805 resultados para Lynch brothers


Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The group Callithrichidae is characterized by the flexibility in its mating system. This fact generates questions about the mechanisms that Callithrix jacchus males reach the breeding position in a group and how they prevent the subordinates reproduction, since the competition apparently happens with less intensity when compared to the females. Studies have shown the importance of social interactions and kinship among individuals in the distribution of mating opportunities in a group. This work aimed to evaluate if dyads of Callithrix jacchus males acted socially different due to kinship. We observed the agonistic and affiliative behaviours made by the males when associated in dyads (Phase 1) and when these dyads received a female (Phase 2), which was introduced in the pair`s cage for 45 minutes. In the phase 2, we also accounted for the sexual interactions between males and female in each trio. We used 16 males, 8 related (brothers-R) and 8 nonrelated (NR), as well as 8 females. Each phase lasted 4 weeks, with 3 observations/week, during 15 min/male in phase 1 and 2. In the first phase, two pairs of R males had a contested dominance and the other two, just like in the NR males, had an uncontested dominance. The NR dominant males were more aggressive than the subordinates. With the female`s entrance in the cage, all male pairs began to have an uncontested dominance. The NR males aggression frequency rose along with the subordinates` submission. In the R males, the frequency of grooming and physical contact was higher than in the NR males. So, we conclude that the low levels of agonism presented by the R males, along with the higher tolerance shown amongst them, lead us to believe that kinship attenuate the competition among these males

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Wiens (2007, Q. Rev. Biol. 82, 55-56) recently published a severe critique of Frost et al.'s (2006, Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 297, 1-370) monographic study of amphibian systematics, concluding that it is a disaster and recommending that readers simply ignore this study. Beyond the hyperbole, Wiens raised four general objections that he regarded as fatal flaws: (1) the sampling design was insufficient for the generic changes made and taxonomic changes were made without including all type species; (2) the nuclear gene most commonly used in amphibian phylogenetics, RAG-1, was not included, nor were the morphological characters that had justified the older taxonomy; (3) the analytical method employed is questionable because equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates; and (4) the results were at times clearly erroneous, as evidenced by the inferred non-monophyly of marsupial frogs. In this paper we respond to these criticisms. In brief: (1) the study of Frost et al. did not exist in a vacuum and we discussed our evidence and evidence previously obtained by others that documented the non-monophyletic taxa that we corrected. Beyond that, we agree that all type species should ideally be included, but inclusion of all potentially relevant type species is not feasible in a study of the magnitude of Frost et al. and we contend that this should not prevent progress in the formulation of phylogenetic hypotheses or their application outside of systematics. (2) Rhodopsin, a gene included by Frost et al. is the nuclear gene that is most commonly used in amphibian systematics, not RAG-1. Regardless, ignoring a study because of the absence of a single locus strikes us as unsound practice. With respect to previously hypothesized morphological synapomorphies, Frost et al. provided a lengthy review of the published evidence for all groups, and this was used to inform taxonomic decisions. We noted that confirming and reconciling all morphological transformation series published among previous studies needed to be done, and we included evidence from the only published data set at that time to explicitly code morphological characters (including a number of traditionally applied synapomorphies from adult morphology) across the bulk of the diversity of amphibians (Haas, 2003, Cladistics 19, 23-90). Moreover, the phylogenetic results of the Frost et al. study were largely consistent with previous morphological and molecular studies and where they differed, this was discussed with reference to the weight of evidence. (3) The claim that equally weighted parsimony assumes that all characters are evolving at equal rates has been shown to be false in both analytical and simulation studies. (4) The claimed strong support for marsupial frog monophyly is questionable. Several studies have also found marsupial frogs to be non-monophyletic. Wiens et al. (2005, Syst. Biol. 54, 719-748) recovered marsupial frogs as monophyletic, but that result was strongly supported only by Bayesian clade confidence values (which are known to overestimate support) and bootstrap support in his parsimony analysis was < 50%. Further, in a more recent parsimony analysis of an expanded data set that included RAG-1 and the three traditional morphological synapomorphies of marsupial frogs, Wiens et al. (2006, Am. Nat. 168, 579-596) also found them to be non-monophyletic.Although we attempted to apply the rule of monophyly to the naming of taxonomic groups, our phylogenetic results are largely consistent with conventional views even if not wth the taxonomy current at the time of our writing. Most of our taxonomic changes addressed examples of non-monophyly that had previously been known or suspected (e.g., the non-monophyly of traditional Hyperoliidae, Microhylidae, Hemiphractinae, Leptodactylidae, Phrynobatrachus, Ranidae, Rana, Bufo; and the placement of Brachycephalus within Eleutherodactylus, and Lineatriton within Pseudoeurycea), and it is troubling that Wiens and others, as evidenced by recent publications, continue to perpetuate recognition of non-monophyletic taxonomic groups that so profoundly misrepresent what is known about amphibian phylogeny. (C) The Willi Hennig Society 2007.

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

CMS is a general purpose experiment, designed to study the physics of pp collisions at 14 TeV at the Large Hadron Collider ( LHC). It currently involves more than 2000 physicists from more than 150 institutes and 37 countries. The LHC will provide extraordinary opportunities for particle physics based on its unprecedented collision energy and luminosity when it begins operation in 2007. The principal aim of this report is to present the strategy of CMS to explore the rich physics programme offered by the LHC. This volume demonstrates the physics capability of the CMS experiment. The prime goals of CMS are to explore physics at the TeV scale and to study the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking - through the discovery of the Higgs particle or otherwise. To carry out this task, CMS must be prepared to search for new particles, such as the Higgs boson or supersymmetric partners of the Standard Model particles, from the start- up of the LHC since new physics at the TeV scale may manifest itself with modest data samples of the order of a few fb(-1) or less. The analysis tools that have been developed are applied to study in great detail and with all the methodology of performing an analysis on CMS data specific benchmark processes upon which to gauge the performance of CMS. These processes cover several Higgs boson decay channels, the production and decay of new particles such as Z' and supersymmetric particles, B-s production and processes in heavy ion collisions. The simulation of these benchmark processes includes subtle effects such as possible detector miscalibration and misalignment. Besides these benchmark processes, the physics reach of CMS is studied for a large number of signatures arising in the Standard Model and also in theories beyond the Standard Model for integrated luminosities ranging from 1 fb(-1) to 30 fb(-1). The Standard Model processes include QCD, B-physics, diffraction, detailed studies of the top quark properties, and electroweak physics topics such as the W and Z(0) boson properties. The production and decay of the Higgs particle is studied for many observable decays, and the precision with which the Higgs boson properties can be derived is determined. About ten different supersymmetry benchmark points are analysed using full simulation. The CMS discovery reach is evaluated in the SUSY parameter space covering a large variety of decay signatures. Furthermore, the discovery reach for a plethora of alternative models for new physics is explored, notably extra dimensions, new vector boson high mass states, little Higgs models, technicolour and others. Methods to discriminate between models have been investigated. This report is organized as follows. Chapter 1, the Introduction, describes the context of this document. Chapters 2-6 describe examples of full analyses, with photons, electrons, muons, jets, missing E-T, B-mesons and tau's, and for quarkonia in heavy ion collisions. Chapters 7-15 describe the physics reach for Standard Model processes, Higgs discovery and searches for new physics beyond the Standard Model.

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)