关于加强我国生物安全工作若干问题的思考

随着现代化生物技术,特别是基因工程技术的兴起和迅速发展,生物安全问题农渐成为全球社会普遍关注的热点,它既是一个科学问题,又是一个管理问题,需要从健全法律法规体系,理顺管理机构体系,支持鼓励科学研究,重视科学宣传普及,加强相关国际合作等方面,大力加强我国的生物安全工作,达到保障安全,促进发展的目标。     

A botanical critique of cladism

Clade versus grade is an old question in taxonomy, going back as far as Darwin himself. Taxonomists have long believed that both must be taken into account in the formation of a general-purpose system. Recently clade has been elevated to a position of total dominance by a group of taxonomists who take their inspiration from Willi Hennig. Mayr has dubbed this approach cladism, and its exponents cladists. Cladistic theory is being vigorously developed and propounded by Hennig’s disputatious disciples, and much of the present-day theory would scarcely be recognized by the founder. I here address myself to what I consider the core features of present-day cladism. The essential distinctive feature of cladism, and its fatal flaw, is that a group is considered to be monophyletic, and thus taxonomically acceptable, only if it includesall the descendants from the most recent common ancestor. The traditional taxonomic view has been that a group can still be considered monophyletic (and thus taxonomically acceptable) after some of its more divergent branches have been trimmed off. This simple and seemingly innocuous difference has profound consequences to the taxonomic system. In Hennigian classification, organisms are ranked entirely on the basis of recency of common descent, that is, on the basis of the sequence of dichotomies in the inferred phylogeny. Theamount of divergence scarcely enters into the picture. This procedure represents an effort to capture taxonomy for a narrowly limited special purpose, at the expense of the important and necessary function of providing a general-purpose system that can be used by all who are concerned with similarities and differences among organisms. The first corollary of the Hennigian concept of phylogenetic taxonomy is that no existing taxon can be ancestral to any other existing taxon. The descendant must be included in the same taxon as its ancestor. At the level of species this is palpably false. The ancestral species often continues to exist for an indefinite time after giving rise to one or more descendants. At the higher taxonomic levels adherence to the principle often requires excessive lumping or excessive splitting to avoid paraphyletic groups (i.e., groups that do not include all of their own descendants), and it forbids the taxonomic recognition of many conceptually useful groups. Neither the prokaryotes nor the dicotyledons form a cladistically acceptable taxon, since both are paraphyletic. The prokaryotes are putatively ancestral to the eukaryotes, and the dicotyledons are putatively ancestral to the monocotyledons. Many other traditional and readily recognizable taxa would have to be abandoned, without being replaced by conceptually useful groups. Fossils present a special problem, because the whole concept of cladistic classification depends on the absence of taxa at the branch points of the cladogram. Presumably all of these branch points were at some time in the past represented by actual taxa, which under cladistic theory can neither be assigned to one of their descendants nor treated as paraphyletic taxa. The difficulty is mitigated somewhat by the gaps in the known fossil record. Once it is admitted that paraphyletic as well as holophyletic groups are taxonomically acceptable, there is much value in cladistic methodology. Formal outgroup comparison for the establisment of polarity, and the emphasis on synapomorphies in the construction of a cladogram can both be usefully incorporated into taxonomic theory and practice. These require no revolution in taxonomic thought. There are unresolved problems, however, in how to gather and manipulate the data, and how to interpret the cladogram produced by computers. In any complex group, the computer may produce several or many cladograms of equal or nearly equal parsimony. This is particularly true in angiosperms, among which the extensive evolutionary parallelism casts doubt on the importance of parsimony and may lead to the production of hundreds of such cladograms for a single group. Despite the claims of objectivity and repeatability in cladistic taxonomy, the necessity for some subjective decisions remains. The Wagner groundplan-divergence method has most of the advantages of formal cladism without the most important disadvantages. Wagner accepts paraphyletic taxa in principle, and he casts a wider net for data bearing on the polarity of characters. In complex groups consisting of many taxa, however, both methods retain a strong subjective component in the computer manipulation and in the degree of reliance on absolute parsimony.     

Some early works on heliconiine butterflies and their biology (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae)

In the course of a survey of the history of the study of Heliconiinae, particularly their biology, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries it is shown that Heliconius nigromarginatus (Goeze) and H. pallescens (Goeze) are nomina oblita , and that H. cinereofuscus (Goeze) is not, as always supposed, a species in its own right. A new name is proposed for H. melpomene cybele (Cramer). The origin and application of some of Linnaeus' names is discussed.
Illustrations of Heliconius by Seba, Clerck, Petiver and Cramer show that three species, melpomene, erato and doris have been polymorphic at least since the middle of the eighteenth century.
The Indo-Australian genus Cethosia should probably be included in the Heliconiinae.     

论植物园的活植物收集

对植物园活植物收集评价、引种中的取样方法和迁地保护种群大小等问题进行了论述.对活植物收集的评价包括科学性和代表性,最具有科学意义的是经过调查从野外收集的有完整记录的材料,其次是从植物园等机构 引种的有记录的材料,再次是从各地引种的基本上无记录的材料.根据收集物的代表性可分为具有保护意义的收集和保护性收集.取样技术主要针对保护性收集而言,要求收集样本能涵盖该物种95%以上、频率大于5%的等位基因.活植物收集种群的大小应从科学性和现实性二方面来考虑,对植物园里大量的具有保护意义的收集,其种群大小为乔木10～20株,灌木40～50株,草本100～200株;对于保护性收集则至少为乔木50～100株,灌木200株或更多,草本300～500株以上.另外,对当前植物园活植物收集圃建设的一些重要问题也进行了探讨.     

Acaricidal properties of a Chenopodium-based botanical

The emulsifiable concentrate UDA-245 [25% EC (vol:vol)], based on an essential oil extract from Chenopodium ambrosioides variety ambrosioides, a North American herbaceous plant, was compared with commercially available pesticides for their effectiveness to control the adult stage and egg hatch of the twospotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae Koch (Acari: Tetranychidae) and the European red mite, Panonychus ulmi (Koch) (Acari: Tetranychidae). After a laboratory bioassay with adult twospotted spider mites, a 0.5% concentration of UDA-245 was more effective than 0.7% (AI) of neem oil (Neem Rose Defense). After a similar bioassay with the European red mite, a 0.5% concentration UDA-245 was as effective as 0.006% (AI) of abamectin (Avid). UDA-245 at 0.5% significantly reduced egg hatch of the twospotted spider mite, 5 and 9 d after treatment and of the European red mite 6 d after treatment. Egg hatch was significantly lower using 0.006% (AI) of abamectin, 0.7% of neem oil, and 1.0% insecticidal soap than UDA-245. Residual tests indicated that UDA-245 may be persistent in the environment only for a few hours. Only 23% mortality was noted when mites were introduced on bean leaves 1 h after treatment with a 2% concentration of UDA-245. At the recommended dose of 0.5%, UDA-245 was not considered phytotoxic for most plants tested, i.e., lettuce, roses, and tomatoes. Results suggest that a greenhouse integrated pest management program using UDA-245 could effectively and selectively control mite infestations by treating "hot spots" with negligible effect on biological control agents when treating before introduction or when natural enemies are absent.     

Nineteenth-century Dorpat and its botanical influence

A brief history of Dorpat University Botanic Garden under nineteenth-century Directors, notably C.F. von Ledebour, is given. Its development and influence are investigated and there is an account of von Ledebour's journey to Siberia and the Altai Mountains with A. von Bunge and C.A. Meyer, and of the part played in the discovery of Siberian plants and their subsequent dissemination. Collaboration with the Imperial Botanical Garden of St Petersburg is also mentioned, and von Ledebour's writings briefly discussed.