Species: structure and dynamics

The subspecies , in my opinion, is an objective taxon. If desired, in any polytypical form, you can find differences in populations at the edges of ranges-even if insignificant. The question is whether this should always be done. After all, the taxonomy should not only correspond to "harmony" with the evolutionary development of the group, but also serve as a tool for optimal extraction of information on taxa.
Of course, many people criticize the practice of using subspecies. The main reasons for this are:
1. Trends of different attributes towards independent directions of geographical variability
2. Independent existence of similar populations in geographically separated areas (although very often, when studied in detail, it turns out that these are twin species)
3. The existence of microgeographic races within formally distinguished subspecies (especially noticeable in lepidopterologists).
4. Subjective determination by different specialists of the degree of isolation that justifies the allocation of slightly different local populations into subspecies.

If a subspecies is an objective taxon, then it should be distinguished (regardless of what taxonomy is in harmony with).
I will put the question differently (using the example of the type indicated above). Is it possible, judging by the fact that the species is the only representative of the genus (over a vast territory) and has a large range, to say that this species is either a complex of species or subspecies (polytypical)?
Or (if this is not the case), as a species, in such spaces with diverse physical, geographical and biological conditions, it can maintain its " uniformity "(monotypicity)?
And in general, if the species is distributed from Ukraine to the Far East, does this mean that (at least) it is 100% polytypical?


It is better to postpone the discussion about the objectivity of the subspecies as a taxon or keep it in another topic (it already exists).

I have not encountered the species you mentioned, but I am sure that it is not monotypic - that is, if you compare the extreme populations (in terms of morphometric indicators), there will be clear differences. And the fact that it is one of a kind does not matter.

so then we need to talk again about the criteria of the species and subspecies...

Here is Nezara viridula-cosmopolitan-several continents. There is a genetic variation in color, but this does not prevent them from mating and so on. There are seasonal forms (seasonal polyphenism (=polymorphism)). But I don't remember talking about subspecies... Here is a recent article (there is a PDF, if anyone needs it).

Kavar, T.; Pavlovčič, P.; Sušnik, S.; Meglič, V.; Virant-Doberlet, M.

Genetic differentiation of geographically separated populations of the southern green stink bug Nezara viridula (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)

Bulletin of Entomological Research, Volume 96, Number 2, April 2006, pp. 117-128

Genetic variation in the southern green stink bug Nezara viridula (Linnaeus) from 11 geographically separated sampling locations (Slovenia, France, Greece, Italy, Madeira, Japan, Guadeloupe, Galapagos, California, Brazil and Botswana) was studied by sequencing 16S and 28S rDNA, cytochrome b and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene fragments and random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis. Sequencing revealed 11 distinct haplotypes clustering into lineages A, B and C. Lineage C was characteristic for a single analysed specimen from Botswana. Lineage B was detected in Japan, and it probably arose in Asia. Haplotypes of European and American specimens belonged to lineage A; specimens from France, Slovenia, Madeira and Brazil shared highly similar haplotypes (>99%) from subgroup A1, while all the specimens from Greece, California, Galapagos and Guadeloupe shared a haplotype from subgroup A2. RAPD data were more variable but consistent with mtDNA sequences, revealing the same clustering. They separated the Botswanian specimen from Japanese specimens and from a group of more closely related specimens from Europe and America. Sequence and RAPD results both support the African origin of N. viridula, followed by dispersal to Asia (lineage B) and, more recently, by expansion to Europe and America (lineage A). RAPD analysis revealed two highly supported subgroups in Japan, congruent with mtDNA lineages A2 and B, suggesting multiple colonization of Japan. Invariant sequences at the 28S rDNA combined with other results do not support the hypothesis that cryptic (sibling) species exist within the populations investigated in this study.

I'll add it. The heterogeneity of a species in different parts of its range can be caused by many reasons. I'll try to name the main thing offhand, but it's better to look for a specialty of work. 1) Latitude dependence. The south - the lighter the color, the smoother the sculpture. 2) High-rise. The higher in the mountains, the lighter the color (due to thermoregulation). Again-smoothed sculpture. 3) Feed base. For example, in different parts of the range, a certain rider parasitizes different host species. Different host species vary in size. This means that riders will be significantly larger in one part of the range, and significantly smaller in the other part of the range. Similarly, the difference in the food supply can manifest itself in color and other characteristics. 4) Genetics. Some species are genetically stable. There are some very polymorphic types. Just like that, by themselves :-)

This post was edited by Salix - 04/29/2007 20: 18

2) High-rise. The higher in the mountains, the lighter the color (due to thermoregulation). Again-smoothed sculpture. 3)

Probably this is a typo, The higher in the mountains the darker the color, thicker the cuticle, and so on. These melanistic forms (subspecies) are known in many Nisekomids.

This post was edited by Proctos - 04/29/2007 22: 59

Yes, a typo, I repent... The opposite is true - the higher up in the mountains, the colder it gets. Dark coloring helps keep you warm and so on; -)

Oh, by the way, Sch. arfakensis is still a big question about its species status.
I personally don't really believe in it, nor do I believe in O. richmondia.
It's kind of Japanese. Select O. urvillianus and divide it into 4 subspecies )))))))
Although even O. richmondia was originally described as an independent species, and then was reduced to a synonym with O. priamus and became its subspecies.
The same bullshit happens in Parnassius. For example, I absolutely do not understand on what basis some friends allocate in the form of P.jacobsoni and P. hunza, while considering such things as micha, ruth, mogul and kohibaba subspecies of P. staudingeri. For that matter, we need a global audit on the scale of the Staudingeri group.

I propose to discuss this topical issue.

Dmitry there is an opinion that the very concept of "view" does not have a clear definition.
In other words, there are no clear boundaries of TVET that are insurmountable for selection.
Personally, I don't understand how to talk about species and subspecies at all.

This post was edited by Bolivar - 04/15/2010 17: 40

Babochnik, but a clear definition has been around for a very long time )))))

A species is a collection of individuals that are similar in morphophysiological characteristics, are able to interbreed with each other, produce fertile offspring, and form a system of populations that form a common area.
The most common criteria used are six general species criteria: morphological, physiological, geographical, ecological, genetic, and biochemical.

Biology textbook for the 10th grade ))))))))

But with subspecies is already more fun. But it's not like all the others, and it's already got Watten's look. And the fact that Papilio kamchadalus easily crosses with the continental swallowtail and gives fertile offspring, this is no longer anyone's business. Tails are small ))))) It is not profitable for him to be a swallowtail))))) And so is everything else.

but a clear definition has been around for a very long time )))))

A species is a collection of individuals that are similar in morphophysiological characteristics, are able to interbreed with each other, and produce fertile offspring
.
Biology textbook for the 10th grade ))))))))

I think the biology textbook forgot about parthenogenesis...

Inspired by the theme:
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=54556&st=2700

As far as I understand, there is such a definition:
" Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species" ( http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6600.full ): "“species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups”.

Is it possible to somehow select a view based on other attributes? And do I need to allocate views at all?

Taking into account the fact that specific knowledge is important for practice (for use by people) (in biochemistry, then we get different lines that produce certain chemical substances, for example, bees are different, although the species is the same; in the transfer of pathogens, there may be different populations).

Internal logic exists in nature, not in the history of science. If we accept the possibility of obtaining offspring as an internal logic, then the structure of insect genitals may not provide information. Because there are incompatibility factors, attraction factors, and so on.

They vary in color and shape. As an example, all people belong to Homo sapiens.

A lot of new data has appeared - molecular data - the sequences are different, but the mass of sequence information is simply useless, it does not carry any information.

In prokaryotes, the exchange of geninformation takes place, it turns out a continuous continuous field, if you look at the genes.

Does it make sense in each area of biology to distinguish species according to the logic inherent in this area - plants have one concept of a species, insects have another, and bacteria have a third? Vertebrates will soon be counted in general, large vertebrates.

Thank you for your thoughts and ideas. There is population genetics, you can talk about populations. Does the concept of a species make sense at all, is it necessary, or is such reasoning simply not very useful and only wastes time?

If someone wants to write something in the article-welcome. Not me.

Here it is also very strange for me to read that they say that supraspecific taxa are formal, but the species is yes, this is reality.
I think the concept of a species in biology - like the concept of fractional numbers, negative numbers, complex numbers in mathematics-does not exist in nature, but it makes it easier to model natural processes. So the concept of actual, but artificial, is not observed in nature.

About methods for identifying species and isolating species.
All living organisms are made up of cells - that's what I think they say in biology textbooks, but the opposite is more correct - only cells are living organisms. Any multicellular creature, including a butterfly, oddly enough, is only a colony of clone cells with a pronounced polymorphism, and the ancestor of the colony is a zygote.
So, in theory, it is necessary to compare the zygote in search of species differences. And what are the morphological differences between the zygote of cossus and sailfish, for example? Has anyone analyzed them?
And there are genetic and epigenetic differences. This means that if we really distinguish "species", then according to the most adequate characteristics, that is, genetic affinity, which is expressed in the ability to "vital" recombination, for example.
Determining a species by morphological and anatomical features is like determining what is written in a book by its cover and number of pages.
Yes, it often works, but it's safer to read the text
Okay, at the time of Linnaeus, they didn't know how to "read text", and they didn't even know the letters, but now what?

Continuing the analogy - I will try to apply it to the main argument of "classical" taxonomists-molecular taxonomy takes place, but only when confirmed by classical methods.
This is all the same that there is such a situation-one says-I have read the text of this book A, and the book A -, and I see that this book A differs from the book A - in the content of the text. Well, goovrit is different, but still, for reliability, you need to compare the covers of these books, count their pages and clarify whether the books were in the same place, or on different shelves. HAHAHAH

I would not like to limit myself only to the opinion of those who have their own numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals (not in Russian, of course). I can easily find out their opinion in person.

Seriously speaking, the type criteria are a problem. VVolkov, for old friendship, I can advise you to go to the evolutionists forum on paleo.ru - there, in my opinion, this topic was discussed repeatedly. Only, the same, flaming in the style of a-la Vybegalla is not accepted there, so.

Dear forumchane let's show each other respect, and stop insulting.
(I will return to the previous argument)
Dear Volkov, we are not against the division of species among themselves by the DNA code. But this is a very long process. If I'm not mistaken, in the early 1970s, Paul Hebert (now a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Guelph) spent five years trying to sort out the dizzying diversity of species based on the Dna code . But in the end, I came to the conclusion that such a task is beyond the power of either him or any other person. And then for a good 2 decades I studied water fleas, of which there are only 200 species.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, the UN announced that it wants to assign a Genetic Barcode to each species, based on a part of the CO1 gene, and it has already been assigned to 40 thousand species.
So it is useless to argue about whether it is necessary or not to separate species by Dna, since work in this area is already underway.


About the view. At the moment, the concept of a species has (a species (Latin species) — a taxonomic, systematic unit, a group of individuals with common morphophysiological, biochemical and behavioral characteristics) a rather vague meaning and of course not often, but still there are creatures that fit both one species and another but differ in behavioral p

riznakam from these types. And all exactly even if we divide the fauna by species based on Genetics, we will not get an ideal concept of a species.

Inspired by the theme:
http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtopic=54556&st=2700

It was all said briefly but "to the point". If you still have questions after that, then you can't do without reading (long and maybe tedious). Talking again and again won't help. Not everything can be laid out on your fingers.

Are you actually reading a book? Have you read Myra in its entirety, where all this is explained with many examples?
Reading the entire book, with an analysis of examples, is necessary to understand the question. Then and only then, the quote taken from there becomes clear.

I haven't been here in a long time. Gentlemen, this is fantastic!)
Comrade Volkov, about Newton and modern accelerators-I'm sorry, but they don't cancel each other out. Newtonian mechanics is still there. The law of universal gravitation was and still is, regardless of how many protons were driven in the LHC. These are different directions that complement each other. It's the same in biology.
Still, it would be interesting to see your articles, Comrade. The wolves. It seems to me that it is not for you to judge whether someone will understand them here or not.
As for the definition of a species, I also know something formulated by one employee of our Department of Zoology: "A species is a protected gene pool." In the sense that it protects itself in various ways from mixing with other gene pools. And then there are arguments about various options for isolation.

amara-thank you. It seems to me that the criterion would be separation by feature clustering. Why you need information about organisms-it gradually accumulates. I have my doubts that species actually exist in nature. They are useful for a person - for his systematization, logic, and prr. There are populations.
I'll read books, thank you. The logic of nature must exist, not of man.

AlexEvs - why should the gene pool be protected?
Look in your personal data to see if there are links on the page.
Newtonian mechanics is a special case (at low velocities) of relativistic mechanics.

The gene pool needs to defend itself in order to preserve itself. If the gene pools didn't need it, there would be no isolation mechanisms.
Despite the fact that Newtonian mechanics is part of relativistic mechanics, it does not stop working in real conditions.
Also, read Charles Dawkins for fun.

AlexEvs - what about panmixia? Super-fertile and hardy hybrids, the effect of heterosis?!

The actual conditions are different for everyone. The particle in the accelerator lives by its own rules. Which include Newtonian ones as a deceleration option.

I don't need to read Dawkins, I can go to his house and beg for tea with raspberry jam (well, jam) from him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins

1) Not the "gene pool is protected", but what is not mixed is not capable of this very mixing. Since, in the end, such incapable people remain in the majority, the appearance of "self-defense of the gene pool" is created.
2) About heterosis, etc.: a) what's the point of something that works only in one generation (and can also be accompanied by problems with fertility)? b) is it not obvious that each of the parent species populations adapted to something different in its phylogeny, and, accordingly, the hybrid will lose out to both parents in terms of its "internal potential" rather than in terms of its complex correspondence to the environment?
3) I also think that, for example, when working with abstract forms, the concept of a population is more productive than the concept of a species. However, if you start dealing with fossils, phratries that change over time, etc., I'm afraid you won't be able to get away from the species. But paleontology is also a necessary science.
4) Panmixia is a simplified model situation. A.V. Yablokov in his" Population Biology " (1987) wrote quite a lot about this - including removing the mention of it in the definition of a population. But agama "populations" are really a problem thing.
5) VVolkov, such a personal request: Duc, can you also ask Dawkins for his opinion on my idea of a metaphenotype over tea and jam?

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 13.02.2011 23: 51

Or you can also participate in the "Ask a question" campaign. To Dawkins?"
I've read the book The Selfish Gene, and I'd like to ask, isn't that LSD?

By the way, the definition of a species in entomology is really a specific topic, but in addition to the standard, generally accepted categories, such as mono-polytypic and even polyphyletic species, twin species, etc., there is also the concept of "commercial species".
It would be very interesting to learn more about commercial species in entomology?

In general, the category of "species" as an objective one does not exist, because this is really only an "epoch" in the existence of a population, Some "species" that was described by Linnaeus earlier is now "no longer the same", and a little later it will be completely different, and so, in theory, taxonomy, say, after a couple of hundred thousand years, it will also be completely different. Heh )

No, there will be no promotion. Write to him yourself. What's stopping you?
I'll ask you what I'm interested in. And here's the address of his foundation:
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/contact
Here you can voluntarily do something:
http://richarddawkinsfoundation.org/volunteers
And I'm more interested in tea with jam from him.

VVolkov, I don't speak any languages.
Funds are also not needed, they are somehow atheistic in appearance. Well, or on the genus, or even on the whole family

And anyway, it's more pleasant to have tea-and Dawkins obviously won't invite me for a cup (and even if he did, I wouldn't have gone - it would have been too far and too expensive). It is a pity that there will be no promotion. All right, we'll turn ourselves into Dawkins on the sly...

Learn the language. I didn't find Dawkins ' actual experimental works yesterday, he's more of a propagandist and writer. I suspect that there are better specialists here. On entomology and general biology.

By the way, I went to such a lecture with a packed hall and a good level of scientific knowledge:
http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/whats-on/ann...ture/index.html
Surprisingly good on the edge of popular and scientific, humor and originality. These are very good popularizers.

Svezhachok,

Philosophically speaking, how many species concepts are there?

JOHN S. WILKINS

Department of Philosophy, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. E-mail: john@wilkins.id.au
It’s an old question in biology: what is a species? Many different answers have been given over the years, and there are indefinitely many “definitions” in the literature. Adding to R. L. Mayden’s list of 22 definitions (Mayden, 1997) , I counted 26 in play since the Modern Synthesis (2009a), and a new one, which I call the “polyphasic” concept (basically a consilience of many lines of morphological, ecological, genetic, and physiological evidence), has been implicitly extended from bacterial and other microbial contexts to macrobial species, although the terminology has not yet been transplanted (Colwell, 1970; Vandamme et al., 1996). However, on another count there are seven “basic” species concepts: agamospecies (asexuals), biospecies (reproductively isolated sexual species), ecospecies (ecological niche occupiers), evolutionary species (evolving lineages), genetic species (common gene pool), morphospecies (species defined by their form, or phenotypes), and taxonomic species (whatever a taxonomist calls a species).
Notice that some of these seven basic concepts are not concepts of what species are, that is, what makes them species, but instead are concepts based on how we identify species: by morphology, or the practices of taxonomists. Others are roughly equivalent. A gene pool is defined as a population of genomes that can be exchanged, and so a genetic species is basically a reproductive species. Evolutionary species are not what species are so much as what happens when some processes (such as ecological adaptation or reproductive isolation) make them species that persist over a long time. One common “concept” of species, the so-called phylogenetic species concept, is likewise a mix either of morphospecies, biospecies or evospecies or all of them (Wilkins, 2009b). The polyphasic concept is also based upon a method for identifying species through many kinds of evidence. Agamospecies are species that lack some property: sex. An agamospecies is a not-biospecies species (although some, like G. G. Simpson and Ernst Mayr, simply denied they were species, which is a problem given that sex is a relatively rare property in the universal tree of life; it means most biological taxa do not come in species). So what makes an agamospecies a species? It can’t be reproductive isolation, for obvious reasons, so it must be the only thing that we have left on the list: ecological niche adaptation (Wilkins, 2007). It could be chance, but if grouping happens by chance it is unlikely to be maintained by chance. In the absence of sex, therefore, we need ecological niche adaptation to keep the cluster from just randomly evaporating. Of course, few if any species are purely asexual in the sense that they don’t ever exchange genes; microbes have several mechanisms to do this even if they lack genders or mating types and fail to reproduce by any other means than division. Some genetic material can be exchanged through viral insertion, through DNA reuptake in the medium after a cell has lysed, or by deliberate insertion of small rings of DNA, plasmids, through pili. “Horizontal” or “lateral” genetic transfer is probably as old as life itself. While this might introduce some genetic variation into a population, it is selection for a local fitness peak that makes the asexual genome not stray too far from the “wild type”.
As sex becomes more frequent, rising from near zero recombination per generation up to the maximum of 50% exchanged for obligately sexual organisms, another factor comes into play. Increasingly, the compatibility of genomes, reproductive processes at the cellular, organ, and physiological level become important. In organisms with behavioral signaling (that is, with nervous systems and sensory organs), reproductive behaviours like calls and movements become important. Sex acts to ensure that the organisms that can interbreed tend to be those whose genome and anatomy are consistent enough. I call this “reproductive reach” (2003; 2007): the more closely two organisms are related, the more likely they are within each other’s reach as potential mates, and so the species is maintained by reproductive compatibility, and of course some ecological adaptation. This is very similar to a definition of “species” by the geneticist Alan Templeton (1989), who said that species were “the most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms”, “that defines a species as the most inclusive group of organisms having the potential for genetic and/or demographic exchangeability.” [My emphasis.] “Genetic” exchangeability here means the ability to act in the same manner in reproduction – any two members of the species are (more or less) interchangeable. “Demographic” exchangeability means that any two members of the species behave the... etc.
Write to the author as a favor. http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2011/f/z02765p060f.pdf

Here it is also very strange for me to read that they say that supraspecific taxa are formal, but the species is yes, this is reality.
I think the concept of a species in biology - like the concept of fractional numbers, negative numbers, complex numbers in mathematics-does not exist in nature, but it makes it easier to model natural processes. So the concept is relevant, but artificial, in nature is not observed


Well done! Right!! And, most importantly, what is not observed is just Homo sapiens. View or not view? You can start from here, but please leave the insects to those who are interested.

Again, I remind you, friends, if you are interested in taxonomy questions (species or genera), why not discuss them at our Entomological seminar (http://www.sevin.ru/menues1/index_rus.html), where can we invite leading taxonomists and learn from them everything that is currently known?

I decided to put in this branch, in my opinion, a good drawing reflecting schematically the appearance of species.

Taken from an article that shows (using DNA sequences) TWO elephant species live in Africa, which are as good species as the related Asian elephant, Mastodon and Mammoth (recently extinct).

These two species, Woodland and Savanna, were previously, and still are, considered by some researchers to be two populations of the same species.

That is, the difference between these species in DNA sequences is no less than that of the Asian elephant and Mammoth, and the latter was even separated into a separate genus.
Here you can see how conditional super-specific concepts are.

Article in the public domain http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3A...al.pbio.1000564

This post was edited by amara - 15.02.2011 11: 30

Pictures:

journal.pbio.1000564.g002.png — (571.58к)

And the specific concepts here are not conditional? A typical classic cladogram with forks. "our days" is the very bottom of the cladogram, of course. And now here is interseno, really everything was and is so perfect, fork and smooth, passing through long intervals of time not perturbed straight lines, with a huge gap between them?
I think it is much more logical to consider this process as a single stream, individual fragments of which are only situationally isolated and are always in a state of potential fork ... and merges. Something else is inter-related, it seems to be postulated that merging after divergence is impossible, but something is wrong here-this is already something bordering on irreversible processes in physics. Like "you can't put a broken cup back together"

And the specific concepts here are not conditional? A typical classic cladogram with forks. "our days" is the very bottom of the cladogram, of course. And now here is interseno, really everything was and is so perfect, fork and smooth, passing through long intervals of time not perturbed straight lines, with a huge gap between them?
I think it is much more logical to consider this process as a single stream, individual fragments of which are only situationally isolated and are always in a state of potential fork ... and merges. Something else is inter-related, it seems to be postulated that merging after divergence is impossible, but something is wrong here-this is already something bordering on irreversible processes in physics. Like "you can't put a broken cup back together"

Although I don't quite understand your reluctance to understand, or rather intuitively accept, the reality of the form and its cardinal difference from other associations (speculative on the principle of further or closer), I probably need to turn it over in my head for a while and it will come by itself (such as the concept of integral and differential), then we can agree that a view is a cross-section in modern times (on the same cladogram for clarity) through the flow of genotypes mixing (both vertically in time and horizontally in geographical space).
Recently passed away one of the largest (after Darwin, his name is quoted in second place, and he even entered the animated series "The Simpsons") paleontologist evolutionary Stephen Jay Gould ( http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гулд,_STIVEN_JAY He believed, and his opinion can be respected, that a species should (or can) be considered not as a sum of individuals, but as a separate individual that is born, develops and dies. You can read about this in one of the most comprehensive monographs on the theory of evolution published recently (p. 599, third paragraph from the top).:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nhIl7e6...epage&q&f=false

This post was edited by amara - 02/15/2011 13: 02

Something else is inter-related, it seems to be postulated that merging after divergence is impossible, but something is wrong here-this is already something bordering on irreversible processes in physics. Like "you can't put a broken cup back together"

It is not postulated, but accepted in most cases as a rule. In the group of ferns, for example, it is believed that mizvid hybridization played a role in the origin of many species, here I am not an expert and I pass on what I read.

However, I see that you are more interested in deviations than the main stream of knowledge, and this makes it difficult to think about the main principle.
Yes, there are deviations, but we'll talk about them later, when the "multiplication table" is clear.

>and he even entered the animated series "The Simpsons"
And the main characters of the series, I wonder if they got a surname in honor of J. G. Simpson, or something?... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson

This post was edited by PVOzerski - 02/15/2011 14: 37

In the group of ferns, for example, it is believed that mizvid hybridization played a role in the origin of many species, here I am not an expert and I pass on what I read.

Not only - in many plants...

>and he even entered the animated series "The Simpsons"
And the main characters of the series, I wonder if they got a surname in honor of J. G. Simpson, or something?... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gaylord_Simpson

No, this is just a coproduction.

This post was edited by amara - 02/15/2011 15: 55