Microsatellite and AFLP scores of sampled individuals. Sheet 1: Unisexualsâ Microsatellite scores. Individuals are also associated to their main genetic group (according to its J-alleles: A, B, C, D or E â X stands for any different genotype), to a specific genotype (to acknowledge for different ploidy level or variation of L-alleles within a main group, and to associate clones) and to its biotype (ex: LLJ). Sheet 2: AFLP scores. The presence/absence of the different bands are labelled according to the combination used (GCNN) and the size of the band. Sheet 3: Polysat Matrix. Microsatellite scores in polysat format. Sheet 4: Polysat POP. Two matrices for population assignment in polysat: according to the sampling site or according to the main genetic group of each individual. Sheet 5: Matrices for weighting J. Matrices used to weight J-alleles and J-genotype. Sheet 6: Matrices for weighting LJ. Matrices used to weight LJ-alleles and LJ-genotype. Individual lines have been multiplied to account for ploidy variation. Sheet 7: LL alleles. Microsatellite scores of the LL individuals found, in table and in population format. Sheet 8: Statistics on m-sat scores. Allelic means, standard deviation and other parameters for each loci, including differences between alleles and the mean and its nearest neighbours, per alleles, per locus. (XLSX 181 kb)

Microsatellite and AFLP scores of sampled individuals. Sheet 1: Unisexualsâ Microsatellite scores. Individuals are also associated to their main genetic group (according to its J-alleles: A, B, C, D or E â X stands for any different genotype), to a specific genotype (to acknowledge for different ploidy level or variation of L-alleles within a main group, and to associate clones) and to its biotype (ex: LLJ). Sheet 2: AFLP scores. The presence/absence of the different bands are labelled according to the combination used (GCNN) and the size of the band. Sheet 3: Polysat Matrix. Microsatellite scores in polysat format. Sheet 4: Polysat POP. Two matrices for population assignment in polysat: according to the sampling site or according to the main genetic group of each individual. Sheet 5: Matrices for weighting J. Matrices used to weight J-alleles and J-genotype. Sheet 6: Matrices for weighting LJ. Matrices used to weight LJ-alleles and LJ-genotype. Individual lines have been multiplied to account for ploidy variation. Sheet 7: LL alleles. Microsatellite scores of the LL individuals found, in table and in population format. Sheet 8: Statistics on m-sat scores. Allelic means, standard deviation and other parameters for each loci, including differences between alleles and the mean and its nearest neighbours, per alleles, per locus. (XLSX 181 kb)

No description available

Despite accumulating evidence for selection within natural systems, the importance of random genetic drift opposing Wright's and Fisher's views of evolution continue to be a subject of controversy. The geographical diversification of aposematic signals appears to be a suitable system to assess the factors involved in the process of adaptation since both theories were independently proposed to explain this phenomenon. In the present study, the effects of drift and selection were assessed from population genetics and predation experiments on poison-dart frogs, Ranitomaya imitator, of Northern Peru. We specifically focus on the transient zone between two distinct aposematic signals. In contrast to regions where high predation maintains a monomorphic aposematic signal, the transient zones are characterized by lowered selection and a high phenotypic diversity. As a result, the diversification of phenotypes may occur via genetic drift without a significant loss of fitness. These new phenotypes may then colonize alternative habitats if successfully recognized and avoided by predators. This study highlights the interplay between drift and selection as determinant processes in the adaptive diversification of aposematic signals. Results are consistent with the expectations of the Wright's shifting balance theory and represent, to our knowledge, the first empirical demonstration of this highly contested theory in a natural system.

No description available

No description available