The Oxford English Dictionary deals with meiosis as follows:
1. Rhetoric. a. A figure of speech by which something is
intentionally presented as smaller, less important, etc., than it
really is; understatement (freq. ironic). Also in extended use.
1550 R.
SHERRY Treat.
Schemes & Tropes sig. Dvii, Miosis. Diminutio,
when greate matters are made lyghte of by wordes...
3. Biol. The division of a diploid cell nucleus into four haploid
nuclei, during which recombination of chromosomes usually occurs, and
which (with the accompanying division of the cell cytoplasm) gives rise
to gametes or (in some organisms) to a haploid generation. Cf. MITOSIS
n.
meiosis I, the first stage of meiosis, in which homologous
chromosomes replicate, pair, exchange material, and separate, one of
each pair going to each of two daughter nuclei within the same cell.
meiosis II, the second stage of meiosis, in which each daughter nucleus
divides as in mitosis, followed by cytoplasmic division.
1905 J. B. FARMER &
J. E. S. MOORE in Q. Jrnl. Microsc.
Sci. 48 489 We
propose to apply the terms Maiosis or Maiotic phase to cover the whole
series of nuclear changes included in the two divisions that were
designated as Heterotype and Homotype by Flemming.
So,
Geoffrey, Philip et al., it appears that the scientists appropriated a
fine word for a different purpose on or around 1905.
David
Philip Veerman wrote:
Wow I wonder if I should respond to
that. Quick lesson in high school biology. The word meiosis relates to
the process of cell division that occurs in the production of sperm
& eggs (in animals) and pollen & seed (in plants). That is the
only context in which I have encountered the word. The point that I was
making is that the process is common to most multicelled organisms. The
aspect of ‘lessening’ or
‘diminution’ relates to that the diploid (double or matched
pairs of) chromosomes are reduced to the haploid (single) set of
chromosomes, so that when fertilisation occurs, we return to the
diploid state. Which is how, in most organisms, each has an equal set
of genes from two parents. There are exceptions to this, such as the
order of hymenoptera (bees, wasps & ants) in which the males only
have a single set of chromosomes inherited from their mother, they do
not have any genes from a father.
But then you all knew that and I
have never (that I remember) contemplated the etymology of the word.
Philip
Sent:
Monday, October 08, 2007 5:20 PM Subject: RE: [canberrabirds]
Woodswallow DNA similarity
A
curious word ‘meiosis’, and I wonder just when it was appropriated by
scientists for use in that connection. My Oxford dictionary gives only
the rhetorical meaning ie a verbal understatement for effect, as in
‘250 species of birds would be a fair number to see in the ACT in one
year’. My Macquarie gives the scientific meaning first but then, as a
secondary meaning, ‘litotes’, that being a subspecies of meiosis using
the negative, as in ‘210 species of birds wouldn’t be a bad total to
have recorded in the ACT in the 9 months to the end of September’.
Mind you, most contributions to this chatline tend to the non-meiotic.
I
wonder whether the scientists liked the sound of the word and borrowed
it from the rhetoricians or adopted it directly from the Greek for
‘lessening’ or ‘diminution’. If American, they would surely have gone
for ‘downsizing’. I would have loved to hear: ‘With that new manager
there’s going to a bit of meiosis around here over the next few
months’. Inevitably the media will get in on it: ‘Rudd to go
semi-meiotic with Aussie troops in Iraq’.
Good point
and there is a lot of similarity between the DNA of people (or any
mammal) and gum trees or grass or fungi etc too. I vaguely remember
something about 20 to 30%. Not surprisingly, as the processes of many
biological functions, such as the running of our genetic systems
(meiosis & mitosis etc) and many very basic biochemical processes
are still similar and common to all multicellular life. But that is
getting a bit off the topic of Canberra birds.
Geoffrey recalled Leo Joseph's presentation
in which he showed that on DNA analysis the two species [White-browed
and Masked Woodswallow] were almost identical, the difference being the
gene (or whatever) that is responsible for the plumage differences.
To put this similarity in context I would
like to add that the human genome is 99% identical to that of
the chimpanzee and bonobo. I will leave it to others to ponder what
the differences might be..........
--
Dr P.J. Milburn
Technical Specialist
ANU ACRF Biomolecular Resource Facility
John Curtin School of Medical Research
Australian National University
GPO Box 334
Canberra ACT 0200
'Phone +61 2 6125 4326
FAX +61 2 6125 9533
|
|
