Proffered Papers 10.30–11.15 Monday 15 September 2003 3 5 year outcome of women with borderline and mild dyskaryosis smears 3 5 year outcome of women with borderline and mild dyskaryosis smears

Aims

• 1 To identify the outcome status of women with borderline and mild dyskaryosis smears.
• 2 To determine whether the presence or absence of koilocytosis influences the outcome status.
• 3 To identify the proportion of women with borderline smears showing koilocytosis.

Materials and methods Borderline and mild dyskaryosis cervical smears diagnosed during January to March 1997 were identified from the laboratory database. Each slide was reviewed by two researchers independently, who then agreed a final consensus diagnosis. All slides were classified according to the presence or absence of koilocytosis. Slides were excluded from the study if the review diagnosis was negative, inadequate or high‐grade dyskaryosis. The outcome status was classified according to the worst lesion identified histologically and/or cytologically during the 5‐year follow‐up period. Results 1974 women were identified with borderline or mild dyskaryosis cervical smears of which 1597 were included in the study. Table 1 shows the outcome status of these women.

Table 1. . The outcome status of these women

Morphometric and population genetic analyses elucidate the origin,evolutionary significance and conservation implications of Orchis × angusticruris (O. purpurea × O. simia), a hybrid orchid new to Britain

We report the first confirmed occurrence in Britain of Orchis × angusticruris Franch. ex Rouy, a hybrid between two closely related orchid species of anthropomorphic Orchis (O. purpurea Huds. × O. simia Lam.) that hybridize frequently in Continental Europe. Seven individual hybrids, most likely F1 plants representing a single interspecific pollination event, first flowered with both parents in May 2006 at a nature reserve in the Chiltern Hills near Goring, Oxfordshire. Univariate and multivariate morphometric analyses (43 characters plus 12 indices), internal transcribed spacer sequencing, plastid microsatellites and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analyses together readily separate the parents and confirm that O. purpurea was the ovule parent and O. simia the pollen parent, presumably reflecting the greater frequency and/or later flowering period of the latter at the site. This study reinforces a more general observation that, in most orchids, the ovule parent contributes substantially more to the hybrid phenotype than does the pollen parent, perhaps reflecting cytoplasmic inheritance. In contrast, the hybrids are placed closer to O. simia than to O. purpurea in the AFLP tree. Apparently recent arrivals, the few O. purpurea plants at Goring contrast genetically with the two other small populations of this species known in the Chilterns, but rather are consistent with relatively uncommon Continental populations. This suggests that the plants may have been deliberately introduced at Goring by man, although transport from the Continent in high‐level air currents cannot be ruled out. The Goring population of O. simia is likely to have become genetically impoverished through (1) preferential removal of many relatively fit plants to herbaria in the 19^th century and/or (2) a catastrophic population crash in the first half of the 20^th century. However, both our re‐examination of herbarium specimens and our population genetic data indicate past hybridization among anthropomorphic Orchis species occurring naturally in the Chilterns. Thus, we tentatively recommend retention of the hybrid plants at Goring, despite their likely anthropogenic origin from Continental material and the partial viability of their pollen and seeds, which offers opportunities for future introgression. Although the Goring hybrids broadly resemble morphologically O. militaris, another anthropomorphic Orchis still found at two Chiltern localities, sufficient morphological and molecular differences were observed to strongly refute our initial hypothesis that O. militaris could have originated through hybridization between ancestors that resembled O. purpurea and O. simia. The comparatively complex genetic properties evident in both O. simia and O. purpurea merit further study. © 2008 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2008, 157 , 687–711.     

‘R Stands For …’: An Extract from a Mabo Diary

The following is an extract from a text I call my Mabo Diary. This is maintained spasmodically, as occasion demands or according to whim. I have a predilection for the diary or the epistolary modes of writing because they are open-ended and negotiable. They may document but their primary intention is not essentially documentary. Recording is one thing; but my main interest is in responding. I read from yesterday's entry. It was written with today's occasion in mind.     

Circularity,evolution, systematics … and circularity

Many have argued strongly that incorporation of evolutionary theory into systematics is dangerously circular, while others have maintained that such an integrated approach increases the accuracy of phylogenetic inference. Here, it is demonstrated that such blanket statements regarding exclusion or inclusion of evolutionary principles in systematics fail to distinguish between two very different types of principles. ‘Phylogeny-neutral’ evolutionary principles are those inferred without any recourse to specific phylogenetic hypotheses (e.g. via developmental genetics, biomechanics). In contrast, ‘phylogeny-dependent’ principles are those which can only be inferred on the basis of specific phylogenetic hypotheses (e.g. character associations detected via ‘comparative methods’). Inclusion of phylogeny-neutral principles in systematic studies as a priori assumptions can be justified, since these principles have (often strong) external empirical support from other spheres of investigation. However, inclusion of phylogeny-dependent principles in systematic studies is circular, since such principles have no external empirical support but are themselves derived from systematic studies. Advocating inclusion or exclusion of all (or as many as possible) evolutionary principles from phylogenetic analysis is therefore misguided. Rather, phylogeny-neutral principles are independently supported and can be included, while phylogeny-dependent principles are unjustified assumptions and should be excluded to avoid circularity. However, integration of complex phylogeny-neutral principles in systematics can create operational problems, even though there are no methodological reasons against their inclusion.