When is it coevolution?¶
Janzen, D. H. (1980). When is it coevolution?. Evolution, 34(3), 611-612.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Coevolution
- Where ordinary adaptation tracks a static landscape, coevolution describes a landscape that deforms in response to every move made upon it — the reciprocal-response requirement Janzen (1980) made precise in insisting that coevolution names an evolutionary change in one population in response to another, followed by a reciprocal response in the second.
This sourceRestricts "coevolution" to genuine reciprocal causation — an evolutionary change in one population in response to a trait of a second, followed by a reciprocal evolutionary response — and removes it from synonymy with interaction/symbiosis/mutualism, fixing the closed-feedback signature distinguishing coevolution from correlated change.
SupportedVerified against the publisher's abstract
Janzen defines coevolution as an evolutionary change in a trait of the individuals in one population in response to a trait of a second population, "followed by an evolutionary response by the second population to the change in the first", and presses for that restricted usage rather than treating the word as a synonym for interaction, symbiosis or mutualism. That reciprocity requirement is what the sentence attributes to him. The deforming-landscape image in the sentence is the article's own; Janzen states the definition without it.
“'Coevolution' may be usefully defined as an evolutionary change in a trait of the individuals in one population in response to a trait of the individuals of a second population, followed by an evolutionary response by the second population to the change in the first.”
- Where ordinary adaptation tracks a static landscape, coevolution describes a landscape that deforms in response to every move made upon it — the reciprocal-response requirement Janzen (1980) made precise in insisting that coevolution names an evolutionary change in one population in response to another, followed by a reciprocal response in the second.
- Dependency
- The relation has been formalized independently in five distinct intellectual traditions: graph-theoretic dependency analysis in compiler design (Aho, Lam, Sethi, and Ullman 2006), task-precedence modeling in operations research (Kelley and Walker 1959, who introduced the Critical Path Method), logical entailment in formal logic (Tarski 1936), semantic presupposition in philosophy of language (Strawson 1950), and obligate dependency in ecology (Janzen 1980).
This sourceRestricts "coevolution" to reciprocal evolutionary change between paired populations. Retained only in the obligate-mutualism Example (alongside bronstein-1994); REMOVED from marker 212 because it characterizes coevolution, not the obligate-dependency relation. (Bibliography/inline-example only.)
- The relation has been formalized independently in five distinct intellectual traditions: graph-theoretic dependency analysis in compiler design (Aho, Lam, Sethi, and Ullman 2006), task-precedence modeling in operations research (Kelley and Walker 1959, who introduced the Critical Path Method), logical entailment in formal logic (Tarski 1936), semantic presupposition in philosophy of language (Strawson 1950), and obligate dependency in ecology (Janzen 1980).
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:51618c8417f3 · see in the full table