In fossil hominins, phyletic diversification – the process by which ancestral species give rise to descendant ones – can only be inferred through analysis of patterns of morphological diversity displayed in the fossil record. These patterns are interpreted typically in terms of selection/adaptation and related to environmental change. From an organism-centered perspective, evolutionary modification of developmental processes is an equally important source of phyletic diversity. Here, we use model systems to simulate cranial growth and to explore how mutations in the “genes” of an “ancestral” morphogenetic system may affect “descendant” ontogenies and “adult” morphologies. Intriguingly, a model that assumes basic epigenetic interactions between developmental processes is capable of producing a wide variety of patterns of developmental modification, many of which are not foreseen in classic heterochronic theory. Also, small changes in developmental “genes” often have complex effects on patterns of ontogeny. With regard to the evolutionary split between Neanderthals and modern humans, these model considerations shall be an incentive to look at taxon-specific character complexes from the perspective of developmental as opposed to functional constraints.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Abzhanov, A., Tzahor, E., Lassar, A.B., Tabin, V., 2003. Dissimilar regulation of cell differentiation in mesencephalic (cranial) and sacral (trunk) neural crest cells in vitro. Development 130, 4567-4579.
Alberch, P., Gould, S.J., Oster, G.F., Wake, D.B., 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 5, 296-317.
Andresen, P.R., Bookstein, F.L., Conradsen, K., Ersboll, B.K., Marsh, J.L., Kreiborg, S., 2000. Surface-bounded growth modeling applied to human mandibles. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 19, 1053-1063.
Bookstein, F.L., 1989. “Size” and “shape”: a comment on semantics. Syst. Zool. 38, 173-180.
Bookstein, F.L., 1991. Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Churchill, S.E., 1998. Cold adaptation, heterochrony, and Neandertals. Evol. Anthropol. 7, 46-61.
Coqueugniot, H., Hublin, J.J., Veillon, F., Houet, F., Jacob, T., 2004. Early brain growth in Homo erectus and implications for cognitive ability. Nature 431, 299-302.
Dryden, I.L., Mardia, K., 1998. Statistical Shape Analysis. John Wiley, New York.
Godfrey, L.R., Sutherland, M.R., 1995. What’s growth got to do with it? Process and product in the evo-lution of ontogeny. J. Hum. Evol. 29, 405-431.
Godfrey, L.R., Sutherland, M.R., 1996. Paradox of per-amorphic paedomorphosis: heterochrony and human evolution. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 99, 17-42.
Godfrey, L.R., King, S.J., Sutherland, M.R., 1998. Heterochronic approaches to the study of loco-motion. In: Strasser, E., Fleagle, J.G., Rosenberger, A.L., McHenry, H. (Eds.), Primate Locomotion. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 277-307.
Gould, S.J., 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Gould, S.J., 2000. Of coiled oysters and big brains: how to rescue the terminology of heterochrony, now gone astray. Evol. Dev. 2, 241-248.
Gould, S.J., Lewontin, R.C., 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205, 581-598.
Haeckel, E., 1866. Generale Morphologie der Organismen, Berlin.
Huxley, J.S., 1924. Constant differential growth-ratios and their significance. Nature 114, 895-896.
Jolliffe, I.T., 1986. Principal Component Analysis. Springer, Berlin.
Jones, K.L., 1988. Smith’s Recognizable Patterns of Human Malformation, 4th Edition. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.
Kauffman, S.A., 1993. The Origins of Order. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kauffman, S., 2004. A proposal for using the ensemble approach to understand genetic regulatory net-works. J. Theor. Biol. 230, 581-590.
Kauffman, S., Peterson, C., Samuelsson, B., Troein, C., 2004. Genetic networks with canalyzing Boolean rules are always stable. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 17102-17107.
Klingenberg, C.P., 1998. Heterochrony and allometry: the analysis of evolutionary change in ontogeny. Biol. Rev. Camb. Phils. Soc. 73, 79-123.
Krovitz, G.E., 2000. Three-dimensional comparisons of craniofacial morphology and growth patterns in Neandertals and modern humans. Ph.D. Dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
Krovitz, G.E., 2003. Shape and growth differences between Neanderthals and modern humans: grounds for a species level distinction. In: Thompson, J., Krovitz, G., Nelson, A. (Eds.), Patterns of Growth and Development in the Genus Homo. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 320-342.
Lahr, M.M., Foley, R.A., 1998. Towards a theory of modern human origins: geography, demography, and diversity in recent human evolution. Yrbk. Phys. Anthropol. 27, 137-176.
Lele, S., Richtsmeier, J., 2001. An Invariant Approach to the Statistical Analysis of Shapes. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, FL.
McKinney, M.L., 1999. Heterochrony: beyond words. Paleobiolgy 23, 149-153.
McKinney, M.L., McNamara, K.J.,1991. Heterochrony: The Evolution of Ontogeny. Plenum Press, New York.
McNamara, K.J., 2002. Changing times, changing places:heterochronyand heterotopy. Paleobiology 28, 551-558.
Mosimann, J.E., 1988. Size and shape analysis. In: Kotz, L., Johnson, N.L. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Vol. 2. Holland, Dordrecht, pp. 219-239.
Nehm, R.H., 2001. The developmental basis of mor-phologicaldisarmamentinPrunum (Neogastropoda: Marginellidae). In: Zelditch, M.L.(Ed.), Beyond Heterochrony: The Evolution of Development. Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 1-26.
Neilson, K.M., Friesel, R.E., 1995. Constitutive activa-tion of fibroblast growth factor receptor-2 by a point mutation associated with Crouzon syn-drome. J. Biol. Chem. 270, 26037-26040.
Ponce de León, M.S., Zollikofer, C.P.E., 2001. Neanderthal cranial ontogeny and its implications for late hominid diversity. Nature 412, 534-538.
Raff, R.A., Wray, G.A., 1989. Heterochrony: developmental mechanisms and evolutionary results. J. Evol. Biol. 2, 409-434.
Ramirez Rozzi, F.V., Bermúdez de Castro, J.M., 2004. Surprisingly rapid growth in Neanderthals. Nature 428, 936-939.
Reardon, W., Winter, R.M., Rutland, P., Pulleyn, L.J., Jones, B.M., Malcolm, S., 1994. Mutations in the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 gene cause Crouzon syndrome. Nat. Genet. 8, 98-103.
Rice, S.H., 1997. The analysis of ontogenetic trajecto-ries: When a change in size or shape is not heterochrony. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 94, 907-912.
Rogers Ackermann, R., Krovitz, G.E., 2002. Common patterns of facial ontogeny in the hominid line-age. Anat. Rec. 269, 142-147.
Roopnarine, P.D., 2001. Testing the hypothesis of hete-rochrony in morphometric data: lessons from a bivalved mollusc. In: Zelditch, M.L. (Ed.), Beyond Heterochrony: The Evolution of Development. Wiley-Liss, New York, pp. 271-303.
Santagati, F., Rijli, F.M., 2003. Cranial neural crest and the building of the vertebrate head. Nat. Rev. Genet. 4, 806-820.
Sarkar, S., Petiot, A., Copp, A., Ferretti, P., Thorogood, P., 2001. FGF2 promotes skeletogenic differen-tiation of cranial neural crest cells. Development 128, 2143-2152.
Shea, B.T., 1988. Heterochrony in primates. In: McKinney, M.L. (Ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 237-266.
Waddington, C.H., 1942. Canalization of development and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nature 150, 563-565.
Wilkie, A.O.M., Morriss-Kay, G.M., 2001. Genetics of craniofacial development and malformation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2, 458-468.
Williams, F.L., 2000. Heterochrony and the human fos-sil record: comparing Neandertal and modern human craniofacial ontogeny. In: Stringer, C.B., Barton, R.N.E., Finlayson, J.C. (Eds.), Neanderthals on the Edge. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 257-267.
Williams, F.L., Godfrey, L.R., Sutherland, M.R., 2002. Heterochrony and the evolution of Neandertal and modern human craniofacial form. In: Minugh-Purvis, N., McNamara, K. (Eds.), Human Evolution through Developmental Change. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 405-441.
Winter, D.A., 1990. Biomechanics and Motor Control of Human Movement. Wiley Interscience, New York.
Yu, K., Herr, A.B., Waksman, G., Ornitz, D.M., 2000. Loss of fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 lig-and-binding specificity in Apert syndrome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 97, 14536-14541.
Zelditch, M.L., Fink, W.L., 1996. Heterochrony and heterotopy: stability and innovation in the evolu-tion of form. Paleobiology 22, 241-254.
Zelditch, M.L., Sheets, H.D., Fink, W.L., 2000. Spatiotemporal reorganization of growth rates in the evolution of ontogeny. Evolution 54, 1363-1371.
Zelditch, M.L., Sheets, D.H., Fink, W., 2003. The onto-genetic dynamics of shape disparity. Paleobiology 29, 139-156.
Zollikofer, C.P.E., Ponce de León, M.S., 2004. Kinematics of cranial ontogeny: heterotopy, het-erochrony, and geometric morphometric analy-sis of growth models. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 302B, 322-340.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zollikofer, C.P.E., De LeÓn, M.S.P. (2006). Cranial growth models: heterochrony, heterotopy, and the kinematics of ontogeny. In: Hublin, JJ., Harvati, K., Harrison, T. (eds) Neanderthals Revisited: New Approaches and Perspectives. Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5121-0_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5121-0_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-5120-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-5121-0
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)