A phylogenomic perspective on the radiation of ray-finned fishes based upon targeted sequencing of ultraconserved elements

Ray-finned fishes constitute the dominant radiation of vertebrates with over 30,000 species. Although molecular phylogenetics has begun to disentangle major evolutionary relationships within this vast section of the Tree of Life, there is no widely available approach for efficiently collecting phylogenomic data within fishes, leaving much of the enormous potential of massively parallel sequencing technologies for resolving major radiations in ray-finned fishes unrealized. Here, we provide a genomic perspective on longstanding questions regarding the diversification of major groups of ray-finned fishes through targeted enrichment of ultraconserved nuclear DNA elements (UCEs) and their flanking sequence. Our workflow efficiently and economically generates data sets that are orders of magnitude larger than those produced by traditional approaches and is well-suited to working with museum specimens. Analysis of the UCE data set recovers a well-supported phylogeny at both shallow and deep time-scales that supports a monophyletic relationship between Amia and Lepisosteus (Holostei) and reveals elopomorphs and then osteoglossomorphs to be the earliest diverging teleost lineages. Divergence time estimation based upon 14 fossil calibrations reveals that crown teleosts appeared ~270 Ma at the end of the Permian and that elopomorphs, osteoglossomorphs, ostarioclupeomorphs, and euteleosts diverged from one another by 205 Ma during the Triassic. Our approach additionally reveals that sequence capture of UCE regions and their flanking sequence offers enormous potential for resolving phylogenetic relationships within ray-finned fishes

Compromise Verdicts in Criminal Cases

I. Introduction II. Jury Rationality III. The General Verdict and What It May Show … A. Verdicts Contrary to Law … B. Verdicts Contrary to Fact IV. Reversal of Compromise Verdicts V. Problems in Reversal VI. Conclusio

Damages—Loss of Earnings—Measure of Recovery and Admissibility of Evidence of Prior Earnings and Employment

Plaintiff worked continuously as a welder from 1925 through 1950 when he quit welding and went into a business from which he was never able to realize a substantial income. In 1953, plaintiff, age 49 and in good health, was permanently and totally disabled in an auto accident. In his action for damages, evidence was admitted to show the prevailing wages paid to welders in plaintiff’s community as well as plaintiff’s own earnings as a welder prior to 1951. A substantial part of these earnings was derived from employment outside of the community. On appeal, Held: admissibility of such evidence is in the sound discretion of the trial court and no abuse of discretion was shown. The precise basis upon which the court deemed this evidence to be relevant, however, is unclear. The opinion can be read as sanctioning its use by the jury for the purpose of making either one of two quite different determinations, viz., (1) in fixing the level of plaintiff’s “future earnings . . . but for the injury”; or (2) in computing the amount recoverable for “permanent impairment or loss of earning capacity.” At no point does the opinion recognize any distinction between the two determinations. I. Measure of Recovery II. Admissibility of Evidence of Prior Earnings and Employmen

Damages—Loss of Earnings—Measure of Recovery and Admissibility of Evidence of Prior Earnings and Employment

Plaintiff worked continuously as a welder from 1925 through 1950 when he quit welding and went into a business from which he was never able to realize a substantial income. In 1953, plaintiff, age 49 and in good health, was permanently and totally disabled in an auto accident. In his action for damages, evidence was admitted to show the prevailing wages paid to welders in plaintiff’s community as well as plaintiff’s own earnings as a welder prior to 1951. A substantial part of these earnings was derived from employment outside of the community. On appeal, Held: admissibility of such evidence is in the sound discretion of the trial court and no abuse of discretion was shown. The precise basis upon which the court deemed this evidence to be relevant, however, is unclear. The opinion can be read as sanctioning its use by the jury for the purpose of making either one of two quite different determinations, viz., (1) in fixing the level of plaintiff’s “future earnings . . . but for the injury”; or (2) in computing the amount recoverable for “permanent impairment or loss of earning capacity.” At no point does the opinion recognize any distinction between the two determinations. I. Measure of Recovery II. Admissibility of Evidence of Prior Earnings and Employmen

Teaching Children About Social Justice Through Picture Books

Boys can\u27t play with dolls! A girl can\u27t be a doctor! Those people look weird! He\u27s to dumb to play with us! My mommy says I can\u27t play with you! Unfortunately, phrases like this can be heard on a typical elementary school playground. As teachers, we have the difficult task of teaching about social justice and working to uproot prejudice and discrimination

Contracts—Effect of Merger Clause on Fraud by Agent

Action for purchase price of furnace which defendant had contracted to buy. Petitioner’s agent had induced defendant to enter into a contract which was subject to acceptance by the home office and which contract contained a merger clause. Buyer, in his answer, alleged fraudulent statements made by agent concerning the condition of buyer’s old furnace. On appeal Held: Plaintiff\u27s motion for judgment on the pleadings sustained in that answer did not set up a defense to the petition since defendant was precluded from repudiating the merger clause. The same court, in a decision handed down the same day, held tract by fraudulent material misrepresentations of an agent. Thus, the court, in the present case, recognized the power of the merger clause to prevent actions of rescission or defenses based on fraud of an agent

Contracts—Effect of Merger Clause on Fraud by Agent

Action for purchase price of furnace which defendant had contracted to buy. Petitioner’s agent had induced defendant to enter into a contract which was subject to acceptance by the home office and which contract contained a merger clause. Buyer, in his answer, alleged fraudulent statements made by agent concerning the condition of buyer’s old furnace. On appeal Held: Plaintiff\u27s motion for judgment on the pleadings sustained in that answer did not set up a defense to the petition since defendant was precluded from repudiating the merger clause. The same court, in a decision handed down the same day, held tract by fraudulent material misrepresentations of an agent. Thus, the court, in the present case, recognized the power of the merger clause to prevent actions of rescission or defenses based on fraud of an agent