Back

Gene Flow Creates Fuzzy Species Boundaries in Fence Lizards

Leache, A.; Davis, H.; Guerra, E.; Herrera, A.; Lemos-Espinal, J.; Fujita, M.; Myers, T. C.; Singhal, S.

2026-04-10 evolutionary biology
10.64898/2026.04.07.717035 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Species delimitation is a fundamental challenge in systematic biology, particularly for geographically variable taxa with hierarchical population structure and gene flow. Migration-aware coalescent models provide a powerful framework for investigating lineage divergence and accurately defining species boundaries. In this study, we combine statistical evaluations of gene flow with phylogenetic and population structure analyses to delimit species of fence lizards within the Sceloporus undulatus complex, a group characterized by extensive population subdivision, mitochondrial DNA introgression, and nuclear gene flow. We find that the undulatus complex exhibits uneven variation in genetic, morphological, and bioclimatic traits, resulting in variable distinctiveness among groups. In some cases, species boundaries are recognized by clear genetic discontinuities without gene flow. In others, shallow divergence, paraphyly, and gene flow produce leaky boundaries and fuzzy species limits. Mitochondrial introgression is extensive and concentrated at species boundaries, whereas nuclear gene flow occurs between only a few species and at much lower levels than within species. Neither within-species populations or species are substantially diverged across morphology or bioclimatic space, highlighting the limited utility of these traits for diagnosing species in this group. By integrating estimates of gene flow with phylogenetic and population structure analyses, this study provides a robust and biologically meaningful revised taxonomic framework for the undulatus complex that identifies independently evolving lineages as species.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Molecular Ecology
304 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
18.1%
2
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
8.2%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 25%
4.7%
4
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.2%
5
BMC Ecology and Evolution
49 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.1%
6
Systematic Biology
121 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
7
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
8
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 20%
3.6%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 41%
3.5%
10
Molecular Biology and Evolution
488 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.5%
11
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.0%
12
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 33%
2.5%
13
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
14
Molecular Ecology Resources
161 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
15
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
61 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
16
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 50%
1.7%
18
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
19
The American Naturalist
114 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
20
Journal of Biogeography
37 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
21
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.6%
22
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.6%
23
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
24
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
25
Evolution Letters
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
26
Journal of Evolutionary Biology
98 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
27
Conservation Genetics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
28
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.7%
29
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.7%
30
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.7%