, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 149–162 | Cite as

Genome evolution in pocket gophers (genus Thomomys)

I. Heterochromatin variation and speciation potential
  • James L. Patton
  • Steven W. Sherwood


A basic dichotomy exists in the amount and chromosomal position of constitutive heterochromatin (C-bands) in species of pocket gophers, genus Thomomys. Members of the “talpoides-group” of species (e.g., T. talpoides and T. monticola) have C-bands restricted to the centromeric regions. These taxa are characterized by Robertsonian patterns of karyotypic evolution. In contrast, species within the “bottae-group” are characterized by extensive amounts of heterochromatin, placed as whole-arm and apparent whole-chromosome (T. bottae) or as large interstitial blocks (T. umbrinus). These species are characterized by extensive non-Robertsonian variation in karyotype, variation which may be expressed from local population popymorphism to between population or species polytypy. Within T. bottae, the number of whole-arm heterochromatic autosomes is inversely proportional to the number of uniarmed chromosomes in the complement, which ranges from 0 to 36 across the species populations. In all-biarmed karyotypic populations, upward to 60 percent of the linear length of the genome is composed of heterochromatin. Populations with extensive heterochromatin variation and those with similar amounts meet and hybridize freely in nature. The implications of these data for current ideas on the function of heterochromatin, particularly as related to speciation models, are discussed.


Developmental Biology Local Population Similar Amount Speciation Model Current Idea 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arnason, U.: Comparative chromosome studies in Cetacea. Hereditas (Lund) 77, 1–36 (1974)Google Scholar
  2. Baker, R.J., Barnett, R.K., Greenbaum, I.F.: Chromsomal evolution in grasshopper mice (Onychomys: Cricetidae). J. Mammal. 60, 297–306 (1979)Google Scholar
  3. Baverstock, P.R., Watts, C.H.S., Hogarth, J.T.: Heterochromatin variation in the Australian rodent Uromys caudimaculatus. Chromosoma (Berl.) 57, 397–403 (1976)Google Scholar
  4. Baverstock, P.R., Watts, C.H.S., Hogarth, J.T.: Chromosome evolution in Australian rodents II. The Rattus group. Chromosoma (Berl.) 61, 227–241 (1977)Google Scholar
  5. Bradshaw, W.N., Hsu, T.C.: Chromosomes of Peromyscus (Rodentia, Cricetidae) III. Polymorphism in Peromyscus maniculatus. Cytogenet. 11, 436–451 (1972)Google Scholar
  6. Corneo, G.: Do satellite DNAs function as sterility barriers in eukaryotes? Evol. Theory 1, 261–265 (1976)Google Scholar
  7. Craig-Holmes, A.P., Shaw, M.W.: Polymorphism of human constitutive heterochromatin. Science 174, 702–704 (1971)Google Scholar
  8. Duffey, P.A.: Chromosome variation in Peromyscus: a new mechanism. Science 176, 1333–1334 (1972)Google Scholar
  9. Engstrom, M.D., Dowler, R.C., Rogers, D.S., Schmidly, D.S., Bickham, J.W.: Chromosomal variation within four species of harvest mice (Reithrodontomys). J. Mammal. 62, 159–164 (1981)Google Scholar
  10. Fry, K., Salser, W.: Nucleotide sequences of HS-α satellite DNA from Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys ordii and characterisation of similar sequences in other rodents. Cell 12, 1069–1084 (1977)Google Scholar
  11. Hatch, F.T., Bodner, A.J., Mazrimas, J.A., Moore, D.H., II.: Satellite DNA and cytogenetic evolution. DNA quantity, satellite DNA and karyotypic variations in kangaroo rats (genus Dipodomys). Chromosoma (Berl.) 58, 155–168 (1976)Google Scholar
  12. John, B., Miklos, G.L.G.: Functional aspects of satellite DNA and heterochromatin. Int. Rev. Cytol. 58, 1–114 (1979)Google Scholar
  13. King, M.: C-banding studies on Australian hylid frogs: secondary constriction structure and the concept of euchromatin transformation. Chromosoma (Berl.) 80, 191–217 (1980)Google Scholar
  14. Lee, M.R., Elder, F.F.B.: Yeast stimulation of bone marrow mitoses for cytogenetic investigations. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 26, 36–40 (1980)Google Scholar
  15. Mascarello, J.T., Hsu, T.C.: Chromosome evolution in woodrats, genus Neotoma (Rodentia: Cricetidae). Evolution (Lawrence, Kansas) 30, 152–169 (1976)Google Scholar
  16. Mascarello, J.T., Mazrimas, J.A.: Chromosomes of antelope squirrels (genus Ammospermophilus): a systematic banding analysis of four species with unusual constitutive heterochromatin. Chromosoma (Berl.) 64, 207–217 (1977)Google Scholar
  17. Mazrimas, J.A., Hatch, F.T.: Similarity of satellite DNA properties in the order Rodentia. Nucleic Acid Res. 4, 3215–3227 (1977)Google Scholar
  18. Miklos, G.L.G., Willcocks, D.A., Baverstock, P.R.: Restriction endonuclease and molecular analyses of three rat genomes with special reference to chromosome rearrangement and speciation problems. Chromosoma (Berl.) 76, 339–363 (1980)Google Scholar
  19. Ohno, S., Weiler, C., Poole, J., Christian, L., Stenius: Autosomal polymorphism due to pericentric inversions in the deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) and some evidence of somatic segregation. Chromosoma (Berl.) 18, 177–187 (1966)Google Scholar
  20. Pathak, S., Wurster-Hill, D.H.: Distribution of constitutive heterochromatin in carnivores. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 18, 245–254 (1977)Google Scholar
  21. Pathak, S., Hsu, T.C., Arrighi, F.E.: Chromosomes of Peromyscus (Rodentia, Cricetidae). IV. The role of heterochromatin in karyotype evolution. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 12, 315–326 (1973)Google Scholar
  22. Patton, J.L.: Chromosome studies of certain pocket mice, genus Perognathus (Rodentia: Heteromyidae). J. Mammal. 48, 27–37 (1967)Google Scholar
  23. Patton, J.L.: Karyotypic variation following an elevational gradient in the pocket gopher, Thomomys bottae grahamensis Goldman. Chromosoma (Berl.) 31, 41–50 (1970)Google Scholar
  24. Patton, J.L.: Possible genetic consequences of meiosis in pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) populations. Experientia (Basel) 27, 593–595 (1972a)Google Scholar
  25. Patton, J.L.: Patterns of geographic variation in karyotype in the pocket gopher, Thomomys bottae (Eydoux and Gervais). Evolution (Lawrence, Kansas) 26, 574–586 (1972b)Google Scholar
  26. Patton, J.L.: An analysis of natural hybridization between the pocket gophers, Thomomys bottae and Thomomys umbrinus, in Arizona. J. Mammal. 54, 561–584 (1973)Google Scholar
  27. Patton, J.L.: B-chromosome systems in the pocket mouse, Perognathus baileyi: meiosis and C-band studies. Chromosoma (Berl.) 60, 1–14 (1977)Google Scholar
  28. Patton, J.L.: Chromosomal and genic divergence, population structure, and speciation potential in Thomomys bottae pocket gophers. In: Ecologia y genetica de la especiacion animal (O.A. Reig, ed.), pp. 255–295. Caracas, Venezuela: Equinoccio 1981Google Scholar
  29. Patton, J.L., Dingman, R.E.: Chromosome studies of pocket gophers, genus Thomomys. II. Variation in T. bottae in the American Southwest. Cytogenet. 9, 139–151 (1970)Google Scholar
  30. Patton, J.L., Feder, J.H.: Genetic divergence between populations of the pocket gopher, Thomomys umbrinus (Richardson). Z. Säugetier. 43, 12–30 (1978)Google Scholar
  31. Patton, J.L., Smith, M.F.: Molecular evolution in Thomomys pocket gophers: phyletic systematics, paraphyly, and rates of evolution. J. Mammal. 62, 493–500 (1981)Google Scholar
  32. Patton, J.L., Yang, S.Y.: Genetic variation in Thomomys bottae pocket gophers: macrogeographic patterns. Evolution (Lawrence, Kansas) 31, 697–720 (1977)Google Scholar
  33. Patton, J.L., Hafner, J.C., Hafner, M.S., Smith, M.F.: Hybrid zones in Thomomys bottae pocket gophers: genetic, phenetic, and ecologic concordance patterns. Evolution (Lawrence, Kansas) 33, 860–876 (1979)Google Scholar
  34. Popescu, N.C., DiPaolo, J.A.: Chromosomal interrelationships of hamster species of the genus Mesocricetus. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 28, 10–23 (1980)Google Scholar
  35. Robbins, L.W., Baker, R.J.: C- and G-band studies on the primitive karyotype for Reithrodontomys. J. Mammal. 61, 708–714 (1980)Google Scholar
  36. Sen, S., Sharma, T.: Quantitative variation of “Mus musculus-like” constitutive heterochromatin and satellite DNA-sequences in the genus Mus. Chromosoma (Berl.) 81, 393–402 (1980)Google Scholar
  37. Sherwood, S.W., Patton, J.L.: Genome evolution in pocket gophers (genus Thomomys) II. Variation in cellular DNA content. Chromosoma (Berl.) (in press, 1982)Google Scholar
  38. Smith, M.F., Patton, J.L.: Relationships of pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) populations of the lower Colorado River. J. Mammal. 61, 681–696 (1980)Google Scholar
  39. Smith, M.F., Patton, J.L., Hafner, J.C., Hafner, D.J.: Thomomys bottae pocket gophers of the central Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico: local differentiation, gene flow, and historical biogeography. SW Naturalist (in press, 1982)Google Scholar
  40. Sumner, A.T.: A simple technique for demonstrating centromeric heterochromatin. Exp. Cell Res. 75, 304–306 (1972)Google Scholar
  41. Thaeler, C.S., Jr.: Karyotypes of sixteen populations of the Thomomys talpoides complex of pocket gophers (Rodentia-Geomyidae). Chromosoma (Berl.) 25, 172–183 (1968)Google Scholar
  42. Thaeler, C.S., Jr.: Chromosome numbers and systematic relations in the genus Thomomys (Rodentia: Geomyidae). J. Mammal. 61, 414–422 (1980)Google Scholar
  43. Yoon, J.S., Richardson, R.H.: A mechanism of chromosomal rearrangements: the role of heterochromatin and ectopic joining. Genetics 88, 305–316 (1978)Google Scholar
  44. Yunis, J.J., Yasmineh, W.G.: Heterochromatin, satellite DNA, and cell function. Science 174, 1200–1209 (1971)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • James L. Patton
    • 1
  • Steven W. Sherwood
    • 1
  1. 1.Museum of Vertebrate ZoologyUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations