DOCSLIB.ORG

Evolution and the Architecture of Life

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evolution and the Architecture of Life PhD TESIS 2019 EVOLUTION AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF LIFE GIORGIO AIROLDI Director: CRISTIAN SABORIDO ALEJANDRO, UNED Co-Director: DAVIDE VECCHI, Universidade de Lisboa PhD Program in Philosophy Department of Logic, History and Philosophy of Science Faculty of Philosophy UNED iii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Cristian Saborido for his support, both academic and moral!, during the years dedicated to my research and to the writing of this thesis; Davide Vecchi for accepting to be co-director and for providing countless advices and insightful suggestions; and David Teira, who was so kind to read the final draft of this work and to propose some brilliant improvements to its structure and contents. I would also like to thank Víctor Luque, Javier Suarez and all the many students and professors I met during these years in congresses and seminars, and who shared with me their knowledge and researches, which contributed greatly to shaping the ideas behind this work. I am grateful to all members and staff of the department of logic, history and philosophy of science of UNED in Madrid for providing a wonderful working and studying environment, and especially to Clara Bueno for revealing me unknown facts about Primates and Henry Potter. A special thanks to Ana Peel for the reinterpretation of the original frontispiece from I Quattro Libri dell’Architettura of Andrea Palladio. iv Evolution and the Architecture of Life v Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 3 2. NATURAL SELECTION AND THE VARIETY AND COMPLEXITY OF THE LIVING WORLD ............................................................................................................................................... 15 2.1. DARWIN’S VIEW: SELECTION AS EXPLANANS OF BOTH VARIETY AND COMPLEXITY ....................... 16 2.2. NATURAL SELECTION AND VARIETY ............................................................................................. 19 2.2.1. Population genetics or: why are some phenotypic traits more frequent than others? .................................. 20 2.2.2. Foundational assumptions of population genetics ............................................................................. 22 2.2.3. Population genetics models .......................................................................................................... 24 2.3. NATURAL SELECTION AND PHENOTYPIC COMPLEXITY .................................................................. 29 2.3.1. What is the nature of the link between natural selection and biological complexity? ................................. 30 2.3.2. Two lines of research to explain phenotypic complexity: formal adaptationism and pluralism ..................... 37 2.4. A PROPOSAL TO FORMALISE BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY ................................................................. 39 2.4.1. What is complexity? Polysemy of the concept. .................................................................................. 39 2.4.2. Biological complexity: organismal architecture as form and function ...................................................... 46 2.4.3. A model to classify evolutionary complexity changes .......................................................................... 53 2.5. BUT… DOES BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF LIFE? ................................ 60 2.6. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 65 3. ADAPTATIONISM ..................................................................................................................... 67 3.1. KINDS OF ADAPTATIONISM ........................................................................................................... 67 3.2. THE FOUR PILLARS OF EMPIRICAL ADAPTATIONISM ....................................................................... 69 3.2.1. Pillar I - Ubiquity of adaptation ................................................................................................. 69 3.2.2. Pillar II - Continuous, slow and incremental evolutionary change ........................................................ 70 3.2.3. Pillar III - Random and unconstrained variation ............................................................................ 71 3.2.4. Pillar IV - Supremacy of selection ................................................................................................ 72 3.3. WAS DARWIN A DARWINIST? ........................................................................................................ 74 3.3.1. The creative power of selection ...................................................................................................... 74 3.3.2. Optimization ability of selection ................................................................................................... 78 3.3.3. Constraints and selection ............................................................................................................ 80 3.4. FUNCTIONALISM AND EXTERNALISM ............................................................................................ 81 3.5. OPTIMIZATION PROGRAMS. .......................................................................................................... 84 3.6. THE FORMAL DARWINISM PROJECT BY ALAN GRAFEN. ................................................................ 92 3.6.1. Two models, one equilibrium ....................................................................................................... 93 3.6.2. A controversial project ............................................................................................................. 100 3.7. THE FITNESS MATRIX .................................................................................................................. 109 3.8. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 111 4. PLURALISM: BEYOND THE LIMITATION OF ADAPTATIONISM ................................. 115 4.1. CRITIQUES TO ADAPTATIONISM .................................................................................................. 116 4.1.1. What natural selection leaves uncovered ....................................................................................... 116 4.1.2. Pluralism and the pillars of adaptationism ................................................................................... 117 4.1.3. An instance of a pluralist program: the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis .......................................... 124 4.1.4. Structuralism and Internalism ................................................................................................... 126 4.1.5. The source of innovation as the basis of our classification of non-adaptationist evolutionary accounts .......... 129 vi Evolution and the Architecture of Life 4.2. GENETIC ACCOUNTS ................................................................................................................... 131 4.2.1. Classical population genetics’ processes: mutation, recombination, and drift .......................................... 131 4.2.2. Wright’s Shifting Balance theory and the metaphor of adaptive landscape ............................................ 133 4.2.3. Punctuated Equilibrium .......................................................................................................... 139 4.2.4. Kimura’s neutral theory of molecular evolution .............................................................................. 143 4.2.5. Andreas Wagner’s Genetic Networks ......................................................................................... 147 4.2.6. Molecular Drive ..................................................................................................................... 156 4.2.7. Final comments on the genetic sources of variation .......................................................................... 156 4.3. PHENOTYPIC ACCOUNTS ............................................................................................................. 157 4.3.1. Exaptations .......................................................................................................................... 157 4.3.2. Phenotypic plasticity and genetic assimilation ................................................................................ 159 4.3.3. Neo-Lamarckian accounts: induced mutations .............................................................................. 167 4.3.4. Epigenetics ............................................................................................................................ 174 4.3.5. Final comments on the phenotypic sources of variations .................................................................... 178 4.4. DEVELOPMENTAL ACCOUNTS ..................................................................................................... 179 4.4.1. Evo-Devo ............................................................................................................................. 179 4.4.2. Developmental constraints. ........................................................................................................ 182 4.4.3. Developmental modularity and evolvability ................................................................................... 185 4.4.4. Final comments on developmental accounts of variation ..................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chromosomal Evolution in Raphicerus Antelope Suggests Divergent X
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Chromosomal evolution in Raphicerus antelope suggests divergent X chromosomes may drive speciation through females, rather than males, contrary to Haldane’s rule Terence J. Robinson1*, Halina Cernohorska2, Svatava Kubickova2, Miluse Vozdova2, Petra Musilova2 & Aurora Ruiz‑Herrera3,4 Chromosome structural change has long been considered important in the evolution of post‑zygotic reproductive isolation. The premise that karyotypic variation can serve as a possible barrier to gene fow is founded on the expectation that heterozygotes for structurally distinct chromosomal forms would be partially sterile (negatively heterotic) or show reduced recombination. We report the outcome of a detailed comparative molecular cytogenetic study of three antelope species, genus Raphicerus, that have undergone a rapid radiation. The species are largely conserved with respect to their euchromatic regions but the X chromosomes, in marked contrast, show distinct patterns of heterochromatic amplifcation and localization of repeats that have occurred independently in each lineage. We argue a novel hypothesis that postulates that the expansion of heterochromatic blocks in the homogametic sex can, with certain conditions, contribute to post‑ zygotic isolation. i.e., female hybrid incompatibility, the converse of Haldane’s rule. This is based on the expectation that hybrids incur a selective disadvantage due to impaired meiosis resulting from the meiotic checkpoint network’s surveillance of the asymmetric expansions of heterochromatic blocks in the homogametic sex. Asynapsis of these heterochromatic regions would result in meiotic silencing of unsynapsed chromatin and, if this persists, germline apoptosis and female infertility. Te chromosomal speciation theory 1,2 also referred to as the “Hybrid dysfunction model”3, has been one of the most intriguing questions in biology for decades.
    [Show full text]
  • Gabriel Dover)
    Dear Mr Darwin (Gabriel Dover) Home | Intro | About | Feedback | Prev | Next | Search Steele: Lamarck's Was Signature Darwin Wrong? Molecular Drive: the Third Force in evolution Geneticist Gabriel Dover claims that there is a third force in evolution: 'Molecular Drive' beside natural selection and neutral drift. Molecular drive is operationally distinct from natural selection and neutral drift. According to Dover it explains biological phenomena, such as the 700 copies of a ribosomal RNA gene and the origin of the 173 legs of the centipede, which natural selection and neutral drift alone cannot explain. by Gert Korthof version 1.3 24 Mar 2001 Were Darwin and Mendel both wrong? Molecular Drive is, according to Dover, an important factor in evolution, because it shapes the genomes and forms of organisms. Therefore Neo-Darwinism is incomplete without Molecular Drive. It is no wonder that the spread of novel genes was ascribed to natural selection, because it was the only known process that could promote the spread of novel genes. Dover doesn't reject the existence of natural selection but points out cases where natural selection clearly fails as a mechanism. Molecular drive is a non-Darwinian mechanism because it is independent of selection. We certainly need forces in evolution, since natural selection itself is not a force. It is the passive outcome of other processes. It is not an active process, notwithstanding its name. Natural selection as an explanation is too powerful for its own good. Molecular drive is non-Mendelian because some DNA segments are multiplied disproportional. In Mendelian genetics genes are present in just two copies (one on the maternal and one on the paternal chromosome).
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Carbon Isotope Chemostratigraphy of Late Jurassic Early Cretaceous Arctic Canada
    University of Plymouth PEARL https://pearl.plymouth.ac.uk Faculty of Science and Engineering School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences Finding the VOICE: organic carbon isotope chemostratigraphy of Late Jurassic Early Cretaceous Arctic Canada Galloway, JM http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/15324 10.1017/s0016756819001316 Geological Magazine Cambridge University Press (CUP) All content in PEARL is protected by copyright law. Author manuscripts are made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the details provided on the item record or document. In the absence of an open licence (e.g. Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher or author. Proof Delivery Form Geological Magazine Date of delivery: Journal and vol/article ref: geo 1900131 Number of pages (not including this page): 15 This proof is sent to you on behalf of Cambridge University Press. Please check the proofs carefully. Make any corrections necessary on a hardcopy and answer queries on each page of the proofs Please return the marked proof within 2 days of receipt to: [email protected] Authors are strongly advised to read these proofs thoroughly because any errors missed may appear in the final published paper. This will be your ONLY chance to correct your proof. Once published, either online or in print, no further changes can be made. To avoid delay from overseas, please send the proof by airmail or courier. If you have no corrections to make, please email [email protected] to save having to return your paper proof. If corrections are light, you can also send them by email, quoting both page and line number.
    [Show full text]
  • Phylogenetic Systematics and the Evolutionary History of Some Intestinal Flatworm Parasites (Trematoda: Digenea: Plagiorchi01dea) of Anurans
    PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF SOME INTESTINAL FLATWORM PARASITES (TREMATODA: DIGENEA: PLAGIORCHI01DEA) OF ANURANS by RICHARD TERENCE 0'GRADY B.Sc, University Of British Columbia, 1978 M.Sc, McGill University, 1981 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department Of Zoology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March 1987 © Richard Terence O'Grady, 1987 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Zoology The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date: March 24, 1987 i i Abstract Historical structuralism is presented as a research program in evolutionary biology. It uses patterns of common ancestry as initial hypotheses in explaining evolutionary history. Such patterns, represented by phylogenetic trees, or cladograms, are postulates of persistent ancestral traits. These traits are evidence of historical constraints on evolutionary change. Patterns and processes consistent with a cladogram are considered to be consistent with an initial hypothesis of historical constraint. As an application of historical structuralism, a phylogenetic analysis is presented for members of the digenean plagiorchioid genera Glypthelmins Stafford, 1905 and Haplometrana Lucker, 1931.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Evolution
    SYSTEMATICS & EVOLUTION Molecular Evolution GINCY C GEORGE (Assistant Professor On Contract) Molecular Evolution Molecular Evolution • Molecular evolution is the area of evolutionary biology that studies evolutionary change at the level of the DNA sequence. Molecular Evolution • It includes the study of rates of sequence change, relative importance of adaptive and neutral changes, and changes in genome structure. Molecular evolution examines DNA and proteins, addressing two types of questions: How do DNA and proteins evolve? How are genes and organisms evolutionarily related? Study of how genes and proteins evolve and how are organisms related based on their DNA sequence • Molecular evolution therefore is the determination and comparative study of DNA and deduced amino acid sequences. • Sequences from different organisms or populations are matched or aligned • Evolution at molecular level is observable at the base (nucleotide) level changes in the DNA and amino acid changes in proteins • Both can be studied by examining the differences between species • Both polymorphism and evolutionary changes between species can be explained by two processes ie; • Natural selection and Neutral drift • The main factors that influence Natural selection and Neutral drift are population size and the selection coefficient of the different genotypes • If the population is small and the selection coefficient low; genetic drift dominates, • Whereas natural selection dominates if the population and selection coefficients are large • Evolution of Modern species
    [Show full text]
  • Concerted Evolution at the Population Level: Pupfish Hindill Satellite DNA Sequences JOHN F
    Proc. Nati. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 91, pp. 994-998, February 1994 Evolution Concerted evolution at the population level: Pupfish HindIll satellite DNA sequences JOHN F. ELDER, JR.* AND BRUCE J. TURNER Department of Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Communicated by Bruce Wallace, October 18, 1993 ABSTRACT The canonical monomers (170 bp) of an organisms. There are very little data on their variation within abundant (1.9 x 10' copies per diploid genome) satellite DNA or divergence among conspecific natural populations. sequence family In the genome of Cyprinodon wriegau, a We report here sequence comparisons ofthe predominant "pph" that ranges along the Atlantic coast fom Cape Cod or "canonical" monomers of a satellite DNA array in sam- to central Mexico, are divergent in base sequence in 10 of 12 ples of 12 natural populations of Cyprinodon variegatus smle collected from natural populations. The divergence (Cyprinodontidae), a coastal killifish species. Ten of these Involves sbsitions, deletis, and insertions, is marked in samples have distinctive and characteristic canonical mono- scoe (mean pairwise sequence slarit = 61.6%; range = mers with high levels of intraindividual and intrapopulation 35-95.9%), Is largely ed to the 3' half of the monomer, homogeneity.t In other words, this satellite DNA has appar- and Is not correlated with the disace among cllg sites. ently undergone concerted evolution at or near the level of Repetitive loning and direct genomic sequencing expriments the local population. failed to detect intrapopulation and intraindividual variation, A preliminary account of some of our early findings has hig levels of sequence homogeneity within popu- appeared in a symposium volume (6).
    [Show full text]
  • 06 Pavia.Pmd
    Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana, 45 (2-3), 2006, 217-226. Modena, 15 gennaio 2007217 Lissoceras monachum (Gemmellaro), a ghost Ammonitida of the Tethyan Bathonian Giulio PAVIA G. Pavia, Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra, via Valperga Caluso 35, I-10124 Torino (Italy); [email protected] KEY-WORDS - Systematics, Ammonitida, Lissoceras, Bathonian, Tethys. ABSTRACT - L. monachum has been frequently recorded in the Upper Bajocian and Lower Bathonian, but references in literature differ in morphological details as they are based on a juvenile and poorly-preserved holotype. In addition, the type of L. monachum comes from a bed affected by taphonomical condensation mixing fossils from Early and Middle Bathonian times, i.e. the biochronological meaning of Gemmellaro’s taxon cannot be specified with biostratigraphic criteria from the type-locality. These references are here revised and refused on the basis of two topotypes recently sampled at Monte Erice in western Sicily, which allow a precise morphological definition of L. monachum by means of architectural and sutural characteristics. The only acceptable biostratigraphic datum comes from a Lower Bathonian specimen from southern France. The differences from L. ferrifex, L. magnum, and L. ventriplanum are discussed. Finally, the suture-line of topotype PU111502 of L. monachum and those specimens from the Upper Bajocian of the Venetian Alps, here named L. aff. monachum, support the phyletic relationships between L. ferrifex and L. magnum through transitional forms of L. monachum aged for the Tethyan Early Bathonian. RIASSUNTO - [Lissoceras monachum (Gemmellaro), un Ammonitida fantasma del Batoniano Tetideo] - L’ammonite Lissoceras monachum, della famiglia medio- e tardo-giurassica Lissoceratidae, risulta ripetutamente citata nella letteratura sistematica relativa al Baiociano superiore e al Batoniano inferiore.
    [Show full text]
  • Upon the Systematics of the Mesozoic Ammonitida
    bodoA0)30e?f% 80060060660)6 od6<$03f)0b 80V)8oO, 160,^1, 1999 BULLETIN OF THE GEORGIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES,' 160, J* 1, 1999 PALEONTOLOGY I.Kvantaliani, Corr. Member of the Academy M.Topchishvili, T.Lominadze, M.Sharikadze Upon the Systematics of the Mesozoic Ammonitida Presented January 25, 1999 ABSTRACT. Systematics of the ammonoids highest taxa is based on the septa! line onto-phylogcny and the indexing of septal line elements isfounded on the homol­ ogy. Basing on the septal line development alongside with already known suborders (Ammonitina, Pcrisphinctina (emend.), Haploccratina, Ancyloccratina) wc have stated two new suborders Olcostcphanina and Cardioccratina. Key words: systematics. homology. Ammonitida. Systematics and phytogeny of the highest taxa of the Jurassic-Cretaceous Ammonitida are described in a number of works f 1-9]. Analysis of (he ontogenesis of septal lines (and some other signs) allowed N.Bcsnosov and 1. Michailova |2.3| to establish four suborders within the order of Ammonitida - Ammonitina Hyatt. 1889: Haploceratina Bcsnosov ct Michailova. 1983: Ancyloccratina Wiedmann. 1966 and Pcrisphinctina Bcsnosov cl Michailova. 1983, A. new suborder of Pcrisphinctina J3J. identified by N. Bcsnosov and I. Michailova in 1983. and phylogenetically closely related to it systematics of taxons arc of special interest. In turn, the suborder of Pcrisphinctina comprises four supcrfamilics (33 families): Stephanoceratoidea Ncumayr. 1875: Pcrisphinctoidca Stcinmann. 1890: Desmoceratoidca Zittcl. 1895 and Hoplitoidca H. Douville, 1890 [3j. Within the super- family of Perisphinctoidea s. lato the family of Olcostephanidae Pavlov. 1892. was previ­ ously mentioned. Earlier, on the basis of morphogenctic study of shells of some represen­ tatives of various families of Pcrisphinctidac |4-6}.
    [Show full text]
  • Molecular Facts and Evolutionary Theory
    Journal and Proceedings of The Royal Society of New South Wales Volume 120 Parts 1 and 2 [Issued September, 1987] pp.39-48 Return to CONTENTS Molecular Facts and Evolutionary Theory George L. Gabor Miklos Evolutionary biology has had a fascinating recent history. It was realized more than a century ago that the way of approaching many evolutionary problems lay in studies of morphology. However, as pointed out by Bateson in 1922, “discussions of evolution came to an end primarily because no progress was being made. Morphology having been explored in the minutest corners, we turned elsewhere. We became geneticists in the conviction that there at least must evolutionary wisdom be found.” At the same time, while it was clear that morphology must have its bases in embryology, it was instead the mathematically oriented theory of neo-Darwinism that rose to prominence over the next half century. This theory is essentially an amalgam of Mendelian genetics and classical Darwinian selection, firmly based on changes in gene frequencies at particular loci. In the late 1960s, it began to be evaluated at a crude molecular level using gel electrophoresis techniques that allowed the examination of polymorphisms at many enzyme coding loci. In the mid 1970s the technological advances of genetic engineering ushered in an entirely new era of molecular biology. The molecular biologist became the successor to the pure geneticist, and the focus switched back to the molecular analysis of development. The molecular biology of recombinant DNA revolutionized the previous concepts of genome organization and function and led to a reappraisal of the importance of neo-Darwinism.
    [Show full text]
  • Reproductive Specializations in a Viviparous African Skink: Implications for Evolution and Biological Conservation
    Trinity College Trinity College Digital Repository Faculty Scholarship 8-2010 Reproductive Specializations in a Viviparous African Skink: Implications for Evolution and Biological Conservation Daniel G. Blackburn Trinity College, [email protected] Alexander F. Flemming University of Stellenbosch Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/facpub Part of the Biology Commons Herpetological Conservation and Biology 5(2):263-270. Symposium: Reptile Reproduction REPRODUCTIVE SPECIALIZATIONS IN A VIVIPAROUS AFRICAN SKINK AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR EVOLUTION AND CONSERVATION 1 2 DANIEL G. BLACKBURN AND ALEXANDER F. FLEMMING 1Department of Biology and Electron Microscopy Facility, Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut 06106, USA, e-mail: [email protected] 2Department of Botany and Zoology, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa Abstract.—Recent research on the African scincid lizard, Trachylepis ivensi, has significantly expanded the range of known reproductive specializations in reptiles. This species is viviparous and exhibits characteristics previously thought to be confined to therian mammals. In most viviparous squamates, females ovulate large yolk-rich eggs that provide most of the nutrients for development. Typically, their placental components (fetal membranes and uterus) are relatively unspecialized, and similar to their oviparous counterparts. In T. ivensi, females ovulate tiny eggs and provide nutrients for embryonic development almost entirely by placental means. Early in gestation, embryonic tissues invade deeply into maternal tissues and establish an intimate “endotheliochorial” relationship with the maternal blood supply by means of a yolk sac placenta. The presence of such an invasive form of implantation in a squamate reptile is unprecedented and has significant functional and evolutionary implications. Discovery of the specializations of T.
    [Show full text]
  • Fauna of Australia 2A
    FAUNA of AUSTRALIA 23. GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DEFINITION OF THE SQUAMATA Harold G. Cogger 23. GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND DEFINITION OF THE SQUAMATA The Squamata are members of the diapsid subclass Lepidosauromorpha, a group whose only living descendants are the lizards, amphisbaenians, snakes and tuataras. The lizards, amphisbaenians and snakes together constitute the Order Squamata (or Superorder Squamata, according to Estes 1983). Because the Squamata include approximately 95% of living reptiles, the phylogenetic position of this group within the Lepidosauromorpha, its component taxa, and their diagnostic features, have been the subject of numerous reviews (Estes & Pregill 1988; Kluge 1989). The three suborders of the Squamata include the Sauria (lizards) and the Serpentes (snakes), which are represented in Australia by diverse faunas of nearly 500 species, and 250 species, respectively. The third suborder, the Amphisbaenia, comprises a small group of worm lizards and related species which do not occur in Australia. The earliest known squamate fossils date from the late Permian and early Triassic, approximately 230 million years ago. These early fossils were already clearly lizard-like in their preserved features. Carroll (1988a) points out that lizards (the first squamates) do not appear to have originated as a result of ‘...a significant shift in behavioral patterns or the evolution of major new structural elements, but rather may be seen as resulting from the gradual accumulation of improvements in feeding, locomotion, and sensory apparatus.’ Carroll (1988b) includes among these changes the emargination of the lower temporal fenestra and the development of a joint between the upper end of the quadrate and the squamosal.
    [Show full text]
  • ASH Newsletter 47 E.Pub
    THE AUSTRALIAN SOCIETY OF HERPETOLOGISTS INCORPORATED NEWSLETTER 47 2 History of Office Bearers Formation Committee (April 1964):- MJ Littlejohn (Convenor); State Reps IR Straughan (Qld), FJ Mitch- ell (SA), HG Cogger (NSW), G Storr (WA), RE Barwick (ACT), JW Warren (Vic), AK Lee (Editor). First AGM (23 August 1965):- President MJ Littlejohn, Vice-President NG Stephenson, Secretary- Treasurer AA Martin, Asst Secretary-Treasurer KJ Wilson, Ordinary Members FJ Mitchell and IR Strau- ghan, Editor AK Lee. PRESIDENT:- MJ Littlejohn (1965-69); AK Lee (1969-70); HG Cogger (1971-73); J de Bavay (1974); H Heatwole (1975-76); GC Grigg (1976-77); MJ Tyler (1978-79); GF Watson (1979-81); AA Martin (1981- 82); RS Seymour (1982-83); R Shine (1983-84); GC Grigg (1984-86); J Coventry (1986-87); RE Barwick (1987-88); J Covacevich (1988-91); M Davies (1991-92); R Shine (1992-94); A Georges (1994-6); D Roberts (1996-98); M Bull (1998-9); R Swain (1999-2001); S Downes (2001-03); J Melville (2004-2005); J -M Hero (2005-2007); P Doherty (2007-2008); M Thompson (2008-2009); M Hutchinson (2009-2010); L Schwarzkopf (2010-2011); F Lemckert (2011-) VICE-PRESIDENT:- NG Stephenson (1965-67); RE Barwick (1967-69); HG Cogger (1969-70); MJ Lit- tlejohn (1971-72); MJ Tyler (1973); HG Cogger (1974); J de Bavay (1975-76); H Heatwole (1976-77); GC Grigg (1977-79); MJ Tyler (1979-80); GF Watson (1981-82); AA Martin (1982-83); RS Seymour (1983- 84); R Shine (1984-86); GC Grigg (1986-87); J Coventry (1987-88); RE Barwick (1988-91); J Covacevich (1991-92); M Davies (1992-94); R Shine (1994-6); A Georges (1996-98); D Roberts (1998-99); M Bull (1999-2001); R Swain (2001-2003); S Downes (2004-5); J Melville (2005-2007); J-M Hero (2007-2008); P Doherty (2008-2009); M Thompson (2009-2010); M Hutchinson (2010-); L Schwarzkopf (2010-2011) SECRETARY/TREASURER:- AA Martin (1965-67); GF Watson (1967-72); LA Moffatt (1973-75); J Caughley (19375-76); RWG Jenkins (1976-77); M Davies (1978-83); G Courtice (1983-87); J Wombey (1987-99); S Keogh (1999-2003); N Mitchell (2004-5); E.
    [Show full text]