Z250 - Annotated Bibliography (2007)

Zool 250 - SAMPLE ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY (2007)

(see Z250 Lab Guide for complete instructions & marking scheme)

(Before beginning this assignment, be sure you know how to avoid charges of plagiarism)
(download cover page template)
(view other examples submitted by students in previous years)

CLASSIFICATION

1) Ph. Arthropoda, SubPh. Crustacea, Cl. Malacostraca, SubCl. Eumalacostraca, SupOr. Peracarida, Or. Amphipoda, SubOr. Corophioidea, Fam. Ischyroceridae

ANNOTATION OF PAPER (items need NOT be numbered in your own reports)

2) Conlan, K.E. 1995. Thumb evolution in the amphipod genus Microjassa Stebbing (Corophioidea:Ischyroceridae). Journal of Crustacean Biology 15:693-702.
3) Claws have evolved many times in the Crustacea, but how did they evolve from the jointed segments of a simple walking leg? The amphipod genus Microjassa helps us study claw evolution because claw form varies from thumbless in some species (simple clasping or subchelate) to fully thumbed in other species (truly claw-like or chelate).
4) Males use sexually dimorphic second gnathopods (claws) to grasp females prior to the molt when mating occurs. This phenomenon, called mate guarding, occurs in many crustacean species. In some species of Microjassa, the terminal leg segment (dactyl) simply folds tightly against the adjacent leg segment (propus) to form a hook-like clasping structure. In others, a rigid projection extends from the terminal end of the propus, forming a 'thumb' against which the dactyl may close. This clasping structure looks surprisingly like the fully-developed claws of crabs and lobsters.
5) Conlan conducted a phylogenetic analysis of nine species, using 20 morphological characters. When gnathopod form was mapped onto her cladogram, she discovered a gradual evolutionary trend from unthumbed to fully-thumbed 'claws'. The most derived species even had multiple thumbs!
6) Conlan concludes that the claw-like second gnathopods in male Microjassa evolved from simple clasping limbs by the gradual amplification of a rigid, thumb-like projection of the propus. This study illustrates nicely the value of cladistic analysis for inferring the history of morphological evolution and how a key morphological adaptation (claws) evolved via gradual transformation of a walking leg.
7) (240 words)

EXPLANATION OF THE NUMBERED PARTS IN THE ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY ABOVE

1) The classification only needs to be done once on the cover page of your submission, since all papers will deal with the biology of the same genus. This classification must include all of the appropriate taxonomic ranks above the level of genus.
2) Full citation [all authors, year, full title of paper (no abbreviations), full journal title, volume, pages]; citation style should follow that used in one of the papers you chose and be consistent for all citations in your report.
3) Why did the authors do the study? These 2 - 4 sentences should include a clear and simple question (e.g., stated in the form of a question or as two or more alternative hypotheses) that identifies the general puzzle the paper attempts to solve (i.e., the broader relevance; note that sometimes the authors themselves may not even do this very well!).
The goal here is to construct the opening sentences so the reader wants to read the rest of the annotation.
4) These 2-4 sentences should give background information required to understand the study's significance.
5) 3-5 sentences should summarize the main methods and results; include quantitative results where possible.
6) These 2-3 sentences should summarize the general conclusions of the study, including the answer to the question stated at the beginning.
7) Use your word-processor to count the words and include the word count after each annotation.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS (please see the Z250 lab guide for detailed instructions and a complete checklist)

Your final report should include:
i) a cover page (download cover page template),
ii) annotations for THREE separate papers all on the same genus of invertebrate, and
iii) a concluding section (150 words max.) that includes statements about:
- a) the overall significance of all 3 studies (an overview of the combined results of all three studies indicating why the general issue they address is important; this could include one or more key questions that remain to be answered),
- b) what you personally thought was most interesting about the biological issue(s) addressed by the three papers, and
- c) what research would you would most like to see done next (describe a single research project you think would be most interesting to do next, based on the results of these three papers)
You must submit a PHOTOCOPY OF THE ABSTRACT AND INTRODUCTION of each paper for which you do an annotation.
TOTAL LENGTH of each annotation (excluding the title and citation) should not exceed 250 words.
Please submit a final paper copy of your annotations, along with photocopies of the abstract and introduction of each paper, to your TA at the beginning of your Week 11 lab section. You must also submit an electronic copy of your annotations via the Annotated Bibliography Submission Page.
For additional examples, see the best annotations submitted by students in previous years.

Back to Zool 250 Home Page