There and Back Again

A new study estimates the number of generations necessary to evolve from mouse-sized to elephantine, and shows that it’s quicker to get small.

By | February 1, 2012

Pygmy hippos. Wikimedia Commons, Chuckupd

Pygmy hipposWIKIMEDIA COMMONS, CHUCKUPD

A new study, published this week in the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences, estimates the time necessary for mammals to evolve from the size of mice to the size of elephants—about 24 million generations. Led by scientists at Australia’s Monash University, the researchers looked at how long it took large scale changes in body size to evolve, rather than small changes within species, and found that land mammals changed size more slowly than whales. While it took about 5 million generations for land mammals to increase in size 1000-fold, cetaceans increased by a similar factor in just 3 million generations. Researchers also saw that decreasing in size occurred about 30 times faster than increasing.

“This tells us how much slower so-called macroevolution is compared to microevolution,” lead author Alistair Evans of Monash University told Nature. “The kinds of short-term rates of evolution we can measure in the lab, or even in short-term ecological observations, are not likely to be sustained for thousands of generations,” agreed Mike Benton, a palaeontologist at the University of Bristol, UK.

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Ken Pimple

Ken Pimple

Posts: 10

February 1, 2012

"While it took about 5 million generations for land mammals to increase
in size 1000-fold, cetaceans increased by a similar factor in just 3
million years."

Is the comparison between 5 million generations and 3 million years a typo? Or am I missing something?

Ken

Avatar of: johndossantos

johndossantos

Posts: 8

February 1, 2012

Looks like they've corrected it to 3 million generations.

Avatar of: TheSciAdmin

TheSciAdmin

Posts: 56

February 1, 2012

Thanks for catching the typo, Ken. It's now comparing generations to generations.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

February 1, 2012

Thanks for catching the typo, Ken. It's now comparing generations to generations.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

February 1, 2012

Thanks for catching the typo, Ken. It's now comparing generations to generations.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

February 1, 2012

"While it took about 5 million generations for land mammals to increase
in size 1000-fold, cetaceans increased by a similar factor in just 3
million years."

Is the comparison between 5 million generations and 3 million years a typo? Or am I missing something?

Ken

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

February 1, 2012

"While it took about 5 million generations for land mammals to increase
in size 1000-fold, cetaceans increased by a similar factor in just 3
million years."

Is the comparison between 5 million generations and 3 million years a typo? Or am I missing something?

Ken

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

February 1, 2012

Looks like they've corrected it to 3 million generations.

Avatar of:

Posts: 0

February 1, 2012

Looks like they've corrected it to 3 million generations.

Popular Now

  1. Consilience, Episode 3: Cancer, Obscured
  2. RNAi’s Future in Drug-Target Screening
    News Analysis RNAi’s Future in Drug-Target Screening

    A recent CRISPR study contradicted years of RNA interference research on a well-studied cancer drug target. But is it the last nail in the coffin for RNAi as a screening tool? 

  3. A History of Screening for Natural Products to Fight Cancer
  4. Human Cord Plasma Protein Boosts Cognitive Function in Older Mice
AAAS