Inverting the null-hypothesis of speciation: a marine snail perspective

Speciation is currently an intensely debated topic, much more so than 20–30 years ago when most biologists held the view that new species (at least of animals) were formed through the split of evolutionary lineages by the appearance of physical barriers to gene flow. Recent advances have, however, lent both theoretical and empirical support to speciation in the presence of gene flow. Nevertheless, the allopatric hypothesis of speciation is still the default model. The consequence of this is that to support sympatric and parapatric modes of speciation all allopatric alternatives must be rejected, while an allopatric explanation is usually accepted without rejecting possible non-allopatric alternatives. However, classical cases of allopatric speciation can be challenged by alternative non-allopatric explanations, and this begs for a more respectful view of how to deal with all models of speciation. An appealing approach is studying parallel evolution of reproductive barriers, which allows for comparative approaches to distinguish between allopatric and non-allopatric events, and explicit tests of a suitable null-hypothesis. Parallel evolution of reproductive isolation in a strongly polymorphic marine snail species serves as an illustrative example of such an approach. In conclusion, a more balanced debate on allopatric and non-allopatric speciation is needed and an urgent issue is to treat both allopatric and nonallopatric hypotheses critically, rather than using allopatry as the default model of speciation.