Abstract
Darwin proposed natural selection as the main evolutionary mechanism in 1859. However, he did not think that this was the only process by which new species were generated. It was the so-called Modern Synthesis who established natural selection as the only mechanism responsible for evolution. Since then, the evolutionary process is explained by the pair mutation-adaptation: new species are generated by the appearance of new mutations, which in case of allowing new adaptations to the environment, they will be fixed and organisms will survive, therefore resulting in new species. An alternative view to the plasticity promoted by the adaptationist program is to think organisms as truly organized structures, having different levels of structural organization, which would mean that not every form is possible, but only those that correspond to a certain building plan. This would be reflected in the appearance of structural constraints, showing the limits imposed to the organism during its evolutionary development. In this work, I studied the ontogeny and development of three species of the genus Trophon by geometric morphometrics, in order to clarify important concepts in evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo). Integrating theoretical and empirical investigations, I could propose a new conceptual framework for heterochrony in a context of a complex theory of recapitulation. Furthermore, I could detect a developmental constraint in Trophon, which provided an opportunity to reconstruct the concept of constraint and propose a synthesis between heterochrony and constraint that explained evolution as a process fueled by them, that is, as directive and driving force.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, D. C., & Otárola-Castillo, E. (2013). Geomorph: An R package for the collection and analysis of geometric morphometric shape data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(4), 393–399.
Adams, D. C., Rohlf, F. J., & Slice, D. E. (2004). Geometric morphometrics: Ten years of progress following the “revolution”. Italian Journal of Zoology, 71(1), 5–16.
Alberch, P. (1989). The logic of monsters: Evidence for internal constraint in development and evolution. Geobios, 22, 21–57.
Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., & Wake, D. B. (1979). Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology, 5(3), 296–317.
Arthur, W. (2002). The emerging conceptual framework of evolutionary developmental biology. Nature, 415(6873), 757–764.
Arthur, W. (2004). The effect of development on the direction of evolution: Toward a twenty-first century consensus. Evolution & Development, 6(4), 282–288.
Butler, S. (1878). Life and habit. London: Trübner and Co.
Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. London: John Murray.
Dépraz, A., Hausser, J., & Pfenninger, M. (2009). A species delimitation approach in the Trochulus sericeus/hispidus complex reveals two cryptic species within a sharp contact zone. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 9(1), 171.
Dixon, P. (2003). VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. Journal of Vegetation Science, 14(6), 927–930.
Eble, G. J. (2003). Developmental morphospaces and evolution. In J. P. Crutchfield & P. Schuster (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics: Exploring the interplay of selection, accident, neutrality, and function (pp. 35–66). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Futuyma, D. J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
Gayon, J. (2000). History of the concept of allometry. American Zoologist, 40(5), 748–758.
Gerber, S., & Hopkins, M. J. (2011). Mosaic heterochrony and evolutionary modularity: The trilobite genus Zacanthopsis as a case study. Evolution, 65(11), 3241–3252.
Goodwin, B. (1963). Temporal organization in cells. A dynamic theory of cellular control processes. London, New York: Academic Press.
Gould, S. J. (1966). Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biological Reviews, 41(4), 587–640.
Gould, S. J. (1977). Ontogeny and phylogeny. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gould, S. J. (1989). A developmental constraint in Cerion, with comments on the definition and interpretation of constraint in evolution. Evolution, 43(3), 516–539.
Gould, S. J. (2000). Of coiled oysters and big brains: How to rescue the terminology of heterochrony, now gone astray. Evolution & Development, 2(5), 241–248.
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581–598.
Haeckel, E. (1879). The evolution of man (Vol. 1). New York: Appleton and Company.
Ihaka, R., & Gentleman, R. (1996). R: a language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 5(3), 299–314.
Klingenberg, C. P. (1998). Heterochrony and allometry: The analysis of evolutionary change in ontogeny. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 73(01), 79–123.
Klingenberg, C. P. (2010). Evolution and development of shape: Integrating quantitative approaches. Nature Reviews Genetics, 11(9), 623–635.
Lieberman, D. E., Carlo, J., Ponce de León, M., & Zollikofer, C. P. (2007). A geometric morphometric analysis of heterochrony in the cranium of chimpanzees and bonobos. Journal of Human Evolution, 52(6), 647–662.
Mitteroecker, P., & Gunz, P. (2009). Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evolutionary Biology, 36(2), 235–247.
Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., Bernhard, M., Schaefer, K., & Bookstein, F. L. (2004). Comparison of cranial ontogenetic trajectories among great apes and humans. Journal of Human Evolution, 46(6), 679–698.
Mitteroecker, P., Gunz, P., & Bookstein, F. L. (2005). Heterochrony and geometric morphometrics: A comparison of cranial growth in Pan paniscus versus Pan troglodytes. Evolution & Development, 7(3), 244–258.
Pastorino, G. (2002). Systematics and phylogeny of the genus Trophon Montfort, 1810 (Gastropoda: Muricidae) from Patagonia and Antarctica: Morphological patterns. Bollettino Malacologico, 38(4), 127–134.
Pastorino, G. (2005). A revision of the genus Trophon Montfort, 1810 (Gastropoda: Muricidae) from southern South America. The Nautilus, 119(2), 55–82.
Piras, P., Salvi, D., Ferrara, G., Maiorino, L., Delfino, M., Pedde, L., & Kotsakis, T. (2011). The role of post-natal ontogeny in the evolution of phenotypic diversity in Podarcis lizards. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 24(12), 2705–2720.
R Development Core Team. (2012). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Riedl, R. (1977). A systems-analytical approach to macro-evolutionary phenomena. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 52(4), 351–370.
Rohlf, F. J. (1998). On applications of geometric morphometrics to studies of ontogeny and phylogeny. Systematic Biology, 47(1), 147–158.
Rohlf, F. (2010). TPSDig2 Version 2.16. Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, NY, USA.
Rohlf, F. J., & Slice, D. (1990). Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Systematic Biology, 39(1), 40–59.
Roth, V. L., & Mercer, J. M. (2000). Morphometrics in development and evolution. American Zoologist, 40(5), 801–810.
Slice, D. E. (2007). Geometric morphometrics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 36, 261–281.
Thompson, D. W. (1917). On growth and form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Waddington, C. H. (1970). Towards a theoretical biology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Wagner, G. P., & Laubichler, M. D. (2004). Rupert Riedl and the re-synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology: Body plans and evolvability. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 302(1), 92–102.
Zelditch, M. L., Swiderski, D. L., & Sheets, H. D. (2012). A practical companion to geometric morphometrics for biologists: Running analyses in freely-available software. http://booksite.elsevier.com/9780123869036/content/Workbook.pdf.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Alejandro Tablado for his kindly assistance and generous disposition for allowing me to work unrestrictively with the material of the Invertebrate Collection at the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales (MACN). I acknowledge Guido Pastorino for helpful suggestions and discussions at the beginning of this work, regarding morphological taxonomy issues. Finally, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers of this manuscript for their thoughtful and constructive suggestions which led to a substantial improvement of this article. This work was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ostachuk, A. On Novelty, Heterochrony and Developmental Constraints in a Complex Morphological Theory of Recapitulation: The Genus Trophon as a Case Study. Evol Biol 43, 392–406 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-015-9364-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11692-015-9364-1