Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T06:28:45.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cambridge Genome Meeting, June 22–24, 1981

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Thomas J. M. Schopf
Thomas J. M. Schopf*
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Almost at the end of his chapter on Mutation, G. G. Simpson in 1953 in The Major Features of Evolution noted that “There is also increasing evidence that mutation rate is itself, to some degree, a genetically controlled character.” If for mutation one uses the broad definition of the origin of new hereditary types, then the glimmerings to which Simpson referred now have become a documented fact at the molecular level.

Type
Current Happenings
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , Summer 1981 , pp. 308 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1 Several variations on this theme of genomic driven speciation have appeared in the past few years. The basis for these, and a model for a comparable mode of speciation, is largely summarized in Schopf, T. J. M. 1981. Evidence for finding of molecular biology with regard to the rapidity of genomic change: implications for species durations. In: Paleobotany, Paleoecology and Evolution: Festschrift for Harlan P. Banks. K. J. Niklas, Ed. Praeger Pubs., New York. Vol. 1, pp. 91–142. A recent independent derivation of a similar model of speciation in Craig, S. P., J. A. and Pounds. 1981. The reorganization of repetitive DNA as a possible factor in the differentiation of small isolated populations. Submitted. All of these authors were at Cambridge.Google Scholar
2Klein, H. L. and Petes, T. D. 1981. Intrachromosomal gene conversion in yeast. Nature. 289:144–148. An evaluation of the general significance of gene conversion in maintaining concerted evolution is in preparation by T. D. Petes and T. Nagylaki.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Zimmer, E. A., Martin, S. L., Beverley, S. M., Kan, Y. W., and Wilson, A. C. 1980. Rapid duplication and loss of genes coding for the α chains of hemoglobin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 77:2158–2162. This contains a brief account of earlier work on the topic of connected evolution.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed