Encyclopedia of Evolution.pdf - Online Reading Center

Further Reading
Abrahamson, Warren G., et al. “Gall flies, inquilines, and goldenrods:
A model for host-race formation and sympatric speciation.”
American Zoologist 41 (2001): 928–938.
Arnqvist, G., et al. “Sexual conflict promotes speciation in insects.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97 (2000):
10,460–10,464.
Blondel, Jacques, et al. “Selection-based biodiversity at a small spatial
scale in a low-dispersing insular bird.” Science 285 (1999):
1,399–1,402.
Carroll, Scott P., Hugh Dingle, and Stephen P. Klassen. “Genetic differentiation
of fitness-associated traits among rapidly evolving
populations of the soapberry bug.” Evolution 51 (1997): 1,182–
1,188.
Dreckmann, U., and M. Doebeli. “On the origin of species by sympatric
speciation.” Nature 400 (1999): 354–357.
Freeman, Scott, and Jon C. Herron. “Mechanisms of speciation.”
Chap. 15 in Evolutionary Analysis, 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River
N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004.
Futuyma, Douglas. Evolution. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates,
2005.
Grant, Verne. Plant Speciation, 2nd ed. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1981.
Gray, D. A., and W. H. Cade. “Sexual selection and speciation in
field crickets.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA 97 (2000): 14,449–14,454.
Howard D. J., and Stuart H. Berlocher, eds. Endless Forms: Species
and Speciation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Irwin, Darren E., et al. “Speciation by distance in a ring species.” Science
307 (2005): 414–416.
Jiggins, Chris D., et al. “Reproductive isolation caused by colour pattern
mimicry.” Nature 411 (2001): 302–305.
Martin, Robert A. Missing Links: Evolutionary Concepts and Transitions
through Time. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett, 2004.
Mayr, Ernst. What Evolution Is. New York: Basic Books, 2001.
Ortíz-Barrientos, Daniel, and Mohamed A. F. Noor. “Evidence for a
one-allele assortative mating locus.” Science 310 (2005): 1,467.
Palumbi, Stephen R. The Evolution Explosion: How Humans Cause
Rapid Evolutionary Change. New York: Norton, 2001.
Price, Jonathan P., and Warren L. Wagner. “Speciation in Hawaiian
angiosperm lineages: Cause, consequence, and mode.” Evolution
58 (2004): 2,185–2,200.
Rundle, H. D., et al. “Natural selection and parallel speciation in
sympatric sticklebacks.” Science 287 (2000): 306–308.
Ryan, Peter G., et al. “Ecological speciation in South Atlantic island
finches.” Science 315 (2007): 1,420–1,423.
Sargent, Risa D. “Floral symmetry affects speciation rates in angiosperms.”
Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 271
(2004): 603–608.
Schilthuizen, Menno. Frogs, Flies, and Dandelions: The Making of
Species. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Uy, J. A. C., and G. Borgia. “Sexual selection drives rapid divergence
in bowerbird display traits.” Evolution 54 (2000): 273–278.
Via, Sara. “Sympatric speciation in animals: The ugly duckling grows
up.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16 (2001): 381–390.
Wake, D. B. “Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina
complex.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA 94: 7,761–7,767.
Spencer, Herbert
Weir, Jason T. and Dolph Schluter. “The latitudinal gradient in recent
speciation and extinction rates of birds and mammals.” Science
315 (2007): 1,574–1,576.
Spencer, Herbert (1820–1903) British Evolutionary philosopher
Herbert Spencer popularized evolutionary ideas in
England and the United States. His vision of evolution was
vague and, because it incorporated a Lamarckian mechanism
(see Lamarckism), wrong, but it was, for a long time, more
popular than Darwin’s evolutionary theory (see Darwin,
Charles; origin of species [book]). Spencer was lecturing
about evolutionary ideas before Darwin published the Origin
of Species, and Darwin derived part of his theory—if only a
single phrase—from Spencer.
Born April 27, 1820, Spencer grew up in an intellectual
environment (son of a schoolmaster) and spent his life
writing a great outpouring of philosophical works. Evolution
was at the core of all of his works. He proclaimed
that the evolutionary history of all things produced greater
complexity and greater interdependence. Even before Darwin
published the Origin of Species, Spencer wrote about
the “survival of the fittest,” the phrase that Darwin later
adopted to describe natural selection. Spencer had come
close to the idea of natural selection, but he included it in
a Lamarckian framework—that the efforts of organisms,
including humans, could produce new characteristics that
could be incorporated into their biological framework and
passed down to future generations. Spencer was not the
careful scientist that Darwin was; his scientific examples
were few and vague. Since progress resulted from effort,
then rich people were rich because they had superior abilities,
and the poor were poor because they were lazy, or
incompetent, or both, according to Spencer’s view. Spencer
wrote in 1851:
Blind to the fact that under the natural order of
things, society is constantly excreting its unhealthy,
imbecile, slow, vacillating, faithless members, these
unthinking, though well-meaning men advocate
an interference which not only stops the purifying
process but even increases the vitiation—absolutely
encourages the multiplication of the reckless and
incompetent by offering them an unfailing provision,
and discourages the multiplication of the competent
and provident by heightening the prospective
difficulty of maintaining a family.
Spencer’s evolution proceeded by effort, while Darwin’s
seemed to be founded upon luck. When Spencer visited
America in 1882, the year Darwin died, he was immensely
popular in this nation of newfound wealth resulting from
the efforts of independent people exploiting a huge wilderness
of resources they had recently expropriated from the
Native Americans. When religious leaders such as Henry
Ward Beecher embraced evolution within their theology, it
was Spencer’s version, not Darwin’s. Spencer’s views encouraged
the growth of social Darwinism and eugenics that
were used as justification of the oppression of minorities