Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 249–284 | Cite as

Plants and the Conceptual Articulation of Evolutionary Developmental Biology

  • Francisco Vergara-Silva


Developmental Biology Evolutionary Developmental Biology Evolutionary Developmental Conceptual Articulation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Amundson, R.: 1994, ‘Two Concepts of Constraint: Adaptationism and the Challenge from Developmental Biology’, Philosophy of Science 61, 556–578.Google Scholar
  7. Amundson, R.: 1998, ‘Typology Reconsidered: Two Doctrines on the History of Evolutionary Biology’, Biology and Philosophy 13, 153–177.Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Arber, A.: 1950, The Natural Philosophy of Plant Form, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Arthur, W.: 2002, ‘The Emerging Conceptual Framework of Evolutionary Developmental Biology’, Nature 415, 757–764.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Bang, R., DeSalle, R. and Wheeler W.: 2000, ‘Transformationalism, Taxism, and Developmental Biology in Systematics’, Systematic Biology 49, 19–27.Google Scholar
  13. Barabé, D. and Lacroix, C.: 2000, ‘Homeosis in Araceae Flowers: The Case of Philodendron melinonii’, Annals of Botany 86, 479–491.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Bateson, W.: 1894, reprinted 1992, Materials for the Study of Variation, Johns Hopkins University Press, Maryland.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. Bock, W.J: 1974, ‘Philosophical Foundations of Classical Evolutionary Classification’, Systematic Zoology 22, 375–392.Google Scholar
  20. Bolker, J.A.: 2000, ‘Modularity in Development and Why It Matters to Evo-Devo’, American Zoologist 40, 770–776.Google Scholar
  21. Bolker, J.A. and Raff, R.A.: 1996, ‘Developmental Genetics and Traditional Homology’, BioEssays 16, 489–494.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Bowman, J.L.: 2000, ‘The YABBY Gene Family and Abaxial Cell Fate’, Current Opinion in Plant Biology 3, 17–22.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. Carine, M.A. and Scotland, R.W.: 1999, ‘Taxic and Transformational Homology: Different Ways of Seeing’, Cladistics 15, 121–129.Google Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Carroll, S.B.: 2000, ‘Endless Forms: The Evolution of Gene Regulation and Morphological Diversity’, Cell 101, 577–580.Google Scholar
  31. Carroll, S.B.: 2001, ‘Chance and Necessity: the Evolution of Morphological Complexity and Diversity’, Nature 409, 1102–1109.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Coen, E.S. and Meyerowitz, E.M.: 1991, ‘The War of the Whorls: Genetic Interactions Controlling Flower Development’, Nature 353, 31–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Corley, L.: 2002, ‘Research Update: Radical Paradigm Shifts in Evo-Devo’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 17, 544–545.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Cronk, Q.C.: 2001, ‘Plant Evolution in a Postgenomic Context’, Nature Reviews Genetics 2, 607–619.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Dietrich, M.R.: 1995, ‘Richard Goldschmidt’s “Heresies” and the Evolutionary Synthesis’, Journal of the History of Biology 28, 431–461.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Donoghue, M.J. and Kadereit, J.W.: 1992, ‘Walter Zimmermann and the Growth of Phylogenetic Theory’, Systematic Biology 41, 74–85.Google Scholar
  43. Dusheck, J.: 2002, ‘News Feature: It’s the Ecology, Stupid’, Nature 418, 578–579.Google Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Endress, P.K.: 2001, ‘Origins of Flower Morphology’, Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular Developmental Evolution) 291, 105–115.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. Galant, R. and Carroll, S.B.: 2002, ‘Evolution of a Transcriptional Repressor Domain in an Insect Hox Protein’, Nature 415, 910–913.Google Scholar
  50. García-Bellido, A.: 1975, ‘Genetic Control of Wing Disc Development in Drosophila’, Ciba Foundation Symposium 29, 161–182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 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
  52. Gerhart, J. and Kirschner, M.: 1997, Cells, Embryos, and Evolution, Blackwell Science, London.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Gilbert, S.F.: 2000b, Developmental Biology (6th edn.), Sinauer Associates, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  55. Gilbert, S.F.: 2001, ‘Ecological Developmental Biology: Developmental Biology Meets the Real World’, Developmental Biology 233, 1–12.Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Gilbert, S.F., Opitz, J.M. and Raff, R.A.: 1996, ‘Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology’, Developmental Biology 173, 357–372.Google Scholar
  58. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. Haag, E.S. and True, J.R.: 2001b, ‘Developmental System Drift and Flexibility in Evolutionary Trajectories’, Evolution and Development 3, 109–119.Google Scholar
  63. Haag, E.S.: 2003, ‘Meeting Review: The Microevolution of Development’, Evolution and Development 5, 1–2.Google Scholar
  64. Hall, B.K.: 1992, Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  65. Hall, B.K.: 2000a, ‘Balfour, Garstang and de Beer: The First Century of Evolutionary Embryology’, American Zoologist 40, 718–728.Google Scholar
  66. Hall, B.K.: 2000b, ‘Guest Editorial: Evo-Devo or Devo-Evo - Does it Matter?’, Evolution and Development 2, 177–178.Google Scholar
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. Hennig, W.: 1975, ‘“Cladistic Analysis or Cladistic Classification?”: A Reply to Ernst Mayr’, Systematic Zoology 24, 244–256.Google Scholar
  73. 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
  74. Howell, S.H.: 1998, Molecular Genetics of Plant Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  75. Jeune, B. and Sattler, R.: 1992, ‘Multivariate Analysis in Process Morphology of Plants’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 156, 147–167.Google Scholar
  76. 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
  77. Kenrick, P.: 1994, ‘Alternation of Generations in Land Plants: New Phylogenetic and Morphological Evidence’, Biological Reviews 69, 293–330.Google Scholar
  78. 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
  79. Kenrick, P. and Crane, P.R.: 1997, ‘The Origin and Early Evolution of Plants on Land’, Nature 389, 33–39.Google Scholar
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. Leavitt, R.G.: 1909, ‘A Vegetative Mutant, and the Principle of Homeosis in Plants’, Botanical Gazette 47, 30–68.Google Scholar
  84. Lee, M.S.Y.: 1999, ‘Circularity, Evolution, Systematics... and Circularity’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology 12, 724–734.Google Scholar
  85. 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
  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. Levine, M.: 2002, ‘How Insects Lose Their Limbs’, Nature 415, 848–849.Google Scholar
  91. Li, P. and Johnston, M.: 2000, ‘Heterochrony in Plant Evolutionary Studies Through the Twentieth Century’, The Botanical Review 66, 57–88.Google Scholar
  92. Lohmann, I. and McGinnis, W.: 2002, ‘Hox Genes: It’s all a Matter of Context’, Current Biology 12, R514–R516.Google Scholar
  93. Love, A.C.: 2003, ‘Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation, and the Synthesis of Evolutionary and Developmental Biology’, this issue.Google Scholar
  94. Lyndon, R.F.: 1990, Plant Development. The Cellular Basis, Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
  95. Mabberley, D.J. and Hay, A.: 1994, ‘Homeosis, Canalization, Decanalization, ‘Characters’ and Angiosperm Origins’, Edinburgh Journal of Botany 51, 117–126.Google Scholar
  96. Masters, M..: 1869, Vegetable Teratology: An Account of the Principle Deviations from the Usual Construction of Plants, Ray Society, London.Google Scholar
  97. 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
  98. 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
  99. 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
  100. Mayr, E.: 1974, ‘Cladistic Analysis or Cladistic Classification?’, Z. zool. Syst. Evolut.-forsch 12, 94–128.Google Scholar
  101. Mayr, E.: 1997, ‘Goldschmidt and the Evolutionary Synthesis: A Response’, Journal of the History of Biology 30, 31–33.Google Scholar
  102. Mayr, E. and Bock, W.J.: 2002, ‘Classifications and other Ordering Systems’, Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 40, 169–194.Google Scholar
  103. 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
  104. Meyen, S.V.: 1988, ‘Origin of the Angiosperm Gynoecium by Gamoheterotopy’, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 97, 171–178.Google Scholar
  105. Meyer, V.G.: 1966, ‘Floral Abnormalities’, The Botanical Review 32, 165–195.Google Scholar
  106. Meyer, A.: 1998, ‘Meeting Report: We Are Devo-Evo’, Trends in Genetics 14, 482–483.Google Scholar
  107. Meyerowitz, E.M.: 1997, ‘Plants and the Logic of Development’, Genetics 145, 5–9.Google Scholar
  108. Meyerowitz, E.M.: 2002, ‘Plants Compared to Animals: The Broadest Comparative Study of Development’, Science 295, 1482–1485.Google Scholar
  109. Minelli, A.: 1998, ‘Molecules, Developmental Modules and Phenotypes: A Combinatorial Approach to Homology’, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 9, 340–347.Google Scholar
  110. Mitchell-Olds, T. and Bergelson, J.: 2000, ‘Biotic Interactions: Genomics and Coevolution’, Current Opinion in Plant Biology 3, 273–277.Google Scholar
  111. Moss, E.G.: 2002, ‘MicroRNAs: Hidden in the Genome’, Current Biology 12, R138–R140.Google Scholar
  112. 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
  113. Niklas, K.J.: 1994, Plant Allometry, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  114. Niklas, K.J.: 1997, The Evolutionary Biology of Plants, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  115. Niklas, K.J.: 2000, ‘The Evolution of Plant Body Plans - a Biomechanical Perspective’, Annals of Botany 85, 411–438.Google Scholar
  116. 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
  117. Pennisi, E.: 2002, ‘News Focus: Evo-Devo Enthusiasts Get Down to Details’, Science 298, 953–955.Google Scholar
  118. 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
  119. Raff, R.A.: 1996, The Shape of Life: Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  120. Raff, R.A.: 2000, ‘Evo-Devo: The Evolution of a New Discipline’, Nature Reviews Genetics 1, 74–79.Google Scholar
  121. 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
  122. Raff, E.C. and Raff, R.A.: 2000, ‘Dissociability, Modularity, Evolvability’, Evolution and Development 2, 235–237.Google Scholar
  123. 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
  124. 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
  125. Richardson, R.C.: 2001, ‘Complexity, Self-Organization and Selection’, Biology and Philosophy 16, 655–683.Google Scholar
  126. 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
  127. Rieppel, O.: 1988, Fundamentals of Comparative Biology, Birkhauser, Berlin.Google Scholar
  128. Rieppel, O.: 1993, ‘The Conceptual Relationship of Ontogeny, Phylogeny and Classification: The Taxic Approach’, Evolutionary Biology 27, 1–32.Google Scholar
  129. 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
  130. Ronshaugen, M., McGinnis, N. and McGinnis, W.: 2002, ‘Hox Protein Mutation and Macroevolution of the Insect Body Plan’, Nature 415, 914–917.Google Scholar
  131. Rosenberg, A.: 2000, ‘Laws, History, and the Nature of Biological Understanding’, Evolutionary Biology 32, 57–72.Google Scholar
  132. 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
  133. 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
  134. Sattler, R.: 1984, ‘Homology - a Continuing Challenge’, Systematic Botany 9, 382–394.Google Scholar
  135. Sattler, R.: 1988, ‘Homeosis in Plants’, American Journal of Botany 75, 1606–1617.Google Scholar
  136. Sattler. R.: 1992, ‘Process Morphology: Structural Dynamics in Development and Evolution’, Canadian Journal of Botany 70, 708–716.Google Scholar
  137. 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
  138. Sattler, R.: 1996, ‘Classical morphology and Continuum Morphology: Opposition and Continuum’, Annals of Botany 78, 577–581.Google Scholar
  139. 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
  140. 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
  141. Sinha, N.: 1999, ‘Leaf Development in Angiosperms’, Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology 50, 419–446.Google Scholar
  142. Slack, J.M., Holland, P.W. and Graham, C.F.: 1993, ‘The Zootype and the Phylotypic Stage’, Nature 361, 490–492.Google Scholar
  143. Smocovitis, V.B.: 1996, Unifying Biology: the Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  144. Smocovitis, V.B.: 2002, ‘G. Ledyard Stebbins and the Evolutionary Synthesis’, Annual Review of Genetics 35, 803–814.Google Scholar
  145. 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
  146. 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
  147. Stern, D.: 2000, ‘Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation’, Evolution 54, 1079–1091.Google Scholar
  148. Stevens, P.F.: 1984, ‘Homology and Phylogeny: Morphology and Systematics’, Systematic Botany 9, 395–409.Google Scholar
  149. Stevens, P.F.: 1991, ‘Character States, Morphological Variation, and Phylogenetic Analysis: A Review’, Systematic Botany 16, 553–583.Google Scholar
  150. 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
  151. Sultan, S.E.: 2000, ‘Phenotypic Plasticity for Plant Development, Function and Life History’, Trends in Plant Science 5, 537–542.Google Scholar
  152. 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
  153. 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
  154. The Arabidopsis Genome Initiative: 2000, ‘Analysis of the Genome Sequence of the Flowering Plant Arabidopsis thaliana’, Nature 408, 796–815.Google Scholar
  155. 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
  156. 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
  157. Trewavas, A.: 2002, ‘Plant Cell Signal Transduction: The Emerging Phenotype’, The Plant Cell (Supplement 2002), S3–S4.Google Scholar
  158. Tucker, S.C.: 2000, ‘Floral Development and Homeosis in Saraca (Leguminosae: Caesalpinioideae: Detariae)’, International Journal of Plant Sciences 161, 537–549.Google Scholar
  159. 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
  160. 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).Google Scholar
  161. 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
  162. Voinnet, O.: 2001, ‘RNA Silencing as a Plant Immune System Against Viruses’, Trends in Genetics 17, 449–459.Google Scholar
  163. 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
  164. Vervoort, M.: 2002, ‘Functional Evolution of Hox Proteins in Arthropods’, BioEssays 24, 775–779.Google Scholar
  165. Wagner, G.P.: 1989, ‘The Biological Homology Concept’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20, 51–69.Google Scholar
  166. Wagner, G.P.: 1996, ‘Homologues, Natural Kinds, and the Evolution of Modularity’, American Zoologist 36, 36–43.Google Scholar
  167. 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
  168. 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
  169. 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
  170. 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
  171. Weber, B.H.: 1998, ‘Origins of Order in Dynamical Models’, Biology and Philosophy 13, 133–144.Google Scholar
  172. Weigel, D. and Meyerowitz, E.M.: 1994, ‘The ABCs of Floral Homeotic Genes’, Cell 78, 203–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  173. Weigel, D. and Jürgens, G.: 2002, ‘Stem Cells that Make Stems’, Nature 415, 751–754.Google Scholar
  174. 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
  175. Wilkins, A.S.: 1998, ‘Meetings: Homology’, BioEssays 20, 1052–1053.Google Scholar
  176. Winther, R.G.: 2001, ‘Varieties of Modules: Kinds, Levels, Origins and Behaviors’, Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular Developmental Evolution) 291, 116–129.Google Scholar
  177. Wolpert, L., Beddington, R., Brockes, J., Jessell, T., Lawrence, P. and Meyerowitz, E.: 1998, Principles of Development, Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
  178. Wray, G.A. and Abouheif, E. 1998, ‘When is Homology Not Homology?’, Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 8, 675–680.Google Scholar
  179. Wu, C.-I.: 2000, ‘Genetics of Species Differences: What is Unknown and what is Unknowable?’, Evolutionary Biology 32, 239–248.Google Scholar
  180. Zimmermann, W., 1952, ‘Main Results of the “Telome Theory”,’ The Palaeobotanist 1, 456–470.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco Vergara-Silva
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratorio de Genética Molecular y Evolución, Departamento de Ecología EvolutivaInstituto de Ecología, UNAMMéxico D.FMéxico

Personalised recommendations