From the same page:
Wikipedia wrote:
Some inbreeding may enhance fertility rate
A recent study in Iceland by the deCODE genetics company, published by the journal Science, found that third cousins produced more children and grandchildren, suggesting that "in spite of the fact that bringing together two alleles of a recessive trait may be bad, there is clearly some biological wisdom in the union of relatively closely related people.". For hundreds of years, inbreeding was historically unavoidable in Iceland due to its then tiny and isolated population.
So inbreeding isn't *always* bad.
Syobon wrote:
Recombination of genes causing two homozygote recessive alleles on the same locus to pair and become expressed is not the same as mutation. Recessive alleles are suppressed by corresponding dominant alleles for a gene, thus allowing a creature to become a genetic carrier for a trait without it having that trait it self.
I understand that, but it doesn't necessarily counter the point I was trying to make.
I'm trying to argue that inbreeding - with all the recessive alleles and gene duplicates flying around - would give rise to more
replication errors where genes become deleted or reorganised or cloned as the cells of a sexually mature adult enter the meiosis phase - this effect being magnified by closely-related creatures interbreeding.
I'm just trying to establish a scenario where extra chromosomes *might* be formed, because new chromosomes denote new species, and new species are formed in isolation - where a given population may be small in number, suggesting inbreeding *may* be a factor in the formation of new chromosomes.
That's the train of thought I'm trying to convey.