>  I do not think the cited study in any way supports the quoted statement.

Hi there
Thanks for pointing this out. I often offer up snips with the hopes of sparking a conversation. Most of the time they just get passed over. I was not suggesting that the mitochondria was significant for anything other than identification of species or in this case subspecies. Were you able to obtain the whole paper? They go on to say:

> Given their unique biologies, it is reasonable to assume that A.m. capensis and A.m. scutellata might have distinct genetic structures.  The arrangement of A.m. capensis and scutellata based on morphological characters suggests two distinct subspecies, but further examination is required to find reliable and robust genetic markers that are diagnostic for the two subspecies. 

* They use mitochondria because:

> Given the more rapid evolutionary rate and coalescence of the mitochondrial genome, the mitochondrion may yield diagnostic markers even in the absence of diagnostic nuclear markers. Given the morphological differentiation between A.m. capensis and A.m. scutellata, we sought to determine if the complete mitogenome sequences could be used to differentiate between the two honey bee subspecies accurately.

* But it couldn't. They continue:

> Mitochondrial DNA has been widely used as a marker in population genetic, biogeographic, phylogenetic and DNA barcoding studies. Due to their relative rapid coalescence, one should be able to distinguish reciprocally monophyletic groups even when analyses of nuclear markers fail to do so. However, based on our results, mitogenomes appear to be poor diagnostic phylogenetic markers in Apis, as has also been found in some other taxa.

* The assumption here is that mitochondrial DNA evolves more rapidly so the two subspecies might have essentially the same nuclear genome but distinguishable mitochondrial signatures. As we know, their behaviors and appearances are radically different, so it's reasonable to expect distinct genomic features. These have not been found. In other words, DNA fails to account for the differences between these two subspecies -- raising more questions than answers.

PLB

PS. this appears to be a strong case for some heritable epigenetic factor ...

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html