"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

In partially parthenogenic invertebrates, fish, and amphibians (but not reptiles) there are two mechanisms, hybridogenesis and gynogenesis. In both cases the parthenogenic 'species' is a hybrid between two closely related species. In hybridogenesis sperm from one of the parent species fertilizes the egg of the parthenogenic species without recombination but the male genomic contribution is subesequently deleted during gametogenesis in the offspring. As I understand it the female gametes are clonal generation after generation but the genotype of the individual varies by the paternal contribution (hemiclonal). In gynogenesis the presence sperm from a parent species (of the hybrid) is required for cleavage to occur but no actual fertilization takes place. All genotypes are therefore clonal.
Here is a picture from a class lecture by Dr. Nicole Hillgruber: I believe that the lizards in question are two species that are the descendants of hybrids of the same two parent species (which is which is determined by which ancestral parent species was male or female). I am drawing the lizard info from a seminar I saw years ago, so please don't quote me on this.Using the fish information it seems possible to me that the lizards represent a situation akin to gynogenesis in fish except that there is no longer a need for sperm from the parent species but still the need for the pseudocopulatory stimulus. I wonder if the ancestral population was gynogenetic but selection favored mutations that could do without a male from the parent species. I can see how this would be advantageous. For any geneticists out there: is it possible that a gynogenetic species would "drift" away from its original hybrid genotype therefore making the parental sperm all the more extraneous?I think this discussion is fascinating and quite on-topic because it shows one mechanism by which a "species" (kind?) can come into existence virtually overnight, like polyploidy in plants. I recognize, of course, that the response "but they are still lizards" can be used, but it does address the point "no new species have ever been witnessed coming into existence".(edited to add a useful ref)
http://spot.colorado.edu/~noyesr/...pdf
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - AMThis message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 07-14-2004 05:57 PMThis message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 07-14-2004 10:32 PM

This is the shortest Brad McFall response I have seen, one sentence. But try as I might, I have absolutely no idea what it means. I deeply admire Sewall Wright, I think he is one of the most brilliant men who have ever lived. I belive that his ideas have yet to be mined for their full potential. However, he was a verbose writer and extremely confusing (remind you of anyone?).
(edited to replace atrocious with verbose, I meant atrocious in the sense of "verbose is gross, concise is nice" writing philosophy, not that he or anyone else implied lacks command of written English)This message has been edited by Lithodid-Man, 07-17-2004 11:30 PM

To paraphrase Robin Williams in 'The Fisher King', that was a glorious BM .

---

"Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital." Aaron Levenstein