Advertisement

Beyond Spandrels: Stephen J. Gould, EvoDevo, and the Extended Synthesis

  • Gerd B. Müller
Conference paper

Abstract

In evolutionary biology, the term “spandrel” infallibly elicits the memory of Steve Gould. It has become a standard in referring to constructional byproducts and developmental constraints. More often than not, these were regarded as lesser facets of evolutionary change, with priority given to population dynamics and the workings of natural selection. But the fundamental criticism, in the spandrels paper and other works of Gould, of the absence of organism level factors in the standard Modern Synthesis account, also helped trigger the EvoDevo revolution and important reconceptualizations of evolutionary theory. Recent versions of theory expansion include many of Gould’s propositions but also theoretical changes emerging from other fields, such as genomics, non-genetic inheritance, niche construction, and others. These amount not merely to a numerical addition of factors to be taken into account, but also initiate major shifts in theory structure. As a consequence, today’s extended frameworks of evolutionary theory entail a significant increase in explanatory capacity and predictive power.

Keywords

Natural Selection Evolutionary Theory Niche Construction Modern Synthesis Developmental Constraint 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank the Istituto Veneto di Science, Lettere ed Arti for the thoughtfulness to organize a meeting commemorating Stephen J. Gould. I am particularly grateful to the president of the Istituto, Gian Antonio Danieli, for the invitation to participate, as well as to Elena Gagliasso, Alessandro Minelli, Telmo Pievani, and Maria Turchetto for their enthusiasm regarding evolutionary theory.

References

  1. Alberch P (1991) From genes to phenotype: dynamical systems and evolvability. Genetica 84:5–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberch P, Gale EA (1985) A developmental analysis of an evolutionary trend: digital reduction in amphibians. Evolution 39:8–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alberch P, Alberch J (1981) Heterochronic mechanisms of morphological diversification and evolutionary change in the Neotropical salamander, Bolitoglossa occidentalis (Amphibia: Plethodontidae). J Morphol 167:249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alberch P, Gould SJ, Oster GF, Wake DB (1979) Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 5:296–317Google Scholar
  5. Ambros V (2000) Control of developmental timing in Caenorhabditis elegans. Curr Opin Genet Dev 10:428–433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beldade P, Koops K, Brakefield PM (2002) Developmental constraints versus flexibility in morphological evolution. Nature 416:844–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bell MA (1987) Interacting evolutionary constraints in pelvic reduction of Threespine sticklebacks, Gasterosteus aculeatus (Pisces, Gasterosteidae). Biol J Linn Soc 31:347–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernardi G (2005) Structural and evolutionary genomics: natural selection in genome evolution. Elsevier Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Caldwell MW (1994) Developmental constraints and limb evolution in Permian and extant lepidosauromorph diapsids. J Vertebr Paleontol 14:459–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Callebaut W, Müller GB, Newman S (2007) The organismic systems approach: EvoDevo and the streamlining of the naturalistic agenda. In: Sansom R, Brandon R (eds) Integrating evolution and development: from theory to practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 25–92Google Scholar
  11. Cheverud JM (1984) Quantitative genetics and developmental constraints on evolution by selection. J Theor Biol 110:155–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danchin É, Charmantier A, Champagne FA, Mesoudi A, Pujol B, Blanchet S (2011) Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution. Nat Rev Genet 12:475–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. De Beer G (1930) Embryology and evolution. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Depew DJ, Weber BH (2011) The fate of Darwinism: evolution after the modern synthesis. Biol Theory 6:89–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donoghue MJ, Ree RH (2000) Homoplasy and developmental constraint: a model and an example from plants. Am Zool 40:759–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DuBrul EL (1971) On the phylogeny and ontogeny of the human larynx: a morphological and functional study. Evolution 25:739–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dudley M, Poethig RS (1991) The effect of a heterochronic mutation, teopod2, on the cell lineage of the maize shoot. Development 111:733–739PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Edwards SV (2008) Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging? Evolution 63:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eldredge N, Gould SJ (1972) Punctuated equilibria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf TJM (ed) Models in paleobiology. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, pp 82–115Google Scholar
  21. Fusco G, Minelli A (2010) Phenotypic plasticity in development and evolution: facts and concepts. introduction. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 365:547–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilbert SF, Epel D (2009) Ecological developmental biology. Sinauer Associates Inc, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldschmidt R (1940) The material basis of evolution. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  24. Gould SJ (1989) A developmental constraint in cerion, with comments on the definition and interpretation of constraint in evolution. Evolution 43:516–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gould SJ (1980) Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6:119–130Google Scholar
  26. Gould SJ (2002) The structure of evolutionary theory. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B, Biol Sci 205:581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gould S, Vrba E (1982) Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8:4–15Google Scholar
  29. Hallgrimsson B, Jamniczky H, Young NM, Rolian C, Schmidt-Ott U, Marcucio R (2012) The generation of variation and the developmental basis for evolutionary novelty. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 318:501–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Helanterä H (2011) Extending the modern synthesis with ants: ant encounters. Biol Philos 26:935–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huang S (2011) The molecular and mathematical basis of Waddington’s epigenetic landscape: a framework for post-darwinian biology? BioEssays 34:149–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jablonka E (2006) Genes as followers in evolution—a post-synthesis synthesis? Biol Philos 21:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kim J, Kerr JQ, Min GS (2000) Molecular heterochrony in the early development of drosophila. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 97:212–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kirschner M, Gerhart J (1998) Evolvability. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 95:8420–8427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Koonin EV (2008) Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics. Nucleic Acids Res 37:1011–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kutschera U, Niklas K (2004) The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis. Naturwissenschaften 91:255–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Love AC (2003) Evolutionary morphology, innovation, and the synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology. Biol Philos 18:309–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maynard-Smith J, Burian R, Kauffman S, Alberch P, Campbell J, Goodwin B, Lande R, Raup D, Wolpert L (1985) Developmental constraints and evolution. Q Rev Biol 60:265–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McKinney ML, McNamara KJ (1991) Heterochrony. Plenum Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bookstein FL (2005) Heterochrony and geometric morphometrics: a comparison of cranial growth in Pan paniscus versus Pan troglodytes. Evol Dev 7:244–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moczek AP (2008) On the origins of novelty in development and evolution. BioEssays 30:432–447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Müller GB (2007) Evo-devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nat Rev Genet 8:943–949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Müller GB (2008) Evo-devo as a discipline. In: Minelli A, Fusco G (eds) Evolving pathways: key themes in evolutionary developmental biology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Müller GB (2010) Epigenetic innovation. In: Pigliucci M, Müller GB (eds) Evolution—the extended synthesis. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 307–332Google Scholar
  45. Newman SA, Bhat R (2009) Dynamical patterning modules: a “pattern language” for development and evolution of multicellular form. Int J Dev Biol 53:693–705PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Newman SA, Müller GB (2006) Genes and form: inherency in the evolution of developmental mechanisms. In: Neumann-Held EM, Rehmann-Sutter C (eds) Genes in development: re-reading the molecular paradigm. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 38–73Google Scholar
  47. Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW (2003) Niche construction. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  48. Parichy DM, Shaffer HB, Mangel M (1992) Heterochrony as a unifying theme in evolution and development. Evolution 46:1252–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pievani T (2011) An evolving research programme: the structure of evolutionary theory. In: Fasolo A (ed) The theory of evolution and its impact. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 221–228Google Scholar
  50. Pigliucci M, Müller GB (2010) Evolution—the extended synthesis. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Raff RA, Kaufman TC (1983) Embryos, genes, and evolution, 2nd edn. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. Rasmussen N (1987) A new model of developmental constraints as applied to the drosophila system. J Theor Biol 127:271–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richards RJ (2008) The tragic sense of life. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  54. Roux J, Robinson-Rechavi M (2008) Developmental constraints on vertebrate genome evolution. PLoS Genet 4:e1000311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ruvkun G, Giusto J (1989) The Caenorhabditis elegans heterochronic gene. lin-14 encodes a nuclear protein that forms a temporal developmental switch. Nature 338:313–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schrey AW, Richards CL, Meller V, Sollars V, Ruden DM (2012) The role of epigenetics in evolution: the extended synthesis. Genet Res Int 2012:1–3Google Scholar
  57. Schwander T, Leimar O (2011) Genes as leaders and followers in evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 26:143–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Streicher J, Müller GB (1992) Natural and experimental reduction of the avian fibula: developmental thresholds and evolutionary constraint. J Morphol 214:269–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vogl C, Rienesl J (1991) Testing for developmental constraints: carpal fusion in urodeles. Evolution 45:1516–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wagner A (2011) The origins of evolutionary innovations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Wagner GP (1988) The influence of variation and of developmental constraints on the rate of multivariate phenotypic evolution. J Evol Biol 1:45–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Webb JF (1989) Developmental constraints and evolution of the lateral line system in teleost fishes. In: Coombs S, Gäner P, Münz H (eds) The mechanosensory lateral line: neurobiology and evolution. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Webb RH (2011) If evolution is the answer, what is the question? J Evol Psychol 9:91–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Weber BH (2011) Extending and expanding the Darwinian synthesis: the role of complex systems dynamics. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 42:75–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilson DS, Wilson EO (2008) Evolution for the good of the group. Am Sci 96:380–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilson LAB (2011) The contribution of developmental palaeontology to extensions of evolutionary theory. Acta Zoologica 1–7 Google Scholar
  69. Zakany J, Gerard M, Favier B, Duboule D (1997) Deletion of a HoxD enhancer induces transcriptional heterochrony leading to transposition of the sacrum. EMBO J 16:4393–4402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zelditch ML, Bookstein FL, Lundrigan BL (1993) The ontogenetic complexity of developmental constraints. J Evol Biol 6:621–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Theoretical BiologyUniversity of Vienna and Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition ResearchVienna and AltenbergAustria

Personalised recommendations