In this review, we posit the hypothesis that divergence-with-gene-flow or, using the terminology that has historical precedence, evolution-with-hybridization is not the exception as argued by the neo-Darwinian architects, but rather the rule. In particular, we will discuss briefly how the definition of species and the process of speciation that emerged from the Modern Synthesis limited greatly how evolutionary diversification was perceived to occur. This, in turn, resulted in only certain hypotheses and research directions being deemed legitimate for evolutionary biologists. Yet, we will also argue that in general, the assumptions that resulted in the definitions and concepts surrounding speciation were made much stronger by a dearth, rather than a wealth, of the data needed to test hypotheses. Specifically, these alternative hypotheses were divergence in allopatry versus divergence with at least some genetic exchange. We will point to the observation made by Anderson-the architect of studies of introgressive hybridization-that to test for contemporaneous or ancient gene flow between diverging/divergent lineages requires discrete markers. Thus, not until the advent of methods for analyzing the genetic constitution of individual organisms was it possible to test rigorously the alternate modes of divergence. To illustrate our hypotheses and conclusions, we will focus on mammalian lineages, including our own species. This focus reflects our desire to emphasize that not only prokaryotes and plants, but animals as well, reflect the process of reticulate evolution.