In article <3o9q5g$rl6 at owl.und.ac.za>, daceh at shrike.und.ac.za (Halford Dace) writes:
|> Just a brief addition to the molecular clock debate. I don't know whether
|> it'll be useful or not.
|>|> It's probably worth bearing in mind that mutation rates per se probably
|> aren't that important - a mutation will only enter a population's gene
|> pool if it happens in a germ line cell. I would think that this would
|> tend to `speed up' the molecular clocks of organisms with shorter
|> generatioal times, since more generations (ie more gametogenesis &
|> fertilizations) in a given period would allow more mutations to
|> accumulate, since the genes comprising the population's gene pool
|> would have spent a greater proportion of time as gametes.
|>|> I think the idea makes sense but I'm sure that there's a better way of
|> expressing it.
I'm not quite sure I understand Hal's idea, but if the significant part
of the argument is the proportion of time spent as gametes, surely the
mutation rate would be much higher in females of a species than males,
since gametogenesis takes place very early in females, while in males,
gametogenesis happens close to the time of fertilization.
Ingrid
