Heterochrony in Evolution pp 327-340 | Cite as
Heterochrony in Evolution
- 6 Citations
- 255 Downloads
Abstract
The chapters in this book essentially form a collective argument for the abundance of heterochrony in evolution. In a sense, this is hardly surprising, since changing the rate or time at or during which a trait grows is certainly the simplest way to alter form (McKinney, this volume, Chapter 2). Why then all the ruckus? As Gould (this volume) has noted, there are a number of reasons, not the least of which is that a growing knowledge of developmental mechanisms is allowing us to define more precisely the link between ontogeny and evolution. But how far will heterochrony take us? At minimum, it may have little impact on the Darwinian view. These abundant cases could amount to little more than hanging polysyllabic names on the obvious mechanics of growth (larger traits have grown faster or for a longer time, so what?). However, at maximum, it may turn out that there are important ramifications not assimilated into the traditional view of evolution. Among the most important of these are previously unrealized heterochronic effects on rate and direction of evolution.
Keywords
Benthic Foraminifera High Taxon Planktonic Foraminifera Wood Frog Internal MotorPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Alberch, P., 1982, Developmental constraints in evolutionary processes, in: Evolution and Development (J. T. Bonner, ed.) pp. 313–332, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Alberch, P., 1985, Developmental constraints: Why St. Bernards often have an extra digit and Poodles never do, Am. Nat. 126: 430–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Arthur, W., 1984, Mechanisms of Morphological Evolution, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- Balon, E. K., 1981, Saltatory processes and altricial to precocial forms in the ontogeny of fishes, Am. Zool. 21: 573–596.Google Scholar
- Berven, K. A., 1987, The heritable basis of variation in larval developmental patterns within populations of the wood frog (Rana sylvatica), Evolution 41:1088–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cheverud, J. M., 1984, Quantitative genetics and developmental constraints on evolution by selection, J. Theor. Biol. 110: 155–171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Frazzetta, T., 1975, Complex Adaptations in Evolving Populations, Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
- Freeman, G. L., 1982, What does the comparative study of development tell us about evolution?, in: Evolution and Development (J. T. Bonner, ed.), pp. 155–168, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gould, S. J., 1974, The evolutionary significances of ‘bizarre’ structures: Antler size and skull size in the ‘Irish Elk’, Megaloceras gigantans, Evolution 28: 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Gould, S. J., 1977, Ontogeny and Phyiogeny, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- Grant, V., 1985, The Evolutionary Process, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Hall, B. K., 1984, Developmental processes underlying heterochrony as an evolutionary mechanism, Can. J. Zool. 62: 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jablonski, D., 1986, Causes and consequences of mass extinctions, in: Dynamics of Extinction (D. K. Elliot, ed.), pp. 183–229, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- Jablonski, D., Gould, S. J., and Raup, D. M., 1986, The nature of the fossil record: A biological perspective, in: Patterns and Processes in the History of Life (D. M. Raup and D. Jablonski, eds.), pp. 7–22, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jacob, F., 1977, Evolution and tinkering, Science 196: 1161–1166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Langridge, J., 1987, Old and new theories of evolution, in: Rates of Evolution (K. S. Campbell and M. F. Day, eds.), pp. 248–262, Allen & Unwin, Boston.Google Scholar
- Mayr, E., 1982, The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- McKinney, M. L., 1986, Ecological causation of heterochrony: A test and implications for evolutionary theory, Paleobiology 12: 282–289.Google Scholar
- McKinney, M. L., in press, Roles of allometry and ecology in echinoid evolution, in: Echinoderm Phylogeny and Evolutionary Biology (A. B. Smith and C. R. C. Paul, eds.), Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- McKinney, M. L., and Schoch, R. M., 1985, Titanothere allometry, heterochrony, and biomechanics: Revising an evolutionary classic, Evolution 39: 1352–1363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McNamara, K. J., Philip, G., 1980, Australian Tertiary schizasterid echinoids, Alcheringa 4: 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McNamara, K. J., 1982, Heterochrony and phylogenetic trends, Paleobiology 8: 130–142.Google Scholar
- McNamara, K. J., 1986, A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony, J. Paleontol. 60: 4–13.Google Scholar
- Pimm, S. L., 1986, Filling niches carefully, Trends Ecol. Evol. 1: 86–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Raff, R. A., and Kaufman, T. C., 1983, Embryos, Genes, and Evolution, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
- Riedl, R., 1978, Order in Living Systems, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- Riska, B., 1986, Some models for development, growth, and morphometric correlation, Evolution 40: 1303–1311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Slatkin, M., 1987, Quantitative genetics of heterochrony, Evolution 41: 799–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Valentine, J. W., 1986, Fossil record of the origin of bauplane and its implications, in: Patterns and Processes in the History of Life (D. M. Raup and D. Jablonski, eds.), pp. 209–231, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Waddington, C. H., 1986, Fields and gradients, in: Major Problems in Developmental Biology (M. Locke, ed.) pp. 105–124, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
- Wayne, R. K., 1986, Cranial morphology of domestic and wild canids: The influence of development on morphological change, Evolution 40: 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Werner, E. E., and Gilliam, J. F., 1984, The ontogenetic niche and species interactions in size-structured populations, Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wright, S., 1932, The roles of mutation, inbreeding, cross-breeding, and selection in evolution, Proc. XI Int. Cong. Genet. 1: 356–366.Google Scholar