We studied the evolution of leaf size, sapling canopy allometry, and related traits in 17 Acer species growing in the understory of temperate deciduous forests, using parsimony methods, randomization tests, and independent contrasts calculated on a phylogeny inferred from nuclear ribosomal internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences. Bivariate correlations and multivariate analyses indicated two independent suites of coevolving traits, and the results were robust over a range of alternative phylogenies. The first suite consisted of strong positive correlations among twig thickness, leaf size, inflorescence length, and branch spacing (Corner's rules). Seed size and mature height were also weakly correlated with these traits. The second suite reflected aspects of sapling crown allometry, including crown size, stem diameter, and total leaf area, which appear to be related to shade tolerance. There was a weak negative correlation between sapling crown size and mature height, but no correlation with leaf or seed size. Most correlations were similar in magnitude for ahistorical and independent contrasts analyses, and discrepancies between these two measures were greater in traits with lower levels of convergent evolution. The evolutionary correlations among twig, leaf, seed, inflorescence, and canopy dimensions emphasize the need for integrated theories of evolution and function of these disparate traits.

No abstract

This article argues that a politics against domination needs to take on oppression (violence, exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism, and epistemic injustice) and that doing so requires attending to the rage and resistance of those oppressed. Politics against Domination does not. However, the adaptive approach to political theory, which Ian Shapiro advocates and models in the book, could lead us to modifications of the institutions and practices of politics against domination if it were more thoroughly informed by the politics of rage and resistance cultivated into and in social movements. Politics against Domination is full of cautions against progressives' institutional proposals (strengthening separation of powers, courts, and deliberation in the Senate) because they may not consistently create obstacles to domination, but rather be conduits for it or obstacles to redressing it. Proceeding cautiously given this concern, I offer some institutional renovations that might support the hearing of marginalized views.