1 / 27

Kim Kleinman Webster University Missouri Botanical Garden Washington University University College

Systematics and the Origin of Species from Edgar Anderson’s Viewpoint: “Odd Noises” from the Evolutionary Synthesis. Kim Kleinman Webster University Missouri Botanical Garden Washington University University College. Introduction. Canonical Story Gould: Synthesis “hardened”

wayne
Download Presentation

Kim Kleinman Webster University Missouri Botanical Garden Washington University University College

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Systematics and the Origin of Species from Edgar Anderson’s Viewpoint: “Odd Noises” from the Evolutionary Synthesis Kim Kleinman Webster University Missouri Botanical Garden Washington University University College

  2. Introduction • Canonical Story • Gould: Synthesis “hardened” • Provine: “constricted” • Anderson: “Odd Noises” http://www.mobot.org/mobot/archives/image.asp?filename=PORT2007-0001.tif&returnto=/mobot/archives/results.asp

  3. Anderson “In personal conversation Professor Dobzhansky has sometimes chided scholars, who like this reviewer, cherish a Batesonian interest in those few significant fact which do not fit easily with today’s facile exposition of basic principles. At such times he cites an old Russian proverb, warning against ‘making odd noises for the benefit of future generations.’ There are few such ‘odd noises’ in this book. They are probably pretty much out of place in modern textbooks.” Anderson, Review of Dobzhansky, Evolution Genetics, and Man (1956)

  4. 1941 Jesup Lectures:Edgar Anderson and Ernst Mayr“Systematics and the Origin of Species from the Viewpoints of a Botanist and a Zoologist” Correspondence on: • Differences in evolution of plants & animals • Relationship of macroevolution to microevolution • Nature of genus and species

  5. Plan • Anderson (and Mayr) to 1941 • Their correspondence • Aftermath of the Lectures • introgressive hybridization

  6. Anderson (and Mayr) to 1941 • Mayr at AMNH • Anderson at Missouri Botanical Garden and Washington University • Work on Iris and Tradescantia

  7. Anderson: Impact of the MBG “The main interest of my colleagues and students were in taxonomy, morphology, and physiology. I was keenly interested in natural history and the then little known Ozarks were at our back door. I taught genetics, but I explored the Ozarks with my students. They learned genetics from me, and they convinced me that I should take a serious interest in taxonomy. With them and with other colleagues I have studied it ever since. We really explored together much more than the Ozarks; we explored the wide field between genetics and taxonomy, then a terra incognita. I began to study the species problem. I began to think of back-crossing in wildflowers and ornamental shrubs. I took a keen interest in the effects of heterosis outside of the breeding plots. With my students, I helped originate what is now called ‘biosystematics.’” Anderson (1968) Anderson, “What We Do Not Know About Zea Mays,” Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science

  8. http://www.mobot.org/mobot/archives/image.asp?filename=PHO2005-0803.tif&returnto=/mobot/archives/results.asphttp://www.mobot.org/mobot/archives/image.asp?filename=PHO2005-0803.tif&returnto=/mobot/archives/results.asp

  9. Anderson: Iris • “differences between species are of an entirely different order from the differences between individuals….There is no evidence that these differences between individuals might…eventually be compounded into differences comparable to those between…two species….” • Against “the general theory…held by many of the Drosophila workers who see in the gene mutation the unit of process, which compounded a thousand-fold, results in specific differences.” Anderson 1928, 311. Iris photo from http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=IRVI

  10. Anderson: Iris • Hybridization as a possible explanation • Fisher and Linear Discriminant Function Iris photo from http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=IRVI

  11. Anderson: Tradescantia • Use of Cytology • Report of Progress • Fragmentation • Polyploidy • Hybridization • Synthetic approach/modest claims Photo by Tim Smith from http://www.missourinativeplantsociety.org/node/41

  12. The Anderson/Mayr Correspondence • Forging a Working Relationship • Evolution in Plants and Animals • The Genus Problem • Relationship of Macroevolution and Microevolution • Working Styles

  13. The Anderson/Mayr Correspondence: Forging a Working Relationship • Systematics or Taxonomy? • “Be as heterodox as you want” • Population Thinking • Personalities

  14. The Anderson/Mayr Correspondence: Evolution in Plants and Animals • Mayr, AnimalSpecies and Evolution (1963) • Huxley (editor), The New Systematics (1940) • Biological Species Concept

  15. Ernst Mayr Papers, Harvard University Library Archives

  16. The Anderson/Mayr Correspondence: The Genus Problem • Anderson, “A Survey of Modern Opinion” (1940) • “Higher categories are a nuisance.” --Mayr

  17. The Anderson/Mayr Correspondence: Macroevolution and Microevolution • Richard Goldschmidt Mayr: “thoroughly furious at his book.” Anderson: “a stimulating book.”

  18. The Anderson/Mayr Correspondence: Macroevolution and Microevolution • Anderson at AAAS 1936 on “Supra-Specific Variation in Nature and Classification”

  19. The Anderson/Mayr Correspondence: Working Styles • Mayr: “…have nearly completed the first draft of the entire book.” • Anderson: “I ordinarily lecture with almost no notes.”

  20. Aftermath of the 1941 Jesup Lectures • Why Anderson Didn’t Publish: Two Views • What Anderson Might Have Published Introgressive Hybridization (1949)

  21. Introgressive Hybridization (1949) • “…take this problem outside the area of argument and opinion and into the zone of measurement and analysis.” • “It may be of greatest fundamental importance when…we can do no more than demonstrate its existence

  22. Introgressive Hybridization and locoweeds

  23. Introgressive Hybridization and locoweeds Oxytropsis lamberti Pursh from Encyclopedia of Life. http://www.eol.org/pages/415921

  24. Two views on Hybridization and Gene Flow • Anderson on H.G. Baker: He asks “from the standpoint of modern genetics, what is the importance and what are the evolutionary effects of hybridization.” • Anderson on himself: I ask “from an examination fo the variation patterns of plant and animal populations, what is the relative importance of hybridization and mutation.”

  25. Conclusions • Synthesis: Scientific Project or Historical Process? • Mayr: Biological Species Concept, speciation, contra-Goldschmidt; draft manuscript • Anderson: exciting possibilities and tools but focus on “stubborn facts;” “few if any notes.”

  26. http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/chronob/ANDE1897.htm

  27. Acknowldgements • Andrea Goldstein, Harvard Univ. Archives • The Ewan Memorial Occasional Lunch Group • Gar Allen • Betty Smocovitis • Peter Mickulas • Tiffany Smith, Webster University Faculty Development Center

More Related