Dominant group/Metagenome

The dominant metagenome is commonly a member of a dominant group. "Often a metagenome comprises a few dominant organisms".[1] "Random community genomes (metagenomes) are now commonly used to study microbes in different environments."[1]

Usually, the alpha pair reserves the right to mate and normally kills any young not its own, to ensure that its offspring has the best chance of survival. The dominant couple may also evict, or kick out the mothers of the offending offspring. Credit: Keven Law.




  1. consisting of many different elements or
  2. capable "of various forms"[2] is called diverse.

Def. the quality of consisting of many different elements or capable of various forms is called diversity.

Def. "the diversity (number and variety of species) of plant and animal life within some [or a] region"[3] is called biodiversity.

Def. a frequency of occurrence or extent of existence is called distribution.

Def. (German "ein Maß für die Vielfalt der biologischen Arten innerhalb eines Lebensraumes oder geographischen Gebietes und somit für die Vielfalt von Flora und Fauna") is called species richness (or German Artenvielfalt).

Def. "the number of species in a site, habitat or clade"[4] is called species richness.

Dominant group


Examples from primary sources are to be used to prove or disprove each hypothesis. These can be collected per subject or in general.

  1. Accident hypothesis: dominant group is an accident of whatever processes are operating.
  2. Artifact hypothesis: dominant group may be an artifact of human endeavor or may have preceded humanity.
  3. Association hypothesis: dominant group is associated in some way with the original research.
  4. Bad group hypothesis: dominant group is the group that engages in discrimination, abuse, punishment, and additional criminal activity against other groups. It often has an unfair advantage and uses it to express monopolistic practices.
  5. Control group hypothesis: there is a control group that can be used to study dominant group.
  6. Entity hypothesis: dominant group is an entity within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  7. Evolution hypothesis: dominant group is a product of evolutionary processes, such groups are the evolutionary process, produce evolutionary processes, or are independent of evolutionary processes.
  8. Identifier hypothesis: dominant group is an identifier used by primary source authors of original research to identify an observation in the process of analysis.
  9. Importance hypothesis: dominant group signifies original research results that usually need to be explained by theory and interpretation of experiments.
  10. Indicator hypothesis: dominant group may be an indicator of something as yet not understood by the primary author of original research.
  11. Influence hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article containing original research to indicate influence or an influential phenomenon.
  12. Interest hypothesis: dominant group is a theoretical entity used by scholarly authors of primary sources for phenomena of interest.
  13. Metadefinition hypothesis: all uses of dominant group by all primary source authors of original research are included in the metadefinition for dominant group.
  14. Null hypothesis: there is no significant or special meaning of dominant group in any sentence or figure caption in any refereed journal article.
  15. Object hypothesis: dominant group is an object within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  16. Obvious hypothesis: the only meaning of dominant group is the one found in Mosby's Medical Dictionary.
  17. Original research hypothesis: dominant group is included in a primary source article by the author to indicate that the article contains original research.
  18. Primordial hypothesis: dominant group is a primordial concept inherent to humans such that every language or other form of communication no matter how old or whether extinct, on the verge of extinction, or not, has at least a synonym for dominant group.
  19. Purpose hypothesis: dominant group is written into articles by authors for a purpose.
  20. Regional hypothesis: dominant group, when it occurs, is only a manifestation of the limitations within a region. Variation of those limitations may result in the loss of a dominant group with the eventual appearance of a new one or none at all.
  21. Source hypothesis: dominant group is a source within each field where a primary author of original research uses the term.
  22. Term hypothesis: dominant group is a significant term that may require a 'rigorous definition' or application and verification of an empirical definition.

Genera differentia


The genera differentia for possible definitions of "dominant group" fall into the following set of orderable pairs:

Genera differentia for "dominant group"[5]
Synonym for "dominant" Category Number Category Title Synonym for "group" Category Number Catgeory Title
“superior” 36 SUPERIORITY "arrangement" 60 ARRANGEMENT
“influential” 171 INFLUENCE "class" 61 CLASSIFICATION
“musical note” 462 HARMONICS "assembly" 74 ASSEMBLAGE
“most important” 670 IMPORTANCE "size" 194 SIZE
“governing” 739 GOVERNMENT "painting", "grouping" 572 ART
"master" 747 MASTER "association", "set" 786 ASSOCIATION
----- --- ------- "sect" 1018 RELIGIONS, CULTS, SECTS

'Orderable' means that any synonym from within the first category can be ordered with any synonym from the second category to form an alternate term for "dominant group"; for example, "superior class", "influential sect", "master assembly", "most important group", and "dominant painting". "Dominant" falls into category 171. "Group" is in category 61. Further, any word which has its most or much more common usage within these categories may also form an alternate term, such as "ruling group", where "ruling" has its most common usage in category 739, or "dominant party", where "party" is in category 74. "Taxon" or "taxa" are like "species" in category 61. "Society" is in category 786 so there is a "dominant society".

"A related, but separate, definition relies on a linguistic identity that differs from that of the dominant society [5]."[6]

The relative synonyms for "dominant group" configured as genera (any two) differentia (any two) could be as many as 2400 depending on the number of words that may be reasonably exact to each genus and differentia. The total number of occurrences of genera (up to two) differentia (up to two) relative synonyms for "dominant group" whether the term occurs in a specific article or not may be on the order of 10 % of the scholarly articles searched by Google scholar, for example. Finding all such occurrences may be less important than understanding the intent of the authors in using the entity as part of any article.



Unless otherwise stated, the small group study designation such as "Adaptation", from "Metagenome", is placed at the beginning of the search stream, e.g., "adaptation class sect superior rules", without the quotes.

Number of articles on Google scholar.
Genera Differentia Popularity in articles Small group study area Popularity "Dominant group" overlap Concept usage
class arrangement superior rules 196,000 Adaptation 50,200 1,690 48,510
class arrangement superior rules 196,000 Agriculture 64,400 2,550 61,850

As the above table demonstrates, the popularity of the genera differentia in the order listed is high. Two "dominant" relative synonyms and two "group" relative synonyms likely constitutes the concepts of a definition of "dominant group". Placing the field of interest "adaptation" in the concept string reduces the popularity of the definition to nearly that of "dominant group" itself (73,800 as of 4/21/12). This suggests a multitude of possible definitions such as

Def. a ruling class that arranges a superior adaptation is called a dominant group,

Def. superior adaptations that arrange the ruling class is called a dominant group, or

Def. a superior class adapts a ruling arrangement is also called a dominant group.



Individual change in order to adapt to the environment (some form of the adjustment strategy of adaptation) is often the only realistic alternative. "It can take place by way of absorption of a non-dominant group into an established dominant group".[7]

Analysis of the first relative synonym for "dominant group" is for the citation following: "class", "The healing of wounds, which takes place in all animals, forms another class of adaptive processes.", "Aside from the class of adaptations that are for the good of the individual, there is another class connected solely with the preservation of the race.", class of mammals, "class of phenomena", "class of cases", "class of variation", "class of facts", "class of external influences", "class of speculation"; "arrangement", "arrangement of the series [of horses]", "The necessity then arises and creates another arrangement, perfecting or altering the existing structures.", "arrangement of hard [plant] parts", "the arrangement of [individuals] into species, genera, families, etc., is only a scheme invented by man for purposes of classification."; "superior", "a living optical instrument might thus be formed as superior to one of glass,", "the superior perceptiveness of the forefinger-tip might have arisen through selection"; "The periodically repeated development of the many-celled individual out of the single cell, representative of the species (or the individual ontogeny), which in general follows the same rules as the preceding ontogeny, but is each time somewhat modified according to the amount to which the species-cell has itself been changed in the phylogeny.", "On this theory we also understand the exceptions to these rules.", "We have had, in respect to the influence of the outer world on organisms, the same experience as with the rules for the weather, - when we come to examine the facts critically there are found to be as many exceptions as confirmations of the rule.".[8]

Def. a superior class of adaptive processes that rules the arrangement of individuals, species, genera, etc. is called a dominant group.

Animal behaviors


"If dominant group members do not have complete control over subordinate reproduction, this conflict may favour the evolution of infanticidal behaviour (by either subordinates or dominants or both)."[9]



Species richness is "the number of species in a site, habitat or clade."[4]

"Subtaxa within taxa are often distributed unevenly: Uneven distribution of species among: a, eutherian orders, with rodents being the dominant group; b, rodent families, with murids being dominant; and c, murid genera."[4]

"Rates of morphological and taxic diversification are often incongruent, or even uncoupled61, again highlighting that there is more to biodiversity than numbers of taxa."[4]

"At present, it is hard to tell under what circumstances disparity precedes, or perhaps drives, species richness, and when the reverse applies."[4]

"One serious shortcoming of the "dominant group" concept is that the rhizosphere of the "dominants" is hard to define within the matrix of subdominants. Another weakness is that the existence of the dominants may depend totally on what happens to their seedlings among the subdominants in their early life phase. Of course this could, at least partially, be accounted for by considering all life phases of the dominant group of species. A further drawback is the ignorance with respect to the ecological and conservational significance of rare species (or of species that are rare only in their visible life phase but may be present in large numbers in the seed bank or in subterranean clonal elements). These "hidden" elements may bear the potential of becoming dominants in the case of a sudden disturbance."[10]



"Dispersal is a fundamental process affecting the genetic structure of populations, speciation, and extinction."[11] "Studies in group-living fish and mammals have shown that dominant group members can control group membership of subordinates, and failure to be accepted into a group or being evicted from a group can be costly for subordinates".[11] "We removed only male breeders because they are social dominant group members and to control for sex effects."[11]

Ecological dominance


Ecological dominance is the degree to which a species is more numerous than its competitors in an ecological community, or makes up more of the biomass.

"In many paleontological studies, taxonomic diversity" carries with it "[t]he implicit assumption ... that more species in a lineage indicate greater biomass in the lineage as well."[12] "Although this generalization may apply in animals, there are strong reasons to think that among plants there is no strong correlation between biomass dominance and species diversity".[12]

"In the intertidal zone, the biomass was dominated by the bivalves, but in the subtidal region the polychaetes were the dominant group."[13]

"Numerically, polychaetes (30%) were the dominant group intertidally, and crustaceans (40%) subtidally. Porifera formed 71% of the biomass of associated intertidal organisms, while subtidal biomass was dominated by the bivalves Striostrea margaritacea and Perna perna (87%)."[14]

Natural selections


"We have seen that it is the common, the widely-diffused, and the widely-ranged species, belonging to the larger genera, which vary most; and these will tend to transmit to their modified offspring that superiority which now makes them dominant in their own countries."[15] "[A]ll plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other in group subordinate to group, in the manner which we everywhere behold -- namely, varieties of the same species most closely related together, species of the same genus less closely and unequally related together, forming sections and sub-genera, species of distinct genera much less closely related, and genera related in different degrees, forming sub-families, families, orders, sub-classes, and classes."[15]

The term “dominant group” does not appear in Darwin’s 1859 book, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”. But the plural term “dominant groups” appears thirteen times. The earliest use of the phrase is on page 343, “The dominant species of the larger dominant groups tend to leave many modified descendants, and thus new sub-groups and groups are formed.”[15]

From 1871 is the statement by Alfred Russel Wallace, “The third law is, that the species which resemble or “mimic” these dominant groups, are comparatively less abundant in individuals, and are often very rare.”[16] “The Nemophas grayi is the larger, stronger, and better armed insect, and belongs to a more widely spread and dominant group, very rich in species and individuals, and is therefore most probably the subject of mimicry by the other species.”[16] The third law statement from 1871 also occurs in 1867.[17]



"Caenogastropoda is the dominant group of marine gastropods in terms of species numbers, diversity of habit and habitat and ecological importance."[18] The molecular genetics of this group should provide insight into why they became dominant.

"This paper reports the first comprehensive multi-gene phylogenetic study of the group."[18] "Despite the addition of large amounts of new molecular data, many caenogastropod lineages remain poorly resolved or unresolved in the present analyses, possibly due to a rapid radiation of the Hypsogastropoda following the Permian–Triassic extinction during the early Mesozoic."[18]



"[M]odern haplochromines gave rise to several major adaptive radiations; the most prominent ones are those of [Lake Malawi] LM and [Lake Victoria] LV."[19] The radiation of the Tropheini from Lake Tanganyika (LT) "must now be considered as an additional radiation of the modern haplochromines, corroborating the much older perception that LT accommodates several independent species flocks".[19]

"This implies that the ancestor of the Tropheini successfully re-entered the lake habitat and evolved into the presently dominant group in the rocky littoral zone of LT."[19]

"Thus, this lineage of modern haplochromines managed to occupy "empty niches" in an apparently "full" ecosystem, as all remaining tribes, which now account for about 200 species, had already been established when the ancestor of the Tropheini secondarily entered LT".[19] "The observation that these fish underwent an independent adaptive radiation in LT underlines the haplochromines' propensity for speciation."[19]



Def. the art or science of cultivating the ground, including the harvesting of crops, and the rearing and management of livestock; tillage; husbandry; farming is called agriculture.

"Dairy heifers were superovulated in the presence (dominant group, N = 8) or absence (non-dominant group, N = 6) of a dominant follicle"[20]. "Dominant group" occurs twenty-five times in the article. CL stands for corpora lutea.[20]

"Between Days 7 and 12 of the oestrous cycle, heifers were assigned to two groups according to the presence (dominant group; N = 9) or the absence (non-dominant group; N = 8) of a dominant follicle and were then superovulated."[20]

"Annual broadleaf (fifteen species) was clearly the dominant group under all the tillage systems, compared with the perennial (six species), and annual grassy (one species) weeds."[21]

Freshwater ecosystems


In a freshwater ecosystem such as the large shallow Chinese lake, Lake Taihu, depending upon the time of year (summer or winter), location (Meiliang Bay or lake center), wind speed and direction, "temperature, underwater light climate, nutrients and grazing by zooplankton and" fish, the lake has a dominant species, dominant genera, and/or a dominant group.[22] Nutrient-phytoplankton stages are identified in the lake:

  1. "an oligo-mesotrophic stage with low algal biomass until 1981,"
  2. "a eutrophic situation with blooms of Microcystis during 1988–1995,"
  3. "hypertrophic condition with the dominance of Planctonema and total phosphorus up to 200 mg m-3 from 1996 to 1997", and
  4. "the restoration period after 1997."[22]

The wax and wane of phytoplankton assemblages, involving changes in dominant species, or dominant genera, are "mainly controlled by temperature, wind and turbidity while the long-term biomass dynamics" of dominant groups are influenced by nutrient level.[22] "The long-term development of eutrophication in Lake Taihu" with respect to the nutrient-phytoplankton stages consist of

  1. a rapid increase in total phosphorus (from < 10 up to about 20 mg m-3) and phytoplankton biovolume during the early years (1960 - 1981) with the dominant group being diatoms of two specific dominant species;
  2. change in phytoplankton from diatoms to the dominant group cyanobacteria by 1988 to 1995, including Microcystis, where total phosphorus fluctuated between 50 mg m-3 and 150 mg m-3, usually near 100 mg m-3;
  3. phosphorus increase again, peaking in 1996 or 1997 throughout the lake, up to 200 mg m-3, with the dominant group becoming green algae of three dominant genera, including Planctonema; and
  4. total phosphorus declines to around 70 mg m-3, biovolume reaches levels similar to those of 1991, and the dominant group becomes cyanobacteria again.[22]

"The bacterial members within the dominant group of our clone library belonged to unclassified taxa, while the second predominant group consisted of members of the phylum Proteobacteria."[23] "The third most dominant group of the clone library was classified into the phylum Cyanobacteria."[23]

"Only 42·3 % of the clones found with ≥97 % similarity to a named genus were also present in adjacent oligotrophic lakes, including three of the dominant groups."[24]



"However, at depth, the subseafloor metagenome becomes a unique dataset, with Archaea becoming a dominant group based on ribosomal sequence analysis."[25]

"A variety of phylotypes belonging to green nonsulfur bacteria were detected, primarily in the topmost clay layer, where they were the dominant group".[26]

"Among them Marine Crenarchaeotic Group I (MG I) was the most dominant group (49.2% of the archaeal library)".[27]



"Since spiders are probably a dominant group of predators of insects (Bristowe, 1941; Riechert, 1974; Turnbull, 1973), there is considerable interest in their feeding ecology."[28]

"Formicids comprised the dominant group at all sites."[29]

"In the middle and lower litter layers, those spider families recognized as web-building foragers were the numerically dominant group."[30]



Bacteria may be divided into antigenic and probiotic forms.

Antigenic bacteria


"Together the two strains, A-17 and A-18, accounted for approximately 73 per cent of all cultures examined during the entire period."[31]

“It was clearly the dominant group during the short period of study.”[31]

"Another 0 group, A-18, which had been found as a single culture prior to the interruption in the study, became the dominant group and persisted throughout the rest of the period covered by the table, 574 days."[31]

Probiotic bacteria


"Molecular Diversity, Cultivation, and Improved Detection by Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization of a Dominant Group of Human Gut Bacteria Related to Roseburia spp. or Eubacterium rectale"[32] is an article (title) describing the use of clusters of gene sequences to identify and determine the likely population of bacteria.

"The human colonic microbiota consists of at least 500 bacterial species".[32] A phylotype is an operational taxonomic unit (OTU).[32] "The most numerous OTU in the Roseburia and E. rectale cluster" groups with "cultured E. rectale strains".[32] E. rectale may have a "widespread presence ... in the human gut."[32] "The largest single cluster of cultured strains was found to center on the species E. rectale, which has long been considered one of the most abundant species in the human large intestine".[32]



"Anurans are the dominant group in terms of numbers and diversity in most of the tropics, while salamanders and caecilians are only occasionally abundant."[33]

"The fauna characteristics of amphibians, appeared Center-South China Region, and Megophryids and Ranids were dominant groups while the fauna characteristics of reptiles appeared South China Region, and Colubrids was dominant group."[34]

"Generally speaking the hylids are the dominant group in the cleared areas along the valley floor while the microhylids are restricted to the forests."[35]

"Plethodontid salamanders are the dominant group of salamanders inhabiting deciduous Ozark forests ( USA) ( Johnson 1992)."[36]

"Amphibian is the dominant group of aquatic vertebrates other than fish in terms of their numbers and distribution, particularly the frogs and toads."[37]

"In the FZ Sound Collection, the dominant group is amphibians, due to the fact that it is the group studied by several researchers at the FZ, all of them interested in bioacoustics."[38]



"The taxonomy of the Sesarminae, the largest subfamily of the Grapsidae and the dominant group in most mangroves, is still very unstable, with the identities of many ecologically important genera and species still unclear."[39]

"Macrophthalmus belongs to the family Ocypodidae, subfamily Macrophthalminae, a dominant group of crabs inhabiting the intertidal zone along the coast of China, including the Yellow-Bo Sea, East China Sea, and South China Sea (Shen, 1932, 1936, 1940; Lin, 1949)."[40]

"Among these, the most dominant group is Calanoida, with the Cyclopoida and Harpacticoida being relatively less important."[41]



"Sub-dominant group, in entom., in Kirby's system, those groups of insects which either never enter the tropics or those tropical insects whose range does not exceed 50° in the Old World of 43° in the New : in contradistinction to his predominant groups and dominant groups, in the first of which he includes groups extending from the arctic region, where vegetation ceases, to the equator, and in the second those which reach to the tropics but fall short of the polar circles."[42]



"Leaf-cutter ants evolved remarkably recently (≈8–12 million years ago) to become the dominant herbivores of the New World tropics."[43]

"Attine agriculture achieves its evolutionary apex in the leaf-cutting ants of the genera Acromyrmex and Atta, the dominant herbivores of the New World tropics".[43]

"Such a recent origin for this ecologically dominant group explains their conspicuous absence from Dominican amber (15–20 mya) and may help to explain why, so far as is known, most leaf-cutting ants cultivate the same cultivar species".[43]



With respect to "[f]oraging stratification in the Tropical Atlantic Rainforest (TAF)", "stingless bees (Meliponinae) were numerically dominant in all strata".[44]

"Nowadays, the ecological dominance of stingless bees among insects visiting flowers in the Neotropical lowlands has been attributed to their high eusociality, perennial colony activity, and generalized food habits".[44]

"Stingless bees are the dominant group of insects that visit flowers in the TAF".[44]



According to JSTOR (url=, the earliest use of the term “dominant group” occurs in an article on the classification of butterflies,[45] where overall the author discusses "[t]he family groups into which butterflies should be primarily divided".[45]

Alfred Russel Wallace in Natural Selection Am. Ed. 135 writes: “When we consider this singular apparatus, which in some species is nearly half an inch long, the arrangement of muscles for its protrusion and retraction, its perfect concealment during repose, its blood-red color, and the suddenness with which it can be thrown out, we must, I think, be led to the conclusion that it serves as a protection to the larva, by startling and frightening away some enemy when about to seize it, and is thus one of the causes which has led to the wide extension and maintained the permanence of this now dominant group”.[45]

Insect wings


“That the wings are exceedingly important organs has never been questioned, indeed, it is a generally accepted view that they are one of the most important factors in making the Insecta such a dominant group, and the causes which induce their atrophy must be undoubtedly be deep-seated.”[46]



"This group [Neopterygii] contains most of the modern bony fishes".[47]

"Early neopterygian fishes (Fig. 13.9) shared the seas and fresh waters with the chondrosteans through most of the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods but gradually became the dominant group."[47] "They presumably became dominant because of gradual but significant changes in structure that gave them a competitive edge over the chondrosteans. These changes culminated in the subdivision Teleostei, the dominant bony fishes today."[47]

"[I]t was suggested that 'the actinopterygians (which is the dominant group of fish at the present time with more than 20 000 species) responded to selection pressures by selective enlargement of parts of the brain that enabled a species to occupy an adaptive niche with special success' (Jerison 1973)."[48]

Dominant individuals in a social group are often assumed to be the exclusive parents of young in that group.[49] "However, easy access to genetic parentage data has challenged this view, and both subordinate group members and individuals from other social groups have been identified as the true parents of offspring in many social groups".[50] Mixed parentage within social groups can occur as a result of

  1. reproductive concessions by dominant individuals,
  2. tug-of-war over reproduction within the group, or
  3. parasitic spawning by other sexually mature individuals.[49]

The sizes of dominant males and females and size range of subordinates allow comparison and assignment as a parent based on genotypes, parentage is assigned to the dominant group member except when the other potential parent is significant and probability exceeds that of the dominant group member.[49]



"Just as is the case with humans, in at least some species of nonhuman primates such as chimpanzees, dominant group members regularly adopt postures that make them appear as large as possible".[51]

“The subfamily Leporinae is the dominant group of rabbits and hares of today, being native to all the continents except Australia.”[52]

“The double dominant group is slightly but not significantly below expectation.”[53]

"Reproductive suppression in carnivore species is usually associated with co-operative breeding: subordinate females that are prevented from breeding themselves will help to raise the offspring of more dominant group members (Creel & Creel 1991), providing dominant females with a direct benefit from reproductive suppression."[54]

"Subordinate baboons voluntarily follow the dominant group member to foraging patches where they themselves starve."[55]

"In terrestrial ecosystems from temperate to polar latitudes, mammals are the dominant group of herbivores during winter."[56]



"The second category, mollusks, are a dominant group of animals found in wet meadows as well as in deepwater habitats."[57]

“The group spatted in 1926 was the dominant group at all stations, especially at Stns. 21 and 8 in the middle of the beds where density is greatest.”[58]



"Marr et al (1986) categorized four physiological groups into which fungi could be placed: Group I (negative group) where neither laccase nor tyrosinase was detectable; Group II (tyrosinase-dominant group) where the tyrosinase re?"[59]

"Lipomyces was present in nearly all soils but was the dominant group of yeasts only in those soils from which other yeasts were virtually absent."[60]



“The order of feeding and the formation in moving toward food followed the sequence of the interspecific peck order in that the most dominant group fed first, followed by the next in dominance, down the scale.”[61]


Diatoms usually dominate the Barents Sea earlier in the year, giving way to coccolithophores in the late summer. However, field measurements of previous August blooms have also turned up high concentrations of diatoms. Credit: NASA Earth Observatory.
This is a view of diatoms through the microscope. Credit: Prof. Gordon T. Taylor, Stony Brook University.

Def. one of the Diatomaceae, a family of minute unicellular algae having a siliceous covering of great delicacy is called a diatom.

"Diatoms were the dominant group in most lakes at most times, comprising over 70% of total periphyton biomass."[62]

"In the NO3 + PO4 and NH4 + PO4 treatments, the dominant group shifted to diatoms."[63]

"Diatomeae was the dominant group in both the periods when minima were recorded."[64]

"Chlorophytes were the dominant group throughout the watershed with 19 species."[65]

“The blue-greens are the dominant group.”[66]



"The dinoflagellates appropriated plastids from both red and green lineages; however, the dominant group in the contemporary ocean is overwhelmingly red."[67] "[T]he ensemble of organisms responsible for primary production on land is green, while the ecologically dominant groups of eukaryotic photoautotrophs in the contemporary oceans are red."[67]


  1. There is no dominant group gene or genome.

See also



  1. 1.0 1.1 F Meyer; D Paarmann; M D'Souza; R Olson; EM Glass; M Kubal; T Paczian; A Rodriguez et al. (September 2008). "The metagenomics RAST server–a public resource for the automatic phylogenetic and functional analysis of metagenomes". BMC Bioinformatics 9: 386. doi:10.1186/1471-2105-9-386. Retrieved 2011-09-11. 
  2. Poccil (20 October 2004). diverse. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2015-02-28. 
  3. SemperBlotto (15 June 2005). biodiversity. San Francisco, California: Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Retrieved 2015-02-28. 
  4. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Andy Purvis; Andy Hector (May 2000). "Getting the measure of biodiversity". Nature 405 (6783): 212-9. doi:10.1038/35012221. Retrieved 2011-08-01. 
  5. Peter Mark Roget (1969). Lester V. Berrey. ed. Roget's International Thesaurus, third edition. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company. pp. 1258. 
  6. Mariam Naqshbandi; Stewart B. Harris; James G. Esler; Fred Antwi-Nsiah (October 2008). "Global complication rates of type 2 diabetes in Indigenous peoples: A comprehensive review". Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice 82 (1): 1-17. doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2008.07.017. Retrieved 2011-12-23. 
  7. John W. Berry (June 1992). "Acculturation and adaptation in a new society". International Migration 30 (Issue Supplement s1): 69-85. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2435.1992.tb00776.x. Retrieved 2011-07-21. 
  8. Thomas Hunt Morgan (October 1903). Evolution and adaptation. New York: The MacMillan Company. pp. 470. Retrieved 2011-11-20. 
  9. Rufus A. Johnstone; Michael A. Cant (January 1999). "Reproductive skew and indiscriminate infanticide". Animal Bahavior 57 (1): 243-9. Retrieved 2012-04-21. 
  10. Ch. Körner (1994). Ernst-Detlef Schulze. ed. Scaling from Species to Vegetation: The Usefulness of Functional Groups, In: Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 117-40. ISBN 3-540-58103-0. Retrieved 2012-02-21. 
  11. 11.0 11.1 11.2 Michael Griesser; Magdalena Nystrand; Sönke Eggers; Jan Ekman (March 2008). "Social constraints limit dispersal and settlement decisions in a group-living bird species". Behavioral Ecology 19 (2): 317-24. doi:10.1093/beheco/arm131. 
  12. 12.0 12.1 Scott L. Wing; Lisa D. Boucher (May 1998). "Ecological Aspects of the Cretaceous Flowering Plant Radiation 1". Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 26 (1): 379-421. doi:10.1146/ Retrieved 2012-09-14. 
  13. Edwin Bourget; Danielle Messier (November 1983). "Macrobenthic density, biomass, and fauna of intertidal and subtidal sand in a Magdalen Islands lagoon, Gulf of St. Lawrence". Canadian Journal of Zoology 61 (11): 2509-18. doi:10.1139/z83-333. Retrieved 2012-04-21. 
  14. PJ Fielding; KA Weerts; AT Forbes (1994). "Macroinvertebrate communities associated with intertidal and subtidal beds of Pyura stolonifera(Heller)(Tunicata: Ascidiacea) on the Natal coast". South African Journal of Zoology 29 (1): 46-53. Retrieved 2012-04-21. 
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 Charles Robert Darwin (1859). On the origin of the species by means of natural selection: or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray. pp. 516. 
  16. 16.0 16.1 Alfred Russel Wallace (1871). Contributions to the theory of natural selection. London: MacMillan and Co.. pp. 386. 
  17. Alfred Russel Wallace (2010). Mimicry, and Other Protective Resemblances Among Animals (1867), In: "Alfred Russel Wallace Classic Writings. Paper 8". 
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 D.J. Colgana; W.F. Ponder; E. Beacham; J. Macaranas (2007). "Molecular phylogenetics of Caenogastropoda (Gastropoda: Mollusca)". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 42: 717-37. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2006.10.009. Retrieved 2011-08-02. 
  19. 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 Walter Salzburger; Tanja Mack; Erik Verheyen; Axel Meyer (February 2005). "Out of Tanganyika: Genesis, explosive speciation, key-innovations and phylogeography of the haplochromine cichlid fishes". BMC Evolutionary Biology 5 (17). doi:10.1186/1471-2148-5-17. PMID 15723698. Retrieved 2011-08-02. 
  20. 20.0 20.1 20.2 L. A. Guilbault; F. Grasso; J. G. Lussier; P. Rouillier; P. Matton (January 1991). "Decreased superovulatory responses in heifers superovulated in the presence of a dominant follicle". The Journal of the Society for Reproduction and Fertility 91 (1): 81-9. doi:10.1530/jrf.0.0910081. PMID 1995865. Retrieved 2011-08-17. 
  21. K.S. Gill; M.A. Arshad (January 1995). "Weed flora in the early growth period of spring crops under conventional, reduced, and zero tillage systems on a clay soil in northern Alberta, Canada". Soil and Tillage Research 33 (1): 65-79. Retrieved 2012-02-24. 
  22. 22.0 22.1 22.2 22.3 Yuwei Chen; Boqiang Qin; Katrin Teubner; Martin T. Dokulil (April 2003). "Long-term dynamics of phytoplankton assemblages: Microcystis-domination in Lake Taihu, a large shallow lake in China". Journal of Plankton Research 25 (4): 445-53. doi:10.1093/plankt/25.4.445. Retrieved 2011-07-23. 
  23. 23.0 23.1 A. Mark Ibekwe; S.R. Lyon; M. Leddy; M. Jacobson-Meyers (April 2007). "Impact of plant density and microbial composition on water quality from a free water surface constructed wetland". Journal of Applied Microbiology 102 (4): 921-36. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03181.x. Retrieved 2011-09-15. 
  24. David A. Pearce; Christopher J. van der Gast; Kelly Woodward; Kevin K. Newsham (October 2005). "Significant changes in the bacterioplankton community structure of a maritime Antarctic freshwater lake following nutrient enrichment". Microbiology 151 (10): 3237-48. doi:10.1099/mic.0.27258-0. Retrieved 2011-09-15. 
  25. Jennifer F. Biddle; Sorel Fitz-Gibbon; Stephan C. Schuster; Jean E. Brenchley; Christopher H. House (July 2008). "Metagenomic signatures of the Peru Margin subseafloor biosphere show a genetically distinct environment". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (30): 10583-8. doi:10.1073/pnas.0709942105. Retrieved 2011-07-21. 
  26. Fumio Inagaki; Masae Suzuki; Ken Takai; Hanako Oida; Tatsuhiko Sakamoto; Kaori Aoki; Kenneth H. Nealson; Koki Horikoshi (December 2003). "Microbial Communities Associated with Geological Horizons in Coastal Subseafloor Sediments from the Sea of Okhotsk". Applied and Environmental Microbiology 69 (12): 7224-35. doi:10.1128/AEM.69.12.7224-7235.2003. PMID 14660370. Retrieved 2011-09-15. 
  27. Li Tao; Wang Peng; Wang Pinxian (March 2008). "Microbial diversity in surface sediments of the Xisha Trough, the South China Sea". Acta Ecologica Sinica 28 (3): 1166-73. Retrieved 2011-09-15. 
  28. Robert R. Jackson (Spring 1977). "Prey of the jumping spider Phidippus johnsoni (Araneae: Salticidae)". Journal of Arachnology 5 (2): 145-9. doi:10.2307/3705159. Retrieved 2012-12-03. 
  29. Erik J. Wenninger; William F. Fagan (June 2000). "Effect of river flow manipulation on wolf spider assemblages at three desert riparian sites". Journal of Arachnology 28 (1): 115-22. doi:10.1636/0161-8202(2000)028[0115:EORFMO]2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 2012-12-03. 
  30. James D. Wagner; Søren Toft; David H. Wise (April 2003). "Spatial stratification in litter depth by forest-floor spiders". Journal of Arachnology 31 (1): 28-39. doi:10.1636/0161-8202(2003)031[0028:SSILDB]2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 2012-12-03. 
  31. 31.0 31.1 31.2 H. J. Sears; Inez Brownlee; John K. Uchiyama (February 1950). "Persistence of individual strains of Escherichia coli in the intestinal tract of man". Journal of Bacteriology 59 (2): 293-301. PMID 15421958. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  32. 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 32.4 32.5 Rustam I. Aminov; Alan W. Walker; Sylvia H. Duncan; Hermie J. M. Harmsen; Gjalt W. Welling; Harry J. Flint (September 2006). "Molecular Diversity, Cultivation, and Improved Detection by Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization of a Dominant Group of Human Gut Bacteria Related to Roseburia spp. or Eubacterium rectale". Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72 (9): 6371-6. doi:10.1128/AEM.00701-06. PMID 16957265. Retrieved 2011-09-11. 
  33. Matt R. Whiles; Karen R. Lips; Cathy M. Pringle; Susan S. Kilham; Rebecca J. Bixby; Roberto Brenes; Scott Connelly; Jose Checo Colon-Gaud et al. (February 2006). "The effects of amphibian population declines on the structure and function of Neotropical stream ecosystems". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4 (1): 27-34. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2006)004[0027:TEOAPD]2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 2012-02-04. 
  34. Yun-ming Mo; Zhi-ming Xie; Yi Zou; Feng Xie; Jian-ping Jiang (February 2007). "Diversity of Amphibians and Reptiles in Diding Nature Reserve of Guangxi [J"]. Sichuan Journal of Zoology. doi:CNKI:ISSN:1000-7083.0.2007-02-031. Retrieved 2012-02-04. 
  35. David S. Woodruff (1972). "Amphibians and Reptiles from Simbai, Bismarck-Schrader Range, New Guinea". Memoirs of the National Museum of Victoria 33: 57-64. Retrieved 2012-02-04. 
  36. Laura A. Herbeck; David R. Larsen (June 1999). "Plethodontid Salamander Response to Silvicultural Practices in Missouri Ozark Forests". Conservation Biology 13 (3): 623-32. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98097.x. Retrieved 2012-02-04. 
  37. A Jenyo-Oni; A Adetoro (2008). "Wildlife resources of coastal wetlands of Lagos state". African Journal of Livestock Extension 6. Retrieved 2012-02-04. 
  38. Gema Solís; Xavier Eekhout; Rafael Márquez (2006). M. Vences. ed. Fonoteca Zoologica (www. fonozoo. com)”: the web-based animal sound library of the Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (Madrid), a resource for the study of anuran sounds, In: Herpetologia Bonnensis II. Proceedings of the 13th Congress of the Societas Europaea Herpetologica. Societas Europaea Herpetologica. pp. 171-4. Retrieved 2012-02-04. 
  39. Cheryl G. S. Tan; Peter K. L. Ng (June 1994). "An annotated checklist of mangrove brachyuran crabs from Malaysia and Singapore". Hydrobiologia 285 (1-3): 75-84. doi:10.1007/BF00005655. Retrieved 2012-12-03. 
  40. Ai-Yun Tai; Yu-Zhi Song (January 1, 1984). "Macrophthalmus (Decapoda, Brachyura) of the seas of China". Crustaceana 46 (1): 76-86. doi:10.1163/156854084X00072. Retrieved 2012-12-03. 
  41. K. Venkataraman; M. V. M. Wafar (2005). "Coastal and marine biodiversity of India". Indian Journal of Marine Sciences 34 (1): 57-75. Retrieved 2012-12-03. 
  42. William Dwight Whitney (1910). Benjamin E. Smith. ed. The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia: Supplement, Volume XI. New York: The Century Company. pp. 550. Retrieved 2011-11-30. 
  43. 43.0 43.1 43.2 Ted R. Schultz; Seán G. Brady (April 2008). "Major evolutionary transitions in ant agriculture". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105 (14): 5435-40. doi:10.1073/pnas.0711024105. Retrieved 2011-08-17. 
  44. 44.0 44.1 44.2 Mauro Ramalho (January/March 2004). "Stingless bees and mass flowering trees in the canopy of Atlantic Forest: a tight relationship". Acta Botanica Brasilica 18 (1): 37-47. doi:10.1590/S0102-33062004000100005. Retrieved 2011-09-14. 
  45. 45.0 45.1 45.2 Samuel Hubbard Scudder (June 1877). "On the Classification of Butterflies, with Special Reference to the Position of the Equites or Swallow-Tails". Transactions of the American Entomological Society 6 (10): 69-80. Retrieved 2011-07-31. 
  46. Charkes T. Brues (March 1903). "The Structure and Significance of Vestigial Wings among Insects". Biological Bulletin 4 (4): 179-90. Retrieved 2011-07-31. 
  47. 47.0 47.1 47.2 Peter B. Moyle; Joseph J. Cech Jr. (2009). Chapter 13 Evolution, In: Fishes An Introduction to Ichthyology Fourth Edition. Davis: University of California. pp. 193-211. Retrieved 2011-09-13. 
  48. Tomaso Patarnello; Luca Bargelloni; Edoardo Boncinelli; Fabio Spada; Maria Pannese; Vania Broccoli (December 1997). "Evolution of Emx genes and brain development in vertebrates". Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences 264 (1389): 1763-6. doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0244. Retrieved 2011-09-13. 
  49. 49.0 49.1 49.2 K. A. Stiver; J . L. Fitzpatrick; J . K. Desjardins; S. Balshine (April 2009). "Mixed parentage in Neolamprologus pulcher groups". Journal of Fish Biology 74 (5): 1129-35. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8649.2009.02173.x. Retrieved 2011-07-21. 
  50. Richardson D. S.; Jury F. L.; Blaakmeer K.; Komdeur J.; Burke T. (2001). "Parentage assignment and extra-group paternity in a cooperative breeder: the Seychelles warbler (Acrocephalus sechellensis)". Molecular Ecology 10: 2263-73. 
  51. Tiedens, Larissa Z.; Fragale, Alison R. (March 2003). "Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (3): 558-68. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.3.558. Retrieved 2011-08-01. 
  52. Lee R. Dice (November 1929). "The phylogeny of the Leporidae, with description of a new genus". Journal of Mammalogy 10 (4): 340-4. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  53. WE Castle (1933). "The furless rabbit". Journal of Heredity 24 (3): 81-6. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  54. Rosie Woodroffe; David W. MacDonald (January 1995). "Female/Female Competition in European Badgers Meles meles: Effects on Breeding Success". Journal of Animal Ecology 64 (1): 12-20. Retrieved 2012-02-03. 
  55. Larissa Conradt (October 2008). "Group Decisions: How (Not) to Choose a Restaurant with Friends". Current Biology 18 (24). doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.10.036. Retrieved 2012-02-04. 
  56. Robert K. Swihart; John P. Bryant (February 2001). "Importance of biogeography and ontogeny of woody plants in winter herbivory by mammals". Journal of Mammalogy 82 (1): 1-21. doi:10.1644/1545-1542(2001)082<0001:IOBAOO>2.0.CO;2. Retrieved 2012-08-07. 
  57. J. Scott Feierabend (1989). Donald A. Hammer. ed. Wetlands: the lifeblood of wildlife, In: "Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: Municipal, Industrial, and Agricultural". Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. pp. 831. ISBN 0-87371-184-X. Retrieved 2012-02-04. 
  58. A. C. Stephen (1931). "Notes on the biology of certain lamellibranchs on the Scottish coast". Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom (New Series) 17 (2): 277-300. doi:10.1017/S0025315400050840. 
  59. Leonard J. Hutchinson (1990). "Studies on the systematics of ectomycorrhizal fungi in axenic culture. III. Patterns of polyphenol oxidase activity". Mycologia 82 (4): 424-35. Retrieved 2012-03-25. 
  60. Margaret E. di Menna (1966). "Lipomyces in Some New Zealand and Pacific Soils". New Zealand Journal of Botany 4 (4): 406-17. doi:10.1080/0028825X.1966.10429058. Retrieved 2012-03-25. 
  61. Dale W. Jenkins (January 1944). "Territory as a result of despotism and social organization in geese". The Auk 61 (1): 30-47. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  62. K. S. Shortreed; A. C. Costella; J. G. Stockner (May 1984). "Periphyton biomass and species composition in 21 British Columbia lakes: seasonal abundance and response to whole-lake nutrient additions". Canadian Journal of Botany 62 (5): 1022-31. doi:10.1139/b84-141. Retrieved 2012-03-25. 
  63. H.-J. Lin; S.W. Nixon; D.I. Taylor; S.L. Granger; B.A. Buckley (February 1996). "Responses of epiphytes on eelgrass, Zostera marina L., to separate and combined nitrogen and phosphorus enrichment". Aquatic Botany 52 (4): 243-58. Retrieved 2012-03-25. 
  64. Mohiuddin Munawar (January 1974). "Limnological Studies on Freshwater Ponds of Hyderabad—India". Hydrobiologia 44 (1): 13-27. doi:10.1007/BF00036153. Retrieved 2012-03-25. 
  65. Robert G Verb; Morgan L Vis (October 2001). "Macroalgal communities from an acid mine drainage impacted watershed". Aquatic Botany 71 (2): 93-107. Retrieved 2012-03-25. 
  66. Vaughan MacCaughey (January 1918). "Algae of the Hawaiian Archipelago. I". Botanical Gazette 65 (1): 42-57. Retrieved 2011-07-26. 
  67. 67.0 67.1 Paul G. FALKOWSKI; Oscar SCHOFIELD; Miriam E. KATZ; Bas VAN DE SCHOOTBRUGGE, and Andrew H. KNOLL (2004). "Why is the Land Green and the Ocean Red?". Coccolithophorids: 429-53. Retrieved 2011-09-14. 

Further reading


{{Gene project}}{{Terminology resources}}