Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 128, Issue 1, pp 43–51 | Cite as

Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay

Original Paper

Abstract

Since 150 years it is hypothesized now that evolution always proceeds in a countless number of very small steps (Darwin in On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle of life, Murray, London, 1859), a view termed “gradualism”. Few contemporary biologists will doubt that gradualism reflects the most frequent mode of evolution, but whether it is the only one remains controversial. It has been suggested that in some cases profound (“saltational”) changes may have occurred within one or a few generations of organisms. Organisms with a profound mutant phenotype that have the potential to establish a new evolutionary lineage have been termed “hopeful monsters”. Recently I have reviewed the concept of hopeful monsters in this journal mainly from a historical perspective, and provided some evidence for their past and present existence. Here I provide a brief update on data and discussions supporting the view that hopeful monsters and saltational evolution are valuable biological concepts. I suggest that far from being mutually exclusive scenarios, both gradual and saltational evolution are required to explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth. In my view, gradual changes represent the usual mode of evolution, but are unlikely to be able to explain all key innovations and changes in body plans. Saltational changes involving hopeful monsters are probably very exceptional events, but since they have the potential to establish profound novelties sometimes facilitating adaptive radiations, they are of quite some importance, even if they would occur in any evolutionary lineage less than once in a million years. From that point of view saltational changes are not more bizarre scenarios of evolutionary change than whole genome duplications, endosymbiosis or impacts of meteorites. In conclusion I argue that the complete dismissal of saltational evolution is a major historical error of evolutionary biology tracing back to Darwin that needs to be rectified.

Keywords

Darwin Evolution Gradualism Saltationism Homeosis Novelty 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Richard Bateman (London) and Jean Deutsch (Paris) for inspiring discussions about hopeful monsters, and Nicholas D. Holland (La Jolla) for bringing “some entertaining thoughts” on Crinoids to my attention. Many thanks also to Georgy Levit, Lennart Olsson and Olaf Breidbach (Jena) for their continuous interest in my views on the mechanisms of evolution. I am grateful to Lennart Olsson also for proofreading my manuscript. Work in my laboratory on the performance of a hopeful monster was supported by Grants TH417/4-1 and -2 from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).

References

  1. Akam M (1998) Hox genes, homeosis and the evolution of segment identity: no need for hopeless monsters. Int J Dev Biol 42:445–451PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert VA, Oppenheimer DG, Lindqvist C (2002) Pleiotropy, redundancy and the evolution of flowers. Trends Plant Sci 7:297–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arthur W (2002) The emerging conceptual framework of evolutionary developmental biology. Nature 415:757–764PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barabé D, Lacroix C, Jeune B (2008) Quantitative developmental analysis of homeotic changes in the inflorescence of Philodendron (Araceae). Ann Bot 101:1027–1034PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bateman RM, DiMichele WA (1994) Saltational evolution of form in vascular plants: a neoGoldschmidtian synthesis. In: Ingram DS, Hudson A (eds) Shape and form in plants and fungi. Academic Press, London, pp 63–102Google Scholar
  6. Bateman RM, DiMichele WA (2002) Generating and filtering major phenotypic novelties: neoGoldschmidtian saltation revisited. In: Cronk QCB, Bateman RM, Hawkins JA (eds) Developmental genetics and plant evolution. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 109–159Google Scholar
  7. Baum DA, Donoghue MJ (2002) Transference of function, heterotopy and the evolution of plant development. In: Cronk QCB, Bateman RM, Hawkins JA (eds) Developmental genetics and plant evolution. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 52–69Google Scholar
  8. Baum DA, Hileman LC (2006) A developmental genetic model for the origin of the flower. In: Ainsworth C (ed) Flowering and its manipulation. Blackwell Publishing, Sheffield, pp 3–27Google Scholar
  9. Carroll SB (2001) Chance and necessity: the evolution of morphological complexity and diversity. Nature 409:1102–1109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chagas-Junior A, Edgecombe GD, Minelli A (2008) Variability in trunk segmentation in the centipede order Scolopendromorpha: a remarkable new species of Scolopendropsis Brandt (Chilopoda: Scolopendridae) from Brazil. Zootaxa 1888:36–46Google Scholar
  11. Citerne HL, Pennington RT, Cronk QCB (2006) An apparent reversal in floral symmetry in the legume Cadia is a homeotic transformation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:12017–12020PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crepet WL (2000) Progress in understanding angiosperm history, success, and relationships: Darwin’s abominable “perplexing phenomenon”. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:12939–12941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crepet WL, Niklas KJ (2009) Darwin’s second “abominable mystery”: why are there so many angiosperm species? Am J Bot 96:366–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle of life. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Dietrich MR (2000) From hopeful monsters to homeotic effects: Richard Goldschmidt’s integration of development, evolution and genetics. Am Zool 40:738–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dietrich MR (2003) Richard Goldschmidt: hopeful monsters and other ‘heresies’. Nat Rev Genet 4:68–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dobzhansky T (1937) Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Doebley J, Stec A, Hubbard L (1997) The evolution of apical dominance in maize. Nature 386:485–488PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Erwin DH (2000) Macroevolution is more than just repeated rounds of microevolution. Evol Dev 2:78–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frohlich MW (2003) An evolutionary scenario for the origin of flowers. Nat Rev Genet 4:559–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frohlich MW, Parker DS (2000) The mostly male theory of flower evolutionary origins: from genes to fossils. Syst Bot 25:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gailing O, Bachmann K (2000) The evolutionary reduction of microsporangia in Microseris (Asteraceae): transition genotypes and phenotypes. Plant Biol 2:455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Géant É, Mouchel-Vielh E, Coutanceau J-P, Ozouf-Costaz C, Deutsch JS (2006) Are Cirripedia hopeful monsters? Cytogenetic approach and evidence for a Hox gene cluster in the cirripede crustacean Sacculina carcini. Dev Genes Evol 216:443–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gilbert SF, Opitz JM, Raff RA (1996) Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology. Dev Biol 173:357–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goldschmidt R (1933) Some aspects of evolution. Science 78:539–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goldschmidt R (1940) The material basis of evolution. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  27. Gould SJ (1977a) The return of hopeful monsters. Nat Hist 86(6):24–30Google Scholar
  28. Gould SJ (1977b) Ontogeny and phylogeny. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Gould SJ, Eldredge N (1993) Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grimmer JC, Holland ND (1990) The structure of a sessile, stalkless crinoid (Holopus rangii). Acta Zool 71:61–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haag ES, True JR (2001) From mutants to mechanisms? Assessing the candidate gene paradigm in evolutionary biology. Evolution 55:1077–1084PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Hintz M, Bartholmes C, Nutt P, Ziermann J, Hameister S, Neuffer B, Theißen G (2006) Catching a ‘hopeful monster’: shepherd’s purse (Capsella bursa-pastoris) as a model system to study the evolution of flower development. J Exp Bot 57:3531–3542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Junker T (2004) Die zweite Darwinsche Revolution. Geschichte des Synthetischen Darwinismus in Deutschland 1924 bis 1950 (Acta Biohistorica, Bd. 8). Basilisken-Presse, MarburgGoogle Scholar
  34. Junker T, Hoßfeld U (2001) Die Entdeckung der Evolution. Eine revolutionäre Theorie und ihre Geschichte. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  35. Kanno A, Saeki H, Kameya T, Saedler H, Theissen G (2003) Heterotopic expression of class B floral homeotic genes supports a modified ABC model for tulip (Tulipa gesneriana). Plant Mol Biol 52:831–841PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kellogg EA (2000) The grasses: a case study in macroevolution. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 31:217–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kirschner MW, Gerhart JC (2005) The plausibility of life—resolving Darwin’s dilemma. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuratani S (2005) Developmental studies of the lamprey and hierarchical evolutionary steps towards the acquisition of the jaw. J Anat 207:489–499PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Leitch AR, Leitch IJ (2007) Genomic plasticity and the diversity of polyploid plants. Science 320:481–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lenski RE, Ofria C, Pennock RT, Adami C (2003) The evolutionary origin of complex features. Nature 423:139–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levit GS, Meister K, Hoßfeld U (2008) Alternative evolutionary theories: a historical survey. J Bioecon 10:71–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lewis EB (1994) Homeosis: the first 100 years. Trends Genet 10:341–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Li C, Wu X-C, Rieppel O, Wang L-T, Zhao L-J (2008) An ancestral turtle from the Late Triassic of southwestern China. Nature 456:497–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mallet J (2007) Hybrid speciation. Nature 446:279–283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martin W, Hoffmeister M, Rotte C, Henze K (2001) An overview of endosymbiotic models for the origin of eukaryotes, their ATP-producing organelles (mitochondria and hydrogenosomes), and their heterotrophic lifestyle. Biol Chem 382:1521–1539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Mayr E, Provine WB (1980) The evolutionary synthesis. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  48. Meyerowitz EM, Smyth DR, Bowman JL (1989) Abnormal flowers and pattern formation in floral development. Development 106:209–217Google Scholar
  49. Mondragón-Palomino M, Theißen G (2008) MADS about the evolution of orchid flowers. Trends Plant Sci 13:51–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Mondragón-Palomino M, Theissen G (2009, in press) Why are orchid flowers so diverse? Reduction of evolutionary constraints by paralogues of class B floral homeotic genes. Ann Bot. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcn258
  51. Moritz DML, Kadereit JW (2001) The genetics of evolutionary change in Senecio vulgaris L.: a QTL mapping approach. Plant Biol 3:544–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mosbrugger V (1989) Gibt es sprunghafte Evolution? Formen und Mechanismen der transspezifischen Evolution bei Pflanzen. Biol Unserer Zeit 19(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Müller GB, Wagner GP (1991) Novelty in evolution: restructuring the concept. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:229–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nagashima H, Kuraku S, Uchida K, Ohya YK, Narita Y, Kuratani S (2007) On the carapacial ridge in turtle embryos: its developmental origin and the chelonian body plan. Development 134:2219–2226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Nutt P, Ziermann J, Hintz M, Neuffer B, Theißen G (2006) Capsella as a model system to study the evolutionary relevance of floral homeotic mutants. Plant Syst Evol 259:217–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ohya YK, Kuraku S, Kuratani S (2005) Hox code in embryos of Chinese soft-shelled turtle Pelodiscus sinensis correlates with the evolutionary innovation in the turtle. J Exp Zool Mol Dev Evol 304B:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Patterson C (1988) Homology in classical and molecular biology. Mol Biol Evol 5:603–625PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Reif W-E, Junker T, Hoßfeld U (2000) The synthetic theory of evolution: general problems and the German contribution to the synthesis. Theory Biosci 119:41–91Google Scholar
  59. Reisz RR, Head JJ (2008) Turtle origins out to sea. Nature 456:450–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Riedl R (1977) A systems-analytical approach to macro-evolutionary phenomena. Q Rev Biol 52:351–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rieppel O (2001) Turtles as hopeful monsters. Bioessays 23:987–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ronse De Craene LP (2003) The evolutionary significance of homeosis in flowers: a morphological perspective. Int J Plant Sci 164:S225–S235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ronse De Craene LP (2007) Are petals sterile stamens or bracts? The origin and evolution of petals in the core eudicots. Ann Bot 100:621–630PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rudall PJ, Bateman RM (2002) Roles of synorganisation, zygomorphy and heterotopy in floral evolution: the gynostemium and labellum of orchids and other lilioid monocots. Biol Rev 77:403–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rudall PJ, Bateman R (2003) Evolutionary change in flowers and inflorescences: evidence from naturally occurring terata. Trends Plant Sci 8:76–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rutishauser R, Isler B (2001) Developmental genetics and morphological evolution of flowering plants, especially bladderworts (Utricularia): fuzzy Arberian morphology complements classical morphology. Ann Bot 88:1173–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sattler R (1988) Homeosis in plants. Am J Bot 75:1606–1617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Simpson GG (1944) Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  69. Stuessy TF (2004) A transitional-combinational theory for the origin of angiosperms. Taxon 53:3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tautz D (1998) Debatable homologies. Nature 395:17–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Theißen G (2005) Birth, life and death of developmental control genes: new challenges for the homology concept. In: Richter S, Olsson L (eds) Evolutionary developmental biology: new challenges to the homology concept? Theory Biosci 124:199–212Google Scholar
  72. Theißen G (2006) The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology. Theory Biosci 124:349–369PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Theißen G, Becker A (2004) Gymnosperm orthologues of class B floral homeotic genes and their impact on understanding flower origin. Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:129–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Theißen G, Melzer R (2007) Molecular mechanisms underlying origin and diversification of the angiosperm flower. Ann Bot 100:603–619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Theißen G, Becker A, Di Rosa A, Kanno A, Kim JT, Münster T, Winter K-U, Saedler H (2000) A short history of MADS-box genes in plants. Plant Mol Biol 42:115–149PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Theißen G, Becker A, Kirchner C, Münster T, Winter K-U, Saedler H (2002) How land plants learned their floral ABCs: the role of MADS-box genes in the evolutionary origin of flowers. In: Cronk QCB, Bateman RM, Hawkins JA (eds) Developmental genetics and plant evolution. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 173–205Google Scholar
  77. Vergara-Silva F (2003) Plants and the conceptual articulation of evolutionary developmental biology. Biol Philos 18:249–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wagner GP (2000) What is the promise of developmental evolution: part I: why is developmental biology necessary to explain evolutionary innovations? J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 288:95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Wagner GP, Laubichler MD (2004) Rupert Riedl and the re-synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology: body plan and evolvability. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 302B:92–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Wagner GP, Müller GB (2002) Evolutionary innovations overcome ancestral constraints: a re-examination of character evolution in male sepsid flies (Diptera: Sepsidae). Evol Dev 4:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Wang R-L, Stec A, Hey J, Lukens L, Doebley J (1999) The limits of selection during maize domestication. Nature 398:236–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wang H, Nussbaum-Wagler T, Li B, Zhao Q, Vigouroux Y, Faller M, Bomblies K, Lukens L, Doebley JF (2005) The origin of the naked grains of maize. Nature 436:714–719PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeneticsFriedrich Schiller University JenaJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations