ABSTRACT A dramatic increase in the hybridization between historically allopatric species has been induced by human activities. However, the notion of hybridization seems to lack consistency

in two respects. On the one hand, it is inconsistent with the biological species concept, which does not allow for interbreeding between species, and on the other hand, it is considered

either as an evolutionary process leading to the emergence of new biodiversity or as a cause of biodiversity loss, with conservation implications. In the first case, we argue that

conservation biology should avoid the discussion around the species concept and delimit priorities of conservation units based on the impact on biodiversity if taxa are lost. In the second

affected by inbreeding depression. The conservation guidelines presented here represent a guide for the development of programmes aimed at protecting biodiversity as a dynamic evolutionary

system. SIMILAR CONTENT BEING VIEWED BY OTHERS VARIABLE LEVELS OF INTROGRESSION BETWEEN THE ENDANGERED _PODARCIS CARBONELLI_ AND HIGHLY DIVERGENT CONGENERIC SPECIES Article 16 November 2020

CONSERVING INTRASPECIFIC VARIATION FOR NATURE’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEOPLE Article 01 March 2021 GLOBAL META-ANALYSIS SHOWS ACTION IS NEEDED TO HALT GENETIC DIVERSITY LOSS Article Open access

29 January 2025 INTRODUCTION Biodiversity is in crisis and the main reasons are human activities inducing habitat modifications and the introduction of invasive species1. In addition, global

climate change will probably alter habitat characteristics, migration patterns, reproduction time, and place of various species2. Such human disturbances may produce new breeding overlaps,

breaking the independent evolution of organisms and leading to hybridization (see Glossary, Table 1)3. The role of hybridization in the evolution of several plant and animal taxa has been

recognized in the light of newly developed molecular tools4. This has also alerted biologists about the threat this phenomenon may represent to biodiversity when enhanced by anthropogenic

factors5. We identified three types of hybridization regarding the reproductive properties of first-generation hybrids (F1). This is proposed as a framework to investigate the demographic

and genetic effects of hybridization on biodiversity. Our perspectives come from the development of modeling simulation approaches applied to various real case studies, which helped us to

explore the outcomes of hybridization from both conservation and evolutionary perspectives. We bring here a novel view of conservation guidelines aiming to state the conditions under which

hybridization may represent priorities for conservation programmes or, alternatively, new evolutionary opportunities. We highlight that hybridization may certainly lead to biodiversity loss

when enhanced by human factors, leading for instance to outbreeding depression or the introgression of maladaptive genes. However, it may also drive the emergence of new biodiversity,

reducing the effects of inbreeding depression, and increasing the opportunities to adapt to changing environmental conditions. SPECIES CONCEPT PROBLEM AND INTERSPECIFIC HYBRIDIZATION The

widely accepted biological species concept formulated by Mayr6 states that species are “_groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated

from other such groups_”. The key idea under this vision is the reproductive isolation that delimits the species unit. This was already proposed by Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon,

more than 260 years ago7. Buffon realized that a horse and a donkey are morphologically more similar than some different races of dogs. However, the reproduction in the first case leads to

an infertile offspring (a mule) while in the second case, the offspring is fertile, highlighting that a line can be drawn between organisms that cannot reproduce in order to differentiate

species. Charles Darwin supported a different view and dedicated an entire chapter of “_On the Origin of Species_” to the hybridization concept8. The observation of interbreeding between

distinct morphological species, with different degrees of offspring fertility, from completely sterile to even more fertile than parental species in determined conditions, was an argument

against sterility or fecundity as a species delineation factor. Darwin agreed with the notion that species may hardly remain different when free sympatric mating occurs, but supported a more

continuous conception of species, influenced by the gradual effect of natural selection. However, the idea of species with various degrees of fertility was abandoned during the modern

evolutionary synthesis6,9,10. Much of the understanding about reproductive isolation and interspecific hybridization has been revealed by experimental studies of _Drosophila_11. Those works

revealed that: (i) reproductive isolation is positively correlated with the phylogenetic distance between hybridizing species; (ii) at the same level of genetic divergence, reproductive

isolation is higher between sympatric than allopatric species; and (iii) hybrid offspring follow Haldane’s rule, meaning that if one sex is less viable or sterile, it is more likely to be

the heterozygotic sex12,13. During most of the 20th century, interspecific hybridization was considered to be rare in nature, mainly arising by human translocation of species and with a

small effect in evolution, with hybrids supposedly having lower fertility in most cases14. Despite the wide acceptance of reproductive isolation as a key element to define species, a large

controversy persists around the biological species concept (Box 1). This is mainly motivated by the semipermeable breeding barriers between some species and the difficulty of testing this

notion in organisms with nonoverlapping spatial or temporal distribution ranges15,16. BOX 1 ALTERNATIVE SPECIES CONCEPTS Three of the most popular alternative definitions of species are the

ecological, phylogenetic, and evolutionary concepts. Ecological species are of closely related lineage using minimally differentiated adaptive zones, also denominated as ecological niches93.

Evolutionary species are defined as ancestral-descendant lineages with their own identity, evolutionary tendency and historical fate94. Phylogenetic species are in turn considered to be the

minimal cluster of organisms with a pattern of ancestry and descendance95. These three definitions have also been criticized. The ecological and evolutionary species concepts have been

judged to be too vague to determine a cut-off point between species15,17. The phylogenetic species concept has been defended by various authors in the field of conservation biology, who

consider it an encompassing view of unique ancestral and derived features for separate species, e.g., refs. 15,19. However, this definition has also been the focus of criticism, mainly due

to an inflated number of species16. This is because different regions of the genome may express very different evolutionary histories and because hybridization may also perturb phylogenetic

classifications by altering monophyletic lineages20. Mallet96 recognized various cases of speciation that are influenced by fertile hybridization in nature and tried to rescue and adapt the

more continuous view of species proposed by Charles Darwin. He understood species as groups of genotypes that remain distinct in the face of actual or potential hybridization96,97. He

highlighted the fact that genotypes may remain distinct with reproductive isolation, but this would be a way to maintain species or to reach speciation rather than being a means of species

discrimination96. To date, there are around 30 definitions of species and a large debate about species concept and the relation with hybridization, e.g., refs. 15,17,18,98. SPECIES CONCEPT

AND CONSERVATION A problematic view arises when applying the biological species concept, which does not make room for interspecific hybridization17. The semipermeable barriers between

genetically, morphologically or ecologically distinct organisms have motivated a large debate about species and hybridization, e.g., refs. 15,18. This discussion is not superfluous for

conservation biology because it delimits the main unit of protection17. Yet, what are the central criteria to delineate the units that deserve protection? Some authors consider that because

species are evolutionary units, the most appropriate way to diagnose them objectively is through the phylogenetic species concept19. But the use of the phylogenetic species concept has been

criticized because small, isolated populations may become well diagnosed evolutionary lineages through the effect of strong genetic drift, inflating the number of species and rendering

protection actions more complex. Other authors have advocated that the criteria to delineate conservation units should rely on evidence of reproductive isolation or reduced reproductive

fitness20, but these criteria are less objective and sometimes difficult to evidence. The debate about species concept and hybridization is not only a matter for biologists, but also for

scientists from very different domains, as well as politicians who define legal aspects of wildlife protection21. In this sense, Pasachnik et al.22 propose that whatever else a species is,

in the field of conservation biology it should be a group of organisms deserving legal protection because its extinction would constitute a meaningful loss of biodiversity. The evolution of

biodiversity represents a continuum, in which speciation processes may occur slowly or relatively fast, but will always have a period of uncertainty regarding genetic differentiation between

emerging species23. Conservation biology may therefore consider the level of uncertainty due to hybridization by protecting biodiversity as a dynamic system, which is not focused on

reproductive isolation to delimit discrete units, but on the sum of features for which the loss of certain organisms may represent a detrimental effect on biodiversity. EVOLUTION OF NEW

BIODIVERSITY Botanists first highlighted the important role of natural hybridization on the speciation process of several species, i.e., in generating new biodiversity, e.g., 24,25. Later,

zoologists recognized the major evolutionary effects of introgression on numerous insects e.g., ref. 26, fishes, e.g. ref. 27, amphibians, e.g., ref. 28, reptiles, e.g., ref. 29, birds,

e.g., ref. 30, mammals, e.g., ref. 31; and other organisms, e.g., ref. 32, including modern humans (Box 2). There are around 25% of plants and 10% of animals that are currently known to

hybridize with another species and the effect of this phenomenon in evolution is considered to be much more important than previously thought33. Species can naturally change their historical

home range in response to changing environmental conditions and meet closely related taxa34. Several species carry signatures of hybrid ancestry from the last Ice Age period, e.g., ref. 27.

For this reason we can find DNA of brown bears in polar bears, because ancient hybridization events occurred during the Pleistocene35. The Bering Land Bridge recurrently emerged during this

time, allowing organisms to migrate between Eurasia and North America, leading to opportunities of hybridization, such as those observed between Canada lynx (_Lynx canadensis_) and Eurasian

lynx (_Lynx lynx_)31. Organisms can have introgressed genes from locally extinct species even if they have never been in contact, because a third species, acting as a temporal bridge to

gene flow, has hybridized with both of them e.g., ref. 36. Natural selection may fix beneficial alleles obtained by hybridization or, to the contrary, remove detrimental introgressed

alleles. Adaptive introgression has been important for several speciation processes33. For instance, the antipredatory mimicry of three _Heliconius_ butterflies in South America has been

acquired by interspecific hybridization, for which the parts of the genome related to color patterns have more introgressed alleles than other regions of the genome37. Introgressed alleles

can rapidly spread among individuals when they are related to adaptive traits. For example, “warfarin” is a rodenticide that was developed in 1948 to control house mice (_Mus musculus_).

Mice started to be resistant during the 1960s by acquiring a single gene from the Algerian mouse (_M. spretus_) through hybridization38. These species were isolated until the development of

human agricultural lands. They rarely interbreed and hybrids have limited survival with half of them being sterile, but the resistance gene rapidly spread across Europe. In Germany, where

both species do not mingle, one third of house mice have the introgressed resistance gene coming from Algerian mice38. A similar case was documented between two species of mosquitos that are

vectors of malaria and have different levels of resistance to an insecticide39. The insecticide acted as a selective pressure driving the spread of resistant alleles obtained by

hybridization, even when hybrids had reduced fertility40. The reduced fertility of the offspring is therefore not necessarily selected against and can also represent adaptive mate choice41.

Opportunities for speciation as a result of hybridization can be generated when hybrids exploit unique ecological niches. For instance, a rapid incipient speciation was recently observed in

the offspring of two species of yeast, _Saccharomyces paradoxus_ and _S. cerevisiae_, whose hybrids have the potential to exploit a unique ecology that is intermediate between those of the

parental species32. The new genetic architecture generated by hybridization can thus also facilitate ecological divergence, promoting a speciation process by exploiting a specific niche,

e.g., ref. 42. Positive selection can fix adaptive alleles and purifying selection can remove the detrimental alleles, e.g., ref. 27, but introgressed genes can remain even without the

effect of natural selection. Neutral introgressed alleles can persist in high proportion, even when the original species is extinct. Currat et al.43 demonstrated through computer simulations

and by a review of the literature, that invasive species in range expansion may carry a large quantity of neutral alleles that are introgressed from a local species. The reverse is not

necessarily true unless interbreeding is rare (Fig. 1). When hybridization occurs during the expansion of an invasive species into the territory of a local species, introgression is indeed

expected to be much higher in the invasive species than in the local species (Fig. 1). This pattern of asymmetric introgression is generally robust to the density and population structure

within both species and to the level of interspecific competition. It results from the hybridization level and from the population demographic imbalance at the wave front of the invasion, in

which introgressed alleles that are continuously introduced in the invasive species along its expansion, may surf and reach a higher frequency than expected under a stationary context44.

While this pattern may be perturbed by density-dependent dispersal45 and long-distance dispersal46, there are several real cases of asymmetrical introgression between demographically

imbalanced species that have been proposed to follow this neutral expectation, e.g. refs. 47,48. BOX 2 HYBRIDIZATION AND HUMAN EVOLUTION Hybridization has probably also played a role in our

own evolution when modern humans spread out of Africa and met other closely related hominids. Analyses of ancient DNA estimated around two percent of Neanderthal ancestry in the genome of

modern humans outside Africa99,100,101. The introgressed genes may have persisted through neutral processes102 or as a result of positive selection e.g., ref. 103. Recently, it has been

proposed that some introgressed alleles, adaptive in the past, may currently be associated with certain diseases104. Modern humans are likely to have met and potentially interbred with other

hominids in addition to Neanderthals. Huerta-Sánchez et al105. recognized positive selection in haplotypes related to survival at high altitudes in current Tibetans, which seem to have been

introgressed from Denisovans. Other haplotypes from Denisovan ancestry seem to be frequent in the current genome of Melanesians106. Our own genome may thus carry the result of various

ancient hybridization events during human evolution107. BIODIVERSITY LOSS Hybridization is considered as a major conservation concern when it is motivated by anthropogenic factors, such as

translocation of invasive species or by modification of natural habitats5,49. The breakdown of the reproductive barriers between organisms may disrupt their independent evolution and has

already increased the risk of extinction of several plant and animal taxa, e.g., refs. 50,51. Hybridization may lead to different but potentially interacting mechanisms that threaten species

persistence. First, outbreeding depression may represent a significant loss of reproductive value and detonates a rapid extinction when it interacts with a demographic decline. This may be

stronger between genetically distant species e.g., ref. 52, but organisms do not need to be distantly related to be affected by outbreeding depression. For instance, the human domestication

of Atlantic salmon (_Salmo salar_) has led to lower fertility when mating with conspecifics in the wild, representing a serious threat for wild salmon in Norway53. Second, native genotypes

can disappear by genetic swamping and be replaced by the numerical or competitive advantage of invasive genotypes. Third, the introgression of non-native genes can disrupt local adaptations

by introducing maladaptive gene complexes54. Fourth, the behavior of wild animals may be perturbed in a way that is difficult to predict, more particularly when it concerns human

domesticated animals55, which have been artificially selected according to human lifestyle and, when spreading their genes in nature, may influence a whole network of ecological

interactions, e.g., ref. 56. Fifth, hybridization may affect the effective population size of the interacting species with major consequences for rare or threatened species, which already

have a reduced number of breeders57. Finally, an important problem for conservation biology arises when the few remaining individuals of a threatened species show a level of introgression

that may cause them to lose their legal protection status when hybrids are not considered to be protected organisms, even though the hybrids may have an ecological function otherwise lost

with the extinction of parental species21,58. The loss of species distinctiveness due to introgression has also been called “speciation reversal”, e.g., ref. 59. This may seriously affect

key ecological adaptations that appeared during species radiation. Vonlanthen et al.60 documented the rapid extinction of whitefish (_Coregonus_ spp.) in Swiss lakes, which evolved according

to ecological opportunities, but human eutrophication and homogenization of the environment is driving extinction by hybridization and demographic decline. A similar case was documented for

cichlid fishes of Lake Victoria (East Africa), for which the coloration pattern is a key character that determines mate choice and reproductive isolation, but the turbidity of the water

induced by eutrophication relaxed sexual selection, destroying the diversification mechanism61. Speciation reversal is a conservation concern, because it erodes the ecological and genetic

distinctiveness between closely related, but ecologically divergent, species60. In a context of climate change, Owens and Samuk62 refers to hybridization as a double edge sword, because even

when increasing the pool of potentially adaptive genes, some of these genes may be related to reproductive isolation, weakening any reproductive barrier. The various cases of hybridization

leading speciation reversal, e.g., refs. 59,61, suggest that the extinction risk may be more extensive than previously thought60. Hybridization between wild and domesticated organisms is a

worldwide problem of conservation. For instance, the main current threat for the persistence of European wildcats (_Felis silvestris_) is the hybridization with domestic cats (_Felis

catus_)63,64. Domestic cats were originally domesticated from a wildcat inhabiting the Near East (_Felis lybica_), but they are genetically distinct to all current _F. lybica_ subspecies65.

There are still some wildcat populations remaining in Europe, e.g., ref. 66, but the complete admixture and the loss of genetic distinctiveness have already been achieved in some

countries67. Domestic dogs (_Canis familiaris_) can hybridize with any kind of wolf-like canids and have already led to conservation issues in various cases50, such as for the gray wolf

(_Canis lupus_) in Europe, e.g., ref. 68 the coyote (_Canis latrans_) in North America, e.g., ref. 56 or the Ethiopian wolf (_Canis simensis_) in Africa, e.g. ref. 69. Ellington and Murray56

found that hybridization with domestic dogs was driving changes in the space occupied by coyotes, suggesting consequences at the ecosystem level. A particular threat is the hybridization of

domestic dogs with the Ethiopian wolf, which is the world’s most endangered canid, persisting with around 500 individuals in 6 isolated populations69,70. The detrimental effects of

hybridization with domesticated organisms is reinforced, because they far outnumber their wild counterparts, e.g., ref. 71, in which the extinction risk can be particularly accelerated when

rare species hybridize with more abundant species. Genetically modified organisms and genetic engineering have generated a large debate on how to regulate the spread of modified genes in

nature through hybridization e.g., ref. 72. Genomic alteration for economic purposes may induce higher fertility and resistance to pathogens that make crops or hybrids highly invasive73. The

reduced fertility of the first-generation hybrids (F1) is not a barrier for the spread of advantageous alleles74, which are frequently observed in the wild, e.g., ref. 75 with hybrids

becoming invasive in various cases76. The ecological release of their natural predators or pathogens conferred by the resistant alleles has been proposed as a factor that is initiating this

invasion73. A serious risk has been detected in the single wild population of rice in Costa Rica (_Oryza glumaepatula_) that hybridizes with invasive commercial rice (_O. sativa_)77. The

concerns are not only related to modified plant crops, but also to animals of economic interest, usually with unpredictable ecological effects, e.g., ref. 78 or to non-target insects, as has

been documented for the monarch butterfly _Danaus plexippus_ of North America, e.g., ref. 79. TYPES OF HYBRIDIZATION We defined three main types of hybridization that may be used as a

framework for the understanding of the ecological and evolutionary consequences of hybridization (Fig. 2). These categories include: (1) distant species hybridization, mostly preventing gene

flow because hybrids are infertile (Type 1) or (2) because homologous chromosomes do not recombine (Type 2); and (3) interbreeding between more closely related taxa, in which homologous

chromosomes recognize themselves during meiosis, resulting in gene flow and consequent introgression between parental organisms (Type 3) (Box 3). TYPE 1: INFERTILE HYBRIDS, NO INTROGRESSION

The first type of hybridization does not result in introgression, because offspring are inviable or infertile. This type of hybridization represents an extinction risk when the loss of

reproductive value enhances a demographic decline for one (or both) parental species. The reasons could be either because small populations interbreed with more abundant populations and

therefore waste reproductive efforts, or because additional threats are accumulated, such as a disease. For example, in the case of hybridization between Atlantic salmon (_Salmo salar_) and

brown trout (_Salmo trutta_), hybridization alone is likely not a threat, but could lead to the extinction of some local salmon populations that are already threatened by a parasitic

disease80. This type of hybridization may be considered an evolutionary dead-end. TYPE 2: FERTILE HYBRIDS, NO INTROGRESSION The second type of hybridization results in fertile F1 hybrids,

but introgression is prevented because their offspring are clonal or hemiclonal, transmitting a single parental genome, also called hybridization with genome exclusion. We recently showed

that the extinction of natives and the invasion of exotic organisms might be reached in very few generations81. For instance, in the case of hybridogenesis between Western European

water-frogs (_Pelophylax_ species complex)51, the extinction risk is not genetically driven, but determined by the “demographic flow” between parental species and mediated by hybrid

offspring. We previously demonstrated that this hybridization is a highway to extinction, which may be underappreciated because it emulates the result of hybridization type 1 (i.e., only

displaying F1 hybrid phenotypes)81. Evolutionary opportunities may emerge from these systems by generating self-reproducing polyploid forms82, which are observed in plants but rarely found

in animals83. TYPE 3: FERTILE HYBRIDS, INTROGRESSION The third type of hybridization defines interbreeding with gene flow between parental organisms leading to genomic mixing and therefore

to introgression. This type of hybridization may result in two different effects on biodiversity, either a genetic and demographic risk of species extinction5, or the opportunity of

adaptation and evolution of novel diversity14. For instance, hybrids may replace native species and facilitate biological invasions as in the case of mallard (_Anas platyrhynchos_), which

has been widely translocated, cohabiting with other duck species and threatening them by hybridization84. In another example, however, genes from extinct hominids may still be found in high

frequency in current human populations due to old hybridization events43,85. This type of hybridization can also represent a new evolutionary opportunity by increasing genetic diversity and

possibilities of adaptation84. BOX 3 ASSIGNMENT TO HYBRIDIZATION TYPE The three types of hybridization constitute a useful guideline for the understanding of the genetics and/or demographics

effects of hybridization on biodiversity. However, to determine one of these types in a specific real system is not always an easy task to achieve, especially when it regards the past

evolution of already extinct organisms or when it regards the projection of long-term effects. For instance, infertile hybrids, but with very small introgressions, are observed between

Atlantic salmon and brown trout108. A small level of introgression may be ignored, when there is a short-term effect of hybridization producing extinction risk80, but it would not be the

case when projecting evolutionary long-term effects, and even more so when concerning range expansions (see Fig. 1), in which case it would be considered as type 3. Moreover, detection of

hybridization type 3 with low levels of introgression strongly depends on the amount of genetic markers evaluated4. Because hybridization type 1 and type 2 are both producing only F1

phenotypes, we recently developed a genetic framework to determine the type of hybridization81 (Fig. 3). Type 3 is easier to recognize due to multiple hybrid phenotypes being present in a

population caused by different levels of introgression. If only F1 phenotypes are observed, often with a phenotype intermediate between parental taxa, we recommend defining hybrid fertility

by performing controlled breeding experiments. If these experiments are not possible because, for instance, the few remaining individuals of the involved species are threatened, it would be

useful to observe their demography and sex ratio. Hybridization type 2 generally produces a very fast demographic decline, and most of the time favors the production of a single sex (namely

females). When hybridization type 2 is suspected, it is important to define whether hybrids’ gametes are producing a single (non-alternative) or both (alternative) parental genomes. This may

be clarified with a pool of gametes haplotyping test, which will show whether all gametes of an individual have a single allele per gene, in which case hybridization type 2 will be of the

non-alternative form. If two alleles are present for some loci, this test reveals hybridization type 2 of the alternative form. In this last case, a single gamete haplotyping method may be

implemented to determine the proportion of gametes generated from each of the parental taxa. If those tests result in more than two haplotypes, it would indicate introgression with very low

fitness: either type 1 when regarding ecological short-term effects or type 3 when considering evolutionary long-term effects. Details about the pool of gametes and single gametes

haplotyping test are presented in Quilodrán et al.81. CONSERVATION GUIDELINES Allendorf et al.49 proposed hybridization categories that are widely used to prioritize conservation actions.

They considered three categories, but defined differently than ours: (i) sterile hybrids, (ii) widespread introgression, and (iii) complete admixture. Indeed, they ignore the effect of

fertile hybrids without introgression (hybridization type 2), which is the category that may induce faster extinctions. In addition, they considered the anthropogenic motivation _a sine qua

non_ condition to distinguish the conservation issues of hybridization. We highlight here that hybridization, even when induced by humans, is potentially representing a source of genetic

variation that could be useful for conservation purposes. The classification of Allendorf et al.49 has been employed during the past 20 years, but the wider understanding of hybridization

impact brought by more recent studies allows us to propose a novel view of conservation priorities (Fig. 2). Given our classification, the conservation priorities are also found in

human-induced hybridization, but this is not the single cut-off to delimit them. Hybridization type 1 is a conservation concern when promoting demographic decline, either because two species

with high density-imbalance interbreed or because hybridization amplifies other existing risks80. Hybridization type 2 is always a threat that may precipitate extinction within very few

generations81. Hybridization type 3 is also a priority when affecting key ecological interactions, either by enhancing demographic decline or because it changes the behavior of wild

individuals84. Hybridization types 1 and 3 should not represent a priority when they are not triggering demographic decline or the disruption of ecological functions80,84. We suggest that

the resources to protect biodiversity may be redirected either to other conservation issues or other threatened organisms. In such conditions, hybridization type 3 may even be used as a

conservation tool to increase genetic diversity. However, all of these should be implemented carefully84. The potential fitness loss and the detrimental ecological effects of hybridization

have first to be evaluated, and this is often difficult to achieve. In the first case, controlled breeding experiments may help to assess the fertility of hybrids. If this is not possible,

monitoring the demography of parental species may help to evaluate a potential fitness loss due to hybridization. A detrimental ecological effect of hybridization is more difficult to

evaluate but the behavior of hybrids may provide valuable information. As an example, in Britain, extent hybridization has been registered between Scottish wildcats and domestic cats86, as

well as between European polecat and feral ferrets87. While the phenotype of Scottish wildcats has been seriously affected86, the polecat phenotype has been much less affected due to

hybridization87. In both cases, the increased genetic diversity may have a positive effect in front of changing environmental conditions, but the impact of hybridization on the behavior of

wildcats55, and on the fitness of the polecat population88, deserve more attention before rejecting hybridization as a threat or proposing it as a conservation management tool. We propose

that phylogenetically closer taxa with similar ecological requirements may offer some guidelines for assisted hybridization as a tool in conservation. For instance, assisted hybrization

between subspecies of panthers has promoted the recovery of Florida panthers (_Puma concolor coryi_) by increasing heterozygosity and decreasing inbreeding, resulting in an overall increase

of survival and fitness89. Hybridization between different species has also promoted the recovery of American chestnuts (_Castanea dentata_) through the transfer of pathogen resistance from

Chinese chestnuts (_C. mollisima_)90. In circumstances where organisms are evolutionarily close and share similar ecologies, and when the local species is on the brink of extinction, hybrids

may also represent a subject of protection, even when hybridization is caused by anthropogenic factors. An example is the interspecific hybridization between coral reefs, in which the

parental species _Acropora palmata_ and _A. cervicornis_ have been in a critical decline over the last decades, but their hybrids (also called _A. prolifera_) have increased in several

locations91. The hybrids have been shown to be as fit or even more fit than the parental species92. While the parental species are legally protected, protecting hybrids represents a legal

challenge, which may help to preserve functional ecosystems otherwise lost with the extinction of the parental species91. CONCLUSIONS Hybridization that influences both the loss and the

creation of new biodiversity may seem paradoxical at a first glance. The loss of native biodiversity is certainly an issue related to conservation biology when it is induced by anthropogenic

factors under the conditions exposed in Fig. 2. However, hybridization had influenced the evolution of several species of hybrid origins, e.g., refs. 26,31, participating in the creation of

novel biodiversity. This is therefore not a real paradox, but an intrinsic property of hybridization, which may drive the extinction of native species and at the same time stimulate the

appearance of new species. The conservation guidelines defined here constitute an important framework to understand the ecological and evolutionary consequences of hybridization. The

conservation priorities established in Fig. 2 are not delimitated only by human hyphen induced origins of hybridization, but by the disruption of key ecological interactions driven by

genetic and demographic factors. This highlight that hybridization, even when induced by humans, may also represent a subject of protection. This classification notably incorporates the

effect of hybridization type 2, which was previously ignored49. We propose that it should be considered as a potential highway to extinction, and thus deserves high priority in conservation

programmes. REFERENCES * Johnson, C. N. et al. Biodiversity losses and conservation responses in the Anthropocene. _Science_ 356, 270–275 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Vallejo‐Marín, M. & Hiscock, S. J. Hybridization and hybrid speciation under global change. _N. Phytologist_ 211, 1170–1187 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Grabenstein, K. C. &

Taylor, S. A. Breaking barriers: causes, consequences, and experimental utility of human-mediated hybridization. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 33, 198–212 (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

McFarlane, S. E. & Pemberton, J. M. Detecting the true extent of introgression during anthropogenic hybridization. _Trends Ecol. Evol_. 34, 315–326 (2019). * Todesco, M. et al.

Hybridization and extinction. _Evolut. Appl._ 9, 892–908 (2016). * Mayr, E. _Systematics and the Origin of Species, From the Viewpoint of a Zoologist_. (Harvard University Press, 1942). *

Buffon, G. L. L. _Histoire Naturelle, Générale et Particulière: Avec la Description du Cabinet du Roi_. Vol. 4 (Imprimerie Royale, 1753). * Darwin, C. _On the Origin of Species by Means of

Natural Selection, or Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life_. (John Murray, 1859). * Dobzhansky, T. _Genetics and the Origin of Species_ (Classics of Modern Evolution

Series, 1937). * Huxley, J. _Evolution. The Modern Synthesis_. (1942). * Tubaro, P. L. & Lijtmaer, D. A. Hybridization patterns and the evolution of reproductive isolation in ducks.

_Biol. J. Linn. Soc._ 77, 193–200 (2002). Article  Google Scholar  * Coyne, J. A. & Orr, H. A. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. _Evolution_ 43, 362–381 (1989). * Coyne, J. A. &

Orr, H. A. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila” revisited. _Evolution_ 51, 295–303 (1997). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Arnold, M. L. & Martin, N. H. Hybrid fitness across time

and habitats. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 25, 530–536, (2010). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Behie, A. M. & Oxenham, M. F. _Taxonomic Tapestries: The Threads of Evolutionary, Behavioural

and Conservation Research_. (ANU Press, 2015). * Zachos, F. E. Mammals and meaningful taxonomic units: the debate about species concepts and conservation. _Mammal. Rev._ 48, 153–159 (2018).

Article  Google Scholar  * Fitzpatrick, B. M., Ryan, M. E., Johnson, J. R., Corush, J. & Carter, E. Hybridization and the species problem in conservation. _Curr. Zool._ 61, 204–214

(2015). Article  Google Scholar  * onHoldt, B. M., Brzeski, K. E., Wilcove, D. S. & Rutledge, L. Y. Redefining the role of admixture and genomics in species conservation. _Conserv.

Lett._ 11, e12371 (2018). v. Article  Google Scholar  * Groves, C. P. et al. Species definitions and conservation: a review and case studies from African mammals. _Conserv. Genet._ 18,

1247–1256 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Frankham, R. et al. Implications of different species concepts for conserving biodiversity. _Biol. Conserv._ 153, 25–31 (2012). Article  Google

Scholar  * Wayne, R. K. & Shaffer, H. B. Hybridization and endangered species protection in the molecular era. _Mol. Ecol._ 25, 2680–2689 (2016). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Pasachnik, S. A., Echternacht, A. C. & Fitzpatrick, B. M. Gene trees, species and species trees in the _Ctenosaura palearis_ clade. _Conserv. Genet._ 11, 1767–1781 (2010). Article 

Google Scholar  * Nosil, P., Feder, J. L., Flaxman, S. M. & Gompert, Z. Tipping points in the dynamics of speciation. _Nat. Ecol. Evol._ 1, 0001 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  *

Abbott, R. J. Plant invasions, interspecific hybridization and the evolution of new plant taxa. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 7, 401–405 (1992). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Goulet, B. E.,

Roda, F. & Hopkins, R. Hybridization in plants: old ideas, new techniques. _Plant Physiol._ 173, 65–78 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Capblancq, T., Després, L., Rioux,

D. & Mavárez, J. Hybridization promotes speciation in _Coenonympha butterflies_. _Mol. Ecol._ 24, 6209–6222 (2015). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Schumer, M., Cui, R., Powell, D.

L., Rosenthal, G. G. & Andolfatto, P. Ancient hybridization and genomic stabilization in a swordtail fish. _Mol. Ecol_. 25, 2661–2679 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Ficetola, G. F. & Stöck, M. Do hybrid-origin polyploid amphibians occupy transgressive or intermediate ecological niches compared to their diploid ancestors? _J. Biogeogr._ 43, 703–715

(2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Olave, M., Avila, L. J., Sites, J. W. Jr & Morando, M. Hybridization could be a common phenomenon within the highly diverse lizard genus Liolaemus. _J.

Evol. Biol._ 31, 893–903 (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Barrera-Guzmán, A. O., Aleixo, A., Shawkey, M. D. & Weir, J. T. Hybrid speciation leads to novel male secondary

sexual ornamentation of an Amazonian bird. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 115, E218–E225 (2018). Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar  * Li, G. et al. Phylogenomic evidence for ancient

hybridization in the genomes of living cats (Felidae). _Genome Res._ 26, 1–11 (2016). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Leducq, J.-B. et al. Speciation driven by

hybridization and chromosomal plasticity in a wild yeast. _Nat. Microbiol._ 1, 15003 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Taylor, S. A. & Larson, E. L. Insights from genomes

into the evolutionary importance and prevalence of hybridization in nature. _Nat. Ecol. Evol._ 3, 170 (2019). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Colella, J. P. et al. Whole-genome analysis

of Mustela erminea finds that pulsed hybridization impacts evolution at high latitudes. _Commun. Biol._ 1, 51 (2018). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Cahill, J. A. et al.

Genomic evidence of widespread admixture from polar bears into brown bears during the last ice age. _Mol. Biol. Evol._ 35, 1120–1129 (2018). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  *

Melo‐Ferreira, J. et al. The rise and fall of the mountain hare (Lepus timidus) during Pleistocene glaciations: expansion and retreat with hybridization in the Iberian Peninsula. _Mol.

Ecol._ 16, 605–618 (2007). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Dasmahapatra, K. K. et al. Butterfly genome reveals promiscuous exchange of mimicry adaptations among species. _Nature_ 487,

94–98 (2012). Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Song, Y. et al. Adaptive introgression of anticoagulant rodent poison resistance by hybridization between old world mice. _Curr.

Biol._ 21, 1296–1301 (2011). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Norris, L. C. et al. Adaptive introgression in an African malaria mosquito coincident with the increased

usage of insecticide-treated bed nets. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 112, 815–820 (2015). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Lee, Y. et al. Spatiotemporal dynamics of

gene flow and hybrid fitness between the M and S forms of the malaria mosquito, _Anopheles gambiae_. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 110, 19854–19859 (2013). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central

  Google Scholar  * Jarvis, W., Comeau, S., Colborne, S. & Robinson, B. Flexible mate choice may contribute to ecotype assortative mating in pumpkinseed sunfish (_Lepomis gibbosus_). _J.

Evol. Biol._ 30, 1810–1820 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * de Luis, M., Bartolomé, C., Cardo, Ó. G., Labarga, J. M. M. & Álvarez-Jiménez, J. Sympatric and allopatric

niche shift of endemic Gypsophila (Caryophyllaceae) taxa in the Iberian Peninsula. _PLoS ONE_ 13, e0206043 (2018). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Currat, M., Ruedi,

M., Petit, R. J. & Excoffier, L. The hidden side of invasions: Massive introgression by local genes. _Evolution_ 62, 1908–1920 (2008). PubMed  Google Scholar  * Klopfstein, S., Currat,

M. & Excoffier, L. The fate of mutations surfing on the wave of a range expansion. _Mol. Biol. Evol._ 23, 482–490 (2006). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Quilodrán, C. S.,

Nussberger, B., Montoya-Burgos, J. I. & Currat, M. Introgression during density-dependent range expansion: European wildcats as a case study. _Evolution_ 73, 750–761 (2019). Article 

PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Amorim, C. et al. Long-distance dispersal suppresses introgression of local alleles during range expansions. _Heredity_ 118, 135–142 (2017). Article

  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Garcia-Elfring, A. et al. Admixture on the northern front: population genomics of range expansion in the white-footed mouse (_Peromyscus leucopus_) and

secondary contact with the deer mouse (_Peromyscus maniculatus_). _Heredity_ 119, 447 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Nussberger, B., Currat, M., Quilodran,

C., Ponta, N. & Keller, L. Range expansion as an explanation for introgression in European wildcats. _Biol. Conserv._ 218, 49–56 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Allendorf, F. W.,

Leary, R. F., Spruell, P. & Wenburg, J. K. The problems with hybrids: setting conservation guidelines. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 16, 613–622 (2001). Article  Google Scholar  * Leonard, J. A.,

Echegaray, J., Randi, E. & Vilà, C. in (ed Gompper, M. E.) _Free-Ranging Dogs and Wildlife Conservation._ Chapter 7, 170–184 (Oxford University Press, 2013). * Quilodrán, C. S.,

Montoya-Burgos, J. I. & Currat, M. Modelling interspecific hybridization with genome exclusion to identify conservation actions: the case of native and invasive _Pelophylax_ waterfrogs.

_Evolut. Appl._ 8, 199–210 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * Brys, R. & Jacquemyn, H. Severe outbreeding and inbreeding depression maintain mating system differentiation in Epipactis

(Orchidaceae). _J. Evol. Biol._ 29, 352–359 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Karlsson, S., Diserud, O. H., Fiske, P., Hindar, K. & Grant, H. E. W. S. Widespread genetic

introgression of escaped farmed Atlantic salmon in wild salmon populations. _ICES J. Mar. Sci._ 73, 2488–2498 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Lowe, W. H., Muhlfeld, C. C. & Allendorf,

F. W. Spatial sorting promotes the spread of maladaptive hybridization. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 30, 456–462 (2015). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Macdonald, D. W. Animal behaviour and its

role in carnivore conservation: examples of seven deadly threats. _Anim. Behav._ 120, 197–209 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Ellington, E. H. & Murray, D. L. Influence of

hybridization on animal space use: a case study using coyote range expansion. _Oikos_ 124, 535–542 (2015). Article  Google Scholar  * van den Burg, M. P. et al. The Lesser Antillean Iguana

(Iguana delicatissima) on St. Eustatius: genetically depauperate and threatened by ongoing hybridization. _J. Hered._ 109, 426–437 (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Supple, M. A.

& Shapiro, B. Conservation of biodiversity in the genomics era. _Genome Biol._ 19, 131 (2018). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Kearns, A. M. et al. Genomic evidence of

speciation reversal in ravens. _Nat. Commun._ 9, 906 (2018). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Vonlanthen, P. et al. Eutrophication causes speciation reversal in

whitefish adaptive radiations. _Nature_ 482, 357–U1500 (2012). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Seehausen, O., Van Alphen, J. J. & Witte, F. Cichlid fish diversity threatened by

eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. _Science_ 277, 1808–1811 (1997). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Owens, G. L. & Samuk, K. Adaptive introgression during environmental change

can weaken reproductive isolation. _Nat. Clim. Chang._ 10, 58–62 (2020). Article  Google Scholar  * Yamaguchi, N., Kitchener, A., Driscoll, C. & Nussberger, B. (_Felis silvestris_,

2015). * Quilodrán, C. S., Nussberger, B., Macdonald, D. W., Montoya‐Burgos, J. I. & Currat, M. Projecting introgression from domestic cats into European wildcats in the Swiss Jura.

_Evolut. Appl._ (2020). * Driscoll, C. A. et al. The Near Eastern origin of cat domestication. _Science_ 317, 519–523 (2007). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  *

Nussberger, B., Wandeler, P., Weber, D. & Keller, L. Monitoring introgression in European wildcats in the Swiss Jura. _Conserv. Genet._ 15, 1219–1230 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  *

Oliveira, R. et al. Toward a genome-wide approach for detecting hybrids: informative SNPs to detect introgression between domestic cats and European wildcats (_Felis silvestris_). _Heredity_

115, 195 (2015). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Lescureux, N. & Linnell, J. D. Warring brothers: the complex interactions between wolves (_Canis lupus_) and

dogs (_Canis familiaris_) in a conservation context. _Biol. Conserv._ 171, 232–245 (2014). Article  Google Scholar  * Gottelli, D. et al. Molecular genetics of the most endangered canid: the

Ethiopian wolf Canis simensis. _Mol. Ecol._ 3, 301–312 (1994). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Gottelli, D., Sillero-Zubiri, C., Marino, J., Funk, S. & Wang, J. Genetic

structure and patterns of gene flow among populations of the endangered Ethiopian wolf. _Anim. Conserv._ 16, 234–247 (2013). Article  Google Scholar  * Glover, K. A. et al. Half a century of

genetic interaction between farmed and wild Atlantic salmon: status of knowledge and unanswered questions. _Fish. Fish._ 18, 890–927 (2017). Article  Google Scholar  * Dolezel, M., Miklau,

M., Heissenberger, A. & Reichenbecher, W. Limits of Concern: suggestions for the operationalisation of a concept to determine the relevance of adverse effects in the ERA of GMOs.

_Environ. Sci. Eur._ 30, 39 (2018). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Hails, R. S. Genetically modified plants—the debate continues. _Trends Ecol. Evol._ 15, 14–18

(2000). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Arriaga, L., Huerta, E., Lira-Saade, R., Moreno, E. & Alarcón, J. Assessing the risk of releasing transgenic Cucurbita spp. in Mexico.

_Agric. Ecosyst. Environ._ 112, 291–299 (2006). Article  Google Scholar  * Pandolfo, C. E. et al. Transgene escape and persistence in an agroecosystem: the case of glyphosate-resistant

Brassica rapa L. in central Argentina. _Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res._ 25, 6251–6264 (2018). Article  CAS  Google Scholar  * Tsatsakis, A. M. et al. Environmental impacts of genetically

modified plants: a review. _Environ. Res._ 156, 818–833 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Fuchs, E. J., Martínez, A. M., Calvo, A., Muñoz, M. & Arrieta-Espinoza, G. Genetic

diversity in Oryza glumaepatula wild rice populations in Costa Rica and possible gene flow from _O. sativa_. _PeerJ_ 4, e1875 (2016). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  *

Oke, K. B., Westley, P. A., Moreau, D. T. & Fleming, I. A. Hybridization between genetically modified Atlantic salmon and wild brown trout reveals novel ecological interactions. _Proc.

R. Soc. Lond. B_ 280, 20131047 (2013). Google Scholar  * Losey, J. E., Rayor, L. S. & Carter, M. E. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. _Nature_ 399, 214–214 (1999). Article  CAS 

PubMed  Google Scholar  * Quilodrán, C. S., Currat, M. & Montoya-Burgos, J. I. A general model of distant hybridization reveals the conditions for extinction in Atlantic Salmon and Brown

Trout. _PLoS ONE_ 9, e101736 (2014). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Quilodrán, C. S., Currat, M. & Montoya-Burgos, J. I. Effect of hybridization with genome

exclusion on extinction risk. _Conserv. Biol._ 32, 1139–1149 (2018). Article  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Christiansen, D. G. & Reyer, H. U. From clonal to sexual hybrids: genetic

recombination via triploids in all-hybrid populations of water frogs. _Evolution_ 63, 1754–1768 (2009). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Ainouche, M. L. & Wendel, J. F. in

_Evolutionary Biology: Genome Evolution, Speciation_, _Coevolution and Origin of Life_ 87–113 (Springer, 2014). * Quilodrán, C. S., Austerlitz, F., Currat, M. & Montoya-Burgos, J. I.

Cryptic biological invasions: a general model of hybridization. _Sci. Rep._ 8, 2414 (2018). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Excoffier, L., Quilodrán, C. S. &

Currat, M. in _Cultural Developments in the Eurasian Paleolithic and the Origin of Anatomically Modern Humans_ (eds Derevianko, A.P. & Shunkov, M.) 122–137 (Department of the Institute

of Archaeology and Ethnography SB RAS, 2014). * Senn, H. V. et al. Distinguishing the victim from the threat: SNP-based methods reveal the extent of introgressive hybridization between

wildcats and domestic cats in Scotland and inform future in situ and ex situ management options for species restoration. _Evolut. Appl._ 12, 399–414 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  *

Davison, A. et al. Hybridization and the phylogenetic relationship between polecats and domestic ferrets in Britain. _Biol. Conserv._ 87, 155–161 (1999). Article  Google Scholar  * Croose,

E. et al. A review of the status of the Western polecat Mustela putorius: a neglected and declining species? _Mammalia_ 82, 550–564 (2018). Article  Google Scholar  * Johnson, W. E. et al.

Genetic restoration of the Florida panther. _Science_ 329, 1641–1645 (2010). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Clark, S. L., Schlarbaum, S. E., Saxton, A. M. &

Hebard, F. V. Establishment of American chestnuts (_Castanea dentata_) bred for blight (_Cryphonectria parasitica_) resistance: influence of breeding and nursery grading. _New Forests_ 47,

243–270 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Chan, W. Y., Hoffmann, A. A. & van Oppen, M. J. Hybridization as a conservation management tool. _Conserv. Lett._ 12, e12652 (2019). Article 

Google Scholar  * Fogarty, N. D. Caribbean acroporid coral hybrids are viable across life history stages. _Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser._ 446, 145–159 (2012). Article  Google Scholar  * Van Valen,

L. Ecological species, multispecies, and oaks. _Taxon_, 233–239 (1976). * Wiley, E. O. The evolutionary species concept reconsidered. _Syst. Biol._ 27, 17–26 (1978). Google Scholar  *

Cracraft, J. _Current ornithology_ 159–187 (Springer, 1983). * Mallet, J. Hybrid speciation. _Nature_ 446, 279–283 (2007). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  * Mallet, J. Hybridization,

ecological races and the nature of species: empirical evidence for the ease of speciation. _Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B_ 363, 2971–2986 (2008). Article  Google Scholar  * Franco-Trecu, V.

et al. Sex beyond species: the first genetically analyzed case of intergeneric fertile hybridization in pinnipeds. _Evolution Dev._ 18, 127–136 (2016). Article  Google Scholar  * Green, R.

E. et al. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. _Science_ 328, 710–722 (2010). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Prüfer, K. et al. A high-coverage Neandertal

genome from Vindija Cave in Croatia. _Science_. 358, 655–658 (2017). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar  * Villanea, F. A. & Schraiber, J. G. Multiple episodes of

interbreeding between Neanderthal and modern humans. _Nat. Ecol. Evolut._ 3, 39 (2019). Article  Google Scholar  * Currat, M. & Excoffier, L. Strong reproductive isolation between humans

and Neanderthals inferred from observed patterns of introgression. _Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA_ 108, 15129–15134 (2011). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Enard, D.

& Petrov, D. A. Evidence that RNA viruses drove adaptive introgression between Neanderthals and modern humans. _Cell_ 175, 360–371 e313 (2018). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  * Simonti, C. N. et al. The phenotypic legacy of admixture between modern humans and Neandertals. _Science_ 351, 737–741 (2016). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google

Scholar  * Huerta-Sánchez, E. et al. Altitude adaptation in Tibetans caused by introgression of Denisovan-like DNA. _Nature_ 512, 194–197 (2014). Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google

Scholar  * Reich, D. et al. Genetic history of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. _Nature_ 468, 1053–1060 (2010). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

* Nielsen, R. et al. Tracing the peopling of the world through genomics. _Nature_ 541, 302 (2017). Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar  * Castillo, A. G. F. et al.

Introgression in the genus Salmo via allotriploids. _Mol. Ecol._ 16, 1741–1748 (2007). Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar  Download references ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was supported by

grants from the Swiss National Science Foundation, Nos. 31003A_182577 to M.C., 310030_185327/1 to J.M.B., and P400PB_183930 to C.S.Q. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their comments and

suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. AUTHOR INFORMATION Author notes * These authors contributed equally: Juan I. Montoya-Burgos, Mathias Currat. AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS *

Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom Claudio S. Quilodrán * Laboratory of Anthropology, Genetics and Peopling History, Anthropology Unit, Department of

Genetics and Evolution, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Claudio S. Quilodrán & Mathias Currat * Laboratory of Vertebrate Evolution, Department of Genetics and Evolution,

University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Juan I. Montoya-Burgos * Institute of Genetics and Genomics in Geneva (IGE3), Geneva, Switzerland Juan I. Montoya-Burgos & Mathias Currat

Authors * Claudio S. Quilodrán View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Juan I. Montoya-Burgos View author publications You can also search for

this author inPubMed Google Scholar * Mathias Currat View author publications You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar CONTRIBUTIONS C.S.Q., M.C., and J.I.M.B. conceived

the original idea. C.S.Q. wrote the first draft of the paper. All authors participated in data analysis and interpretation, and contributed in the form of discussion and critical comments.

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR Correspondence to Claudio S. Quilodrán. ETHICS DECLARATIONS COMPETING INTERESTS The authors declare no competing interests. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PUBLISHER’S NOTE

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS OPEN ACCESS This article is licensed under a

Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit

to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are

included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and

your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this

license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. Reprints and permissions ABOUT THIS ARTICLE CITE THIS ARTICLE Quilodrán, C.S., Montoya-Burgos, J.I. & Currat, M. Harmonizing

hybridization dissonance in conservation. _Commun Biol_ 3, 391 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-1116-9 Download citation * Received: 30 October 2019 * Accepted: 25 June 2020 *

Published: 21 July 2020 * DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-020-1116-9 SHARE THIS ARTICLE Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content: Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Copy to clipboard Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative