
Apago PDF Enhancer
the same manner as mutations in coding (functional) DNA. Also, evolution of new
character states can be very high in nonfunctional DNA and this can lead to genetic
drift. Since DNA has only four nucleotides (four character states) it is highly likely
that two species could evolve the same derived character at a particular base posi-
tion. This leads to a violation of the assumptions of parsimony—that the fewest
evolutionary events lead to the best hypothesis of phylogenetic relationships—and
resulting phylogenies are inaccurate.
Page 462 The only other hypothesis is that the most recent common ancestor
of birds and bats was also winged. Of course, this scenario is much less parsimoni-
ous (and thus much more unlikely) than the convergence hypothesis, especially
given the vast number of reptiles and mammals without wings. Most phylogenies
are constructed based on the rule of parsimony; in the absence of fossil evidence of
other winged animals and molecular data supporting a closer relationship between
birds and bats than previously thought, there is no way to test the hypothesis that
bird and bat wings are homologous rather than analogous.
Page 471 If the victim had contracted HIV from a source other than the patient,
the most recent common ancestor of the two strains would be much more distant.
As it is, the phylogeny shows that the victim and patient strains share a relatively
recent ancestor, and that the victim’s strain is derived from the patient’s strain.
UNDERSTAND
1. d 2. b 3. a 4. b 5. a 6. d 7. b 8. c
APPLY
1. c 2. d 3. d 4. a
SYNTHESIZE
1. Naming of groups can be variable; names provided here are just examples.
Jaws—shark, salamander, lizard, tiger, gorilla, human (jawed vertebrates);
lungs—salamander, lizard, tiger, gorilla, human (terrestrial tetrapods);
amniotic membrane—lizard, tiger, gorilla, human (amniote tetrapods);
hair—tiger, gorilla, human (mammals); no tail—gorilla, human (humanoid
primate); bipedal—human (human).
2. It would seem to be somewhat of a conundrum, or potentially circular;
choosing a closely related species as an outgroup when we do not even know
the relationships of the species of interest. One way of guarding against a poor
choice for an outgroup is to choose several species as outgroups and examine
how the phylogenetic hypothesis for the group of interest changes as a
consequence of using different outgroups. If the choice of outgroup makes
little difference, then that might increase one’s con dence in the phylogenetic
hypotheses for the species of interest. On the other hand, if the choice makes a
big difference (different phylogenetic hypotheses result when choosing
different outgroups), that might at least lead to the conclusion that one cannot
be con dent in inferring a robust phylogenetic hypothesis for the group of
interest without collecting more data.
3. Recognizing that birds are reptiles potentially provides insight to the biology
of both birds and reptiles. For example, some characteristics of birds are
clearly of reptilian origin, such as feathers (modi ed scales), nasal salt
secreting glands, and strategies of osmoregulation/excretion (excreting
nitrogenous waste products as uric acid) representing ancestral traits, that
continue to serve birds well in their environments. On the other hand, some
differences from other reptiles (again, feathers) seem to have such profound
signi cance biologically, that they overwhelm similarities visible in shared
ancestral characteristics. For example, no extant nonavian reptiles can y, or
are endothermic and these two traits have created a fundamental distinction
in the minds of many biologists. Indeed, many vertebrate biologists prefer to
continue to distinguish birds from reptiles rather than emphasize their
similarities even though they recognize the power of cladistic analysis in
helping to shape classi cation. Ultimately, it may be nothing much more
substantial than habit which drives the preference of some biologists to
traditional classi cation schemes.
4. In fact, such evolutionary transitions (the loss of the larval mode, and the
re-evolution of a larval mode from direct development) are treated with equal
weight under the simplest form of parsimony. However, if it is known from
independent methods (for example, developmental biology) that one kind of
change is less likely than another (loss versus a reversal), these should and can
be taken into account in various ways. The simplest way might be to assign
weights based on likelihoods; two transitions from larval development to
direct development is equal to one reversal from direct development back to a
larval mode. In fact, there are such methods, and they are similar in spirit to
the statistical approaches used to build speci c models of evolutionary change
rather than rely on simple parsimony.
5. The structures are both homologous, as forelimbs, and convergent, as wings.
In other words, the most recent common ancestor of birds, pterosaurs and
bats had a forelimb similar in morphology to that which these organisms
possess—it has similar bones and articulations. Thus, the forelimb itself
among these organisms is homologous. The wing, however, is clearly
convergent; the most recent common ancestor surely did not have wings (or
all other mammals and reptiles would have had to have lost the wing, which
violates the rule of parsimony). The wing of ying insects is purely
convergent with the vertebrate wing, as the forelimb of the insect is not
homologous with the vertebrate forelimb.
6. The biological species concept focuses on processes, in particular those which
result in the evolution of a population to the degree that it becomes reproduc-
tively isolated from its ancestral population. The process of speciation as utilized
by the biological species concept occurs through the interrelatedness of
evolutionary mechanisms such as natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift.
On the other hand, the phylogenetic species concept focuses not on process but
on history, on the evolutionary patterns that led to the divergence between
populations. Neither species concept is more right or more wrong; species
concepts are, by their very nature, subjective and potentially controversial.
CHAPTER 24
LEARNING OUTCOME QUESTIONS
24.1 There should be a high degree of similarity between the two genomes because
they are relatively closely related. There could be differences in the relative amounts of
non-coding DNA. Genes that are necessary for bony skeletal development might be
found in the bony sh. The cartilaginous sh might lack those genes or have substantial
sequences in the genes needed for skeletal development in bony sh.
24.2 There would now be three copies of the chromosome from the same spe-
cies. This would cause a problem for the cell during meiosis I as there would not be
an even number of homologs of the chromosome to pair up and segregate.
24.3 Compare the sequence of the pseudogene with other species. If, for
example, it is a pseudogene of an olfactory gene that is found in mice or chimps,
the sequences will be much more similar than in a more distantly related species.
If horizontal gene transfer explains the origins of the gene, there may not be a
very similar gene in closely related species. You might use the BLAST algorithm
discussed in chapter 18 to identify similar sequences and then construct a phyloge-
netic tree to compare the relationships among the different species.
24.4 A SNP can change a single amino acid in the coded peptide. If the new
R group is very different, the protein may fold in a different way and not function
effectively. SNPs in the FOXP2 gene may, in part, explain why humans have speech
and chimps do not. Other examples that you may remember from earlier in the text
include cystic brosis and sickle cell anemia.
24.5 One approach would be to create a mutation in the non-coding gene and
ask whether or not this changes the phenotype. You would need to be sure that
both copies of the nonprotein-coding gene were “knocked out.”
24.6 Much of the non-coding DNA could contain retrotransposons that
replicate and insert the new DNA into the genome, enlarging the genome. Since
the number of genes does not change, polyploidy is not a good explanation.
24.7 An effective drug might bind only to the region of the pathogen protein that
is distinct from the human protein. The drug could render the pathogen protein inef-
fective without making the human ill. If the seven amino acids that differ are scattered
throughout the genome, they might have a minimal effect on the protein and it would
be dif cult to develop a drug that could detect small differences. It’s possible that the
drug could inadvertently affect other areas of the protein as well.
24.8 One approach would be to create transgenic soy with additional protein
coding genes.
INQUIRY QUESTIONS
Page 478 Meiosis in a 3n cell would be impossible because three sets of
chromosomes cannot be divided equally between two cells. In a 3n cell, all three
homologous chromosomes would pair in prophase I, then align during anaphase
I. As the homologous chromosomes separate, two of a triplet might go to one cell
while the third chromosome would go to the other cell. The same would be true
for each set of homologues. Daughter cells would have an unpredictable number of
chromosomes.
Page 479 Polyploidization seems to induce the elimination of duplicated genes.
Duplicate genes code for the same gene product. It is reasonable that duplicate
genes would be eliminated to decrease the redundancy arising from the translation
of several copies of the same gene.
A-14
appendix A
rav32223_appx_A1-A34.indd A-14rav32223_appx_A1-A34.indd A-14 11/30/09 6:36:00 PM11/30/09 6:36:00 PM