The Atavism

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

A talk

If Google Analytics is to be believed, then a substantial porportion of the folks that read The Atavism live here in Dunedin. That being the case, I thought I'd let you now that I'm giving a talk on Friday - a summary of all the work that went into my thesis including lots of (I think) exciting results that I can't write about here because they are still at various stages of the process that goes from finding something cool to that cool thing appearing in published papers. You will also get to see what happens when some fool tries to present 87 slides in about 45 minutes*, which could be entertaining.

It's going to be at 12 noon, Friday in the Benham Seminar Room (2nd floor of the "new" part of the Zoology building) . If you are around campus and have nothing to do over your lunch break you are most welcome to come along.

Of course, the slides aren't the talk...

Labels: ,

Posted by David Winter 1:20 PM | comments(0)| Permalink |

Sunday, February 26, 2012

Sunday Spinelessness - They're alive!

It would take the most dedicated reader of The Atavism to remember the empty snail shell I wrote about last year. I'll admit even I'd mainly forgotten about myself, but this weekend I went on a little mini-field trip to collect a few samples for a colleague's ongoing project. In planning that trip I did remember the slightly mysterious shells I found last winter, and so decided to head back and see if I could get a few more to send along an an expert who might be able to put a name to them. 

Sure enough, I found plenty more empty shells in different states of aging , but deep within the leaf litter I also uncovered one shell that was still playing house to an animal. I couldn't quite be sure there was a healthy animal in the shell when I first picked it up, since the snail was already retracted inside. Thhe easiest way to encourage a sleeping snail out from its shell is to warm in up, so I clasped it in my palm for about a minute and, well, here's the result:




Obviously, having taken the photographs I put this snail back under the nice moist leaf litter from which I'd taken it. Since then I've done a bit of research and I'm fairly confident that I've now identified this population down to genus level. But I've wrong about these things before (most recently by en entire superfamily...) so I'm still going to send the empty shells I collected from the same site to someone who has much more expertise than I do. I'll keep you updated on just exactly what these creatures are.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Posted by David Winter 6:35 PM | comments(0)| Permalink |

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

The Tree of Diversification (or why the March of Progress is wrong)

I'm giving a big talk next week - a departmental seminar. It's the first time I've had more than 15 minutes to talk about my research, so this talk will be a little more discursive that my usual.

I study speciation, how new species come into being, and one of the things that I want to emphasise is that speciation hasn't really entered into the broader understanding of what evolution is.Take the one image that describes evolution in modern society:


The March of Progress, Rudolph F. Zallinger. From Time Life's book Early Man.


The so called "march of progress" has been used to describe the origin of our species thousands upon thousands of times. But it never happened. Only a few of the species depicted are potential ancestors for humans and many of them were contemporaries to each other (as the original diagram makes clear) so can hardly be different steps along a single evolutionary path. 

To try show what really happened, I've redrawn "March of Progress" into the "tree of diversification" - trying to show how the species depicted above relate to each other (parts of this tree are very much up for debate, by the way). Bear in mind, I'm only including the species that are represented in the original graphic, if we were to include all the fossil ape species we know about the tree would be much bushier):


Silhouettes are CC BY-SA by José-Manuel Benitos this image is released under the same license


I think that when you look at it this way it becomes clear that if we want to understand how the organisms depicted in the most famous icon of evoluton came to be we need to focus not just on how changes occur in one lineage, but on how new lineage form and become capable of changing in their own directions. At the moment there are probably 10 million species on earth, and just how they got to be here is surely one of the biggest questions that biology asks us. Speciation and diversification ought to be central to the way we think about evolution.



Labels: , , , , ,

Posted by David Winter 1:52 PM | comments(2)| Permalink |

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Sunday Spinlessness - Amphipods are not prawns (and it matters)

A couple of weeks a go the internet was abuzz with the discovery of giant deep-sea amphipods off the coast of New Zealand.  Invertebrates, form New Zealand featuring in a story that once again highlights how little we know about life on earth - surely, this should be a story that brings me nothing but joy?

Sadly, the New Zealand Herald managed to take just a tiny bit of gloss of the story. They choose to call the creatures  "prawns" and illustrated their story with this picture...




...which when clicked to achieve a larger view gives us this:


Quite some transformation. Needless to say, amphipods are not prawns and the creature in the larger photograph is only distantly related to the mega-amphipod in the smaller one.

Am I being ridiculously pedantic to care about this error? Is my life really so easy that I have time to worry about taxonomic and nomenclatural details associated with reports in the Herald? In fact, there's more to this error than the name. The Herald's conflation of these two distantly related groups highlights the way we fail to comprehend the true diversity of life on earth. So here's my attemp to show what you miss when you call an amphipod a prawn.

The scale of biodiversity

Every cell in my body is the result of an unbroken-chain of cell division that stretches back 3.8 billion years. I find that an absolutely staggering fact, but I shouldn't feel too special. Really, I 'm just like every creature on earth - riding on the edge of one of the lineages that extends out from biology's big bang at the origin of life. Plenty of people have tried to illustrate the history of life, here's one more look, based on DNA sequences from living organisms:



Forget animals and plants as the "two kingdoms" of life. For most of the history of life every creature on earth was a single cell. Even today, most of the lineages that extend out from the biology's big bang are made entirely of singled-celled organisms. Because this tree is based on those species that scientists have sequenced the genomes of, it drastically over-represents animals, but even here all animals are represented by the little twig that descending from the black-labeled node.

Biodiversity is more or less fractal, if we zoom in on that node and look at the phylogeny of animals we get another tree with branches:


As I've said before, it's very difficult to resolve the relationships among the different lineages of animals. No matter how the branches relate to each other, it's clear there are a lot of different ways to be an animal, and that I'm never going to run out of subjects to write about for these Sunday posts. All the lions, tigers, bears, elephants, fish, fowl, lizards and frogs that make their way around the world with the aid of a backbone are part of the branch labeled Chordates above. The rest are invertebrates, and so fair game for me. But I'm meant to to be talking about amphipods, so let's skip a couple of steps and move into the arthropods (jointed-limbed creatures including insects) then down further into crustaceans and in particular the class Malacostraca - a group that includes crabs, lobsters, shrimps, wood lice and indeed amphipods and prawns:





Now we can start to how broad a brush you'd need to paint amphipods into the same group as prawns. In fact, the lineages that went on to give rise to modern amphipods, on the one hand, and prawns on the other parted ways about 130 million years ago. That's much more ancient than the divide between, say, mice and elephants. What's more, the amphipods are a much more diverse and interesting group than the prawns into which they were lumped. 

So what is an amphipod?

I'm willing to admit that "amphipod" is not a term with which many people are familiar, and that the Herald had to find some way of explaining what a normal amphipod might look like. The only amphipod that most people are likely to be familiar with is the "sand hopper". The little crustaceans that bounce away from beach-cast seaweeds when you pick them up are examples of typical amphipods. Most gardens in New Zealand will have species closely related to the sand hoppers living under logs (this one was actually living under a flower pot):



That's the basic amphipod body plan - a relatively soft exterior divided into 13 sections, two large antennae , two compound eyes and lots and lots of legs divided into different sets for different jobs. By and large amphipods are scavengers, eating decaying matter where ever they get their limbs om it. The land-dwelling amphipods are the only ones you are likely to have seen up close, but most species live in the sea.

Most marine amphipods look more or less like their land-lubber relatives. The super giants that showed up in the Kermadek Trench are presumably from the genus Alicella, which is related to, and more less a scaled-up version of, your typical scavenging amphipod. Other groups of amphipods have remained small, but radically reworked their ancestral body plan. The most striking example of such a reimagining are the elongated caprellids or "skeleton shrimp":



Caprella mutica. Photo is CC-BY-SA 3.0 from Hans Willewart

There is another radically different amphipod that I'm sure you've seen photos of, even though you don't know it. Here's a colony of them:





The bumps around the heads of right whales (called callosities) are part of the whale's body, but the white colouration results from the thousands of cyamid amphipods which live on these bumps. Unlike barnacles, which also attach themselves to whales, cyamids don't have a free-swimming larval stage, so they are only passed on from one whale to another through contact. Researchers have even used the genetic relationships between cyamids to learn about relationships among whale populations

Cyamids are commonly called "whale lice", and indeed their flattened bodies are similar to those of their distant insect cousins:

Whale Lice

Photo CC 2.0 BY-NC from Flickr user J Whelcher
By contrast with the diversity found within the amphipoda, prawns are pretty limited morphologically. I realise the Herald's headline synonymising the first into the second reflected a general lack of understanding about the sorts of creatures that fill our biosphere, rather than a particular oversight on their behalf. But when the true picture is so much more interesting than the lazy shorthand they used, I think it's worth pointing out the error.


All the trees here were made with iTOL, this first is their main tree drawn unrooted. The animal and Malacostraca trees are the NCBI taxonomy drawn to phylum and genus level respectively

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by David Winter 9:32 PM | comments(0)| Permalink |

Sunday, February 12, 2012

Sunday Spinelessness - A fly in the bee garden

Just a couple of photos today.

We planted a bee garden this year - Borage, Phacelia foxglove and a couple of other plants that are known to attract honey bees and and their bumbling cousins into the garden:


The "bee garden" has worked - there is hardly a moment during the day when there isn't at least one bee making it's way around the little patch of garden. I'll show you some photos of them soon, but today I wanted to share a much smaller creature. A tiny fly perched on the leaf of a chickweed (Stellaria):


I'm terrible with fly taxonomy (or flylogeny if you'd rather) - I like to think I can at least get most of the spiders and insects I encounter down to the family level (roughly equivalent to successfully identifying myself as a great ape). With the exception of a few groups - crane flies, robber flies and hover flies,  I get nowhere with flies. And so it is with this one, all I can tell you is that it's small (~3mm) probably from group called Schizophora. And that I quite like this photo.

Labels: , , , ,

Posted by David Winter 8:17 PM | comments(0)| Permalink |

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Sunday Spinelessness - King of the castle

A moment of life in the undergrowth captured (leaf beetles playing king of the castle?):


I don't know exactly what was going on here, though I've got my ideas. Whatever I saw, it involved a lot of wild antennae-shaking from the two beetles facing each other and apparently very little interest in proceedings from the base of the "short, blunt beetle-pyramid".


Labels: , , , ,

Posted by David Winter 8:12 PM | comments(0)| Permalink |

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Proceedings of the 44th Carnival of Evolution

A little disclaimer to those of you coming to this cold (thanks for the link PZ!), this is the latest edition of the "Carnival of Evolution" -  a monthly collection of evolutionary writing from around the web. The conference-like layout is my little conceit in presenting the posts - sadly there won't be a real meeting (though it would sure be a good one!). Subscribe to the CoE blog to hear when the next carnival is posted.

Welcome to the 44th monthly meeting of the Society for the Blogging of Evolution. As you can see below, we had a large number of submissions this month and, in order to have only a single track of talks and get people to the banquet with sufficient energy to enjoy themselves, some submissions have been included in a poster session following the last of the talks. Submissions were grouped purely on their subject material, and a submission included in the poster-session shouldn't be viewed as inferior to any featured as a talk.

I hope you enjoy a day's worth of reading, and remind you that a host is still required for next month's meeting. Sign up with Bjørn (bjorn[at]bjornostman.com) if you are interesting in helping out.

Session 1. Symposium on the evolution of  novelty

8:15
John Wilkins (Evolving ThoughtsNotes on Novelty 8: Conclusion? Post evo-devo
8:30
Anne Buchanan (The Mermaid's TaleSpontaneous combustion! How life began, how life begins.... Part I.
8:45
Arvind Pillai (Fins to Feet) Coming of the Amniotes
9:00
Bradly Alicea (Synthetic Daisies) The Evolution and Neuromechanics of very-fast movements
9:15
Duncan Wright (Self-Writing Mechanism) On the Origin of Anxiety
9:30
Anne Buchanan (The Mermaid's Tale) That's disgusting! Make up your own Just-So story about the evolution of an emotion
9:45
Carl Zimmer (The Loom) Resurrecting Evolution to Solve an 800-Million-Year-Old Puzzle.

Session 2. Evolutionary ecology and life history evolution   




10:30
 Eric M. Johnson (The Primate Diaries): The Case of the Missing Polygamists
10:45
Danielle Whittaker (BeaconHow the Cricket lost its song.
11:00
Zen Faulkes (NeurodojoThe Scientists are coming, Run!
11:15
Aaron Wagner (Beacon) Studying the evolution of sociality with real and digital hyenas.
11:30
Colin Beale (Safari Ecology) Life spans of tropical birds


Session 3. Philosophy and evolution

12:30
Joachim (Mousetrap) Scientific paradoxes: Quine's remedy + Priest's independent reason"
12:45
Zen Faulkes (NeurodojoHidden potential, and the concept of syngeny.
1:00
John Wilkins (Evolving Thoughts). The difference between population concepts and 'population thinking'
1:15
Adam M. Goldstein (The Shifting Balance of FactorsOntology Talk at New York Botanical Garden
1:30
Adam M. Goldstein (The Shifting Balance of FactorsNatural selection for near-death experience

Session 4a. Experimental Evolution

2:00
S. E. Gould (Lab Rat @ Scientific American)  Discrete steps to antibiotic resistance.
2:15
Ford Denison (This week in Evolution) Experimental evolution of multicellularity: the movies
2:30
Hird (Nothing in biology makes sense!) "Let's stay together” - Al Green

Session 4b. Timing and tempo of evolution

2:45
Jeremy Yoder (Denim and Tweed) Baby steps versus long jumps: The "size" of evolutionary change, and why it matters.
3:00
Martin Turcott(Eco-Evo Evo-Eco) Why should we care about rapid evolution?
3:15
Paul McBride (Still Monkeys). Cornelius Hunter and the molecular clock.
3:30
Zen Faulkes (NeurodojoOnce more into the cave
3:45
Bjørn Østman (Pleiotropy) What determines rates of ecological speciation

Session 5. Outreach and anti-creationism

4:15
Rosangela Canino-Koning (BeaconProfessional Scientist, Amateur Ambassador .
4:30
Supriya Khedkar (Grey Matter Updates..... , ,,,,, ;: ::::: !
4:45
The Lorax (Angry By Choice). Creation thinking impedes understanding.
5:00
Bjørn Østman (PleiotropyBehe on Behe, and Behe on Evolution


Poster session 

1
Ryan Kitko (Cunabulum) The peculiar modification of the locket trigger plants.
2
Susan Elvidge (Genome engineeringExtinct isn't always extinct - the giant tortoise still lives
3
Noah Matton (Nothing in biology makes sense!). Mass Extinctions: Did ancient humans get the party started 30,000 years ago
4
Zen Faulkes (NeurodojoMales have bigger brains than females, if those males are sticklebacks from Iceland.
5
Scott Lee (Scott Free Thinking) IGF-1 and Animal Protein? Does Eating Meat Cause Cancer?.
6
Øystein Horgmo (The Sterile EyeBlue Blood Donors of the Sea


Labels: , ,

Posted by David Winter 5:23 PM | comments(23)| Permalink |