Volvox 2015 meeting review available online

Fig. 1 from Herron 2016. Examples of volvocine species. A: Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, B: Gonium pectorale, C: Astrephomene gubernaculiferum, D: Pandorina morum, E: Volvulina compacta, F: Platydorina caudata, G: Yamagishiella unicocca, H: Colemanosphaera charkowiensis, I: Eudorina elegans, J: Pleodorina starrii, K: Volvox barberi, L: Volvox ovalis, M: Volvox gigas, N: Volvox aureus, O: Volvox carteri.

Fig. 1 from Herron 2016. Examples of volvocine species. A: Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, B: Gonium pectorale, C: Astrephomene gubernaculiferum, D: Pandorina morum, E: Volvulina compacta, F: Platydorina caudata, G: Yamagishiella unicocca, H: Colemanosphaera charkowiensis, I: Eudorina elegans, J: Pleodorina starrii, K: Volvox barberi, L: Volvox ovalis, M: Volvox gigas, N: Volvox aureus, O: Volvox carteri. A and B by Deborah Shelton.

The meeting review for the Third International Volvox Conference is now available online at Molecular Ecology (doi: 10.1111/mec.13551). The editors warned me ahead of time that the challenge for this paper would be to make it of broad interest to the readership of Molecular Ecology, so there is a lot of background information that will be old news to members of the Volvox community.

[Read more…]

Volvox 2015: taxonomy, phylogeny & ecology

Volvox africanus

Volvox africanus (from Herron et al. 2010)

The worst-kept secret among Volvox researchers is that the current volvocine taxonomy is a train wreck. Within the largest family, the Volvocaceae, five nominal genera are polyphyletic (Pandorina, Volvulina, Eudorina, Pleodorina, and Volvox). Of the remaining three, two are monotypic (Platydorina and Yamagishiella). Only the newly described Colemanosphaera is monophyletic with more than one species. The extent of the problem was suspected long before it was confirmed by molecular phylogenetics, and ad hoc attempts to deal with it have led to the existence of such taxonomic abominations as ‘sections,’ ‘formas,’ and ‘syngens.’ An overhaul is called for, but it is complicated by the aforementioned loss of type cultures.

[Read more…]

Pathways to pluralism: Beckett Sterner on biological individuality, part 2

Aphids on dandelion

Aphids on dandelion. Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.

Previously, I introduced Beckett Sterner’s new paper comparing and critically evaluating the views of Ellen Clarke and Peter Godfrey-Smith on biological individuality. For Clarke, individuality is recognized by the presence of ‘individuating mechanisms’: traits that increase the capacity for among-unit selection or decrease the capacity for within-unit selection. Godfrey-Smith recognizes different kinds of individuals, but at a minimum, populations of individuals must have Lewontin’s criteria of phenotypic variation, differential fitness, and heritability of fitness, i.e. be capable of adaptive change.

[Read more…]

Pussyfooting around evolution

Montana_State_Seal

I have been lucky to work with some excellent science teachers here in Montana. The state’s science education in general, though, could be better. In 2012, the Thomas Fordham Institute released its report The State of State Science Standards, and Montana didn’t fare so well. With an overall rating of ‘F’, Montana’s science standards were described as

…a thin amalgam of wooly commands and vague expectations…permeated with vague if high-sounding generalities that are of little or no use in setting up a course of study.

[Read more…]

Never?

Picard-Facepalm

In a post on human evolution (“BBC asks, why we are only humans still alive?“), Uncommon Descent asks,

It is unclear that any of these groups [Neanderthals, Denisovans, ‘hobbits’] ever were separate species. Is that not just more Darwinspeak? The serious discussion of what “separate species” means never happens because no Darwin follower can afford it. [emphasis mine]

[Read more…]

Why don’t we revise volvocine taxonomy?

Volvocine taxonomy is in a sorry state. Most nominal genera, and some nominal species, are almost certainly polyphyletic. More than once, I’ve been asked during a talk, “Why is Volvox scattered all over the tree?”

JPhycol2010Fig2a

Fig. 2A from Herron et al. 2010. The traits characteristic of the genus Volvox—asexual forms with >500 cells, only a few of which are reproductive, and oogamy in sexual reproduction—have arisen at least three times independently: once in the section Volvox (represented by V. globator, V. barberi, and V. rousseletii), once in V. gigas, and once or possibly twice in the remaining Volvox species. Branch shading indicates maximum-parsimony reconstruction (white = absent, black = present, dashed = ambiguous). Pie charts indicate Bayesian posterior probabilities at selected nodes. Numbers to the left of cladograms indicate log-Bayes factors at selected nodes: positive = support for trait presence, negative = support for trait absence. Interpretation of log-Bayes factors is based on Kass and Raftery’s (1995) modification of Jeffreys (1961, Theory of probability. 3rd edn. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK.): 0 to 2, barely worth mentioning; 2 to 6, positive; 6 to 10, strong; >10, very strong. Boldface numbers following species names indicate Volvox developmental programs following Desnitski (1995).

[Read more…]

In which I agree with Uncommon Descent

BizarroWorld

We’re both fans of Betul Kacar‘s research (see “AbSciCon day 3: the tape of life“). I know why I like it, but I can’t quite figure out why they do. Dr. Kacar’s research combines molecular paleontology with experimental evolution, inserting ancient versions of genes into modern bacteria and observing how they evolve in response. I’ve puzzled over Uncommon Descent’s fondness for Dr. Kacar’s research before (“Evolution is evidence against evolution (?)“), and I’m afraid their new post on the topic (“Roll dice twice, see what turns up“) doesn’t really clear things up.

[Read more…]

Volvox 2015: evolution

This is taking much longer than I ever expected; hopefully I can get through blogging about Volvox 2015 before registration opens for Volvox 2017!

The final session on day 1 (August 20) was chaired by Aurora Nedelcu from the University of New Brunswick. Dr. Nedelcu’s introduction emphasized some of the basic questions in evolutionary biology, aside from the origins of multicellularity and sex, on which volvocine research has provided insights: the evolution of morphological innovations, the relative importance of cis-regulatory changes vs. protein-coding changes, kin vs. group selection as competing explanations for the evolution of altruism, the evolution of soma and of indivisibility, the genetic basis of cellular differentiation, and the role of antagonistic pleiotropy (my hastily scribbled notes seem to say “antagonistic pleiotropy of olsl.” Is that supposed to be rls1? This is the cost of waiting too long to write. Maybe Aurora can clarify.).

[Read more…]