==* NONEWSPECIES SPECIATION SPECIES MERITT From jwm@sun4.jhuapl.edu Tue Feb 25 06:14:08 19

---
Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

==* 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) ==!

---

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank