Phylogeographic analysis of the chloroplast DNA variation in wild common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the Americas

The wild common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) is widely but discontinuously distributed from northern Mexico to northern Argentina on both sides of the Isthmus of Panama. Little is known on how the species has reached its current disjunct distribution. In this research, chloroplast DNA polymorphisms in seven non-coding regions were used to study the history of migration of wild P. vulgaris between Mesoamerica and South America. A penalized likelihood analysis was applied to previously published Leguminosae ITS data to estimate divergence times between P. vulgaris and its sister taxa from Mesoamerica, and divergence times of populations within P. vulgaris. Fourteen chloroplast haplotypes were identified by PCR-RFLP and their geographical associations were studied by means of a Nested Clade Analysis and Mantel Tests. The results suggest that the haplotypes are not randomly distributed but occupy discrete parts of the geographic range of the species. The current distribution of haplotypes may be explained by isolation by distance and by at least two migration events between Mesoamerica and South America: one from Mesoamerica to South America and another one from northern South America to Mesoamerica. Age estimates place the divergence of P. vulgaris from its sister taxa from Mesoamerica at or before 1.3 Ma, and divergence of populations from Ecuador-northern Peru at or before 0.6 Ma. As these ages are taken as minimum divergence times, the influence of past events, such as the closure of the Isthmus of Panama and the final uplift of the Andes, on the migration history and population structure of this species cannot be disregarded.

In search of the aim of the free movement of persons provisions: has the Court of Justice missed the point?

The Court of Justice has, over the years, often been vilified for exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction by interpreting the provisions of Community legislation in a way not seem originally envisaged by its drafters. A recent example of this approach was a cluster of cases in the context of the free movement of workers and the freedom of establishment (Ritter-Coulais and its progeny), where the Court included within the scope of those provisions situations which, arguably, did not present a sufficient link with their (economic) aim. In particular, in that case law the Court accepted that the mere exercise of free movement for the purpose of taking up residence in the territory of another Member State whilst continuing to exercise an economic activity in the State of origin, suffices for bringing a Member State national within the scope of Articles 39 and 43 EC. It is argued that the most plausible explanation for this approach is that the Court now wishes to re-read the economic fundamental freedoms in such a way as to include within their scope all economically active Union citizens, irrespective of whether their situation presents a sufficient link with the exercise of an economic activity in a cross-border context. It is suggested that this approach is problematic for a number of reasons. It is, therefore, concluded that the Court should revert to its orthodox approach, according to which only situations that involve Union citizens who have moved between Member States for the purpose of taking up an economic activity should be included within the scope of the market freedoms.