No abstract

Karyotype-phenotype correlations of common trisomy mosaicism prenatally diagnosed via amniocentesis was reviewed in 305 new cases from a collaboration of North American cytogenetic laboratories. Abnormal outcome was noted in 10/25 (40%) cases of 47,+13/46, 17/31 (54%) cases of 47,+18/46, 10/152 (6.5%) cases of 47,+20/46, and in 49/97 (50%) cases of 47,+21/46 mosaicism. Risk of abnormal outcome in pregnancies with less than 50% trisomic cells and greater than 50% trisomic cells were: 26% (4/15) versus 60% (6/10) for 47,+13/46, 52% (11/21) versus 75% (6/8) for 47,+18/46, 4.5% (6/132) versus 20% (4/20) 47,+20/46, and 45% (27/60) versus 59% (22/37) for 47,+21/46. Phenotypically normal liveborns were observed with mean trisomic cell lines of 9.3% for 47,+13/46, 8.6% for 47,+18/46, 27% for 47, +20/46, and 17% for 47,+21/46. Cytogenetic confirmation rates were 46% (6/13 cases) for 47,+13/46 mosaicism, 66% (8/12 cases) for 47, +18/46, 10% (10/97 cases) for 47,+20/46, and 44% (24/54 cases) for 47,+21/46. There were higher confirmation rates in pregnancies with abnormal versus normal outcome: 50% versus 44% for 47,+13/46 mosaicism, 100% versus 33% for 47,+18/46, 66% versus 7% for 47, +20/46, and 55% versus 40% for 47,+21/46. Repeat amniocentesis is not helpful in predicting clinical outcome. It may be considered when there is insufficient number of cells or cultures to establish a diagnosis. Fetal blood sampling may have a role in mosaic trisomy 13, 18, and 21 as the risk for abnormal outcome increases with positive confirmation: 1/5 (20%) normal cases versus 5/8 (62%) abnormal cases. High resolution ultrasound examination(s) is recommended for clinical correlation and to facilitate genetic counselling.

The G-banded karyotypes of 4 species of birds representing the orders Galliformes, Columbiformes and Musophagiformes were compared. Banding pattern homology between orders was limited t 5o 5 major chromosome arms and the Z chromosome. Even in these major chromosome arms pericentric and paracentric inversions produced alteration of the banding pattern sequences. Addition of constitutive heterochromatin was responsible for changes in banding patterns in the Z chromosome. The chromosome banding patterns of an emydid turtle, Terrepene carolina, 5 species of boid snakes of the genera Liasis, Acrantophis, and Sanzinia and the African clawed-frog. Xenopus muelleri, were also compared to the bird chromosome banding patterns. No homology was observed between any of these major groups: bird, snake, turtle, amphibian. However, intergroup homology was apparent. - The data obtained do not support reports of broad interordinal direct homology of the macrochromosomes of birds and refutes the idea of a primitive bird karyotype with 3 pairs of "Agroup' chromosomes and 3 pairs of "B group' chromosomes. - The major mechanisms responsible for chromosome evolution in birds appear to be centric and tandem fusions, paracentric and pericentric inversions, and addition or deletion of heterochromatin.

A chromosomal, analysis of the monitor Varanus acanthurus Boulenger has been made using G-and C--banding and silver-staining techniques. This species has two cytotypes, one of which has a pericentric-inversion polymorphism, whereas the other is chromosomally monomorphic. A ZZ,.' ZW sex-chromosome system is also present in both cytotypes of this species. The banding patterns of these mechanisms are described and their evolution is discussed.

Published data on Australian elapid snake taxonomy are reviewed. Both classical morphological studies and relevant ecological, chromosomal and biochemical data are summarized. Attention is focused on two major areas: (1) the phylogenetic relationships between Australian terrestrial elapids and other proteroglyphs; and (2) the interrelationships among the Australian terrestrial elapids. From this review four key questions are identified: (1) Are the continentally endemic groups of terrestrial elapids confamilial? (2) Do the Australian elapids represent a distinct familial group? (3) Are the Australian elapids monophyletic or have the extant forms been derived from distinct lineages which may represent more than one invasion of the continent? (4) What is the precise relationship between laticaudine and hydrophiine sea snakes and the Australian elapids? There is considerable disagreement concerning generic allocations and suprageneric relationships within the Australian proteroglyphs. Ecological, cytological and biochemical studies currently under way may be useful adjuncts to morphological information in resolving these questions.