Donald I. Williamson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the British scientist. For the Louisiana politician, see Don W. Williamson. For the Michigan politician, see Don Williamson.

Donald Irving Williamson (born 8 January 1922, in Alnham, England) is a British planktologist and carcinologist, . He gained his first degree from the Durham University in 1942, his PhD from the same university in 1948, and a DSc from the Newcastle University in 1972. He worked at the Port Erin Marine Laboratory of the University of Liverpool from 1948 to 1997,[1] and has published on the Irish Sea plankton, crustacean behaviour and taxonomy, and crustacean larvae.

Works[edit]

He is also author of some speculative works on hybridisation in evolution: Larvae and Evolution[2] (a book forwarded by Lynn Margulis and Alfred I. Tauber), The Origins of Larvae[3] (a revised and extended edition of Larvae and Evolution, not to be confounded with his 2007 article of same title published in the magazine American Scientist[4]), and some articles on the same subject.

In Larvae and Evolution[2] Williamson developed a controversial hypothesis proposing the acquisition of larval stages in some marine organisms by hybridisation between two distant animal species (a speciation process referred to as hybridogenesis by Williamson). The fraction of the genome of one of the contributor species would be restricted to lead the developmental program of a newly acquired larva whereas the genome of the other contributor would drive the development of most of the adult anatomical structures. During the following years he would generalise his theory to other animal groups featuring a holometabolous development.[3]

According to Williamson, these successful hybridisations would most likely occur in organisms with external fertilisation or male gamete dispersal. He acknowledges in his work Larvae and Evolution to have borrowed the idea of hybridogenesis from the well-known process of interspecific hybridisation that take place in plants. Hybrid plants generated from phylogenetically distant species can often give rise to new species if the hybrids become reproductively isolated from the progenitor populations.[3]

In one of his articles[5] Williamson contends that

  1. there were no true larvae until after the establishment of classes in the respective phyla,
  2. early animals hybridised to produce chimeras of parts of dissimilar species,
  3. the Cambrian explosion resulted from many such hybridisations,
  4. modern animal phyla and classes were produced by such early hybridisations, rather than by the gradual accumulation of specific differences.

Williamson's hypothesis has been reviewed in the companion website for the eighth edition of Developmental Biology[6] (a principal textbook of reference in the field of Developmental biology). The review can be found in the chapter 23, section 10: Alternative Mechanisms for Evolutionary Developmental Biology, subsection: alt.evodevo: Reticulate Evolution and Sequential Chimeras, under the header Sequential Chimerism.[7]

Controversy[edit]

In an article published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (online in August 2009, in print in November 2009), Williamson claimed that the body plan of the adult butterfly and its caterpillar larval stage would have evolved separately in different organisms; then, their phylogenies would eventually merge by hybridisation at a more recent point of their evolutionary history.[8] The study was communicated by Lynn Margulis, via a submission route that at that time allowed academy members of the United States National Academy of Sciences to manage the peer review of a colleague's manuscript.[9] The acceptance for publication led to accusations of "nepotism" and "nonsense" science.[10] Margulis maintained that Williamson's paper was scientifically sound and was only being censured because it didn't adhere to Darwinian orthodoxy. '"We don't ask anyone to accept Williamson's ideas – only to evaluate them on the basis of science and scholarship, not knee-jerk prejudice," said Margulis.[9]

In a subsequent paper published in print in the same issue of the journal, the biologists Michael W. Hart and Richard K. Grosberg rebutted Williamson's hypothesis.[11][12] The same issue also included another communication[13] sent by Gonzalo Giribet (Curator of Invertebrates in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University) rebutting Williamson's paper, together with Williamson's reply to Giribet's letter.[14] In the issue of December 2009 of the same journal another letter submitted by Arnab De and Rituparna Bose was published. Even though the authors rectified some of the signs considered by Williamson as molecular evidence of an ancestral hybridogenesis, they recommended a laboratory hybridisation study between an onychophore and a cockroach, as proposed by Williamson.[15]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/williamson.html
  2. ^ a b Williamson, Donald I. (1992). Larvae and Evolution: Toward a New Zoology. New York, NY: Chapman and Hall. ISBN 0-412-03081-0. 
  3. ^ a b c Williamson, Donald I. (2003). The Origins of Larvae. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. ISBN 1-4020-1514-3. 
  4. ^ Williamson, Donald I.; Vickers, Sonya E. (Nov–Dec 2007). "The Origin of Larvae". American Scientist 95 (6): 509–517. doi:10.1511/2007.68.3699. 
  5. ^ Williamson, Donald I. (11 December 2006). "Hybridization in the evolution of animal form and life-cycle". Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 148 (4): 585–602. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.2006.00236.x. 
  6. ^ Gilbert, Scott F; Singer, Susan R (2006). Developmental Biology, Eighth Edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 978-0-87893-250-4. 
  7. ^ Gilbert, Scott F (23 June 2010 (retrieved)). DevBio: A Companion to Developmental Biology, Eighth Edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.  Check date values in: |date= (help) http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?ch=23&id=228
  8. ^ Williamson, Donald I. (24 November 2009). "Caterpillars evolved from onychophorans by hybridogenesis". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (47): 19901–19905. doi:10.1073/pnas.0908357106. PMC 2785264. PMID 19717430. 
  9. ^ a b Abbott, Alison; Brumfiel, Geoff; Dolgin, Elie; Hand, Eric; Sanderson, Katharine; Van Noorden, Richard and Wadman, Meredith (24 December 2009). "Butterfly paper bust-up". Nature. doi:10.1038/news.2009.1162. 
  10. ^ Zoë Corbyn (13 September 2009). "'Bigwig' ushered 'nonsense' paper into top journal, say scientists". Times Higher Education. 
  11. ^ Hart, Michael W.; Grosberg, Richard K. (24 November 2009). "Caterpillars did not evolve from onychophorans by hybridogenesis". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (47): 19906–19909. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910229106. PMC 2785265. PMID 19880752. 
  12. ^ "No species mixing to make caterpillars". blogs.nature.com. Retrieved 19 October 2012. 
  13. ^ Giribet, Gonzalo (24 November 2009). "On velvet worms and caterpillars: Science, fiction, or science fiction?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (47): E131. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910279106. PMC 2785307. PMID 19880751. 
  14. ^ Williamson, Donald I. (24 November 2009). "Reply to Giribet: Caterpillars evolved from onychophorans by hybridogenesis". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (47): E132. doi:10.1073/pnas.0912151106. 
  15. ^ De, Arnab; Bose, Rituparna (29 December 2009). "Can molecular biology and bioinformatics be used to probe an evolutionary pathway?". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (52): E141. doi:10.1073/pnas.0912187107. PMC 2799706. PMID 20018771. 

External links[edit]