Caryologia. International Journal of Cytology, Cytosystematics and Cytogenetics 73(2): 51-61, 2020 Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/caryologiaCaryologia International Journal of Cytology, Cytosystematics and Cytogenetics ISSN 0008-7114 (print) | ISSN 2165-5391 (online) | DOI: 10.13128/caryologia-891 Citation: A. Lima-de-Faria (2020) Comparison of the Evolution of Orchids with that of Bats. Caryologia 73(2): 51-61. doi: 10.13128/caryologia-891 Received: February 12, 2020 Accepted: April 16, 2020 Published: July 31, 2020 Copyright: © 2020 A. Lima-de-Faria. This is an open access, peer-reviewed article published by Firenze University Press (http://www.fupress.com/caryo- logia) and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Comparison of the Evolution of Orchids with that of Bats Antonio Lima-de-Faria Professor Emeritus of Molecular Cytogenetics, Lund University, Lund, Sweden E-mail: johanessenmoller@icloud.com Abstract. The evolution of orchids and bats is an example of DNA’s own evolution which has resulted in structures and functions which are not necessarily related to any obvious advantage to the organism. The flowers of orchids resemble: humans, apes, liz- ards, frogs and even shoes. The faces of bats resemble plant leaves but also horseshoes. These similarities are not accidental because they emerge repeatedly in different gen- era and different families. This evolutionary situation bewildered botanists and zoolo- gists for many years, but is now elucidated by the molecular unification of plants and animals derived from the following evidence: (1) Contrary to expectation, plant and animal cells (including those of humans) could be fused and the human chromosomes were seen dividing in the plant cytoplasm. (2) Orchids, bats and humans have about the same number of genes: orchids, 21,841; bats, 21,237 and humans circa 20,000. (3) These three groups contain the same homeotic genes which decide: flower formation (orchids), body segmentation (bats) and body segmentation (humans). The leaf pat- tern, is formed in plants by the LEAFY master gene, but this pattern even appears in minerals, which have no genes, an indication that pure atomic processes are responsi- ble for its emergence at the organism level. Keywords: orchids, bats, evolution, DNA’s own evolution. EVOLUTION IS A WELL ESTABLISHED PHENOMENON BUT ITS MECHANISM REMAINS TO BE ELUCIDATED Evolution is one of the best established phenomena in biology. Its firm basis rests mainly on the following data: (1) The comparison of structures and functions in invertebrates and vertebrates. (2) The documentation from the fossil record. (3) Analysis of cells and chromosomes in most well known organisms. (4) Sequencing of DNA, in a long array of species, that has allowed to establish phylogenetic relationships at the molecular level. (5) Other molecular studies that included the structures and functions of RNA and proteins and their key interactions. However, this does not mean that the mechanism that is responsible for evolution is known. (1) A mechanism can only be physico-chemical, and we are only approach- ing this stage of investigation with the building of Synchrotron Radiation 52 Antonio Lima-de-Faria Accelerators and Spallation Sources as those built at Lund University, Sweden, and in other countries. (2) One is also far from understanding the source of the ramification into many branches of organisms which has led to the establishment of the different alleys that are called: phyla, orders, families, and other natural divisions. Examples of this situation are: (a) The origin of vertebrates from invertebrates which remains far from being understood (Daeschler and Shubin 2011). (b) The emergence of birds from rep- tiles which is a source of permanent debate (Zhou 2004). (c) The classification of flowering plants, with their recurring symmetries, which bewilders bota- nists (Denffer et al. 1971). (d) The comparative work, based on the sequencing of DNAs. This has led to the creation of Databases but many species have not yet been included (Fang et al. 2015). (3) The own evolution of DNA, as well as that of pro- teins and RNA, continue to be virgin land. As point- ed out by Branden and Tooze (1991), as long as we do not know the rules of the interactions between these molecules at the atomic level, evolution of the chemistry of life will remain in a primitive stage. However, every important phenomenon in science, demands an explanation. The recourse, called the ”pre- vailing theory”, has been the use of random mutation and selection. Geneticists know well that random muta- tion and selection occur in nature, but these are anti- quated ”solutions” that have been superseded . Selection is solely a system of choice and as such cannot substi- tute a physico-chemical mechanism. Random mutations occur, but have been shown to be of little importance in evolution. Directed mutations have now been well established as positive events in species transformations (Zhang and Saier 2009). SIMILARITY BETWEEN PLANTS AND ANIMALS. — THE IMPOSSIBLE BECAME POSSIBLE 1) In the early days of Genetics it became established that plant and animal chromosomes needed to have a centromere and telomeres if they were to survive during cell division. But plants were so different from animals that these basic similarities were not considered significant. 2) Genes started to be located in great numbers in the chromosomes of Drosophila, humans and maize. However, plants had no brain, and no blood circula- tion, as a consequence they had to have quite differ- ent genes. 3) When the first genes were isolated in the test tube, the ribosomal RNA genes could be recognized in bacteria, plants and animals, not having changed appreciably for millions of years. Haemoglobin, the carrier of oxygen in animal blood, was also present in plants. Again this similarity of molecular organi- zation was a curiosity. 4) The genes for 18S and 28S ribosomal RNA were found in over 500 species to be located not at ran- dom, but tended to appear in plants, animals and humans, near telomeres. Their position could be defined by an equation (Lima-de-Faria 1973). Genes were considered to occur at random, as one still tends to think today, and the response was that this was a particular case. 5) Suddenly, what was considered impossible, became possible. The fusion between plant cells and human cells was considered impossible. But it was achieved rapidly when the enzymes to remove the cell wall of plant cells became available. The experiments were controlled by the use of the radioisotope tritium and the human chromosomes were seen to divide in the plant cytoplasm. Later the fusion of human sperm with plant cells could be observed occurring under the microscope (Dudits et al. 1976, Lima-de-Faria et al. 1983). Actually this work opened the way to pre- sent day biotechnology. 6) Molecular analysis brought the crucial information. The genes that decided the segmentation of the body of insects, were the same that led to the formation of vertebra in the human column and those which decided the formation of floral parts (sepals, petals, stigma and anthers) in a plant. These are the home- otic or Hox genes (Lu et al. 1996). 7) This does not mean, however, that we are in posses- sion of the molecular cascades that occur between the gene and the final formation of traits that shape the pattern of animals and plants. This is why the comparison of the evolution of the Orchids with that of Bats becomes relevant. THE STRUCTURES AND FUNCTIONS OF ORCHIDS EXHIBIT A REMARKABLE EVOLUTIONARY VARIATION The Orchids (Family Orchidaceae) have confused botanists for three centuries due to the following fea- tures: THE RICHNESS OF ORCHID SPECIES The orchids display an extraordinary variation. They constitute approximately 10% of flowering plant spe- 53Comparison of the Evolution of Orchids with that of Bats cies (Zhang et al. 2017) having about 28,000 currently accepted species, distributed in about 763 genera (Chris- tenhusz and Byng 2016). The number of orchid species is nearly equal to the number of bony fishes, more than three times the num- ber of bird species, and about four times the number of mammal species. THE ORIGIN OF ORCHIDS AND THE FOSSIL RECORD About 135 million years ago the plant kingdom began to develop vascular plants with enclosed seeds, the angiosperms, which spread rapidly (Barth 1985). Orchid fossils trapped in amber, in the Baltic Sea, are 15 to 20 million years old (Poinar and Rasmussen 2017). But genetic sequencing indicates that orchids may have arisen 76 to 84 million years ago or may go back to 100 million years ago (Chase 2001). The fossil record from rocks is poor because orchids ”are herbaceous plants and therefore are not good sub- jects for fossilization”. As a result they are poorly docu- mented in sedimentary deposits. Besides, fossils are not considered reliable because of their resemblance to pre- sent-day orchids. This means that ”Most extant groups are probably very young” (Arditti 1992). The result is that: ”There is no general agreement regarding the time of the origin of the orchids” (Arditti 1992). Dressler (1993) asks: ”To what other group of plants are the orchids most closely related?” His answer is ”Unfortunately, there is little agreement on the proper classification of these plants”. ORCHID FLOWERS ASSUME THE MOST UNEXPECTED SHAPES RESEMBLING: HUMANS, APES, BEES, WASPS AND EVEN SHOES It is not only the great variation in flower shape that has confused researchers but, above all, is the display of patterns that have no immediate relationship to the environment or any obvious advantage to the organism (Table 1, Fig. 1). Blamey et al. (2013) in their ”Wild Flowers of Brit- ain and Ireland” give the common names of near 20 species of orchids. Most of them have a resemblance to animals and to humans. These last are called ”mani- kins” (meaning a little man). They are: (1) Manikin Orchid, Burnt-tip Orchid (Neotinia ustulata). (2) Mani- kin Orchid, Lady Orchid (Orchis purpurea). (3) Manikin Orchid, Military Orchid (Orchis militaris). (4) Manikin Orchid, Monkey Orchid (Orchis simia). (5) Manikin Orchid, Man Orchid (Orchis anthropophora). (6) Lizard Orchid (Himantoglossum hircinum). (7) Frog Orchid (Coeloglossum viride). (8) Greater Butterf ly Orchid (Platanthera chlorantha). (9) Bee Orchid (Ophrys apif- era). (10) Wasp Orchid (Ophrys trollii). (11) Fly Orchid (Ophrys insectifera). (12) Late Spider Orchid (Ophrys fucif lora). (13) Ghost Orchid (Epipogium aphyllum). (14) Lady’s Slipper (Cypripedium calceolus). (15) Tongue Orchid (Serapias lingua) (Fig. 4). Several features are remarkable: (1) The patterns are not accidental because the same shape reappears in spe- cies which do not belong to the same genus (i.e. are not closely related). This is the case of the human figure in Neotinia and Orchis. (2) The resemblance displayed by the flowers is so perfect that it is included in the scien- tific name: monkey-face Orchid, Dracula simia (simia = monkey), Orchis anthropophora (anthro = human), Ophrys apifera (apis = bee), Ophrys insectifera (fly), Sera- pias lingua (lingua = tongue). (3) The pattern that exhib- its these unexpected similarities, is not displayed by all the parts of the flower, but is usually restricted to the lip. This is the lower petal of the flower called also ”label- lum”, another constraint in pattern development. (4) The common names, given to these species, were coined by leading botanists who, generation after generation, rec- ognized the same similarities (Table 1). THE STRUCTURES AND FUNCTIONS OF BATS DISPLAY ALSO A REMARKABLE EVOLUTIONARY VARIATION Like systematists dealing with the classification of Orchids, zoologists were confronted with great difficul- ties when analyzing the evolutionary features of bats. THE LARGE VARIATION OF BAT SPECIES The bats build the Order Chiroptera which is divided into 21 Families. These comprise not less than 1,400 species, an impressive number since it represents about 20% of the described mammalian species (Fang et al. 2015). Besides, they are present on every conti- nent except Antarctica (Wilson and Mittermeier 2019). According to Hill and Smith (1984) they constitute one of the largest and most widely distributed groups of mammals. THE ORIGIN OF BATS AND THE FOSSIL RECORD “The origin and evolution of bats is poorly under- stood” (Hill and Smith 1984) and they add that ”Any 54 Antonio Lima-de-Faria Table 1. Orchid species in which the flowers are similar to animal structures and other unexpected shapes. Common and scientific names according to Blamey et al. 2013, “Wild flowers of Britain and Ireland”. The words used and the statements made by the authors are in quota- tion marks. Common name Species name Resemblance described by botanists Common Spotted Orchid Dactylorhiza fuchsii Common orchid General pattern Pyramidal Orchid Anacamptis pyramidalis Foxy—smelling Green-winged Orchid Anacamptis morio Fragrant, Purple Dark green veins Manikin Orchid Burnt-tip Orchid Neotinia ustulata ”Manikin” is the name given to a little man. Manikin lip Manikin Orchid Lady Orchid Orchis purpurea Manikin lip ”Lip” is the lower petal of an orchid flower, also called ”labellum” Manikin Orchid Military Orchid Orchis militaris Sepals (the ”soldier’s” helmet) Manikin Orchid Monkey Orchid Orchis simia Manikin lip having narrow “limbs” as a human Manikin Orchid Man Orchid Orchis anthropophora Lip with very narrow ”limbs” Lizard Orchid Himantoglossum hircinum ”Fancifully lizard-like by taking the manikin theme to an extreme” Frog Orchid Coeloglossum viride ”Flowers supposedly like a jumping frog” Greater Butterfly Orchid Platanthera chlorantha Two petals diverging at right angles Bee Orchid Ophrys apifera ”Look remarkably like the rear of a small bumblebee” Wasp Orchid Ophrys trollii Wasp looking flowers Fly Orchid Ophrys insectifera Manikin lip. ”Petals antenna-like (hence the ”fly”)” Late Spider Orchid Ophrys fuciflora ”Hieroglyphic on its lip” Ghost Orchid Epipogium aphyllum Excellent camouflage lip bent back Lady’s Slipper Cypripedium calceolus Billowing unspurred lip Heart-flowered Tongue Orchid Serapias cordigera ”Middle lobe shaped like an ace-of spades (not hearts)” Tongue Orchid Serapias lingua Middle lobe intermediate between the other two species Monkey-face Orchid Dracula simia Central part of flower ”bears a striking resemblance to a monkey’s face” (Thorogood 2018) Figure 1. Three different types of orchid flowers, which represent their great variation in pattern. The shape of the flower is not related to any obvious advantage to the organism. (A) Orchis Morio, Green-winged orchid. An example of a flower with the general shape. (B) Orchis militaris, Manikin orchid or Military orchid. In this species the flower’s ”lip” resembles the human body with: head, open arms and open legs. (C) Cypripedilum acaule, Lady’s slipper. Another species in which the ”lip” resembles a shoe or a slipper. 55Comparison of the Evolution of Orchids with that of Bats scenario concerning the origin and early evolution of bats is clearly speculation”. The reasons are: 1) The fos- sil record is poorly represented. 2) The 30 fossil genera that have been identified are most similar to present liv- ing bats. 3) Some of these fossils are recent, dating from the Ice Age. 4) The fossils are so well preserved that the stomach contents remain visible. 5) The fossil record extends to approximately 60 million years ago, but it is suspected that the bats may have had originated earlier 70-100 million years ago. The orchids are considered to have arisen at the same time. Of special importance is that, as noted by Hill and Smith (1984) ”Although primitive in some features, these bats possessed some characteristics that are as advanced as some of modern living species of Microchiroptera” and ”All existing evidence suggests that bats changed relatively little compared to other mammals as a group”. Teeling et al. (2018) add that ”The evolutionary his- tory of bats has stimulated some of the most passionate debates in science”. THE FACIAL TRAITS OF BATS ARE HIGHLY VARIED AND RESEMBLE THE MOST UNEXPECTED SHAPES INCLUDING THOSE OF PLANTS Wilson and Mittermeier (2019) give the common names of the over 20 families of bats. Several names refer to the shape of the tail, others to their feeding hab- its but most deal with the facial pattern of bats. These are: (1) Hog-nosed bats (nose like that of pigs). (2) Tri- dent bats (nose with the shape of a plant leaf with 3 pro- jecting parts). (3) Old world leaf-nosed bats (frontal part of face as a large leaf ). (4) Horseshoe bats (face having a horseshoe-shaped plate). (5) Bulldog bats (looking like Table 2. Bat families and their resemblance to plant and animal structures and functions. Common and scientific names according to Wil- son and Mittermeier (2019), “Handbook of the mammals of the world” Vol. 9. The words used and the statements made by the authors are in quotation marks. Common name Family name Resemblance described by zoologists Old world fruit bats Pteropodidae Standard bat face. Lack of laryngeal echolocation Mouse-tailed bats Rhinopomatidae Free long tail like in wild mice Hog-nosed bats Craseonycteridae Nose as in pigs False- vampires Megadermatidae Canine teeth and large molars like other carnivore mammals. Feed on mammals or reptiles. Trident bats Rhinonycteridae Noseleaf with 3 prongs. A ”prong” is a pointed projected part Old world leaf-nosed bats Hipposideridae Frontal part of face as a large leaf. Like leaves found in many plant families Horseshoe bats Rhinolophidae ”Ornate facial growths including horseshoe-shaped plate” Sheath- tailed bats Emballonuridae Refers to the juxtaposition of the tail with the membrane stretching between the legs. ”Use territorial songs that include six different ”syllables”.” Slit-faced bats Nycteridae Long narrow cut on face as a distinctive cleft running longitudinally along muzzle Madagascar sucker- footed bats Myzopodidae ”Distinctive sucker-like structure on wrists and ankles” that stick to surface. Like those found in tadpoles of frogs and some insect species.”Ears with mushroom-like structure” New Zealand short-tailed bats Mystacinidae ”Known as singing bats. Echolocation calls are multiharmonical. Can have up to four harmonics”. ”Walk on the forest floor. The most terrestrial bats in the world” Bulldog bats Noctilionidae Face like that of a race of dogs. ”Distinct from that of any other species of bat” Smoky and Thumbless bat Furipteridae Muzzle with oval or triangular nostrils Disk-winged bats Thyropteridae Have adhesive disks on their hindfeet Ghost- faced bats Mormoopidae Frightening appearance. Modified lips that form a funnel Naked-backed bats Mormoopidae Like naked mole rats. Heterocephalus Mustached bats Mormoopidae Like ”Mustached monkey”. Cerco pithecus New world leaf-nosed bats Phyllostomidae Fleshy noseleaf above nostrils. Plant leaf face like the situation found in the body of some insect species Funnel-eared bats Natalidae Large ears like those of hares Free-tailed bats Molossidae Tail separated from wings as in birds Long-fingered bats Miniopteridae Finger mutations. Like those found in humans Wing-gland bats Cistugidae Unlike glands found in other mammals, but probably like sebaceous glands Vesper bats Vespertilionidae ”Vesper”, means active in the evening. Like other species of vertebrates such as vesper mouse and vesper finch 56 Antonio Lima-de-Faria a race of dogs). (6) Ghost-faced bats (with frightening appearance). (7) New world leaf-nosed bats (with fleshy noseleaf above nostrils, the leaf pattern being similar to that present on the body of some insect species). The leaf pattern has arisen in not less than three independent families: Rhinonycteridae, Hipposideridae and Phyllostomidae. Thus, it is not an accidental event. The nose takes not only the shape of different ani- mals but even of a horseshoe (horseshoe bats). This is a most unexpected pattern, like that of an orchid which resembles a ladie’s slipper (Table 2, Fig. 2). Significant is that the common names given to all species were not coined by the general public but by leading zoologists. Besides, successive generations of sci- entists continued to use the same designation, a confir- mation that the patterns displayed are so striking that their names were not modified. SELECTION HAS BEEN INVOKED AND DENIED TO EXPLAIN ORCHID AND BAT EVOLUTION Dressler (1993) uses several new types of selection, which are called r-selection and k-selection, to explain the evolution of the orchids. But he feels obliged to con- clude that ”At first glance, the production of many tiny seeds would seem to fit the characteristics of r-selection, but in other respects, most orchids fit this pattern poor- ly” and he adds: ”The classification of the orchids has been difficult because of the great amount of parallel- ism”. By parallelism he means the repetition of the same pattern that is seen in: pollen structures, flower form, seed formation and pollination patterns (Table 7). The great difficulty for evolutionists who follow the general interpretation is that for selection to have a posi- tive effect it has to have an advantage for the individual. But such is far from being the case when a flower looks like a shoe or a bat has a face that resembles a horseshoe. “Mimicry is bizarre” (Dressler 1993). ”There are many cases of generalized food flower mimicry, that do not involve a clear and recognizable model”. ”In general- ized food flower mimics, the pollinators soon learn that the flowers offer no reward”. ”Orchids do not just deceive Figure 2. Three different types of facial structures of bats that repre- sent their great variation in pattern. The shape of the nose is not relat- ed to any obvious advantage to the organism. (A) Bat species (name not indicated). Common facial pattern with protruding nose. (B) Phyllostomus hastatus. Face with shape of leaf. Belongs to Family Phyl- lostomidae, New World Leaf-nosed bats. This species is called Spear- nosed bat because the leaf has a sharp point on the upper part like the leaf of many deciduous trees (e.g. Oaks, Elms, Mangolias and others). (C) Rhinolophus ferrumequinum. Called Mediterranean Horseshoe bat. The facial pattern which resembles a horseshoe, is so striking that is included in the scientific name (ferrum = iron, equinum = horse). Table 3. Number of protein-coding genes in animals and plants. Organism Species Gene number Reference Animal Pteropus Alecto (bat) 21,237 Fang, J. et al. 2015 Homo sapiens 20,000 Pennisi 2003 Merchant et al. 2007 Ascaris suum (worm) 18,500 Jex et al. 2011 Daphnia pulex (water flea) 30,907 Colbourne et al. 2011 Plant Apostasia shenzhenica (orchid) 21,841 Zhang et al. 2017 Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (unicellular alga) 15,143 Merchant et al. 2007 Arabidopsis (flowering plant) 26,341 Merchant et al. 2007 Medicago truncatula (legume plant) 62,388 Young et al. 2011 Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea) 48,680 Varshney et al. 2012 57Comparison of the Evolution of Orchids with that of Bats pollinators through sexual deception of animals, but also through mimicry of other plants” (Stevens 2016) and adds: ”how this type of deception evolved is also unclear”. Zoologists were led to a similar approach when analysing the value of selection in the evolution of bats. Some invoked ”positive natural selection” and ”Darwin- Table 4. Evolutionary similarities between orchids and bats. Property Orchids Bats Origin Eastern Asia 40 to 80 million years ago. No general agreement regarding time and origin Australasia 30 to 60 million years ago. No general agreement regarding time and origin Fossil record Fossils poorly documented in sedimentary rocks Fossils found from various periods but limited Fossil preservation Leaves and seeds preserved but ”no positive or useful record” Stomach contents well preserved as in extant species Fossil appearance Fossils are already very similar to living orchids. ”Evolved fully formed” Fossils are already very similar to modern living bats Systematic location Under debate, included in the order Asparagales No intermediate forms to other mammalian orders. Location most uncertain Number of species 22,000 to 30,000 1,400 Extreme variation Tremendous radiation. Flowers with most unexpected forms Face with most different forms Resemblance to particular structures Assuming the shape of: Ghost Humans Apes Frogs Lizards Butterflies Bees Wasps Flies Spiders Assuming the shape of: Ghost Mouse Hog Horse shoes Bulldog Leaves Plant exhibiting animal pattern and animal exhibiting plant pattern Resemblance of flowers to bees and wasps is so striking that insect males copulate with flowers Face with leaf form which is characteristic of several tree families Repeated occurence of plant-animal pattern Similarity to insects occurs in: 3 species of Ophrys; and similarity to humans occurs in: Neotinia and 4 species of Orchis Similarity to leaves occurs in 3 distinct families: 1) Old world leaf-nosed bats 2) New world leaf-nosed bats 3) Trident bats Table 5. Occurrence of structures with leaf shape from minerals to bats. Minerals Flowering plants Insects Bats Native copper Native gold Native bismuth The typical shape of leaves is most common in deciduous trees Wings with leaf shape Kallima (butterfly) Phyllium pulchrifolium (grasshopper) Frontal part of head with leaf shape. Old world leaf-nosed bats 90 species. New world leaf-nosed bats 217 species. No genes present. Atomic self- assembly Homeotic genes deciding formation and position of flower parts. Master gene LEAFY deciding leaf formation Homeotic genes deciding body segmentation which affects body pattern Homeotic genes deciding body segmentation, but effect on facial pattern not yet investigated 58 Antonio Lima-de-Faria ian selection” (Hawkins et al. 2019, Dong et al. 2016), but others considered selection inappropriate to explain the evolution of bats (Hill and Smith 1984), Teeling et al. 2018) (Table 7). SIMILARITY OF GENE NUMBER, AND OF GENES, BETWEEN ORCHIDS AND BATS ELUCIDATE THE EMERGENCE OF IDENTICAL PATTERNS AND THE APPEARANCE OF TRAITS NOT ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE ORGANISM From the beginning it was assumed that humans had to have at least 200,000 genes. As late as 2000 Gil- bert (2000) gave the figure 150,000 genes, based on the number of proteins present in the human body. This value sprang from the one gene — one protein relationship accepted in the 1970s. Soon, it became evi- dent, that a single gene could give rise to several differ- ent proteins and later genes turned out to be large com- plex structures consisting of coding and non-coding regions (exons and introns). The sequencing of the bases in DNA led to a surpris- ing answer. Humans had about 32,000 genes coding for proteins (Bork and Copley 2001), but this figure has sub- sequently been reduced to circa 20,000 (Table 3). As DNAs continued to be sequenced, in many different organisms, it turned out that the number of genes is not a good indicator of evolutionary rela- tionships and moreover it is not related to organism complexity (Lima-de-Faria 2014). The flowering plant Arabidopsis has 26,341 genes. Some plants have even more genes than humans. Medicago is a legume plant with 62,388 and Cajanus (a pea) 48,680 genes. Their large numbers are due to genome duplications. Even more relevant is that Daphnia (a minute water flea) has 30,907 genes. It is thus not surprising that bats, orchids and humans have about the same gene numbers: 21, 237, 21,841 and circa 20,000 respectively (Table 3). Table 6. Structures and functions with no obvious positive effect for the organism and those with a positive effect. Orchids Bats No obvious positive effect Positive effect No obvious positive effect Positive effect Flower resembling: Lady’s slippers Monkeys Humans Frogs Lizards Movement of flower lips. Enhancing of pollination by insect trapping. Enhancing of pollination by resembling bees and wasps. Face resembling: Leaf Horseshoe Hog Bulldog Movement of larynx producing sounds. Echolocation used in insect trapping Table 7. Present interpretations of orchid and bat evolution, evoking selection as well as denying it. The statements made by the various authors are in quotation marks. Orchids Bats Interpretation Reference Interpretation Reference Selection deciding evolution. New kinds of selection: r-selection and k-selection related to habitat and environment Stearns 1977 Bat genes submitted to ”positive natural selection” Hawkins et al. 2019 Genomes submitted to ”Darwinian selection” Dong et al. 2016 ”Selection pressure” as the motor of evolution Arditti 1992 Bat genes have undergone ”Relaxed natural selection” Dong et al. 2016 Selection considered inappropriate to explain evolution of orchids. ”Great deal of parallel evolution” Dressler 1993 Selection considered inappropriate to explain evolution of bats. ”Evolution of bats is clearly speculation” Hill and Smith 1984 Fossils are similar to modern orchids Arditti 1992 ”Fossils are already very similar to modern Microbats” Wikipedia Fossil record is limited and reveals little about evolution Arditti 1992 ”The evolutionary history of bats has stimulated some of the most passionate debates in science” Teeling et al. 2018 59Comparison of the Evolution of Orchids with that of Bats In addition many basic genes are common to mam- mals and plants. But one could hardly conceive that the Homeotic genes, which decide the segmentation of the vertebral column in humans, are the same that deter- mine the sequence of the flower parts in plants (Lu et al. 1996). The lip of orchids is one component in the process of flower formation (Table 5). Moreover, the leaf pattern found in orchids, like in other plants, is decided by a series of leaf genes that have been sequenced, the master gene being called LEAFY (Glover 2007). Hence, the similarity between the patterns of orchids and bats is not fortuitous, but has a genetic basis (Tables 4 and 5). Remarkable is that minerals, which have no genes, and whose pattern emerged before DNA and the cell appeared in evolution, also build leaf patterns (Fig. 3). One should not forget that DNA consists of the same atoms that are found in minerals and that different atom combinations result in the same mineral pattern (Lima-de-Faria 2017) (Table 5). In this connection it is relevant to recall that the basic function of proteins and other macromolecules resides, not on their amino acid sequences, but on their metal atoms. This is the case in: haemoglobin (iron), chlorophyll (magnesium), vitamin B12 (cobalt) and zinc proteins (zinc). It is the atoms that are exposed to other molecules that create the final pat- tern of the organism. Figure 3. The leaf pattern which occurs in minerals, plants and insects. (1) Mineral, pure bismuth in native state. (2) Plant, leaf of poison ivy Rhus toxicodendron. (3) The leaf-like butterfly Kallima. (4) The leaf-insect Chitoniscus feedjeanus showing leaf-like modifi- cations of the fore-wings, including a midrib and lateral veins. Figure 4. An insect copulates with a flower. Orchid Ophrys insectif- era. (1) Flowering plant. (2) Male of the insect species Gorytes mys- taceous making copulatory movements over the flower. (3) Female of the same species. (4) Flower lip drawn separately to show simi- larity to insect. (5) The flower of the orchid Ophrys bombyliflora covered by the copulating male of the insect Eucera sp. 60 Antonio Lima-de-Faria DNA’S OWN EVOLUTION DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO THE BUILDING OF ORGANS WITH ADVANTAGE TO THE ORGANISM It is usually not realized that DNA has its own evo- lution which results in the formation of traits that may be of advantage but may also be of no advantage to the organism. By manipulation of eye genes, in which DNA sequences were moved within the genome, Gehring (1998) was able to produce fruit flies with eyes located on: the head, legs and even wings. Flies, which nor- mally have only two wings were also produced with four wings. This work was further extended to birds leading to the creation of birds with four wings instead of two (Cohn et al. 1997). In all cases the new organs were normal and functional, being constituted by the same body parts such as muscles, veins and articula- tions. Hence, DNA can produce, by alteration of its own sequences novel structures that the organism gets as a ”surprise”. The evolution of the orchids and of the bats is a valuable example of the production of structures with- out any special advantage to the organism. But this does not exclude that there are also structures and functions which led to a subsequent positive effect to the organ- ism’s survival or reproduction (Table 6). At present, botanists and zoologists, continue in vain to evoke, or deny, the role of selection in the evolu- tion of orchids and bats. But the use of the large acceler- ators of electrons and neutrons is transforming molecu- lar biology into atomic biology. Consequently it will fur- nish a better picture of the basic evolutionary similari- ties that unite these organisms. SOURCE OF FIGURES Fig. 1 (A) Gola, G. et al. 1943. Tratado de Botanica. Editorial Labor, Barcelona, Spain (Fig. 718, page 924). (B) Strasburger, E. 1943. Tratado de Botanica. Manuel Marin Editor, Barcelona, Spain (Fig. 831, page 671). (C) Lindman, C.A.M. 1926. Bilder ur Nordens Flora (Plate on page 419). Fig. 2 (A) From Lima-de-Faria, A., 1995, ”Biologi- cal Periodicity”, Fig. 3.5, page 18, Source: Perrins, C. 1976. Bird Life. An Introduction to the World of Birds. Elsevier, Phaidon, London, UK (Fig. page 28). (B) Cabrera, D.A. et al. 1935. Historia Natural, Volume 1, Zoologia. Instituto Gallach, Barcelona, Spain (Fig. page 37). (C) Cabrera, D.A. et al. 1935. Historia Natural, Volume 1, Zoologia. Instituto Gallach, Barcelona, Spain (Fig. page 37). Fig. 3 From Lima-de-Faria, A., 1988, ”Evolution without Selection”, Fig. 3.8, page 27, Sources: (1) Meden- bach, O. and Sussieck-Fornefeld, C. 1983. Minerais (Translation of: Mineralien. Mosaik Verlag, Munich 1982). Ed. Publica, Lisbon, Portugal. (2) Feininger, A. 1956. The Anatomy of Nature. Crown Publishers, New York, USA. (3) Cott, H.B. 1951. Animal form in rela- tion to appearance. In: Aspects of Form. Whyte, L.L. (Editor). Lund Humphries, London, UK: 121-156. (4) Cott, H.B. 1951. Animal form in relation to appearance. In: Aspects of Form. Whyte, L.L. (Editor). Lund Hum- phries, London, UK: 121-156. Fig. 4 From Lima-de-Faria, A., 1988, ”Evolution without Selection”, Fig. 9.26, page 116, Sources: (1) to (4) Mossberg, B. and Nilsson, S. 1977. Nordens Orkidéer. J.W. Cappelens Förlag, Oslo, Norway, pages 1-128 (Page 15). (5) Kullenberg, B. 1961. Studies in Ophrys Pollina- tion. Zoologiska Bidrag från Uppsala 34: 1-340. REFERENCES Arditti, J. 1992. Fundamentals of Orchid Biology. John Wiley and Sons, USA. Barth, F.G. 1985. Insects and Flowers. The Biology of a Partnership. Princeton University Press, USA. Blamey, M. et al. 2013. Wild Flowers of Britain and Ire- land. Bloomsbury, London, UK. Bork, P. and Copley, R. 2001. Filling in the gaps. Nature 409: 818-820. Branden, C. and Tooze, J. 1991. Introduction to Protein Structure. Garland Publishing, Inc. New York, USA. Chase, M.W. 2001. The origin and biogeography of the Orchidaceae. In: Orchidoideae (Part 1). Eds. A.M. Pridgeon et al. Oxford University Press, UK. Christenhusz, M.J.M. and Byng, J.W. 2016. The number of known plant species in the world and its annual increase. Phytotaxa 261(3): 201-217. Cohn, M.J. et al. 1997. Hox 9 genes and vertebrate limb specification. Nature 387: 97-101. Colbourne, J.K. et al. 2011. The ecoresponsive genome of Daphnia pulex. Science 331: 555-561. Daeschler, T. and Shubin, N. 2011. Fossil discovery and the origins of tetrapods. In: In the Light of Evolution. Ed. J.B. Losos. Roberts and Co., USA. Denffer, D. von et al. 1971. Strasburger’s Textbook of Bot- any. Longman, London, UK. Dong, D. et al. 2016. The genomes of two bat species with long constant frequency echolocation calls. Mol. Biol. Evol. 34(1): 20-24. Dressler, R.L. 1993. Phylogeny and Classification of the Orchid Family. Cambridge University Press, UK. 61Comparison of the Evolution of Orchids with that of Bats Dudits, D. et al. 1976. Fusion of human cells with carrot protoplasts induced by polyethylene glycol. Hereditas 82: 121-124. Fang, J. et al. 2015. BGD: A Database of Bat Genom- es. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0131296, doi:10.1371/ journal,pone.0131296 Gehring, W.J. 1998. Master Control Genes in Develop- ment and Evolution: the Homeobox Story. Yale Uni- versity Press, New Haven CT, USA. Gilbert, S.F. 2000. Developmental Biology. Sinauer Asso- ciates, Sunderland, MA, USA. Glover, B.J. 2007. Understanding Flowers and Flowering. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Hawkins, J.A. et al. 2019. A metaanalysis of bat phylo- genetics and positive selection based on genomes and transcriptomes from 18 species. PNAS 116(23): 11351-11360. Hill, J.E. and Smith, J.D. 1984. Bats. A Natural History. British Museum (Natural History), UK. Jex, A.R. et al. 2011. Ascaris suum draft genome. Nature 479: 529-533. Lima-de-Faria, A. 1973. Equations defining the position of ribosomal cistrons in the eukaryotic chromosome. Nature 241: 136-139. Lima-de-Faria, A. et al. 1983. Fusion of bull and human sperm with Nicotiana protoplasts. Hereditas 99: 191- 201. Lima-de-Faria, A. 2014. Molecular Origins of Brain and Body Geometry. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany. Lima-de-Faria, A. 2017. Periodic Tables Unifying Living Organisms at the Molecular Level. World Scientific, Singapore. Lu, P. et al. 1996. Identification of a meristem L1 layer- specific gene in Arabidopsis that is expressed during embryonic pattern formation and defines a new class of homeobox genes. Plant Cell 8: 2155-2168. Merchant, S.S. et al. 2007. The Chlamydomonas genome reveals the evolution of key animal and plant func- tions. Science 318: 245-251. Pennisi, E. 2003. Gene counters struggle to get the right answer. Science 301: 1040-1041. Poinar, G. and Rasmussen, F.N. 2017. Orchids from the past, with a new species in Baltic amber. Botanical J. of the Linnean Society 183(3): 327-333. Stearns, S.C. 1977. The evolution of life history traits: A critique of a theory and a review of the data. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 8: 145-171. Stevens, M. 2016. Cheats and Deceits. How Animals and Plants Exploit and Mislead. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Teeling, E.C. et al. 2018. Bat biology, genomes, and the bat 1K project: To generate chromosome—level genomes for all living bat species. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 6: 23-46. Thorogood, C. 2018. Weird Plants. Kew Publishing, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. Varshney, R.K. et al. 2012. Draft genome sequence of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) an orphan legume crop of resource-poor farmers. Nat. Biotechnol. 30: 83-91. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/ index,26November2019.Pages1-28 Wilson, D.E. and Mittermeier, R.A. Eds. 2019. Handbook of the Mammals of the World, vol. 9, Bats. Lynx Edi- cions, Barcelona, Spain. Young, N.D. et al. 2011. The Medicago genome provides insight into the evolution of rhizobial symbioses. Nature 480: 520-523. Zhang, G.-Q. et al. 2017. The Apostasia genome and the evolution of orchids. Nature 549: 379-383. Zhang, Z. and Saier, M.H. 2009. A mechanism of trans- poson-mediated directed mutation. Mol. Microbiol. 74(1): 29-43. Caryologia International Journal of Cytology, Cytosystematics and Cytogenetics Volume 73, Issue 2 - 2020 Firenze University Press The first molecular identification of Egyptian Miocene petrified dicot woods (Egyptians’ dream becomes a reality) Shaimaa S. Sobieh*, Mona H. Darwish Gene flow patterns reinforce the ecological plasticity of Tropidurus hispidus (Squamata: Tropiduridae) Fernanda Ito, Danielle J. Gama-Maia, Diego M. A. Brito, Rodrigo A. Torres* The technique of Plant DNA Barcoding: potential application in floriculture Antonio Giovino1,*, Federico Martinelli2,*, Anna Perrone3 Cytogenetic of Brachyura (Decapoda): testing technical aspects for obtaining metaphase chromosomes in six mangrove crab species Alessio Iannucci1, Stefano Cannicci1,2,*, Zhongyang Lin3, Karen WY Yuen3, Claudio Ciofi1, Roscoe Stanyon1, Sara Fratini1 Comparison of the Evolution of Orchids with that of Bats Antonio Lima-de-Faria Identification of the differentially expressed genes of wheat genotypes in response to powdery mildew infection Mehdi Zahravi1,*, Panthea Vosough-Mohebbi2, Mehdi Changizi3, Shahab Khaghani1, Zahra-Sadat Shobbar4 Populations genetic study of the medicinal species Plantago afra L. (Plantaginaceae) Saeed Mohsenzadeh*, Masoud Sheidai, Fahimeh Koohdar A comparative karyo-morphometric analysis of Indian landraces of Sesamum indicum using EMA-giemsa and fluorochrome banding Timir Baran Jha1,*, Partha Sarathi Saha2, Sumita Jha2 Chromosome count, male meiotic behaviour and pollen fertility analysis in Agropyron thomsonii Hook.f. and Elymus nutans Griseb. (Triticeae: Poaceae) from Western Himalaya, India Harminder Singh2, Jaswant Singh1,*, Puneet Kumar2, Vijay Kumar Singhal1, Bhupendra Singh Kholia2, Lalit Mohan Tewari3 Population genetic and phylogeographic analyses of Ziziphora clinopodioides Lam., (Lamiaceae), “kakuti-e kuhi”: An attempt to delimit its subspecies Raheleh Tabaripour1,*, Masoud Sheidai1, Seyed Mehdi Talebi2, Zahra Noormohammadi3 Induced cytomictic crosstalk behaviour among micro-meiocytes of Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub. (cluster bean): Reasons and repercussions Girjesh Kumar, Shefali Singh* Karyotype diversity of stingless bees of the genus Frieseomelitta (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Meliponini) Renan Monteiro do Nascimento1, Antonio Freire Carvalho1, Weyder Cristiano Santana2, Adriane Barth3, Marco Antonio Costa1,* Karyotype studies on the genus Origanum L. (Lamiaceae) species and some hybrids defining homoploidy Esra Martin1, Tuncay Dirmenci2,*, Turan Arabaci3, Türker Yazici2, Taner Özcan2 Determination of phenolic compounds and evaluation of cytotoxicity in Plectranthus barbatus using the Allium cepa test Kássia Cauana Trapp1, Carmine Aparecida Lenz Hister1, H. Dail Laughinghouse IV2,*, Aline Augusti Boligon1, Solange Bosio Tedesco1