@article {597186,
	title = {Space, sympatry and speciation},
	journal = {Journal of Evolutionary Biology},
	volume = {22},
	number = {11},
	year = {2009},
	note = {<p>doi: 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2009.01816.x</p>},
	month = {Nov},
	pages = {2332-2341},
	abstract = {<p>Sympatric speciation remains controversial. {\textquoteright}Sympatry{\textquoteright} originally meant "in the same geographical area". Recently, evolutionists have redefined {\textquoteright}sympatric speciation{\textquoteright} non-spatially to require panmixia (m = 0.5) between a pair of demes before onset of reproductive isolation. Although panmixia is a suitable starting point in models of speciation, it is not a useful definition of sympatry in natural populations, because it becomes virtually impossible to find or demonstrate sympatry in nature. The newer, non-spatial definition fails to address the classical debate about whether natural selection within a geographic overlap regularly causes speciation in nature, or whether complete geographic isolation is usually required. We therefore propose a more precise spatial definition by incorporating the population genetics of dispersal (or {\textquoteright}cruising range{\textquoteright}). Sympatric speciation is considerably more likely under this spatial definition than under the demic definition, because distance itself has a powerful structuring effect, even over small spatial scales comparable to dispersal. Ecological adaptation in two-dimensional space often acts as a {\textquoteright}magic trait{\textquoteright} that causes pleiotropic reductions of gene flow. We provide examples from our own research.</p>},
	keywords = {*Genetic Speciation, *Geography, Animals, Gene Flow, Homing Behavior, Population dynamics, Selection, Genetic, Terminology as Topic},
	isbn = {1420-9101 (Electronic)1010-061X (Linking)},
	author = {Mallet, J. and A Meyer and Nosil, P. and Feder, J. L.}
}
