Mayr Ernst, O'Hara Robert J
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138.
Evolution. 1986 Jan;40(1):55-67. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1986.tb05717.x.
The prevailing explanation for the observed distributional patterns and areas of endemism of tropical forest organisms is the Pleistocene refuge hypothesis, which proposes that wide-ranging ancestral taxa were isolated into forest refuges during certain glacial periods, and that this isolation provided them with the opportunity to speciate. John Endler has recently argued that two predictions of the refuge hypothesis-that contact zones between vicars should be between refuges and that contact zones of rapidly reproducing butterflies should be wider than those of more slowly reproducing birds-are not borne out by the evidence. Endler therefore rejects the refuge hypothesis. We show that the data available are far too imprecise to permit any conclusions regarding contact zone widths and that, according to our reanalysis of the African bird data used by Endler, all the contact zones between vicars do indeed occur between refuges, exactly where they are expected. Additional strong support for the refuge hypothesis comes from the existence of many taxa endemic to the particular forest areas which have been postulated as refuges and from fragmented taxa which are still allopatric, never having come into secondary contact.
对于热带森林生物所观察到的分布模式和特有区域,目前流行的解释是更新世避难所假说。该假说提出,分布广泛的祖先类群在某些冰川期被隔离到森林避难所中,这种隔离为它们提供了物种形成的机会。约翰·恩德勒最近认为,避难所假说的两个预测——替代种之间的接触带应该在避难所之间,以及繁殖迅速的蝴蝶的接触带应该比繁殖较慢的鸟类的接触带更宽——并没有得到证据的支持。因此,恩德勒拒绝了避难所假说。我们表明,现有的数据过于不精确,无法就接触带宽度得出任何结论,而且,根据我们对恩德勒所使用的非洲鸟类数据的重新分析,替代种之间的所有接触带确实都出现在避难所之间,正是在预期的位置。对避难所假说的额外有力支持来自于许多特有于被假定为避难所的特定森林区域的类群的存在,以及来自仍然是异域分布、从未进行过二次接触的片段化类群。