Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction: Pathways of change
- Part I Thinking about evolution by taking development on board
- Part II Evo-devo: methods and materials
- 7 A pragmatic approach for selecting evo-devo model species in amniotes
- 8 On comparisons and causes in evolutionary developmental biology
- 9 Evolution and development: towards a synthesis of macro- and micro-evolution with ecology
- 10 When is a Hox gene not a Hox gene? The importance of gene nomenclature
- 11 Plants are used to having identity crises
- Part III Evolving diversity
- Part IV Evolving body features
- Index
- References
8 - On comparisons and causes in evolutionary developmental biology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 August 2009
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction: Pathways of change
- Part I Thinking about evolution by taking development on board
- Part II Evo-devo: methods and materials
- 7 A pragmatic approach for selecting evo-devo model species in amniotes
- 8 On comparisons and causes in evolutionary developmental biology
- 9 Evolution and development: towards a synthesis of macro- and micro-evolution with ecology
- 10 When is a Hox gene not a Hox gene? The importance of gene nomenclature
- 11 Plants are used to having identity crises
- Part III Evolving diversity
- Part IV Evolving body features
- Index
- References
Summary
Denn mit dem Warum der Dinge kommt niemand zu Ende. Die Ursachen alles Geschehens gleichen den Dünenkulissen am Meere: eine ist immer der anderen vorgelagert, und das Weil, bei dem sich ruhen ließe, liegt im Unendlichen.
[For once you begin with the Why you can never get to the end. It is like the dunes by the sea, where behind each dune lies still another and the Because where you might come to final rest lies somewhere in infinity.]
Thomas Mann, Joseph und seine BrüderComparison is fundamental to any evolutionary developmental analysis (e.g. Alberch 1985, Rieppel 1988, Dohle 1989, Minelli 2003, Scholtz 2005, Deutsch 2006, Jenner 2006, Breidbach and Ghiselin 2007). However, evo-devo as a discipline evolved from a mix of experimental and descriptive approaches to development. Accordingly, different weight is put on the method of studying development in an evolutionary framework depending on a researcher's scientific background. Here I want to evaluate the different approaches and their contribution to addressing evolutionary questions. I stress that only the comparative approach offers a direct method of studying development with respect to evolutionary changes. Descriptive and comparative approaches are often interpreted as being less ‘exact’ than experimental studies because they deal with untestable scenarios. Here I want to show that comparative approaches are a direct means to study evolution if the latter is accepted as the general framework for reasoning about causality and changes and the link between the two.
Information
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Evolving PathwaysKey Themes in Evolutionary Developmental Biology, pp. 144 - 159Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
References
1985. Problems with the interpretation of developmental sequences. Systematic Zoology 34, 46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. The concept of developmental reprogramming and the quest for an inclusive theory of evolutionary mechanisms. Evolution & Development 2, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& 2007. Evolution and development: Past, present, and future. Theory in Biosciences 125, 157–171.Google ScholarPubMed
, , , & 2004. Lower Cambrian yolk-pyramid embryos from southern Shaanxi, China. Progress in Natural Science 14, 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. Phylogeny and evo-devo: characters, phylogeny and historical analysis of the evolution of development. Zoology 108, 345–356.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2006. Introduction. Development and phylogeny of the arthropods: Darwin's legacy. Development Genes & Evolution 216, 357–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1989. Zur Frage der Homologie ontogenetischer Muster. Zoologische Beiträge (N.F.) 32, 355–389.Google Scholar
& 1988. Clonal analysis of the crustacean segment: the discordance between genealogical and segmental borders. Development 104 (supplement), 147–160.Google Scholar
, , et al. 2006. Synchrotron X-ray tomographic microscopy of fossil embryos. Nature 442, 680–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2005. The embryonic moult in diplogastrids (Nematoda): homology of developmental stages and heterochrony as a prerequisite for morphological diversity. Zoologischer Anzeiger 244, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, & 1995. Early even-skipped stripes act as morphogenetic gradients at the single cell level to establish engrailed expression. Development 121, 4371–4382.Google ScholarPubMed
1999. Why do almost all mammals have seven cervical vertebrae? Developmental constraints, Hox genes, and cancer. Journal of Experimental Zoology B (Molecular and Developmental Evolution) 285, 19–26.3.0.CO;2-Z>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2007. A history of normal plates, tables and stages in vertebrate embryology. International Journal of Developmental Biology 51, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2006. Unburdening evo-devo: ancestral attractions, model organisms, and basal baloney. Development Genes & Evolution 216, 385–394.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
1997. Das Prinzip Leben – Ansätze zu einer philosophischen Biologie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
, & 2003. Comparative and experimental embryogenesis of Plectidae (Nematoda). Development Genes & Evolution 213, 18–27.Google Scholar
& 2005. Even-skipped is not a pair-rule gene but has segmental and gap-like functions in Oncopeltus fasciatus, an intermediate germband insect. Development 132, 2081–2092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , & 2006. From embryo to adult: beyond the conventional periodization of arthropod development. Development, Genes & Evolution 216, 373–383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2006. Essay Review: Modularity – more than a buzzword?Biological Theory 1, 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1996. From the Aristotelian soul to genetic and epigenetic information: the evolution of the modern concepts in developmental biology at the turn of the century. International Journal of Developmental Biology 40, 21–26.Google ScholarPubMed
& 1980. Mutations affecting segment number and polarity in Drosophila. Nature 287, 795–801.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
, & 1992. Changing role of even-skipped during the evolution of insect pattern formation. Nature 357, 339–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raff, R. A. 1999. Larval homologies and radical evolutionary changes in early development. In & (eds.) Homology (Novartis Foundation Symposium 222). Chichester: Wiley, pp. 110–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1952. Die Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems, der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Leipzig: Geest und Portig.Google Scholar
, , & 2001. Comparative methods in developmental biology. Zoology 104, 278–283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2005. Homologies in phylogenetic analyses – concepts and tests. Theory in Biosciences 124, 105–120.Google Scholar
1985. Muster und Prozeß: Komplementarität im biologischen Denken. Naturwissenschaften 72, 337–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1907. Über die Verschiedenheit der Leistungen der deskriptiven und der experimentellen Forschungsmethode. Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik 23, 344–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1996. On the causation of animal morphogenesis: concepts of German-speaking authors from Theodor Schwann (1839) to Richard Goldschmidt (1927). International Journal of Developmental Biology 40, 7–20.Google Scholar
& (eds) 2003. Modularity in Development and Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scholtz, G. 2004. Baupläne versus ground patterns, phyla versus monophyla: aspects of patterns and processes in evolutionary developmental biology. In (ed.) Evolutionary Developmental Biology of Crustacea. Crustacean Issues 15. Lisse: A.A. Balkema, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
2005. Homology and ontogeny: pattern and process in comparative developmental biology. Theory in Biosciences 124, 121–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
& 1996. Cell lineage and cell fate in crustacean embryos: a comparative approach. International Journal of Developmental Biology 40, 211–220.Google ScholarPubMed
1847. Ueber die vierfache Wurzel des Satzes vom zureichenden Grunde, 2. Auflage.Frankfurt a. M.: J. Chr. Hermann.Google Scholar
2007. Die Notwendigkeit morphologischer Analysen zur Rekonstruktion der Stammesgeschichte. Species, Phylogeny and Evolution 1, 17–32.Google Scholar
1996. Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity. American Zoologist 36, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
& 1999. Regulative development in a nematode embryo: a hierarchy of cell fate transformations. Developmental Biology 215, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1981. Biologie und Kausalität: Biologische Ansätze zur Kausalität, Determination und Freiheit. Berlin: Paul Parey.Google Scholar
Accessibility standard: Unknown
Why this information is here
This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.Accessibility Information
Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this chapter is currently unknown
and may be updated in the future.
- 13
- Cited by