Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Plants and the Conceptual Articulation of Evolutionary Developmental Biology

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abouheif, E., Akam, M., Dickinson, W.J., Holland, P.W., Meyer, A., Patel, N.H., Raff, R.A., Roth, V.L. and Wray, G.A.: 1997, ‘Homology and Developmental Genes’, Trends in Genetics 13, 432–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adoutte, A., Balavoine, G., Lartillot, N. and De Rosa, R.: 1999, ‘Animal Evolution. The End of the Intermediate Taxa?’, Trends in Genetics 15, 104–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adoutte, A., Balavoine, G., Lartillot, N., Lespinet, O., Prud’homme, B. and de Rosa, R.: 2000, ‘The New Animal Phylogeny: Reliability and Implications’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97, 4453–4456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akam, M.: 1998, ‘Hox Genes, Homeosis and the Evolution of Segment identity: No Need for Hopeless Monsters’, International Journal of Developmental Biology 42, 445–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alvarez-Buylla, E.R., Liljegren, S.J., Pelaz, S., Gold, S.E., Burgeff, C., Ditta, G.S., Vergara-Silva, F. and Yanofsky, M.F.: 2000, ‘MADS-Box Gene Evolution Beyond Flowers: Expression in Pollen, Endosperm, Guard Cells, Roots and Trichomes’, The Plant Journal 24, 457–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson, R.: 1994, ‘Two Concepts of Constraint: Adaptationism and the Challenge from Developmental Biology’, Philosophy of Science 61, 556–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson, R.: 1998, ‘Typology Reconsidered: Two Doctrines on the History of Evolutionary Biology’, Biology and Philosophy 13, 153–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson, R.: 2001, ‘Adaptation and Development: On the Lack of Common Ground’, in S.H. Orzack and E. Sober (eds), Adaptationism and Optimality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arber, A.: 1950, The Natural Philosophy of Plant Form, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W.: 2002, ‘The Emerging Conceptual Framework of Evolutionary Developmental Biology’, Nature 415, 757–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldauf, S.L. and Palmer, J.D.: 1993, ‘Animals and Fungi Are Each Other’s Closest Relatives: Congruent Evidence from Multiple Proteins’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 90, 11558–11562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bang, R., DeSalle, R. and Wheeler W.: 2000, ‘Transformationalism, Taxism, and Developmental Biology in Systematics’, Systematic Biology 49, 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barabé, D. and Lacroix, C.: 2000, ‘Homeosis in Araceae Flowers: The Case of Philodendron melinonii’, Annals of Botany 86, 479–491.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, R.M. and DiMichele W.A.: 1994, ‘Saltational Evolution of Form in Vascular Plants: A neoGoldschmidtian Synthesis’, in D.S. Ingram and A. Hudson (eds), Shape and Form in Plants and Fungi, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, R.M. and DiMichele, W.A.: 2002, ‘Generating and Filtering Major Phenotypic Novelties: neoGoldshmidtian Saltation Revisited’, in Q.C.B. Cronk, R.M. Bateman and J.A. Hawkins (eds), Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution. Taylor and Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, W.: 1894, reprinted 1992, Materials for the Study of Variation, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, D.A. and Donoghue, M.J.: 2002, ‘Transference of Function, Heterotopy and the Evolution of Plant Development’, in Q.C.B. Cronk, R.M. Bateman and J.A. Hawkins (eds), Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution, Taylor and Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bharathan, G., Goliber, T.E., Moore, C., Kessler S., Pham, T. and Sinha, N.R.: 2002, ‘Homologies in Leaf Form Inferred from KNOX1 Gene Expression During Development’, Science 296, 1858–1860.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, W.J: 1974, ‘Philosophical Foundations of Classical Evolutionary Classification’, Systematic Zoology 22, 375–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolker, J.A.: 2000, ‘Modularity in Development and Why It Matters to Evo-Devo’, American Zoologist 40, 770–776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolker, J.A. and Raff, R.A.: 1996, ‘Developmental Genetics and Traditional Homology’, BioEssays 16, 489–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, J.L., Smyth, D.R. and Meyerowitz, E.M.: 1989, ‘Genes Directing Flower Development in Arabidopsis’, The Plant Cell 1, 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, J.L.: 2000, ‘The YABBY Gene Family and Abaxial Cell Fate’, Current Opinion in Plant Biology 3, 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, J.L., Eshed, Y. and Baum, S.F.: 2002, ‘Establishment of Polarity in Angiosperm Lateral Organs’, Trends in Genetics 18, 134–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, R.H.: 1994, ‘Explanation, Description, and the Meaning of “Transformation” in Taxonomic Evidence’, in R.W. Scotland, D.J. Siebert and D.M. Williams (eds), Models in Phylogeny Reconstruction, Clarendon, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodu, V., Elstob, P. and Gould, A.P.: 2002, ‘abdominalA Specified One Cell Type in Drosophila by Regulating one Principal Target Gene’, Development 129, 2957–2963.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgeff, C., Liljegren, S.J., Tapia-Lopez, R., Yanofsky, M.F. and Alvarez-Buylla, E.R.: 2002, ‘MADS-Box Gene Expression in Lateral Primordia,Meristems and Differentiated Tissues of Arabidopsis thaliana Roots’, Planta 214, 365–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carine, M.A. and Scotland, R.W.: 1999, ‘Taxic and Transformational Homology: Different Ways of Seeing’, Cladistics 15, 121–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, R. and Coen E.S.: 1990, ‘Floral Homeotic Mutations Produced by Transposon-Mutagenesis in Antirrhinum majus’, Genes and Development 4, 1483–1493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, S.B.: 2000, ‘Endless Forms: The Evolution of Gene Regulation and Morphological Diversity’, Cell 101, 577–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, S.B.: 2001, ‘Chance and Necessity: the Evolution of Morphological Complexity and Diversity’, Nature 409, 1102–1109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, S.B., Grenier, J.K. and Weatherbee, S.D.: 2001, From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design, Blackwell Science, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Classen-Bockhoff, R.: 2001, ‘Plant Morphology: The Historic Concept of Wilhelm Troll, Walter Zimmermann and Agnes Arber’, Annals of Botany 88, 1153–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coen, E.S. and Meyerowitz, E.M.: 1991, ‘The War of the Whorls: Genetic Interactions Controlling Flower Development’, Nature 353, 31–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Corley, L.: 2002, ‘Research Update: Radical Paradigm Shifts in Evo-Devo’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17, 544–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, P.R. and Kenrick, P.: 1997, ‘Diverted Development of Reproductive Organs: A Source of Morphological Innovation in Land Plants’, Plant Systematics and Evolution 206, 161–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crepet, W.L.: 2000, ‘Progress in Understanding Angiosperm History, Success, and Relationships: Darwin’s Abominably Perplexing Phenomenon’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97, 12939–12941.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronk, Q.C.: 2001, ‘Plant Evolution in a Postgenomic Context’, Nature Reviews Genetics 2, 607–619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, M.R.: 1992, ‘Macromutation’, in E.F. Keller and E.A. Lloyd (eds), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, M.R.: 1995, ‘Richard Goldschmidt’s “Heresies” and the Evolutionary Synthesis’, Journal of the History of Biology 28, 431–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, M.R.: 2000, ‘From Hopeful Monsters to Homeotic Effects: Richard Goldschmidt’s Integration of Development, Evolution and Genetics’, American Zoologist 40, 738–747.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donoghue, M.J. and Kadereit, J.W.: 1992, ‘Walter Zimmermann and the Growth of Phylogenetic Theory’, Systematic Biology 41, 74–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dusheck, J.: 2002, ‘News Feature: It’s the Ecology, Stupid’, Nature 418, 578–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egea Gutiérrez-Cortines, M. and Davies, B.: 2000, ‘Beyond the ABC’s: Ternary Complex Formation in the Control of Floral Organ Identity’, Trends in Plant Sciences 5, 471–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endress, P.K.: 2001, ‘Origins of Flower Morphology’, Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular Developmental Evolution) 291, 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohlich, M. and Parker, D.S.: 2000, ‘The Mostly Male Theory of Flower Evolutionary Origins: From Genes to Fossils’, Systematic Botany 25, 155–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohlich, M.W.: 2001, ‘A Detailed Scenario and Possible Tests of the Mostly Male Theory of Flower Evolutionary Origins’, in M.L. Zelditch (ed.), Beyond Heterochrony: The Evolution of Development, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frohlich, M.W.: 2002, ‘The Mostly Male Theory of Flower Origins: Summary and Update Regarding the Jurassic Pteridosperm Pteroma’, in Q.C.B. Cronk, R.M. Bateman and J.A. Hawkins (eds), Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution. Systematics Association Special Volume 65, Taylor & Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galant, R. and Carroll, S.B.: 2002, ‘Evolution of a Transcriptional Repressor Domain in an Insect Hox Protein’, Nature 415, 910–913.

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Bellido, A.: 1975, ‘Genetic Control of Wing Disc Development in Drosophila’, Ciba Foundation Symposium 29, 161–182.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • García-Bellido, A.: 1984, ‘Genetic Analysis of Morphogenesis’, in P. Gustafson, G.L. Stebbins and F. Ayala (eds), Genetics, Development and Evolution, Plenum Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhart, J. and Kirschner, M.: 1997, Cells, Embryos, and Evolution, Blackwell Science, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S.F.: 2000a, ‘Diachronic Biology Meets Evo-Devo: C.H. Waddington’s Approach to Evolutionary Developmental Biology’, American Zoologist 40, 729–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S.F.: 2000b, Developmental Biology (6th edn.), Sinauer Associates, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S.F.: 2001, ‘Ecological Developmental Biology: Developmental Biology Meets the Real World’, Developmental Biology 233, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S.F. and Bolker J.A., 2001, ‘Homologies of Process and Modular Elements of Embryonic Construction’, Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular Developmental Evolution) 291, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S.F., Opitz, J.M. and Raff, R.A.: 1996, ‘Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology’, Developmental Biology 173, 357–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodrich, J., Puangsomlee, P., Martin M., Long, D., Meyerowitz, E.M. and Coupland, G.: 1997, ‘A Polycomb-Group Gene Regulates Homeotic Gene Expression in Arabidopsis’, Nature 386, 44–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, L.E., Cook, M.E. and Busse, J.S.: 2000, ‘The Origin of Land Plants: Body Plan Changes Contributing to a Major Evolutionary Radiation’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97, 4535–4540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P.E.: 2002, ‘The Philosophy of Molecular and Developmental Biology’, in P.K. Machamer and M. Silberstein (eds), The Blackwell’s Guide to the Philosophy of Science, Blackwell, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haag, E.S. and True, J.R.: 2001a, ‘From Mutants to Mechanisms? Assessing the Candidate Gene Paradigm in Evolutionary Biology’, Evolution 55, 1077–1084.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haag, E.S. and True, J.R.: 2001b, ‘Developmental System Drift and Flexibility in Evolutionary Trajectories’, Evolution and Development 3, 109–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haag, E.S.: 2003, ‘Meeting Review: The Microevolution of Development’, Evolution and Development 5, 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B.K.: 1992, Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Kluwer, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B.K.: 2000a, ‘Balfour, Garstang and de Beer: The First Century of Evolutionary Embryology’, American Zoologist 40, 718–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B.K.: 2000b, ‘Guest Editorial: Evo-Devo or Devo-Evo - Does it Matter?’, Evolution and Development 2, 177–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, A. and Mabberley, D.J.: 1994, ‘On Perception of Plant Morphology: Some Implications for Phylogeny’, in D.S. Ingram and A. Hudson (eds), Shape and Form in Plants and Fungi, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, A., Kaur, H., Phillips, A., Hedden, P., Hake, S. and Tsiantis, M.: 2002, ‘The Gibberellin Pathway Mediates KNOTTED1-type Homeobox Function in Plants with Different Body Plans’, Current Biology 12, 1557–1565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J.A.: 2000, ‘A Survey of Primary Homology Assessment Different Botanists Perceive and Define Characters in Different Ways’, in R. Scotland and R.T. Pennington (eds), Homology and Systematics: Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis, Taylor and Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J.A.: 2002, ‘Evolutionary Developmental Biology: Impact on Systematic Theory and Practice, and the Contribution of Systematics’, in Q.C.B. Cronk, R.M. Bateman and J.A. Hawkins (eds), Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution, Taylor and Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, M.C. and Boller, T.: 2002, ‘Biotic Interactions: Levels of Complexity in Plant Interactions with Herbivores, Pathogens and Mutualists’, Current Opinion in Plant Biology 5, 277–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W.: 1975, ‘“Cladistic Analysis or Cladistic Classification?”: A Reply to Ernst Mayr’, Systematic Zoology 24, 244–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer, J.M.I., Gourlay, C.W. and Ellis, T.H.N.: 2001, ‘Genetic Control of Leaf Morphology: A Partial View’, Annals of Botany 88, 1129–1139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, S.H.: 1998, Molecular Genetics of Plant Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeune, B. and Sattler, R.: 1992, ‘Multivariate Analysis in Process Morphology of Plants’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 156, 147–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellogg, E.: 2002, ‘Are Macroevolution and Microevolution Qualitatively Different? Evidence from Poaceae and other Families’, in Q.C.B. Cronk, R.M. Bateman and J.A. Hawkins (eds), Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution, Taylor and Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, P.: 1994, ‘Alternation of Generations in Land Plants: New Phylogenetic and Morphological Evidence’, Biological Reviews 69, 293–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, P.: 2002, ‘The Telome Theory’, in Q.C.B. Cronk, R.M. Bateman and J.A. Hawkins (eds), Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution, Taylor and Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenrick, P. and Crane, P.R.: 1997, ‘The Origin and Early Evolution of Plants on Land’, Nature 389, 33–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchoff, B.K.: 2000, ‘Character Description in Phylogenetic Analysis: Insights from Agnes Arber’s Concept of the Plant’, Annals of Botany 88, 1203–1214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogan, N.T. and Ashton, N.W.: 2000, ‘Ancestry of MADS-Box Genes Revealed by Bryophyte (Physcomitrella patens) Homologues’, The New Phytologist 147, 505–517.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumaran, M.K., Bowman, J.L. and Sundaresan, V.: 2002, ‘YABBY Polarity Genes Mediate the Repression of KNOX Homeobox Genes in Arabidopsis’, The Plant Cell 14, 2761–2770.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leavitt, R.G.: 1909, ‘A Vegetative Mutant, and the Principle of Homeosis in Plants’, Botanical Gazette 47, 30–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M.S.Y.: 1999, ‘Circularity, Evolution, Systematics... and Circularity’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12, 724–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, N.L. and Sattler, R.: 1992, ‘Irregular Floral Development in Calla palustris (Araceae) and the Concept of Homeosis’, American Journal of Botany 79, 1145–1157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, N.L. and Sattler, R.: 1993, ‘Homeosis in Floral Development of Sanguinaria canadensis and S. canadensis “Multiplex” (Papaveraceae)’, American Journal of Botany 80, 1323–1335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, N.L. and Sattler, R.: 1994, ‘Floral Development and Homeosis in Actaea rubra (Ranunculaceae)’, International Journal of Plant Sciences 155, 658–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, N.L. and Sattler, R.: 1996, ‘Staminate Floral Development in Begonia cucullata var. hookeri and Three Double-Flowering Begonia Cultivars, Examples of Homeosis’, Canadian Journal of Botany 74, 1729–1741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, N.L. and Sattler, R.: 1997, ‘Polyaxial Development in Homeotic Flowers of Three Begonia Cultivars. Canadian Journal of Botany 75, 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, M.: 2002, ‘How Insects Lose Their Limbs’, Nature 415, 848–849.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, P. and Johnston, M.: 2000, ‘Heterochrony in Plant Evolutionary Studies Through the Twentieth Century’, The Botanical Review 66, 57–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann, I. and McGinnis, W.: 2002, ‘Hox Genes: It’s all a Matter of Context’, Current Biology 12, R514–R516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, A.C.: 2003, ‘Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation, and the Synthesis of Evolutionary and Developmental Biology’, this issue.

  • Lyndon, R.F.: 1990, Plant Development. The Cellular Basis, Unwin Hyman, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabberley, D.J. and Hay, A.: 1994, ‘Homeosis, Canalization, Decanalization, ‘Characters’ and Angiosperm Origins’, Edinburgh Journal of Botany 51, 117–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, M..: 1869, Vegetable Teratology: An Account of the Principle Deviations from the Usual Construction of Plants, Ray Society, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Márquez-Guzmán, J., Engleman, E.M., Martínez-Mena, A., Martínez, E. and Ramos, C.: 1989, ‘Anatomía reproductiva de Lacandonia schismatica (Lacandoniaceae)’, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 76, 124–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Márquez-Guzmán, J., Vázquez-Santana, S., Engleman, E.M., Martínez-Mena, A. and Martínez, E.: 1993, ‘Pollen Development and Fertilization in Lacandonia schismatica (Lacandoniaceae)’, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 80, 891–897.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, E. and Ramos, C.H.: 1989, ‘Lacandoniaceae (Triuridales): Una nueva familia de México’, Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 76, 128–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1974, ‘Cladistic Analysis or Cladistic Classification?’, Z. zool. Syst. Evolut.-forsch 12, 94–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1997, ‘Goldschmidt and the Evolutionary Synthesis: A Response’, Journal of the History of Biology 30, 31–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. and Bock, W.J.: 2002, ‘Classifications and other Ordering Systems’, Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 40, 169–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyen, S.V.: 1984, ‘Basic Features of Gymnosperm Systematics and Phylogeny as Evidenced by the Fossil Record’, The Botanical Review 50, 1–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyen, S.V.: 1988, ‘Origin of the Angiosperm Gynoecium by Gamoheterotopy’, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 97, 171–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, V.G.: 1966, ‘Floral Abnormalities’, The Botanical Review 32, 165–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A.: 1998, ‘Meeting Report: We Are Devo-Evo’, Trends in Genetics 14, 482–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerowitz, E.M.: 1997, ‘Plants and the Logic of Development’, Genetics 145, 5–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerowitz, E.M.: 2002, ‘Plants Compared to Animals: The Broadest Comparative Study of Development’, Science 295, 1482–1485.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli, A.: 1998, ‘Molecules, Developmental Modules and Phenotypes: A Combinatorial Approach to Homology’, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 9, 340–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell-Olds, T. and Bergelson, J.: 2000, ‘Biotic Interactions: Genomics and Coevolution’, Current Opinion in Plant Biology 3, 273–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moss, E.G.: 2002, ‘MicroRNAs: Hidden in the Genome’, Current Biology 12, R138–R140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münster, T., Pahnke, J., DiRosa, A., Kim, J.T., Martin W., Saedler, H. and Theissen, G.: 1997, ‘Floral Homeotic Genes were Recruited from Homologous MADS-Box Genes Preexisting in the Common Ancestor of Ferns and Seed Plants’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 94, 2415–2420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niklas, K.J.: 1994, Plant Allometry, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niklas, K.J.: 1997, The Evolutionary Biology of Plants, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niklas, K.J.: 2000, ‘The Evolution of Plant Body Plans - a Biomechanical Perspective’, Annals of Botany 85, 411–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C.: 1982, ‘Morphological Characters and Homology’, in K.A. Joysey and A.E. Friday (eds), Problems in Phylogenetic Reconstruction, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennisi, E.: 2002, ‘News Focus: Evo-Devo Enthusiasts Get Down to Details’, Science 298, 953–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pozzi, C., Müller, K.J., Rohde, W. and Salamini, F.: 1999, ‘Leaf Development’, in V.E.A. Russo, D.J. Cove, L.G. Edgar, R. Jaenisch and F. Salamini (eds), Development: Genetics, Epigenetics and Environmental Regulation, Springer, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raff, R.A.: 1996, The Shape of Life: Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raff, R.A.: 2000, ‘Evo-Devo: The Evolution of a New Discipline’, Nature Reviews Genetics 1, 74–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raff, R.A. and Sly, B.J.: 2000, ‘Modularity and Dissociation in the Evolution of Gene Expression Territories in Development’, Evolution and Development 2, 102–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raff, E.C. and Raff, R.A.: 2000, ‘Dissociability, Modularity, Evolvability’, Evolution and Development 2, 235–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif, W-E., Junker, T. and Hossfeld, U.; 2000, ‘The Synthetic Theory of Evolution: General Problems and the German Contribution to the Synthesis’, Theory in Biosciences 119, 41–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, L., Sánchez-Baracaldo, P. and Hake, S.: 2000, ‘Knots in the Family Tree: Evolutionary Relationships and Functions of KNOX Homeobox Genes,’ Plant Molecular Biology 42, 151–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, R.C.: 2001, ‘Complexity, Self-Organization and Selection’, Biology and Philosophy 16, 655–683.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riechmann, J.L., Heard, J., Martin, G., Reuber, L., Jiang, C., Keddie, J., Adam, L., Pineda, O., Ratcliffe, O.J., Samaha, R.R., Creelman, R., Pilgrim, M., Broun, P., Zhang, J. Z., Ghandehari, D., Sherman, B.K. and Yu, G.: 2000, ‘Arabidopsis Transcription Factors: Genome-Wide Comparative Analysis Among Eukaryotes’, Science 290, 2105–2110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O.: 1988, Fundamentals of Comparative Biology, Birkhauser, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O.: 1993, ‘The Conceptual Relationship of Ontogeny, Phylogeny and Classification: The Taxic Approach’, Evolutionary Biology 27, 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, J.S.: 2001, ‘Interpreting the Homeobox: Metaphors of Gene Action and Activation in Development and Evolution’, Evolution and Development 3, 287–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ronshaugen, M., McGinnis, N. and McGinnis, W.: 2002, ‘Hox Protein Mutation and Macroevolution of the Insect Body Plan’, Nature 415, 914–917.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, A.: 2000, ‘Laws, History, and the Nature of Biological Understanding’, Evolutionary Biology 32, 57–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudall, P.J. and Bateman, R.M.: 2002, ‘Roles of Synorganisation, Zygomorphy and Heterotopy in Floral Evolution: The Gynostemium and Labellum of Orchids and Other Lilioid Monocots’, Biological Reviews 77, 403–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutishauser, R. and Isler, I.: 2001, ‘Developmental Genetics and Morphological Evolution of Flowering Plants, Especially Bladderworts (Utricularia): Fuzzy Arberian Morphology Complements Classical Morphology’, Annals of Botany 88, 1173–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, R.: 1984, ‘Homology - a Continuing Challenge’, Systematic Botany 9, 382–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, R.: 1988, ‘Homeosis in Plants’, American Journal of Botany 75, 1606–1617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler. R.: 1992, ‘Process Morphology: Structural Dynamics in Development and Evolution’, Canadian Journal of Botany 70, 708–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, R.: 1994, ‘Homology, Homeosis, and Process Morphology in Plants’, in B. K. Hall (ed.), Homology. The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology, Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, R.: 1996, ‘Classical morphology and Continuum Morphology: Opposition and Continuum’, Annals of Botany 78, 577–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, R.: 2001, ‘Some Comments on the Morphological, Scientific, Philosophical and Spiritual Significance of Agnes Arber’s Life and Work’, Annals of Botany 88, 1215–1217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, R.: 2001, ‘Agnes Arber, neé Robertson (1879–1960): Fragments of her Life, Including Her Place in Biology and inWomen’s studies’, Annals of Botany 88, 1105–1128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, N.: 1999, ‘Leaf Development in Angiosperms’, Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 50, 419–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slack, J.M., Holland, P.W. and Graham, C.F.: 1993, ‘The Zootype and the Phylotypic Stage’, Nature 361, 490–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smocovitis, V.B.: 1996, Unifying Biology: the Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smocovitis, V.B.: 2002, ‘G. Ledyard Stebbins and the Evolutionary Synthesis’, Annual Review of Genetics 35, 803–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soltis, P.S., Soltis, D.E., Wolf, P.G., Nickrent, D.L., Chaw S-M. and Chapman, R.L.: 1999, ‘The Phylogeny of Land Plants Inferred from 18S rDNA Sequences: Pushing the Limits of rDNA Signal?’, Molecular Biology and Evolution 16, 1774–1784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staskawicz, B. and Parniske, M.: 2001, ‘Biotic Interactions: Genomic Approaches to Interactions of Plants with Pathogens and Symbionts’, Current Opinion in Plant Biology 4, 279–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, D.: 2000, ‘Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation’, Evolution 54, 1079–1091.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, P.F.: 1984, ‘Homology and Phylogeny: Morphology and Systematics’, Systematic Botany 9, 395–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, P.F.: 1991, ‘Character States, Morphological Variation, and Phylogenetic Analysis: A Review’, Systematic Botany 16, 553–583.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, P.F.: 2000, ‘On Characters and Character States: Do Overlapping and Nonoverlapping Variation, Morphology and Molecules all Yield Data of the Same Value?’, in R. Scotland and R.T. Pennington (eds), Homology and Systematics: Coding Characters for Phylogenetic Analysis, Taylor and Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sultan, S.E.: 2000, ‘Phenotypic Plasticity for Plant Development, Function and Life History’, Trends in Plant Science 5, 537–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, M.E. and Engström, P.: 2002, ‘Closely Related MADS-Box Genes in Club Moss (Lycopodium) Show Broad Expression Patterns and Are Structurally Similar to, but Phylogenetically Distinct from, Typical Seed Plant MADS-box genes’, The New Phytologist 154, 439–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tandre, K., Albert, V.A., Sundas, A. and Engström, P.: 1995, ‘Conifer Homologues to Genes that Control Floral Development in Angiosperms’, Plant Molecular Biology 27, 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Arabidopsis Genome Initiative: 2000, ‘Analysis of the Genome Sequence of the Flowering Plant Arabidopsis thaliana’, Nature 408, 796–815.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theissen, G., Becker, A., Di Rosa, A., Kanno, A., Kim, J.T., Münster, T., Winter, K-U. and Saedler, H.: 2000, ‘A Short History of MADS-Box Genes in Plants’, Plant Molecular Biology 42, 115–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theissen, G., Becker, A., Winter, K-U., Münster, T., Kirchner, C. and Saedler, H.: 2002, ‘How the Land Plants Learned Their Floral ABCs: The Role of MADS-box Genes in the Evolutionary Origin of Flowers’, in Q.C.B. Cronk, R.M. Bateman and J.A. Hawkins (eds), Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution, Taylor and Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trewavas, A.: 2002, ‘Plant Cell Signal Transduction: The Emerging Phenotype’, The Plant Cell (Supplement 2002), S3–S4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, S.C.: 2000, ‘Floral Development and Homeosis in Saraca (Leguminosae: Caesalpinioideae: Detariae)’, International Journal of Plant Sciences 161, 537–549.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergara-Silva, F., Martínez-Castilla, L. and Alvarez-Buylla, E.R. 2000, ‘MADS-box Genes: Development and Evolution of Plant Body Plans’, Journal of Phycology 36, 803–812.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergara-Silva, F, Espinosa-Matías, S., Ambrose, B. A., Vázquez-Santana, S., Martínez-Mena, A., Márquez-Guzmán, J., Martínez, E., Meyerowitz, E.M. and Alvarez-Buylla, E.R.: 2003, ‘Inside-Out Flowers Characteristic of Lacandonia schismatica Evolved at least before its Divergence from a Closely Related Species, Triuris brevistylis’. International Journal of Plant Sciences (in press).

  • Villanueva, J.M., Broadhvest, J., Hauser, B.A., Meister, R.J., Schneitz, K. and Gasser, C.S.: 1999, ‘INNER NO OUTER regulates Abaxial-Adaxial Patterning in Arabidopsis Ovules’, Genes and Development 13, 3160–3169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voinnet, O.: 2001, ‘RNA Silencing as a Plant Immune System Against Viruses’, Trends in Genetics 17, 449–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroemen, C. and DeVries, S.: 1991, ‘Flowering Plant Embryogenesis’, in V.E.A. Russo, D.J. Cove, L.G. Edgar, R. Jaenisch and F. Salamini (eds), Development: Genetics, Epigenetics and Environmental Regulation, Springer, Heidelberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vervoort, M.: 2002, ‘Functional Evolution of Hox Proteins in Arthropods’, BioEssays 24, 775–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P.: 1989, ‘The Biological Homology Concept’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20, 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P.: 1996, ‘Homologues, Natural Kinds, and the Evolution of Modularity’, American Zoologist 36, 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P.: 1999, ‘A Research Programme for Testing the Biological Homology Concept’, in G.R. Bock and G. Cardew (eds), Homology, Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P. and Misof, B.Y.: 1993, ‘How can a Character be Developmentally Constrained Despite Variation in Developmental Pathways?’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 6, 449–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P., Chiu, C-H. and Laubichler: 2000, ‘Developmental Evolution as a Mechanistic Science: The Inference from Developmental Mechanisms to Evolutionary Processes’, American Zoologist 40, 819–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake, D.B.: 1999, ‘Homoplasy, Homology and the Problem of “Sameness in Biology”,’ in G.R. Bock and G. Cardew (eds), Homology, Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, B.H.: 1998, ‘Origins of Order in Dynamical Models’, Biology and Philosophy 13, 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigel, D. and Meyerowitz, E.M.: 1994, ‘The ABCs of Floral Homeotic Genes’, Cell 78, 203–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Weigel, D. and Jürgens, G.: 2002, ‘Stem Cells that Make Stems’, Nature 415, 751–754.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, P.H.: 2000, ‘Process Morphology from a Cladistic Perspective’, in R. Scotland and R. T. Pennington (eds), Homology and Systematics, Taylor and Francis, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, A.S.: 1998, ‘Meetings: Homology’, BioEssays 20, 1052–1053.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winther, R.G.: 2001, ‘Varieties of Modules: Kinds, Levels, Origins and Behaviors’, Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular Developmental Evolution) 291, 116–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolpert, L., Beddington, R., Brockes, J., Jessell, T., Lawrence, P. and Meyerowitz, E.: 1998, Principles of Development, Oxford University Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wray, G.A. and Abouheif, E. 1998, ‘When is Homology Not Homology?’, Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 8, 675–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C.-I.: 2000, ‘Genetics of Species Differences: What is Unknown and what is Unknowable?’, Evolutionary Biology 32, 239–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, W., 1952, ‘Main Results of the “Telome Theory”,’ The Palaeobotanist 1, 456–470.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratorio de Genética Molecular y Evolución, Departamento de Ecología Evolutiva, Instituto de Ecología, UNAM, México D.F, 04510, México

    Francisco Vergara-Silva

Authors
  1. Francisco Vergara-Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vergara-Silva, F. Plants and the Conceptual Articulation of Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Biology & Philosophy 18, 249–284 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023936102602

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023936102602

Keywords

Search

Navigation