==* NO_NEW_SPECIES SPECIATION SPECIES MERITT
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 1992
}- No new species (alternately, "kinds") are evolving today.
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the
United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within
a few decades their populaltions expanded and began to encounter one another
in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied
interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in
the late Fourties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman,
Washington. Although the new species were similliar in appearance to the
hybrids, they pproduced fertile offspring. The evollutionary proces
had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with
the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of
_Scientific_American_. It's called "A Breed Apart."
It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly,
Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn
tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn
apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began
infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed
on either apples or thorn apples, but not both.
There's enough evidence to convince the scientific
investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action.
Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that
speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them
otherwise.
In 1916, a single pair of wallabies escaped from a zoo in Oahu. They survived
and bred in the wild, and now there is a whole population. They are smaller
and more lightly colored than the Aussie wallabies. They eat Hawaiian plants
that are poisonous to the Aussie wallabies, because they evolved a new liver
enzyme to detoxify them. They can no longer breed with the Australian
wallabies, so they qualify as a new species. [Note - the science digest
reference does not indicate that they can no longer breed, although another
reference I have examined indicates that wallabies under similar situations
often do. Anybody got the ref for this specific case? - Max G. Webb]
Sources: "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982
Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984
How can you say that no new species have arisen when dozens of previously
undiscovered species are found each year in Costa Rica alone?
Also, isn't the latest evidence that maize evolved about 4000 years ago?
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Just a smattering of a HUGE database of articles:
(1991 only)
1) Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization
in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume
68(8), pages 1747-1760.
2) Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism,
Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.
3) Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution,
phylogony, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal
of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.
4) Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric,
speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate-
gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.
5) Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination
of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum-raphanifolum, Evolution,
Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.
6) Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated
introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisana Irises, P-NAS-US,
Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.
7) Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation
and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi
superspecies, in Isreal, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.
.... on and on to about #50 if you like...
There are about 100 each for every year before 1991 to 1987 in my
database....
==!
==* SPECIATION COLBY
Article 27165 of talk.origins:
From: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: two new species
Message-ID: <88247@bu.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 92 00:31:12 GMT
References: <9206051421.AA17885@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov> <87999@bu.edu> <1992Jun8.193628.29035@aeras.uucp>
Sender: news@bu.edu
Organization: animal -- coelomate -- deuterostome
Lines: 26
Two new species that have arisen within the past 110 years
are: _Senecio cambrensis_ and _Spartina townsendi_. I found out
about them today when I ran across an article in Heredity. It
also give refs to other speciations in _Asplenium_ as well as
in Louisiana Irises and _Tragopogon_ (the last two have been
discussed on t.o. before).
The gist of the paper was that the species has been
formed more than once (as with the _Tragopogon_ example I
give in the FAQ and with _Aspenium_).
I'm not sure how long it has been since _Asplenium_
speciated (calling Kay Klier -- are you out there?).
Here's the ref:
Ashton and Abbot, 1992, Multiple origins and genetic diversity
in the newly arisen allopolyploid species _Senicio cambrensis_
Rosser (Compositae), Heredity 68:25
Chris Colby --- email: colby@bu-bio.bu.edu ---
"'My boy,' he said, 'you are descended from a long line of determined,
resourceful, microscopic tadpoles--champions every one.'"
--Kurt Vonnegut from "Galapagos"
==!
==* OBSERVED SPECIATION TO_FAQ_SPECIES
From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Wed Mar 25 13:29:32 1992
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 92 13:57:51 EST
From: jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu (James W. Meritt)
Message-Id: <9203251857.AA19935@sun4>
To: elsberry@cse.uta.edu
Status: R
Article 17445 of talk.origins:
>From: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: FAQ: species and creation
Message-ID: <59876@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 11 Dec 91 16:41:01 GMT
References:
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu (Mickey Rowe)
Organization: University of Pennsylvania
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: pender.ee.upenn.edu
In article
anwyn@hrnowl.lonestar.org (Sysop Horned Owl BBS) writes:
>I believe current theory is that birds are descended from saurichian
>dinosaurs rather than ornithischian dinosuars.
Although there is some dispute, this does seem to be the dominant
position amongst paleontologists. In the early '70's, John Ostrom
surveyed many dinosaur finds, and discovered that a specimen thought
to be a _Compsognathus_ had feather imprints around it, and that it
was actually another specimen of _Archaeopteryx_. Although there is
still some debate, and Sankhar Chatterjee's discovery of a more
ancient animal that he named _Protoavis_ has reopened parts of the
discussion, the theropod (and therefore saurischian) origin of birds
is still the most widely accepted. Stay tuned for further
developments, however.
Mickey Rowe (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)
Article 17548 of talk.origins:
>From: lippard@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution won't work
Message-ID: <15DEC199111463651@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu>
Date: 15 Dec 91 18:46:00 GMT
References: <6353.294AE517@ofa123.fidonet.org>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: University of Arizona
Lines: 66
Nntp-Posting-Host: uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
In article <6353.294AE517@ofa123.fidonet.org>, Laurence.Stanley@f1729.n106.z1.fi
donet.org (Laurence Stanley) writes...
>"Speciation" process is part of the unproven evolutionist doctrine.
>There is no documented evidence whatsoever wherein one, viable specie
>has transmutated itself by "evolution", "natural selection", or
>otherwise, into another viable, more-complex specie. If you have any
>new evidence to the contrary to post, I'd like to review it.
First of all, natural selection has clearly been observed, as has the
formation of new subspecies. Why would there be limits to such changes
preventing the formation of new species?
Second, here's an excerpt from Douglas J. Futuyma, _Science on Trial:
The Case for Evolution_ (1982, Pantheon Books), pp. 155-156:
In previous chapters, I described cases in which adaptive genetic
changes such as insecticide resistance or increased body size have
been observed both in the laboratory and in nature. Such changes
don't result in new species, but only a transformation of the
original species, unless the population's willingness or ability to
interbreed with the rest of its species is altered. But alterations
in the ability to interbreed have also been observed many times in the
laboratory, showing that genetic changes leading toward speciation
can happen rather quickly. For example, Theodosius Dobzhansky and
Olga Pavlovsky reported(13) in 1971 that a strain of fruit flies they
collected in Colombia was at first fully interfertile with a strain
collected in the Orinoco Basin. They kept the two stocks separate for
about five years, and then crossed them again. This time the male offspring
were completely sterile. A substantial amount of genetic isolation
had developed in only five years.
A different experiment has been reported by several workers who
have divided a group of flies into separate populations and then
selected the populations so that they developed differences in bristle
number or heat tolerance. After about twenty generations, flies that
have come to differ in these characteristics do not interbreed freely
with one another when they are put together. For some reason, females
come to prefer males of their own kind. It appears, then, that differences
in mating preference may arise as a by-product of other genetic changes
that transpire in populations while they are adapting to different
environments.
No doubt evolution is usually quite a bit slower in the wild, but a
great deal of evidence from nature also indicates that speciation can
occur rapidly. In the Hawaiian Islands, for example, there is a group
of moths found nowhere else. One of the species feeds on a Hawaiian
species of palm. Five other species feed only on banana. But until about
a thousand years ago there were no banana plants in Hawaii. They were
brought there from Polynesia, where the moths do not occur. So these
species must have evolved in the last thousand years.(14) Another
example is that of some cichlid fishes that are found only in a small
lake in Africa separated by a low sandbar from Lake Victoria, where
related species of fish live. Carbon dating of charcoal fragments
in the sandbar has indicated that the sandbar is probably only 4,000
years old, suggesting that the species in the small lake have evolved in
just a few thousand years.(15)
(13) Th. Dobzhansky and O. Pavlovsky, Nature 23:289 (1971).
(14) E. Zimmerman, Evolution 14:137 (1960).
(15) G. Fryer and T.D. Iles, The Cichlid Fishes of the Great Lakes
of Africa (Neptune City, N.J.: T.F.H. Publications, 1972).
>Laurence Stanley
>Internet: Laurence.Stanley@f1729.n106.z1.fidonet.org
>Compuserve: >internet:Laurence.Stanley@f1729.n106.z1.fidonet.org
Jim Lippard Lippard@RVAX.CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZRVAX.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
Article 17590 of talk.origins:
>From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution won't work
Message-ID:
Date: 17 Dec 91 06:42:48 GMT
References: <6353.294AE517@ofa123.fidonet.org>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 277
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com
Laurence.Stanley@f1729.n106.z1.fidonet.org (Laurence Stanley) writes:
>"Speciation" process is part of the unproven evolutionist doctrine.
>There is no documented evidence whatsoever wherein one, viable specie
>has transmutated itself by "evolution", "natural selection", or
>otherwise, into another viable, more-complex specie. If you have any
>new evidence to the contrary to post, I'd like to review it.
This is the classic example, because it's so clearcut, concise, quick,
and completely isolated:
In 1916 a pair of wallabies escaped from a zoo in Oahu. They happened
to survive and breed in the wild, and now there is a whole population
of them. They are smaller and lighter-colored than Australian
wallabies. Now this is the good part... They eat plants that are
_poisonous_ to Australian wallabies, but they've developed a new
enzyme to detoxify them. They are unable to even _breed_ anymore with
Australian wallabies, so they qualify as a new species. All this in
just 70 years. -- Science Digest, July 1982
Here's some references I was mailed when I asked about it before. I
looked some of them up. We're talking observed speciation in
peer-reviewed journals here. Just because you and the ICR don't see
anything about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
-------------------------------
Just a smattering of a HUGE database of articles:
(1991 only)
1) Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization
in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume
68(8), pages 1747-1760.
2) Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism,
Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.
3) Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution,
phylogony, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal
of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.
4) Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric,
speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate-
gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.
5) Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination
of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum-raphanifolum, Evolution,
Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.
6) Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated
introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisana Irises, P-NAS-US,
Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.
7) Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation
and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi
superspecies, in Isreal, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.
.... on and on to about #50 if you like...
Read these and then refute the concept of speciation.
There are about 100 each for every year before 1991 to 1987 in my
database....
-----------
7 CYTOGENETICS OF BEAVERS - A CASE OF SPECIATION BY MONOBRACHIAL CENTRIC
FUSIONS
by WARD-OG GRAPHODATSKY-AS WURSTERHILL-DH EREMINA-VR
PARK-JP
GENOME VOL 34(3) : 324 -328(1991) ARTICLE
13 A MODEL FOR DIVERGENT, ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION OF POLYPLOID PTERIDOPHYTES
RESULTING FROM SILENCING OF DUPLICATE-GENE EXPRESSION
by WERTH-CR WINDHAM-MD
AM-NATURAL VOL 137(4) : 515 -526(1991) ARTICLE
15 IS SINGLE-GENE SPECIATION POSSIBLE
by ORR-HA
EVOLUTION VOL 45(3) : 764 -769(1991) NOTE
16 A MOLECULAR REEXAMINATION OF DIPLOID HYBRID SPECIATION OF
SOLANUM-RAPHANIFOLIUM
by SPOONER-DM SYTSMA-KJ SMITH-JF
EVOLUTION VOL 45(3) : 757 -764(1991) NOTE
17 ALLOZYME VARIATION IN LOUISIANA IRISES - A TEST FOR INTROGRESSION AND
HYBRID SPECIATION
by ARNOLD-ML HAMRICK-JL BENNETT-BD
HEREDITY VOL 65(DEC) : 297 - 306(1990) ARTICLE
42 SEX-CHROMOSOMES AND SPECIATION
by JABLONKA-E LAMB-MJ (*R)
P-ROY-SOC-B VOL 243(1308) : 203 -208(1991) ARTICLE
54 EVOLUTIONARY-THEORY AND PROCESSES OF ACTIVE SPECIATION AND ADAPTIVE
RADIATION IN SUBTERRANEAN MOLE RATS, SPALAX-EHRENBERGI
SUPERSPECIES, IN
ISRAEL
by NEVO-E
EVOLUT-BIOL VOL 25() : 1 -125(1991) REVIEW
55 L-SYSTEM REPRESENTATION OF SPECIATION IN THE RED ALGAL GENUS
DIPTEROSIPHONIA (CERAMIALES, RHODOMELACEAE)
by MORELLI-RA WALDE-RE AKSTIN-E SCHNEIDER-CW
J-THEOR-BIO VOL 149(4) : 453 -465(1991) ARTICLE
74 EVOLUTIONARY INNOVATION IN BEHAVIOR AND SPECIATION -
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
BEHAVIORAL NEUROETHOLOGY
by HOY-RR
BRAIN-BEHAV VOL 36(2-3) : 141 - 153(1990) ARTICLE
80 EVOLUTION OF NONVISUAL COMMUNICATION AND PHOTOPERIODIC PERCEPTION IN
SPECIATION AND ADAPTATION OF BLIND SUBTERRANEAN MOLE RATS
by NEVO-E
BEHAVIOUR VOL 114(SEP) : 249 - 276(1990) ARTICLE
81 SPECIATION BY HYBRIDIZATION IN PHASMIDS AND OTHER INSECTS
by BULLINI-L NASCETTI-G
CAN-J-ZOOL VOL 68(8) : 1747 - 1760(1990) ARTICLE
92 THE GIBBONS SPECIATION MECHANISM
by RAMADEVAN-S DEAKIN-MAB
J-THEOR-BIO VOL 145(4) : 447 - 456(1990) ARTICLE
108 MAJOR LOW-LEVELS OF LAKE MALAWI AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR SPECIATION
RATES IN CICHLID FISHES
by OWEN-RB CROSSLEY-R JOHNSON-TC TWEDDLE-D
KORNFIELD-I
P-ROY-SOC-B VOL 240(1299) : 519 - 553(1990) ARTICLE
118 SPECIATION IN AN ANOPHELINE (DIPTERA, CULICIDAE) MOSQUITO - ENZYME
POLYMORPHISM AND THE GENETIC-STRUCTURE OF POPULATION
by LANZARO-GC NARANG-SK SEAWRIGHT-JA
ANN-ENT-S-A VOL 83(3) : 578 - 585(1990) ARTICLE
138 FIXED FUSION HETEROZYGOSITY IN DELENA-CANCERIDES WALCK (ARANEAE,
SPARASSIDAE) - AN ALTERNATIVE TO SPECIATION BY MONOBRACHIAL FUSION
by ROWELL-DM
GENETICA VOL 80(2) : 139 - 157(1990) ARTICLE
139 CHROMOSOME EVOLUTION, PHYLOGENY AND SPECIATION OF ROCK WALLABIES (
PETROGALE, MACROPODIDAE)
by SHARMAN-GB CLOSE-RL MAYNES-GM
AUST-J-ZOOL VOL 37(2-4) : 351 - 363(1990) ARTICLE
148 MITOCHONDRIAL AND ALLOZYME GENETICS OF INCIPIENT SPECIATION IN A
LANDLOCKED POPULATION OF GALAXIAS-TRUTTACEUS (PISCES, GALAXIIDAE)
by OVENDEN-JR WHITE-RWG
GENETICS VOL 124(3) : 701 - 716(1990) ARTICLE
161 A FIELD-TEST OF DIFFERENTIAL HOST-PLANT USAGE BETWEEN 2 SIBLING SPECIES
OF RHAGOLETIS-POMONELLA FRUIT-FLIES (DIPTERA, TEPHRITIDAE) AND ITS
CONSEQUENCES FOR SYMPATRIC MODELS OF SPECIATION
by FEDER-JL BUSH-GL
EVOLUTION VOL 43(8) : 1813 - 1819(1989) NOTE
171 TROPICAL FORESTS - BOTANICAL DYNAMICS, SPECIATION AND DIVERSITY -
HOLMNIELSEN,LB, NIELSEN,IC, BALSLEV,H
by MYERS-N
NATURE VOL 342(6247) : 313 - 314(1989) BOOK REVIEW
176 ADAPTATION, SPECIATION AND HYBRID ZONES
by BARTON-NH HEWITT-GM
NATURE VOL 341(6242) : 497 - 503(1989) REVIEW
193 ALLOPOLYPLOID SPECIATION IN TRAGOPOGON - INSIGHTS FROM
CHLOROPLAST DNA
by SOLTIS-DE SOLTIS-PS
AM J BOTANY VOL 76(8) : 1119 - 1124(1989) ARTICLE
199 SPECIATION VIA HYBRID DYSGENESIS - NEGATIVE EVIDENCE FROM THE
DROSOPHILA-AFFINIS SUBGROUP
by HEY-J
GENETICA VOL 78(2) : 97 - 104(1989) ARTICLE
200 ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPECIES CONCEPTS AND SPECIATION PROCESSES
by CHANDLER-CR GROMKO-MH
SYST ZOOL VOL 38(2) : 116 - 125(1989) ARTICLE
215 SPECIATION AND EVOLUTION IN THE SORICIDAE (MAMMALIA, INSECTIVORA) IN
RELATION WITH THE PALEOCLIMATE
by REUMER-JWF
REV SUI ZOO VOL 96(1) : 81 - 90(1989) ARTICLE
219 PATTERNS OF SPECIATION IN DROSOPHILA
by COYNE-JA ORR-HA
EVOLUTION VOL 43(2) : 362 - 381(1989) ARTICLE
232 RS)) THE 1ST STAGE OF SPECIATION IN 2 SUBSPECIES OF THE DROSOPHILA
VIRILIS GROUP
by GONCHARENKO-GG MITROFANOV-VG KOROCHKIN-LI SAVITSKII-BP
DAN SSSR VOL 304(2) : 448 - 451(1989) ARTICLE
239 GAMETE COMPATIBILITY, MITOCHONDRIAL-DNA, AND SPECIATION IN TROPICAL
SEA-URCHINS
by METZ-EC PALUMBI-SR
AM ZOOLOG VOL 28(4) : 7 - 7(1988) MEETING ABSTRACT
248 EVOLUTION - NO BARRIERS TO SPECIATION
by BARTON-NH JONES-JS MALLET-J
NATURE VOL 336(6194) : 13 - 14(1988) EDITORIAL
283 ORIGIN, SPECIATION, AND DISTRIBUTION OF SOUTH-AMERICAN TITI MONKEYS,
GENUS CALLICEBUS (FAMILY CEBIDAE, PLATYRRHINI)
by HERSHKOVITZ-P
P AC NAT S VOL 140(1) : 240 - 272(1988)
295 FR)) BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND SPECIATION PATTERNS AMONG AMAZONIAN
SCORPIONS - TITYUS-SILVESTRIS POCOCK, A PARTICULAR CASE OF POLYMORPHISM
by LOURENCO-WR
CR AC S III VOL 306(15) : 463 - 466(1988)
298 PATTERNS AND PROCESSES OF DIVERSIFICATION - SPECIATION AND HISTORICAL
CONGRUENCE IN SOME NEOTROPICAL BIRDS
by CRACRAFT-J PRUM-RO
EVOLUTION VOL 42(3) : 603 - 620(1988)
300 GENETIC-DIVERGENCE AND SPECIATION IN BASILICHTHYS-MICROLEPIDOTUS JENYNS,
1842 AND BASILICHTHYS-AUSTRALIS EIGENMANN, 1927 (PISCES, ATHERINIDAE)
by GAJARDO-GM
GENETICA VOL 76(2) : 121 - 126(1988)
315 WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT SPECIATION
by COYNE-JA BARTON-NH
NATURE VOL 331(6156) : 485 - 486(1988)
322 DIFFERENCES IN DISPERSAL AND SPECIATION BETWEEN DEEP-SEA TANAIDS AND
ISOPODS (CRUSTACEA)
by WILSON-GDF
AM ZOOLOG VOL 27(4) : 140 - 140(1987)
340 CHROMOSOMAL EVOLUTION AND SPECIATION REVISITED
by SITES-JW MORITZ-C
SYST ZOOL VOL 36(2) : 153 - 174(1987) REVIEW, BIBLIOGRAPHY
344 THE DISPERSAL BARRIER IN THE TROPICAL PACIFIC - IMPLICATIONS FOR
MOLLUSCAN SPECIATION AND EXTINCTION
by VERMEIJ-GJ
EVOLUTION VOL 41(5) : 1046 - 1058(1987) ARTICLE
--
One day you will find yourself and be quite disappointed.
==!
==* OTTO REFS SPECIATION DROSOPHILA
Public message 3260 SCIENCE Area 17:28 Sunday 25-Aug-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: MAURY MARKOWITZ
Re: Macroevolution - put up or shut up :)
In a message to Michael Lutas <22 Aug 91 14:29> Maury Markowitz wrote:
> ML> Could you please name a few speciation events. I don't think I am
> ML> familiar
> ML> with any real ones.
MM> Here's what we'll have to do. Jeff, post some. I'll post too.
MM> I'llk take them all (with refs please) and put them into a file.
MM> I can cut and paste from Word into this term (it is a Mac after
MM> all...) and I'll collect them and post them once every two weeks
MM> henseforth. This should stop these
MM> questions and save my fingers some work.
MM> Maury
Ok Maury, I am most familiar with the speciation of the Hawaiian group
of Drosopholids:
D. heteroneura
D. silvestris 2
D. silvestris 3
D. sproati
D. pilimana
D. disjuncta
D. affindisjuncta
D. mmica
D. stigma
D. clavisetae
D. funebris
The citation of this particular work is:
DeSalle, R., Freedman, T., Prager, E.M., and Wilson A.C. 1987. Tempo
and mode of sequence evolution in mitochondrial DNA of Hawaiian
Drosophila. Journal of Molecular Evolution. Volume 26. Pages 157-164.
Further references on the Hawaiian Drosophilids can be found as follows:
Beverley, SM., and Wilson AC. 1985. Ancient origin for Hawaiian
Drosophilinae inferred from protein comparisons. Proceedings National
Academy of Sciences USA. Volume 82. pages 4753-4757
Journal of Molecular Evolution.
Carlson HL. 1982. Evolution of Drosophila on the newer Hawaiian
volcanoes. Heredity. Volume 48. Pages 3-25
Desalle, R. and Giddings LV. 1986. Discordance of nuclear and
mitochondrial DNA phylogenies in Hawaiian Drosophila. Proceedings
National Academ of Sciences USA. Volume 83. Pages 6902-6906
Desalle, R et al., 1986a. Mitochondrial DNA variability in natural
populations of Hawaiian Drosophila. I. Methods and levels of variability
in D. silvertis and D. heteroneura populations. Heredity. Volume 56.
Pages 75-85.
DeSalle, R. et al., 1986b. Mitochondrial DNA variability in natural
populations of Hawaiian Drosophila II. Genetic and phylogenetic
relationships of natural populations of D. silvertis and D. heteroneura.
Heredity. Volume 56. Pages 86-96.
If you need more references let me know, this has been fairly well
documented and rather thoroughly studied.
Jeff
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* OTTO REFS SPECIATION MOUSE
Public message 3225 SCIENCE Area 10:40 Thursday 5-Sep-91
From: JEFF OTTO
To: MAURY MARKOWITZ
Re: species
Maury -
Here is another citation to add to your list of speciation events. This
regards the speciation of laboratory strains of mice from the wildtype
natural population from which they were originally taken. The full
citation and abstract follow:
Matsuda Y., Hirobe, T., and Chapman VM. 1991. Genetic basis of X-Y
chromsome dissociation and male sterility in interspecific hybrids.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 88:4850-4
Abstract:
A high frequency of X-Y chromosome dissociation (95%) was found at first
meiotic metaphase (MI) in spermatocytes of interspecific hybrids between
laboratory mice, C57BL/6J (BL/6) and Mus spretus, compared with an X-Y
dissociation frequency of ony 3-5% in parental mice. The X-Y
dissociation in F1 hybrids occurred before diakinesis rather than as a
precocious spermatogeneic breakdown after MI, resulting in male
sterility. All F1 males were sterile and approximately half of the
backcross males from fertile F1 females corssed with either BL/6 or M.
spretus males were sterile. Male sterility was highly correlated with
X-Y dissociation in both backcrosses. All of the mice with hight X-Y
dissociation were sterile and all of the males with low X-Y dissociation
were fertile or subfertile. This correlation suggested that genetic
divergence of the X-Y pairing region could contribute to the male
sterile phenotype such that BL/6 X chromosome would not pair with the
M. spretus Y chromosome. The segregation of species-type alleles of
amelogenin (Amelb and Amels), a distal X chromosome locus adjacent to
the X-Y pairing region, ws followed in backcross males that were
analyzed for X-Y dissociation and sterility (we have used Amel as the
designation for the mouse amelgoenein locus; the current designation for
this locus is Amg). A 95% concordance between Amelb with fertility and
Amels with sterility was observed in backcrosses with BL/6, whereas the
converse was observed in the backcross to M. spretus. These results
imply that X-Y pairing plays an important role in male fertility and
suggest that genetic divergence in X-Y pairingregions between Mus
species can contribute to the reproductive barriers between species and
the process of speciation.
Ok, back to me now. As far as I am aware, this represents the first
case of analysis of a speciation event that has occurred by artificial
separation of populations. The experiments above use genetics to
explain and test the speciation event, which to my way of thinking, adds
further evidence that one cannot address the validity of evolution
without addressing the genetics that is involved.
Jeff
--- XRS!% 4.50+
* Origin: SciQuest BBS, Science is our Specialty (RAX 1:154/32.32)
==!
==* SPECIATION LEIPZIG REFS
Cain, A. J., 1963, Animal Species and Their Evolution [2nd ed.]: London,
Hutchinson.
Cronin, T. M., 1985, Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda; climatic
modulation of evolution: Science, v. 227, p. 60-63.
Dobzhansky, T., 1951, Genetics and the Origin of Species [3rd ed.]: New York,
Columbia University Press.
Erhlich, P. R., and Raven, P. H., 1969, Differentiations in populations:
Science, v. 165, p. 1228-1231.
Gingerich, P. D., 1976, Paleontology and phylogeny: patterns of evolution of the
species level in early Tertiary mammals: American Journal of Science, v.
276, p. 1-28.
Greenwood, P. H., 1965, The cichlid fishes of Lake Nabugabo, Uganda: British
Museum of Natural History Bulletin (Zoology), v. 12, p. 315-357.
---, 1974, The cichlid fishes of Lake Victoria, East Africa: the biology and
evolution of a species stock: Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural
History), v. Zoology, Suppl. 6.
Malmgren, B. A., Berggren, W. A., and Lohmann, G. P., 1984, Species formation
through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera: Science, p. 317-
319.
Stebbins, G. L., 1977, Patterns of Speciation, {iin} Dobzhansky, T., Ayala, F.
J., Stebbins, G. L., and Valentine, J. W., eds., Evolution: San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Co., p. 195-232.
Stenzel, H. B., 1949, Successional speciation in paleontology - the case of the
oysters of the sellaeformis stock: Evolution, v. 3, p. 34-50.
White, M. J. D., 1977, Modes of Speciation: San Francisco, Ca., Freeman.
==!
==* SPECIATION SYMPATRIC LEIPZIG REFS
Gottlieb, L. D., 1973, Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the
origin of a diploid species of {iStephanomeria}: American Journal of
Botany, v. 60, p. 545-553.
==!
==* SPECIATION GOATSBEARDS REFS WALLABIES OAHU MERITT
}- No new species (alternately, "kinds") are evolving today.
"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the
United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within
a few decades their populaltions expanded and began to encounter one another
in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied
interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in
the late Fourties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman,
Washington. Although the new species were similliar in appearance to the
hybrids, they pproduced fertile offspring. The evolutionary proces
had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with
the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."
The article is on page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of
_Scientific_American_. It's called "A Breed Apart."
It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly,
Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn
tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn
apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began
infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed
on either apples or thorn apples, but not both.
There's enough evidence to convince the scientific
investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action.
Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that
speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them
otherwise.
In 1916, a single pair of wallabies escaped from a zoo in Oahu. They survived
and bred in the wild, and now there is a whole population. They are smaller
and more lightly colored than the Aussie wallabies. They eat Hawaiian plants
that are poisonous to the Aussie wallabies, because they evolved a new liver
enzyme to detoxify them. They can no longer breed with the Australian
wallabies, so they qualify as a new species. [Note - the science digest
reference does not indicate that they can no longer breed, although another
reference I have examined indicates that wallabies under similar situations
often do. Anybody got the ref for this specific case? - Max G. Webb]
Sources: "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982
Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984
How can you say that no new species have arisen when dozens of previously
undiscovered species are found each year in Costa Rica alone?
Also, isn't the latest evidence that maize evolved about 4000 years ago?
==!
==* SPECIATION REFS LILJE
From: anne@cco.caltech.edu (Anneliese Lilje)
Just a smattering of a HUGE database of articles:
(1991 only)
1) Bullini, L and Nascetti, G, 1991, Speciation by Hybridization
in phasmids and other insects, Canadian Journal of Zoology, Volume
68(8), pages 1747-1760.
2) Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism,
Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.
3) Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution,
phylogony, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal
of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.
4) Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric,
speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate-
gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526.
5) Spooner, D.M., Sytsma, K.J., Smith, J., A Molecular reexamination
of diploid hybrid speciation of Solanum-raphanifolum, Evolution,
Volume 45, Number 3, pages 757-764.
6) Arnold, M.L., Buckner, C.M., Robinson, J.J., 1991, Pollen-mediated
introgression and hybrid speciation in Louisana Irises, P-NAS-US,
Volume 88, Number 4, pages 1398-1402.
7) Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation
and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi
superspecies, in Isreal, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.
.... on and on to about #50 if you like...
There are about 100 each for every year before 1991 to 1987 in my
database....
==!
==* SPECIATION KIND MERITT
}- Slight variation can't turn one kind into another. "One lion may be fitter
} than another lion, but ... all his offspring will still be lions."
What is a "kind"?
==!
==* COMMON_ANCESTRY SIMILARITY PHYLOGENY MERITT
}Just because two animals LOOK similiar does not mean there is "common
} ancestory"
The interesting point is that, when checked, there IS.
Genetic comparisons reveal (objectively) a kinship where it was before
predicted on evolutionary grounds.
I believe the error rate is less than 1%. What is facinating
about the comparisons of the numbers of genes shared between
species is that when you draw a genetic tree of what species
are related to what, it looks almost identical to the tree
drawn by anthropologists who make their tree based on comparisons
of morphology (humans look more like chimps than turtles therefore
chimps are more closely related). This is the beauty of science that
a hypothesis (relatedness of species) is shown by two completely
differing mechanisms just as the age of artifacts can be
determined by rock layers (those on top are newer) and carbon
and other radioactive dating techniques.
How is this done?
In brief: DNA similarity is measured by mixing fragments of DNA from
the two species and measuring the thermal stability of the resulting
hybrid molecules, which is proportional to the degree of matching.
It can be calibrated by using DNAs of known composition, for example
the genomes of completely sequenced viruses. Accuracy is limited by
the ability to measure the melting temperature and by the slight
difference in stability between A-T base pairs and C-G ones. There
has been heavy theoretical debate (ending in an amazing shouting
match at a meeting last summer, alas--I was there, and it was embarrasing)
about whether the method is accurate enough to resolve the chimp/
human/gorilla trichotomy.
DNA similarity does measure overall composition, and two organisms
could be very different morphologically while still having high DNA
similarity (indeed, chimps and humans are much more dissimilar than
most pairs with the same DNA distance). However, overall composition
is probably a better guide to relatedness than specific genes, which
are likely to be under different selection in humans and chimps.
What is the noise, and what is the signal? "Junk" DNA is the most
useful for determining phylogeny, because it is more likely to
evolve in a gradual time-dependent fashion. Coding and controlling
regions are interesting in that they tell us about the differences.
==!
==* RECESSIVES GENETICS MERITT
}- Mendelian inheritance says that recessive characters reappear, and thus we
} should expect humans with characteristics of apes.
They do. Tails, for instance.
And other "ape" traits that happen to also be "human traits".
Like toes, body hair, simian crease (XRHAH@scfvm.gsfc.nasa.gov for
instance),...
This disregards the basic mechenisms of natural selection and
genetics. It makes the wrong assumption that ape-like
characters are recessive and that all of the traits in the
ancestor population are present but usually unexpressed in the
supposed descendant population. Neither idea is true.
==!
==* HYBRIDS FERTILITY SPECIATION
}- Hybrids are infertile, so a newly evolved individual couldn't breed.
Hybrids are often not fertile or robust. They may be desirable to
man if man amde, but they may not succeed in an evolutionary
sense.
The premise is incorrect. First, what is meant by "hybrid" is unclear
in this context - is it a hybrid only if it is infertile? And even in
those cases in which the offspring is usually infertile, that is not
always the case. As witnessed the horse and the donkey.
==!
==* MERITT GULFS SPECIATION
}- There exist "impossible gulfs" between animal/vegetable,
} invertebrate/vertibrate, marine animals/amphibians, amphibians/reptiles,
} reptiles/birds, reptiles/mammals, mammals/humans.
} Eight impossible gulfs:
Impossible to find gulfs.
} 1) Between the living and non-living or dead matter;
This is the abiogenesis debate.
The rest is a taxinomy of man with the similarity argument turned
into the gaps argument. Is the glass half empty or half full?
What is this gulf? I have yet (despite looking and asking many) found it at all,
let alone found it to be an impossible gulf.
The spectrum between clearly living and singular elementary particles
is wide, and not linear (few things really are) but it appears to be
continuous.
}} 2) Between the vegetable and the animal kingdoms;
Animal cells have some similarity with plant cells, and indeed there
are forms, euglena, with cloroplasts and flagellae, that look like
intermediates. Cells from both kingdoms are eukeryots that are distinct from other cell types belonging to at least three other kingdoms.
There are quite a few plant/animals in the same creature. Most microscopic
because a plant doesn't collect enough energy to be mobile in large scale.
But there are plenty of small ones.
What is a euglena? And where do protista & viri fit in here?
} 3) Between the invertebrates and the vertebrates;
The vetebrates are biochemically closest to the echinodermata, and
urochordates. The free swimming soft chord animals are similar to
the sessile forms.
See also sharks and squids.
} 4) Between marine animals and amphibians;
A steady change from fish to lobefined air breathing fish to amphibians with fish like larval stages can be observed in extant species
and in the fossil record.
See also mudpuppies and frogs. An amphibian that never leaves the water is a
marine animal. This gulf is not only impossible, it is non-existant.
} 5) Between amphibians and reptiles;
Amphibians predate reptiles in the fossil record. The development
of the amneonic egg, with shell and the difference in the skin of
extant reptiles and amphibians suggests that the reptilian characters
were adaptaions developed on amphibian ancestors. The time in
the fossil record when the reptiles became important was one when
amphibian habitats were being reduced and when reptiles could have
succeeded on drier continents.
What is this gulf, and what was a dinosaur? (warning: trick question!
Specifically what is the impossible gulf between, for instance, a salmander
and a chamelion?
} 6) Between reptiles and birds;
The ornithischia, with bird-like pelvises appeared before the modern
birds, whch began to appear in Cretaceous time. Intermediates are
known.
} 7) Between reptiles and mammals;
The therapsida in permean time, Mammal-like reptiles appear before
the first mammals, but intermediate forms are known, and a fairly
complete record of the changes in the facial bones between these
reptiles and true mammals is known from Permean time. Does anyone
know if mammalian dentition is documented into this time. Did the
Therapsida have differentialted dentition?
} 8) Between mammals and the human body;
The distinguishing characteristic of living MAMMALS is lactation.
Despite the invention of baby bottles, human females still lactate.
==!
==*
}12) The failure of some organisms to evolve at all.
If it passes the selection filter, no change required. These
organisms are excellently adapted to their particular niche in their
environment. (like sharks: the "perfect eating machine", right?)
Like the brachiopod Lingula, and the cockroach, identifiable through
most of the phanerazoic and still with us. If an organism is well adapted
to a niche it can readily occupy, then why should it evolve?
==!
==* MERITT PHYLA SPECIATION
}- No new phyla, classes, or orders have appeared.
Subsequently to what?
Trees of descent for organisms are drawn by grouping organisms together
based on common features. Twigs which are close together are organisms
which differ only in few and minor respects. Main branches, down at
the bottom of the tree, are groups of organisms that differ in many and
major respects. One of the main premises of evolution is that this
tree is (more or less) proportional to time.
Asking for a phylum to appear today is asking for
a major branch to be up at the tip of the tree--it makes no sense,
considering the way such trees are drawn!
It is perfectly possible that in several million years there will
be recognizable phyla which were just differentiating today, but
there is no way to recognize a "new phylum" in the bud. For example,
modern plants use two different photosynthesis reactions. It is
quite possible that those two groups will eventually be so different
that we will call them seperate phyla, because the two reactions
probably favor different evolutionary pathways. But how can we
know in advance whether or not this will happen? That's what you're
asking for when you want to see a new phylum arise today.
This is just not true. while most of the phyla present today
were present at the beginning of the Cambrian, and their origin is shrouded,
there is enough of a fossil record from the so-called eo-cambrain to suggest
that some of the animals found in Australia are different phyla that became
extinct by the time fossils became abundant. The affinities of several
Cambrian groups is by no means clear, and they might be separate phyla,
such as the archeocyathids. Our phylum, Vetebrata (Chordata), appears
no earlier than Ordovician, and then only the cartilagenous and jawless
fish are known. All the other classes appear later than that.
Vascular plants, and all more advanced plant phyla appear no
earlier than Silurian time.
There are now five kingdoms known, based on their biochemistry and
there are enough precambrain microfossils to document their appearence.
The geochemistry of sediments in Precambrain rocks is understood well enough
to establish when the oxygen level of the biosphere was high enough to
support modern plants and animals, that comprize two of the five kingdoms.
Before this date it can be infered that the Plant and Animal kingdoms did
not exist. I am not faliliar with Precambrain events to fix this date,
1.8 billion years B.P. ?, or to document the micro fossils that might
bear this out.
==!
==*
}- The occurrence of parallel evolution, in which similiar structures evolve
} in quite different circumstances.
If you start with the same ancestor, they can only vary so much. Also, what
he thinks are "different circumstances" are not necessarily so. Physics
has an interesting set of constraints...
==!
==* MERITT FIXITY SPECIATION
}Many species have remained absolutely fixed throughout geologic time.
There are no known examples of organisms that have not evolved
over a period of time and this includes cockroaches, lungfish,
lampreys, sharks, bacteria, and all other organisms that some
people claim are "frozen in time". Some of these species appear
to be morphologically similar to ancestors that lived in the
past but evolution is much more than external appearance. When
the structure of their genes and proteins are examined it becomes
obvious that they have evolved at the molecular level. In fact
the rate of evolution of these species is similar to that of
species whose external appearance has changed more drastically.
It is incorrect to claim that some organisms have not evolved
simply because their external morphology has not changed.
The problem here is that the fossil record only
preserves some parts of an organism. The fact that these parts
have not changed very much doesn't mean that the species has not
evolved.
==!
==* MERITT DEGENERATE SPECIATION
}A great many modern species are very evident degenerate, rather than
}higher, forms of those found as fossils.
There is no hierarchy to evolution. There is no reason to suppose
that modern organisms should be "higher" than extinct ones. Loss
of a structure is just as much evolution as gain of one. If
Creationists admit that some organisms have become "degenerate"
then they are admitting to evolution.
}All the great phyla appear quite suddenly in the fossil record.
Marvelous. As long as he gets to pick which ones he wants, they do.
Collect the data to support you conclusion. Keep throwing out the
outliers (97% discarded?) till it fits.
==!
==* SELECTION SPECIATION MERITT
}Selection cannot change the frequency of variants
Since evolution is, by definition, a change in the frequency of
genes in a population, then this statement is equivalent to
saying that selection cannot cause evolution. There are many
experiments in the literature that directly demonstrate how
false and ridiculous this statement really is. Perhaps the
easiest examples for the non-biologist are those that involve
human selection, as in breeds of dogs or cattle. In those cases
selection for distinct characteristics has led to populations
with differing frequencies of alleles (variants). Thus selection
has been PROVEN capable of changing the frequency of variants or
alleles in a population and we have every reason to believe that
it did so in the past as well.
Directional selection (selection "for" or "against" something) in a static
environment will lose variation. To get a more interesting result, you
can look at either of two things:
1. Selection which is not directional. Here are some examples:
Frequency dependent selection. Forms which are rare are at an advantage.
There are several decent real-world examples of this; female fruit flies
prefer males who look "different", and animals which have immune system
genes different from their neighbors' seem less likely to get
diseases from them.
Heterozygote advantage. The organism with two different forms of the gene
has an advantage over others. The classical example is sickle-cell
anemia in humans, where the person with one sickle and one normal allele
is protected from malaria.
Two kinds of selection pulling in different directions. For example,
females may prefer brightly colored males, but so may predators. Some
values for the parameters here will give a balance of different
forms in the population.
2. Non-static environments. This is much harder to model, but interesting.
You can easily get frequency-dependent selection out of an environment
with two food sources, both subject to overexploitation. Environments
which change over time either randomly or in a cycle can also maintain
variability.
***
The simplest model I know in which something like speciation can be seen
to happen is one that contains two factors:
There is a gene with two variants, and the heterozygote is worse than
either homozygote.
There is the possibility for evolving reproductive isolation based on the
first gene.
Reproductive isolation could be modeled in several ways. You could
explicitly add a gene that controls mate recognition. You could arrange
your simulated organisms on a grid and restrict most mating to near
neighbors, and see if two populations seperated from an initial mixture.
Don't forget that if you use random rather than strictly proportional
selection (that is, if you use a random number to see who lives
and who dies), population size makes a huge difference. It is almost
impossible to maintain high variability in a tiny population, even
with strong selection.
==!
==* SPECIATION GENUS GRUMBINE
Article 27620 of talk.origins:
From: RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Genus evolution
Message-ID: <92170.093438RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 18 Jun 92 13:34:38 GMT
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 6
It looks like there are several examples of contemporary species
level evolution. Lets back up a level, are there any such examples
at the genus level?
Bob Grumbine
Article 27629 of talk.origins:
From: alc@netcom.com (Chris Stassen)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Genus evolution
Message-ID:
Date: 18 Jun 92 14:52:00 GMT
References: <92170.093438RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: The Lion's Den, San Jose
Lines: 12
In article <92170.093438RMG3@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
> It looks like there are several examples of contemporary species
> level evolution. Lets back up a level, are there any such examples
> at the genus level?
Only with a little chemical help. Triticale is an artificially bred
genus of plant created by cross-breeding of wheat and rye. (See
Hulse and Spurgeon, 1974, "Triticale", in _Scientific American_,
Vol. 231, No. 2, pp. 72-80.)
--
Chris Stassen stassen@alc.com
DISCLAIMER: My employer's account, but not their opinions.
==!
==* LAMB WALLABY REFS SPECIATION
Article 28785 of talk.origins:
From: prl@csis.dit.csiro.au (Peter Lamb)
Subject: The Oahu Rock Wallabies -- some primary references
Message-ID: <1992Jul16.065501.2434@csis.dit.csiro.au>
Summary: At last some primary references
Keywords: wallaby, speciation, species, kind
Organization: CSIRO Division of Information Technology
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1992 06:55:01 GMT
Lines: 82
Jim Merrit has quoted the following about these
wallabies in a number of posts, to the extent that the Hawaiian
Wallabies are now almost t.o folklore.
>In 1916, a single pair of wallabies escaped from a zoo in Oahu. They survived
>and bred in the wild, and now there is a whole population. They are smaller
>and more lightly colored than the Aussie wallabies. They eat Hawaiian plants
>that are poisonous to the Aussie wallabies, because they evolved a new liver
>enzyme to detoxify them. They can no longer breed with the Australian
>wallabies, so they qualify as a new species.
>Sources: "Instant Evolution", Science Digest, July 1982
> Saladin / Gish debate at Auburn University at Montgomery, 24 March 1984
I have always been a little dissatisfied with the references provided
in Jim's note, neither being a primary source. The first one is a
popular science news magazine (the other article on the same page is
"Ham radios listen for aliens"), and the second is rather inaccessible.
The "Science Digest" reference is on page 18 of the July 1982 issue.
In April of this year, Chris Ho-Stewart
expressed similar concerns on t.o, and also asked if in fact there was
ever any attempt to breed the Oahu wallabies with the Australian
progenitor.
Neither of us had access to "Science Digest" at that time, and neither
of us have been able to get any further information from Jim about the
article.
Fortunately, I have recently moved to a Canberra, where the National
Library does carry that issue of "Science Digest".
The article contains pretty much the information contained in Jim's
note, except that there is no mention of interfertility with Australian
species. However, that may have come from the Saladin / Gish debate.
Fortunately for those readers of t.o who prefer their sources primary,
the article also contains the name of the biologist who made the
claim: James Lazell Jr. A bit of hunting through some biological
sciences abstracts got a reasonable number of primary sources (see
references).
Unfortunately, only Lazell [2] was readily accessible to me, and is
largely a report of a population study of the wallabies on Oahu. [2]
makes reference to [1] as the source of the claim about a novel liver
enzyme and the size and colouration differences. Size comparisons are
made in [2] between the Oahu wallabies and the Australian
_Petrogale_penicillata_; the Australian wallabies are about 20% longer
(total length, tail length, hind foot length).
I would be very interested in seeing any reports of the contents of [1]
in t.o. I hope to be able to follow up on [3] and [5] in the near
future. Sharman and Maynes (see [6]) are mentioned in [2] as
collaborators; I have not yet had an opportunity to follow up on [6] --
it may not be relevant.
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
[1] Lazell, J.D, "Strange rock wallabies of oahu. Fugatives from
zoo were progenitors", Explorers J. 59(2), 1981, 66-67 (*)
[2] Lazell, J.D, T.W. Sutterfield and W.D. Giezentanner, "The population
of rock wallabies (genus Petrogale) on Oahu, Hawaii",
Biological Conserv, 30(2) 1984, 99-108 (*)
[3] Lazell, J.D, "Evolution on the hop", BBC (Br. Broadcasting Corp) Wildl,
5(12) 1987, 666-668 (*)
[4] Lauret, M, "The distribution of the brush-tailed rock wallaby _Petrogale
penicillata_, on Oahu", 'Elepaio, J Hawaiian Audubon Soc., 43(4), 1982,
25-27 (+)
[5] Lazell, J.D, "Kalihi rock wallaby of Hawaii", Tigerpaper, UN-FAO, Bankok,
7(2), 1980, 31-2 (+)
[6] Sharman, G. B, R. L. Close and G.M. Maynes, "Chromosome evolution,
phylogeny and speciation of rock wallabies (petrogale, macropodidae)",
Aust J Zool, vol 37(2-4) : 351 - 363(1990) (@)
(*) Referenced in "Zoological Record"
(+) Referenced in [2]
(@) Reference posted by Anneliese Lilje on t.o.
--
Peter Lamb (prl@csis.dit.csiro.au)
==!
==* WALLABY SPECIATION SPECIES KIND SANDERS
Article 28838 of talk.origins:
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: The Oahu Rock Wallabies -- some primary references
Date: 17 Jul 1992 14:11:45 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <146kf2INNpjl@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>
References: <1992Jul16.065501.2434@csis.dit.csiro.au>
Keywords: wallaby, speciation, species, kind
Peter Lamb provided some references to the Oahu Rock wallabies. Unfortunately,
the Kansas State Library has none of those which were unavailable to Peter.
Here are some others, though.
On the variety of the parent stock in Australia-- genetic comparisons--
M.D. Eldridge et al. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics, vol 48, p.228 (Part I)
" Genome, vol 32, 935 (Part II)
" Genome, vol 33, 798 (Part III)
A short comment on the Oahu wallaby and its implications for preserving
endangered species by translocation is found in
S. Conant, Bioscience, vol 38, p254
I was amazed, in looking through the Science Citation Index, how much
work is done on wallabies.
--
Justin M. Sanders "The world was made for people who aren't
Dept. of Physics cursed with self-awareness."
Kansas State Univ. -- Annie Savoy in "Bull Durham"
==!
==* MARKOWITZ SPECIATION DROSOPHILA REFS
Public message 2006 SCIENCE Area 08:23 Thursday 4-Oct-90
From: MAURY MARKOWITZ
To: WESLEY R. ELSBERRY
Re: ABIOGENESIS
Sorry this is so late, first our gateway went down, and now I'm workng and
don't get on much...
Re: Speciation events
A former thread (of my own) finally pinned one of the creationists here into
admitting that MACRoevolution was speciation. Wesley has given some examples
in the literature, and I'll add a few of my own...
Barber, J.S.F and East, P.D. (1980) Evidence for selection following
perturbation of allozyme frequencies in a natural population of Drosophila,
NATURE 284:166-168
( This is the reference to the speciation of the Cherry Fruit Fly I mentioned
earlier, there are now TWO SEPERATE SPECII living in California cherry tress,
where there used to be one, they actually watched it happen)
Barr Jr., T.C. and Holsinger, J.R. (1985) Speciation in Cave Faunas, in
"Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics: Vol 16, pp318-338
Benson, W.W. (1972) Natual Selection for Mullerian mimicry in Heliconius Erato
in Costa Rica, Science 176:936-939
Boag, P.T. and Grant, P/R. (1981) Intense Natural Selection in a Population of
Darwin's Finches (Geospizinae) in the Galapagos, Science 214:82-85
Brown, L.N. Selection in a population of house mice containing mutant
individuals, Journal of Mamology 46:461-465
Clarke, C.A. snf Sheppard, P.M. (1960) The Evolution of Mimicry in the
Butterfly Papilio Dardanus, Heredity 14:163-173
[ and LOTS more where that came from... ]
This list represents about 1/2 of the first page of references in the OASIS
Supplementary Monograph #1, by J. Richard Wakefield. He has a computer, so
I'm trying to get him onto this net (I just wish he came on CD ROM!!)
I have carefully selected those papers which display speciation in animals
that we've SEEN happening. Note that all these papers are about specific
examples of speciation (MACROevolution) or groups of such events. I'm sure
Richard would sell you the paper for cost if you are interested, he can be
contacted at 385 Main St., Beaverton, Ontario, Canada, L0K 1A0. A full year's
subscription to his newletter cost a whole $10 (Canadian!) and includes 4
newsletters and a monograph.
Maury
p.s. Ok, now that we've posted examples of speciation and macroevolution, NOW
what's stopping us from having evolved?
--- Maximus-CBCS v1.02
* Origin: The Frisch Tank - Newmarket, Ontario, CANADA (1:250/906)
==!
