The evolutionary position of turtles revised

Consensus on the evolutionary position of turtles within the amniote phylogeny has eluded evolutionary biologists for more than a century. This phylogenetic problem has remained unsolved partly because turtles have such a unique morphology that only few characters can be used to link them with any other group of amniotes. Among the many alternative hypotheses that have been postulated to explain the origin and phylogenetic relationships of turtles, a general agreement among paleontologists emerged in favoring the placement of turtles as the only living survivors of the anapsid reptiles (those that lack temporal fenestrae in the skull). However, recent morphological and molecular studies have radically changed our view of amniote phylogenetic relationships, and evidence is accumulating that supports the diapsid affinities of turtles. Molecular studies favor archosaurs (crocodiles and birds) as the living sister group of turtles, whereas morphological studies support lepidosaurs (tuatara, lizards, and snakes) as the closest living relatives of turtles. Accepting these hypotheses implies that turtles cannot be viewed any longer as primitive reptiles, and that they might have lost the temporal holes in the skull secondarily rather than never having had them.     

Predator odour and its impact on male fertility and reproduction in Phodopus campbelli hamsters

 This study investigated the influence of cat urine odour in suppressing development and fertility in Campbell's hamster males. Exposure to this odour from postnatal day 11 until day 45 (sexual maturation) resulted in reduced sex organ weights, reduced testosterone levels and in an increase in abnormalities of the synaptonemal complex in both sex chromosomes and autosomes. Subsequent breeding experiments revealed a significant decrease in litter size. All these data indicate a severe effect of predator odour on the breeding success of potential prey species. It is assumed that these effects are caused by the sulphurous compounds in the urine; however, the underlying mechanisms are not yet known. Received: 31 January 2000 / Accepted in revised form: 6 June 2000