Karyotypes of Parasitic Hymenoptera
This summary of the results of chromosomal analysis of various groups of parasitic wasps will be essential reading for those working in the field. It is the second edition of a monograph that was first published in Russian, and has been substantially upda
- PDF / 16,108,401 Bytes
- 192 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 69 Downloads / 220 Views
Vladimir E. Gokhman
Karyotypes of Parasitic Hymenoptera
123
Vladimir E. Gokhman Moscow State University Botanical Garden Moskva Russia 119991 [email protected]
Originally published in 2005 with the Russian publisher KMK Scientific Press Ltd. in Russian language. c KMK Scientific Press Ltd., Russian Edition, 2005
ISBN 978-1-4020-9806-2
e-ISBN 978-1-4020-9807-9
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9807-9 Library of Congress Control Number: 2009920978 c Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Cover illustration: Micrograph of chromosome set of Cratichneumon rufifrons (Ichneumonidae). Original photo by Vladimir E. Gokhman Printed on acid-free paper 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com
Foreword
Not so long ago, karyology was considered a vanguard biological discipline, which could solve nearly all problems of systematics and phylogenetics. We liked to believe in the bright future, in a magician who will appear like a Jack-in-the-box and reveal the truth to us. However, excessive hopes related to the chromosomal study came true only in part. In the meantime, new candidates claimed the place of the magician, i.e. phenetics succeeded by cladistics and now by molecular methods in systematics and phylogeny. Nevertheless, it becomes progressively more obvious nowadays that cladistics is just a bright envelope for the fairly primitive and theoretically vulnerable approach that deprives living organisms and their groups of the traces of integrity and reduces them to the plain sum of characters. Modern molecular techniques look more perceptive and may yield more reliable results, although the details are sometimes embarrassing, and comparison with the fossil record does not necessarily reveal their superiority over cladistics. These methods are accessible by research teams with massive funding and good equipment and this strongly decreases the range and diversity of the material studied. However, classifications are often created by individual systematists with the restricted access to molecular methods. In this context, karyological techniques are in the preferable position, although they certainly do not provide direct and immaculate markers of taxonomic and phylogenetic relationships: chromosomal study is a morphological method with all its advantages and drawbacks. However, karyology operates at the level of cells and organelles that absolutely differs from that of conventional morphology, and, as the present monograph demonstrates, it sometimes reveals differences where routine techniques show deep similarities and vice versa. Because of that, karyotypic data can perform the important function of control and correction of t
Data Loading...
