Electromorphs and Phylogeny in Muroid Rodents

  • Francois Bonhomme
  • Djoko Iskandar
  • Louis Thaler
  • Francis Petter
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series book series (NSSA, volume 92)

Abstract

How do we infer phylogenetic relationships from electrophoretic studies? What is the value of such phylogenies? What can we infer from these phylogenies about the processes of divergence? These are the questions that we have tried to answer empirically by analyzing genetic variability in 76 taxa of rodents, most of them being muroids. Our approach is comparable to that of Patton and Avise (1983), and is aimed at comparing the values of quantitative and qualitative analyses of electrophoretic data. However, their material and ours differ in evolutionary patterns, and the results differ accordingly in some respects.

Keywords

Character State Protein Locus Phenetic Analysis Electrophoretic Data MUROID Rodent 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aquadro, C. F. and Avise, J. C. 1982. Evolutionary genetics of birds. VI. A reexamination of protein divergence using varied electrophoretic conditions. Evolution 36: 1003–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benzécri, J. P. 1973. L’analyse des données. II. L’analyse des correspondances. Dunod, Paris.Google Scholar
  3. Boursot, P., Bonhomme, F., Britton-Davidian, J., Catalan, J., Yonekawa, H., Orsini, P., Guerasimov, S. and Thaler, L. 1984. Introgression différentielle des genomes nucléaires et mitochondriaux chez deux semi-espèces européennes de Souris. C. R. Acad. Sci. 299: 365–370.Google Scholar
  4. Chaline, J., Mein, P. and Petter, F. 1977. Les grandes lignes d’une classification évolutive des Muroidea. Mammalia 41: 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farris, J. S. 1981. Distance data in phylogenetic analysis. In: Advances in Cladistics, V. A. Funk and D. R. Brooks, eds., pp. 3–23, New York Botanical Garden, New York.Google Scholar
  6. Felsenstein, J. 1984. Distance methods for inferring phylogenies: a justification. Evolution 38: 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fort, P., Bonhomme, F., Darlu, P., Piechaczyk, M., Jeanteur, P. and Thaler, L. in press. Clonal divergence of mitochondrial DNA versus populational evolution of nuclear genome. Evol. Theory.Google Scholar
  8. Iskandar, D. 1984. Evolution génétique de la superfamille des Muroidés révélée par électrophorèse classique et électrophorèse séquentielle. Thèse de Doct. Spécialité. Université Montpellier, Montpellier.Google Scholar
  9. Iskandar, D. and Bonhomme, F. in press. Variabilité électrophorétique totale à onze locus structuraux chez las Rongeurs muridés (Muridae, Rodentia). Canad. J. Cyt. Genet.Google Scholar
  10. Jambu, M. and Lebeaux, M. O. 1979. Classification automatique pour l’analyse des données, Vol II. Dunod, Paris.Google Scholar
  11. Patton, J. C. and Avise, J. C. 1983. An empirical evaluation of qualitative Hennigian analyses of protein electrophoretic data. J. Mol. Evol. 19: 244–254.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Patton, J. C., Baker, J. R. and Avise, J. C. 1981. Phenetic and cladistic analysis of biochemical evolution in peromyscine rodents. In: Mammalian Population Genetics, M. H. Smith and J. Joule, eds., pp. 288–308, Univ. Georgia Press, Athens.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francois Bonhomme
    • 1
  • Djoko Iskandar
    • 1
  • Louis Thaler
    • 1
  • Francis Petter
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut des Sciences de l’EvolutionUSTLMontpellier CedexFrance
  2. 2.Muséum National d’Histoire NaturelleParisFrance

Personalised recommendations