Coastal Academy Handbook: Fill & Download for Free

Science does not operate on a 'proof' model, it is a falsification model where the hypothesis that is best supported by mountains of evidence and not falsified are promoted to Scientific Theory status.Here are just a tiny few of the many tens of thousands of studies that support Evolutionary theory - each such paper contains a record of the scientific methodology applied and the scientific evidence produced so it can be challenged or reproduced by other researchers.Theobald, D. L. 2010. A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry. Nature 465:219-223Adl, S., Leander, B.S., Simpson, A.G.B., Archibald, J.M., Anderson, O.R., Bass, D., Bowser, S.S., Brugerolle, G., Farmer, M.A., Karpov, S., Kolisko, M., Lane, C.E., Lodge, D.J., Mann, D.G., Meisterfeld, R., Mendoza, L., Moestrup, Ø., Mozley-Standridge, S.E., Smirnov, A.V., and Spiegel, F. (2007) Diversity, nomenclature, and taxonomy of protists. Syst. Biol., 56, 684-689.Adl, S.M., Simpson, A.G., Farmer, M.A., Andersen, R.A., Anderson, O.R., Barta, J.R., Bowser, S.S., Brugerolle, G., Fensome, R.A., Fredericq, S., James, T.Y., Karpov, S., Kugrens, P., Krug, J., Lane, C.E., Lewis, L.A., Lodge, J., Lynn, D.H., Mann, D.G., McCourt, R.M., Mendoza, L., Moestrup, O., Mozley-Standridge, S.E., Nerad, T.A., Shearer, C.A., Smirnov, A.V., Spiegel, F.W. and Taylor, M.F. (2005) The new higher level classification of eukaryotes with emphasis on the taxonomy of protists. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 52, 399-451.Adoutte, A., G. Balavoine, N. Lartillot, O. Lespinet, B. Prud'homme, and R. de Rosa. 2000. The new animal phylogeny: Reliability and implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 97:4453-4456.Ahmad, S., A. Selvapandiyan, and R. K. Bhatnagar. 1999. A protein-based phylogenetic tree for Gram-positive bacteria derived from hrcA, a unique heat-shock regulatory gene. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 49:1387-1394.Anderson, C. L. 1998. Phylogenetic relationships of the Myxozoa. Pages 341-350 in Evolutionary Relationships among Protozoa (G.H. Coombs, K. Vickerman, M.A. Sleigh, and A. Warren, eds.) Chapman & Hall, London.Anderson, C. L., E. U. Canning, and B. Okamura. 1998. A triploblast origin for Myxozoa? Nature 392:346-347.Andersson, S. G. E., A. Zomorodipour, J. O. Andersson, T. Sicheritz-Ponten, U. C. M. Alsmark, R. M. Podowski, A. K. Naslund, A. S. Eriksson, H. H. Winkler, and C. G. Kurland. 1998. The genome sequence of Rickettsia prowazekii and the origin of mitochondria. Nature 396:133-140.Andersson, S.G. and Kurland, C.G. (1999) Origins of mitochondria and hydrogenosomes. Curr. Opin. Microbiol., 2, 535-541.Aravind, L., R. L. Tatusov, Y. I. Wolf, D. R. Walker, and E. V. Koonin. 1998. Evidence for massive gene exchange between archaeal and bacterial hyperthermophiles. Trends in Genetics 14:442-444.Archibald, J.M. (2005) Jumping genes and shrinking genomes.probing the evolution of eukaryotic photosynthesis with genomics. IUBMB Life, 57, 539-547.Archibald, J.M., Longet, D., Pawlowski, J. and Keeling, P.J. (2002) A novel polyubiquitin structure in Cercozoa and Foraminifera: evidence for a new eukaryotic supergroup. Mol. Biol. Evol., 20, 62-66.Arisue, N., Hasegawa, M., and Hashimoto, T. (2005) Root of the Eukaryota tree as inferred from combined maximum likelihood analyses of multiple molecular sequence data. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 22(3), 409-420.Ayala, F. J., A. Rzhetsky, and F. J. Ayala. 1998. Origin of the metazoan phyla: Molecular clocks confirm paleontological estimates. PProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 95:606-611.Baguñà, J., P. Martinez, J. Paps, and M. Riutort. 2008. Back in time: a new systematic proposal for the Bilateria. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 363(1496):1481-1491Baldauf, S. L. (1999) A search for the origins of animals and fungi: Comparing and combining molecular data. American Naturalist, 154(suppl.), S178-S188.Baldauf, S. L., J. D. Palmer, and W. F. Doolittle. 1996. The root of the universal tree and the origin of eukaryotes based on elongation factor phylogeny. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93:7749-7754.Baldauf, S.L. and Doolittle, W.F. (1997) Origin and evolution of the slime molds (Mycetozoa). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 94, 12007-12012.Baldauf, S.L. and Palmer, J.D. (1993) Animals and fungi are each other's closest relatives: congruent evidence from multiple proteins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 90, 11558-11562.Baldauf, S.L., Roger, A.J., Wenk-Siefert, I. and Doolittle, W.F. (2000) A kingdom-level phylogeny of eukaryotes based on combined protein data. Science, 290, 972-977.Balows, A., H.G. Träper, M. Dworkin, W. Harder, and K.-H. Schleifer (eds.). 1992. The Prokaryotes. A Handbook on the Biology of Bacteria: Ecophysiology, Isolation, Identification, Applications. Second edition, Volumes I-IV. Springer Verlag, New York.Bapteste, E., Brinkmann, H., Lee, J., Moore, D., Sensen, C., Gordon, P., Durufle, L., Gaasterland, T., Lopez, P., Muller, M. and Philippe, H. (2002) The analysis of 100 genes supports the grouping of three highly divergent amoebae: Dictyostellium, Entamoeba, and Mastigamoeba. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A, 99, 1414-1419.Barns, S. M., C. F. Delwiche, J. D. Palmer, and N. R. Pace. 1996. Perspectives on archaeal diversity, thermophily and monophyly from environmental rRNA sequences. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 93:9188-9193.Barns, S. M., R. E. Fundyga, M. W. Jeffries and N. R. Pace. 1994. Remarkable archaeal diversity detected in a Yellowstone National Park hot spring environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 91(5): 1609-1613.Bass, D., Moreira, D., Lopez-Garcia, P., Polet, S., Chao, E.E., von der Heyden, S., Pawlowski, J. and Cavalier-Smith, T. (2005) Polyubiquitin insertions and the phylogeny of Cercozoa and Rhizaria. Protist, 156, 149-161.Battistuzzi, F. U. and A. B. Hedges. 2009. A major clade of prokaryotes with ancient adaptations to life on land. Molecular Biology and Evolution 26(2):335-343; doi:10.1093/molbev/msn247Battistuzzi, F. U., A. Feijao, and A. B. Hedges. 2004. A genomic timescale of prokaryote evolution: insights into the origin of methanogenesis, phototrophy, and the colonization of land. BMC Evolutionary Biology 4:44-.Becerra, A., L. Delaye, S. Islas, and A. Lazcano. 2007. The very early stages of biological evolution and the nature of the last common ancestor of the three major cell domains. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 38:361-379.Benachenhou, L. N., P. Forterre and B. Labedan. 1993. Evolution of glutamate dehydrogenase genes: Evidence for two paralogous protein families and unusual branching patterns of the archaebacteria in the universal tree of life. Journal Of Molecular Evolution 36(4): 335-346.Benachenhou, L. N., P. Forterre and B. Labedan. 1993. Evolution of glutamate dehydrogenase genes: Evidence for two paralogous protein families and unusual branching patterns of the archaebacteria in the universal tree of life. Journal Of Molecular Evolution 36:335-346.Bern, M. and D. Goldberg. 2005. Automatic selection of representative proteins for bacterial phylogeny. BMC Evolutionary Biology 5:34-.Berney, C. and Pawlowski, J. (2006) A molecular time-scale for eukaryote evolution recalibrated with the continuous microfossil record. Proceedings of the Royal Society Series B, 273(1596), 1867-1872.Boone, D. R., R.W. Castenholz, and G.M. Garrity. 2001. Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology. Springer, New York.Borchiellini C., Boury-Esnault, N., Vacelet, J., and Le Parco, Y. (1998) Phylogenetic analysis of the Hsp70 sequences reveals the monophyly of metazoa and specific phylogenetic relationships between animals and fungi. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 15, 647-655.Borchiellini, C., M. Manuel, E. Alivon, N. Boury-Esnault, J. Vacelet, and Y. Le Parco. 2001. Sponge paraphyly and the origin of Metazoa. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 14:171-179.Briggs, D. E. G., D. H. Erwin, and F. J. Collier. 1994. The Fossils of the Burgess Shale. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washingthon, D.C.Brinkmann, H. and H. Phillippe. 1999. Archaea sister group of bacteria? Indications from Tree Reconstruction Artifacts from ancient Phylogenies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16:817-825.Brochier, C., E. Bapteste, D. Moreira, and H. Philippe. 2002. Eubacterial phylogeny based on translational apparatus proteins.Brocks, J. J., G. A. Logan, R. Buick, and R. E. Summons. 1999. Archean molecular fossils and the early rise of eukaryotes. Science 285:1033-1036.Brown, J. R. , C. J. Douady, M. J. Italia, W. E. Marshall, and M. J. Stanhope. 2001. Universal trees based on large combined protein sequence data sets. Nature Genetics 28:281-285.Brown, J. R. 2001. Genomic and phylogenetic perspectives on the evolution of prokaryotes. Systematic Biology 50:497-512.Brown, J. R. and W. F. Doolittle. 1995. Root of the universal tree of life based on ancient aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase gene duplications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92:2441-2445.Brown, J. R. and W. F. Doolittle. 1997. Archaea and the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 61:456-502.Brusca, R. C. and G. J. Brusca. 2002. Invertebrates. Second Edition. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.Budd, G. E. 2008. The earliest fossil record of the animals and its significance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 363(1496):1425-1434.Budin, K. and Philippe, H. (1998) New insights into the phylogeny of eukaryotes based on Ciliate Hsp70 sequences. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 15, 943-956.Burki, F. and Pawlowski, J. (2006) Monophyly of Rhizaria and multigene phylogeny of unicellular bikonts. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 23(10), 1922-1930.Burki, F., Shalchian-Tabrizi, K. and Pawlowski, J. (2008) Phylogenomics reveals a new 'megagroup' including most photosynthetic eukaryotes. Biol. Lett., 4(4), 366-369.Burki, F., Shalchian-Tabrizi, K., Minge, M., Skjaeveland, A., Nikolaev, S.I., Jakobsen, K.S. and Pawlowski, J. (2007) Phylogenomics reshuffles the eukaryotic supergroups. PLoS ONE, 2, e790.Bustard, K. and R. S. Gupta. 1997. The sequences of heat shock protein 40 (DnaJ) homologs provide evidence for a close evolutionary relationship between the Deinococcus-Thermus group and cyanobacteria. Journal of Molecular Evolution 45:193-205.Caetano-Anolles, G. 2002. Evolved RNA secondary structure and the rooting of the universal tree of life. Journal of Molecular Evolution 54: 333-345.Calisher, C. H., M. C. Horzinek, M. A. Mayo, H. W. Ackermann, and J. Maniloff. 1995. Sequence analyses and a unifying system of virus taxonomy - consensus via consent. Archives of Virology 140 (11):2093-2099.Cammarano, P., P. Palm, R. Creti, E. Ceccarelli, A. M. Sanangelantoni, and O. Tiboni. 1992. Early evolutionary relationships among known life forms inferred from elongation factor EF-2/EF-G sequences: Phylogenetic coherence and structure of the Archaeal domain. Journal Of Molecular Evolution 34:396-405.Cammarano, P., R. Creti, A. M. Sanangelantoni, and P. Palm. 1999. The archaean monophyly issue: a phylogeny of translational elongation factor G(2) sequences inferred from an optimized selection of alignment positions. Journal Of Molecular Evolution 49:524-537.Canning, E.U. (1998) Evolutionary relationships of Microsporidia. Pages 77-90 in Evolutionary Relationships among Protozoa (G. H. Coombs, K. Vickerman, M .A. Sleigh, and A. Warren, eds.) Chapman & Hall, London.Carroll, S. B., J. K. Grenier, and S. D. Weatherbee. 2001. From DNA to Diversity. Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Blackwell Science, Malden, Massachusetts.Castro, H. F., N. H. Williams, and A. Ogram. 2000. Phylogeny of sulfate-reducing bacteria. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 31:1-9.Cavalier-Smith, T. (1987) The origin of fungi and pseudofungi. In Rayner, A.D.M., Brasier, C.M. and Moore, D. (eds.), Evolutionary biology of the fungi. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 339-353.Cavalier-Smith, T. (1993) Kingdom Protozoa and its 18 phyla. Microbiol. Rev., 57, 953-94.Cavalier-Smith, T. (1998) A revised six-kingdom system of life. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc., 73, 203-266.Cavalier-Smith, T. (1999) Principles of protein and lipid targeting in secondary symbiogenesis: euglenoid, dinoflagellate, and sporozoan plastid origins and the eukaryote family tree. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 46, 347-366.Cavalier-Smith, T. (2002) The phagotrophic origin of eukaryotes and phylogenetic classification of Protozoa. Int. J. Sys. Evol. Microbiol., 52, 297-354.Cavalier-Smith, T. (2003) Protist phylogeny and the high-level classification of Protozoa. Eur. J. Protistol., 39, 338-348.Cavalier-Smith, T. (2004) Chromalveolate diversity and cell megaevolution: interplay of membranes, genomes and cytoskeleton. In Hirt, R.P. and Horner, D. (eds.), Organelles, Genomes and Eukaryotic Evolution. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 71-103.Cavalier-Smith, T. 2002. The neomuran origin of archaebacteria, the negibacterial root of the universal tree and bacterial megaclassification. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionay Microbiology 52:7-76.Cavalier-Smith, T. and Chao, E.E. (1995) The opalozoan Apusomonas is related to the common ancestor of animals, fungi and choanoflagellates. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 261, 1-6.Cavalier-Smith, T. and Chao, E.E. (2003) Phylogeny and classification of phylum Cercozoa (Protozoa). Protist, 154, 341-358.Cavalier-Smith, T., M. T. E. P. Allsopp, E. E. Chao, N. Boury-Esnault, and J. Vacelet. 1996. Sponge phylogeny, animal monophyly, and the origin of the nervous system: 18S rRNA evidence. Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:2031-2045.Chen, J.-Y., P. Oliveri, C.-W. Li, G.-Q. Zhou, F. Gao, J. W. Hagadorn, K. J. Peterson, and E. H. Davidson. 2000. Precambrian animal diversity: Putative phosphatized embryos from the Doushantuo Formation of China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 97:4457-4462.Ciccarelli, F. D., T. Doerks, C. von Mering, C. J. Creevey, B. Snel, and P. Bork. 2006. Toward automatic reconstruction of a highly resolved tree of life. Science 311(5765):1283-1287.Clark C.G. and Roger, A.J. (1995) Direct evidence for secondary loss of mitochondria in Entamoeba histolytica. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 92, 6518-6521.Coenye, T. and P. Vandamme. 2004. A genomic perspective on the relationship between the Aquificales and the epsilon-Proteobacteria. Syst Appl. Microbiol. 27:313-322.Collins, A. G. 1998. Evaluating multiple alternative hypotheses for the origin of Bilateria: An analysis of 18S rRNA molecular evidence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 95:15458-15463.Collins, A. G. and J. W. Valentine. 2001. Defining phyla: evolutionary pathways to metazoan body plans. Evolution & Development 3:432-442.Conway Morris, S. 1993. The fossil record and the early evolution of the Metazoa. Nature 361:219-225.Conway Morris, S. 1998. The Crucible of Creation: The Burgess Shale and the Rise of Animals. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Copeland, H.F. (1956) The Classification of Lower Organisms. Pacific Books, Palo Alto, California.Copley, R. R. 2008. The animal in the genome: comparative genomics and evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 363(1496):1453-1461.Creti, R., E. Ceccarelli, M. Bocchetta, A. M. Sanangelantoni, O. Tiboni, P. Palm and P. Cammarano. 1994. Evolution of translational elongation factor (EF) sequences: Reliability of global phylogenies inferred from EF-1-alpha(Tu) and EF-2(G) proteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 91:3255-3259.Daubin, V., M. Gouy, and G. Perriere. 2002. A phylogenomic approach to bacterial phylogeny: Evidence of a core of genes sharing a common history. Genome Research 2(7):1080-1090.DeLong E. F. and N. R. Pace. 2001. Environmental diversity of Bacteria and Archaea. Systematic Biology 50: 470-478.DeLong E. F. and N. R. Pace. 2001. Environmental diversity of Bacteria and Archaea. Systematic Biology 50:470-478.Deeds, E. J., H. Hennessey, and E. I. Shakhnovich. 2005. Prokaryotic phylogenies inferred from protein structural domains. Gen. Res. 15:393-402.Dellaporta, S. L., A. Xu, S. Sagasser, W. Jakob, M. A. Moreno, L. W. Buss, and B. Schierwater. 2006. Mitochondrial genome of Trichoplax adhaerens supports placozoa as the basal lower metazoan phylum. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 103(23):8751-8756.Delong, E. F. 1992. Archaea in coastal marine environments. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 89: 5685-5689.Delwiche, C.F. (1999) Tracing the thread of plastid diversity through the tapistry of life. American Naturalist, 154 (suppl.), S164-S177.Des Marais, D. J. 1999. Astrobiology: Exploring the origins, evolution, and distribution of life in the universe. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:397-420.Dewel, R. A. 2000. Colonial origin for Eumetazoa: Major morphological transitions and the origin of Bilaterian complexity. Journal of Morphology 243:35-74.Doolittle, W. F. 1998. You are what you eat: a gene transfer ratchet could account for bacterial genes in eukaryotic nuclear genomes. Trends in Genetics 14:307-311.Doolittle, W. F. 1999. Lateral genomics. Trends in Biochemical Sciences 24: M5-M8.Doolittle, W. F. 1999. Phylogenetic classification and the universal tree. Science 284:2124-2128.Doolittle, W. F. 2000. Uprooting the tree of life. Scientific American 282:90-95.Doolittle, W. F. and J. M. Logsdon. 1998. Archaeal genomics: Do archaea have a mixed heritage? Current Biology 8: (6) R209-R211.Doolittle, W. F. and J. R. Brown. 1994. Tempo, mode, the progenote, and the universal root. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 91:6721-6728.Douzery, E.J.P., Snell, E.A., Bapteste, E., Delsuc, F., and Philippe, H. (2004) The timing of eukaryotic evolution: Does a relaxed molecular clock reconcile proteins and fossils? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 101(43), 15386-15391.Dunn, C. W., A Hejnol, D. Q. Matus, K. Pang, W. E. Browne, S. A. Smith, E. Seaver, G. W. Rouse, M. Obst, G. D. Edgecombe, M. V. Sørensen, S. H. D. Haddock, A. Schmidt-Rhaesa, A. Okusu, R. M. Kristensen, W. C. Wheeler, M. Q. Martindale, and G. Giribet. 2008. Broad phylogenomic sampling improves resolution of the animal tree of life. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature06614Edlind, T.D. (1998) Phylogenetics of protozoan tubulin with reference to the amitochondriate eukaryotes. Pages 91-108 in Evolutionary Relationships Among Protozoa (Coombs, G.H., Vickerman, K., Sleigh, M.A. and Warren, A., eds.) Chapman & Hall, London.Edlind, T.D., Li, J., Visvesvara, G.S., Vodkin, M.H., McLaughlin, G.L., and Katiyar, S.K. (1996) Phylogenetic analysis of beta-tubulin sequences from amitochondrial protozoa. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 5, 359-367.Eernisse, D. J. and K. J. Peterson. 2004. The history of animals. Pages 197-208 in Assembling the Tree of Life, J. Cracraft and M. J. Donoghue, eds. Oxford University Press, New York.Eisen, J. A. 1995. The RecA protein as a model molecule for molecular systematic studies of bacteria: Comparison of trees of RecAs and 16S rRNAs from the same species. Journal of Molecular Evolution 41:1105-1123. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21(9):1643-1660.Embley, T. M., M. van der Giezen, D. S. Horner, P. L. Dyal, S. Bell, and P. G. Foster. 2003. Hydrogenosomes, mitochondria and early eukaryotic evolution. International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology: Life 55(7):387-395.Embley, T.M. (2006) Multiple secondary origins of the anaerobic lifestyle in eukaryotes. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci., 361, 1055-1067.Embley, T.M. and Hirt, R.P. (1998) Early branching eukaryotes? Curr. Opinion Gen. Dev., 8, 624-629.Emelyanov, V. V. and B. V. Sinitsyn. 1999. A groE-based phylogenetic analysis shows very close evolutionary relationship between mitochondria and Rickettsia. Russian Journal of Genetics 35:618-627.Ender, A. and B. Schierwater. 2003. Placozoa are not derived cnidarians: Evidence from molecular morphology. Molecular Biology and Evolution 20(1):130-134.Erwin, D. H. 1993. The origin of metazoan development: A palaeobiological perspective. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 50: 255-274.Esser, C., N. Ahmadinejad, C. Wiegand, C. Rotte, F. Sebastiani, G. Gelius-Dietrich, K. Henze, E. Kretschmann, E. Richly, D. Leister, D. Bryant, M. A. Steel, P. J. Lockhart, D. Penny and W. Martin. 2004. A genome phylogeny for mitochondria among alpha-proteobacteria and a predominantly eubacterial ancestry of yeast nuclear genes.Fast, N.M., Kissinger, J.C., Roos, D.S. and Keeling, P.J. (2001) Nuclear-encoded, plastid-targeted genes suggest a single common origin for apicomplexan and dinoflagellate plastids. Mol. Biol. Evol., 18, 418-426.Fast, N.M., Logsdon, J.M., and Doolittle, W.F. (1999) Phylogenetic analysis of the TATA box binding protein (TBP) gene from Nosema locustae: evidence for a microsporidia-fungi relationship and spliceosomal intron loss. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 16, 1415-1419.Fauquet, C. M., M. A. Mayo, J. Maniloff, U. Desselberger, and L. A. Ball (Eds.). 2005. Virus Taxonomy. Elsevier, San Diego.Feng, D.-F., G. Cho, and R.F. Doolittle. 1997. Determining divergence times with a protein clock: Update and reevaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 94:13028-13033.Ferrier, D. E. K. and P. W. H. Holland. 2001. Ancient origin of the Hox gene cluster. Nature Reviews Genetics 2:33-38.Fields, B. N., D. M. Knipe, and P. M. Howley (eds.) 1996. Fields Virology, 3rd ed. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, Pa.Finnerty, J. R., K. Pang, P. Burton, D. Paulson, and M. Q. Martindale. 2004. Origins of bilateral symmetry; Hox and dpp expression in a sea anemone. Science 304:1335-37.Forterre, P. 2001. Genomics and early cellular evolution. The origin of the DNA world. Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences Serie III-Sciences de la Vie 324:1067-1076.Forterre, P. and H. Philippe. 1999. Where is the root or the universal tree of life? BioEssays 21:871-879.Forterre, P., Benachenhou-Lahfa, N., Confalonieri, F., Duguet, M., Elie, C., and Labedan, B. (1992) The nature of the last universal ancestor and the root of the tree of life, still open questions. Biosystems, 28, 15-32.Fox, G. E., E. Stackebrandt, R. B. Hespell, J. Gibson, J. Maniloff, T. A. Dyer, R. S. Wolfe, W. E. Balch, R. S. Tanner, L. J. Magrum, L. B. Zablen, R. Blakemore, R. Gupta, L. Bonen, B. J. Lewis, D. A. Stahl, K. R. Luehrsen, K. N. Chen, and C. R. Woese. 1980. The phylogeny of prokaryotes. Science 209:457-463.Garrity, G. M., J. A. Bell, and T. G. Lilburn. 2004. Taxonomic Outline of the Prokaryotes. Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Second Edition. Release 5.0.Germot, A., Philippe, H., and Le Guyader, H. (1997) Evidence for loss of mitochondria in Microsporidia from a mitochondrial-type HSP70 in Nosema locustae. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology, 87, 159-168.Gibbs, A. J. 2000. Virus nomenclature descending into chaos. Archives of Virology 145:1505-1507.Giribet, G. 2002. Current advances in the phylogenetic reconstruction of metazoan evolution. A new paradigm for the Cambrian explosion? Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 24:345-357.Giribet, G., C. W. Dunn, G. D. Edgecombe, and G. W. Rouse. 2007. A modern look at the Animal Tree of Life. Pages 61-79 in: Zhang, Z.-Q. & Shear, W.A., eds. Linnaeus Tercentenary: Progress in Invertebrate Taxonomy. Zootaxa 1668:1-766.Gogarten, J. P. and L. Taiz. 1992. Evolution of proton pumping ATPases: Rooting the tree of life. Photosynthesis Research 33:137-146.Gogarten, J. P., E. Hilario, and L. Olendzenski. 1996. Gene duplications and horizontal gene transfer during early evolution. Pages 267-292 in Evolution of Microbial Life (D. McL. Roberts, P. Sharp, G. Alderson, and M. Collins, eds.) Symposium 54. Society for General Microbiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Gogarten, J.P. (2003) Gene transfer: Gene swapping craze reaches eukaryotes. Curr Biol., 13, R53.54.Gogarten, J.P., Kiblak, H., Dittrich, P., Taiz, L., Bowman, E.J., Bowman, B.J., Manolson, N.F., Poole, R.J., Date, T., Oshima, T., Konishi, J., Denda, K. and Yoshida, M. (1989) Evolution of the vacuolar H+-ATPase: inplications for the origin of eukaryotes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 86, 6661-6665.Golding, G.B. and Gupta, R. S. (1995) Protein-based phylogenies support a chimeric origin for the eukaryotic genome. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 12, 1-6.Golding, G.B. and R.S. Gupta. 1995. Protein-based phylogenies support a chimeric origin for the eukaryotic genome. Molecular Biology and Evolution 12:1-6.Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. Norton, New York.Gould, S.B., Waller, R.F. and McFadden, G.I. (2008) Plastid evolution. Annu. Rev. Plant. Biol., 59, 491-517.Gouy, M. and W.-H. Li. 1989. Phylogenetic analysis based on rRNA sequences supports the archaebacterial rather than the eocyte tree. Nature 339:145-147.Gouy, M. and W.-H. Li. 1990. Archaebacterial or eocyte tree? Nature 343:419.Graham, D. E., R. Overbeek, G. J. Olsen, and C. R. Woese. 2000. An archaeal genomic signature. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 97:3304-3308.Gray, M. W., G. Burger, and B. F. Lang. 1999. Mitochondrial evolution. Science 283:1476-1481.Gray, M.W. and Doolittle, W.F. (1982) Has the endosymbiont hypothesis been proven? Microbiol Rev., 46, 1-42.Gray, M.W., Burger, G. and Lang, B.F. (1999) Mitochondrial evolution. Science, 283, 1476-1481.Gray, M.W., Lang, B.F. and Burger, G. (2004) Mitochondria of protists. Annu. Rev. Genet., 38, 477-524.Gribaldo, S. and P. Cammarano. 1998. The root of the universal tree of life inferred from anciently duplicated genes encoding components of the protein-targeting machinery. Journal of Molecular Evolution 47:508-516.Griffiths, E. and R. S. Gupta. 2004. Signature sequences in diverse proteins provide evidence for the late divergence of the Order Aquificales. Int Microbiol. 7:41-52.Grosberg, R.K. and Strathmann, R.R. (2007) The evolution of multicellularity: a minor major transition? Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 38, 621-654.Gruber, T. M. and D. A. Bryant. 1997. Molecular systematic studies of eubacteria, using sigma(70)-type sigma factors of group 1 and group 2. Journal of Bacteriology 179:1734-1747.Gupta, R. S. 1997. Protein phylogenies and signature sequences: Evolutionary relationships within prokaryotes and between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek International Journal of General and Molecular Microbiology 72:49-61.Gupta, R. S. 1998. Protein phylogenies and signature sequences: A reappraisal of evolutionary relationships among archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 62:1435-1491.Gupta, R. S. 1998. What are archaebacteria: Life's third domain or monoderm prokaryotes related to Gram-positive bacteria? A new proposal for the classification of prokaryotic organisms. Molecular Microbiology 29:695-707.Gupta, R. S. 2000. The phylogeny of proteobacteria: relationships to other eubacterial phyla and eukaryotes. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 24(4):367-402.Gupta, R. S. 2004. The phylogeny and signature sequences characteristics of Fibrobacteres, Chlorobi, and Bacteroidetes. Critical Reviews in Microbiology 30(2):123-143.Gupta, R. S. and G. B. Golding. 1993. Evolution of HSP70 gene and its implications regarding relationships between archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes. Journal of Molecular Evolution 37:573-582.Gupta, R. S., T. Mukhtar, and B. Singh. 1999. Evolutionary relationships among photosynthetic prokaryotes (Heliobacterium chlorum, Chloroflexus aurantiacus, cyanobacteria, Chlorobium tepidum and proteobacteria): implications regarding the origin of photosynthesis. Molecular Microbiology 32:893-906.Gupta, R.S. and E. Griffiths. 2002. Critical issues in bacterial phylogeny. Theoretical Population Biology 61(4):423-434.Gupta, R.S., K. Bustard, M. Falah, D. Singh. 1997. Sequencing of heat shock protein 70 (DnaK) homologs from Deinococcus proteolyticus and Thermomicrobium roseum and their integration in a protein-based phylogeny of prokaryotes. Journal of Bacteriology 179:345-357.Hackett, J.D., Yoon, H.S., Li, S., Reyes-Prieto, A., Rummele, S.E. and Bhattacharya, D. (2007) Phylogenomic analysis supports the monophyly of cryptophytes and haptophytes and the association of rhizaria with chromalveolates. Mol. Biol. Evol., 24, 1702-1713.Haen, K. M., B. F. Lang, S. A. Pomponi, and D. V. Lavrov. 2007. Glass sponges and bilaterian animals share derived mitochondrial genomic features: a common ancestry or parallel evolution? Molecular Biology and Evolution 24(7):1518 - 1527.Hagopian, J.C., Reis, M., Kitajima, J.P., Bhattacharya, D. and de Oliveira, M.C. (2004) Comparative analysis of the complete plastid genome sequence of the red alga Gracilaria tenuistipitata var. liui provides insights into the evolution of rhodoplasts and their relationship to other plastids. J. Mol. Evol., 59, 464-477.Halanych, K. 2004. The new view of animal phylogeny. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 35:229-256.Hampl, V., Horner, D.S., Dyal, P., Kulda, J., Flegr, J., Foster, P.G., and Embley, T.M. (2005) Inference of the phylogenetic position of oxymonads based on nine genes: Support for Metamonada and Excavata. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 22(12), 2508-2518.Hanelt B., D. VanSchyndel, C. M. Adema, L. A. Lewis, E. S. Loker. 1996. The phylogenetic position of Rhopalura ophiocomae (Orthonectida) based on 18S ribosomal DNA sequence analysis. Molecular Biology and Evolution 13:1187-1191.Hanson, E.D. (1977) The Origin and Early Evolution of Animals. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Conn.Harper, J.T. and Keeling, P.J. (2003) Nucleus-encoded, plastid-targeted glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) indicates a single origin for chromalveolate plastids. Mol. Biol. Evol., 20, 1730-1735.Hashimoto, T., Nakamura, Y., Kamaishi, T., and Hasegawa, M. (1997) Early evolution of eukaryotes inferred from protein phylogenies of translation elongation factors 1 alpha and 2. Archiv für Protistenkunde, 148, 287-295.Hendrix, R. W. 1999. The long evolutionary reach of viruses. Current Biology 9:R914-R917.Hendrix, R. W., J. G. Lawrence, G. F. Hatfull, and S. Casjens. 2000. The origins and ongoing evolution of viruses. Trends in Microbiology 8:504-508.Hendrix, R. W., M. C. M. Smith, R. N. Burns, M. E. Ford, and G. F. Hatfull. 1999. Evolutionary relationships among diverse bacteriophages and prophages: all the world's a phage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 96:2192-2197.Herrmann, K.M. and Weaver, L.M. (1999) The Shikimate Pathway. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol., 50, 473-503.Hilario, E. and J. P. Gogarten. 1993. Horizontal transfer of ATPase genes: The tree of life becomes a net of life. Biosystems 31:111-119.Hirt, R.P. and Horner, D. (eds.) (2004) Organelles, Genomes and Eukaryote Evolution. Taylor & Francis, London.Hirt, R.P., Healy, B., Vossbrinck, C.R.,Canning, E.U., and Embley, T. M. (1997) A mitochondrial Hsp70 orthologue in Vairimorpha necatrix: Molecular evidence that microsporidia once contained mitochondria. Current Biology, 7, 995-998.Hirt, R.P., Logsdon, Jr., J.M., Healy, B., Dorey, M.W., Doolittle, W.F., and Embley, T.M. (1999) Microsporidia are related to fungi: evidence from the largest subunit of RNA polymerase II and other proteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 96, 580-585.Hoppenrath, M. and Leander, B.S. (2006) Dinoflagellate, euglenid or cercomonad? The ultrastructure and molecular phylogenetic position of Protaspis grandis n. sp. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 53, 327-342.Huang, J., Xu, Y. and Gogarten, J.P. (2005) The presence of a haloarchaeal type tyrosyl-tRNA synthetase marks the opisthokonts as monophyletic. Mol. Biol. Evol., 22, 2142-2146.Huang, W. M. 1996. Bacterial diversity based on type II DNA topoisomerase genes. Annual Review of Genetics 30:79-107.Huang, Y. P. and J. Ito. 1999. DNA polymerase C of the thermophilic bacterium Thermus aquaticus: Classification and phylogenetic analysis of the family C DNA polymerases. Journal of Molecular Evolution 48:756-769.Huber, H., M. J. Hohn, R. Rachel, T. Fuchs, V. C. Wimmer, and K. O. Stetter. 2002. A new phylum of Archaea represented by a nanosized hyperthermophilic symbiont. Nature 417:63-67.Hugenholtz, P., B. M. Goebel, and N. R. Pace. 1998. Impact of culture-independent studies on the emerging phylogenetic view of bacterial diversity. Journal of Bacteriology 180:4765-4774.Iwabe, N., K.-I. Kuma, M. Hagesawa, S. Osawa, T. Miyata. 1989. Evolutionary relationship of archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes inferred from phylogenetic trees of duplicated genes. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences (USA) 86:9355-9359.Iyer, L. M., L. Aravind, and E. V. Koonin. 2001. Common Origin of Four Diverse Families of Large Eukaryotic DNA Viruses. Journal of Virology 75(23):11720-11734.Jeffares, D. C., A. M. Poole, and D. Penny. 1998. Relics from the RNA world. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46:18-36.Jenner, R. A. 2004. The scientific status of metazoan cladistics: why current research practice must change. Zoologica Scripta 33(4):293-310.Jenner, R. A. 2004. When molecules and morphology clash: Reconciling conflicting phylogenies of the Metazoa by considering secondary character loss. Evolution & Development 6(5):372-378.Jenner, R. A. and D. T. J. Littlewood. 2008. Problematica old and new. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 363(1496):1503-1512.Jenner, R.A. and Schram, F.R. (1999) The grand game of metazoan phylogeny: rules and strategies. Biological Reviews, 74, 121-142.Jiménez-Guri, E., H. Philippe, B. Okamura, P. W. H. Holland. 2007. Buddenbrockia is a cnidarian worm. Science 317(5834):116-118.Johnson, M.D., Oldach, D., Delwiche, C.F. and Stoecker, D.K. (2007) Retention of transcriptionally active cryptophyte nuclei by the ciliate Myrionecta rubra. Nature, 445, 426-428.Kamaishi, T., Hashimoto, T., Nakamura, Y., Nakamura, F., Murata, S., Okada, N., Okamoto, K., and Hasegawa, M. (1996) Protein phylogeny of translation elongation factor EF-1alpha suggests microsporidians are extremely ancient eukaryotes. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 42, 257-263.Kamm, K., B. Schierwater, W. Jakob, S. L. Dellaporta, and D. J. Miller. 2006. Axial patterning and diversification in the Cnidaria predate the Hox system. Current Biology 16:920-926.Kandler, O. 1994. Cell wall biochemistry and three-domain concept of life. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 16:501-509.Katz, L. A. 1998. Changing perspectives on the origin of eukaryotes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13:493-497.Katz, L. A. 1999. The tangled web: gene genealogies and the origin of eukaryotes. Am. Nat. 154 (suppl.):S137-S145.Katz, L.A. (1998) Changing perspectives on the origin of eukaryotes. Trends Ecol. Evol., 13, 493-497.Katz, L.A. (1999) The tangled web: gene genealogies and the origin of eukaryotes. American Naturalist, 154(suppl.), S137-S145.Keeling, P.J. (1998) A kingdom's progress: Archezoa and the origin of eukaryotes. BioEssays, 20, 87-95.Keeling, P.J. (2001) Foraminifera and Cercozoa are related in actin phylogeny: two orphans find a home? Mol. Biol. Evol., 18, 1551-1557.Keeling, P.J. (2004) The diversity and evolutionary history of plastids and their hosts. Am. J. Bot., 91, 1481-1493.Keeling, P.J. (2009) Chromalveolates and the evolution of plastids by secondary endosymbiosis. J. Eukaryot Microbiol., in press.Keeling, P.J. and Doolittle, W.F. (1996) Alpha-tubulin from early-diverging eukaryotic lineages and the evolution of the tubulin family. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 13, 1297-1305.Keeling, P.J. and McFadden, G.I. (1998) Origins of microsporidia. Trends Microbiol., 6, 19-23.Keeling, P.J. and Palmer, J.D. (2000) Phylogeny - Parabasalian flagellates are ancient eukaryotes. Nature, 405, 635-637.Keeling, P.J., Burger, G., Durnford, D.G., Lang, B.F., Lee, R.W., Pearlman, R.E., Roger, A.J. and Gray, M.W. (2005) The tree of eukaryotes. Trends Ecol. Evol., 20, 670-676.Keeling, P.J., Luker, M.A., and Palmer, J.D. (2000) Evidence from beta-tubulin phylogeny that microsporidia evolved from within the fungi. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17, 23-31.Kim, J., W. Kim, and C. W. Cunningham. 1999. A new perspective on lower metazoan relationships from 18S rDNA sequences. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16:423-427.Kim, J.,Kim, W., and Cunningham, C.W. (1999) A new perspective on lower metazoan relationships from 18S rDNA sequences. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 16, 423-427.Kjems, J., N. Larsen, J. Z. Dalgaard, R. A. Garrett and K. O. Stetter. 1992. Phylogenetic relationships amongst the hyperthermophilic Archaea determined from partial 23S rRNA gene sequences. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 15(2): 203-208.Klenk, H. P., C. Schleper, V. Schwass and R. Brudler. 1993. Nucleotide sequence, transcription and phylogeny of the gene encoding the superoxide dismutase of Sulfolobus acidocaldarius. Biochimica Et Biophysica Acta 1174(1): 95-98.Knoll, A. H. and S. B. Carroll. 1999. Early animal evolution: emerging views from comparative biology and geology. Science 284:2129-2137.Knoll, A.H. (1992) The early evolution of eukaryotes: a geological perspective. Science, 256, 622-627.Koonin, E. V., A. R. Mushegian, M. Y. Galperin, and D. R. Walker. 1997. Comparison of archaeal and bacterial genomes: computer analysis of protein sequences predicts novel functions and suggests a chimeric origin for the archaea. Molecular Microbiology 25:619-637.Kruse, M., S. P. Leys, I. M. Mueller, and W. E. G. Mueller. 1998. Phylogenetic position of the hexactinellida within the phylum porifera based on the amino acid sequence of the protein kinase C from Rhabdocalyptus dawsoni. Journal of Molecular Evolution 46:721-728.Kumar, S. and Rzhetsky, A. (1996) Evolutionary relationships of eukaryotic kingdoms. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 42, 183-193.Kunisawa, T. 2006. Dichotomy of major bacterial phyla inferred from gene arrangement comparisons. J. of Theor. Biol. 239:367-375.Kyrpides, N. C. and C. A. Ouzounis. 1999. Transcription in Archaea. Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 96:8545-8550.Kyrpides, N. C. and G. J. Olsen. 1999. Archaeal and bacterial hyperthermophiles: horizontal gene exchange or common ancestry? Trends in Genetics 15:298-299.Lake, J. A. 1990. Archaebacterial or eocyte tree? Nature 343:418-419.Lake, J. A. and M. C. Rivera. 1996. The prokaryotic ancestry of eukaryotes. Pages 87-108 in Evolution of Microbial Life (D. McL. Roberts, P. Sharp, G. Alderson, and M. Collins, eds.) Symposium 54. Society for General Microbiology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Lake, J. A., M. W. Clark, E. Hendeson, S. P. Fay, M. Oakes, A. Scheinman, J. P. Thornber and R. A. Mah. 1985. Eubacteria, halobacteria and the origin of photosynthesis: The photocytes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 82:3716-3720.Lake, J.A. and Rivera, M.C. (1994) Was the nucleus the first endosymbiont? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 91, 2880-2881.Lake, J.A., E. Henderson, M. Oakes, M.W. Clark. 1984. Eocytes: a new ribosome structure indicates a kingdom with close relationship to eukaryotes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 81:3786-3790.Lang, B.F., Burger, G., O'Kelly, C. J., Cedergren, R., Golding, G. B., Lemieux, C., Sankoff, D., Turmel, M., and Gray, M. W. (1997) An ancestral mitochondrial DNA resembling a eubacterial genome in miniature. Nature, 387, 493-497.Lang, B.F., Gray, M.W. and Burger, G. (1999) Mitochondrial genome evolution and the origin of eukaryotes. Annu. Rev. Genet., 33, 351-397.Lawrence, J. G. and H. Ochman. 1998. Molecular archaeology of the Escherichia coli genome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 95:9413-9417.Lawrence, J. G., G. F. Hatfull, and R. W. Hendrix. 2002. Imbroglios of viral taxonomy: Genetic exchange and failings of phenetic approaches. Journal of Bacteriology 184(17):4891-4905.Lawson, F. S., R. L. Charlebois, and J.-A. R. Dillon. 1996. Phylogenetic analysis of carbamoylphosphate synthetase genes: complex evolutionary history includes an internal duplication within a gene which can root the Tree of Life. Molecular Biology and Evolution 13:970-977.Leander, B.S. (2004) Did trypanosomatid parasites have photosynthetic ancestors? Trends Microbiol., 12, 251-258.Leander, B.S. (2008) A hierarchical view of convergent evolution in microbial eukaryotes. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 55, 59-68.Leander, B.S. (2008) Different modes of convergent evolution reflect phylogenetic distances. Trends Ecol. Evol., 23, 481-482.Leander, B.S. and Keeling, P.J. (2003) Morphostasis in alveolate evolution. Trends Ecol. Evol., 18, 395-402.Leander, B.S. and Keeling, P.J. (2004) Early evolutionary history of dinoflagellates and apicomplexans (Alveolata) as inferred from hsp90 and actin phylogenies. J. Phycol., 40, 341-350.Leipe, D., Gunderson, J.H., Nerad, T.A., and Sogin, M. L. (1993) Small subunit ribosomal RNA of Hexamita inflata and the quest for the first branch in the eukaryotic tree. Mol. Biochem. Parasitol., 59, 41-48.Levin, H. L. 1999. Ancient Invertebrates and Their Living Relatives. Prentics Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.Liao, D. and P. P. Dennis. 1994. Molecular phylogenies based on ribosomal protein L11, L1, L10, and L12 sequences. Journal of Molecular Evolution 38:405-419.Lipscomb D.L., Farris, J.S., Kallersjo, M., and Tehler, A. (1998) Support, ribosomal sequences and the phylogeny of the eukaryotes. Cladistics, 14, 303-338.Liu, R. and H. Ochman. 2007. Stepwise formation of the bacterial flagellar system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(17):7116-7121.Longet, D., Archibald, J.M., Keeling, P.J. and Pawlowski, J. (2003) Foraminifera and Cercozoa share a common origin according to RNA polymerase II phylogenies. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 53, 1735 - 1739.Lopez, P., P. Forterre, and H. Philippe. 1999. The root of the tree of life in the light of the covarian model. Journal of Molecular Evolution 49:496-508.Lovisolo, O., R. Hull, and O. Rösler. 2003. Coevolution of viruses with hosts and vectors and possible paleontology. Advances in Virus Research 62:325-379.Ludwig, W., J. Neumaier, N. Klugbauer, E. Brockmann, C. Roller, S. Jilg, K. Reetz, I. Schachtner, A. Ludvigsen, M. Bachleitner, U. Fischer, and K. H. Schleifer. 1993. Phylogenetic relationships of Bacteria based on comparative sequence analysis of elongation factor Tu and ATP-synthase beta-subunit genes. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek International Journal of General and Molecular Microbiology 64:285-305.Ludwig, W., O. Strunk, S. Klugbauer, N. Klugbauer, M. Weizenegger , J. Neumaier, M. Bachleitner, and K. H. Schleifer. 1998. Bacterial phylogeny based on comparative sequence analysis. Electrophoresis 19:554-568.Macario, A. J. L. and E. C. de Macario. 1999. The archaeal molecular chaperone machine: Peculiarities and paradoxes. Genetics 152:1277-1283.Makarova, K. S., L. Aravind, M. Y. Galperin, N. V. Grishin, R. L. Tatusov, Y. I. Wolf, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Comparative genomics of the archaea (Euryarchaeota): Evolution of conserved protein families, the stable core, and the variable shell. Genome Research 9:608-628.Maldonado, M. (2004) Choanoflagellates, choanocytes, and animal multicellularity. Invertebrate Biology, 123, 1-22.Margulis, L. (1970) Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. Yale University Press.Margulis, L. (1981) Symbiosis in cell evolution. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.Margulis, L. 1996. Archaeal-eubacterial mergers in the origin of Eukarya: phylogenetic classification of life. Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences (USA) 92:1071-1076.Margulis, L., Chapman, M., Guerrero, R., and Hall, J. (2006) The last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA): Acquisition of cytoskeletal motility from aerotolerant spirochetes in the Proterozoic Eon. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 103(35), 13080-13085.Margulis, L., Corliss, J.O., Melkonian, M., and Chapman, D.J. 1990. Handbook of Protoctista. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Boston.Martin W. and M. Müller. 1998. The hydrogen hypothesis for the first eukaryote. Nature 392:37-41.Martin, W. 1999. Mosaic bacterial chromosomes: a challenge on route to a tree of genomes. BioEssays 21:99-104.Martindale, M. Q., J. R. Finnerty, and J. Q. Henry. 2002. The Radiata and the evolutionary origins of the bilaterian body plan. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 24:358-365.Matte-Tailliez, O., C. Brochier, P. Forterre, and H. Philippe. 2002. Archaeal phylogeny based on ribosomal proteins. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:631-639.Matus, D. Q., K. Pang, H. Marlow, C. W. Dunn, G. H. Thomsen, and M. Q. Martindale. 2006. Molecular evidence for deep evolutionary roots of bilaterality in animal development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 103(30):11195-11200.McClendon, J. H. 1999. The origin of life. Earth-Science Reviews 47:71-93.McCormack, G. P. and J. P. Clewley. 2002. The application of molecular phylogenetics to the analysis of viral genome diversity and evolution. Reviews in Medical Virology 12(4):221-238.McFadden, G.I. (1999) Endosymbiosis and evolution of the plant cell. Curr. Opin. Plant. Biol., 2, 513-519.McFadden, G.I., Gilson, P.R., Douglas, S.E., Cavalier-Smith, T., Hofmann, C.J. and Maier, U.G. (1997) Bonsai genomics: sequencing the smallest eukaryotic genomes. Trends Genet., 13, 46-49.Medina, M., A. G. Collins, J. D. Silberman, and M. L. Sogin. 2001. Evaluating hypotheses of basal animal phylogeny using complete sequences of large and small subunit rRNA. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 98:9707-9712.Mendoza, L., Taylor, J.W., and Ajello, L. (2002) The class mesomycetozoea: a heterogeneous group of microorganisms at the animal-fungal boundary. Annual Review of Microbiology, 56, 315-44.Mindell, D. P., J. S. Rest, and L. P. Villarreal. 2004. Viruses and the tree of life. Pp. 107-118 in Cracraft, J. and M. J. Donoghue (eds.), Assembling the Tree of Life. Oxford University Press, New York.Minelli, A. 2007. Invertebrate taxonomy and evolutionary developmental biology. Pages 55-60 in: Zhang, Z.-Q. & Shear, W.A., eds. Linnaeus Tercentenary: Progress in Invertebrate Taxonomy. Zootaxa 1668:1-766.Minge, M.A., Silberman, J.D., Orr, R.J., Cavalier-Smith, T., Shalchian-Tabrizi, K., Burki, F., Skjaeveland, A. and Jakobsen, K.S. (2008) Evolutionary position of breviate amoebae and the primary eukaryote divergence. Proc. Biol. Sci., 276, 597-604.Monteiro, A. S., B. Okamura, and P. W. H. Holland. 2002. Orphan worm finds a home: Buddenbrockia is a Myxozoan. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19:968-971.Moran, N. and P. Baumann. 1994. Phylogenetics of cytoplasmically inherited microorganisms of arthropods. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:15-20.Moreira, D. and P. Lopez-Garcia. 1998. Symbiosis between methanogenic archaea and delta-proteobacteria as the origin of eukaryotes: the syntrophic hypothesis. Journal of Molecular Evolution 47:517-530.Moreira, D., Le Guyader, H. and Phillippe, H. (2000) The origin of red algae and the evolution of chloroplasts. Nature, 405, 69-72.Moreira, D., von der Heyden, S., Bass, D., Lopez-Garcia, P., Chao, E. and Cavalier-Smith, T. (2007) Global eukaryote phylogeny: Combined small- and large-subunit ribosomal DNA trees support monophyly of Rhizaria, Retaria and Excavata. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol., 44, 255-266.Morin, L. (2000) Long branch attraction effects and the status of "basal eukaryotes": Phylogeny and structural analysis of the ribosomal RNA gene cluster of the free-living diplomonad Trepomonas agilis. Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology, 47, 167-177.Morris, P.J. (1993) The developmental role of the extracellular matrix suggests a monophyletic origin of the Kingdom Animalia. Evolution, 47, 152-165.Müller, M. (1993) The hydrogenosome. J. Gen. Microbiol., 139, 2879-2889.Narbonne, G.M. (2004) Modular construction of early Ediacaran complex life forms. Science, 305(5687), 1141-1144.Nealson, K. H. and P. G. Conrad. 1999. Life: past, present and future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B 354:1923-1939.Nielsen, C. 2001. Animal Evolution: Interrelationships of the Living Phyla. Second Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Nielsen, C., N. Scharff, and D. Eibye-Jacobsen. 1996. Cladistic analyses of the animal kingdom. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 57:385-410.Nikolaev, S.I., Berney, C., Fahrni, J.F., Bolivar, I., Polet, S., Mylnikov, A.P., Aleshin, V.V., Petrov, N.B. and Pawlowski, J. (2004) The twilight of Heliozoa and rise of Rhizaria, an emerging supergroup of amoeboid eukaryotes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 8066-8071.Nowack, E.C., Melkonian, M. and Glockner, G. (2008) Chromatophore genome sequence of Paulinella sheds light on acquisition of photosynthesis by eukaryotes. Curr. Biol., 18, 410-418.Nozaki, H., Iseki, M., Hasegawa, M., Misawa, K., Nakada, T., Sasaki, N., and Watanabe, M. (2007) Phylogeny of primary photosynthetic eukaryotes as deduced from slowly evolving nuclear genes. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 24, 1592-1595.Nozaki, H., Matsuzaki, M., Takahara, M., Misumi, O., Kuroiwa, H., Hasegawa, M., Shin-i, T., Kohara, Y., Ogasawara, N., and Kuroiwa, T. (2003) The phylogenetic position of red algae revealed by multiple nuclear genes from mitochondria-containing eukaryotes and an alternative hypothesis on the origin of plastids. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 56(4), 485-497.Ochman, H., S. Elwyn, and N. A. Moran. 1999. Calibrating bacterial evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 96:12638-12643.Okamoto, N. and Inouye, I. (2005) A secondary symbiosis in progress? Science, 310, 287.Okamura, B., A. Curry, T. S. Wood, and E. U. Canning. 2002. Ultrastructure of Buddenbrockia identifies it as a myxozoan and verifies the bilaterian origin of the Myxozoa. Parasitology 124:215-223.Olsen, G. J. and C. R. Woese. 1993. Ribosomal RNA: a key to phylogeny. FASEB Journal 7:113-23.Olsen, G. J., C. R. Woese, and R. Overbeek. 1994. The winds of (evolutionary) change: breathing new life into microbiology. Journal of Bacteriology 176:1-6.Pace, N. R. 1997. A molecular view of microbial diversity and the biosphere. Science 276:734-740.Pace, N. R. 1999. Microbial ecology and diversity. ASM News 65:328-333.Patron, N.J., Inagaki, Y. and Keeling, P.J. (2007) Multiple gene phylogenies support the monophyly of cryptomonad and haptophyte host lineages. Curr. Biol., 17, 887-891.Patron, N.J., Rogers, M.B. and Keeling, P.J. (2004) Gene replacement of fructose-1,6-bisphosphate aldolase (FBA) supports a single photosynthetic ancestor of chromalveolates. Eukaryot. Cell, 3, 1169-1175.Patterson, D.J. (1994) Protozoa: Evolution and Systematics. Pages 1-14 in Progress in Protozoology. Proceedings of the IX International Congress of Protozoology, Berlin (1993) (K. Hausmann and N. Hülsmann, eds.) Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Jena, New York.Patterson, D.J. (1999) The diversity of eukaryotes. American Naturalist, 154(suppl.), S96-S124.Patterson, D.J. and Sogin, M.L. (1992) Eukaryote origins and protistan diversity. Pages 13-46 in The Origin and Evolution of Prokaryotic and Eukaryotic Cells (H. Hartman and K. Matsuno, eds.) World Scientific Pub. Co. NJ.Pennisi, E. 1998. Genome data shake the tree of life. Science 280:672-674.Pennisi, E. 1999. Is it time to uproot the tree of life? Science 284:1305-1307.Penny, D. and A. Poole. 1999. The nature of the last universal common ancestor. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 9:672-677.Peterson, K. J. and D. J. Eernisse. 2001. Animal phylogeny and the ancestry of bilaterians: inferences from morphology and 18S rDNA gene sequences. Evolution & Development 3:170-205.Peterson, K. J. and E. H. Davidson. 2000. Regulatory evolution and the origin of bilaterians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S.A.) 97:4430-4433.Peterson, K. J. and N. J. Butterfield. 2005. Origin of the Eumetazoa: Testing ecological predictions of molecular clocks against the Proterozoic fossil record. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 102(27):9547-9552.Peterson, K. J., J. A. Cotton, J. G. Gehling and D. Pisani. 2008. The Ediacaran emergence of bilaterians: congruence between the genetic and the geological fossil records. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 363(1496):1435-1443.Peterson, K. J., J. B. Lyons, K. S. Nowak, C. M. Takacs, M. J. Wargo and M. A. McPeek. 2004. Estimating metazoan divergence times with a molecular clock. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 101(17):6536-6541.Philip, G.K., Creevey, C.J., and McInerney, J.O. (2005) The Opisthokonta and the Ecdysozoa may not be clades: Stronger support for the grouping of plant and animal than for animal and fungi and stronger support for the Coelomata than Ecdysozoa. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 22(5), 1175.1184.Philippe, H. and Adoutte, A. (1998) The molecular phylogeny of Eukaryota: solid facts and uncertainties. Pages 25-56 in Evolutionary Relationships among Protozoa (G. H. Coombs, K. Vickerman, M. A. Sleigh, and A. Warren, eds.) Chapman & Hall, London.Philippe, H. and Germot, A. (2000) Phylogeny of eukaryotes based on ribosomal RNA: Long-branch attraction and models of sequence evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17, 830-834.Philippe, H. and M. J. Telford. 2006. Large-scale sequencing and the new animal phylogeny. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21(11):614-620.Philippe, H. and P. Forterre. 1999. The rooting of the universal tree of life is not reliable. Journal of Molecular Evolution 49:509-523.Philippe, H., Lopez, P., Brinkmann, H., Budin, K., Germot, A., Laurent, J., Moreira, D., Muller, M., and Le Guyader, H. (2000) Early-branching or fast-evolving eukaryotes? An answer based on slowly evolving positions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 267, 1213-1221.Philippe, H., Snell, E.A., Bapteste, E., Lopez, P., Holland, P.W.H., and Casane, D. (2004) Phylogenomics of eukaryotes: impact of missing data on large alignments. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 21(9), 1740-1752.Pierson, B. K. 1994. The emergence, diversification, and role of photosynthetic bacteria. Pages 161-180 in Early Life on Earth, Nobel Symposium No. 84 (Bengtson, S., ed.). Columbia University Press, New York.Polet, S., Berney, C., Fahrni, J. and Pawlowski, J. (2004) Small-subunit ribosomal RNA gene sequences of Phaeodarea challenge the monophyly of Haeckel's Radiolaria. Protist, 155, 53-63.Poole, A., D. Jeffares, and D. Penny. Early evolution: prokaryotes, the new kids on the block. BioEssays 21:880-889.Putnam, N. H., M. Srivastava, U. Hellsten, B. Dirks, J. Chapman, A. Salamov, A. Terry, H. Shapiro, E. Lindquist, V. V. Kapitonov, J. Jurka, G. Genikhovich, I. V. Grigoriev, S. M. Lucas, R. E. Steele, J. R. Finnerty, U. Technau, M. Q. Martindale, and D. S. Rokhsar. 2007. Sea anemone genome reveals ancestral eumetazoan gene repertoire and genomic organization. Science 317(5834):86-94.Ragan, M.A. and Gutell, R.R. (1995) Are red algae plants? Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 118, 81-105.Ragan, M.A., Goggin, C.L., Cawthorn, R.J., Cerenius, L., Jamieson, A.V., Plourde, S.M., Rand, T.G., Soderhall, K. and Gutell, R.R. (1996) A novel clade of protistan parasites near the animal-fungal divergence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93, 11907-11912.Rappé, M. S. and S. J. Giovannoni. 2003. The uncultured microbial majority. Annual Review of Microbiology 57:369-394.Rasmussen, B. 2000. Filamentous microfossils in a 3,235-million-year-old volcanogenic massive sulphide deposit. Nature 405:676-679.Reichert, A.S. and Neupert, W. (2004) Mitochondriomics or what makes us breathe. Trends Genet., 20, 555-562.Reyes-Prieto, A., Weber, A.P. and Bhattacharya, D. (2007) The origin and establishment of the plastid in algae and plants. Annu. Rev. Genet., 41, 147-168.Reysenbach1, A. L. and E. Shock. 2002. Merging genomes with geochemistry in hydrothermal ecosystems. Science 296:1077-1082.Ribeiro, S. and G. B. Golding. 1998. The mosaic nature of the eukaryotic nucleus. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15:779-788.Ribeiro, S. and Golding, G.B. (1998) The mosaic nature of the eukaryotic nucleus. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 15, 779-788.Rice, D.W. and Palmer, J.D. (2006) An exceptional horizontal gene transfer in plastids: gene replacement by a distant bacterial paralog and evidence that haptophyte and cryptophyte plastids are sisters. BMC Biol., 4, 31.Rice, G., L. Tang, K. Stedman, F. Roberto, J. Spuhler, E. Gillitzer, J. E. Johnson, T. Douglas, and M. Young. 2004. The structure of a thermophilic archaeal virus shows a double-stranded DNA viral capsid type that spans all domains of life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 101(20):7716-7720.Richards, T.A. and Cavalier-Smith, T. (2005) Myosin domain evolution and the primary divergence of eukaryotes. Nature, 436, 1113-1118.Richards, T.A. and van der Giezen, M. (2006) Evolution of the Isd11-IscS complex reveals a single alpha-proteobacterial endosymbiosis for all eukaryotes. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 23, 1341-1344.Rivera, M. C., R. Jain, J. E. Moore, and J. A. Lake. 1998. Genomic evidence for two functionally distinct gene classes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 95:6239-6244.Rivera, M. C., and J. A. Lake. 2004. The ring of life provides evidence for a genome fusion origin of eukaryotes. Nature 431:152-155.Robinson, R. 2005. Jump-starting a cellular world: Investigating the origin of life, from soup to networks. PLoS Biol 3(11): e396. http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030396Rodriguez-Ezpeleta, N., Brinkmann, H., Burey, S.C., Roure, B., Burger, G., Loffelhardt, W., Bohnert, H.J., Philippe, H. and Lang, B.F. (2005) Monophyly of primary photosynthetic eukaryotes: green plants, red algae, and glaucophytes. Curr Biol, 15, 1325-1330.Rodriguez-Ezpeleta, N., Brinkmann, H., Burger, G., Roger, A.J., Gray, M.W., Philippe, H. and Lang, B.F. (2007) Toward resolving the eukaryotic tree: the phylogenetic positions of jakobids and cercozoans. Curr. Biol., 17, 1420-1425.Roger, A.J. (1999) Reconstructing early events in eukaryotic evolution. Am. Nat., 154, S146-S163.Roger, A.J., Sandblom, O., Doolittle, W. F., and Philippe, H. (1999) An evaluation of elongation factor 1 alpha as a phylogenetic marker for eukaryotes. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 16, 218-233.Rogers, M.B., Gilson, P.R., Su, V., McFadden, G.I. and Keeling, P.J. (2007) The complete chloroplast genome of the chlorarachniophyte Bigelowiella natans: evidence for independent origins of chlorarachniophyte and euglenid secondary endosymbionts. Mol. Biol. Evol., 24, 54-62.Ruiz-Trillo, I., A. J. Roger, G. Burger, M. W. Gray, and B. F. Lang. 2008. A phylogenomic investigation into the origin of Metazoa. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25:664-672.Ruiz-Trillo, I., Lane, C.E., Archibald, J.M. and Roger, A.J. (2006) Insights into the evolutionary origin and genome architecture of the unicellular opisthokonts Capsaspora owczarzaki and Sphaeroforma arctica. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 53, 379-384.Ruppert, E. E., R. S. Fox, and R. D. Barnes. 2004. Invertebrate Zoology, a Functional Evolutionary Approach. 7th ed. Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learn, Belmont, CA.Sapp, J. 2005) Microbial Phylogeny and Evolution: Concepts and Controversies. Oxford University Press, New York.Schierwater, B., M. Eitel, W. Jakob, H.-J. Osigus, H. Hadrys, S. L. Dellaporta, S.-O. Kolokotronis, and R. DeSalle. 2009. Concatenated molecular and morphological analysis sheds light on early metazoan evolution and fuels a modern .Urmetazoon. hypothesis. PLoS Biol 7(1): e1000020. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000020.Schlegel, M. (2003) Phylogeny of Eukaryotes recovered with molecular data: highlights and pitfalls. European Journal of Protistology, 39, 113-122.Schlegel, M., J. Lom, A. Stechmann, D. Bernhard, D. Leipe, I. Dykova, and M. L. Sogin. 1996. Phylogenetic analysis of complete small subunit ribosomal RNA coding region of Myxidium lieberkuehni: Evidence that Myxozoa are Metazoa and related to the Bilateria. Archiv für Protistenkunde 147:1-9.Schopf, J. W. 2006. Fossil evidence of Archaean life. Philos. T. R. Soc. B 361:869-85.Schütze J., Krasko, A., Custodio, M.R., Efremova, S.M., Müller, I.M. and Müller, W.E.G. (1999) Evolutionary relationships of Metazoa within the eukaryotes based on molecular data from Porifera. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 266, 63-73.Sicheritz-Ponten, T., C. G. Kurland, and S. G. E. Andersson. 1998. A phylogenetic analysis of the cytochrome b and cytochrome c oxidase I genes supports an origin of mitochondria from within the Rickettsiaceae. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta Bioenergetics 1365:545-551.Siddall, M. E. and M. F. Whiting. 1999. Long-branch abstractions. Cladistics 15:9-24.Siddall, M. E., D. S. Martin, D. Bridge, S. S. Desser, and D. K. Cone. 1995. The demise of a phylum of protists: Phylogeny of myxozoa and other parasitic cnidaria. Journal of Parasitology 81:961-967.Siddall, M.E., Martin, D.S., Bridge, D., Desser, S.S., and Cone, D.K. (1995) The demise of a phylum of protists: phylogeny of Myxozoa and other parasitic Cnidaria. J. Parasitol., 81, 961-967.Simpson, A.G. (2003) Cytoskeletal organization, phylogenetic affinities and systematics in the contentious taxon Excavata (Eukaryota). Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol., 53, 1759-1777.Simpson, A.G. and Patterson, D.J. (2001) On core jakobids and excavate taxa: the ultrastructure of Jakoba incarcerata. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 48, 480-492.Simpson, A.G. and Roger, A.J. (2002) Eukaryotic evolution: getting to the root of the problem. Curr Biol, 12, R691-693.Simpson, A.G., Inagaki, Y. and Roger, A.J. (2006) Comprehensive multigene phylogenies of excavate protists reveal the evolutionary positions of "primitive" eukaryotes. Mol. Biol. Evol., 23, 615-625.Simpson, A.G., Roger, A.J., Silberman, J.D., Leipe, D.D., Edgcomb, V.P., Jermiin, L.S., Patterson, D.J. and Sogin, M.L. (2002) Evolutionary history of "early-diverging" eukaryotes: the excavate taxon Carpediemonas is a close relative of Giardia. Mol. Biol. Evol., 19, 1782-1791.Simpson, A.G.B. and Patterson, D.J. (1999) The ultrastructure of Carpediemonas membranifera (Eukaryota) with reference to the "Excavate hypothesis". Eur. J. Protistol., 35, 353-370.Skophammer, R. G., C. W. Herbold, M. C. Rivera, J. A. Servin, and J. A. Lake. 2006. Evidence that the Root of the Tree of Life Is Not within the Archaea. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23(9):1648-1651.Smothers, J. F., C. D. von Dohlen, L. H. Smith, Jr., and R. D. Spall. 1994. Molecular evidence that the myxozoan protists are metazoans. Science 265:1719-1721.Smothers, J.F., van Dohlen, C.D., Smith, L.H., and Spall, R. D. (1994) Molecular evidence that the myxozoan protists are metazoans. Science, 265, 1719-1721.Sogin, M.L. (1989) Evolution of eukaryotic microorganisms and their small subunit ribosomal RNAs. Amer. Zool., 29, 487-499.Sogin, M.L. (1991) Early evolution and the origin of eukaryotes. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development, 1, 457-463.Sogin, M.L. and Silberman, J.D. (1998) Evolution of the protists and protistan parasites from the perspective of molecular systematics. International Journal of Parasitology, 28, 11-20.Sogin, M.L., Elwood, H.J. and Gunderson, J.H. (1986) Evolutionary diversity of eukaryotic small-subunit rRNA genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 83, 1383-1387.Sogin, M.L., Morrison, H.G., Hinkle, G., and Silberman, J. D. (1996) Ancestral relationships of the major eukaryotic lineages. Microbiologia SEM, 12, 17-28.Staley, J. T. and J. J. Gosink. 1999. Poles apart: Biodiversity and biogeography of sea ice bacteria. Annual Review of Microbiology 53:189-215.Stanier, R.Y. (1970) Some aspects of the biology of cells and their possible evolutionary significance. Symp. Soc. Gen. Mircrobiol., 20, 1-38.Stechmann, A. and Cavalier-Smith, T. (2002) Rooting the eukaryote tree by using a derived gene fusion. Science, 297, 89-91.Stechmann, A. and Cavalier-Smith, T. (2003) The root of the eukaryote tree pinpointed. Curr. Biol., 13, R665-666.Stechmann, A. and T. Cavalier-Smith. (2002) Rooting the eukaryote tree by using a derived gene fusion. Science 297:89-91.Steenkamp, E.T., Wright, J. and Baldauf, S.L. (2006) The protistan origins of animals and fungi. Mol. Biol. Evol., 23, 93-106.Stetter, K. O. 1996. Hypterthermophilic procaryotes. FEMS Microbiology Reviews 18:149-158.Stiller, J.W. and Hall, B.D. (1997) The origin of red algae: Implications for plastid evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 94, 4520-4525.Stiller, J.W. and Hall, B.D. (1999) Long-branch attraction and the rDNA model of early eukaryotic evolution. Molecular Biology and Evolution 16:1270-1279.Stiller, J.W., Duffield, E.C.S., and Hall, B.D. (1998) Amitochondriate amoebae and the evolution of DNA-dependent RNA polymerase II. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 95, 11769-11774.Stiller, J.W., Riley, J., and Hall, B. D. (2001) Are red algae plants? A critical evaluation of three key molecular data sets. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 52(6), 527-539.Syvanen, M. and C. I. Kado (eds.) 1998. Horizontal Gene Transfer. Chapman & Hall, London.Takai, K. and K. Horikoshi. 1999. Genetic diversity of archaea in deep-sea hydrothermal vent environments. Genetics 152:1285-1297.Taylor F.J.R. (1999) Ultrastructure as a control for protistan molecular phylogeny. American Naturalist, 154(suppl.), S125-S136.Taylor, F.J. (1978) Problems in the development of an explicit hypothetical phylogeny of the lower eukaryotes. Biosystems, 10, 67-89.Teichmann, S. A. and G. Mitchison. 1999. Is there phylogenetic signal in prokaryote proteins? Journal of Molecular Evolution 49:98-107.Tidona, C. A. and G. Darai. 2000. Iridovirus homologues of cellular genes -- implications for the molecular evolution of large DNA viruses. Virus Genes 21:77-81.Tourasse, N. J. and M. Gouy. 1999. Accounting for evolutionary rate variation among sequence sites consistently changes universal phylogenies deduced from rRNA and protein-coding genes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 13:159-168.Tovar, J., Fischer, A. and Clark, C.G. (1999) The mitosome, a novel organelle related to mitochondria in the amitochondrial parasite Entamoeba histolytica. Mol. Microbiol., 32, 1013-1021.Trends in Genetics 18:1-5.Turner, S. (1997) Molecular systematics of oxygenic photosynthetic bacteria. Pl. Syst. Evol. [Suppl.], 11, 13-52.Turner, S., Pryer, K.M., Miao, V.P. and Palmer, J.D. (1999) Investigating deep phylogenetic relationships among cyanobacteria and plastids by small subunit rRNA sequence analysis. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol., 46, 327-338.Valentine, J. W., D. Jablonski, D. H. Erwin. 1999. Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion. Development 126:851-859.Van de Peer, Y. and de Wachter, R. (1997) Evolutionary relationships among the eukaryotic crown taxa taking into account site-to-site rate variation in 18S rRNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 45, 619-630.Van de Peer, Y., Ben Ali, A., and Meyer, A. (2000) Microsporidia: accumulating molecular evidence that a group of amitochondriate and suspectedly primitive eukaryotes are just curious fungi. Gene, 246, 1-8.Van de Peer, Y., Van der Auwera, G. and DeWachter, R. (1996) The evolution of stramenopiles and alveolates as derived by 'substitution rate calibration' of small ribosomal subunit RNA. Journal of Molecular Evolution, 42, 201-210.Vellai T. and Vida, G. (1999) The origin of eukaryotes: the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B, 266, 1571-1577.Vellai, T. and G. Vida. 1999. The origin of eukaryotes: the difference between prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B 266:1571-1577.Viale, A. M. and A. K. Arakaki. 1994. The chaperone connection to the origins of the eukaryotic organelles. FEBS Letters 341:146-151.Viale, A. M., A. K. Arakaki, F. C. Soncini, and R. G. Ferreyra. 1994. Evolutionary relationships among eubacterial groups as inferred from GroEL (chaperonin) sequence comparison. International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 44:527-533.Villarreal, L. P. 2005. Viruses and the Evolution of Life. ASM Press. Washington DC.Villarreal, L. P. and V. R. DeFilippis. 2000. A hypothesis for DNA viruses as the origin of eukaryotic replication proteins. Journal of Virology 74:7079-7084.Vishwanatha, P., P. Favaretto, H. Hartman, S. C. Mohr, and T. F. Smith. 2004. Ribosomal protein-sequence block structure suggests complex prokaryotic evolution with implications for the origin of eukaryotes. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 33(3):615-625.Wagner, M. and M. Horn. 2006. The Planctomycetes, Verrucomicrobia, Chlamydiae and sister phyla comprise a superphylum with biotechnological and medical relevance. Curr. Opin. Biotech. 17:241-249.Wainright, P.O., G. Hinkle, M.L. Sogin, and S.K. Stickel. 1993. Monophyletic origins of the Metazoa: an evolutionary link with Fungi. Science 260: 340-342.Wainright, P.O., Hinkle, G., Sogin, M.L. and Stickel, S.K. (1993) Monophyletic origins of the metazoa: an evolutionary link with fungi. Science, 260, 340-342.Wainright, P.O., Patterson, D.J., and Sogin, M.L. (1994) Monophyletic origin of animals: a shared ancestry with fungi. Pages 39-53 in Molecular Evolution of Physiological Processes. Society of General Physiologists Series No. 49. (D. M. Farmborough, ed.) Rockefeller Press, New York.Wallberg, A., M. Thollesson, J. S. Farris, and U. Jondelius. 2004. The phylogenetic position of the comb jellies (Ctenophora) and the importance of taxonomic sampling. Cladistics 20(6):558-578.Wang, D. Y.-C., S. Kumar, and S. B. Hedges. 1999. Divergence time estimates for the early history of animal phyla and the origin of plants, animals, and fungi. Proceedings of the Royal Society London Series B 266:163-171.Ward, C. W. 1993. Progress towards a higher taxonomy of viruses. Research in Virology 144(6):419-453.Williams, B.A.P. and Keeling, P.J. (2003) Cryptic organelles in parasitic protists and fungi. Adv. Parasitol., 54, 9-67.Wilson, R.J. (2002) Progress with parasite plastids. J. Mol. Biol., 319, 257-274.Woese, C. 1998. The universal ancestor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 95:6854-6859.Woese, C. R. 1987. Bacterial evolution. Microbiological Reviews 51:221-271.Woese, C. R., O. Kandler, and M. L. Wheelis. 1990. Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 87:4576-4579.Woese, C.R., Kandler, O. and Wheelis, M.L. (1990) Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria, and Eucarya. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 87, 4576-4579.Wolf, Y. I., I. B. Rogozin, N. V. Grishin, R. L. Tatusov, and E. V. Koonin. 2001. Genome trees constructed using five different approaches suggest new major bacterial clades. BMC Evolutionary Biology 1:8-.Wolf, Y. I., I. B. Rogozin, N. V. Grishin, and E. V. Koonin. 2002. Genome trees and the tree of life. Trends Genet. 18:472-479.Wolf, Y. I., L. Aravind, N. V. Grishin, and E. V. Koonin. 1999. Evolution of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases: analysis of unique domain architectures and phylogenetic trees reveals a complex history of horizontal gene transfer events. Genome Reserarch 9:689-710.Wolters, J. and V. A. Erdmann. 1986. Cladistic analysis of 5S rRNA and 16S rRNA secondary and primary structure -- the evolution of eukaryotes and their relation to Archaebacteria. Journal of Molecular Evolution 24:152-166.Yang, D., Oyaizu, Y., Oyaizu, H., Olsen, G.J., and Woese, C. R. (1985) Mitochondrial origins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 82, 4443-4447.Yang, S., R. F. Doolittle, and P. E. Bourne. 2005. Phylogeny determined by protein domain content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 102(2):373-378 .Yoon, H.S., Grant, J., Tekle, Y.I., Wu, M., Chaon, B.C., Cole, J.C., Logsdon, J.M., Patterson, D.J., Bhattacharya, D., and Katz, L.A. (2008) Broadly sampled multigene trees of eukaryotes. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 8, 14. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-14Yoon, H.S., Hackett, J.D., Pinto, G. and Bhattacharya, D. (2002) A single, ancient origin of the plastid in the Chromista. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 99, 15507-15512.Yutin, N., K. S. Makarova, S. L. Mekhedov, Y. I. Wolf, and E. V. Koonin. 2008. The deep archaeal roots of Eukaryotes. Molecular Biology and Evolution 25(8):1619-1630; doi:10.1093/molbev/msn108Zanotto, P. M. D., M. J. Gibbs, E. A. Gould, and E. C. Holmes. 1996. A reevaluation of the higher taxonomy of viruses based on RNA polymerases. Journal of Virology 70(9):6083-6096.Zrzavy, J. 2001. The interrelationships of metazoan parasites: a review of phylum- and higher-level hypotheses from recent morphological and molecular phylogenetic analyses. Folia Parasitologica 48:81-103.Zrzavy, J. and V. Hypsa. 2003. Myxozoa, Polypodium, and the origin of the Bilateria: The phylogenetic position of "Endocnidozoa" in light of the rediscovery of Buddenbrockia. Cladistics 19(2):164-169.Zrzavy, J., S. Mihulka, P. Kepka, A. Bezdek, and D. Tietz. 1998. Phylogeny of the Metazoa based on morphological and 18S ribosomal DNA evidence. Cladistics 14:249-285.van Regenmortel, M. H. V. 2004. Viruses are real, virus species are man-made, taxonomic constructions. Archives of Virology 148(12):2481-2488.van Regenmortel, M. H. V. and B. W. J. Mahy. 2004. Emerging issues in virus taxonomy. Emerging Infectious Diseases 10(1):8-13.van Regenmortel, M. H. V., C. M. Fauquet, D. H. L. Bishop, E. B. Carstens, M. K. Estes, S. M. Lemon, J. Maniloff, M. A. Mayo, D. J. McGeoch, C. R. Pringle, and R. B. Wickner (eds.) 2000. Virus Taxonomy. Seventh Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Academic Press, San Diego.van Regenmortel, M. H. V., M. A. Mayo, C. M. Fauquet, and J. Maniloff. 2000. Virus nomenclature: consensus versus chaos. Archives of Virology 145(10):2227-2232.van der Giezen, M. and Tovar, J. (2005) Degenerate mitochondria. EMBO Rep., 6, 525-530.van der Giezen, M., Tovar, J. and Clark, C.G. (2005) Mitochondrion-derived organelles in protists and fungi. Int. Rev. Cytol., 244, 175-225.

Short answer:Literacy was quite high in America - much higher than anecdote would suggest. In New England and urban areas of the Middle colonies literacy may have been as high as 90%, while in the South it many have reached only 70%.The Standard for Literacy:The standard used for defining literacy in these cases was “the ability to sign one’s name, a skill that runs parallel though slightly below reading proficiency and likewise runs parallel though slightly above the ability to write.” As would be expected, literacy varied greatly with wealth and social class, but it also varied from one ethnic group to another. Based on the examination of wills, deeds, and other public documents German Protestants and French Huguenots may have been 90 % literate; while the Scotch-Irish may have been less so. Fewer than 30 % of lowland Scots used a “mark” rather than a signature on surviving documents from the mid-eighteenth century suggesting that as many as 70 % could write. Ironically, literacy rates in the coastal settlements seem to have been higher in the early colonial period than they were later, and higher among the gentry and craftsmen than among the growing number of laborers. These patterns in America mirror similar findings for Britain during parallel periods of time.The average person in colonial America could read the Bible, and was expected to do so regularly. Ever read the Bible? If you can do that, you can read most things. The King James Version was produced in decently fine English for the 1611 time period. The academic reading level of the KJV is today considered 12th grade!Literacy:It is generally accepted that the Puritans of New England and the Quakers of the middle colonies could read as the periodic reading of the Holy Scripture by the individual was a foundation stone of their religious belief. It is also generally assumed that the elite among the Royalists that came to the Chesapeake colonies were as well educated as those in their social class in Britain. Certainly the large number of diaries, journals, and letters that survive, written by the officers and common soldiers of the provincial armies of the 18th century, show an ability to write. Although their spelling and grammar leave much to be desired by later standards, there is every reason to believe that each was literate by 18th century standards. Many of the German and Dutch immigrants may have been literate in their native language.Many anecdotes and misconceptions have survived about the level of illiteracy among frontier settlers, however. Some of these have been kept alive by well-meaning, but otherwise misguided, docents and local antiquarians right up to the present time. Some unwary historians have been led to believe that the literacy of the frontiersmen was uniformly low, and that their speech patterns and written words were of inferior quality. Careful research suggests that this was not the case.In the 17th century, men on the frontier seem to have had a literacy rate of approximately 50 %. This figure improved to 65 % by the early 18th century possibly because the Scotch-Irish who flooded the frontier during the period strongly supported formal education for their children.Evidence of the availability of books and other reading materials can sometimes be used as a good indicator of literacy. A few exceptional families owned large collections of books in the colonial period. Forty or fifty volumes was considered a vast library even in the late 18th century, but a lack of books in colonial communities not does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of widespread illiteracy. It was rather a matter of the poor availability of books in general and the priority given to transporting tools, provisions, livestock, and firearms rather than books into a colonial wilderness. Nonetheless, in most estates that reached probate at least a few books were included in the inventories. These were generally primers, prayer books, practical handbooks on farming, and treatises on medicine. An unusual number of books on mathematics and surveying can be found denoting not only literacy but mathematical acumen and numeracy. The most common book to be found in British North America was the Bible.How About Women?:There is evidence that levels of literacy were also closely associated with gender. Males may have been twice as likely as females to be literate among southern and middle Atlantic settlers. In New England the difference, while marked, was not so pronounced. This evidence needs to be viewed with great care, however. Women were often taught to read because they needed to read the Bible for themselves and to their children. Sometimes female indentures, children when their contracts were signed, were promised reading lessons during their tenure. However, it seems that many of the women who were readers were not taught to write because society saw no need for them to do so. Women, who had no legal standing in court, rarely had the opportunity to sign their names on the types of documents that might survive the ravages of time. By comparison to the 19th century when women were prolific writers of personal accounts, there were many fewer in the colonial period who left diaries and journals. If written evidence has been incorrectly assumed as the only indicator of literacy in the past, then many more females may have been readers than previously thought.In 1780, it was estimated by anecdotal means that literate men outnumbered literate women by two to one, yet by 1850, when the federal census first measured literacy, there was little difference between the genders. Only in the South had women's education lagged behind.Women's education with respect to reading and writing was far more limited than that of men, and there was a great disparity of education between the genders in all regions of the country. Most women outside the lowest classes of society would not be thought uneducated, but they were generally not as well versed as their husbands or brothers.As First Lady (1797-1801), Abigail Adams, herself an excellent writer and reader, regretted "the trifling narrow, contracted education of females" available in New England. Adams was a sickly child, not considered healthy enough for formal schooling, but her mother taught her and her two sisters to read, write, and cipher. Her family's large libraries enabled the sisters to study English and French literature. Abigail became one of the most erudite women ever to serve as First Lady. More than 1200 letters passed between Abigail and her husband John constituting one of the largest surviving samples of correspondence between a prominent husband and his wife in American history. Abigail, although home-educated, was clearly a better correspondent than John with his college education, even though John was one of the best penmen of the age.Plantation owner, Elizabeth Lucas Pinckney of South Carolina, a contemporary of Abigail Adams and a great Southern lady in her own right, received a fashionable education in England in the 18th century that stressed "female topics," but she also thought it inexcusable for women "who have had an education above that of a chambermaid" to voluntarily remain "greatly deficient" in more serious matters. Eliza (famed among the founders of American indigo production) was discomfited by the sudden death of her husband, but both of her sons graduated Oxford in England before returning to America.Schooling was Available:It is fair to say that religion was the foundation of all systems of colonial education whether they were private or systemic. Beginning with the imperative found in Psalms 1:7, “The Lord is the beginning of Knowledge,” Anglo-Americans emphasized that truly godly men made “religion their business, their choice, their delight, at all times.” The emphasis placed upon reading in an era when books were expensive, few in number, and difficult to acquire reflects to some degree a characteristic tenet of colonial Protestantism, which relied on the personal interpretation of the Scriptures and the obligation to consult pious books and treatises as guidepost to salvation. In comparison Catholicism, and to a lesser extent Anglicanism, retained the concept of the priest as the primary conduit to God. Believing that the inability to read was an attempt by Satan to keep people from the Scriptures, Connecticut required every town of 80 families to support an elementary school, and those with 500 families to establish the equivalent of a high school. Massachusetts did likewise, requiring every town of 50 families to appoint a schoolmaster.Even families of minimal means required their minor children to learn to “read the Bible and write a legible hand” by the time they reached adolescence. The ability to do these things not only reinforced their religious life, but it suggested a mastery of the fundamental skills needed to pursue further self-directed study. Nonetheless, many children, especially those in the most rural areas of the colonies, failed to meet these minimum expectations never going “beyond the ability to spell out their catechism and to scrawl their names.” While the provision of an adequate fundamental education could be provided to youngsters by tutors, ministers, or parents through the use of bibles and books of prayers, the provision of a higher (college) education emphasizing the careful study of church fathers and religious divines remained a problem.Education was not a primary focus of most colonial Americans. In an era before publicly funded schools, only those who were wealthy could afford extensive formal educations. Most educated persons learned their letters from tutors or itinerant teachers. By their early teens—much younger than students today—young men might receive a college education in law, science, or theology at Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Dartmouth, or William and Mary. Yet, most youngsters learned their letters from their parents, their minister, or a local learned gentleman. For the vast majority, there was a practical education as an apprentice to a tradesman or artisan. This did not mean that they were not taught to read and write. Reading and writing were an important part of any business enterprise.There were three branches of schools in this period: district schools, academies, and colleges. The main purpose of district schools was to provide terminal education for students. These schools provided the only education many students would ever receive. Academies were designed to prepare men for work and women for becoming teachers or housewives. Colleges concentrated on teaching young men about religion or doing business abroad, preparing them to become professors, doctors, lawyers, ministers, and so on.There were eleven major colleges established in America during the colonial period chiefly through the efforts of private parties or sectarian religious groups. Among those in the Northern and Middle colonies were Harvard (1636), Yale (1701), Princeton (the College of New Jersey, 1746), the University of Pennsylvania (1751), Columbia (King’s College, 1754), Brown (1764), Rutgers (1766), and Dartmouth (1770). In the Southern colonies there were William and Mary (1693), Hampton-Sydney College (1776), and Transylvania College (1780).

Because Sweden and Norway were fortunate enough not to be included in the “Soviet sphere of interests” as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union negotiated in Moscow their mutual deal on how to divide the smaller countries of Europe between them, in the secret addendum of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 23 August 1939, the existence of which the Soviets used to persistently deny until 1989. Geheimes Zusatzprotokoll: Moskau veröffentlicht FaksimilesUnfortunately for Finland, the Baltic countries, and Poland, these were all doomed into the Prison of Nations, agreed as free prey with license to capture by the dictators Adolf Hitler and Yosif Stalin, each party agreeing not to interfere in what happened in the “sphere” of the other. Finland had to fight for its life to stay free.Andrey Yanovski has presented under this title the most logical account on the Soviet views which I have read, even honestly acknowledging propaganda being actively used in suitable Soviet contexts, so in the following I will comment his viewpoints.Andrey’s text is about the course of events as seen from the Soviet side, lacking the Finnish perspective. For my part, I will try to present that here, in order to give the readers an opportunity to make their own balanced conclusions and judge the credibility of each opposing view, integrating those into what seems like the course of history as it did happen in reality.Map of Europe with Finnish names as the Soviet attack was launched on 30th November 1939. Poland has been divided, the Baltic countries have just allowed the Soviet Union to establish military bases in their territory but still remain formally independent. – War Museum in Suomenlinna, Helsinki.–––––The Soviet government was sure that a German attack on the USSR was forthcoming in the near future as early as 1937. In relation to Finland the chief concern was the possibility of a German landing in Finland (with or without Finnish consent) and an assault on Leningrad through Finnish territory.Finland pursued a policy of strict neutrality and relied on the League of Nations in settling international disputes, naïvely neglecting its national defence during the relatively prosperous 1930’s. Nazi Germany did not enjoy particular popularity in Finland, which Hitler may have revenged by handing Finland over to Stalin. Finland had made peace with Soviet Russia in 1920, Treaty of Tartu (Russian–Finnish) - Wikipedia, the countries had a non-aggression pact Soviet–Finnish Non-Aggression Pact - Wikipedia since 1932, extended until December 31, 1945, but renounced by the Soviet Union on 28 November 1939, two days before its attack without declaration of war (speaking for itself in regard to its trustworthiness as a signatory of Pacts).Finland had sent military officers to various European Military Academies and Staff Colleges for further education, and consultations were requested from British and French experts in the late 1920’s on how to organize and develop the Finnish Defence Forces, before making decisions of purchasing war material. Due to politicians’ stingy defence budgets the acquisitions, however, were very modest. Joint planning for the event of war with other countries than Estonia did not take place (contrary to Soviet propaganda).Voluntary organization of national defence, Suojeluskunta, compensated to some degree the inadequate material and skill levels of the Finnish Defence Forces.In the 1920’s and 1930’s appraisals of Finland’s security environment, the U.S.S.R. was identified as the only serious threat, and the Karelian Isthmus as a main theatre of war. It was not considered possible for Finland alone to defend itself in a war against the Soviet Union due to the Soviets’ overwhelming superiority in strength, but it was hoped for that Western troops would come for Finland’s support even without advance agreements.The possibility of a German landing was not considered a threat, but would have been met with determined efforts at repelling such an attack in keeping with the policy of neutrality. An assault on Leningrad through Finnish territory would have been an absurd idea both politically and militarily in the Finnish mindset, considering that Leningrad’s population was equal to that of whole Finland.What the USSR needed was basically some form of contingency to ensure neutrality of Finland in case of German attack, interdiction of any German attempt to use Finnish territory despite neutrality (or with Finnish consent) and, failing the first two, defensibility of the territory of the USSR against a strike through Finnish territory.Finland was neutral by default, and would naturally have taken measures to repel any foreign attack on its territory.Considering the technical challenges inherent in a large-scale amphibious landing operation required, the Germans would have needed a huge task force to carry out intrusion into Finnish territorial waters after sea voyage of at least 500 kilometers of the Baltic Sea, the landing itself, plus regrouping ashore into attack against Leningrad, after sustaining the losses caused thus far by Finnish coastal artillery, sea mines, and Navy warships, plus counterattacks on Finnish soil by the Finnish land Army, plus in such a case justified Soviet countermeasures of the Red-Bannered Baltic Fleet, the Soviet Air Force, and the Red Army with all its defences on its own side of the Karelian Isthmus (mine fields, obstacles, fortifications, counterattacks, the strength of all the garrisons of Leningrad plus reserves called from the rest of the U.S.S.R.). Such an unrealistic “operation” was entirely the sick product of paranoid imagination.Coastal cannon of Mäkiluoto fort firing.Finnish Navy coastal defence ship Väinämöinen firing its weapons in the Gulf of Finland.Scale model of the submarine Saukko (Otter), on display at the War Museum of Suomenlinna, Helsinki.– These were no match to the Kriegsmarine, but might have inflicted losses to it and an “invasion armada”.––––––Can anyone calculate the German strength required to realistically succeed in such an amphibious operation into the Northern coast of the Gulf of Finland, in terms of warships, cargo ships, escorting aircraft, troops and material in the landing ships, against the defences of both Finland and the Leningrad Military District? Taking Leningrad never succeeded even for the German Army Group North in 1941–43, against the Soviet defences alone! Heeresgruppe Nord had the strength of 270,000 in September 1941 – so maybe more would have been needed – just how much? Perhaps 300,000 or 400,000? How many cargo ships would have been needed for such a sealift, and where could those have been taken from? The idea is outright absurd.Note: Wehrmacht, SS, and Luftwaffe advance on dry land to reach Leningrad, as it took place in 1941, is an entirely different matter, with much less vulnerability to the attacking units, then able to use their firepower all the way instead of sitting inside cargo ships, protected by escorting warships and aircraft only. After the Soviet forces had already got their naval and air bases in the Baltic countries (including Paldiski), such a German sea convoy would have been outright suicidal, the huge armada offering mostly easy targets for Soviet weapons. Thus, the “security of Leningrad” threatened from the Finnish direction was merely a pretext.The first attempt was made in 1938 by Boris Yartsev in Helsinki. The Soviet suggestion was basically to conclude a secret addendum to the current Soviet-Finnish treaty that would entail a) Finnish resistance to any German attempts at landing b) Soviet material and military aid in case of a German landing attempt and c) Allowed for direct Soviet military intervention in case the Finns failed or would not try to oppose the German landings. This was rejected by Finland.Boris Yartsev was the second secretary of the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki, who started secret negotiations with the then Finnish Foreign Minister Rudolf Holsti on 14 April 1938. He presented a scenario as above of a German landing, with a belief that a negative attitude by the government of PM Aimo Cajander towards “the German plan” would lead to a Coup d'état (!!!) and forming a pro-German government in Finland (!). Yartsev inquired whether Finland would give the Soviet Union guarantees on resisting the German landing.Boris Rybkin, an NKVD agent, who worked as a diplomat in the Soviet Embassy in Helsinki with the name Boris Yartsin. (See: Boris Rybkin - Wikipedia)Finnish PM Aimo Cajander (See: Wikipedia)Rudolf Holsti, Finnish Foreign Minister until 18th November 1938 (Wikipedia)( – The following long description may be boring to read, but it shows the Finnish experience in detail.)Yartsev asked Holsti, whether he was ready to negotiate on the presented matters personally, without the Soviet Ambassador to Helsinki, V. Derevyanski getting to know about the discussions. Holsti told that he could not negotiate without specific authorization by the President, but agreed to meet again after two days. Also PM Cajander received Yartsev in April, but a new meeting was not agreed on. Yartsev, however, kept in contact with the PM’s secretary, and met Cajander again in July. Thereafter, the Minister of Finance, Väinö Tanner, received Yartsev several times, as requested by PM Cajander.Väinö Tanner (See: Wikipedia)Based on the thoughts of PM Cajander, a memorandum was written, with an assurance for the Soviet Union included. Tanner presented orally to Yartsev its main points on 11th August 1938:“The Finnish Government, while firmly pertaining to the neutrality of the Nordic countries, shall not allow any kind of violation of the integrity of the territory of Finland, therefore also not a foreign great power getting a foothold in Finland for an attack against the Soviet Union.The Soviet Government, while assuring to respect the territorial integrity of Finland by all means, does not oppose Finland in taking such military measures in the Åland Islands already in peace time, as required to ensure as fully as possible the integrity of Finnish territory as well as the neutrality of the Åland Islands.”When he arrived again on 18th August to leave to Tanner the counter-proposal of Moscow, Yartsev stated that Tanner’s proposal meant many benefits for Finland, but none of the guarantees for the Soviet Union that were hoped for. The Soviet Union is not afraid of Germany, but by safeguarding the territory of Finland it would save the lives of thousands of Finns and Russians. The Soviet Union would have received sufficient guarantees, if Finland would accept the following terms of Moscow:“1) Unless the Finnish Government can agree to make a secret military Pact, the Soviet Union may be satisfied with a commitment in writing, in which Finland announces itself to be ready to repel possible attacks by Germany, and for that aim to receive military aid from the Soviet Union”, which Yartsev commented during the discussion meaning “mainly acquisition of weapons and protecting the sea border, and not sending Soviet troops to Finland or territorial concessions, which would only make more difficult the position of the Finnish Government, which specifically was wanted to avoid in the Kremlin.”“2) Just as important as fortifying the Åland Islands is to the security of Finland, is protecting Leningrad with fortifications to the Soviet Union. It may approve the fortification of the archipelago, if it may participate in it by arming it and sending an observer working entirely secretly to follow the construction and to oversee the future use of the fortifications.” Yartsev later – as Tanner inquired it – specified “arming” to mean “the acquisition of necessary weapons (artillery etc.), but hardly financial aid.”“3) To compensate the former, Finland must allow to the Soviet Union the right to construct to Suursaari (Hogland) Island fortifications for anti-aircraft and naval defence.”“4) Under these prerequisites the Soviet Union would be prepared to guarantee the integrity of Finland and first and foremost its sea borders, aiding it with armament on favourable terms as needed, and offering Finland a very advantageous trade agreement.”Yartsev modified the paragraph on Suursaari Island on 26th August as follows in Tanner’s report:“The Russians will give their consent to the fortification of Åland Islands on the condition that also Suursaari Island will be fortified. All fortification work will be undertaken by Finland, but Russia will be given clear indications of – the opportunity of being convinced that the fortification will really take place for protection against a third party. Russia will sell us, if we wish, the material for the fortification work, with conditions that we may determine for a great deal. This will apply both to the Åland Islands and the Suursaari Island.”The negotiations were interrupted on 15th September, when Tanner stated the rejection of the items regarding the Åland Islands and the Suursaari Island, without making a counter-proposal. As Yartsev was dissatisfied about the answer, it was agreed by proposal of Tanner that the discussion of Finnish motives would be postponed until Holsti would return from Geneva. Yartsev did meet Holsti several times in October, but did not receive from him the answer he expected.Prime Minister Cajander let the Finnish Ambassador to Paris, H. Holma, to elaborate on Yartsev’s proposals. He thought they were maximal proposals of the Soviet Union, which should not be considered with suspicions only. Yartsev met the provisional Foreign Minister V. Voionmaa on 21st November, who notified after a few days that the Finnish Ambassador to Moscow, Minister A. Yrjö-Koskinen, provisional Chief of Staff of the Foreign Ministry, U. Toivola, and the provisional Head of the Political Depatment, A. Pakaslahti, had received the authorization to continue in Moscow the negotiations that had started in Helsinki.Väinö Voionmaa, provisional Finnish Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1938. (Wikipedia)Aarno Yrjö-Koskinen (left), signing the non-aggression pact with the U.S.S.R. in Helsinki on 21st January 1932, with the Soviet Ambassador to Helsinki, Ivan Maisky. (Wikipedia)Aaro Pakaslahti (photographed in 1958), the provisional Head of the Political Department of the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 1939 to 1941.(Wikipedia)The Finnish negotiators Toivola and Pakaslahti met in Moscow with the People’s Commissar of Foreign Trade, A. Mikoyan, and Yartsev on 7th December. The main topic of discussions became the significance of Suursaari Island to the defence of Leningrad. Mikoyan also touched the cession of Suursaari Island to the U.S.S.R., but a translation error of the interpreter gave the Finns an opportunity to remain silent in this issue. They emphasized the Finnish policy of neutrality. If the U.S.S.R. and Finland could agree on revising the Treaty of Tartu, Finland could consider fortifying the Suursaari Island, which it would do by itself. Mikoyan refused to discuss the fortification of Åland Islands, but he did not object it, either. The discussion also dealt with the issue of Soviet guarantees. Mikoyan also told that he would have nothing against the Finns officially proposing starting trade negotiations.Anastas Mikoyan. See: Anastas Mikoyan - WikipediaThe following months showed that the Soviet Union was not willing to negotiate on trade before the political questions were solved. The new Finnish foreign Minister Eljas Erkko was unwilling to continue discussions with Yartsev.Eljas Erkko, Foreign Minister of Finland 12 December 1938 – 1 December 1939 (Wikipedia)The Soviet Union made a last attempt at reaching a political solution with Finland in March 1939. Yartsev returned to Helsinki and requested a meeting with PM Cajander, but only got to meet Erkko on 4th March. In Moscow, the Commissar on Foreign Trade, Litvinov, received Ambassador Yrjö-Koskinen on 5th March, and a Finnish trade delegation was finally invited to Moscow. Litvinov proposed to Yrjö-Koskinen the leasing of the islands of Suursaari, Lavansaari, Tytärsaari, and Seiskari to the U.S.S.R. for 30 years, or exchanging the islands for a land area in Eastern Karelia.Maksim Litvinov, the Soviet People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs until 1939. (Wikipedia)Yartsev wanted from Erkko his answer to the following questions:“1. Finland’s guarantees that Finland will defend itself and is willing to defend itself against an aggessor.2. Fortifying the Åland Islands so that also Germany is prevented access to the islands. Finns have stated that Finland plans defence against specifically the Soviet Union, and now permission is being asked from the Soviet Union for that!3. Purchases of war materials from the Soviet Union, and4. The fortification of Suursaari Island to close the Gulf of Finland.”Erkko’s answers were the following:“1. Finland stays neutral and will defend itself against any aggressor.2. The same applies for the Åland Islands.3. The problem is technical and commercial: we will buy war material from wherever it suits.4. The Treaty of Tartu neutralizes the Suursaari Island. Finland will not give guarantees, but also will not allow any other state to fortify the island – and does not intend to do it by itself. The Soviet Union has not proposed revision of the Peace Treaty of Tartu. Why does this issue interest the Soviet Union?”Yartsev replied:“We have to get guarantees of Finland not becoming a base for Germany. For this aim, also the Gulf of Finland must be closed, which makes Suursaari Island an important object of fortification.”Finally Yartsev told he was disappointed in that the Finnish Government had not prepared negotiations.The Soviet Government sent its former Ambassador to Finland, B. Stein, to Helsinki on 13th March. He met Erkko for five times, discussing the issues of the security of Leningrad and the leasing of islands of the Gulf of Finland or their exchange to forested areas in Eastern Karelia. The Foreign Minister replied that the issues can well be studied but giving up Finnish State Territory is non-negotiable. When Stein gave his farewell to Erkko on 6th April, he told that the Soviet Government had not given up its demands. Yrjö-Koskinen left on 8th April in Moscow to the People’s Foreign Commissariat a draft for a note, in which Finland assured its neutrality. Also a trade agreement negotiated ready was left waiting for the clarification of political relations.Initially, besides the Finnish Foreign Ministers and their subordinates, only the Prime Minister and his secretary, and Lieutenant General A. Sihvo (former Chief of Defence 1926–33) were aware of the negotiations.Field Marshal Mannerheim (Chairman of the Defence Council / Supreme Commander for possible wartime) was aware at least of Stein’s visit, and he suggested to the Government to agree with ceding the islands on the Gulf of Finland, as those were impossible to defend. He even recommended to moving the border on the Karelian Isthmus somewhat in exchange for area compensation elsewhere, even before the Soviet Union is asking for it.(Source: Talvisodan historia 1, The History of the Winter War, Volume 1; 1977; p. 32–35)I am sure the reader should be able to conclude by the above, what “was rejected by Finland” and why, or whether “Finland would never guarantee resistance to German use of Finnish territory”. Of course, there is no obligation in international law for any state to agree with its neighbor in ceding or exchanging territory, fortifying this or that in a particular manner, buying weapons etc., because of unilateral demands of the neighbor. For the Law of the Jungle, it is naturally different.Later on, the League of Nations took the same stance on 14th December 1939 when expelling the U.S.S.R. from its membership. There was nothing in Finland’s policy to justify attack. Also, the Soviet Government had all the needed authority to expand Leningrad in other directions or to move its suburbs elsewhere than closer to the Finnish border, if the thought of “artillery range” was too frightening despite that Finland or any other state never deployed artillery within range of the north-western side of the city.Also “the German plan” (as in the heads of the Soviets) never materialized the way it was imagined, it never led to to a Coup d'état, and forming a pro-German government in Finland only took place when there was no other alternative left if Finland was to survive after the first round, the Winter War.See: Hannu Mononen's answer to Was Finland on Germany's side in WWII, only because they were invaded by the USSR, and did they lose territory after the war?–––––the USSR switched its requirements to defending on the premise that German troops indeed would use Finnish territory as an avenue of attack.– Which never happened, until the USSR had at first attempted the conquest of Finland in the Winter War.There were 8 main agenda points on the negotiations:Finland moves the border 90km away from LeningradFinland agrees to rent the Hanko peninsula to USSR for 30 years for the construction of a Soviet military base and a defending force to protect against expected German landing.Soviet fleet gets basing rights in the ports of Hanko peninsulaFinland gives the USSR islands in the Gulf of Finland: Gogland, Laavansaari, Tutiarsaari and SeiskariCurrent Soviet-Finland pact is amended to include a clause that neither side shall join an alliance or a coalition hostile to the other sideBoth countries dismantle their fortifications on the Karelian isthmusUSSR gives Finland a territory in Karelia double the area of the territory transferred to the USSRUSSR will not object to re-militarisation of the Aland islands by Finland (demilitarised by Aland convention of 1921)According to The History of the Winter War, Volume 1; 1977; p. 38,(There is no such agenda point)This point was actually as follows:“1) Rental of the Hanko harbor and the territory around it with a radius of 5–6 sea miles to the south and to the east, and radius of 3 sea miles to the west and north to the Soviet Government for 30 years, to create a naval base with coastal artillery, with the ability together with the Paldiski base on the Southern coast of the Gulf of Finland, of closing access to the Gulf of Finland. To protect the naval base, the Finnish government must allow the Soviet Government to keep in the Hanko harbor the following garrison:1 infantry regiment2 anti-aircraft artillery battery groups2 flight regiments1 tank battalionaltogether no more than 5,000 men.(no mentioning of Germans. Could be also used as offensive units against Finland, like planned in 1940–41; see: Hannu Mononen's answer to Was Finland on Germany's side in WWII, only because they were invaded by the USSR, and did they lose territory after the war? )“3.” = “2) Right to the Soviet Naval Forces to use Lappohja Bay as an anchorage.“4.” = “3) The cession of the following territories to the U.S.S.R. in exchange for territory:The islands Suursaari, Seiskari, Lavansaari, Tytärsaari, and Koivisto, part of the Karelian Isthmus from the village of Lipola to the southern edge of the town of Koivisto, the western parts of the Kalastajasaarento (Rybachi) Peninsula, totaling 2,761 sq km according to the annexed map.”(this would have meant abandoning most of the Finnish defensive fortification lines on the Karelian Isthmus (missing from Andrey’s list), including most of the “Mannerheim line”. See: What would have happened if Finland had accepted Stalin's demands in 1939? Would Stalin request more demands until he annexed all of Finland just as Stalin did with the Baltic States?)“5.” = “4) In exchange for the territories listed in the third item, the U.S.S.R. will cede to the Republic of Finland Soviet territory from the area of Repola and Porajärvi, 5,529 sq km according to the annexed map.”“6.” = “5) The strengthening of the current non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Finland by adding into it an item, according to which the contracting parties commit in not joining such groups of states and alliances, which directly or indirectly are hostile to one or the other contracting party.”(guess which side’s security would have needed a defensive coalition…)“7.” = “6) The mutual dismantling of fortified zones on the Karelian Isthmus that follow the Finnish-Soviet border, leaving on the border regular Frontier Guards only.”(benefiting only the party planning to cross that border with offensive forces)“8.” = “7) The U.S.S.R. does not object to fortification of the Åland Islands by the forces of Finland itself, provided that in the issue of fortifying the Åland Islands has nothing to do with any foreign power, including Sweden.”– Complying with these terms in 1939 would have meant the collective suicide of the Finnish nation. These items are deliberately designed to weaken the national defence of Finland in a decisive, critical manner. In March 1940, Finland was already at the brink of disaster after it had endured fighting for 105 days without giving all this advantage to the Soviet Union – if that fatal mistake had been made in those negotiations, Finland’s defence would have collapsed for sure much, much sooner, allowing unhindered advance to Helsinki for the Red Army.Scale model of a reinforced concrete fortification on the Karelian Isthmus, which the Soviets were so eager to dismantle. – War Museum, Suomenlinna.––––So basically the USSR needed one thing from Finland - guarantees of security in case of a German attack.The U.S.S.R. already had the non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany, dated in Moscow on 23rd August 1939 and signed by Vyacheslav Molotov and Joachim von Ribbentrop. So this is merely a pretext. See: Hannu Mononen's answer to What excuse do Russian expansionists have for invading Finland in 1940?As for the Soviet eagerness in having Suursaari (Hogland) Island fortified (against the Treaty of Tartu 1920, when the Soviets themselves had insisted in having it demilitarized) and offers to sell arms to Finland: this points towards their certainty of ending up in its possession over time, after having first had the Finns fortify it for them, preferably armed with weapons of their own standards.With Finland, the U.S.S.R. already had the guarantee of Finnish neutrality – pursued strictly and without compromise, as it is easy to notice in hindsight. If it had been respected, two wars and hundreds of thousands Soviet casualties in them would have been entirely avoided.The USSR resolved itself to obtain the necessary security concessions by war.Between individual people, resolving oneself to obtain the wished concessions of property from the other one by violence is called robbery. The Soviet security interests would have been far better served by not attacking Finland at all, but keeping it as a peaceful and friendly neighbor instead.As a result of the war the USSR got:The border on the Karelian isthmus was moved 130 km away from LeningradUSSR got some territories in LaplandUSSR got the Gogland islandUSSR rented Hanko for 30 years.As you can see the USSR got what it wanted from Finland and that was it.No, it took far more than it declared wanting for its needs of security during the Moscow negotiations, but far less than it had originally intended, i.e., all of Finland.Or do you really think that merely the points 1.–4. above requiredthe puppet government of the Finnish Communist, Otto Wille Kuusinenassigning the composition of the Suite on Finnish Themes - Wikipedia by Dmitri Shostakovichan enormous propaganda campaign, requiring plenty of effort in itselfFinlyandiya, Opisaniye Marshrutov, a detailed tactical handbook on advance up to the Western border of Finland, instructing the RKKA not to cross it, but to politely salute the Swedish Border Guards?Why did the Russians attack Finland but not Sweden or oil rich NorwayAnswer: because it needed something from Finland badly enough to fight a war over it and did not need anything from Sweden or Norway worth fighting a war over.No. If it had attacked Sweden or Norway, in the spirit of the secret protocol of 23rd August 1939, it would have been at war with Hitler’s Germany as soon as it would have violated their Pact.––––––Please also see the article Background of the Winter War - WikipediaAndrey, thank you very much for so kindly linking us all these most interesting documents:Memorandum of the Government of the USSR, Oct. 14, 1939On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union. "Moscow News." November 6, 1939 (Molotov’s official speech at the Supreme Soviet of USSR (nominally the supreme body of government power in USSR). Here Molotov lays out the foundations of the Soviet government foreign policy. Don’t take everything at face value, as Molotov was obviously expecting this very important speech to be published and closely examined both in USSR and abroad worldwide, so he could not afford to make a blunder that would lead to international complications. This is more a diplomatic statement of position than an actual rendition of the train of thought of the Soviet government.Letter of M. Molotov, Commissar for Foreign Affairs, handed in Moscow ro Messr. Paasikivi and Tanner, Nov 9, 1939Pravda, March 13, 1940. (obviously a propaganda piece directed at internal public audience, but just ignore all the pathos and the core is still meaningful).A wealth of documents, including the above here: Finland in the Soviet foreign policy 1939-1940 (documents) “