To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Sexual reproduction is almost universal amongst eukaryotes. Gametes are produced in the gonad (eggs in the ovary of a female, sperm in the testis of a male) then fuse to form an individual with unique combinations of parental traits. In mammals, birds, snakes and most other vertebrates, most insects and a few plants, sex of an individual is determined by a gene on specialized sex chromosomes which trigger either the male or the female developmental pathway. Sex chromosomes are peculiarly fascinating. Firstly, because they bear the genes that determine sex. But also because they possess unique features imposed upon them by their possession of this control gene. Understanding the organization, function and evolution of sex chromosomes requires some fundamental knowledge of biology and genetics. In this chapter, I will skim lightly across the critical concepts and some of the methods we use to test them, for readers who do not have a background in biology. I will also introduce mammals and other vertebrates on which this book focuses.
Colombellinidae is an extinct family of marine gastropods occurring in carbonate facies from the Middle Jurassic to the lowermost Upper Cretaceous, primarily in Europe and rarely in Asia. Members of the family are characterized by thick, oval shells with a narrow aperture bearing anterior and posterior canals, a thickened peristome and a denticulate outer lip. Colombellinids share several shell characters with representatives of Cypraeoidea, including a narrow, elongated aperture, but unlike cypraeids, their shells are not convolute. Based on a comprehensive revision of all described species, the taxonomy of Colombellinidae is clarified, and the family is restricted to only two genera: Colombellina d’Orbigny, 1842, and Zittelia Gemmellaro, 1869. One new species, Colombellina crassigranulata sp. nov., from the Upper Jurassic of Bulgaria, and one new genus, Wadeina gen. nov., from the Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) of Tennessee, USA – with a type species previously included in Colombellinidae but here assigned to the family Personidae (Tonnoidea) – are described. The distribution of the family and associated facies indicates a preference for shallow marine carbonate environments, while their low abundance may indicate a carnivorous mode of life. A comparison of Colombellinidae with Tonnoidea, Cypraeoidea and Purpurinidae sheds a new light on the phylogenetic relationships of these groups and supports the interpretation of Colombellinidae as a stem or sister group of Cypraeoidea. This study contributes to a refined systematics of Jurassic–Cretaceous gastropods and provides new evidence for the early diversification of higher caenogastropods.
During a helminthological survey conducted in the southern Peruvian Amazon, nematodes representing an undescribed species of Aplectana Railliet & Henry, 1916 (Cosmocercidae) were recovered from the intestine of Leptodactylus bolivianus Boulenger, 1898 (Anura: Leptodactylidae). The new species, Aplectana peruensis n. sp., is described herein based on an integrative taxonomic approach combining detailed morphological analysis using light and scanning electron microscopy with molecular characterization of the partial 18S rDNA gene. Aplectana peruensis n. sp. is distinguished from its congeners by a unique combination of characters, including 13 pairs of caudal papillae (3 precloacal, 5 adcloacal, and 5 poscloacal papillae) plus a single unpaired papilla, the presence of a gubernaculum, and relatively long spicules (152–194) with a clearly defined distal bifurcation. Phylogenetic analyses based on Bayesian inference methods recovered the new species as a well-supported sister lineage to A. hylambatis (Baylis, 1927) from the Neotropical region. Genetic divergence values further support its specific distinctiveness. This study represents the first description of an Aplectana species from L. bolivianus in the Amazon region of Peru and increases the number of recognized species within the genus.
Species of genus Clavellotis (Castro-Romero & Baeza-Kuroki, 1984) are parasites of marine fishes across the world. During the course of a survey on the metazoan parasites of marine fish across the Yucatán Peninsula, Mexico, specimens of a lerneapodid copepod consistent with the concept of Clavelotis were collected from the gills of three species of sparids, and were described as a new species using morphological and molecular characters. Clavellotis mayae n. sp. represents the second species of the genus reported in Mexican coastal waters. The new species morphologically resembles C. dubius and C. sebastidis in the trunk shape but can be readily distinguished by having a short maxilla which is separated to its distal end, a sub-oval and conspicuously larger aliform process, and a distal margin of the trunk bearing pronounced subcircular flaps covering the attachment sites of the egg sacs. The new species further differs from all other known congeners by having a short genital process and mandibles without secondary dentition. Molecular analyses through 28S rDNA and cox1 sequences further corroborate all these morphological distinctions and support the taxonomic placement of the new species within Clavellotis. The relationships of this species with other congeners are discussed in light of molecular evidence.
This leading textbook introduces students and practitioners to the identification and analysis of animal remains at archaeology sites. The authors use global examples from the Pleistocene era into the present to explain how zooarchaeology allows us to form insights about relationships among people and their natural and social environments, especially site-formation processes, economic strategies, domestication, and paleoenvironments. This new edition reflects the significant technological developments in zooarchaeology that have occurred in the past two decades, notably ancient DNA, proteomics, and isotope geochemistry. Substantially revised to reflect these trends, the volume also highlights novel applications, current issues in the field, the growth of international zooarchaeology, and the increased role of interdisciplinary collaborations. In view of the growing importance of legacy collections, voucher specimens, and access to research materials, it also includes a substantially revised chapter that addresses management of zooarchaeological collections and curation of data.
Recent studies have highlighted divergent change as a more common outcome of language contact than previously thought. While convergent change is often attributed to bilingual cognitive pressures, divergent change has usually been explained by appealing to sociocultural factors. We argue that the effects of social pressures on linguistic systems must nevertheless be realized in how language is processed in the individual bilingual speaker and, therefore, that divergent change is also ultimately rooted in bilingual cognition. Since lexical forms are most susceptible to contact-induced divergent change we focus on their production. We begin by developing a cognitive model that combines Grosjean's language mode with a later output-monitoring stage. The parameters to the model are then fit to the results of an experiment in which bilinguals are seen to avoid shared lexical items. These best-fit parameters form the basis of a series of multi-agent simulations that show rapid divergence in the lexica of languages with large proportions of bilinguals. We consider the implications of these findings for the psycholinguistic study of bilingual lexical selection, the construction of phylogenies, and the reconstruction of language family histories.
In this chapter we introduce the modern field of child and adolescent development. We define some basic concepts of developmental psychology, examine the field’s history, and identify some of the core issues in the discipline. We also examine some methods of collecting data and research designs with children and adolescents, and discuss the role of theories in developmental psychology.
The lichen genus Lecanora is one of the largest genera of lichenized fungi. The core part of the genus is the L. subfusca group and within this group, Lecanora hybocarpa (Tuck.) Brodo, initially described from North America and thought to be endemic, has been reported from several European countries. However, the identity of these European specimens has been increasingly questioned. This study aimed to clarify the relationship between North American L. hybocarpa and European collections, including the morphologically similar L. sinuosa Herk & Aptroot. We performed morphological, chemical (TLC) and molecular analyses (nrITS and mtSSU) on a broad collection of specimens from Europe, Macaronesia and North America. Our phylogenetic analyses revealed that true L. hybocarpa has not yet been confirmed in Europe. Instead, several genetically distinct European taxa share the L. hybocarpa morphotype. Our findings resulted in the description of three new species: Lecanora cryptosinuosa (differing only genetically from L. sinuosa), L. macaronesica (characterized by quite large apothecia with constricted bases and a finely crenulate margin, and the presence of gangaleoidin) and L. subsinuosa (difficult to separate from L. sinuosa, but may sometimes be recognized by darker apothecial discs with inconsistent pigmentation, the occasional presence of a tiny pruina on young discs, and the usually thicker apothecial margin, dentate in the inner edge). Furthermore, we report L. pseudargentata as a new species for Europe. Due to the high morphological variability and cryptic speciation within this group, reliable identification often requires DNA analysis. Therefore, we propose using the name Lecanora hybocarpa agg. for all species sharing this particular morphotype. A key to the epiphytic esorediate species of the L. subfusca group in Europe and northern Africa is provided.
An extensive survey of North American catostomid fishes yielded insights into the diversity, host specificity and phylogenetic relationships of monopisthocotylans belonging to Pseudomurraytrematidae. Parasites were recorded from 14 of 16 host species surveyed. In total, 22 species of Anonchohaptor, Icelanonchohaptor and Pseudomurraytrema were collected, including 7 new species. Most species were recovered from gills, whereas two Icelanonchohaptor species were found on fins. Phylogenetic analyses based on 28S rDNA support the monophyly of Pseudomurraytrematidae and its sister relationship to Diplectanidae. Within the family, Pseudomurraytrema asiaticum – a parasite of the East Asian fish Myxocyprinus asiaticus – was recovered as sister to the clade of Nearctic pseudomurraytrematids, a placement that may reflect geographic and host-associated separation. The remaining Pseudomurraytrema species parasitize North American Catostominae and form a well-supported clade sister to the clade comprising species of Anonchohaptor and Icelanonchohaptor, primarily associated with Ictiobinae. Under this topology, Pseudomurraytrema, as currently circumscribed, may be paraphyletic. Relationships between morphologically similar species of Anonchohaptor and Icelanonchohaptor remain unresolved: in the 28S tree, Anonchohaptor is paraphyletic (with Icelanonchohaptor nested within it), whereas the concatenated 18S–ITS1–28S analyses recover a single clade with Icelanonchohaptor (2 spp.) sister to the remaining species of Anonchohaptor. The parasite phylogeny broadly reflects host relationships, though several incongruences point to historical host switching. Morphological data also support the monophyly of Pseudomurraytrematidae via a synapomorphic male copulatory organ (U-shaped copulatory tube with a submedial spine, 3-ramus accessory piece), indicating structural conservatism within this family.
Clestobothrium Lühe, 1899 is a genus of cestodes belonging to the order Bothriocephalidea, which infects marine fish from the Gadiformes order. Herein, a novel species of Clestobothrium is described from the intestine of the European hake Merluccius merluccius (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Ionian Sea (Eastern Mediterranean Sea), through an integrative taxonomic approach that combines morphological and molecular data. The new species, named Clestobothrium brettiae n. sp., can be distinguished from all congeners by its unique ovary shape, and a combination of characters including the arrangement and number of testes. It shares similar morphological characters, with Clestobothrium crassiceps (Rudolphi, 1819) Lühe, 1899, which overlaps in host and geographic distribution. However, morphological differences between Clestobothrium brettiae n. sp. and C. crassiceps also include the arrangement of gladiate spinitriches, as well as a larger scolex, proglottids, testes and cirrus sac, and different ovary morphology. The establishment of Clestobothrium brettiae n. sp. as a novel taxon is supported by detailed morphological description and biometric statistics, in addition to molecular characterisation (based on partial small subunit ribosomal ribonucleic acid [rRNA], partial large subunit rRNA, and internal transcribed spacer region 2), genetic distance, and phylogenetic analyses.
Outside of our fellow mammals, our next closest relatives are reptiles. As both birds and mammals are warm blooded (endothermic) and have four-chambered hearts, one might be tempted to think that the sister group to mammals would be birds. But the story is much more complicated than that, especially because birds are actually reptiles.
Reptiles include four main lineages: (1) turtles, (2) lizards and snakes, (3) crocodilians, and (4) dinosaurs, including birds. Indeed, birds are reptiles – birds are a surviving lineage descended from bipedal predatory dinosaurs! In decades past, there were five “classes” of vertebrates (animal groups with backbones): fishes, amphibians, mammals, reptiles, and birds. In fact, many basic treatments still list these groups. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica still has an article entitled: “Five Vertebrate Groups.” But there are major problems with two of these old groups: neither fishes nor scaly reptiles are monophyletic.
I have argued that one of the major misconceptions about evolution and the tree of life is that some species or lineages are considered more “primitive” than others – this chapter will delve more deeply into this misconception and one of its key causes. Across the tree of life, certain lineages – including the platypus, lungfishes, and mosses – are frequently labeled as more primitive than other members of their groups. Mammals provide several good case studies demonstrating the reasons for this longstanding misperception. Researchers, journalists, and filmmakers all seem obsessed with discussing certain lineages that somehow seem primitive to them. This misconception about primitive lineages is problematic for two major reasons. First, it leads to a general misunderstanding of evolution, which can lead to fundamental misunderstandings across all of biology, including human health.
Fossils provide a unique window into how evolution has unfolded. In particular, transitions in the fossil record provide compelling evidence for how major evolutionary changes have happened. One of the most well-known transitions is from fish-like vertebrates to the first land vertebrates – our earliest tetrapod ancestors. (The word tetrapod refers to the groups of vertebrates with four legs, namely mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.) Paleontologists had known that transitional fossils connecting aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates must exist. There were abundant fossils of vertebrates with fins from around 400 mya, and there were abundant fossils of terrestrial tetrapods with limbs from around 350 mya. But key fossils were missing – those that could show details of how the evolutionary crawl onto land had occurred.
If we think of ourselves as the “highest” forms of life, we often think of Bacteria as the “lowest” forms of life. We also think of Bacteria as ancient, “primitive,” and ancestral. As discussed for many other extant branches of the tree of life, these views are misleading. But these views may be especially hard to jettison when thinking of Bacteria – aren’t they more ancestral than we are? But we must always come back to this idea: Bacteria are not our ancestors – they are extant cousins. As will be detailed below, all lineages of organisms descended from the LUCA; the major lineages of life did not descend from Bacteria.
The clade Bacteria includes species that are ecologically essential (e.g., as decomposers that impact the carbon cycle) and that comprise key organisms of our microbiome (e.g., the symbiotic Bacteria normally found on our skin and in our digestive tracts). Bacteria also cause many diseases, including stomach ulcers (Helicobacter pylori), tetanus (Clostridium tetani), and acne (Cutibacterium acnes).
This chapter begins with the strong statement that fish do not exist as a true evolutionary group. Of the five traditional “classes” of vertebrates, fishes are the most problematic. The concept “fish” is wildly paraphyletic. In contrast, extant amphibians form a monophyletic clade. Mammals are also a true evolutionary group. In the previous chapter we learned that the former paraphyletic group Reptilia can be fixed by recognizing that birds are reptiles.
But there is no simple fix for fishes. One possible solution is to say that all tetrapods are fishes too. In other words, you and I and frogs and birds would all be fishes. That could work and it does reflect true evolutionary relationships, but it makes the former concept fishes fairly useless. Another solution is to recognize at least six separate lineages as distinct monophyletic groups.
For decades, biologists have assumed that our most distant animal cousins were sponges (Porifera). This seemed to make a lot of sense, because sponges are very different from us and from all other animals. Sponges do not have different types of tissues, such as skin, muscles, and nerves. Their colonies of cells form the colorful but irregular shapes that are common on coral reefs. There is no way to cut a sponge into two equal halves – adult sponges are asymmetrical. Surely animals such as this must be very distantly related to us, no? (Note that for this chapter, I have switched things up to talk about our most distant animal relatives first.)
But beginning around 2010, new data began to emerge suggesting that another group of animals, the comb jellies, might be our most distant animal relatives. Comb jellies, also known as ctenophores (Ctenophora), are aquatic organisms with generally translucent gel-filled bodies.
According to Aristotle and Linnaeus, there were only two “kingdoms” – Plantae and Animalia. In the 1800s, Haeckel carved kingdom “Protista” off of Linnaeus’ Plantae. Kingdoms for Fungi and Bacteria (Monera) were later added. By the time I was in secondary school, I learned a five-kingdom system. The five “kingdoms” that I learned are still frequently used in biology lessons: animals, plants, fungi, protists, and bacteria. But we now know that a five-kingdom story is so simplified as to be misleading, and it tells us very little about the broad tree of life. Back then, in the 1900s, our limited understanding made things seem more simple, but recent DNA sequence data indicate that the groupings are much more complex.
The five-kingdom system was first proposed in 1969. (1) Animalia were multicellular creatures that eat other organisms. (2) Fungi were generally multicellular decomposers that fed by a network of filamentous cells. (3) Plantae included especially the land plants.
Chimpanzees are not our ancestors! Rather, they are our closest living cousins. Approximately 7 mya there was a species of ape in Africa, the common ancestor that you and I share with the chimps. That species was not a chimpanzee – we know that thousands of changes in DNA have occurred in the descendant lineages since that ancestor. And many resulting skeletal and biological changes have occurred in both the human lineage and the chimpanzee lineage since that ancestor.
The idea that humans descended from chimpanzees is one of the most common misconceptions about evolution. The notion that we evolved from chimps fits well with the concept of the ladder of progress. We might think that chimpanzees are more “primitive” than we are, so if evolution were a progression toward more “advanced” forms, then we might think that the other living apes evolved first, and that we evolved from those apes. We might think that chimpanzees and gorillas are older species, and that Homo sapiens is a younger species that evolved more recently.
Imagine looking out on the plains of Africa sometime several hundred thousand years ago. You see a group of people – perhaps a family group with grandparents, parents, adolescents, and younger children. You can sense their connection to you – they are fellow humans and you recognize the key features that we all share today. Perhaps some of them are sharing meat from a gazelle they have killed. Others might be gathering fruit or seeds. The children might be running around chasing one another. Imagine a young woman in that clan, perhaps in her early twenties. She could be a woman that you and I and every other living human can trace our ancestry back to. Such a woman lived in East Africa approximately 150,000 years ago; she is a common ancestor that you and I share, along with every other human currently alive on Earth. We all inherited a key piece of our DNA from her. This is a segment of DNA that you inherited from your mother, and she from her mother, and she from her mother … all the way back to this woman who lived perhaps in present-day Kenya, Tanzania, or Ethiopia. She has been nicknamed “mitochondrial Eve.”