On 2017 Feb 20, Jiri Forejt commented:

I appreciate the historical aspects of speciation theories elaborated in the above comment and other studies of the author (e.g. Forsdyke DR, 2011 or Forsdyke DR, Biol. Theory, 2016, DOI 10.1007/s13752-016-0257-z) since they help to understand the origin of some tacitly agreed dogmas in the field. We interpret the F1 hybrid male sterility described in Bhattacharyya T, 2014 and Bhattacharyya T, 2013 as incompatibility between Prdm9 and Hstx2 genes and diversified genomic sequence of the Mus musculus subspecies. The phenotype is largely chromosomal, representing a failure of meiotic pairing and synapsis of homeologous chromosomes and disruption of MSCI. However, we are hesitant to call it chromosomal sterility to avoid confusion with male sterility associated with large chromosomal rearrangements (see e.g. Forejt J, 1996, Zanders SE, 2014). I agree that non-genic, genomic divergence as a mechanism of reproductive isolation would deserve its own designation or even acronym. But first, it has to be accepted as a reproductive isolation mechanism by the community of evolutionary geneticists.

On 2017 Feb 17, Donald Forsdyke commented:

EPONYMS: "DM" FOR GENIC AND "WCB" FOR CHROMOSOMAL SPECIATION THEORIES

The remarkable observations made in this outstanding paper have been well supported by subsequent studies (e.g. Moehring 2011; Forsdyke 2016). However, encompassing both genic and non-genic incompatibilities under the Dobzhansky-Muller rubric is regrettable. As described elsewhere (Forsdyke 2011), while William Bateson's term "epistasis" is used to describe interactions between genes, he himself espoused a non-genic "chromosomal" model for the initiation of the divergence of one species into two species. Thus, Bhattacharyya et al. (2013) correctly employ the eponymous acronym "DM" rather than the widely employed "BDM."

Yet, they write that "several pieces of indirect evidence are in favor of D-M incompatibilities based on non-genic sequence divergence." This implies that Dobzhansky and Muller had non-genic viewpoints (which they did not). For those who like eponymous acronyms, some new form, relating to the history of the chromosomal viewpoint, would seem appropriate.

Clear articulations of the chromosomal viewpoint trace back to the Danish "father of yeast genetics" Ojvind Winge, and were elaborated in the 1920s by Crowther and Bateson. Thus, it would seem appropriate that, while retaining "DM incompatibilities" for appropriate genic speciation theories, we introduce "WCB incompatibilities" for appropriate chromosomal theories. For further background please see Bateson Webpage.

Bhattacharyya T, Gregorova S, Mihola O, Anger M, Sebestova J, Denny P, et al., (2013) Mechanistic basis of infertility of mouse intersubspecific hybrids. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 110: E468–E477.Bhattacharyya T, 2013

Forsdyke DR (2011) The B in BDM. William Bateson did not advocate a genic speciation theory. Heredity 106: 202.Forsdyke DR, 2011

Forsdyke DR (2016) Evolutionary Bioinformatics, 3rd edn. Springer: New York.

Forsdyke DR (2017) Speciation: Goldschmidt's chromosomal heresy, once supported by Gould and Dawkins, is again reinstated. Biol Theor (in press) doi: 10.1007/s13752-016-0257-z

Moehring AJ (2011). Heterozygosity and its unexpected correlations with hybrid sterility. Evolution 65: 2621–2630.Moehring AJ, 2011

On 2017 Feb 17, Donald Forsdyke commented:

EPONYMS: "DM" FOR GENIC AND "WCB" FOR CHROMOSOMAL SPECIATION THEORIES

The remarkable observations made in this outstanding paper have been well supported by subsequent studies (e.g. Moehring 2011; Forsdyke 2016). However, encompassing both genic and non-genic incompatibilities under the Dobzhansky-Muller rubric is regrettable. As described elsewhere (Forsdyke 2011), while William Bateson's term "epistasis" is used to describe interactions between genes, he himself espoused a non-genic "chromosomal" model for the initiation of the divergence of one species into two species. Thus, Bhattacharyya et al. (2013) correctly employ the eponymous acronym "DM" rather than the widely employed "BDM."

Yet, they write that "several pieces of indirect evidence are in favor of D-M incompatibilities based on non-genic sequence divergence." This implies that Dobzhansky and Muller had non-genic viewpoints (which they did not). For those who like eponymous acronyms, some new form, relating to the history of the chromosomal viewpoint, would seem appropriate.

Clear articulations of the chromosomal viewpoint trace back to the Danish "father of yeast genetics" Ojvind Winge, and were elaborated in the 1920s by Crowther and Bateson. Thus, it would seem appropriate that, while retaining "DM incompatibilities" for appropriate genic speciation theories, we introduce "WCB incompatibilities" for appropriate chromosomal theories. For further background please see Bateson Webpage.

Bhattacharyya T, Gregorova S, Mihola O, Anger M, Sebestova J, Denny P, et al., (2013) Mechanistic basis of infertility of mouse intersubspecific hybrids. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 110: E468–E477.Bhattacharyya T, 2013

Forsdyke DR (2011) The B in BDM. William Bateson did not advocate a genic speciation theory. Heredity 106: 202.Forsdyke DR, 2011

Forsdyke DR (2016) Evolutionary Bioinformatics, 3rd edn. Springer: New York.

Forsdyke DR (2017) Speciation: Goldschmidt's chromosomal heresy, once supported by Gould and Dawkins, is again reinstated. Biol Theor (in press) doi: 10.1007/s13752-016-0257-z

Moehring AJ (2011). Heterozygosity and its unexpected correlations with hybrid sterility. Evolution 65: 2621–2630.Moehring AJ, 2011