In article <4l8ioj$nf3 at News.Dal.Ca>, "Andrew J. Roger" <aroger at ac.dal.ca> wrote:
> "James O. McInerney Ph.D." <jamm at nhm.ac.uk> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> > It has been pointed out to me by somebody here at the museum that the
> >date for the mitochondrial endosymbiosis (or whatever you wish to call
> >it) has continuously been pushed further down the eukaryotic tree (by
> >unearthing evidence for secondary mitochondrial loss).
> >
> > Now, there is general agreement that the mitochondrion is
monophyletic
> >(descendent from the ancestors of Alpha proteobacteria). Alpha
> >proteobacteria are _relatively_ recent bacteria (as judged by molceular
> >trees, and assuming a reasonable molecular clock), so mitochondrial
> >eukaryotes can only have evolved _relatively_ recently. Therefore, a
> >HUGE length of time elapsed between the splitting of 'Eukarya' and
> >Bacteria. Sooo, in that time there must have been some eukaryotes that
> >were successful.
> >
Check out Blackstone NW (1995) A units-of-evolution perspective on the
endosymbiont theory of the origin of the mitochondrion. Evolution 49(5):
785-796
--
URL http://numbat.murdoch.edu.au/spermatology/spermhp.html
