List of polymorphisms

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

In biology, polymorphism is the occurrence of two or more clearly different forms or phenotypes in a population of a species. Different types of polymorphism have been identified and are listed separately.

General

Chromosomal polymorphism

In 1973,

karyotypes
, gave an interesting summary of the distribution of chromosome polymorphism.

"It is extremely difficult to get an adequate idea as to what fraction of the species of
super-numerary chromosomes
and chromosome regions is very strongly developed in many species."
"It is clear that the nature of natural populations is a very complicated subject, and it now appears probable that adaptation of the various
heterozygote)".[1]

This suggests, once again, that polymorphism is a common and important aspect of adaptive evolution in natural populations.

A female (left) and a male (right) mallard (A. platyrhynchos). Like many other species of birds, mallards display striking sexual dimorphism.

Sexual dimorphism

Main article: Sexual dimorphism

Humans

Human blood groups

All the common blood types, such as the ABO blood group system, are genetic polymorphisms. Here we see a system where there are more than two morphs: the phenotypes A, B, AB and O are present in all human populations, but vary in proportion in different parts of the world. The phenotypes are controlled by multiple alleles at one locus. These polymorphisms are seemingly never eliminated by natural selection; the reason came from a study of disease statistics.

Statistical research has shown that an individual of a given phenotype will generally be, compared to an individual of a differing phenotype, more resistant to certain diseases while less resistant to others. For example, an individual's susceptibility to

races" developed by early anthropologists on the basis of visible features.[5]
: 283–291 

Sickle-cell anaemia

heterozygote is normal (though heterozygote individuals will suffer periodic problems). The sickle-cell variant survives in the population because the heterozygote is resistant to malaria and the malarial parasite kills a huge number of people each year. This is balancing selection or genetic polymorphism, balanced between fierce selection against homozygous sickle-cell sufferers, and selection against the standard HgbA homozygotes by malaria. The heterozygote has a permanent advantage (a higher fitness) so long as malaria exists; and it has existed as a human parasite for a long time. Because the heterozygote survives, so does the HgbS allele survive at a rate much higher than the mutation rate.[6][7]

Duffy system

The Duffy antigen is a protein located on the surface of red blood cells, encoded by the FY (DARC) gene.[8] The protein encoded by this gene is a non-specific receptor for several chemokines, and is the known entry-point for the human malarial parasites Plasmodium vivax and Plasmodium knowlesi. Polymorphisms in this gene are the basis of the Duffy blood group system.[9]

In humans, a mutant variant at a single site in the FY cis-regulatory region abolishes all expression of the gene in

heterozygotes. The variant has apparently arisen twice in geographically distinct human populations, in Africa and Papua New Guinea. It has been driven to high frequencies on at least two haplotypic backgrounds within Africa. Recent work indicates a similar, but not identical, pattern exists in baboons (Papio cynocephalus), which suffer a mosquito-carried malaria-like pathogen, Hepatocystis kochi. Researchers interpret this as a case of convergent evolution.[10]

G6PD

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase human polymorphism is also implicated in malarial resistance. G6PD alleles with reduced activity are maintained at a high level in endemic malarial regions, despite reduced general viability. Variant A (with 85% activity) reaches 40% in sub-Saharan Africa, but is generally less than 1% outside Africa and the Middle East.[11][12]

Human taste morphisms

A famous puzzle in human genetics is the genetic ability to taste phenylthiocarbamide (phenylthiourea or PTC), a morphism which was discovered in 1931. This substance, which is bitter to some people and tasteless to others, is of no great significance in itself, yet it is a genetic dimorphism. Because of its high frequency (which varies in different ethnic groups) it must be connected to some function of selective value. The ability to taste PTC itself is correlated with the ability to taste other bitter substances, many of which are toxic. Indeed, PTC itself is toxic, though not at the level of tasting it on litmus. Variation in PTC perception may reflect variation in dietary preferences throughout human evolution, and might correlate with susceptibility to diet-related diseases in modern populations. There is a statistical correlation between PTC tasting and liability to thyroid disease.

Fisher, Ford and Huxley tested

chimpanzees for PTC perception with positive results, thus demonstrating the long-standing existence of this dimorphism.[13] The PTC gene, which accounts for 85% of the tasting variance, has now been analysed for sequence variation with results which suggest selection is maintaining the morphism.[14]

MHC molecules

The genes of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) are highly polymorphic,[15] and this diversity plays a very important role in resistance to pathogens. This is true for other species as well.

Cancer

DNA repair gene polymorphisms are associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer development.[16][17] DNA repair gene polymorphisms also appear to influence the risk of lung cancer.[18]

Amphibians

Mid-dorsal stripe in frogs

Some frog species display polymorphism by presence/absence of a light stripe going along the central part of their back. A light mid-dorsal stripe has been shown to be determined by a simple dominant gene in

Rana macrocnemis, the proportion of frogs with the stripe increases with the altitude in mountains of the Lesser Caucasus, but not in the Greater Caucasus.[28] Given the same altitude, non-striped frogs from the Greater Caucasus grow slower and maturate later than the striped frogs from the Lesser Caucasus, which provides them selective advantage in high mountains, but their tadpoles are likely to be less resistant to overheating than those of the non-striped frogs.[29][30]

Birds

Cuckoo

Reed warbler
(Acrocephalus scirpaceus) feeding a cuckoo chick (Cuculus canorus)

Over fifty species in this family of birds practice

Cuculus canorus
). In a season the female lays one egg in 15–20 other bird nests. She removes some or all of the host's clutch of eggs, and lays an egg which closely matches the host eggs. In Britain the cuckoo lays small eggs that match the size of the smaller host's. The eggs are thick-shelled as a defense to protect the egg if the host detects the fraud.

The intruded egg develops exceptionally quickly; when the newly hatched cuckoo is only ten hours old, and still blind, it exhibits an urge to eject the other eggs or nestlings. It rolls them into a special depression on its back and heaves them out of the nest. The cuckoo nestling is apparently able to pressure the host adults for feeding by mimicking the cries of the host nestlings. The diversity of the cuckoo's eggs is extraordinary, the forms resembling those of its most usual hosts. In Britain these are:

  • Meadow pipit (Anthus pratensis): brown eggs speckled with darker brown.
  • European robin (Erithacus rubecula): whitish-grey eggs speckled with bright red.
  • Reed warbler
    (Acrocephalus scirpaceus): light dull green eggs blotched with olive.
  • Common redstart (Phoenicurus phoenicurus): clear blue eggs.
  • Hedge sparrow
    (Prunella modularis): clear blue eggs, unmarked, not mimicked. This bird is an uncritical fosterer; it tolerates in its nest eggs that do not resemble its own.

Each female cuckoo lays one type only; the same type laid by her mother. In this way female cuckoos are divided into groups (known as gentes, singular gens), each parasitises the host to which it is adapted. The male cuckoo has its own territory, and mates with females from any gens; thus the population (all gentes) is interbreeding.

The standard explanation of how the inheritance of gens works is as follows. The egg colour is inherited by sex chromosome. In birds

sex determination is ZZ/ZW, and unlike mammals, the heterogametic sex is the female.[31] The determining gene (or super-gene) for the inheritance of egg colour is believed to be carried on the W chromosome, which is directly transmitted in the female line. The female behaviour in choosing the host species is set by imprinting after birth, a common mechanism in bird behaviour.[32][33]

Ecologically, the system of multiple hosts protects host species from a critical reduction in numbers, and maximises the egg-laying capacity of the population of cuckoos. It also extends the range of habitats where the cuckoo eggs may be raised successfully. Detailed work on the cuckoo started with E. Chance in 1922,[34] and continues to the present day; in particular, the inheritance of gens is still a live issue.

Darwin's finches

Whereas Darwin spent just five weeks in the

Genovesa (formerly Tower Island) which is formed from a shield volcano, and is home to a variety of birds. These birds, like all well-studied groups,[35]
show various kinds of morphism.

Males are dimorphic in song type: songs A and B are quite distinct. Also, males with song A have shorter bills than B males. This is also a clear difference. With these beaks males are able to feed differently on their favourite cactus, the prickly pear Opuntia. Those with long beaks are able to punch holes in the cactus fruit and eat the fleshy aril pulp which surrounds the seeds, whereas those with shorter beaks tear apart the cactus base and eat the pulp and any insect larvae and pupae (both groups eat flowers and buds). This dimorphism clearly maximises their feeding opportunities during the non-breeding season when food is scarce.

Territories of type A and type B males are random if not mated but alternate if mated: no two breeding males of the same song type shared a common boundary. This initially suggested the possibility of

female choice.[36][37] However, further work showed that "the choice of a male by a female is independent of any conditioning influence of her father's song type and there is no evidence of assortative mating by bill type... Hence there is no direct evidence of reproductive subdivision in the population".[38] In 1999 Peter Grant agreed that "sympatric speciation [in this example] is unlikely to occur".[39]
: 428 

If the population is panmixic, then Geospiza conirostris exhibits a balanced genetic polymorphism and not, as originally supposed, a case of nascent sympatric speciation. The selection maintaining the polymorphism maximises the species' niche by expanding its feeding opportunity. The genetics of this situation cannot be clarified in the absence of a detailed breeding program, but two loci with linkage disequilibrium[40]: ch. 5  is a possibility.

Another interesting dimorphism is for the bills of young finches, which are either "pink" or "yellow". All species of Darwin's finches exhibit this morphism, which lasts for two months. No interpretation of this phenomenon is known.[39]: plate 10 

White-throated sparrows

Zonotrichia albicollis black-and-white-striped morph
Zonotrichia albicollis brown-and-tan-striped morph

The

Passerellidae
, shows a clear dimorphism in both sexes throughout its large range.

Their heads are either white-striped or tan-striped. These differences in plumage result from a balanced chromosomal inversion polymorphism; in white-striped (WS) birds, one copy of chromosome 2 is partly inverted, while in tan-striped (TS) birds, both copies are uninverted.[41]

The plumage differences are paralleled by differences in behavior and breeding strategy. WS males sing more, are more aggressive and more frequently engage in extra-pair copulation than their TS counterparts.[42] TS birds of both sexes provide more parental care than WS birds.

The polymorphism is maintained by negative assortative mating—each morph mates with its opposite.[43] Dimorphic pairs may have an advantageous balance between parental care and aggressive territorial defense. In addition, as in many other polymorphisms, heterozygote advantage seems to help maintain this one; the proportion of WS birds homozygotic for the inversion is even lower than would be expected from the low frequency (4%) of pairings of the same morph.[44]

In the underlying chromosomal polymorphism, the standard (ZAL2) and alternative (ZAL2m) arrangements differ by a pair of included pericentric inversions at least. ZAL2m suppresses recombination in the heterokaryotype and is evolving as a rare nonrecombining autosomal segment of the genome.[45]

Fish

Arctic char

incipient speciation.[47]

Insects

Ants

haplodiploid sex determination system, whereby all males are haploid, and all females diploid. Second, there is differentiation between both the females and males based mostly on feeding of larvae, which determines, for example, whether the imago is capable of reproduction. Lastly, there is differentiation of size and 'duties' (particularly of females), which are usually controlled by feeding and/or age, but which may sometimes be genetically controlled. Thus the order exhibits both genetic polymorphism and extensive polyphenism.[51][52]

Chromosome polymorphism in Drosophila

In the 1930s Dobzhansky and his co-workers collected

chromosomal inversions. All the flies look alike whatever inversions they carry: this is an example of a cryptic polymorphism. Accordingly, Dobzhansky favoured the idea that the morphs became fixed in the population by means of Sewall Wright's drift.[54]
However, evidence rapidly accumulated to show that natural selection was responsible:

Drosophila polytene chromosome

1. Values for heterozygote inversions of the third chromosome were often much higher than they should be under the null assumption: if no advantage for any form the number of heterozygotes should conform to Ns (number in sample) = p2+2pq+q2 where 2pq is the number of heterozygotes (see

Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium
).

2. Using a method invented by l'Heretier and Teissier, Dobzhansky bred populations in population cages, which enabled feeding, breeding and sampling whilst preventing escape. This had the benefit of eliminating migration as a possible explanation of the results. Stocks containing inversions at a known initial frequency can be maintained in controlled conditions. It was found that the various chromosome types do not fluctuate at random, as they would if selectively neutral, but adjust to certain frequencies at which they become stabilised. With D. persimilis he found that the caged population followed the values expected on the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium when conditions were optimal (which disproved any idea of non-random mating), but with a restricted food supply heterozygotes had a distinct advantage.

3. Different proportions of chromosome morphs were found in different areas. There is, for example, a polymorph-ratio cline in D. robusta along an 18-mile (29 km) transect near Gatlinburg, TN passing from 1,000 feet (300 m) to 4,000 feet.[55] Also, the same areas sampled at different times of year yielded significant differences in the proportions of forms. This indicates a regular cycle of changes which adjust the population to the seasonal conditions. For these results selection is by far the most likely explanation.

4. Lastly, morphs cannot be maintained at the high levels found simply by mutation, nor is drift a possible explanation when population numbers are high.

By the time Dobzhansky published the third edition of his book in 1951, he was persuaded that the chromosome morphs were being maintained in the population by the selective advantage of the heterozygotes, as with most polymorphisms. Later he made yet another interesting discovery. One of the inversions, known as PP, was quite rare up to 1946, but by 1958 its proportion had risen to 8%. Not only that, but the proportion was similar over an area of some 200,000 square miles (520,000 km2) in California. This cannot have happened by migration of PP morphs from, say, Mexico (where the inversion is common) because the rate of dispersal (at less than 2 km/year) is of the wrong order. The change therefore reflected a change in prevailing selection whose basis was not yet known.[5][32][56]

Hoverfly polymorphism

Xanthogramma pedissequum, a wasp mimic
Volucella zonaria, a large bumblebee mimic
Mallota
sp., a bumblebee mimic

Hoverfly mimics can be seen in almost any garden in the

imagoes feed on nectar and pollen, and are well known for their mimicry of social hymenoptera. The mimicry is Batesian
in nature: hoverflies are palatable but hymenoptera are generally unpalatable and may also be protected by stingers and/or armour.

Many social wasp (

aposematic
) colouration. Wasps are decidedly noxious: nasty-tasting and with a painful sting. They form a Mullerian 'ring' of similarly coloured models; the wasps are often accompanied by clusters of hover-fly mimics, who tend to arrive at the flowers at a similar time of day, and whose flight pattern is passably similar to wasp flight.

Observers in a garden can see for themselves that hoverfly mimics are quite common, usually many times more common than the models, and are (to our sight) relatively poor mimics, often easy to distinguish from real wasps. However, it has been established in other cases that imperfect mimicry can confer significant advantage to the mimic, especially if the model is really noxious.[57] Also, not only is polymorphism absent from these mimics, it is absent in the wasps also: these facts are presumably connected.[58]

The situation with

carpet pile) and is armoured; they are sometimes described as being 'non-food'. Mostler in 1935 carried out tests of their palatability: with the exception of specialist bee-eaters, adults of 19 species of birds ate only 2% of 646 bumblebees presented to them. After various trials, Mostler attributed their avoidance mainly to mechanical difficulties in handling: one young bird took 18 minutes to subdue, kill and eat a bumblebee.[59]

Bumblebees form Mullerian rings of species, and they do often exhibit polymorphism. The hoverfly species mimicking bumblebees are generally accurate mimics, and many of their species are polymorphic. Many of the polymorphisms are different between the sexes, for example by the mimicry being limited to one sex only.

The question is, how can the differences between social wasp mimics and bumblebee mimics be explained? Evidently if model species are common, and have overlapping distributions, they are less likely to be polymorphic. Their mimics are widespread and develop a kind of rough and ready jack-of-all-trades mimicry. But if model species are less common and have patchy distribution they develop polymorphism; and their mimics match them more exactly and are polymorphic also. The issues are currently being investigated.[60][61][62]

Peppered moth

The peppered moth,

heritable way to a significant change in their ecological circumstances. E.B. Ford described peppered moth evolution as "one of the most striking, though not the most profound, evolutionary changes ever actually witnessed in nature".[63]

Although the moths are cryptically camouflaged and rest during the day in unexposed positions on trees, they are predated by birds hunting by sight. The original camouflage (or crypsis) seems near-perfect against a background of lichen growing on trees. The sudden growth of industrial pollution in the nineteenth century changed the effectiveness of the moths' camouflage: the trees became blackened by soot, and the lichen died off. In 1848 a dark version of this moth was found in the Manchester area. By 1895 98% of the peppered moths in this area were black. This was a rapid change for a species that has only one generation a year.

Biston betularia morpha typica, the standard light-coloured peppered moth.
Biston betularia morpha carbonaria, the melanic peppered moth.

In Europe, there are three morphs: the typical white morph (betularia or typica), and carbonaria, the melanic black morph. They are controlled by

alleles at one locus, with the carbonaria being dominant. There is also an intermediate or semi-melanic morph insularia, controlled by other alleles.[64][65]

A key fact, not realised initially, is the advantage of the heterozygotes, which survive better than either of the homozygotes. This affects the caterpillars as well as the moths, in spite of the caterpillars being monomorphic in appearance (they are twig mimics). In practice heterozygote advantage puts a limit to the effect of selection, since neither homozygote can reach 100% of the population. For this reason, it is likely that the carbonaria allele was in the population originally, pre-industrialisation, at a low level. With the recent reduction in pollution, the balance between the forms has already shifted back significantly.

Another interesting feature is that the carbonaria had noticeably darkened after about a century. This was seen quite clearly when specimens collected about 1880 were compared with specimens collected more recently: clearly the dark morph has been adjusted by the strong selection acting on the gene complex. This might happen if a more extreme allele was available at the same locus; or genes at other loci might act as modifiers. We do not, of course, know anything about the genetics of the original melanics from the nineteenth century.

This type of industrial melanism has only affected such moths as obtain protection from insect-eating birds by resting on trees where they are concealed by an accurate resemblance to their background (over 100 species of moth in Britain with melanic forms were known by 1980).[33] No species which hide during the day, for instance, among dead leaves, is affected, nor has the melanic change been observed among butterflies.[66][64][67] This is, as shown in many textbooks, "evolution in action".

Much of the early work was done by Bernard Kettlewell, whose methods came under scrutiny later on. The entomologist Michael Majerus discussed criticisms made of Kettlewell's experimental methods in his 1998 book Melanism: Evolution in Action.[68] This book was misrepresented in some reviews, and the story picked up by creationist campaigners.

Judith Hooper, in her controversial book Of Moths and Men (2002), implied that Kettlewell's work was fraudulent or incompetent. Careful studies of Kettlewell's surviving papers by Rudge (2005) and Young (2004) found that Hooper's accusation of fraud was unjustified, and that "Hooper does not provide one shred of evidence to support this serious allegation".[69][70] Majerus himself described Of Moths and Men as "littered with errors, misrepresentations, misinterpretations and falsehoods".[68] A suitably restrained 2004 summary of opinion mostly favoured predation as the main selective force.[71]

Starting in 2000, Majerus conducted a detailed seven-year study of moths, experimenting to assess the various criticisms. He concluded that differential bird predation was a major factor responsible for the decline in carbonaria frequency compared to typica in Cambridge during the study period,[72] and described his results as a complete vindication of the peppered moth story. He said, "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution."[73]

Current interpretation of the available evidence is that the peppered moth is in fact a valid example of natural selection and adaptation. It illustrates a polymorphic species maintaining adaptation to a varied and sometimes changing environment.

Two-spotted ladybird beetle

Adalia bipunctata red morph
Adalia bipunctata black morph

pleiotropic effects of the genes acting on colour also affect the beetle's physiology, and hence its relative fitness. A similar polymorphic system is found in many other species in this family: Harmonia axyridis
is a good example.

Scarlet tiger moth

The

Comfrey
(Symphytum officinale). In England it has one generation per year.

Callimorpha dominula
 morpha typica with spread wings. The red with black rear wings, revealed in flight, warn of its noxious taste. The front wings are cryptic, covering the rear wings at rest. Here the moth is resting but alert, and has jinked the front wings forward to reveal the warning flash.

The moth is known to be polymorphic in its colony at

heterozygote (medionigra). It was studied there by Ford and later by Sheppard and their co-workers over many years. Data is available from 1939 to the present day, got by the usual field method of capture-mark-release-recapture and by genetic analysis from breeding in captivity. The records cover gene frequency and population-size for much of the twentieth century.[32]
: ch. 7 

In this instance the genetics appears to be simple: two

phenotypes. Total captures over 26 years 1939–64 came to 15,784 homozygous dominula (i.e. typica), 1,221 heterozygous medionigra and 28 homozygous bimacula. Now, assuming equal viability of the genotypes 1,209 heterozygotes would be expected, so the field results do not suggest any heterozygous advantage. It was Sheppard who found that the polymorphism is maintained by selective mating: each genotype preferentially mates with other morphs.[77] This is sufficient to maintain the system despite the fact that in this case the heterozygote has slightly lower viability.[78]

Mammals

Reindeer and caribou

Genetic polymorphism of serum

caribou. Researchers found that frequencies of Tf alleles of the Siberian reindeer differed from all the others. It is possible that resistance to necrobacteriosis is related to concentrations of alleles in certain reindeer populations.[80]

Molluscs

Cepaea snails

Main article: Cepaea § Shell polymorphism

super-gene. It has been hypothesised that selection has brought the loci concerned together, since this avoids undesirable recombinants.[32]

Cepaea nemoralis, dark yellow shell with single mid band.

In England the snail is regularly predated by the song thrush Turdus philomelos, which breaks them open on thrush anvils (large stones). Here fragments accumulate, permitting researchers to analyse the snails taken. The thrushes hunt by sight, and capture selectively those forms which stand out against the background. So predation may be one factor influencing the different proportion of phenotypes (morphs) found in woodland than in open habitats.[82]

Two active Cepaea snails

In addition, there is evidence of apostatic selection, with the birds preferentially taking the most common morph.[83] This is the 'search image' effect, where a visual predator persists in targeting the morph which it had most often found. Apostatic selection could explain the polymorphism within sites, but song thrushes are not everwhere present.

Dark coloured shells are at greater risk of overheating in the sun.[84] This "climatic selection" provides an alternative explanation for the observed pattern of paler shells in open habitats,[85] and also explains the broad trend of paler shells at more southern latitudes (in C. nemoralis, but not C. hortensis).[81][86]

Different colour morphs occupy different microhabitats, which provides another explanation for why different morphs coexist within a site.

founder effects are now the preferred explanation for the area effects that puzzled early researchers: a consistent ratio of morphs may occur over a wide area, but then suddenly switch to another ratio in an adjacent area despite no obvious change in habitat.[89]

Plants

Heterostyly

Dissection of thrum and pin flowers of Primula vulgaris

An example of a botanical genetic polymorphism is

heteromorphic self-incompatibility, and the general 'strategy' of stamens separated from pistils is known as herkogamy
.

Pin and thrum heterostyly occurs in dimorphic species of Primula, such as P. vulgaris. There are two types of flower. The pin flower has a long style bearing the stigma at the mouth and the stamens halfway down; and the thrum flower has a short style, so the stigma is halfway up the tube and the stamens are at the mouth. So when an insect in search of nectar inserts its proboscis into a long-style flower, the pollen from the stamens stick to the proboscis in exactly the part that will later touch the stigma of the short-styled flower, and vice versa.[90][91]

Another most important property of the heterostyly system is physiological. If thrum pollen is placed on a thrum stigma, or pin pollen on a pin stigma, the reproductive cells are incompatible and relatively little seed is set. Effectively, this ensures out-crossing, as described by Darwin. Quite a lot is now known about the underlying genetics; the system is controlled by a set of closely linked genes which act as a single unit, a

super-gene.[32]: ch. 10 [92][40]: 86  All sections of the genus Primula have heterostyle species, altogether 354 species out of 419.[93] Since heterostyly is characteristic of nearly all races or species, the system is at least as old as the genus.[94]

Between 1861 and 1863, Darwin found the same kind of structure in other groups:

purple loosestrife and other species of Lythrum. Some of the Lythrum species are trimorphic, with one style and two stamens in each form.[95]

Heterostyly is known in at least 51 genera of 18 families of Angiosperms.[96][97]

Heterocarpy

Another example is heterocarpy, in which two or more different fruit morphs occur within an individual or population.

Heterospermy

Heterospermy is the occurrence of two or more different types of seed within an individual (e.g. as in Calendula officinalis) or population.

Heterophylly

Heterophylly is the presence of two or more different forms of leaves within an individual.

Heteroblasty
is the occurrence of distinct leaf types at different stages of the life cycle. Other forms are seasonal heterophylly, distinctions between basal and cauline foliage, and between the foliage of old wood and new wood.

Reptiles

Common side-blotched lizards

Male common side-blotched lizards (Uta stansburiana) exhibit polymorphism in their throat pigmentation, and these different phenotypes are correlated with different mating strategies. Orange-throated males are the largest and most aggressive, defending large territories and keeping harems of females. Blue-throated males are of intermediate size, and guard smaller territories containing only a single female. Yellow-throated males are the smallest, and instead of holding territories they mimic females in order to sneak matings away from the other two morphs. The balance between these three morphs is maintained by frequency-dependent selection.[98][99]

Common wall lizards

The

common wall lizard (Podarcis muralis) displays polymorphism and has six distinct morphs which vary by the colour of their throat and underbelly (underbelly colouration seen predominantly in males).[100] There are three "pure" morphs of colours: red, yellow and white and three "intermediate" morphs which are a combination of the colours: white-red, white-yellow and red-yellow.[100]

Ctenophorus decresii

The Ctenophorus decresii lizard displays polymorphism with varying colors of their throats. The throat colors range from white and gray to bright colors of red, orange, or blue. The diversity in throat color is due to a combination of sexual selection and natural selection.

Ctenophorus pictus

Male Ctenophorus pictus lizards display different colors. The most common are red and yellow, but colors can range from brown to orange to red/orange. These morphs are maintained in nature through a combination of selective factors: natural selection and sexual selection.

Viviparous lizards

Viviparous lizards display color polymorphism in three ventral colors: yellow, orange, and a mixture of the two. These color morphs respond to variation in density frequency-dependence within their environment.

References

  1. ^ White M.J.D. 1973. The chromosomes. Chapman & Hall, London. 6th ed, p166-7.
  2. ^ Clarke, Cyril A. 1964. Genetics for the Clinician. Oxford: Blackwell
  3. ^ Crow, J. 1993. "Felix Bernstein and the first human marker locus". Genetics 133 1, 4-7[clarification needed]
  4. ^ Meade, S. M.; Earickson, R. J. 2005. Medical Geography. Guilford.[clarification needed]
  5. ^ a b Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1970. Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia U. Pr.
  6. S2CID 13312114
    .
  7. ^ Ford, E. B. 1973 (1942). Genetics for Medical Students (7th ed.). London: Chapman & Hall.
  8. PMID 8248172
    .
  9. ^ "Entrez Gene: Duffy antigen".
  10. S2CID 4430340
    .
  11. PMID 7949118
    .
  12. PMID 12378426
    .
  13. hdl:2440/15129
    .
  14. PMID 14997422
    .
  15. S2CID 186243515
    .
  16. ^ Al-Shaheri FN, Al-Shami KM, Gamal EH, Mahasneh AA, Ayoub NM. Association of DNA repair gene polymorphisms with colorectal cancer risk and treatment outcomes. Exp Mol Pathol. 2020 Apr;113:104364. doi: 10.1016/j.yexmp.2019.104364. Epub 2019 Dec 24. PMID: 31881200
  17. ^ Yi C, Li T, Shen Y, Wang P, Dai L, Shi J, Wang K, Sun C, Ye H. Polymorphisms of nucleotide excision repair genes associated with colorectal cancer risk: Meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Front Genet. 2022 Oct 31;13:1009938. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.1009938. PMID: 36386844; PMCID: PMC9659581
  18. ^ Li W, Zhang M, Huang C, Meng J, Yin X, Sun G. Genetic variants of DNA repair pathway genes on lung cancer risk. Pathol Res Pract. 2019 Oct;215(10):152548. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2019.152548. Epub 2019 Jul 18. PMID: 31337555
  19. ^ MORIWAKI, T. (1953). "The inheritance of the dorso-median stripe in Rana limnocharis Wiegmann". J. Sci. Hiroshima Univ. Ser. B Div. 1. 14: 159–164.
  20. doi:10.1163/156853882x00374
    .
  21. PMID 5916896
    .
  22. ^ SHCHUPAK, E. L. & ISHCHENKO, V. G., 1981. On the hereditary base of colour polymorphism in moor frog (Rana arvalis Nilss). I. Light mid-dorsal stripe. In: Herpetological researches in Siberia and Far East, Leningrad, Nauka: 128-132. [In Russian]
  23. doi:10.1139/z80-226
    .
  24. ^ STUGREN, B. (1966). "Geographic variation and distribution of the moor frog, Rana arvalis Nilss". Ann. Zool. Fenn. 3 (1): 29–39.
  25. ^ MERRELL, D. J.,1969. Limits on heterozygous advantage as an explanation of poymorphism. J . Hered, 60: 180-182
  26. ^ a b c ISHCHENKO, V. G., 1978. Dinamicheskij polimorfizm burikh lyagushek fauni SSSR. [Dynamic polymorphism of the brown frogs of USSR fauna]. Moscow, Nauka: 1-148. [In Russian]
  27. ^ GRAY, R. H. (1977). "Lack of physiological differentiation in three color morphs of the cricket frog (Acris crepitans) in Illinois". Trans. Ill. Stale Acad. Sci. 70 (1): 73–79.
  28. JSTOR 3893235
    .
  29. ^ Tarkhnishvili, D. N.; Gokhelashvili, R. K. (1996). "A contribution to the ecological genetics of frogs: age structure and frequency of striped specimens in some Caucasian populations of the Rana macrocnemis complex". Alytes. 14 (1): 27–41.
  30. ^ Tarkhnishvili, D. N., 1996. Genetic relationships in local populations of brown frogs – analysis of distribution of a character under selection. In: Population Genetic Group, 30th annual meeting, University of Edinburgh, 17-20 Dec. 1996, Paper Abstr., p.42
  31. PMID 11266359
    .
  32. ^ a b c d e Ford, E. B. 1975. Ecological Genetics (4th ed.). London: Chapman & Hall
  33. ^ a b Ford, E.B. 1981. Taking Genetics into the Countryside. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.[clarification needed]
  34. ^ Chance E. 1922. The Cuckoo's Secret. London.[clarification needed]
  35. ^ Huxley, Julian S. 1954 (presentation; printed 1955). "Morphism in Birds". 11th Int. Ornith. Cong., pp. 309–328. Basel.[clarification needed]
  36. PMID 16592654
    .
  37. ^ Grant, Peter R.; Grant, B. Rosemary. 1989. "Sympatric Speciation and Darwin's Finches". In D. Otte & J. A. Endler (eds.) Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer.[clarification needed]
  38. ^ Grant, B. Rosemary; Grant, Peter R. 1989. Evolutionary Dynamics of a Natural Population: The Large Cactus Finch of the Galápagos, p. 241. Chicago: Chicago U. Pr.
  39. ^ a b Grant, Peter R. 1999. Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches. Princeton: Princeton U. Pr.
  40. ^ a b Maynard Smith, J. 1998. Evolutionary Genetics (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford U. Pr.
  41. PMID 28563104
    .
  42. doi:10.1093/beheco/14.3.425
    .
  43. doi:10.1139/z61-031
    .
  44. doi:10.2173/bna.128
  45. PMID 18562641
    .
  46. ^ a b c Malmquist, H. J., Snorrason, S. S., Skulason, S., Jonsson, B., Sandlund, O. T., & Jonasson, P. M. (1992). Diet differentiation in polymorphic Arctic charr in Thingvallavatn, Iceland. Journal of Animal Ecology, 21-35.
  47. ^
    PMID 16928630
    .
  48. ^
    S2CID 17713440
    .
  49. ^
    S2CID 21325242
    .
  50. ^
    PMID 30847088
    .
  51. S2CID 4560071
    .
  52. PMID 14704171
    .
  53. PMID 17801695
    .
  54. ^ Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species (1st ed.). New York: Columbia U. Pr.
  55. JSTOR 2405325
    .
  56. ^ Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1981. Dobzhansky's Genetics of Natural Populations. Lewontin, R. C.; Moore, J. A.; Provine, W. B.; Wallace, B. (eds.). New York: Columbia U. P.
  57. ^ Brower, L.P. 1988. Mimicry and the evolutionary process. Chicago.
  58. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2000.tb01234.x
    .
  59. S2CID 45347062
    .
  60. ^ Gilbert, Francis (2004). "The evolution of imperfect mimicry in hoverflies". In Fellows M.; Holloway G.; Rolff J. (eds.). Insect Evolutionary Biology.
  61. doi:10.1093/beheco/13.6.821
    .
  62. S2CID 36030553
    .
  63. ^ Ford, E.B. 1976. Genetics and Adaptation, p14. London: Arnold.
  64. ^ a b Majerus, Michael. 1998. Melanism: Evolution in Action. Oxford: Blackwell.
  65. S2CID 4267459
    .
  66. Boston/London.: MIT Pr./Faber & Faber
  67. ^ Kettlewell H.B.D. 1973. The Evolution of Melanism. Oxford: Oxford U. Pr.
  68. ^ a b Majerus M.E.N. 2004. The Peppered Moth: Decline of a Darwinian Disciple. Microsoft Word.doc format. Archived 26 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine
  69. S2CID 25525719
    .
  70. ^ Young, M. 2003. Moonshine: Why the Peppered Moth remains an icon of evolution Archived 16 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine. Publisher:talkreason.org webpage.
  71. ^ Ruxton, G. D.; Sherratt, T. N.; Speed, M. P. 2004. Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals and Mimicry, pp. 9–10. Oxford: Oxford U Pr.
  72. ^ Majerus, M.E.N. (August 2007). "The Peppered Moth: The Proof of Darwinian Evolution" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 June 2011. Retrieved 11 April 2011.
  73. ^ Connor, S. (25 August 2007). "Moth study backs classic 'test case' for Darwin's theory". The Independent. Archived from the original on 7 October 2008. Retrieved 11 April 2011.
  74. ^ Fraser, J. F. D.; Rothschild, M. 1960. "Defence Mechanisms in Warningly-coloured Moths and Other Insects". Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on Entomology, pp. 248–256.
  75. ^ Creed E.R. 1971. "Melanism in the Two-spot Ladybird, Adelia bipunctata, in Great Britain". In E. R. Creed (ed.), Ecological Genetics and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.
  76. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1985.tb01635.x
    .
  77. doi:10.1038/hdy.1952.24
    .
  78. doi:10.1038/hdy.1962.41
    .
  79. doi:10.1111/j.1601-5223.1964.tb01950.x
    .
  80. ^
    PMID 1269923
    .
  81. ^
    doi:10.1146/annurev.es.08.110177.000545
    .
  82. PMID 14840763
    .
  83. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1991.tb00590.x
    .
  84. S2CID 4173990
    .
  85. doi:10.1093/mollus/eyr052
    .
  86. PMID 21556137
    .
  87. S2CID 4253694
    .
  88. PMC 1692378
    .
  89. ^ Cameron, R.A.D.; Dillon, P.J. (1984). "Habitat stability, population histories and patterns of variation in Cepaea". Malacologia. 25: 271–291.
  90. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1862.tb01218.x
    .
  91. ^ Darwin, Charles. 1877. The different forms of flowers on plants of the same species. London: Murray.
  92. ^ Sheppard, Philip M. 1975. Natural Selection and Heredity (4th ed.) London: Hutchinson.
  93. ^ Bruun H.G. (1938). "Studies on heterostyle plants 2". Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 32: 249–260.
  94. ^ Darlington C. 1958. Evolution of genetic systems, 2nd ed, p120 et seq: The genetic promotion of crossing. Oliver & Boyd, London.
  95. Chicago: Chicago U. Pr
    .
  96. ^ Darlington C. 1971. The evolution of polymorphic systems. In Creed R. (ed) Ecological genetics and evolution. Blackwell, Oxford.
  97. S2CID 23135621
    .
  98. S2CID 205026253
    .
  99. S2CID 5759575
    .
  100. ^
    doi:10.1016/j.jcz.2013.03.001
    .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_polymorphisms&oldid=1217949796"