Feedback+on+the+Introductions+2014

Here is a list of all the main comments.

We know that selection, gene-flow, drift and mutation all act on colour polymorphism. The real question is their relative magnitude. In the modern era polymorphism is used to refer to the existence of genetic variants within a population at aligned DNA sequences (could involve indels). A phenotypic effect is no longer included (in the definition). However if we score visible phenotypes as a proxy for DNA sequence, we would want to know they have a genetic basis.

A sole explanation for polymorphism is unlikely

We see the cumulative effects of many generations of drift, selection, gene flow and mutation when we look at field populations When you state conclusions - e.g. the existence of a supergene or predation, you need to indicate the type of evidence that led to this conclusion.

The source of all polymorphism is mutation- your observations do not address that - nor really its persistence. Rather it is the distribution (in time and space) of the polymorphism by the three other main processes

The null hypothesis is that there was no difference in the relative frequencies in the populations from which you sampled. NOT that there was no OBSERVED, or SIGNIFICANT difference. You expect to observe differences due to sampling variation.

Your study was not really to ask questions about the differences between habitats. Rather it was to ask more fundamental questions ... the relative importance of different processes. Your intro should explain in outline how your experiments will do this, and the logic of the experimental design- particularly how it will distinguish the effects of drift from selection.

You need to outline the logic by which you distinguish drift from selection

The different frequencies are caused by the four key processes, not by location. Their effects may be different in different locations.

You can anticipate different results under different hypotheses - but if you know the results already, there is not point in the experiment.

You don't really observe selection, drift etc. you infer they are operating by the effects on the frequencies on visible polymorphisms.

Not all polymorphisms exist at high frequencies. There are some old text books that say something like this, but this idea was tied up with the misunderstanding the rare polymorphism were deleterious mutations that did not contribute to evolutionary change.

Hypotheses are about the nature of the populations. Whether your results are significant or not is not really part of the null hypothesis or alternative hypothesis. For example an alternative hypothesis might be that the allele frequencies differ between grass and woodland. The hypothesis could be correct, even if your results were not significant (e.g. because your sample size was too small, or you were unlucky). Keep these ideas separate.

C. hortensis was not found at the site, yet several introductions mentioned it. You only have a few words (500), don't waste them

If you think low gene flow is advantageous in a study organism, you need to explain why.

You only have 500 words. Think carefully which aspects of the species biology are relevant to your writeup, and hence your intro.