Does Darwin’s Naturalization Hypothesis Explain Fish Invasions?

Darwin’s naturalization hypothesis predicts that introduced species tend not to invade areas containing congeneric native species, because they would otherwise compete with their close relatives and would likely encounter predators and pathogens that can attack them. An opposing view is that introduced species should succeed in areas where native congeners are present because they are more likely to share traits that pre-adapt them to their new environment. A test of both these hypotheses using data on fish introductions from several independent regions fails to support either viewpoints. In contrast to studies of nonindigenous plants, our results suggest that taxonomic affiliation is not an important general predictor of fish invasion success.     

The Population Decline and Extinction of Darwin’s Frogs

Darwin’s frogs (Rhinoderma darwinii and R. rufum) are two species of mouth-brooding frogs from Chile and Argentina. Here, we present evidence on the extent of declines, current distribution and conservation status of Rhinoderma spp.; including information on abundance, habitat and threats to extant Darwin’s frog populations. All known archived Rhinoderma specimens were examined in museums in North America, Europe and South America. Extensive surveys were carried out throughout the historical ranges of R. rufum and R. darwinii from 2008 to 2012. Literature review and location data of 2,244 archived specimens were used to develop historical distribution maps for Rhinoderma spp. Based on records of sightings, optimal linear estimation was used to estimate whether R. rufum can be considered extinct. No extant R. rufum was found and our modelling inferred that this species became extinct in 1982 (95% CI, 1980–2000). Rhinoderma darwinii was found in 36 sites. All populations were within native forest and abundance was highest in Chiloé Island, when compared with Coast, Andes and South populations. Estimated population size and density (five populations) averaged 33.2 frogs/population (range, 10.2–56.3) and 14.9 frogs/100 m² (range, 5.3–74.1), respectively. Our results provide further evidence that R. rufum is extinct and indicate that R. darwinii has declined to a much greater degree than previously recognised. Although this species can still be found across a large part of its historical range, remaining populations are small and severely fragmented. Conservation efforts for R. darwinii should be stepped up and the species re-classified as Endangered.     

How Fast Does a Signal Propagate through Proteins?

As the molecular basis of signal propagation in the cell, proteins are regulated by perturbations, such as mechanical forces or ligand binding. The question arises how fast such a signal propagates through the protein molecular scaffold. As a first step, we have investigated numerically the dynamics of force propagation through a single (Ala) protein following a sudden increase in the stretching forces applied to its end termini. The force propagates along the backbone into the center of the chain on the picosecond scale. Both conformational and tension dynamics are found in good agreement with a coarse-grained theory of force propagation through semiflexible polymers. The speed of force propagation of 50Å ps⁻¹ derived from these simulations is likely to determine an upper speed limit of mechanical signal transfer in allosteric proteins or molecular machines.     

Raising Darwin’s consciousness

Sociobiologists and feminists agree that men in patriarchal social systems seek to control females, but sociobiologists go further, using Darwin’s theory of sexual selection and Trivers’s ideas on parental investment to explain why males should attempt to control female sexuality. From this perspective, the stage for the development under some conditions of patriarchal social systems was set over the course of primate evolution. Sexual selection encompasses both competition between males and female choice. But in applying this theory to our “lower origins” (prehominid ancestors), Darwin assumed that choices were made by essentially “coy” females. I argue here that female solicitation of multiple males (either simultaneously or sequentially, depending on the breeding system) characterized prehominid females; this prehominid legacy of cyclical sexual assertiveness, itself possibly a female counter-strategy to male efforts to control the timing of female reproduction, generated further male counter-strategies. This dialectic had important implications for emerging hominid mating systems, human evolution, and the development of patriarchal arrangements in some human societies. For hominid males who will invest in offspring, there would be powerful selection for emotions, behaviors, and customs that ensure them certainty of paternity. The sexual modesty that so struck Darwin can be explained as a recent evolved or learned (perhaps both) adaptation in women to avoid penalties imposed by patrilines on daughters and mates who failed to conform to the patriline’s prevailing norms for their sex. Other supposedly innate universals, such as female preferences for wealthy husbands, are also likely to be facultative accommodations by women to constraints set up when patrilines monopolized resources needed by females to survive and reproduce, and passed on intergenerational control of these resources preferentially to sons.     

Darwin’s Methodological Evolution

A necessary condition for having a revolution named after you is that you are an innovator in your field. I argue that if Charles Darwin meets this condition, it is as a philosopher and methodologist. In 1991, I made the case for Darwins innovative use of thought experiment in the Origin. Here I place this innovative practice in the context of Darwins methodological commitments, trace its origins back into Darwins notebooks, and pursue Darwins suggestion that it owes its inspiration to Charles Lyell.     

Did Darwin really answer Paley’s question?

It is commonly thought that natural selection explains the rise of adaptive complexity. Razeto-Barry and Frick (2011) have recently argued in favour of this view, dubbing it the Creative View. I argue that the Creative View is mistaken if it claims that natural selection serves to answer Paley’s question. This is shown by a case that brings out the contrastive structure inherent in this demand for explanation. There is, however, a rather trivial sense in which specific environmental conditions are crucial for the rise of specific adaptations, but this is hardly what opponents of the Creative View are denying.     

The World’s Northernmost Harbour Seal Population–How Many Are There?

This study presents the first abundance estimate for the world’s northernmost harbour seal (Phoca vitulina) population, which resides in Svalbard, Norway, based on three digital stereoscopic photographic surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010. The counts from these high resolution 3D images were combined with a novel method for estimating correction factors for animals that were in the water at the time of the surveys, in which extensive behavioural data from radio-tagged harbour seals were used together with age distribution data to estimate the proportion of seals of various age and sex classes hauled out at the times of the surveys. To detect possible seasonal shifts in age distribution between surveys, lengths of hauled out seals were measured from the stereoscopic images. No body-length differences were detected between the surveys; but, this may be due to a high degree of sexual dimorphism exhibited in this population. Applying the modelled correction factors, a total of 1888 (95% CI: 1660–3023), 1742 (1381–3549) and 1812 (1656–4418) harbour seals were estimated for the surveys flown on 01 August 2009, 01 August 2010 and 19 August 2010, respectively. The similarity between the three survey estimates (despite significant differences in the number of animals actually counted on the photos from each survey effort) suggests that the variation in numbers of hauled out seals is reasonably accurately adjusted for by the haul-out probability model. The low population size, the limited spatial distribution of the population and its reduced genetic diversity make this population vulnerable to chance events, such as disease epidemics.     

Darwin’s contributions to genetics

Darwin’s contributions to evolutionary biology are well known, but his contributions to genetics are much less known. His main contribution was the collection of a tremendous amount of genetic data, and an attempt to provide a theoretical framework for its interpretation. Darwin clearly described almost all genetic phenomena of fundamental importance, such as prepotency (Mendelian inheritance), bud variation (mutation), heterosis, reversion (atavism), graft hybridization (Michurinian inheritance), sex-limited inheritance, the direct action of the male element on the female (xenia and telegony), the effect of use and disuse, the inheritance of acquired characters (Lamarckian inheritance), and many other observations pertaining to variation, heredity and development. To explain all these observations, Darwin formulated a developmental theory of heredity — Pangenesis — which not only greatly influenced many subsequent theories, but also is supported by recent evidence.     

Is Chytridiomycosis Driving Darwin’s Frogs to Extinction?

Darwin’s frogs (Rhinoderma darwinii and R. rufum) are two species of mouth brooding frogs from Chile and Argentina that have experienced marked population declines. Rhinoderma rufum has not been found in the wild since 1980. We investigated historical and current evidence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) infection in Rhinoderma spp. to determine whether chytridiomycosis is implicated in the population declines of these species. Archived and live specimens of Rhinoderma spp., sympatric amphibians and amphibians at sites where Rhinoderma sp. had recently gone extinct were examined for Bd infection using quantitative real-time PCR. Six (0.9%) of 662 archived anurans tested positive for Bd (4/289 R. darwinii; 1/266 R. rufum and 1/107 other anurans), all of which had been collected between 1970 and 1978. An overall Bd-infection prevalence of 12.5% was obtained from 797 swabs taken from 369 extant individuals of R. darwinii and 428 individuals representing 18 other species of anurans found at sites with current and recent presence of the two Rhinoderma species. In extant R. darwinii, Bd-infection prevalence (1.9%) was significantly lower than that found in other anurans (7.3%). The prevalence of infection (30%) in other amphibian species was significantly higher in sites where either Rhinoderma spp. had become extinct or was experiencing severe population declines than in sites where there had been no apparent decline (3.0%; x ² = 106.407, P<0.001). This is the first report of widespread Bd presence in Chile and our results are consistent with Rhinoderma spp. declines being due to Bd infection, although additional field and laboratory investigations are required to investigate this further.     

Exploration and ecology in Darwin’s finches

One of the main functions of exploratory behaviour is to gain information about the environment. The adaptive value of such behaviour should vary with ecological conditions influencing the diversity and stability of resources, as well as with the costs associated with gathering information. Consequently, predictions can be made about environmental factors influencing the evolution of exploration. We used comparative methods, combining a field experiment with literature data, to study correlated evolution between explorative behaviour and ecology among 13 species of Darwin’s finches. Controlling for phylogenetic influences, we found that exploration (measured as the proportion of individuals responding in the experiment) increased with diet diversity and the amount of fruit in diet, consistent with theories stating that exploration aimed at finding new food types should be more beneficial for generalists than for specialists. However, our study is the first to demonstrate a correlation between neophilia and food diversity. Contrary to our prediction, species with a high percentage of concealed food in their diet were less explorative. A possible explanation for this novel finding is that in our study system concealed food may be a stable resource, and species using such resources should be less dependent on the discovery of new food types.     

Reconsidering Darwin’s “Several Powers”

Contemporary textbooks often define evolution in terms of the replication, mutation, and selective retention of DNA sequences, ignoring the contribution of the physical processes involved. In the closing line of The Origin of Species, however, Darwin recognized that natural selection depends on prior more basic living functions, which he merely described as life’s “several powers.” For Darwin these involved the organism’s capacity to maintain itself and to reproduce offspring that preserve its critical functional organization. In modern terms we have come to recognize that this involves the continual generation of complex organic molecules in complex configurations accomplished with the aid of persistent far-from-equilibrium chemical self-organizing and self-assembling processes. But reliable persistence and replication of these processes also requires constantly available constraints and boundary conditions. Organism autonomy further requires that these constraints and co-dependent dynamics are reciprocally produced, each by the other. In this paper I argue that the different constraint-amplifying dynamics of two or more self-organizing processes can be coupled so that they reciprocally generate each other’s critical supportive boundary conditions. This coupling is a higher-order constraint (which can be distributed among components or offloaded onto molecular structures) that effectively constitutes a sign vehicle “interpreted” by the synergistic dynamics of these co-dependent self-organizing process so that they reconstitute this same semiotic-dynamic relationship and its self-reconstituting potential in new substrates. This dynamical co-dependence constitutes Darwin’s “several powers” and is the basis of the biosemiosis that enables evolution.     

Darwin’s two theories, 1844 and 1859

Darwin’s first two, relatively complete, explicit articulations of his theorizing on evolution were his Essay of 1844 and On the Origin of Species published in 1859. A comparative analysis concludes that they espoused radically different theories despite exhibiting a continuity of strategy, much common structure and the same key idea. Both were theories of evolution by means of natural selection. In 1844, organic adaptation was confined to occasional intervals initiated and controlled by de-stabilization events. The modified descendants rebalanced the particular “plant and animal forms … unsettled by some alteration in their circumstances.” But by 1859, organic adaptation occurred continuously, potentially modifying the descendants of all organisms. Even natural selection, the persistent core of Darwin’s theorizing, does not prove to be a significant basis for theory similarity. Consequently, Darwin’s Origin theory cannot reasonably be considered as a mature version of the Essay. It is not a modification based on adjustments, further justifications and the integration of a Principle of Divergence. The Origin announced a new “scientific paradigm” while the Essay did little more than seemingly misconfigure the operation of a novel mechanism to extend varieties beyond their accepted bounds, and into the realm of possible new species. Two other collections of Darwin’s theorizing are briefly considered: his extensive notes of the late 1830s and his contributions to the famous meeting of 1 July 1858. For very different reasons, neither constitutes a challenge to the basis for this comparative study. It is concluded that, in addition to the much-debated social pressures, an unacknowledged further reason why Darwin did not publish his theorizing until 1859, could have been down to his perceptive technical judgement: wisely, he held back from rushing to publish demonstrably flawed theorizing.     

The Impact of Lamarck’s Theory of Evolution Before Darwin’s Theory

This paper analyzes the impact that Lamarckian evolutionary theory had in the scientific community during the period between the advent of Zoological Philosophy and the publication Origin of Species. During these 50 years Lamarck’s model was a well known theory and it was discussed by the scientific community as a hypothesis to explain the changing nature of the fossil record throughout the history of Earth. Lamarck’s transmutation theory established the foundation of an evolutionary model introducing a new way to research in nature. Darwin’s selectionist theory was proposed in 1859 to explain the origin of species within this epistemological process. In this context, Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology and Auguste Comte’s Cours de Philosophie Positive appear as two major works for the dissemination of Lamarck’s evolutionary ideology after the death of the French naturalist in 1829.