Implications of headwater contact zones for the riverine barrier hypothesis: a case study of the Blue-capped Manakin (Lepidothrix coronata).

Rivers frequently delimit the geographic ranges of species in the Amazon Basin. These rivers also define the boundaries between genetic clusters within many species, yet river boundaries have been documented to break down in headwater regions where rivers are narrower. To explore the evolutionary implications of headwater contact zones in Amazonia, we examined genetic variation in the Blue-capped Manakin (Lepidothrix coronata), a species previously shown to contain several genetically and phenotypically distinct populations across the western Amazon Basin.

On the predictability of phenotypic divergence in geographic isolation.

Do related populations that are separated by barriers predictably evolve differences from one another over time, or is such divergence idiosyncratic and unpredictable? We test these alternatives by investigating patterns of trait evolution for 54 sister pairs of Andean forest birds that live in similar environments on either side of the arid Marañón Gap, a strong dispersal barrier for humid montane species. We measured divergence in both sexual (song and plumage) and ecological (beak size and beak shape) traits. Sexual traits evolve in a clock-like fashion, with trait divergence positively correlated with genetic distance (r = 0.

Exploring Conflicts in Whole Genome Phylogenetics: A Case Study Within Manakins (Aves: Pipridae).

Some phylogenetic problems remain unresolved even when large amounts of sequence data are analyzed and methods that accommodate processes such as incomplete lineage sorting are employed. In addition to investigating biological sources of phylogenetic incongruence, it is also important to reduce noise in the phylogenomic dataset by using appropriate filtering approach that addresses gene tree estimation errors. We present the results of a case study in manakins, focusing on the very difficult clade comprising the genera Antilophia and Chiroxiphia.

Systematics of Lepidothrix manakins (Aves: Passeriformes: Pipridae) using RADcap markers.

Although recent molecular phylogenetic analyses of Lepidothrix manakins (family Pipridae) have helped clarify their evolutionary relationships, the placement of several lineages remains in question because of low or conflicting branch support. In particular, the relationship of L. coronata to other members of the genus and relationships within the L.

The individual mandate as healthcare regulation: what the Obama Administration should have said in NFIB v. Sebelius.

There was an argument that the Obama Administration's lawyers could have made--but didn't--in defending Obamacare's individual mandate against constitutional attack. That argument would have highlighted the role of comprehensive health insurance in steering individuals' healthcare savings and consumption decisions. Because consumer-directed healthcare, which reaches its apex when individuals self-insure, suffers from several known market failures and because comprehensive health insurance policies play an unusually aggressive regulatory role in attempting to correct those failures, the individual mandate could be seen as an attempt to eliminate inefficiencies in the healthcare market that arise from individual decisions to self-insure.

Will my job be safe if I defend my patients? When patient advocacy collides with employment law.

Physicians are moving increasingly from self-employed, private practices to at-will employment relationships. This historic change in the organizational administration of medical services is likely to accelerate as the Affordable Care Act is implemented and as accountable care organizations permeate the medical marketplace. Physicians vow an ascendant oath to safeguard patients' welfare, but as they become employees, they may sign legal contracts that also oblige obedience to the institutions that hire them.

Understanding the failure of health-care exceptionalism in the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision.

On June 28, 2012, a mere century after the first presidential proposal for national health insurance, the Supreme Court issued a resounding victory for President Obama and for health-care reform generally, upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act against a serious constitutional challenge. Nevertheless, the Court also struck a potential blow to future health-care reform efforts in refusing to accept the solicitor general's argument that health care is a unique market with unique regulatory needs that justify special constitutional treatment. The failure of health-care exceptionalism in the Court's opinion might render future reform efforts more difficult than they would have been if the solicitor general's argument had carried the day.

Obamacare's (3) Day(s) in Court.

Before the oral arguments in late March, the vast majority of legal scholars felt confident that the Supreme Court of the United States would uphold the individual mandate against the constitutional challenge that 26 states have levied against it. Since the oral arguments, that confidence has been severely shaken. This article asks why legal scholars were so confident before the argument and what has made us so concerned since the argument.