Since then, my cousin's wife, Friderun Ankel-Simons, has written a very
interested paper directly concerned with this subject, jointly with Jim M.
Cummins. My cousin tells me that the article has received a tremendous
number of requests for reprints. I will simply quote the title and
abstract, which should explain the excitement. Those interested can
locate the article in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Science,
USA, Nov. 1996, pp 13859-13863.
"Misconceptions about mitochondria and mammalian fertilization:
Implications for theories on human evolution"
ABSTRACT
In vertebrates, inheritance of mitochodria is thought to be predominantly
maternal, and mitochondrial DNA analysis has become a standard taxonomic
tool. In accordance with the prevailing view of strict maternal
inheritance, many sources assert that during fertilization, the sperm
tail, with its mitochondria, gets excluded from the embryo. This is
incorrect. In the majority of mammals -- including humans -- the midpiece
mitochondria can be identified in the embryo even thought their ultimate
fate is unknown. The "missing mitochondria" story seems to have survived
-- and proliferated -- unchallenged in a time of contention between
hypotheses of human origins, because it supports the "African Eve" model
of recent radiation of Homo sapiens out of Africa. We will discuss the
infiltration of this mistake into concepts of mitochondrial inheritance
and human evolution.
____________
A disclaimer: While I think I understand the importance of the issues
surrounding the subject of this paper, I am not a biologist, and only
superficially understand the biological details under discussion. The
paper does not claim to have settled the inheritance issue. But it seems
to have stirred up a hornet's nest.
Gordon Simons