Western Tennessee contains unusually highly polymorphic populations of southern short-tailed shrews (Blarina carolinensis). We previously documented eight Robertsonian translocations (ROBs) accounting for a variation in diploid number from 46 in most of this species’ range to 34–40 in western Tennessee. We have now expanded our study to include data from adjacent areas in Tennessee and Mississippi, 10 localities in all. The new data show a variation in diploid number ranging from 31 to 41, four new ROBs (for a total of 12), and the novel finding of monobrachial translocations in this group. All animals collected from this large area (extending over 12,000 km2) had some level of ROBs, and none represented the 2n = 46 form seen in other parts of the range of this species. Because other species of shrews (genus Sorex) are not affected in the same area, the factors and/or selective forces causing this extensive polymorphism in B. carolinensis must be unique to this species and to this geographic area. Some ROBs were found throughout this large area of over 12,000 km2. Other translocations (including those with monobrachial homology) were located in one or two localities in this large area, and still other translocations were intermediate in their distribution. There was a concentric pattern to the evolution and presumed spreading of the ROBs. This allowed us to expand the concept of a Robertsonian “fan,” introduced by Matthey (1970), to that of concentric evolution of multiple fusion fans: ROBs likely arose independently, separated temporally and geographically, and radiated into surrounding populations to create this complex zone of polymorphism. This is an active process in its infancy, and it is not as mature as that seen in European studies of Mus and Sorex.   

1.
Baker RJ, Bickham JW: Speciation by monobrachial centric fusions. Proc natl Acad Sci, USA 83:8245–8248 (1986).
2.
Baker RJ, Qumsiyeh MB: Methods in chiropteran mitotic chromosomal studies, in Kunz TH (ed): Ecological and Behavioral Methods for the Study of Bats, pp 425–435 (Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC 1988).
3.
Baker RJ, Qumsiyeh MB, Hood CS: Role of chromosomal banding patterns in understanding mammalian evolution, in Genoways HH (ed): Current Mammalogy, pp 67–96 (Plenum Press, New York 1987).
4.
Barton NH, Hewitt GM: Adaptation, speciation and hybrid zones. Nature 341:497–503 (1989).
5.
Bauchau V: Phylogenetic analysis of the distribution of chromosomal races of Mus musculus domesticus Rutty in Europe. Biol J Linn Soc 41:171–192 (1990).
6.
Bickham JW, Baker RJ: Canalization model of chromosomal evolution. Bull Carnegie Mus Nat Hist 13:70–84 (1979).
7.
Bidau CJ: Causes of chiasma repatterning due to centric fusions. Rev Brasil Genet 16:283–296 (1993).
8.
Burton RS: Hybrid breakdown in physiological response: a mechanistic approach. Evolution 44:1806–1813 (1990).
9.
Capanna E: Robertsonian numerical variation in animal speciation: Mus musculus, an emblematic model, in Baricozzi C (ed): Mechanisms of Speciation, pp 155–177 (Alan R Liss, New York 1982).
10.
Cattanach BM: Crossover suppression in mice heterozygous for tobacco mouse metacentrics. Cytogenet Cell Genet 20:264–281 (1978).
11.
Chesser RD, Baker RJ: On factors effecting the fixation of chromosomal rearrangements and natural genes: computer simulations. Evolution 40:625–632 (1986).
12.
Garagna S, Redi CA, Zuccotti M, Britton-Davidian J, Winking H: Kinetics of oogenesis in mice heterozygous for Robertsonian translocations. Differentiation 42:167–171 (1990).
13.
Garagna S, Zuccotti M, Searle, JB, Redi CA, Wilkerson PJ: Spermatogenesis in heterozygotes for Robertsonian chromosomal rearrangements from natural populations of the common shrew Sorex araneus. J Reprod Fertil 2:431–438 (1989).
14.
Gardner RJM, Sutherland GR: Chromosome Abnormalities and Genetic Counseling, 2nd Ed, pp 1–255 (Oxford University Press, New York 1996).
15.
Hauffe HC, Searle JB: Extreme karyotypic variation in a Mus musculus domesticus hybrid zone: the tobacco mouse story revisited. Evolution 47:1374–1395 (1993).
16.
Hausser J: The Cytogenetics of the Sorex araneus and Related Topics (Memoires de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles, Lausanne/Arzier 1991).
17.
Hausser J: The Sorex of the araneus-articus group (Mammalia: Soricidea): Do they actually speciate? in Advances in the Biology of Shrews, Special Publication No. 18, pp 295–306 (The Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh 1994).
18.
Hausser J, Catzeflis F, Meylan A, Vogel P: Speciation in the Sorex araneus complex (Mammalia, Insectivora). Acta zool Fenn 170:125–130 (1985).
19.
Holmquist GP, Dancis B: Telomeric replication, kinetochore organizers, and satellite DNA evolution. Chromosoma 72:191–201 (1979).
20.
John B, Freeman M: Causes and consequences of Robertsonian exchange. Chromosoma 52:123–136 (1975).
21.
Lyapunova EA, Vorontsov NN, Korobitsina KV, Ivanitskaya EY, Borsov YM, Yakimenko LV, Dovgal VY: A Robertsonian fan in Ellobius talpinus superspecies. Genetica 53:239–247 (1980).
22.
Matthey R: L’éventail robertsonien chez les Mus (Leggada) africains du groupe minutoides-musculoides. Rev suisse Zool 77:625–629 (1970).
23.
Qumsiyeh MB: Evolution of number and morphology of mammalian chromosomes. J Hered 85:455–465 (1994).
24.
Qumsiyeh MB, Coate JL, Peppers JA, Kennedy PK, Kennedy ML: Robertsonian chromosomal rearrangements in the short-tailed shrew, Blarina carolinensis, in western Tennessee. Cytogenet Cell Genet 76:153–158 (1997).
25.
Redi CA, Garanga S, Zuccotti M: Robertsonian chromosome formation and fixation: the genomic scenario. Biol J Linn Soc 41:235–255 (1990).
26.
Said K, Saad A, Auffray JC, Brittondavidian J: Fertility estimates in the Tunisian all-acrocentric and Robertsonian populations of the house mouse and their chromosomal hybrids. Heredity 71:532–538 (1993).
27.
Searle JB: Meiotic studies of Robertsonian heterozygotes from natural populations of the common shrew, Sorex araneus L. Cytogenet Cell Genet 41:154–162 (1986a).
28.
Searle JB: Preferential transmission in wild common shrews (Sorex araneus) heterozygous for Robertsonian translocations. Genet Res 47:147–152 (1986b).
29.
Searle JB: Selection and Robertsonian variation in nature, in Daniel A (ed): The Cytogenetics of Mammalian Autosomal Rearrangements, pp 507–531 (Alan R Liss, New York 1988).
30.
Searle JB: A cytogenetical analysis of reproduction in common shrews (Sorex araneus) from a karyotypic hybrid zone. Hereditas 113:121–132 (1990).
31.
Searle JB, Hubner R, Wallace B, Garanga S: Robertsonian chromosomal variation in wild mice and shrews. Chrom Today 10:253–263 (1990).
32.
Volobouev VT, Dutrillaux B: Chromosomal evolution and phylogenetic relationships of the Sorex araneus-arcticus species group (Memoires de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles, Lausanne/Arzier 1991).
33.
White MJD: Chain processes in chromosomal speciation. Syst Zool 27:285–295 (1978a).
34.
White MJD: Modes of Speciation (WH Freeman, San Francisco 1978b).
35.
Winking H, Dulic B, Bulfield G: Robertsonian karyotype variation in the European house mouse, Mus musculus: survey of present knowledge and new observations. Z Säugetierk 53:148–161 (1988).
36.
Wolff DJ, Schwartz S: The effect of Robertsonian translocation on recombination on chromosome 21. Hum molec Genet 2:693–699 (1993).
© 1999 S. Karger AG, Basel
1999
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.