Non-Linear Macromolecular Evolution and the Molecular Clock

Corruccini, Robert S.; Baba, Marietta L.; Goodman, Morris; Ciochon, Russell L.; Cronin, John E.

doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1980.tb04069.x

Cited by 19 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(18 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results obtained are consistent with either the 'sibling' species hypothesis (Marsh et al, 1981) or the polymorphic hypothesis (Fryer, 1959). Because electrophoretic divergences are time dependent (Corruccini et al, 1980), sibling species that have recently diverged may show little differentiation in electromorphs (Kornfield, 1978).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

A sympatric sibling species complex of Petrotilapia Trewavas from Lake Malawi analysed by enzyme electrophoresis (Pisces: Cichlidae)

McKAYE

Köcher

Reinthal

et al. 1982

Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AND.4ccep&d for publication February 1982 'The protein elcctromorphs of three taxa of Prtrofilapia, referred to in earlier works as sibling species, were examined hy stiirch-gel electrophoresis. The results indicated that, for the three taxa, no alternativr fixed ;illrles occurred for any of thr 25 loci (enzymes) examined. However, heterogeneous gene frequencies were indicated at sevrn polymorphic loci. This suggests that either the taxa are isolated 'sibling' species which recently diverged, or that they are 'incipient' species with minimal gene Row brtween morphs. Thr genetic and field data lend support to the hypothesis that sympatric splitting of morphs could be important in the explosive radiation of the cichlidae.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

A sympatric sibling species complex of Petrotilapia Trewavas from Lake Malawi analysed by enzyme electrophoresis (Pisces: Cichlidae)

McKAYE

Köcher

Reinthal

et al. 1982

Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One important consequence of this is the expectation that molecular differences should not scale linearly with time: molecular clocks should be nonlinear. Many of these and following points have been made in one way or another by Goodman (1963Goodman ( , 1976, Read and Lestrel(1970), Uzzell and Pilbeam (19711, Kohne (19751, Read (19751, Benveniste and Todaro (1976), and Corruccini et al (1980). Important points contradicting prevailing views of molecular evolution and its relationship to geological time can be illustrated with reference to Sarich's (1968Sarich's ( , 1970 original data on albumin evolution in primates.…”

Section: Molecular Biology and Primate Phylogeny; Calibration Of Molementioning

confidence: 96%

Primate evolution: Evidence from the fossil record, comparative morphology, and molecular biology

Gingerich

1984

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our understanding of primate evolution is ultimately based on patterns of phyletic relationship and morphological change documented in the fossil record. Stratophenetic interpretation of living and fossil primates yields an objective alternative to the arbitrary scala naturae assumed implicitly in traditional comparative biology. Fossils provide an outline of primate history constraining comparative analyses incorporating taxa and morphological characteristics not represented in the fossil record. Extant taxa without known prehistoric relatives may be interpolated into this outline using deductive cladistic analysis of morphological characteristics and overall molecular similarity. Cladistic analysis provides a method for evaluating the relative strength of stratophenetic links between taxa. The phyletic node connecting Anthropoidea-Adapoidea-Lemuroidea is analyzed here as a n example: the link between Eocene Adapoidea and primitive Anthropoidea appears stronger than that between Adapoidea and Lemuroidea because it is based on shared-derived rather than shared-primitive characteristics. Full integration of molecular results with morphological information requires a better understanding of rates of molecular change over geological time. Rates of molecular evolution can be studied using paleontologically documented divergence times for Prosimii-Anthropoidea (ca. 55 m.y.B.P.1, PlatyrrhiniCatarrhini (ca. 40 m.y.B.P.1, and Hominoidea-Cercopithecoidea (ca. 25 m.y. B.P.). Immunological distances combined with these divergence times indicate that primate albumin, widely used as a molecular clock in primatology, has evolved nonlinearly over geological time. A nonlinear albumin clock yields divergence times of about 9 million years before present for humans and chimpanzees, and about 13 million years before present for humans and orangutans (compared with 4 m.y.B.P. and 7 m.y.B.P., respectively, based on a linear albumin clock). Apparent slowing of albumin evolution over time remains to be fully explained. Other proteins and nucleic acids may provide better clocks. Cladistic analysis of morphological characteristics and comparative study of molecular structure, interpreted in the context of the fossil record, promise to contribute to a more complete understanding of primate evolution.Evolution is a complex subject encompassing the history of life and its governing processes. Our understanding of evolution is based on interpretation of patterns of diversity, ecology, behavior, visible morphology, and invisible molecular structure that have changed and continue to change through time. The widely varying organic forms that surround us are a product of diversification over hundreds of millions of years of geological time. Evolutionary time, on a geological scale, is the 0 1984 Alan R. Liss, Inc.

show abstract

“…Instead, hypotheses of parallelism resulted from emphasizing particular traits to the exclusion of others, and on using particular ancestral fossil taxa to date divergences of modern clades. Again, it was Washburn (e.g., 1968) and his students (Corruccini et al, 1975(Corruccini et al, , 1976(Corruccini et al, , 1980 who repeatedly pointed out that these fossil phylogenies based on dental similarities between particular ''Miocene apes'' and living hominoid genera implied tremendous parallel evolution of postcranial similarities among modern hominoids. As they documented, the ''Miocene apes'' generally lacked any of the ''brachiating'' adaptations shared by living hominoids.…”

Section: A Century and A Half Of Homoplastymentioning

confidence: 99%

The recognition and evaluation of homoplasy in primate and human evolution

Lockwood¹,

Fleagle²

1999

Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Homoplasy has been a prominent issue in primate systematics and phylogeny for as long as people have been studying human evolution. In the past, homoplasy, in the form of parallel evolution, was often considered the dominant theme in primate evolution. Today, it receives blame for difficulties in phylogenetic analysis, but is essential in the study of adaptation. This paper reviews the history of study of homoplasy, methods of defining homoplasy, and methodological and biological factors that generate homoplasy. A post hoc definition of homology and homoplasy, based on patterns of character distributions and their congruence or incongruence on a cladogram, is the most consistent method of recognizing these phenomena. Defined this way, homology and homoplasy are mutually exclusive. However, when different levels of analysis are examined, it is seen that homoplasy at one level, such as adult phenotype, often exists simultaneously with homology at a different level, such as developmental process. Thus, in some cases, patterns of homoplasy may point to underlying similarities that reflect the shared heritage of a particular clade. This is an old concept that is being renewed on the strength of recent trends in developmental biology. Factors that influence homoplasy include character definition and a host of biological factors, such as developmental constraints, allometry, and adaptation. These interact with one another to provide explanations of homoplastic patterns. Because of the repetition of events, explanations of homoplastic features are often more reliable than those for homologous features, and serve as effective tests for hypotheses of evolutionary process. In some cases, particular explanations of homoplasy lead to generalizations about the likelihood of homoplasy in a type of structure. The structure may be adaptive or highly epigenetic, or it may belong to an anatomical system considered to be more prone to homoplasy than others. However, our review shows that these generalizations are usually based on theory, and contradictory expectations can be developed under different theoretical models. More rigorous empirical studies are necessary to discover what, if any, generalizations can be made about the likelihood of homoplasy in different types of characters.

show abstract

Non-Linear Macromolecular Evolution and the Molecular Clock

Cited by 19 publications

References 23 publications

A sympatric sibling species complex of Petrotilapia Trewavas from Lake Malawi analysed by enzyme electrophoresis (Pisces: Cichlidae)

A sympatric sibling species complex of Petrotilapia Trewavas from Lake Malawi analysed by enzyme electrophoresis (Pisces: Cichlidae)

Primate evolution: Evidence from the fossil record, comparative morphology, and molecular biology

The recognition and evaluation of homoplasy in primate and human evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About