Fisher’s Microscope and Haldane’s Ellipse
- 1 October 2005
- journal article
- Published by University of Chicago Press in The American Naturalist
- Vol. 166 (4) , 447-457
- https://doi.org/10.1086/444404
Abstract
Fisher's geometrical model was introduced to study the phenotypic size of mutations contributing to adaptation. However, as pointed out by Haldane, the model involves a simplified picture of the action of natural selection, and this calls into question its generality. In particular, Fisher's model assumes that each trait contributes independently to fitness. Here, we show that Haldane's concerns may be incorporated into Fisher's model solely by allowing the intensity of selection to vary between traits. We further show that this generalization may be achieved by introducing a single, intuitively defined quantity that describes the phenotype prior to adaptation. Comparing the process of adaptation under the original and generalized models, we show that the generalization may bias results toward either larger or smaller mutations. The applicability of Fisher's model is then discussed.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief historyNature Reviews Genetics, 2005
- MODULARITY AND THE COST OF COMPLEXITYEvolution, 2003
- Understanding quantitative genetic variationNature Reviews Genetics, 2002
- COMPENSATING FOR OUR LOAD OF MUTATIONS: FREEZING THE MELTDOWN OF SMALL POPULATIONSEvolution, 2000
- Compensatory Nearly Neutral Mutations: Selection without AdaptationJournal of Theoretical Biology, 1996
- The nature of quantittative genetic variation revisited: Lessons from Drosophila bristlesBioEssays, 1996
- MULTIPLE FITNESS PEAKS AND EPISTASISAnnual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1995
- The Genetics of Adaptation: A ReassessmentThe American Naturalist, 1992
- A geometric model for the evolution of developmentJournal of Theoretical Biology, 1990
- XV.—The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance.Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1919