DOCSLIB.ORG

Evolution and Extinction 107

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evolution and Extinction 107 © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & BartlettCHAPTER Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 4 Evolution© Jones &and Bartlett Learning, Extinction LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Chapter© Jones Themes & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION How did early theories of evolution differ from Darwin’s? What sorts of evidence led Darwin to his theory of evolution? How is genetic information stored and transmitted from parents to offspring? © Jones & WhatBartlett produces Learning, genetic LLC variation? © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALEWhat is OR the DISTRIBUTIONevidence for natural selection? NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION How do new species and other groups originate? What is the evidence for evolution? How does extinction affect evolution? © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Chapter Outline © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 4.1 Introduction 4.9 Evolution and the Fossil Record 4.9.1 Comparative anatomy 4.2 Early Theories of Evolution 4.9.2 Cladistics BOX 4.1 Evolution of Biologic Classification 4.9.3 Microevolution and the Species Concept © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones4.9.4 & Bartlett Macroevolution Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALECharles OR DISTRIBUTION Darwin and the Beginnings of NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 4.3 Mass Extinction the Modern Theory of Evolution 4.10 BOX 4.2 Charles Darwin, the Person 4.11 Biodiversity Through the Phanerozoic Basic Premises of Darwinian Evolution 4.4 © Jones & Bartlett Learning, 4.12LLC Summary © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC BOX 4.3 Misuse of Darwin’s Theory NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 4.5 Inheritance and Variation 4.6 Genetic Code and Mutation 4.7© JonesEvidence & for Bartlett Natural Learning,Selection LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 4.8 Speciation © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 105 © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. developed and modified, leading to new questions. As © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC Introduction we will see, several of these questions stem from a better NOT FOR SALE4.1 OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Charles Darwin (1809–1882) is rightfully understanding of the fossil record: How do new species credited with founding the modern theory of evolu- arise? How do new anatomic structures like wings or tion because the basic foundation of the theory laid eyes and wholly new groups of organisms—like reptiles down by him has remained largely intact to the present. or mammals—arise? How do mass extinctions of the © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC Darwin’s theory supported, and was supported by, the biosphere—well documented in the fossil record— notion of deep timeNOT implicated FOR SALE by Hutton OR DISTRIBUTIONand Lyell create new evolutionary NOTopportunities? FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION (see Chapter 1). Recall from Chapter 1, however, that the view of Earth espoused by Lyell was one of strict Early Theories of Evolution equilibrium: no net change. But with Darwin’s theory 4.2 Two of Darwin’s predecessors, both French, came© Jones the growing & Bartlett realization Learning, that not LLC only has life stand out© for Jones their views & onBartlett evolution: Learning, Jean Baptiste LLC Pierre evolvedNOT FOR but so SALE too have OR Earth’s DISTRIBUTION physical systems. Natu- Antoine deNOT Monet, FOR Chevalier SALE de Lamarck,OR DISTRIBUTION or just Lamarck ral systems can exhibit directionality or secular change, (1744–1829), and Baron Georges Cuvier (1762–1839) because they are open systems, that is, they can evolve. (FIGURE 4.1). Lamarck originally believed that certain Darwin’s theory is therefore not only fundamental to groups of organisms—now called species—were fixed © Jones & Bartlettthe study Learning, of the history LLC and evolution of life but also© Jones and & did Bartlett not evolve, Learning, but began toLLC change his views as his NOT FOR SALEstrengthened OR DISTRIBUTION the inkling that physical systems—andNOT FORstudies SALE progressed OR DISTRIBUTION(BOX 4.1). Lamarck based his theory thus Earth—can evolve as well. of evolution on spontaneous generation which stated that Like so many theories, however, Darwin’s was living matter arises from nonliving matter. Lamarck based preceded by others. To fully comprehend the signifi- his acceptance of spontaneous generation on his observa- cance of the modern theory of evolution, we must ex- tion that the simplest organisms had no obvious organs, amine these earlier© theories. Jones In & doing Bartlett so we Learning,get another LLCso Lamarck reasoned they© must Jones have & evolved Bartlett directly Learning, LLC glimpse as to howNOT scientists FOR think SALE and how OR theories DISTRIBUTION are from nonliving substances.NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © Jones & Bartlett(a) Learning, LLC © Jones(b) & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALEFIGURE OR 4.1 DISTRIBUTION(a) Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, ChevalierNOT de FOR Lamarck SALE (1744–1829). OR DISTRIBUTION (b) Baron Georges Cuvier (1762–1839). 106 CHAPTER 4 © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEBOX OR4.1 DISTRIBUTION Evolution of Biologic Classification and the Species Concept A species is a group© of Jones organisms & thatBartlett interbreed Learning, with menclature,LLC and any species described© Jones before & thisBartlett time Learning, LLC one another and produceNOT fertileFOR offspring. SALE TORhe point DISTRIBUTION of are considered invalid. However,NOT species FOR originally SALE de -OR DISTRIBUTION reproduction is to propagate the species. Species are usu- scribed after 1758 may still be redescribed or placed ally recognized by physical features thought to reflect the in new groupings based on new data. identity of the species, such as anatomic traits, distinctive As evolutionary theory began to take hold, Linnaeus’ coloration, or behavior. Many species have “common” system of biologic classification began to take on a new names© Jones used by & lay Bartlett people. However, Learning, these terms LLC can be meaning: evolutionary© Jones relationships. & Bartlett A classification Learning, rec -LLC confusing,NOT FOR especially SALE if they OR are DISTRIBUTIONused to refer to different ognizes similaritiesNOT or FOR dissimilarities SALE between OR DISTRIBUTION objects, in species. To avoid confusion among scientists, each spe- this case species. The purpose of a biologic classification cies is given a scientific name consisting of two names: is to show evolutionary relationships, or phylogeny, the genus and the species. For example, the scientific between different groups of organisms, or taxa (taxon, singular). Biologic classification and phylogenetic rela- © Jones & Bartlettname of human Learning, beings is LLC Homo sapiens. Homo is the © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC tionships are hierarchies. These hierarchies consist of genus and sapiens is the species. The scientific name for NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOTdifferent FOR levels,SALE or ORcategories—kingdom, DISTRIBUTION phylum, class, humans means “prescient man,” referring to the mental order, family, genus, and species—each of which may ability of humans to foresee into the future and anticipate be further subdivided or lumped together. The actual the consequences of their actions and those of nature. groups, or taxa (such as particular species), are placed By international convention the scientific name is always into higher taxa corresponding to the different categories; underlined or set off ©from Jones the surrounding & Bartlett text inLearning, some LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONthus, each taxon shares characteristicsNOT FOR with theSALE other OR DISTRIBUTION other manner, and the genus name is always capital- members of the same taxon. The science of biologic ized, whereas the species name is not (species is used classification is calledtaxonomy . A biologic classifica- for both the singular and plural; there is no such word tion is therefore like a series of boxes nested within as “specie”). Each genus is represented by one or more progressively larger boxes. In biologic classification these species.© Jones Thus, when& Bartlett referring Learning,to a particular speciesLLC one boxes are called© categoriesJones &with Bartlett the categories Learning, becoming LLC citesNOT both FOR names—genus SALE ORand species—not DISTRIBUTION just the spe- more and moreNOT inclusive. FOR T axaSALE and categories
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Evolutionary Trends
    Evo Edu Outreach (2008) 1:259–273 DOI 10.1007/s12052-008-0055-6 ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE Evolutionary Trends T. Ryan Gregory Published online: 25 June 2008 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract The occurrence, generality, and causes of large- a pattern alone, to extrapolate from individual cases to scale evolutionary trends—directional changes over long entire systems, and to focus on extremes rather than periods of time—have been the subject of intensive study recognizing diversity. This is especially true in the study and debate in evolutionary science. Large-scale patterns in the of historically contingent processes such as evolution, history of life have also been of considerable interest to which spans nearly four billion years and encompasses nonspecialists, although misinterpretations and misunder- the rise and disappearance of hundreds of millions, if not standings of this important issue are common and can have billions, of species and the struggles of an unimaginably significant implications for an overall understanding of large number of individual organisms. evolution. This paper provides an overview of how trends This is not to say that no patterns exist in the history of are identified, categorized, and explained in evolutionary life, only that the situation is often far more complex than is biology. Rather than reviewing any particular trend in detail, acknowledged. Notably, the most common portrayals of the intent is to provide a framework for understanding large- evolution in nonacademic settings include not just change, scale evolutionary patterns in general and to highlight the fact but directional, adaptive change—if not outright notions of that both the patterns and their underlying causes are usually “advancement”—and it is fair to say that such a view has in quite complex.
    [Show full text]
  • The MBL Model and Stochastic Paleontology
    216 Chapter seven ised exciting new avenues for research, that insights from biology and ecology could more profi tably be applied to paleontology, and that the future lay in assembling large databases as a foundation for analysis of broad-scale patterns of evolution over geological history. But in compar- ison to other expanding young disciplines—like theoretical ecology— paleobiology lacked a cohesive theoretical and methodological agenda. However, over the next ten years this would change dramatically. Chapter Seven One particular ecological/evolutionary issue emerged as the central unifying problem for paleobiology: the study and modeling of the his- “Towards a Nomothetic tory of diversity over time. This, in turn, motivated a methodological question: how reliable is the fossil record, and how can that reliability be Paleontology”: The MBL Model tested? These problems became the core of analytical paleobiology, and and Stochastic Paleontology represented a continuation and a consolidation of the themes we have examined thus far in the history of paleobiology. Ultimately, this focus led paleobiologists to groundbreaking quantitative studies of the inter- The Roots of Nomotheticism play of rates of origination and extinction of taxa through time, the role of background and mass extinctions in the history of life, the survivor- y the early 1970s, the paleobiology movement had begun to acquire ship of individual taxa, and the modeling of historical patterns of diver- Bconsiderable momentum. A number of paleobiologists began ac- sity. These questions became the central components of an emerging pa- tively building programs of paleobiological research and teaching at ma- leobiological theory of macroevolution, and by the mid 1980s formed the jor universities—Stephen Jay Gould at Harvard, Tom Schopf at the Uni- basis for paleobiologists’ claim to a seat at the “high table” of evolution- versity of Chicago, David Raup at the University of Rochester, James ary theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Lineages, Splits and Divergence Challenge Whether the Terms Anagenesis and Cladogenesis Are Necessary
    Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, , – . With 2 figures. Lineages, splits and divergence challenge whether the terms anagenesis and cladogenesis are necessary FELIX VAUX*, STEVEN A. TREWICK and MARY MORGAN-RICHARDS Ecology Group, Institute of Agriculture and Environment, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand Received 3 June 2015; revised 22 July 2015; accepted for publication 22 July 2015 Using the framework of evolutionary lineages to separate the process of evolution and classification of species, we observe that ‘anagenesis’ and ‘cladogenesis’ are unnecessary terms. The terms have changed significantly in meaning over time, and current usage is inconsistent and vague across many different disciplines. The most popular definition of cladogenesis is the splitting of evolutionary lineages (cessation of gene flow), whereas anagenesis is evolutionary change between splits. Cladogenesis (and lineage-splitting) is also regularly made synonymous with speciation. This definition is misleading as lineage-splitting is prolific during evolution and because palaeontological studies provide no direct estimate of gene flow. The terms also fail to incorporate speciation without being arbitrary or relative, and the focus upon lineage-splitting ignores the importance of divergence, hybridization, extinction and informative value (i.e. what is helpful to describe as a taxon) for species classification. We conclude and demonstrate that evolution and species diversity can be considered with greater clarity using simpler, more transparent terms than anagenesis and cladogenesis. Describing evolution and taxonomic classification can be straightforward, and there is no need to ‘make words mean so many different things’. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 00, 000–000.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cambrian and Beyond A. Types of Fossils 1. Compression
    The Cambrian and Beyond A. Types of Fossils 1. Compression & Impression fossils 2. Permineralized fossils 3. Casts & Molds 4. Unaltered remains – mummy B. Sorting out the Fossil Record: Strengths & Weaknesses 1. Lowland and shallow marine bias 2. Hard part bias 3. Age bias 4. Goal is to recognize the constraints and still be creative C. Cambrian Explosion Revisited – The Metazoan Body Plan 1. All animal phyla appeared in ~40 million years! 2. Symmetry – Diploblasts and Triplotblasts (Radial and Bilateral) a. Ecto/Endo vs Ecto/Endo/Mesoderm 3. Coelom or fluid filled cavity via mesoderm lined peritoneum a. Coelomates, pseudocoelomates, acoelomates 4. Protostomes (Ecdysozoans & Lophotrochozoans) and deuterostomes a. both have bilateral symmetry, true coeloms, 3 tissue types b. spiral cleavage vs. radial cleavage c. gastrulation – first the mouth or second the mouth 5. Notochords.... D. Ediacaran & Burgess Shale Faunas 1. Ediacaran – Soft bodies forms, many trace type fossils 2. Burgess Shale – Wide variety of body plans evolved, only a subset remained, fewer yet exist today. Lecture 12.1 E. Phylogeny of Metazoans: New Ways to Make a Living 1. Environmental forcing functions, e.g., Oxygen Story 2. Genetic forcing functions, e.g., HOM/Hox genes F. Macroevolutionary Patterns: Evolution’s Greatest Hits! 1. Adaptive radiations correlated with adaptive innovations giving rise to a number of descendant species that occupy a large range of niches. a. Lacking competitors over superior adaptations 2. Major Examples: ! Cambrian Explosion for animals ! Twice with land plants, Silurian/Devonian and Cretaceous G. Punctuated Equilibrium 1. Darwin: aware of the problem, but wrote off as patchy record due to incompleteness of the fossil record.
    [Show full text]
  • Microevolution and the Genetics of Populations ​ ​ Microevolution Refers to Varieties Within a Given Type
    Chapter 8: Evolution Lesson 8.3: Microevolution and the Genetics of Populations ​ ​ Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait ​ ​ ​ ​ within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog. Lesson Objectives ● Distinguish what is microevolution and how it affects changes in populations. ● Define gene pool, and explain how to calculate allele frequencies. ● State the Hardy-Weinberg theorem ● Identify the five forces of evolution. Vocabulary ● adaptive radiation ● gene pool ● migration ● allele frequency ● genetic drift ● mutation ● artificial selection ● Hardy-Weinberg theorem ● natural selection ● directional selection ● macroevolution ● population genetics ● disruptive selection ● microevolution ● stabilizing selection ● gene flow Introduction Darwin knew that heritable variations are needed for evolution to occur. However, he knew nothing about Mendel’s laws of genetics. Mendel’s laws were rediscovered in the early 1900s. Only then could scientists fully understand the process of evolution. Microevolution is how individual traits within a population change over time. In order for a population to change, some things must be assumed to be true. In other words, there must be some sort of process happening that causes microevolution. The five ways alleles within a population change over time are natural selection, migration (gene flow), mating, mutations, or genetic drift.
    [Show full text]
  • A Framework for Post-Phylogenetic Systematics
    A FRAMEWORK FOR POST-PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS Richard H. Zander Zetetic Publications, St. Louis Richard H. Zander Missouri Botanical Garden P.O. Box 299 St. Louis, MO 63166 [email protected] Zetetic Publications in St. Louis produces but does not sell this book. Any book dealer can obtain a copy for you through the usual channels. Resellers please contact CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform of Amazon. ISBN-13: 978-1492220404 ISBN-10: 149222040X © Copyright 2013, all rights reserved. The image on the cover and title page is a stylized dendrogram of paraphyly (see Plate 1.1). This is, in macroevolutionary terms, an ancestral taxon of two (or more) species or of molecular strains of one taxon giving rise to a descendant taxon (unconnected comma) from one ancestral branch. The image on the back cover is a stylized dendrogram of two, genus-level speciational bursts or dis- silience. Here, the dissilient genus is the basic evolutionary unit (see Plate 13.1). This evolutionary model is evident in analysis of the moss Didymodon (Chapter 8) through superoptimization. A super- generative core species with a set of radiative, specialized descendant species in the stylized tree com- promises one genus. In this exemplary image; another genus of similar complexity is generated by the core supergenerative species of the first. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgments..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chordates (Phylum Chordata)
    A short story Leathem Mehaffey, III, Fall 201993 The First Chordates (Phylum Chordata) • Chordates (our phylum) first appeared in the Cambrian, 525MYA. 94 Invertebrates, Chordates and Vertebrates • Invertebrates are all animals not chordates • Generally invertebrates, if they have hearts, have dorsal hearts; if they have a nervous system it is usually ventral. • All vertebrates are chordates, but not all chordates are vertebrates. • Chordates: • Dorsal notochord • Dorsal nerve chord • Ventral heart • Post-anal tail • Vertebrates: Amphioxus: archetypal chordate • Dorsal spinal column (articulated) and skeleton 95 Origin of the Chordates 96 Haikouichthys Myllokunmingia Note the rounded extension to Possibly the oldest the head bearing sensory vertebrate: showed gill organs bars and primitive vertebral elements Early and primitive agnathan vertebrates of the Early Cambrian (530MYA) Pikaia Note: these organisms were less Primitive chordate, than an inch long. similar to Amphioxus 97 The Cambrian/Ordovician Extinction • Somewhere around 488 million years ago something happened to cause a change in the fauna of the earth, heralding the beginning of the Ordovician Period. • Rather than one catastrophe, the late-Cambrian extinction seems to be a series of smaller extinction events. • Historically the change in fauna (mostly trilobites as the index species) was thought to be due to excessive warmth and low oxygen. • But some current findings point to an oxygen spike due perhaps to continental drift into the tropics, driving rapid speciation and consequent replacement of old with new organisms. 98 Welcome to the Ordovician YOU ARE HERE 99 The Ordovician Sea, 488 million years 100 ago The Ordovician Period lasted almost 45 million years, from 489 to 444 MYA.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetic Structure and Eco-Geographical Differentiation of Lancea Tibetica in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau
    G C A T T A C G G C A T genes Article Genetic Structure and Eco-Geographical Differentiation of Lancea tibetica in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau Xiaofeng Chi 1,2 , Faqi Zhang 1,2,* , Qingbo Gao 1,2, Rui Xing 1,2 and Shilong Chen 1,2,* 1 Key Laboratory of Adaptation and Evolution of Plateau Biota, Northwest Institute of Plateau Biology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Xining 810001, China; [email protected] (X.C.); [email protected] (Q.G.); [email protected] (R.X.) 2 Qinghai Provincial Key Laboratory of Crop Molecular Breeding, Xining 810001, China * Correspondence: [email protected] (F.Z.); [email protected] (S.C.) Received: 14 December 2018; Accepted: 24 January 2019; Published: 29 January 2019 Abstract: The uplift of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau (QTP) had a profound impact on the plant speciation rate and genetic diversity. High genetic diversity ensures that species can survive and adapt in the face of geographical and environmental changes. The Tanggula Mountains, located in the central of the QTP, have unique geographical significance. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the Tanggula Mountains as a geographical barrier on plant genetic diversity and structure by using Lancea tibetica. A total of 456 individuals from 31 populations were analyzed using eight pairs of microsatellite makers. The total number of alleles was 55 and the number per locus ranged from 3 to 11 with an average of 6.875. The polymorphism information content (PIC) values ranged from 0.2693 to 0.7761 with an average of 0.4378 indicating that the eight microsatellite makers were efficient for distinguishing genotypes.
    [Show full text]
  • •How Does Microevolution Add up to Macroevolution? •What Are Species
    Microevolution and Macroevolution • How does Microevolution add up to macroevolution? • What are species? • How are species created? • What are anagenesis and cladogenesis? 1 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Species Concepts • Biological species concept: Defines species as interbreeding populations reproductively isolated from other such populations. • Evolutionary species concept: Defines species as evolutionary lineages with their own unique identity. • Ecological species concept: Defines species based on the uniqueness of their ecological niche. • Recognition species concept: Defines species based on unique traits or behaviors that allow members of one species to identify each other for mating. 2 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Reproductive Isolating Mechanisms • Premating RIMs Habitat isolation Temporal isolation Behavioral isolation Mechanical incompatibility • Postmating RIMs Sperm-egg incompatibility Zygote inviability Embryonic or fetal inviability 3 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Modes of Evolutionary Change 4 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Cladogenesis 5 Sunday, March 6, 2011 6 Sunday, March 6, 2011 7 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Evolution is “the simple way by which species (populations) become exquisitely adapted to various ends” 8 Sunday, March 6, 2011 All characteristics are due to the four forces • Mutation creates new alleles - new variation • Genetic drift moves these around by chance • Gene flow moves these from one population to the next creating clines • Natural selection increases and decreases them in frequency through adaptation 9 Sunday, March 6, 2011 Clines
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT BOOK Listed Alphabetically by Last Name Of
    ABSTRACT BOOK Listed alphabetically by last name of presenting author AOS 2019 Meeting 24-28 June 2019 ORAL PRESENTATIONS Variability in the Use of Acoustic Space Between propensity, renesting intervals, and renest reproductive Two Tropical Forest Bird Communities success of Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) by fol- lowing 1,922 nests and 1,785 unique breeding adults Patrick J Hart, Kristina L Paxton, Grace Tredinnick from 2014 2016 in North and South Dakota, USA. The apparent renesting rate was 20%. Renesting propen- When acoustic signals sent from individuals overlap sity declined if reproductive attempts failed during the in frequency or time, acoustic interference and signal brood-rearing stage, nests were depredated, reproduc- masking occurs, which may reduce the receiver’s abil- tive failure occurred later in the breeding season, or ity to discriminate information from the signal. Under individuals had previously renested that year. Addi- the acoustic niche hypothesis (ANH), acoustic space is tionally, plovers were less likely to renest on reservoirs a resource that organisms may compete for, and sig- compared to other habitats. Renesting intervals de- naling behavior has evolved to minimize overlap with clined when individuals had not already renested, were heterospecific calling individuals. Because tropical after second-year adults without prior breeding experi- wet forests have such high bird species diversity and ence, and moved short distances between nest attempts. abundance, and thus high potential for competition for Renesting intervals also decreased if the attempt failed acoustic niche space, they are good places to examine later in the season. Lastly, overall reproductive success the way acoustic space is partitioned.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiple Molecular Evidences for a Living Mammalian Fossil
    Multiple molecular evidences for a living mammalian fossil Dorothe´ e Huchon†‡, Pascale Chevret§¶, Ursula Jordanʈ, C. William Kilpatrick††, Vincent Ranwez§, Paulina D. Jenkins‡‡, Ju¨ rgen Brosiusʈ, and Ju¨ rgen Schmitz‡ʈ †Department of Zoology, George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel; §Department of Paleontology, Phylogeny, and Paleobiology, Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution, cc064, Universite´Montpellier II, Place E. Bataillon, 34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France; ʈInstitute of Experimental Pathology, University of Mu¨nster, D-48149 Mu¨nster, Germany; ††Department of Biology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405-0086; and ‡‡Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom Edited by Francisco J. Ayala, University of California, Irvine, CA, and approved March 18, 2007 (received for review February 11, 2007) Laonastes aenigmamus is an enigmatic rodent first described in their classification as a diatomyid suggests that Laonastes is a 2005. Molecular and morphological data suggested that it is the living fossil and a ‘‘Lazarus taxon.’’ sole representative of a new mammalian family, the Laonastidae, The two research teams also disagreed on the taxonomic and a member of the Hystricognathi. However, the validity of this position of Laonastes. According to Jenkins et al. (2), Laonastes family is controversial because fossil-based phylogenetic analyses is either the most basal group of the hystricognaths (Fig. 2A)or suggest that Laonastes is a surviving member of the Diatomyidae, nested within the hystricognaths (Fig. 2B). According to Dawson a family considered to have been extinct for 11 million years. et al. (3), Laonastes and the other Diatomyidae are the sister According to these data, Laonastes and Diatomyidae are the sister clade of the family Ctenodactylidae (i.e., gundies), a family that clade of extant Ctenodactylidae (i.e., gundies) and do not belong does not belong to the Hystricognathi, but to which it is to the Hystricognathi.
    [Show full text]
  • Convergent Evolution
    Exploring the KU Natural History Museum Convergent Evolution Target Audience: Middle school and above Differentiated Instruction Summary Strategy Levels Content/Process/Product Grouping(s) Learning modalities Whole group • Level 1 – Visual (spatial) Small groups Process Cubing Level 2 – Kinesthetic (physical) Peer partners • Product • Level 3 – Verbal (linguistic) Homogeneous Heterogeneous * Varied grouping options can be used for this activity, depending on student needs and chaperone ability. Objectives: Explore examples of convergent evolution in vertebrates. Pre-assessment/Prior Knowledge: Prior to their visit, students should be familiar with the idea of convergent evolution, overall evolutionary relationships/classification of vertebrate groups and basic anatomy of those groups. Activity Description: Students explore the idea of convergent evolution through museum exhibits through different learning modalities. Materials Needed: • Student o Cubes (three levels, see attached) o Paper and pencils (alternatively you could use flipchart paper and markers, whiteboards and dry erase markers) o Optional (cell phones or other recording device for visual or kinesthetic levels) Note: Format to record/present findings determined by individual teacher. Provide clear instructions about expectations for documenting participation, particularly for verbal/spatial and body/kinesthetic levels (e.g. stage direction, audio/video recording). • Teacher o Content Outline o Cube labels o Cube template Content: Convergence Overview Convergent evolution refers to the similarities in biological traits that arise independently in organisms that are not closely related, e.g. wings in birds, bats and insects. Similarity among organisms and their structures that was not inherited from a common ancestor is considered to be homoplasy. This can be contrasted with homology, which refers to similarity of traits due to common ancestry.
    [Show full text]