RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

    
  Topic: Damaraland Mole Rats, Not naked, but lazy< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Spike



Posts: 49
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2006,15:14   

Here's a cool story about two kinds of "mole rats," the well known naked kind and Damaraland mole rats.

Two species of mole rats run complex societies underground

I found this article when I was reading about the naked mole rats as an example of convergent evolution - my favorite kind - of mammals towards eusocial behavior shown by termites.

Interestingly enough, the similarities between naked and Damaraland mole rats can be called a form of convergent evolution as well, because it seems that, while the two species have a common ancestor, the Damaralands branch off later and are not descendents of the nakeds (if I read the article correctly). To me, that means that the naked branch developed eusocial behavior when it branched off, then many other branches sprouted, none of which were eusocial, then, much later, environmental pressures "turned on" eusocial behavior again. But who knows if it is the same genes that code for the behavior in both? Worth looking into, I think.

What's also interesting is that in any Damaraland colony there is a small group that does 5% of the work and consumes 35% of the food. Just like in human "colonies." Convergent evolution again?

  
Spike



Posts: 49
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2006,15:17   

Sorry, the link failed:

Two species of mole rats run complex societies underground

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2006,16:22   

Quote
the similarities between naked and Damaraland mole rats can be called a form of convergent evolution as well, because it seems that, while the two species have a common ancestor, the Damaralands branch off later and are not descendents of the nakeds (if I read the article correctly). To me, that means that the naked branch developed eusocial behavior when it branched off, then many other branches sprouted, none of which were eusocial, then, much later, environmental pressures "turned on" eusocial behavior again. But who knows if it is the same genes that code for the behavior in both? Worth looking into, I think.


hmm, interestingly, this actually this sounds more like a case of parallel evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_evolution

Quote
In evolutionary biology, parallel evolution refers to the independent evolution of similar traits in closely related lineages of species, while convergent evolution refers to the appearance of striking similarities among lineages of organisms only very distantly related.


so naked mole rats social order resembling that of termites is convergent evolution, but the similarities between nakeds and damarland would be more correctly termed parallel.

This issue has often been a source of confusion (and of course there will be some overlap); but i think the cases you cite here act as very good examples to help clarify.

What do the rest think?

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
Spike



Posts: 49
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2006,17:27   

No one else seems to care, Ichthyic. It's not about poking fun at UD. Oh well.

Thanks for the clarification.

The entry for parallel evolution is a little sloppy, however, in saying that the similar morphologies of some placentals and marsupials (Smilodon and Thylacosmilus, in my favorite case) are examples of parallel evolution, then going on to say that the spines of porcupines and hedgehogs (both placentals!;) are convergent.

For the mole-rats, I'll accept parallel, since they are only a few branches apart and live in the same neighborhood.

I think the wiki entry for convergent evolution is a little better done, even in its explanation of parallel evolution.

I like convergent evolution because it shows that the environment plays a big factor in what gets "made" and that certain shapes & behaviors come into being because they are most efficient in that kind of environment.

To me, contrasting convergent, divergent and parallel evolution shows how evolution is stochastic, rather than purely random or purely determinisitic. In a certain kind of environment, there are a wide variety of solutions to the problem of, say, how to take down prey that's bigger than you, but that number of solutions is limited by the environment itself and by the characteristics of the previous generations. You don't know in advance what solution will arise, but you can guess that it's most likely going to be similar to something that has already "worked."

  
Ichthyic



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 26 2006,19:46   

yeah, I often decried the fact that it's pretty clear that most posters here would rather yell at AFdumbass than actually discuss relevant science and theory.

I often just give in and join in the fun.  I'ts like complaining about people not being interested in playing volleyball when they are playing jungleball.

as to the convergent/parrallel issue; the idea was to seperate evolution of similar traits purely due to environmental influences, vs. there being some component of relatedness involved.

However, again I think your dmaraland mole rats are a perfect case that kind of complicates this:

sure, there was a linneage in common, but the evolution of these traits is also due to completely independent environemental circumstances.

so there is a bit of overlap.

Still, the relatedness issue would pretty much put this squarely in the parallel evo. category, at least from everything I've read and been taught.

yes, wiki is still pretty weak in this area, though it is getting better.  the current version of Futuyma, and the behavioral ecology texts by Krebs and Davies do a pretty good job of showing various illustrative examples too.

there are also some sites on the web that have some good examples of each; just google on parallel vs. convergent evolution and a few will pop up.

hmm. stochastic. not exactly the term i would use, I think, but there are certainly areas that overlap and defy easy categorization.  it's the same when we argue cladisitics.  there is great overlap in what determines a particular species or clade.  categorization is merely meant for us to make it easier to study; it's all a bit artificial when you get right down to it.  One can't argue against the value of it though.  it's very hard to describe something to somebody else, or compare it to other things without somehow being able to consistently categorize it first.


Yeah, i see the appeal of convergent evo explanations too.  However, there is also the danger of it becoming a circular argument.

do you know what I mean?

Quote
In a certain kind of environment, there are a wide variety of solutions to the problem of, say, how to take down prey that's bigger than you, but that number of solutions is limited by the environment itself and by the characteristics of the previous generations.


and time.

--------------
"And the sea will grant each man new hope..."

-CC

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 27 2006,20:17   

I'll go along with parallel, although the naked mole rats are much more sexah. That is, if you can get them to brush their teeth after all that feces-eating.

I love that article, though. Makes me almost wish I didn't get rid of my ScienceNews subscription. I recall seeing an exhibit of mole rats here at the Los Angeles Zoo a while back, but I was kind of toasted due to escorting a visiting friend around, plus they weren't really active. But here's a treat: The National Zoo has a Naked Mole Rat cam here , the only problem is it requires Windows Media Player. Oops, found another mole rat cam at the Knoxville Zoo : here --also needs WMP

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
  5 replies since June 23 2006,15:14 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

    


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]