DISCOVER Magazine. Science, Technology and The Future
Current Issue
Subscribe Today »
  • Renew
  • Give a Gift
  • Archives
  • Customer Service
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Newsletter
  • Health & Medicine
  • Mind & Brain
  • Technology
  • Space
  • Human Origins
  • Living World
  • Environment
  • Physics & Math
  • Video
  • Photos
  • Podcast
  • RSS
The Loom
« Old and New: An Introduction
Talking Yogurt Evolution »

Darwin, Meet Frankenstein

heliconius%20intro.jpgScientists have figured out many ways to study the origin of species. They can build evoluitonary trees, to see how species descend from a common ancestor. They can survey islands or mountains or lakes to see how ecological conditions foster the rise of new species. They can look for fossils that offer clues to how long ago species branched off from one another, and how their ranges spread or shrank. Now comes a new trick in tomorrow’s issue of the journal Nature: to test their ideas about how a new species of butterfly came to be, they essentially recreated it in their lab.


Heliconius%20gallery%20500.jpg

The new species in question was a graceful little butterfly called Heliconius heurippa. It lives in a small region of Columbia, just east of the Andes. Many other Heliconius (or passion-vine) butterflies live in South and Central America. Of particular interest is H. melpomene. Its wide range includes that of H. heurippa. The two butterflies have the same hindwing color, and they also share an orange streak across the forewing.

Scientists were also struck by the similarity between H. heurippa and another species, H. cydno. These two species share the same white streak across the wing. It does not live alongside H. heurippa, though. Its range stops at the western side of the Andes.

H. heurippa almost looks like a simple combination of the other two species. A team of scientists who study the butterfly wondered if that indeed was the case. Perhaps, they speculated, a population of H. cydno became isolated on the eastern side of the Andes from the other butterflies of its species. The isolated butterflies mated with the H. melpomene around them. Instead of merging with the other species, the butterflies became distinctive hybrids with an appearance all their own. They were attracted to their own appearance, while the original two species continued to be attracted to theirs. The hybrids became a new species: H. heurippa.

This was a provocative idea. Mathematical models had suggested that new species formed from hybrids should be very rare. It’s hard for hybrids to become reproductively isolated from their pure-bred parents, particularly when they live side by side. As I wrote in the New York Times a couple weeks ago, interbreeding may be able to cause two newly diverged species to collapse back into a single hybrid swarm. The best example of new species from hybrids come from plants–in particular, sunflowers. The evidence from animals has been suggestive, but it couldn’t rule out the possibility that another process had produced the same patterns. Instead of forming a new hybrid species, the animals might have first split into two new species, and then only interbred later, mixing some of their genes.

To try to rule out these sorts of alternative explanations, the scientists looked at H. heurippa from many angles. They compared its DNA to that of the other two species. All three butterfly species are closely related, but their genes belong to three distinct clusters. H. heurippa is not just some isolated race of either of the more widespread species.

On the other hand, the scientists could identify certain genes in H. heurippa that were most similar to the corresponding in genes in one of the two other species–just as you’d expect from hybrids.

Then the scientists did a Frankenstein-meets-Darwin experiment. They tried to recreate H. heurippa all over again. They mated H. melpomene and H. cydno, and produced hybrids. In the first generation, the female hybrids were all sterile–a common result of interbreeding. But this did not mean the experiment was over. The male hybrids could still breed with the females of the original species. After a few generations of interbreeding this way, the scientists produced butterflies that looked remarkably like H. heurippa and could now breed among themselves. While fertile hybrids are also familiar to biologists, they tend to produce a jumble of offspring, many of which look more like their pure-bred ancestors. Not so for the new butterflies. They consistently produced offspring that also looked like H. heurippa.

Even if hybrids can produce a stable line of offspring like themselves, they may not actually do so. If the hybrids are willing to mate with their parental species, they may simply merge back together. In the final part of their study, the scientists showed that this was not happening in H. heurippa. They observed how likely butterflies from each species would be to mate with other species. All three showed a strong preference for their own. The key to their preference seems to be those beautiful bands on their wings. The scientists covered over each of the bands on female butterflies to see how the new look affected how males decided to court. Removing either the red or yellow bands made male H. heurippa less likely to try to woo a female.

This research is intriguing on a lot of levels (more details appear in a paper in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology). The researchers propose a path to the origin of species from hybrids, one that the theorists haven’t thought about before. And who knows how many other species might have formed that way. As I wrote here, the human and chimpanzee genomes contain hints that our ancestors may have interbred millions of years ago. Did they create some new hybrid species? It’s possible that mate choice in primates is just too different from that in butterflies. We may not be so easily controlled by visual cues like colored stripes.

But I cringed when I looked at the map in the paper showing the distribution of the three species. H. heurippa exists in only in one stretch of Andean foothills and nowhere else in the world. Passion-vine butterflies can only lay their eggs on a single species of passion vine, because they have evolved defenses against that particular plant and can’t feed on other passion vines. If its habitat or host plant should disappear, this wonderful natural experiment in evolution may will disappear as well.

Share

June 14th, 2006 1:00 PM Tags: Evolution
by Carl Zimmer in Uncategorized | 6 comments | RSS feed | Trackback >

6 Responses to “Darwin, Meet Frankenstein”

  1. 1.   Epigenetics News Says:
    June 14th, 2006 at 3:21 pm

    It looks like you have a typo in the last sentence of your post. I’m not sure if you were trying to say “may well disappear” or were going to replace “may” with “will,” or vice versa.

    Anyway, great post.

  2. 2.   Scott Belyea Says:
    June 14th, 2006 at 3:34 pm

    As fascinating a post on evolution as I’ve seen in a while now.

    From my lay perspective, it’s particularly interesting that the “artificial evolution” gave essentially the same result as “real evolution” first time around.

  3. 3.   blogs for industry Says:
    June 15th, 2006 at 10:13 am

    Origin of a species

    &storyIDLots of news coverage today about a paper in Nature (subscription needed?) about butterfly speciation. Reuters headline is typical
    Scientists create hybrid butterfly species in lab
    Others use “recreate”, which is more accurate in terms of …

  4. 4.   RPM Says:
    June 15th, 2006 at 5:20 pm

    The researchers propose a path to the origin of species from hybrids, one that the theorists haven’t thought about before.

    Not sure what you mean by theorists, but a very similar paper (without the recreation of the hybrids, mind you) came out about a year ago. And the idea of recreating hybridized species in the lab is nothing new.

  5. 5.   JMP Says:
    June 18th, 2006 at 12:29 am

    Intriguing post, thanks.

  6. 6.   Clastito Says:
    June 19th, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    Isn’t this more like “Goldschmidt, meet Frankenstein”? After all, the origin of new phenotypes by hybridizing species is hardly a “darwinian” evolutionary mechanism, though I ignore what the old sage said about this possibility (which he probably did not overlook)
    But consider the following. Most biologists, and specially evolution enthusiasts, upon looking at the differences between melpomene and cydna, would be quite willing to accept that each phenotye has evolved by natural selection. If they compared melponeme or cydna alone to heurippa, they would probably also assume that the heurippa phenotype has evolved by natural selection. Only by knowing the three species and the biogeographic reality, does the possibility emerge that the heurippa phenotype has not originated by a process directed by selection, but rather as the abrupt result of the hybridization of species.

Leave a Reply





    • About The Loom

      "Celebrated curiosity monger"

      --Brain Pickings

      Carl Zimmer writes about science regularly for the New York Times and magazines such as Discover, where he is a contributing editor and columnist.

      He is the author of twelve books, the most recent of which is Science Ink: Tattoos of the Science Obsessed. His website is carlzimmer.com and his address is blog at carlzimmer dot com .




    • Google Profile


    • Facebook

    • RSS Recent Posts

      • A Planet of Viruses: Autographed Book Sale
      • Animal Friendships: My cover story for Time magazine
      • The Future of E-books–podcast of my interview on Wisconsin Public Radio
      • Thursday, February 16: Science and social media panel in New York
      • A Scientific Jonah: My profile of Joy Reidenberg in tomorrow’s New York Times
    • Science Tattoo Emporium

      I once wondered aloud if scientists had tattoos of their science. The answer was yes, and this ever-growing collection is the evidence. I've turned them into a book about art and science called Science Ink: Tattoos of Science Obsessed.


    • Loom Junior

      My Tumblr home for scattershot
    • Books

      Carl Zimmer is the author of twelve books and counting.



      "Beautiful. Packed with fascinating stories"-Nature
      Order a copy




      "Whether discussing the common cold and flu, little-known viruses that attack bacteria or protect oceans, or the world’s viral future as seen through our encounters with HIV or SARS, Zimmer’s writing is lively, knowledgeable, and graced with poetic touches.”—Rebecca Skloot, author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks
      Available in hardback or Kindle




      “Carl Zimmer takes us behind the scenes in our own heads. He has ferreted out all the most wondrous, bizarre stories and studies and served them up in this delicious, sizzling, easy-to-digest platter of neuro-goodness.” —Mary Roach, author of Packing for Mars and Stiff
      An ebook exclusive: Amazon, Barnes and Noble, carlzimmer.com




      New! More Brain Cuttings:
      Further Explorations of the Mind
      Order from Amazon and Barnes & Noble and Apple



      The Tangled Bank: An Introduction to Evolution

      "The Tangled Bank is the best written and best illustrated introduction to evolution of the Darwin centennial decade, and also the most conversant with ongoing research."--Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University
      Order a copy



      Microcosm: E. coli and The New Science of Life

      "Superb...quietly revolutionary"--Boston Globe
      Order a copy



      Soul Made Flesh: The Discovery of the Brain and How It Changed the World

      "Fascinating...thrilling... Zimmer has produced a top-notch work of popular science."--Los Angeles Times
      Order a copy



      Evolution: The Triumph of An Idea

      "As thorough as it is graceful...This is as fine a book as one will find on the subject."--Scientific American
      Order a copy



      Parasite Rex

      "A book capable of changing how we see the world."--The Los Angeles Times
      Reissued with a new epilogue by the author.
      Order a copy



      At the Water's Edge: Fish With Fingers, Whales With Legs, and How Life Came Ashore But Then Went Back to The Sea

      "A fascinating story, which Zimmer unfolds as a tale of high-stakes scientific sleuthing."--Booklist
      Order a copy

    • Twitter Updates

        follow me on Twitter
      • Comment Policy

        Light but firm. Details here.
      • Recent comments

        • Carl Zimmer on A Planet of Viruses: Autographed Book Sale
        • zackoz on A Planet of Viruses: Autographed Book Sale
        • Steve on A Planet of Viruses: Autographed Book Sale
      • Categories

      • Blogroll

        • A Blog Around the Clock
        • Aetiology
        • Babel’s Dawn
        • Bad Science
        • Creature Cast
        • Culture Dish (Rebecca Skloot)
        • Dan Ariely
        • David Dobbs
        • dechronization
        • Developing Intelligence
        • Evolution & Medicine Review
        • Gene Expression
        • Genome Boy
        • Genomicron (Ryan Gregory)
        • io9
        • john hawks
        • John Rennie
        • Jonah Lehrer
        • Knight Science Journalism Tracker
        • Laelaps (Brian Switek)
        • Language Log
        • Mind Hacks
        • Mind Matters (David Berreby)
        • Mixing Memory
        • Mystery Rays From Outer Space
        • Nobel Intent
        • Not Exactly Rocket Science
        • Oscillator
        • Pharyngula
        • Prerogative of Harlots
        • RealClimate
        • Robert Krulwich
        • Sandwalk
        • Science Cheerleader
        • Science Made Cool
        • Skeptical Science
        • Small Things Considered
        • Speakeasy Science (Deborah Blum)
        • Steve Silberman
        • Steven Johnson’s blog
        • Superbug
        • synthesis
        • Tetrapod Zoology
        • The Intersection
        • The Inverse Square Blog
        • The Last Word On Nothing
        • The Panda's Thumb
        • The Tree of Life
        • This Week in Evolution
        • Why Evolution Is True
        • Word Routes (Ben Zimmer)
        • Zooillogix
      • My stuff

        • CarlZimmer.com
        • Facebook
        • microcosm: E. coli and the New Science of Life
        • My article archive
      • Archives

      • Nifty Fifty

      • Why “The Loom”?

        "...among the joyous, heartless, ever-juvenile eternities, Pip saw the multitudinous, God-omnipresent, coral insects, that out of the firmament of waters, heaved the colossal orbs. He saw God's foot upon the treadle of the loom, and spoke it; and therefore his shipmates called him mad." --Moby Dick


    • Kalmbach Publishing Co.

      Copyright © 2012, Kalmbach Publishing Co.

      Privacy - Terms - Reader Services - Subscribe Today - Advertise - About Us