DOCSLIB.ORG

Views Or Her Sex

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Views Or Her Sex Copyright 0 1995 by the Genetics Society of America Perspectives Anecdotal, Historical And Critical Commentaries on Genetics Edited by Jams F. Crow and William F. Dove Two Genes, No Enzyme: A Second Look at BARBARAMCCLINTOCK and the 1951 Cold Spring Harbor Symposium Nathaniel C. Comfort Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York 1I724 and Department of History, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11 794 didn’t understand a word of it, but if BARBARAsaid this essay is attributed by GREEN(1992) to ALFRED STUR- “Iit, it must be true!” With these words, the great TEVANT, who, GREENsays, had attended theSymposium. Drosophila geneticist ALFRED STURTEVANTreportedly Yet the only STURTEVANT listeda participant as in 1951 gave his opinion of BARBARAMCCLINTOCK’S firstpublic is one FRANKSTURTEVANT, of Northwestern University! presentation of transposable elements, at the 1951 Cold The error is quite excusable; while his is the only pub Spring HarborSymposium (GREEN1992). A legend has lished version, this story has been repeated many times sprungup around MCCLINTOCK’Spresentation, ac- by many people, and doubtless in many versions. It is cording to which she gave her talk with great expecta- part of the legend, amythology that continues to grow, tion of acceptance and interest, only to be ridiculed even among demythologizers. and ignored by her colleagues. The subtext is that A re-examination of the 1951 Symposium can help MCCLINTOCKwas discriminated against, whether be- replace the myth with a more rational explanation of cause of her views or her sex. In her biography of the reaction to MCCLINTOCK’Spaper. It also shows how MCCLINTOCK,EVELYN FOX-KELLER writesthat MCCLIN- data and scientific theory are intertwined with the cul- TOCK’S talk “was met with stony silence. With one or ture of science. MCCLINTOCKwas not apassive recipient two exceptions, no one understood. Afterward, there of her colleagues’judgments. She defiantly and deliber- was mumbling-even some snickering-and outright ately challenged the paradigm viewof the gene-a complaints. It was impossible to understand. What was gutsy move, but one that brought upon herself some this woman up to?” (KELLER 1983, p. 139). of the confusion that so distressed her. MEL GREEN,writing in the 1992 Festschrift for It is certainly true thatMCCLINTOCK’S workwas highly MCCLINTOCK,The Dynamic Genome, seeks to redress the respected by the time she presented her data on trans- legend: “There is a widely extant viewpoint that BARBA- posable elements. Since the 1920s she had published RA’S research was much unappreciatedand appropriate paper after importantpaper on maizecytogenetics. recognition was too longdelayed. I believe this view- With HARRIET CREIGHTONat Cornell, MCCLINTOCKpro- point to be a half-truth” (GREEN1992, p. 117). Some duced the firstvisual evidence of crossing-over, just of the legend springs from MCCLINTOCK’S own lips.In barely beating out CURTSTERN’S similar work on Dro- an interview with KELLER, MCCLINTOCKsaid, “It was sophila. Subsequent work took her ever deeper into just a surprise that I couldn’t communicate; it was a genomic instability and chromosome structure. First surprise that I was being ridiculed, or being told that I she showed the existence of ring chromosomes. Then was really mad” (KELLER 1983, p. 140). Unexplained, she showed that ring chromosomes were a special case MCCLINTOCK’Scool reception supports the idea that of broken chromosomes, one in whichthe endsbecame her colleagues were obtuse in failing to see the truth “sticky” and fused to each other. In 1936 MCCLINTOCK and beauty of her discovery, or worse, that they refused moved to the Universityof Missouri, where she was to accept her results because MCCLINTOCKwas outside hired byLEWIS STADLER,who with R. A. EMERSON, the geneticists’ old boys’ network. MCCLINTOCK’Smentor atCornell, was one of the reign- Some of the legend seems to stem from scientists ing lions of maize genetics. At Missouri, MCCLINTOCK wishing to squelch it. The quote at the beginning of discovered the “breakage-fusion-bridge” cycle, a fur- ther extension of her observations of chromosomal in- Address fw correspondace: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1 Bung- stability. The breakage-fusion-bridge cycle led MCCLIN- town Road, Cold Spring Harbor, NY 11724. TOCK to two important conclusions, one a prediction Genetics 140 1161-1166 (August, 1995) more [before transposons], MCCI.INTO(:Kwould have become a major figure in the history of genetics” (FED- and the other hermost profound discovery. The obser- OROFF and BOTSTEIN1992). vation of the “stickiness” of the broken ends of chro- The 1951 Symposium took place in the years between mosomes led MCCLINTOCKto the prediction of special OSWALDAVERY’S demonstration that the transforming structures onthe ends of chromosomesneeded to principle in Pneumococcus was DNA, and the double maintainthe stability lost when thechromosomes revelations of ALFRED HERSHEYand MARTHA CHASE’S broke. She called them telomeres, the study of which “blender experiment” andWATSON AND CRICK’Smodel today is undergoing rapid growth. When MCCLINTOCK of the DNA double helix. The nature of the gene was left Missouri for Cold Spring Harbor in 1941, she took the central question in many biologists’ minds. Bacterio- with her strains of maize that underwent the breakage- phage and bacteria were the model systems of choice, fusion-bridge cycle. From them MCCLINTOCKdeduced with Neurospora and Drosophila close behind. Scien- the existence of transposable elements. The first set of tists working with these organisms were heavily invested experiment$ in which she observed transposition were in the classical T. H. MORGANmodel of the gene. MOR- done in 1944 (MCCI~INTOCK1984). She spent the next GAN’S group had shown the enormous intellectual pro- six years pursuing, confirmingand verifying her results. ductivity of viewing genes as unitary, particulate struc- By 1951 MCCLINTOCKwas among the best-respected tures, arranged linearly and statically alongthe cytogeneticists in the country. Even ten years earlier, chromosomes. BEXDLEAND TATUM’Sone-gene oneen- when the director of the Carnegie Department, MILI- zyme hypothesis, first developed in the early 1940s, lay SLAV DEMEREC,told staff scientist E. CARLETON MAG atop this foundation. It confirmed that geneswere uni- DOU‘EILthat he had succeeded in hiring MCCI.INTOCK, tary by showing they had unitary effects on metabolic MACDOWELI.“jumped up in theair and said, ‘We pathways. MILISLAVDEMEREC, director of the Cold should mark today’s date with red letters in the Depart- Spring Harbor Biological Laboratory and organizer of ment calendar!’ That expresses the feeling that is gen- the 1951 Symposium, acknowledged that the gene con- eral among our members” (DEMEREC1942). In 1939 cept had been unraveling in recent years. Genes, DIG- she was elected vice-president, and in 1945 president, MEREC said, “are regarded as much more loosely de- of the Genetics Society of America. By 1951 she had fined parts of an aggregate, the chromosome, which in received the Achievement Award of the Association of itself is a unit andreacts readily to certain changesin the University Women,been awarded two honoraryde- environment”(DEMEREC 1951). Whatever the gene’s grees, and been a member of theNational Academy of precise molecularnature, the working model of the Sciences for seven years. “The influence of her early gene was of a unitary entity that acted independently to work is greater than that of any of her peers, with the produce a physiologically active molecule. While many possible exception ofAL.FRED STURTEVANT,” wrote NINA at the time recognized that it was an oversimplification, FEDOROFFand DAVIDBOTSTEIN. “Had she done no the view of the genomeas a static, linear series of partic- Perspectives 1163 ulate, independently acting genes proved so successful of the original gene” (GOLDSCHMIDT 1951, p. 1). in explaining genetic observations and generating new Though he cited examples drawn from work on muta- experiments that few had cause to doubt it. ble genes in Drosophila and other organisms, promi- One who did doubt it was R~CHARDGOLDSCHMIDT. nent among GOLDSCHMIDT’Sremarks are several glow- For decades, GOLDSCHMIDT had been a gadfly to the ing mentions of MCCLINTOCK’Sdescription of the Ac/ genetics community. Brilliant and cantankerous, GOLD- Ds system in maize. For GOLDSCHMIDT, transposable ele- SCHMIDT delighted in challenging assumptions and ments provided a shining example of position effects pointing out logical inconsistencies in the evolving ge- and a dynamic genome. He referred to transposable netic theory. Since 1938, GOLDSCHMIDThad been ar- elements as “invisible” (i.e., submicroscopic) rear- guing against the theory of the gene. His observations rangements and position effects. To his fullsatisfaction, of Bar eye in Drosophila led him to conclude that the MCCLINTOCKhad proved that in Zea, “mutable loci are chromosome, not the gene,was the unitary element of actually position effects produced by genetically con- heredity (GOLDSCHMIDT1938; DUNN1965). GOLD- trolled and repeating transpositions and transloca- SCHMIDT argued from translocation data that the posi- tions” (GOLDSCHMIDT1951, p. 4). GOLDSCHMIDT waxed tion of a locus on the chromosome determined its func- poetic in his analogy for how genetic function derived tion. When a locus moved to a differentsite, its function from position: “If the A-string on a violin is stopped an changed. GOLDSCHMIDTargued in 1938 that “the whole inch from the end the tone C is produced. Something conception of the gene”was “obsolete.” GOLDSCHMIDT has been done to a locus in the string, it has been and BEADLEtook up opposing sides in a debate that changed in regard to its function. But nobody would lasted over a decade. GOLDSCHMIDT’Swas a dynamic conclude that there is a Gbody at that point” (GOLD- genome, not a static one. By playing the devil’s advo- SCHMIDT 1951, p. 7).MCCLINTOCK’S data must have cate, GOLDSCHMIDTforced geneticists to reconsider seemed a godsend to GOLDSCHMIDT,an example tailor- their assumptions. Though his style was combative and made to support his attack on the gene concept.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Correlation of Cytological and Genetical Crossing-Over in Zea Mays. PNAS 17:492–497
    A CORRELATION OF CYTOLOGICAL AND GENETICAL CROSSING-OVER IN ZEA MAYS HARRIET B. CREIGHTON BARBARA MCCLINTOCK Botany Department Cornell University Ithaca, New York Creighton, H., and McClintock, B. 1931 A correlation of cytological and genetical crossing-over in Zea mays. PNAS 17:492–497. E S P Electronic Scholarly Publishing http://www.esp.org Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project Foundations Series –– Classical Genetics Series Editor: Robert J. Robbins The ESP Foundations of Classical Genetics project has received support from the ELSI component of the United States Department of Energy Human Genome Project. ESP also welcomes help from volunteers and collaborators, who recommend works for publication, provide access to original materials, and assist with technical and production work. If you are interested in volunteering, or are otherwise interested in the project, contact the series editor: [email protected]. Bibliographical Note This ESP edition, first electronically published in 2003 and subsequently revised in 2018, is a newly typeset, unabridged version, based on the 1931 edition published by The National Academy of Sciences. Unless explicitly noted, all footnotes and endnotes are as they appeared in the original work. Some of the graphics have been redone for this electronic version. Production Credits Scanning of originals: ESP staff OCRing of originals: ESP staff Typesetting: ESP staff Proofreading/Copyediting: ESP staff Graphics work: ESP staff Copyfitting/Final production: ESP staff © 2003, 2018 Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project http://www.esp.org This electronic edition is made freely available for educational or scholarly purposes, provided that this copyright notice is included. The manuscript may not be reprinted or redistributed for commercial purposes without permission.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction and Historical Perspective
    Chapter 1 Introduction and Historical Perspective “ Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. ” modified by the developmental history of the organism, Theodosius Dobzhansky its physiology – from cellular to systems levels – and by the social and physical environment. Finally, behaviors are shaped through evolutionary forces of natural selection OVERVIEW that optimize survival and reproduction ( Figure 1.1 ). Truly, the study of behavior provides us with a window through Behavioral genetics aims to understand the genetic which we can view much of biology. mechanisms that enable the nervous system to direct Understanding behaviors requires a multidisciplinary appropriate interactions between organisms and their perspective, with regulation of gene expression at its core. social and physical environments. Early scientific The emerging field of behavioral genetics is still taking explorations of animal behavior defined the fields shape and its boundaries are still being defined. Behavioral of experimental psychology and classical ethology. genetics has evolved through the merger of experimental Behavioral genetics has emerged as an interdisciplin- psychology and classical ethology with evolutionary biol- ary science at the interface of experimental psychology, ogy and genetics, and also incorporates aspects of neuro- classical ethology, genetics, and neuroscience. This science ( Figure 1.2 ). To gain a perspective on the current chapter provides a brief overview of the emergence of definition of this field, it is helpful
    [Show full text]
  • Barbara Mcclintock's World
    Barbara McClintock’s World Timeline adapted from Dolan DNA Learning Center exhibition 1902-1908 Barbara McClintock is born in Hartford, Connecticut, the third of four children of Sarah and Thomas Henry McClintock, a physician. She spends periods of her childhood in Massachusetts with her paternal aunt and uncle. Barbara at about age five. This prim and proper picture betrays the fact that she was, in fact, a self-reliant tomboy. Barbara’s individualism and self-sufficiency was apparent even in infancy. When Barbara was four months old, her parents changed her birth name, Eleanor, which they considered too delicate and feminine for such a rugged child. In grade school, Barbara persuaded her mother to have matching bloomers (shorts) made for her dresses – so she could more easily join her brother Tom in tree climbing, baseball, volleyball, My father tells me that at the and football. age of five I asked for a set of tools. He My mother used to did not get me the tools that you get for an adult; he put a pillow on the floor and give got me tools that would fit in my hands, and I didn’t me one toy and just leave me there. think they were adequate. Though I didn’t want to tell She said I didn’t cry, didn’t call for him that, they were not the tools I wanted. I wanted anything. real tools not tools for children. 1908-1918 McClintock’s family moves to Brooklyn in 1908, where she attends elementary and secondary school. In 1918, she graduates one semester early from Erasmus Hall High School in Brooklyn.
    [Show full text]
  • Barbara Mcclintock
    Barbara McClintock Lee B. Kass and Paul Chomet Abstract Barbara McClintock, pioneering plant geneticist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983, is best known for her discovery of transposable genetic elements in corn. This chapter provides an overview of many of her key findings, some of which have been outlined and described elsewhere. We also provide a new look at McClintock’s early contributions, based on our readings of her primary publications and documents found in archives. We expect the reader will gain insight and appreciation for Barbara McClintock’s unique perspective, elegant experiments and unprecedented scientific achievements. 1 Introduction This chapter is focused on the scientific contributions of Barbara McClintock, pioneering plant geneticist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983 for her discovery of transposable genetic elements in corn. Her enlightening experiments and discoveries have been outlined and described in a number of papers and books, so it is not the aim of this report to detail each step in her scientific career and personal life but rather highlight many of her key findings, then refer the reader to the original reports and more detailed reviews. We hope the reader will gain insight and appreciation for Barbara McClintock’s unique perspective, elegant experiments and unprecedented scientific achievements. Barbara McClintock (1902–1992) was born in Hartford Connecticut and raised in Brooklyn, New York (Keller 1983). She received her undergraduate and graduate education at the New York State College of Agriculture at Cornell University. In 1923, McClintock was awarded the B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chromosomal Theory and Genetic Linkage
    362 Chapter 13 | Modern Understandings of Inheritance 13.1 | Chromosomal Theory and Genetic Linkage By the end of this section, you will be able to do the following: • Discuss Sutton’s Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance • Describe genetic linkage • Explain the process of homologous recombination, or crossing over • Describe chromosome creation • Calculate the distances between three genes on a chromosome using a three-point test cross Long before scientists visualized chromosomes under a microscope, the father of modern genetics, Gregor Mendel, began studying heredity in 1843. With improved microscopic techniques during the late 1800s, cell biologists could stain and visualize subcellular structures with dyes and observe their actions during cell division and meiosis. With each mitotic division, chromosomes replicated, condensed from an amorphous (no constant shape) nuclear mass into distinct X-shaped bodies (pairs of identical sister chromatids), and migrated to separate cellular poles. Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance The speculation that chromosomes might be the key to understanding heredity led several scientists to examine Mendel’s publications and reevaluate his model in terms of chromosome behavior during mitosis and meiosis. In 1902, Theodor Boveri observed that proper sea urchin embryonic development does not occur unless chromosomes are present. That same year, Walter Sutton observed chromosome separation into daughter cells during meiosis (Figure 13.2). Together, these observations led to the Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance, which identified chromosomes as the genetic material responsible for Mendelian inheritance. Figure 13.2 (a) Walter Sutton and (b) Theodor Boveri developed the Chromosomal Theory of Inheritance, which states that chromosomes carry the unit of heredity (genes).
    [Show full text]
  • Alfred Henry Sturtevant (1891–1970) [1]
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Alfred Henry Sturtevant (1891–1970) [1] By: Gleason, Kevin Keywords: Thomas Hunt Morgan [2] Drosophila [3] Alfred Henry Sturtevant studied heredity in fruit flies in the US throughout the twentieth century. From 1910 to 1928, Sturtevant worked in Thomas Hunt Morgan’s research lab in New York City, New York. Sturtevant, Morgan, and other researchers established that chromosomes play a role in the inheritance of traits. In 1913, as an undergraduate, Sturtevant created one of the earliest genetic maps of a fruit fly chromosome, which showed the relative positions of genes [4] along the chromosome. At the California Institute of Technology [5] in Pasadena, California, he later created one of the firstf ate maps [6], which tracks embryonic cells throughout their development into an adult organism. Sturtevant’s contributions helped scientists explain genetic and cellular processes that affect early organismal development. Sturtevant was born 21 November 1891 in Jacksonville, Illinois, to Harriet Evelyn Morse and Alfred Henry Sturtevant. Sturtevant was the youngest of six children. During Sturtevant’s early childhood, his father taught mathematics at Illinois College in Jacksonville. However, his father left that job to pursue farming, eventually relocating seven-year-old Sturtevant and his family to Mobile, Alabama. In Mobile, Sturtevant attended a single room schoolhouse until he entered a public high school. In 1908, Sturtevant entered Columbia University [7] in New York City, New York. As a sophomore, Sturtevant took an introductory biology course taught by Morgan, who was researching how organisms transfer observable characteristics, such as eye color, to their offspring.
    [Show full text]
  • THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY January 25, 1900-December 18, 1975
    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES T H E O D O S I U S D O B ZHANSKY 1900—1975 A Biographical Memoir by F R A N C I S C O J . A Y A L A Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 1985 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES WASHINGTON D.C. THEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY January 25, 1900-December 18, 1975 BY FRANCISCO J. AYALA HEODOSIUS DOBZHANSKY was born on January 25, 1900 Tin Nemirov, a small town 200 kilometers southeast of Kiev in the Ukraine. He was the only child of Sophia Voinarsky and Grigory Dobrzhansky (precise transliteration of the Russian family name includes the letter "r"), a teacher of high school mathematics. In 1910 the family moved to the outskirts of Kiev, where Dobzhansky lived through the tumultuous years of World War I and the Bolshevik revolu- tion. These were years when the family was at times beset by various privations, including hunger. In his unpublished autobiographical Reminiscences for the Oral History Project of Columbia University, Dobzhansky states that his decision to become a biologist was made around 1912. Through his early high school (Gymnasium) years, Dobzhansky became an avid butterfly collector. A schoolteacher gave him access to a microscope that Dob- zhansky used, particularly during the long winter months. In the winter of 1915—1916, he met Victor Luchnik, a twenty- five-year-old college dropout, who was a dedicated entomol- ogist specializing in Coccinellidae beetles.
    [Show full text]
  • Sriram, a 2016.Pdf
    A mitochondrial ROS signal activates mitochondrial turnover and represses TOR during stress Ashwin Sriram Thesis submitted to the Newcastle University in candidature for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Newcastle University Faculty of Medical Sciences Institute of Cellular and Molecular Biosciences 1 DECLARATION I certify that this thesis is my own work and I have correctly acknowledged the work of collaborators. I also declare that this thesis has not been previously submitted for a degree or any other qualification at this or any other university. Ashwin Sriram July 2016 2 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research work was carried out at the Institute for Cell and Molecular Biosciences and the Institute for Ageing, Newcastle University, Campus for Ageing and Vitality, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom under the supervision of Dr. Alberto Sanz. I owe my deepest of gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Alberto Sanz for giving me an opportunity to carry out this research project in his lab under his esteemed guidance. I am deeply indebted to him especially for the confidence that he always placed in me, his encouragement and support throughout the work. He has contributed a lot to my development as a scientist. A special thanks for all the conversations regarding how science “works”. I would also like to thank him for teaching me most of the techniques that have been implemented in this thesis. I am very grateful to Dr. Filippo Scialo for all his support and help with many experiments that are a part of this thesis. I thank him for all the long discussions in the office and during coffee breaks.
    [Show full text]
  • Outstanding Croatian Scientists in Diaspora
    PERIODICUM BIOLOGORUM UDC 57:61 VOL. 119, No 4, 305–308, 2017 CODEN PDBIAD DOI: 10.18054/pb.v119i4.5140 ISSN 0031-5362 note Outstanding Croatian Scientists in Diaspora Abstract JANKO HERAK Croatian-American Society, Zagreb, Croatia Nine books entitled Distinguished Croatian Scientists in America (two volumes) and Distinguished Croatian Scientists in the World (seven vol- Correspondence: umes), edited by Janko Herak, have been published by the Croatian-Amer- Janko Herak E-mail: [email protected] ican Society in Zagreb. These books present major scientific achievements and essential biographical data of about eighty Croatian scientists. working in prestigious international institutions. The biographies, presented by a separate chapter for each scientist, have been written by domestic or inter- national experts in the respective fields. In the present report we recall just a few scientists and their noted contribution to the international scientific knowledge. It has been emphasized that the achievements of the Croatian scientists working abroad make a part of the Croatian scientific heritage. uring the entire history of mankind, migration of people has been Dquite common. There are numerous reliable written documents witnessing massive, collective translocation of people. Some of those large moves have been observed by still living witnesses. Massive migra- tions have usually been a consequence of war, persecution after a war, or of some sort of natural disaster, giving rise to famine, illnesses or other inconveniences. The Balkan region is a good example for that. In more peaceful times migration has a more individual character, which could also result in emigration of a large number of people, driven mostly by economic and/or political reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of Genomics (1901–1950)*
    Research Resource Timeline of Genomics (1901{1950)* Year Event and Theoretical Implication/Extension Reference 1901 Hugo de Vries adopts the term MUTATION to de Vries, H. 1901. Die Mutationstheorie. describe sudden, spontaneous, drastic alterations in Veit, Leipzig, Germany. the hereditary material of Oenothera. Thomas Harrison Montgomery studies sper- 1. Montgomery, T.H. 1898. The spermato- matogenesis in various species of Hemiptera and ¯nds genesis in Pentatoma up to the formation that maternal chromosomes only pair with paternal of the spermatid. Zool. Jahrb. 12: 1-88. chromosomes during meiosis. 2. Montgomery, T.H. 1901. A study of the chromosomes of the germ cells of the Metazoa. Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 20: 154-236. Clarence Ervin McClung postulates that the so- McClung, C.E. 1901. Notes on the acces- called accessory chromosome (now known as the \X" sory chromosome. Anat. Anz. 20: 220- chromosome) is male determining. 226. Hermann Emil Fischer(1902 Nobel Prize Laure- 1. Fischer, E. and Fourneau, E. 1901. UberÄ ate for Chemistry) and Ernest Fourneau report einige Derivate des Glykocolls. Ber. the synthesis of the ¯rst dipeptide, glycylglycine. In Dtsch. Chem. Ges. 34: 2868-2877. 1902 Fischer introduces the term PEPTIDES. 2. Fischer, E. 1907. Syntheses of polypep- tides. XVII. Ber. Dtsch. Chem. Ges. 40: 1754-1767. 1902 Theodor Boveri and Walter Stanborough Sut- 1. Boveri, T. 1902. UberÄ mehrpolige Mi- ton found the chromosome theory of heredity inde- tosen als Mittel zur Analyse des Zellkerns. pendently. Verh. Phys -med. Ges. WÄurzberg NF 35: 67-90. 2. Boveri, T. 1903. UberÄ die Konstitution der chromatischen Kernsubstanz. Verh. Zool.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018-2019 Update from the ICTV Bacterial and Archaeal Viruses
    Archives of Virology (2020) 165:1253–1260 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-020-04577-8 VIROLOGY DIVISION NEWS: Taxonomy of prokaryotic viruses: 2018‑2019 update from the ICTV Bacterial and Archaeal Viruses Subcommittee Evelien M. Adriaenssens1 · Matthew B. Sullivan2 · Petar Knezevic3 · Leonardo J. van Zyl4 · B. L. Sarkar5 · Bas E. Dutilh6,7 · Poliane Alfenas‑Zerbini8 · Małgorzata Łobocka9 · Yigang Tong10 · James Rodney Brister11 · Andrea I. Moreno Switt12 · Jochen Klumpp13 · Ramy Karam Aziz14 · Jakub Barylski15 · Jumpei Uchiyama16 · Rob A. Edwards17,18 · Andrew M. Kropinski19,20 · Nicola K. Petty21 · Martha R. J. Clokie22 · Alla I. Kushkina23 · Vera V. Morozova24 · Siobain Dufy25 · Annika Gillis26 · Janis Rumnieks27 · İpek Kurtböke28 · Nina Chanishvili29 · Lawrence Goodridge19 · Johannes Wittmann30 · Rob Lavigne31 · Ho Bin Jang32 · David Prangishvili33,34 · Francois Enault35 · Dann Turner36 · Minna M. Poranen37 · Hanna M. Oksanen37 · Mart Krupovic33 Published online: 11 March 2020 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2020 Abstract This article is a summary of the activities of the ICTV’s Bacterial and Archaeal Viruses Subcommittee for the years 2018 and 2019. Highlights include the creation of a new order, 10 families, 22 subfamilies, 424 genera and 964 species. Some of our concerns about the ICTV’s ability to adjust to and incorporate new DNA- and protein-based taxonomic tools are discussed. Introduction Taxonomic updates The prokaryotic virus community is represented in the Inter- Over the past two years, our subcommittee
    [Show full text]
  • Nabokov's Evolution
    Nabokov's Evolution JAMES MALLET Nabokov: The highest enjoyment is when I stand among rare butterfiies and their food plants. This is ecstasy, a sense of oneness with sun and stone. Interviewer: Is there any connection [of lepidoptery J with your writing? Nabokov: There is in a general way because I think that in a work of art there is a kind of merging between the two things, between the precision of poetry and the excitement of pure science. - Emma Boswell, How Do You Solve a Problem Like Lolita? Much has been written on Nabokov's views on evolution, the origin of species, and, es­ pecially, mimicry in nature. Nabokov scholars hold a diversity of opinions, veering from defending Nabokov's heterodox beliefs about evolution to criticizing him for not fully ac­ cepting the modern evolutionary synthesis developed in the i93os and i94os in Europe and North America. Nabokov the scientist was maybe a little old-fashioned in his methodology, even for his time, concerned mainly with morphological systematics. He evinced a profound dislike for applying statistics to his science. Nabokov furiously rejected a statistical criticism by F. Martin Brown of his work on "scale rows," a method he invented for the study of ple­ bejine butterflies.1 His lack of appreciation of applied mathematical theories of evolution probably ensured that he could not form a strong opinion about the works of Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright, the founders of the modern synthesis of Mendelian ge­ netics and Darwinian natural selection. However, Nabokov would certainly not have been alone among biologists of his time in his contempt for the modernization of biological sci­ ence and, in particular, of mathematical or genetic approaches to systematics.2 Nabokov certainly understood much better the later part of the modern synthesis on species concepts and speciation, beginning in 1937 and continuing in the early i94os largely by another triumvirate.
    [Show full text]