Coevolution of Heliconius spp. and Passiflora spp. : a phylogenetic comparison

Although a substantial amount of research has been done on all aspects ofHeliconius biology and their ecological interactions with Passiflora, there has not hitherto been a phylogenetic examination of this association for coevolution. To test the HeliconiuslPassilfora association for coevolutionary congruence, phylogenies for each group were established and compared. The phylogeny for 14 species ofHeliconiinae from Costa Rica was based on combined sequence data from rRNA ITS 2 and partial EF-1a gene regions. For the Passifloraceae, 17 host plant species were utilized to establish a phylogeny based on tRNALeucine and ITS 1/5.8S1 ITS 2 sequence data. The phylogenies for both groups were largely in agreement with current classification (for Passifloraceae) and previously established phylogenies. Associations with the large subgenera Passiflora and Decaloba correspond with the two major Advanced Radiation groups in Heliconius. Although strict congruence above subgenus level was not observed, broad scale congruence was evident. One main host shift as well as other possible explanations for lack of strict congruence are suggested.

Commodities and their fetishism

Many pr oblems present themselves in at tempting t o discuss Marx's noti on of the fetish characteristics of commodities. It has been argued that it is one of the central points of Marx's en tir e c or pus. 1 It has also been argued that it i s merely "a brilli an t s oci olog i cal genera lization l ! and, even furth er, that it is an Hi ndependent and separate entity, internally hardly related t o Marx's economic theory" .2 How could such a theory be understo od i n such drastically diff erent ways? Perhaps the clue is to be f ound somewhere in Marx' s discussion of the fetishism of commodities itself. Because of the difficulty in un derstanding fetishism , I intend t o examine what Marx himself has t o say first befor e dealing with any points related to the notion of fetishism. Thus , the first parts of this thesis will c onsist of l ong qu otations and repetition of what Marx has t o say. If a noti on may be called ' central' and yet 'hardly related' t o Marx's wor k at the same time, surely a clear examination of this section is necess ary. Aft er an examination of the initial secti ons of Cae ital ] I intend t G examine the f ollowing : the r e lation of fetishism t o the t he ory of alienati on; how one may regard f etishism as a pr oblem f or philosophy; and how, in f act, the theory of fetishism is of prime imp ortance f or an understan ding of Marx's wr itings. What I want to stress throughout is that with o u~ an understanding of what is inherent in the pr oduction of the commodity causing i t t o be necessarily fetishistic, it is practically imp ossible t o understand much of Marx's other writin gs. A commodity appears, at fir st sight, a very trivial thing and easi ly un derst ood. Itsanalysis shows that it i s , in r eality , a very queer thing , abo unding in ~taphysical s ubtleties and theological nic eties .