it as a phylogeography paper which is great but it does serve as a really good case study in in allopatric speciation </NS9>
<SS> mhm-hm </SS>
<BS3> i thought it was a good example (in proving this) the point why we were supposed to read it maybe not for her but <SS> [@@] </SS> [the point for us] </BS3>
<S7> yeah <P:05> mhm yeah a good phylogeographic case study <BS3> [mhm-hm] </BS3> [with] deep historical dimension <BS3> mhm </BS3> er and this deep his- historical dimension it of course it it has a good potential to tell something about speciation <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> and it does as we have seen </S7>
<BS3> mhm-hm , i thought it was very interesting because it was really interesting to see how maybe geography replaced in bat speciation and especially because the paper i'm supposed to write for the taiga cour- course looks at how the fauna developed the present fauna in finland developed because of the ice age so this paper was especially interesting to me because it was along the similar lines along similar lines but in a much shorter paper that was so much more obvious how this one species could have speciated on these different islands </BS3>
<P:16>
<S7> mhm </S7>
<BS3> but erm i think er you were asking if she had a hypothesis i'm not really i'm not really sure i see a hypothesis either i thought the point was just to find out like genetically the- their multidivergency why maybe according to geography maybe that was all the study was about to <S1> well </S1> find to understand </BS3>
<S1> at at least there was the null hypothesis which which is not explicitly stated that <BS3> [mhm] </BS3> [there] wi- will be no er genetic substractor in the , different populations and and she rejected the null hy- hypothesis like like in the structure </S1>
<S7> i think it's good to understand that there are many many good scientific papers that have no <BS3> [yeah] </BS3> [hypothesis] er this is one good example because this is very much descriptive it's a good pattern description er the two dimensions this large archipelago and then this historical dimension so i i feel it's a good case study because we certainly we need to know we we need to understand what kind of patterns we have around patterns and processes it's only after that we can er formulate <BSU-3> [yeah] </BSU-3> [hypoth-] hypotheses er which are which should er perhaps we could perhaps explain why those patterns and processes so this is this a starting point to something else perhaps </S7>
<BS3> mhm-hm </BS3>
<P:05>
<S11> the question now was what to do with such high diversity and the question (xx) is there any other differences and and what <BSU-3> [mhm mhm] </BSU-3> [to do because] it's still one species here </S11>
<NS10> it was nice to just look at one species for a change i think just because you you realise how many how many things can happen to one species how many variations there can be in one species and it's nice to kind of step back a little bit from speciation and actually i guess it would be stepping forward one narrow narrow viewpoint of just one thing that is causing all of this i mean controversy in species concepts it's nice yeah it was very interesting to me </NS10>
<S5> well like the way i understood the article is just that it it is about the speciation because in different islands we have so different er populations and that (st julian) island it has even different morphology of the bat <SU-2> [mhm-hm] </SU-2> [so] it is er i think this study just confirms that it should be already (<SIC> tracted </SIC>) as a different <SU> mhm-hm </SU> species and the other two islands er are there two species it's still questioned it's just it is a study about speciation not about one species at least that's how i see it </S5>
<S2> <NAME NS9> what you mentioned about that she perhaps doesn't even realise what interesting case she has so do you have anyone anybody do you have any ideas why she doesn't basically she hardly mentions speciation in this paper </S2>
<NS9> the last </NS9>
<S2> [why would that be] </S2>
<NS9> [line is] about the only place she [really] </NS9>
<S2> [yeah] </S2>
<NS9> [touches on it] </NS9>
<SU> [yeah] </SU>
<S7> yeah and of course er er in her introduction <S2> mhm </S2> she er tells that er some even some er yeah some earlier results from morphometrics and allozymes <BS3> mhm </BS3> are prompted it's tentative listing as a separate but as yet unnamed species so that th- that tha- she she she's aware and tells it to readers that that there may be a new species included here but because it's not not yet described it's it's really @@ it'd be a good case for her <BS3> [mhm] </BS3> [to] tell what she thinks <BS3> mhm </BS3> just on the basis of this er phylogenetics study , it's of course odd that she doesn't take any stand </S7>
<NS9> well one thing is that we it's really tempting and i guess not just tempting but i would (definitely call it) on temptation she keeps talking about genetic diversity and er geographic impact or influences on the genetic diversity and so forth and we've all gladly stepped into speciation from there erm but unless you are willing to equate genetic diversity with species which i'm not sure i am erm it's er it's bold to start calling this speciation she does mention morphological traits under the er (example) (xx) but er i think in order to make this a study about speciation you'd need a lot more than what she has here or to make it a proper study on species and speciation in my opinion you'd need to call it gene morphology on top of genetics </NS9>
<S1> yeah and in genetics sh- she only has mitochondrial DNA <NS9> yeah </NS9> which is also problematic , because the er genealogy of the <SIC> mitochondrias </SIC> doesn't necessarily re- reflect the genealogy of the host population </S1>
<S7> do you all agree @@ , not everybody of you even perhaps know what's going on with these studies mitochondrial versus nuclear DNA DNA </S7>
<BSU-3> [well (xx) mithocondrial is] </BSU-3>
<S7> [they have some differences] anyway </S7>
<S11> yeah </S11>
<BSU-3> (balanced) down from mothers mothers of (xx) </BSU-3>
<S11> i'm not sure if the distribution of whole species only by the maternal <BSU-3> [mhm] </BSU-3> [lineage] , for example in some species in er in , in america er they got different results from distribution of mitochondrial DNA and then they look at the nuclear one and it was difficult and different </S11>
<BS3> different i think that was mentioned in a paper we had before with the problem of the mitochondrial DNA using mitochondrial DNA i don't remember exactly what they said but i remember that was mentioned in another paper we had </BS3>
<NS9> am i imagining things or did she say something actually about male dispersal </NS9>
<SU-2> yeah </SU-2>
<SU> she does </SU>
<SS> [yes yeah] </SS>
<SU-5> [she actually says that there] is [no big difference about it] </SU-5>
<S7> [yeah yeah yes er yeah no] no difference between the sexes as comes to dispersal so it's of co- it's of course good news </S7>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S8> i didn't understand </S8>
<NS9> but i mean as as a phylogeography paper she has pretty good evidence of diversity and of distinct groups and so forth so she does have a strong case from which to start to talking about species and speciation and it's a little bit disappointing that she's not willing to even speculate in that direction and i don't know if that's just a stylistic thing that she's she prefers to make really solid statements i like to , when i write things i i towards the end when i'm done making all of my important points i like to speculate wildly a little bit @erm@ </NS9>
<S7> yeah so let's let's start speculating <SS> [@@] </SS> [she didn't do that so why not we , okay] come on <P:06> what good arguments [arguments could you just find maybe for] </S7>
<S1> [well she yeah yeah she says that] there is very little evidence of gene fo- gene flow from recent times so it seems that the these groups that are seen now are very well e- established as independent lineages so i think er an- and there is erm , no particular reason to expect that the the ranges of the of these lineages would , would come to er together soon so i i would say that there is at least very strong potential for independent evolution of these groups </S1>
<S7> so using erm some most or best known phylogenetic species concepts what what could this mean and how do you think those guys would er interpret this kind of tree , if you if you were a phylogeneticist an- an- and using this phylogenetic species concept </S7>
<S2> how many species </S2>
<S7> yeah , and first question of course one or more </S7>
<NS10> yeah , could be five or it could be eight or it could be 101 </NS10>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S7> [yeah] </S7>
<S11> how we [(xx) the difference] </S11>
<NS10> [it could be none] </NS10>
<P:07>
<S7> and this is a serious question of course er if you go back and try to remember what kind of phylogenetic species concepts we discussed so , it really depends as <NAME NS10> said there may be five @may be@ @120 well 81@ or something it depends very much </S7>
<S1> well they say that the (siwian) populations is a candidate <S7> yeah </S7> for species but the in the in the trees it looks like the mendora population is is al- also a , deep [(claim)] </S1>
<SS> [(xx)] </SS>
<S7> [exactly] </S7>
<SU> equally diverged </SU>
<S1> so if if i- i- in phylogenetic terms if we are goin- going to split the er (siwian) off we should also make some more splits </S1>
<S7> yeah </S7>
<NS9> i think mendora actually looks better than (siwian) <S1> mhm </S1> and (siwian) 's <S1> yeah possibly </S1> not very well resolved </NS9>
<S5> [no but they are] </S5>
<NS9> [it is monophylotic] but within it there's not much you can see </NS9>
<S5> but they are also telling that it's very very different i mean even if i'm not mistaken it hasn't the same ancestor or like (xx) </S5>
<S7> yeah i think it's im- important to see when you look at this figure three er so how er this tree is er er produced , i mean that the nodes where the nodes are located the nodes don't tell much about the history of these different lineages how deep they are in time if you look at er the scale bottom left you should look at the scale and understand that the length of those different lineages tell more about the age if the molecular clock has worked steadily it's rate has been the same all the time so er then you see that this er (siwian) lineage looks like being even er older than the men- er mendora line <P:05> so it just beats me why only one lineage is given as a candidate for a new species not not at least two new species , i think there's a reason for this </S7>
<NS9> well she mentioned <S7> [yeah] </S7> [morphological] characteristics [as well] </NS9>
<SS> [yeah] [yeah] </SS>
<S7> [yeah] yeah she refers back to some er morphological studies earlier morphological studies and perhaps in these studies only one of these potential new species these candidates is e- included so perhaps there's no no data on the other lineage , but this this shows that she's not very willing to speculate anything , even though there's much material or data to do that </S7>
<S1> but it's al- also possible that that the that the other deep lineages don't stand out in morphology from the others so i- it might be that there are some er divergent selection er working on the (siwian) population it it might be possible also </S1>
<S7> mhm so of course there should then be a reason for divergent selection so what could what could the reason be </S7>
<S1> maybe different kinds of er ecological <S7> yeah </S7> situation </S1>
<S7> yeah right and i i didn't see very much data about that how different these different islands are only the older islands have a good potential to to more diversity higher mountains <SS> mhm-hm </SS> an- an- and smaller islands not not that high mountains perhaps not at all mountains and so on so there may be differences in ecological conditions and the diversity of ecological conditions in different islands i saw that she doesn't much discuss even @that@ <P:11> so what does she discuss or say she mention- mentions the word cryptic here , cryptic features or something like that perhaps not cryptic species but somewhere <P:05> which i interpreted that again she's er referring to potential speciation potential new species but now i can- i can't find er the side it was shown i perhaps didn't mark it in the margin . but do you remember this , this part this expression about something cryptic <P:11> anyway either there is something cryptic some cryptic species or cryptic insipient species or huh this funny expression cryptic speciation going on @or@ the alternative is that there's not , and of course then here yeah er w- we could have an interesting case , to discuss if there's nothing cryptic no cryptic species no cryptic speciation and anyway you see this this terrific large differences DNA differences between li- or among lineages i think in deep time . could this have some relevance when we look at er this er allopatric speciation . speciation in isolation <P:13> i missed perhaps the other side of the coin to what <NAME S1> mentioned perhaps there is some , er k- kind of divergent selection going on because of differences in the ecological en- environment in the different islands but if there if there are no real differences and the DNA clock has worked for millions of years and we see this kind of tree with real good differences but no morpholo- perhaps no morphological differences just that there may be some- something cryptic @@ <NS9> [well (xx)] </NS9> [so wh- wha-] what d- what would this mean then er when we think of speciation especially in isolation an- an- and try to relate this to different specie- species concepts </S7>
<NS9> well she talks about actually in her closing sentence erm she talks about the divergence or does she use the word speciation er no she just says the biogeographical history <S7> yeah </S7> of the bat has to do with events on geological or geological and geographic events in <S7> [mhm] </S7> [in evolutionary] time <S7> mhm-hm </S7> and she explicitly says that it is has nothing to do with dispersal dynamics or ecological factors <S7> mhm </S7> so erm , i'm just thinking that if you're talking about basically the splitting of the range of a species er (xx) on the order of millions of years ago genetic drift alone could would lead to some amount of divergence i don't know the figures to do an actual er quick calculation of it but you get some kind of divergence over that kind of time erm and i'm not necessarily comfortable because she makes it quite clear that there isn't any exchange of genes across that that barrier er and it's really not that current populations are dispersing to a distant island where you could still say there's some random dispersal happening this is a proper break but i'm not comfortable with calling that speciation without some of the kinds of changes that <NAME S7> was just talking about er i mean they are going to drift apart and drift may eventually cause them to be sufficiently different but unless , unless there's more than just statistics to it unless there is more than just random variations in their DNA to it erm i'm not comfortable with it with calling that , chan- er with calling those species i guess i have something of an adaptive concept of species so they have to have adapted to something ecologically or morphologically or something er in order for me to call it species i'm not sure that i would be convinced even if the drift led to reproductive isolation and you were a an isolation species person i'm still not sure i would be comfortable with calling them different species </NS9>
<S11> but why is it so important that for example (xx) there was no ecological difference on those islands but there are different species <S7> mhm </S7> but it's like depending on nature but in this case like you don't you don't have these differences in nature why should we do now is it so important to have ecological differences that species would adapt to that <NS9> i think [so] </NS9> [why] is it important </S11>
<NS9> i think so because i'm an evolutionary biologist <SU> mhm </SU> i mean i i'm willing to acknowledge my bias i think that erm evolution is the theoretical framework that we work with in biology it's the one thing that i can think of in biology that really sort of unites and combines everything so i think of speciation as an evolutionary process er and drift is certainly an important evolutionary force but i'm just not convinced that it's good enough to call something a species i'm not talking about monophyly but i think that species are somewhat adapted units </NS9>
<S1> but but <NS9> [one way or] </NS9> [if the] er erm the habitats are are so similar <NS9> yeah </NS9> in different pl- places that there is really no- nothing different to adapt to <SU> mhm-hm </SU> then er but there wou- could anyway be enough er genetic differences because of isolation re- reproductive isolation if we could still make them er evolutionarily independent even if they are evolutionarily the same same way or stuck stuck in the same adaptive so </S1>
<NS9> in that case i'm kind of unsure what i do i have to think about it some more <SS> [@@] </SS> [to be honest] but it's just </NS9>
<P:04>
<S1> well i personally also er consider their er their potential to divergent evolution not not only how much they have di- diverged now but how how much potential they have so er heterosexually reproducing species the reproductive i- isolation creates some sort of potential because i- it it makes them makes it impossible for them to fu- fuse back together [the lineages] <NS9> [yeah] yeah that's </NS9> <NS9> [i would agree with that] </NS9> [and and she's] actually says that that erm , er that without erm <READING ALOUD> without nuclear evidence of genetic isolation their status is uncertain </READING ALOUD> </S1>
<NS9> i would also say though i mean in specifically in this case er if we are imagining that there are no ecological differences and there's n- there are no ecological or morphological changes in the group so all you have is genetic er diversity within the group , you have reproductive isolation now but it's purely geographic re- reproductive <S1> [mhm] </S1> [isolation] they're still potentially interbreeding and i'm not sure that's that's why i would be unsure er if they were if you if they were unable to interbreed because of the results of genetic drift then i would say yeah we should call them species erm but if they are unable to interbreed simply because they happen to be living on different islands separated by large bodies of water , i'm not willing to say let's not call them species but i'm not sure what i (would) say </NS9>
<S1> okay </S1>
<S5> yeah but in this case also it's like er at least what i found interesting that when we were talking about the the (siwian) population it er it was mentioned that er sp- er the population itself it's older than the island so most probably it i- it has er er just e- er colonised the island and got in into the original area so we don't know from what area it came from so it might be that it was a different environment from the other islands so in that case i i think er they got adapted to something and it doesn't matter that they live now in the same environment but of course on the in case on other two populations it's it's quite tricky whether we should call or not , so i think that's why they also have those morphological differences because they were adapted to something and then they just got to go to other place to live </S5>
<S7> it's very interesting discussion going on because one of the few main reasons i er skipped from er the department of genetics to the department of ecology was that i didn't see any sense to to to be a evolutionary biologist (xx) in in the department of <SIC> genetist </SIC> genetics because there people used to think and teach that evolution is change of populations' allele frequencies , for me it was nonsense of course there are changes but it was not evolution to me , to me evolution was adaptive change in the context of ecology and of course morphology is adaptive change to the ecological situation so morphology and ecology they go together and of co- of course behave usually so @@ so that that's my opinion to this and then of course we can come back to this case study an- and and try to think what it really means that the only data she has is mitochondrial DNA data no nuclear DNA data so how much could we then er speculate about possible er selective forces an- and and possible outcomes of selection on these different islands </S7>
<P:08>
<S5> er we know something about nuclear DNA @and so on@ <S7> [i see] </S7> [i know nothing] </S5>
<S7> yeah er yo- you could think about this question by first , first understanding trying to understand why just mitochondrial DNA u- it is used in molecular clock er business </S7>
<S4> well i think because it changes faster than the nucleotide </S4>
<S1> yeah but that only [changes changes the] </S1>
<S7> [perha- perhaps] not rate [er] </S7>
<S1> [scale] <S7> yeah </S7> but it doesn't recombine and and it's it's sort of i guess it's so- also , er more conservative so it's so the sequences that are changing are kind of those that are left out from the selective forces , <S7> yeah </S7> because because clock is no use i- if it's not erm constant in time the rate of change is not constant in time and i- and i- if there is strong selective forces acting on on it so then the then the rate might change </S1>
<S7> yeah yeah i- in it's most naive sense the molecular clock idea is that er DNA especially mitochondrial DNA the rate of change is stable , it may be fast it may be slower but the rate is the same and if you if you use this er some some mitochondrial DNA er er where you can find out what's the rate then you can assume er at least if you are naive assume that the rate of change is the same from millions of years to this <BSU-3> mhm </BSU-3> time and and then you can er build this kind of trees wi- with with time included , in many cases perhaps most cases the rate of change is not equal over time and certainly not equal over (xx) over over sequences of DNA but er the point why she used here this maximum likelihood test er when she mentioned this molecular clock was that she wanted to tell that here the molecular clock assumption seems to be valid to be used and and also the it's it's okay this tree but then , to have this kind of situation where rate is same all the time over millions of years so it means that mitochondrial DNA is not affected by selection there are no changes because of selection pressures changing selection pressures so what i i i have in mind we need nuclear DNA data more to see mo- more and er even molecular data to see <BSU-3> mhm-hm </BSU-3> if there really is some selection going on or if there are different selection pressures on different islands </S7>
<BS3> because that's really w- where you get the morphological changes from the <S7> [mhm] </S7> [nuclear] DNA </BS3>
<S7> and then , did you notice from the acknowledgements how this lady is has has been in this business how much or little she has been on those islands collecting herself those bats or not . it looks like she doesn't know know very much about the bats themselves living bats and and not the islands their ecological conditions so what she knows is from some sources <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> published sources which i don't know how reliable those are how much they tell about the ecological er different ecological conditions in different islands as comes to this bat species , this is a former er bird student a student of water stiders striders and later also on ants , i always have in mind that to understand for example water striders i have to look at them with the eyes of water striders i have to er er in a way take the role of a water strider lay there close to the water and look at them and think hey i'm one of those and start try to loo- to to understand them and without not seeing those water striders or seeing those bats it's very difficult to understand how they , feel ho- how how how how well they can take this and that kind of environment for example </S7>
<NS10> i was very surprised at how little this actually had to do with bats </NS10>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S7> [yeah] </S7>
<NS10> i saw bats when i was when we were taking our paper topic or presentation topics bats bats bats and then i @read it@ and i was like this has nothing to do with bats , [i still liked it] </NS10>
<NS9> [(xx) just] looking there right </NS9>
<NS10> yeah </NS10>
<S7> i think hasn't this something to do with bats perhaps not baseball bats [some other kind of bats] </S7>
<SU> [@@] </SU>
<BS3> indirectly </BS3>
<S7> indirectly yeah </S7>
<NS10> yeah indirectly <S7> yeah </S7> it has to do with bats and then directly it has to do with conservation so <BS3> mhm </BS3> i liked that but i guess this has (applied) to me more than anything else </NS10>
<S7> yeah </S7>
<NS9> on the other question for you as a conservation person 'cause it's something that's bugged me erm let's say that we decide that these aren't just one species by whatever criteria we decided we do have a huge amount of diversity in there <NS10> mhm-hm </NS10> so do you pick by species name or do you pick by genetic diversity </NS9>
<NS10> that's a great question i don't know erm well these bats don't need to be conserved right now <NS9> [yeah but hypothetically] </NS9> [they're doing okay] hypothetically it's i would pick by genetic diversity than species name i mean this is this does relate to me this is just probably the most common like this is probably the most similar to what i'll be doing , this class relates to me as a biologist just like it relates to all of us as as people i guess <BS3> [but] </BS3> [(xx)] shouldn't species </NS10>
<BS3> why would you be inclined to choose by genetic diversity rather than by species name </BS3>
<NS10> because if as if er a species is not doing well and then maybe okay so maybe one of these islands of bats is is declining is is not doing well erm and maybe science scientists as scientists we don't know why and we don't know why these why these ones aren't doing well and the other ones are you are gonna wanna go and well hopefully conserve conserve the bats that are on that island because they've they serve an ecological niche and they are necessary on the island as far as we are concerned even if they are labelled as the exact same species as an island as the bat on the island next to them <BS3> okay </BS3> it's their genetic diversity that makes them i don't know something's obviously different but even if no one's gonna agree on what they are called anyway @@ so </NS10>
<S1> yeah we could also think that that when we are protecting a species we should er aim to preserve the specific attributes of that s- species and and if one of the attributes of the species is that it has lots of genetic divergence then it's the genetic divergence that need to be preserved and it a- it also we can think that the species consists of the different populations and if the populations are diverse then protecting only one is not protecting the whole species only very small part o- part </S1>
<SU> mhm </SU>
<NS9> how does speciation fit into conservation , because on the one hand you are i guess increasing the number of species in a given area but at the same time you are reducing the range for a particular group <NS10> mhm-hm </NS10> er and perhaps since its range is reduced it's now exposed to well more stochastic events it's got a smaller population it's got a more <BSU-3> [mhm] </BSU-3> [limited] range it's more likely that something bad could happen to them <NS10> mhm-hm </NS10> er and not that we are going to really do anything about speciation this is more just sort of a conceptual question </NS9>
<NS10> (xx) erm it's good to break things down as much as you can to different groups in order to see how events are going to change them if they're in a huge if if i may say if i said bears bears are er bears are a species one bear every single type of bear in the world is one species then er i would think about global warming and what it will do to polar bears and relate that to grizzly bears or brown bears you know and and it has nothing to do with brown bears right now you know it has to do with ice caps melting and polar bears losing their habitats and , if looking at something in a hu- it's it's it's a nicer way to look at conservation because everything looks great if you look at , er at species if they're er it's just hard to put into words if you look at species as a huge group then they look like they're like they could do anything you know but you gotta like break it down to see if to see if see what needs to see see what needs fixing i guess that's the best way to put it's a terrible way to put it but [i nee- need to think about that for a while (xx)] <S7> <SS> [@@] </SS> [yeah] </S7>  </NS10>
<S7> [yeah okay <COUGH>] yeah because er conservation biology is much broader business than just er trying to conserve the species because diversity of life what's diversity of life that's that's a big question <NS10> mhm </NS10> er here we see diversity of life we don't know whether we have here one or more species but we see that er <SIGH> the bats pygmy bats on these different islands are really different <BSU-3> mhm-hm </BSU-3> er at least as comes genetic variation at least mitochondrial variation and of course as conservation biologists people should be er careful to protect conserve populations on different islands not only one big island letting everything else go because these are different </S7>
<BSU-3> mhm </BSU-3>
<S6> yeah i don't know about conservation but if i have to choose if just conserve one <S7> mhm </S7> like type or the whole phenome which is the whole thing saying like only one type of the popula- only one population is in danger but i would use that as excuse to conserve everything <NS10> mhm-hm </NS10> so like i keep everything and just focus on only that one so it will be just yeah my excuse to really protect everything like you s- i don't know how is it called like we'll call it like umbrella species <NS10> [mhm-hm] </NS10> [or whatever] <SU-7> yeah </SU-7> [so] </S6>
<BS3> [yeah] that's the term </BS3>
<NS9> i guess what i'm saying though is speciation is basically adapt- er adaptation to erm changing ecological environments or changing requirements of some type erm we have a huge impact on the ecology or the ecosystems around us <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> and by changing those ecosystems we may be encouraging speciation </NS9>
<NS10> we are encouraging [speciation] </NS10>
<NS9> [right] and is that a bad thing <BSU-3> mhm </BSU-3> <S1> [yeah] </S1> [because] <BSU-3> [no (xx) extinction @yeah@] </BSU-3> [it seems to me like a lot of people just wanna hold everything the way it is] yes extinction is is an unfortunate thing [@erm@ but] </NS9>
<SS> [@@] [@@] </SS>
<S6> [but extinction rates] are much higher than [(speciation)] </S6>
<S1> [yeah but yeah] but when species go extinct then there is a er er ecological niche <NS9> right </NS9> (niche) so for some other lineage there will be speciation (xx) </S1>
<NS9> right i mean <SU> [@@ yeah] </SU> [ecologi- er in extinction] and speciation are sort of </NS9>
<SU> yeah </SU>
<S1> yeah [but] </S1>
<NS9> [things] that go hand in hand </NS9>
<BS3> [but how fast] </BS3>
<S1> [but but] yeah <NS9> [so] </NS9> [yeah] speciation is a process of millions of years and extinction [is a] </S1>
<SS> [@@] [@@] </SS>
<S7> [yeah yeah] </S7>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<BS3> [well at least right now extinction is] very fast <S1> yeah </S1> <S7> [yeah] </S7> [it's the] [(worst) (xx) as er] </BS3>
<NS10> [it's a very i think it's a very] important thing to know about when you're studying conservation regardless regardless of that y- y- you need to look at it and be able to look at a species and know if extinction is really possible or you need to know about speciation and you need to know about pa- the past you need to know what's happened before and that i don't know i think it's a very important aspect of biology speciation , and even though it does deal with extinction which is not good erm extinction is very important @to know about@ i can't just ignore it that extinction exists because it does exist <S7> mhm-hm </S7> things have always got extinct </NS10>
<S7> yeah yeah that's true but nowadays the sad thing here is that most of extinctions take place because our own activity <SU> mhm-hm </SU> human activity and and and there are very few possibilities for us to er increase the rate of speciation <BS3> [mhm-hm] </BS3> [to compensate] for <BS3> [mhm-hm] </BS3> [e- extinction] er the only way er i can see is is the one i mentioned last time remote control </S7>
<SS> @@ [@@] </SS>
<S7> [of] [speciation but it's it it doesn't i i don't i don't take it] </S7>
<NS10> [but it's risky to so that that's superficial] </NS10>
<S7> as as kind er @good@ <NS10> [that's superficial] </NS10> [@good way to speciate@ @@] , yeah , but to go back to this figure three tree @@ figure three tree so er <P:05> we have er deep history , dive- diversification er er among those lines lineages and and er strong large differences as comes to mitochondrial DNA among er what you call them populations island populations and so on er , but what about if we will not in later studies find any morphological differences real morphological differences behavioural differences ecological differences among er the populations in different these different islands so so what then what what could it mean when you think about that er a a concept of allopatric speciation maintains that in isolation species will auto- er these populations will automatically differentiate and finally speciate with time no natural selection is needed , but could you think about another scenario that in isolation as here real isolation as she tells no gene flow among islands so in real isolation speciation doesn't take do- does-doesn't er take place automatically . the first claim was that it takes automatically even without selection but what about it doesn't take place automatically in isolation because of selection could this we be one possible scenario </S7>
<NS9> how do you mean </NS9>
<S7> that even though er these populations are isolated no gene flow in between and they they may be isolated for millions of years <BS3> mhm </BS3> so er speciation doesn't take place automatically because of selection </S7>
<NS9> because of stabilising selection on the individual populations [in] </NS9>
<S7> [yeah] similar ecological conditions <BS3> mhm </BS3> and i think about some living fossils some deep sea fish for example that have been morphologically and ecologically exactly <BS3> [yeah] </BS3> [the same] over millions of years of course we have no DNA data on from these er er lineages but they look the same they're ecologically the same as these look the same they may be ecologically same so i mean that the main claim in this old isolation <BS3> [mhm] </BS3> [speciation] concept is that iso- er that speciation takes place in isolation even without <NS9> well i [think] </NS9> [even] without selective pressure selection <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> because then random processes will drive them apart <BS3> mhm </BS3> [but] </S7>
<NS9> [i think] i think that's also largely because a lot of allopatric speciation models would have some kind of founder effect <S7> yeah </S7> going on <S7> [mhm-hm] </S7> [erm] and the idea is that if you got (xx) for a founder effect you can have just well you'll have such a small population that drift can overpower even the ordinary stabilised selection <S7> mhm </S7> and then you could have this this er genetic revolution <S7> [mhm] </S7> [that they] talked about </NS9>
<S7> yeah that mayr's <NS9> yeah </NS9> concept </S7>
<NS9> but i i mean i don't drift is an important force but i would agree with you that it can't overpower if stabilising stabilising selection if you got similar <S7> [mhm] </S7> [ecological] requirements here so unless you have either selection or really small population <SU> [mhm] </SU> [size] either because of dispersal or because of extinction or not extinction near extinction i would find it difficult to see how speciation could happen in allopatry or in sympatry </NS9>
<S1> well i would say it depends how many of the populations are because they are constantly er selection is is anyway acting the- all the time an- an- and sometimes there is erm different kind of solutions for the for adaptive solutions for the selection so er sooner or later s- they , the one of the populations er , would sort of er flip into another kind of solution and then i- it's a is a start for another evolutionary road </S1>
<NS9> so you're saying there are many solutions to any ecological problem and they may find another one </NS9>
<S1> yeah basically <S7> [yeah sure] </S7> [because because there's] because the erm selection is is a er mutations are random processes anyway so i- in enough time then then there will will be enough changes in at least one of the [populations] </S1>
<S7> [mhm] this was actually idea er er put forth by ernst mayr first the founder effect then the er genetic revolution which meant that a new er co-adaptive gene comple- complex would er pop up from somewhere @@ <BS3> mhm </BS3> from these small populations an- and then selection could er er er favour this kind of new adaptive co-adaptive gene complex <BS3> [but] </BS3> [but] i- </S7>
<BS3> but my [problem] </BS3>
<S7> [it's a good idea] but no support anyway okay please </S7>
<BS3> with what he was just saying is that yeah i understand the different possible solutions to a selective pressure but if <S7> [mhm] </S7> [they're] on these islands and then the islands become isolated and nothing changes but they're already a bit adapted to that place and then they're all isolated on the two islands and the same as they were before and yeah the same as to each other then they wouldn't need to to to come up with any solutions to the selective pressures [because they're already they're already there] </BS3>
<S1> [yeah but other sp- other species are coming] they are not alone there there are other species coming up with different kind of solutions as they are also er they will have to adapt to evolution of other species and er i would <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> like to get back to the e- evolutionary revolution i i don't thi- think the er genetic ch- change or morphological change needs to be very very er big for a new kind of erm evolution to b- begin because the changes may be cascading so basically there might be a very small change that makes them a- able to metabolise and even kind of food but but then the i- er , because of the food might be growing in little bit di- different kind of places b- or or di- different kind of s- er structures er to e- effec- effectively forage then the- there will a small change will sort of like er crack open a way in- into new adaptive zones </S1>
<NS9> well the erm to give you a specific example that the mammal teeth have four cusps four little bumps on them <S1> mhm-hm </S1> er rather than three and having that fourth cusp allows you to rearrange your entire jaw structure so that you can much more effectively grind grass than <S1> mhm </S1> say cut meat er and it's literally a single mutation or a single gene to get that fourth cusp there's a group here that's doing modelling work on that </NS9>
<S7> <FOREIGN> joo </FOREIGN> jerenvall <NS9> yeah </NS9> jernvall an- and those yeah </S7>
<NS9> so yeah and that that opens up a whole new adaptive zone as you're saying because all of a sudden there's so many things you can do <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> so i think it i've always been bothered i remember in the previous seminar actually somebody i think said there's an eight per cent difference genetic difference between this population and this population which is enough to qualify them as species and i don't know where that number @came from@ er because i really i would agree with you that it's much more about the kind of change than the amount </NS9>
<S7> yeah this those <SIC> per cents </SIC> come the- they come from empirical resul- er er research </S7>
<NS9> but why is eight [per cent (xx) species] </NS9>
<S7> [tha- that there are i] i mean that there are many many er populations which are called species and everybody agrees that they are real species by every kind of criteria <NS9> mhm </NS9> <SU> mhm </SU> er i mean ecologically an- and morphologically behaviourally maybe goo species and then they they have found out that the they the difference between genetical difference between closely related goo species is about six to eight per cent and then this empirical result is that what they then generalise over everything an- and <BS3> [mhm-hm] </BS3> [that's] of course nonsense <NS9> @@ </NS9> as much of wha- wha- what's going on in biology is nonsense of course as in every field @@ @bu-@ but we we should know that and accept it an- an- and look at it critically but still i i i insist for a couple of minutes to to tease you an- and get a nicer answer that what about this if we we we raise the hypothesis that we have no species here we have this clear differentiation in mitochondrial DNA we see here an- and in deep time <SU> mhm-hm </SU> an- and my hypothesis would now be s- counter-hypothesis the- we have no speciation here no species only one species an- and and my argument would be that okay even though we have no data data yet my argument is that this if there are no speciation ha- has has not been no speciation that we have no species here separate species because er the ecological conditions on these different islands are so similar er an- and and important for the bats <BS3> mhm </BS3> that the main selective factors are the same and strong so selection keeps them morphologically behaviourally and ecologi- ecologically <BS3> [mhm] </BS3> [er] as one species <BS3> mhm-hm </BS3> even though they they look like many species in this tree how how how could we test this </S7>
<NS9> well i would first of all state the counter claim <S7> mhm </S7> which would be that we have five <S7> mhm </S7> species here <S7> yeah </S7> erm based on the fact that we do have five large divergent groups erm and coupled with the fact that i could claim and i might even claim if i thought about it a bit erm that it it's difficult to believe that on five isolated islands the ecology would be similar enough to keep them effectively identical <S7> [mhm] </S7> [over] <SU> [mhm] </SU> [however] much it is six million years because they are such complicated systems and i guess to figure it out we just have to go out there and really study the bats' [ecology] <S7> [yeah] mhm-hm </S7> and we know they are morphologically similar so there would have to be lots and lots of fieldwork <SU> mhm </SU> <S7> mhm </S7> which i guess means we're getting back to the philippines </NS9>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<S7> sure yeah </S7>
<NS9> i mean <S7> [yeah] </S7> [i don't know] ecology is eco- ecosystems are pretty complicated and it's difficult to decide which , which argument is better because complicated systems tend to be quite robust and tend to damp out small variations that happen within them so you get more or less the same overall effect er but at the same time they can be very sensitive to particular small er particular er conditions even if they're only very very small changes but have as you said cascading <S7> [yeah] </S7> [effects] er </NS9>
<S1> of course we could make experiments transferrals and see if they have different kind of er , mortalities or [or] </S1>
<NS9> [or] lifetime fitness <S7> mhm </S7> lifetime [reproductive success] </NS9>
<S1> [li- lifetime] re- reproductive success but then there is a of course the possi- problem that we are then mixing the <SU> yeah </SU> genomes together an- and if we would transfer sterilised individuals then we don- we don't get the lifetime <SS> [@@] </SS> [@success@] </S1>
<SS> [@@] </SS>
<S7> [yeah this this this kind of experiments] could be done in in large cages <SS> [(xx)] </SS> [er an- an- and] studying the mating behaviour and if they mate then what's the result an- and o- of course then everything er included mortality er that's one way and then er studying in more detail er looking for possible morphological and behavioural differences among individuals on these different islands but what i had in this context this molecular context i had in mind that why not try to construct molecular phylogeny on the basis of nuclear DNA beca- because if if there are er any important ecological differences among these islands that are selectively important then those differences should be seen in in the nuclear DNA tree </S7>
<BS3> mhm </BS3>
<NS9> you could also even erm match if you <SIGH> you could try to identify sections of nuclear DNA that have erm changed that have diverged between populations and compare rates of divergence <S7> mhm </S7> within the the nuclear genome because selectivel- selectively neutral parts of the genome will diverge less rapidly than <S7> mhm </S7> selective- er parts that are experiencing selection <S7> yeah </S7> so </NS9>
<S7> so that's that's one one result okay we could obtain erm , <SIGHING> er </SIGHING> a tree nuclear DNA tree supporting this tree but , what about if if if the selection pressures would be the same on all these islands and strong @what kind@ of nuclear tree would you then get , no place for drift </S7>
<NS9> no basically a more or less flat one i mean there'd be some variation but it shouldn't be distributed er it shouldn't come into island aggregates <S7> mhm yeah </S7> essentially </NS9>
<S7> yeah i i would expect that the the pattern would not be at all this clear that there would be they would be more similar than different </S7>
<S2> much less variation [usually] </S2>
<S7> [yeah] yeah given strong selection selective pressures on on the islands and the same kind of s- selection pressures on on these different islands so i- i- if we believe in in any basic evolutionary ideas then they should look pretty pretty similar on these different islands er on this nuclear DNA tree because in mitochondrial DNA tree er drift is the only er say er important work force if it's any force it's just stochastics it's no force even </S7>
<NS9> it's unfortunate that she doesn't mention that in her paper </NS9>
<S7> no she doesn't <NS9> yeah </NS9> because she </S7>
<NS9> and this <S7> [sh- sh-] </S7> [work] is two years old so <S7> [yeah] </S7> [it's possible] that she's followed it up <S7> yeah </S7> or like something like that <S7> yeah </S7> but she doesn't </NS9>
<S7> er what do you say </S7>
<NS9> the paper was received in 2004 for this [publication] </NS9>
<S7> [yeah] it was received but you see it was published <NS9> [yeah published 2006 yeah] </NS9> [2006 yeah] because i think that there have been some major reasons why i- i- it it has construed a large revision process , yeah nine months between receiving and acceptance and then still huh this is almost one year for publication never never submit a paper to this [this journal] </S7>
<SS> [@@] [@@] </SS>
<BS3> [to this journal] </BS3>
<S7> yeah </S7>
<SU> at least one (point) is very old </SU>
<S7> yeah so is still anything on your mind or , some clever final word , sentence </S7>
<S8> i think it was very important point actually because we're reading the previous article that they say that geograp- mhm it's allopatric <S7> [mhm] </S7> [speciation] is inevitable in geographically isolated populations but here we see an example which is quite (xx) something against it </S8>
<P:07>
<S7> so if you all are happy we can end for today and if you are not happy at least read that article @@ </S7>
<SS> @@ </SS>
<SU> so we don't have to do that </SU>
<S7> yeah thank you </S7>
