Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- List of journal abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Form and function in Evo Devo: historical and conceptual reflections
- 3 Deducing plant function from organic form: challenges and pitfalls
- 4 Evolution in the light of embryos: seeking the origins of novelties in ontogeny
- 5 A focus on both form and function in examining selection versus constraint
- 6 Innovation and diversity in functional morphology
- 7 The developmental evolution of avian digit homology: an update
- 8 Functional analysis and character transformation
- 9 The nature of constraints
- 10 Toward a mechanistic Evo Devo
- Index
- References
5 - A focus on both form and function in examining selection versus constraint
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 June 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- List of journal abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Form and function in Evo Devo: historical and conceptual reflections
- 3 Deducing plant function from organic form: challenges and pitfalls
- 4 Evolution in the light of embryos: seeking the origins of novelties in ontogeny
- 5 A focus on both form and function in examining selection versus constraint
- 6 Innovation and diversity in functional morphology
- 7 The developmental evolution of avian digit homology: an update
- 8 Functional analysis and character transformation
- 9 The nature of constraints
- 10 Toward a mechanistic Evo Devo
- Index
- References
Summary
One of the challenges for a modern integrative biology is to more fully understand why assemblages of related species occupy morphospace in the way they do. An integration of analyses of both form and function is required to achieve this goal. The burgeoning understanding of development in emerging model species is providing evolutionary biologists with the potential to explore contributions to the evolution of patterns in morphospace by the processes involved in making variation in forms as well as those resulting from their performance in natural environments. Such an approach is illustrated here by drawing on work on butterfly eyespot patterns and scaling relationships. Relevant studies are being performed in some other groups of animals (see Brakefield 2006), and progress is also being made in plants (see Langlade et al. 2005; Niklas, ch. 3 in this volume).
Patterns in morphospace have always fascinated biologists, especially when they are known to reflect adaptive radiation among new ecological niches. In such examples, while there can be no doubt that natural selection plays a major role in shaping the evolution of morphological diversity and disparity, it is by no means clear how much the processes involved in generating variation in the phenotype to be screened by the natural selection also contribute. Thus, the extent to which evolution by natural selection of adaptations to local environments is compromised or biased by the genetical and developmental origins of phenotypic variation remains an open issue.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Form and Function in Developmental Evolution , pp. 112 - 131Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
, , , and (2008). Differences in the selection response of serially repeated color pattern characters: standing variation, development, and evolution. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8, 94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2001). Developmental drive: an important determinant of the direction of phenotypic evolution. Evolution & Development 3, 271–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2002). The genetics and evo-devo of butterfly wing patterns. Nature Reviews Genetics 3, 442–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2005). Generating phenotypic variation: prospects from ‘evo-devo’ research on Bicyclus anynana wing patterns. Evolution & Development 7, 101–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2002). Developmental constraints versus flexibility in morphological evolution. Nature 416, 844–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2003). Modularity, individuality, and evo-devo in butterfly wings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99, 14262–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005). A reassessment of genetic limits to evolutionary change. Ecology 86, 1371–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1993). Quantitative genetics of shell form of an intertidal snail: constraints on short-term response to selection. Evolution 47, 576–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1998). The evolution–development interface and advances with the eyespot patterns of Bicyclus butterflies. Heredity 80, 265–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006). Evo-devo and constraints on selection. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 21, 362–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2008). Polyphenisms in Lepidoptera: multidisciplinary approaches to studies of evolution. In and (eds.), Phenotypic Plasticity of Insects: Mechanisms and Consequences. Plymouth: Science Publishers, Inc., pp. 121–51.Google Scholar
and (2006). Exploring evolutionary constraints is a task for an integrative evolutionary biology. The American Naturalist 168, S4–S13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (2002). Female choice depends on size but not symmetry of dorsal eyespots in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B: Biological Sciences 269, 1233–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , and (2001). The generation and diversification of butterfly eyespot color patterns. Current Biology 11, 1578–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1977). Variation in the spire index of some coiled gastropod shells, and its evolutionary significance. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 277, 333–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1981). Variation in shell shape and size of helicid snails in relation to other Pulmonates in faunas of the Palaeacrtic region. Malacologia 21, 149–76.Google Scholar
, , , , , , and (1994). Pattern formation and eyespot determination in butterfly wings. Science 265, 109–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2005). From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific.Google Scholar
(1990). Differences in shell properties between morphs of Littoraria pallescens. Hydrobiologia 193, 217–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995). Variation in species diversity and shell shape in Hawaiian land snails: in situ speciation and ecological relationships. Evolution 49, 1191–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1989). The evolution of evolvability. In (ed.), Artificial Life. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, pp. 201–20.Google Scholar
, , , and (2005). Natural selection and developmental constraints in the evolution of allometries. Science 307, 718–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2007). Internal and external constraints in the evolution of allometries among morphological traits in a butterfly. Evolution 61(12), 2958–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1995). Eyespot development on butterfly wings: the focal signal. Developmental Biology 168, 112–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , and (1998). Expression of an achaete-scute homolog during butterfly scale development reveals the homology of insect scales and sensory bristles. Current Biology 8, 807–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2006). The evolutionary history of parasitic gastropods and their coral hosts in the Indo-Pacific. Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
(1986). Variation in land snail shell form and size and its causes: a review. Systematic Zoology 35, 204–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). Evolutionary innovations in the fossil record: the intersection of ecology, development and macroevolution. Journal of Experimental Zoology. Part B. Molecular and Developmental Evolution 304B, 504–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). Captivity masks inbreeding effects on male mating success in butterflies. Nature 424, 191–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2006). Heliconius wing patterns: an evo-devo model for understanding phenotypic diversity. Heredity 97, 157–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1985). Self-organisation, selective adaptation, and its limits. In and (eds.), Evolution at a Crossroads. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 169–207.Google Scholar
, , , , , , , , and (1999). Recruitment of a Hedgehog regulatory circuit in butterfly eyespot evolution. Science 283, 532–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and (1998). Evolvability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95, 8420–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , , , , , and (2005). Evolution through genetically controlled allometry space. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102, 10221–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , , , , , , and (1985). Developmental constraints and evolution. Quarterly Review of Biology 60, 265–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). Bathymetric patterns of morphological disparity in deep-sea gastropods from the western North Atlantic Basin. Evolution 59, 1492–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , and (2004). Morphological disparity as a biodiversity metric in lower bathyal and abyssal gastropod assemblages. Evolution 58, 338–48.Google ScholarPubMed
(2007). The Geometry of Evolution: Adaptive Landscapes and Theoretical Morphospaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
, , and (1994). The evolutionary genetics and developmental basis of wing pattern variation in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana. Evolution 48, 1147–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , (1997). Butterfly eyespots: the genetics and development of the color rings. Evolution 51, 1207–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1991). The Development and Evolution of Butterfly Wing Patterns. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institute Press.Google Scholar
(1966). Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology 40, 1178–90.Google Scholar
(1967). Geometric analysis of shell coiling: coiling in ammonoids. Journal of Paleontology 41, 43–65.Google Scholar
, and (2004). Butterfly wing pattern evolution is associated with changes in a Notch/Distal-less temporal pattern formation process. Current Biology 14, 1159–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). Evolution (third edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
and (2005). Female Bicyclus anynana butterflies choose males on the basis of their dorsal UV-reflective eyespot pupils. Proceedings of the Royal Society London B: Biological Sciences 272, 1541–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, , , and (2008). Conserved developmental processes and the formation of evolutionary novelties: examples from butterfly wings. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363, 1549–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1996). Adaptive radiation along genetic lines of least resistance. Evolution 50, 1766–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2005). The role of eyespots as anti-predator mechanisms, principally demonstrated in the Lepidoptera. Biological Reviews 80, 573–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1996). Computer-simulated shell size and shape variation in the Caribbean land snail genus Cerion: a test of geometrical constraints. Evolution 50, 341–7.Google ScholarPubMed
and (1985). Genotype–environment interaction and the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. Evolution 39, 505–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2005). Robustness and Evolvability in Living Systems. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
and (1996). Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution 50, 967–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1995). Testing evolutionary constraint hypotheses with early Paleozoic gastropods. Paleobiology 21, 248–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006). Patterns of convergence in general shell form among Paleozoic gastropods. Paleobiology 32, 316–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , and (1999). Ultrabithorax function in butterfly wings and the evolution of insect wing patterns. Current Biology 9, 109–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 1
- Cited by