DOCSLIB.ORG

Curriculum Vitae John J. Wiens

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Curriculum Vitae John J. Wiens Wiens-C.V. page 1 of 35 25 March, 2018 Curriculum Vitae John J. Wiens Present address: Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 Web-page: http://wienslab.com/Home.html Research interests: (1) Phylogenetic approaches to evolution and ecology (2) Systematic theory and methodology (3) Phylogeny, evolution, and ecology of reptiles and amphibians Education: The University of Kansas, B.S. in Systematics and Ecology, 1991 Senior Honors Thesis: “Phylogenetic position and relationships of the tree lizards (genus Urosaurus)” Supervisor: William E. Duellman The University of Texas at Austin, Ph.D. in Zoology, 1995 Dissertation Title: “Phylogeny of the lizard genus Sceloporus: Systematics, evolutionary morphology, and evaluation of phylogenetic approaches.” Supervisors: David C. Cannatella and David M. Hillis Professional experience: 2013–present, Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona 2006–2012, Associate Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University 2003–2006, Assistant Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University 2001–2002, Associate Curator, Section of Amphibians and Reptiles, Carnegie Museum of Natural History 2000–2002, Supervisor, Molecular Systematics Laboratory, Carnegie Museum of Natural History 1996–2001, Adjunct Professor, Department of Biology, University of Pittsburgh 1995–2001, Assistant Curator, Section of Amphibians and Reptiles, Carnegie Museum of Natural History 1991–95, NSF Graduate Fellow, University of Texas at Austin. 1993–94, Graduate Teaching Assistant, University of Texas at Austin. 1987–91, Undergraduate Research Assistant, Division of Herpetology, University of Kansas Museum of Natural History. Teaching experience: Herpetology (Ecol483), University of Arizona, spring 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016. Wiens-C.V. page 2 of 35 Graduate seminar (Ecol586) “Macroecology, macroevoution, and speciation” University of Arizona, fall 2014, 2015, 2016 Herpetology (Bio 348; Undergraduate; “Diversity and evolution of reptiles and amphibians”), Stony Brook University, spring 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011 Evolution (BEE 551; Graduate level), Stony Brook University, fall 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 Evolution (BIO 354; Undergraduate), Stony Brook University, fall 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009 Graduate seminar on evolutionary and ecological responses to climate change, Stony Brook University, fall 2011 Graduate seminar on evolution and species interactions, Stony Brook University, spring 2007 Graduate seminar on species richness, Stony Brook University, spring 2003 Phylogenetics, University of Pittsburgh, fall 1996, 2000 Herpetology, Pymatuning Laboratory of Ecology, University of Pittsburgh, summer 1996 Teaching Assistant for: Herpetology, Comparative Anatomy, Structure and Function of Organisms (Univ. Texas; 1993-1994) Graduate student direction (major advisor): Cristian Roman-Palacios (Ph.D. program, Univ. Arizona, started fall 2016) Elizabeth Miller (Ph.D. program, Univ. Arizona, started fall 2014; NSF Graduate Fellow) Shea Lambert (Ph.D. program, Univ. Arizona, started fall 2011 at Stony Brook; NSF Graduate Fellow) Xia Hua (Ph.D., Stony Brook, 2012); currently Postdoctoral Researcher at Australian National University (with Lindell Bromham) M.-Caitlin Fisher-Reid (Ph.D., Stony Brook, 2012); currently Assistant Professor, Bridgewater State University Dan Moen (Ph.D., Stony Brook, 2012; NSF Graduate Fellow); currently Assistant Professor at Oklahoma State University Patrick Stephens (Ph.D., Stony Brook, 2005); currently Research Assistant Professor at Univ. Georgia Carl Hutter (M.A., Stony Brook, 2012); currently Ph.D. program at Univ. Kansas Antonin Machac (M.A., Stony Brook, 2012); currently Ph.D. program at Stony Brook Univ. Scott David (M.A., Stony Brook, 2012) Zachary Chejanovski (M.A., Stony Brook, 2012); currently Ph.D. program at Univ. Rhode Island Nathan Butler (M.A., Stony Brook, 2011) Allison Onstine (M.A., Stony Brook, 2011) Carolina Ulloa (M.A., Stony Brook, 2011) Christina Wolfe (M.A., Stony Brook, 2004) Graduate committee: Arizona: Alice Cang: Ph.D., EEB; Joseph Charboneau: Ph.D., EEB; Zheng Li, Ph.D., EEB. Antonio Gomez (Master’s, Dept. Entomology; 2014); Chris Wiens-C.V. page 3 of 35 Gurguis, Master’s, EEB (2014); Tim O’Connor: Master’s, EEB (2015); Samantha Anderson, Master’s, EEB (2016); Stony Brook: Mireya Mayor, Ph.D. 2008 (Dept. Anthropology); Shu-Dan Yeh, Ph.D. 2009 (Dept. Ecology & Evolution). Pittsburgh: Charles Welsh, Univ. of Pittsburgh, Ph.D. 1997 External: James Austin, Queens Univ., Ontario, Ph.D. 2003 (now Assistant Professor, Univ. Florida); Frank Fontanella, City Univ. New York, Ph.D. 2009; Alex Pyron, City Univ. New York, Ph.D. 2009; Allyson Fenwick- Modra, Univ. Central Florida, Ph.D. 2012; Daniel Scantlebury, Rochester Univ., Ph.D. 2014 External examiner (Ph.D.): S. P. Vijayakumar, Centre for Ecological Studies, Indian Institute of Science (2013) External examiner (Ph.D.): Julie-Lee Yaw, University of British Columbia (2013) External examiner (Master’s): Elkin Tenorio, Universidad de Los Andes, Colombia (2013) Postdoctoral direction: Daniel Portik (2017): current Zhou Chen (2017): current Tania Hernandez (2015–2017): currenty researcher at LANGEBIO (Laboratorio Nacional de Genómica para la Biodiversidad) in Irapuato, Mexico Tereza Jezkova (2015–2017): currently Assistant Professor at Miami University, Ohio Jeff Streicher (2013–2014); currently Assistant Curator at British Museum of Natural History Alex Pyron (2009–2010); currently Assistant Professor, George Washington University Windsor Aguirre (2007–2009); currently Associate Professor, DePaul University Kenneth Kozak (2005–2007); currently Associate Professor, University of Minnesota Sarah Smith (2004–2006); currently living in Australia Tag Engstrom (2003–2004); currently Associate Professor, California State University at Chico James Fetzner (2001–2002); currently Assistant Curator, Invertebrate Zoology, Carnegie Museum of Natural History Robert Espinoza (2000–2001); currently Professor, California State University at Northridge Christopher Parkinson (2000–2001); currently Professor, University of Central Florida Visiting foreign students and scientists (partial list): Pablo Guerrero (Chile; Fullbright Fellow; Univ. Chile)–2010 Serkan Gul (Turkey)–2010–2011 Thomas Blankers (Netherlands; Amsterdam Univ.)–2011 Greta Carrete-Vega (Spain)–2011 Rubi Nelsi Meza-Lazaro (Mexico; Ph.D. student; UNAM)–2011 Ignacio Quintero (Colombia; postgraduate: Univ. de los Andes)–2011 Wiens-C.V. page 4 of 35 Virginia Valcarcel (Spain; postdoctoral researcher)–2012 Cendy Zeng (China; undergraduate Fudan Univ.)–2012 Nelsy Rocio Pinto Sanchez (Colombia; Univ. de los Andes)–2012 Maria Fernanda Bonetti (Brazil: Ph.D. student, Univ. Federal do Paraná)–2013 Yuchi Zheng (China; Chengdu Institute Biology; sabbatical visitor)–2014 Lucas Barrientos (Colombia: Ph.D. student: Univ. de los Andes)–2014 Victoria Souza (Brazil: Ph.D. student: Univ. Federal de Goiás)–2014–2015 Uri Omar Garcia (Mexico: Ph.D. student; UNAM)–2015 Adrian Nieto Montes de Oca (Mexico: Professor: UNAM)–2015 Andreas Meyer (Brazil: Ph.D. student: Univ. Federal do Parana)–2015–2016 Longhui Lin (China: Hangzhou University; sabbatical visitor)–2015 Melissa Bars-Closel (Brazil; Ph.D. student; Universidade de Sao Paulo)–2015–2016 Yan Haifei (China: South China Botanical Garden; sabbatical visitor)–2015–2016 Tiangang Gao (China: State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Beijing; sabbatical visitor)–2016 Dongyuan Song (China, Fudan University, undergraduate)–2016 Kenji Hayashi (Brown University, undergraduate)–2016 Lian Chen (China, Jiangsu Second Normal University; sabbatical visitor)–2016–2017 Hong Li (China, Nanjing Normal University; sabbatical visitor)–2016–2017 Weiwei Zhou (China, Kunming Institute of Zoology; visiting scientist)–2017- 2018 Peng Li (China, Nanjing Normal University; visiting scientist)–2017–2018 Yan-Fu Qu (China, Nanjing Normal University; visiting scientist)–2018–2019 Workshops given Macroecology and macroevolution winter course (1 week, December 2014; École Normale Supérieure, Paris; co-taught with Brian Enquist and Neo Martinez) Phylogenetic and comparative methods (~2 weeks; Santiago, Chile, October 2011; with Pablo Guerrero) Comparative methods in R (1 day; Leiden, The Netherlands, fall 2010) Phylogenetic and comparative methods (2 weeks; Mysore, India, summer 2006; with R. Geeta) Field experience: Approximately 13 months over various trips to Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, Argentina, and Madagascar, with more limited experience in Brazil, China, France, India, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Panama, Spain, and Taiwan. Extensive experience in the U.S. Professional service: Editor-in-Chief, Quarterly Review of Biology, 2007–2010 Editor, Quarterly Review of Biology, 2006–2007, 2010–present Associate Editor, Ecology Letters, 2009–present Associate Editor, BMC Evolutionary Biology, 2011–2014 Associate Editor, Ecography, 2007–2009 Wiens-C.V. page 5 of 35 Associate Editor, American Naturalist, 2005–2009 Associate Editor, Evolution, 2001–2003 Associate Editor, Systematic Biology, 1996–2000 Associate Editor, Herpetologica, 1996–2000 Editorial Board, Systematic Biology, 1995–1996 Editorial Board, Copeia, 1999–2008 Editorial Board, Journal of Herpetology, 2001–present Editorial Advisory Board, Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad, 2005–present Academic Editor, PLoS Biology (2014) Guest Editor, Proceedings Natl. Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. (2010, 2015, 2017) Ad Hoc Associate
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Mesozoic Era Alvarez, W.(1997)
    Alles Introductory Biology: Illustrated Lecture Presentations Instructor David L. Alles Western Washington University ----------------------- Part Three: The Integration of Biological Knowledge Vertebrate Evolution in the Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic Eras ----------------------- Vertebrate Evolution in the Late Paleozoic and Mesozoic • Amphibians to Reptiles Internal Fertilization, the Amniotic Egg, and a Water-Tight Skin • The Adaptive Radiation of Reptiles from Scales to Hair and Feathers • Therapsids to Mammals • Dinosaurs to Birds Ectothermy to Endothermy The Evolution of Reptiles The Phanerozoic Eon 444 365 251 Paleozoic Era 542 m.y.a. 488 416 360 299 Camb. Ordov. Sil. Devo. Carbon. Perm. Cambrian Pikaia Fish Fish First First Explosion w/o jaws w/ jaws Amphibians Reptiles 210 65 Mesozoic Era 251 200 180 150 145 Triassic Jurassic Cretaceous First First First T. rex Dinosaurs Mammals Birds Cenozoic Era Last Ice Age 65 56 34 23 5 1.8 0.01 Paleo. Eocene Oligo. Miocene Plio. Ple. Present Early Primate First New First First Modern Cantius World Monkeys Apes Hominins Humans A modern Amphibian—the toad A modern day Reptile—a skink, note the finely outlined scales. A Comparison of Amphibian and Reptile Reproduction The oldest known reptile is Hylonomus lyelli dating to ~ 320 m.y.a.. The earliest or stem reptiles radiated into therapsids leading to mammals, and archosaurs leading to all the other reptile groups including the thecodontians, ancestors of the dinosaurs. Dimetrodon, a Mammal-like Reptile of the Early Permian Dicynodonts were a group of therapsids of the late Permian. Web Reference http://www.museums.org.za/sam/resource/palaeo/cluver/index.html Therapsids experienced an adaptive radiation during the Permian, but suffered heavy extinctions during the end Permian mass extinction.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of Reptiles
    Evolution of Reptiles: Reptiles were 1st vertebrates to make a complete transition to life on land (more food & space) Arose from ancestral reptile group called cotylosaurs (small, lizard like reptile) Cotylosaurs adapted to other environments in Permian period 1. Pterosaurs – flying reptiles 2. Ichthyosaurs & plesiosaurs – marine reptiles 3. Thecodonts – small, land reptiles that walked on back legs Mesozoic Era called “age of reptiles” Dinosaurs dominated life on land for 160 million years Brachiosaurs were largest dinosaurs Herbivores included Brontosaurus & Diplodocus, while Tyrannosaurus were carnivores Dinosaurs became extinct at end of Cretaceous period Mass extinction of many animal species possibly due to impact of huge asteroid with earth; Asteroid Impact Theory Amniote (shelled) egg allowed reptiles to live & reproduce on land Amniote Egg: Egg had protective membranes & porous shell enclosing the embryo Has 4 specialized membranes — amnion, yolk sac, allantois, & chorion Amnion is a thin membrane surrounding a salty fluid in which the embryo “floats” Yolk sac encloses the yolk or protein-rich food supply for embryo Allantois stores nitrogenous wastes made by embryo until egg hatches Chorion lines the inside of the shell & regulates oxygen & carbon dioxide exchange Shell leathery & waterproof Internal fertilization occurs in female before shell is formed Terrestrial Adaptations: Dry, watertight skin covered by scales made of a protein called keratin to prevent desiccation (water loss) Toes with claws to
    [Show full text]
  • 29 | Vertebrates 791 29 | VERTEBRATES
    Chapter 29 | Vertebrates 791 29 | VERTEBRATES Figure 29.1 Examples of critically endangered vertebrate species include (a) the Siberian tiger (Panthera tigris), (b) the mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei), and (c) the Philippine eagle (Pithecophega jefferyi). (credit a: modification of work by Dave Pape; credit b: modification of work by Dave Proffer; credit c: modification of work by "cuatrok77"/Flickr) Chapter Outline 29.1: Chordates 29.2: Fishes 29.3: AmphiBians 29.4: Reptiles 29.5: Birds 29.6: Mammals 29.7: The Evolution of Primates Introduction Vertebrates are among the most recognizable organisms of the animal kingdom. More than 62,000 vertebrate species have been identified. The vertebrate species now living represent only a small portion of the vertebrates that have existed. The best-known extinct vertebrates are the dinosaurs, a unique group of reptiles, which reached sizes not seen before or after in terrestrial animals. They were the dominant terrestrial animals for 150 million years, until they died out in a mass extinction near the end of the Cretaceous period. Although it is not known with certainty what caused their extinction, a great deal is known about the anatomy of the dinosaurs, given the preservation of skeletal elements in the fossil record. Currently, a number of vertebrate species face extinction primarily due to habitat loss and pollution. According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, more than 6,000 vertebrate species are classified as threatened. Amphibians and mammals are the classes with the greatest percentage of threatened species, with 29 percent of all amphibians and 21 percent of all mammals classified as threatened.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Speciation Is a Burning Issue in Evolutionary Biology, but It
    Introduction Speciation is a burning issue in evolutionary biology, but it is both fascinating and frustrating. Defining speciation depends on one’s species concept viz., typological, biological, evolutionary, recognition etc. In its simplest form, speciation is lineage splitting (ancestor-descendent sequence of populations); the resulting lineages are genetically isolated and ecologically distinct. Speciation is the process of evolutionary mechanism by which new biological species (or taxa) arise. There are two ways of new species (or taxa) origin from the pre-existing one:- i. by splitting of the parent species into two or more species (by the splitting of phylogenetic lineage) and ii. by transformation of the old species into a new one in due course of time. The Biologist O.F. Cook (1906) seems to have been the first to coin the term ‘speciation’ for the splitting of lineages (cladogenesis).The process of evolutionary mechanism by which new biological plant species (or taxa) arise, is known as plant speciation. General Mechanism of Speciation operating in nature: The mechanism of speciation is a two- staged process in which reproductive isolating mechanisms (RIM's) arise between groups of populations. Stage 1 • gene flow is interrupted between two populations. • absence of gene flow allows two populations to become genetically distinct as a result of their adaptation to different local conditions (genetic drift plays an important role here). • as populations differentiate, RIMs appear because different gene pools are not mutually coadapted. • reproductive isolation appears primarily in the form of postzygotic RIMs: hybrid failure. • these early RIMs are a byproduct of genetic differentiation, not directly promoted by natural selection.
    [Show full text]
  • Tetrapod Phylogeny
    © J989 Elsevier Science Publishers B. V. (Biomédical Division) The Hierarchy of Life B. Fernholm, K. Bremer and H. Jörnvall, editors 337 CHAPTER 25 Tetrapod phylogeny JACQUES GAUTHIER', DAVID CANNATELLA^, KEVIN DE QUEIROZ^, ARNOLD G. KLUGE* and TIMOTHY ROWE^ ' Deparlmenl qf Herpelology, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA 94118, U.S.A., ^Museum of Natural Sciences and Department of Biology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, U.S.A., ^Department of ^oology and Museum of Vertebrate ^oology. University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A., 'Museum of ^oology and Department of Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, U.S.A. and ^Department of Geological Sciences, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78713, U.S.A. Introduction Early sarcopterygians were aquatic, but from the latter part of the Carboniferous on- ward that group has been dominated by terrestrial forms commonly known as the tet- rapods. Fig. 1 illustrates relationships among extant Tetrápoda [1-4J. As the clado- grams in Figs. 2•20 demonstrate, however, extant groups represent only a small part of the taxonomic and morphologic diversity of Tetrápoda. We hope to convey some appreciation for the broad outlines of tetrapod evolution during its 300+ million year history from late Mississippian to Recent times. In doing so, we summarize trees de- rived from the distribution of over 972 characters among 83 terminal taxa of Tetrápo- da. More than 90% of the terminal taxa we discuss are extinct, but all of the subter- minal taxa are represented in the extant biota. This enables us to emphasize the origins of living tetrapod groups while giving due consideration to the diversity and antiquity of the clades of which they are a part.
    [Show full text]
  • Diagnosis of the Class Mammalia
    FAUNA of AUSTRALIA 14. DIAGNOSIS OF THE CLASS MAMMALIA WILLIAM A. CLEMENS 1 14. DIAGNOSIS OF THE CLASS MAMMALIA 2 14. DIAGNOSIS OF THE CLASS MAMMALIA INTRODUCTION These days, the production of new definitions of the Class Mammalia appears to be a healthy cottage industry. The products vary according to the different philosophies of classification espoused by their authors and the applications for which they are intended. Here, I shall discuss classifications that may be appropriate for two different types of inquiries: First are definitions of the Class for the purposes of comparing members of the Mammalia with members of other groups of comparable rank, especially Reptilia or Aves. Assessment of the fidelity with which a classification represents patterns and rates of evolution is particularly important when studies emphasise comparison of characters of modern members of the classes. Second, other definitions have been proposed for the purpose of circumscribing the Mammalia and distinguishing its membership from the animals that usually are dubbed the ‘mammal-like reptiles’. These commonly are based on a foundation made up of the living mammals – monotremes, marsupials and eutherians. Then, on different criteria, related prehistoric species are included. In some, membership is strictly defined to include only modern mammals, their last common ancestor and members of all extinct lineages derived from that common ancestor. Other definitions have been variously designed to recognise the origin of a mammalian grade of evolution, typus or Bauplan with a specific character or suite of characters arbitrarily chosen to define membership. A survey of the classifications produced by these different approaches shows that in both the apparent common ancestors of all living mammals usually are included in the Class.
    [Show full text]
  • Genomic Evidence of Adaptive Evolution in the Reptilian SOCS Gene Family
    Genomic evidence of adaptive evolution in the reptilian SOCS gene family Tian Xia, Lei Zhang, Guolei Sun, Xiufeng Yang and Honghai Zhang College of Life Science, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, Shandong, China ABSTRACT The suppressor of the cytokine signaling (SOCS) family of proteins play an essential role in inhibiting cytokine receptor signaling by regulating immune signal pathways. Although SOCS gene functions have been examined extensively, no comprehensive study has been performed on this gene family’s molecular evolution in reptiles. In this study, we identified eight canonical SOCS genes using recently-published reptilian genomes. We used phylogenetic analysis to determine that the SOCS genes had highly conserved evolutionary dynamics that we classified into two types. We identified positive SOCS4 selection signals in whole reptile lineages and SOCS2 selection signals in the crocodilian lineage. Selective pressure analyses using the branch model and Z-test revealed that these genes were under different negative selection pressures compared to reptile lineages. We also concluded that the nature of selection pressure varies across different reptile lineages on SOCS3, and the crocodilian lineage has experienced rapid evolution. Our results may provide a theoretical foundation for further analyses of reptilian SOCS genes’ functional and molecular mechanisms, as well as their roles in reptile growth and development. Subjects Bioinformatics, Evolutionary Studies, Genomics, Molecular Biology, Zoology Keywords SOCS gene family, PAML, Reptiles, Adaptive evolution INTRODUCTION Cytokines are multifunctional proteins and essential intercellular regulators that are 2 December 2020 Submitted involved in innate and adaptive inflammatory organism defense, cell development, and Accepted 4 June 2021 Published 24 June 2021 repair processes via different signaling mechanisms (Oppenheim, 2001).
    [Show full text]
  • 1982) Criticized the Methods of Phylogenetic (Cladis- Thyridae" (= Protorothyrididae
    Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 4(4):604-608, December 1984 PHYLOGENETIC METHODS AND THE EARLY HISTORY OF AMNIOTES In a recent review of early amniote evolution, Carroll groups must have arisen within Carroll's "Protoro- (1982) criticized the methods of phylogenetic (cladis- thyridae" (= Protorothyrididae). Carroll, however, is tic, Hennigian) systematics. Specifically, he concluded concerned with entirely different characters, specifi- that several of the most important assumptions of this cally, those "in which the most primitive known mem- methodology were contradicted by the evidence from bers of each of the derived groups are more advanced early amniotes and that these contradictions resulted than the protowthyrids" (Carroll, 1982:100, italics from the evolutionary process of adaptive radiation in added). But if all the other groups of early amniotes this group. Our opinions concerning the utility of the are derived independently from "protorothyrids," then phylogenetic method contrast strongly with those of any such derived characters shared by two or more of Dr. Carroll. We feel that the problems he encountered these groups must by definition be convergent. There- result from his misunderstanding of the phylogenetic fore, we do not find it suprising that Carroll (1982:102) method rather than from inadequacies of this method finds no obvious congruence among these characters. itself Dr. Carroll is one of the most knowledgable stu- Critics of the phylogenetic method (Mayr, 1981; dents of early amniote evolution; here we present nei- Carroll, 1982) argue that evolutionary parallelism and ther a detailed reanalysis of his characters nor a precise convergence pose particular problems for this method. alternative to his phylogeny of this group.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Vertebrates
    Vertebrates Chapter 34 • Objectives • List the derived traits for: chordates, craniates, vertebrates, gnathostomes, tetrapods, amniotes, birds, mammals, primates, humans • Explain what Haikouella and Myllokunmingia tell us about craniate evolution • Describe the trends in mineralized structures in early vertebrates • Describe and distinguish between Chondrichthyes and Osteichthyes, noting the main traits of each group • Define and distinguish among gnathostomes, tetrapods, and amniotes 2 • Describe an amniotic egg and explain its significance in the evolution of reptiles and mammals • Explain why the reptile clade includes birds • Explain the significance of Archaeopteryx • Distinguish among monotreme, marsupial, and eutherian mammals • Define the term hominin • Describe the evolution of Homo sapiens from australopith ancestors, and clarify the order in which distinctive human traits arose • Explain the significance of the FOXP2 gene 3 1 Introduction • Half a Billion Years of Backbones – By the end of the Cambrian period, some 540 million years ago an astonishing variety of animals inhabited Earth’s oceans – One of these types of animals gave rise to vertebrates, one of the most successful groups of animals 4 • The animals called vertebrates get their name from vertebrae, the series of bones that make up the backbone • There are approximately 52,000 species of vertebrates which include the largest organisms ever to live on the Earth 6 2 Chordates have a notochord and a dorsal, hollow nerve cord • Vertebrates are a subphylum of the phylum
    [Show full text]
  • Eric R. Pianka
    Eric R. Pianka Mailing Address and Phone Numbers Integrative Biology C0930, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1064 Office Phone (512) 471-7472; FAX (512) 471-3878 World Wide Web Home Page: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus Entry in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Pianka Google Profile: https://plus.google.com/109976390817187224813/about Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=E5y_8wIAAAAJ&hl=en Birth Date and Place January 23, 1939; Hilt, Siskiyou County, California Academic Training B. A., (Biology), Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota, 1960 Ph. D., (Zoology), University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 1965 D. Sc., (Ecology), University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W. A., 1990 Academic History National Institutes of Health Postdoctoral Fellow, Princeton University and the University of Western Australia, 1965-1968 Assistant Professor of Zoology, University of Texas, 1968-1972 Associate Professor of Zoology, University of Texas, 1972-1977 Professor of Zoology, University of Texas, 1977-1986 Denton A. Cooley Centennial Professor of Zoology, 1986-present (for life) Honors and Awards Ctenotus piankai (Storr 1968) Guggenheim Fellow, 1978. Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1981 Biographee in "American Men and Women of Science" Biographee in "Who's Who in Frontier Science and Technology" Biographee in "Who's Who in America" Biographee in "Who's Who in the World" Denton A. Cooley Centennial Professorship in Zoology, 1986--(for life). Fulbright Senior Research
    [Show full text]
  • Origin & Evolution of Reptiles
    ORIGIN & EVOLUTION OF REPTILES Reptiles evolved from amphibians of Carboniferous period, which depended on water bodies for laying eggs and development of larval stages and hence could not exploit arid habitats far away from water bodies. They invented a large yolk-laden shelled egg that could be laid on land and in which an amniotic sac contained fluid in which embryo could develop to an advanced stage, capable of fending for itself when hatched. The following anatomical changes transformed the ancestral amphibians into land adapted reptiles: Body developed a covering of epidermal scales to prevent loss of body moisture, and skin glands were lost. Skull became monocondylic for better movement and flexibility. Atlas and axis vertebrae together permitted skull movement in all directions. Limb bones and girdles became stronger but limbs were attached on the sides of body, and belly touched the ground during creeping mode of locomotion. Sacral region involved two strong and fused vertebrae to support the body weight on hind legs. Pentadactyle limbs developed claws that helped in climbing on rocks and trees. Lung respiration became more efficient. As a water conservation strategy, metanephros kidneys excreted uric acid which did not require water for excretion. Reptiles continued to be ectothermal since ventricle was not completely partitioned by a septum and blood mixed in heart. Internal fertilization evolved as a large cleioid shelled egg was laid on land. Embryonic membranes amnion, allantois and yolk sac evolved to enable embryonic development in arid conditions. ANCESTORS OF REPTILES THE COTYLOSAURS They were the most primitive stem reptiles that evolved from the labyrithodont amphibians (Embolomeri) in Carboniferous period.
    [Show full text]
  • E Volutionary Divergence of the Reptilian and the Mammalian Brains
    Brain Research Reviews 39 (2002) 141–153 www.elsevier.com/locate/brainresrev Review E volutionary divergence of the reptilian and the mammalian brains: considerations on connectivity and development Francisco Aboitiza,* , Juan Montiel a , Daniver Morales b , Miguel Concha a,c aPrograma de Morfologıa´´, Instituto de Ciencias Biomedicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile bDevelopmental Neurobiology Laboratory, The Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA cDepartment of Anatomy and Developmental Biology, University College, London, UK Accepted 27 June 2002 Abstract The isocortex is a distinctive feature of the mammalian brain, with no clear counterpart in other amniotes. There have been long controversies regarding possible homologues of this structure in reptiles and birds. The brains of the latter are characterized by the presence of a structure termed dorsal ventricular ridge (DVR), which receives ascending auditory and visual projections, and has been postulated to be homologous to parts of the mammalian isocortex (i.e., the auditory and the extrastriate visual cortices). Dissenting views, now supported by molecular evidence, claim that the DVR originates from a region termed ventral pallium, while the isocortex may arise mostly from the dorsal pallium (in mammals, the ventral pallium relates to the claustroamygdaloid complex). Although it is possible that in mammals the embryonic ventral pallium contributes cells to the developing isocortex, there is no evidence yet supporting this alternative. The possibility is raised that the expansion of the cerebral cortex in the origin of mammals was product of a generalized dorsalizing influence in pallial development, at the expense of growth in ventral pallial regions. Importantly, the evidence suggests that organization of sensory projections is significantly different between mammals and sauropsids.
    [Show full text]