Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-8cpv7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-03T22:07:49.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reproduction in Complex Life Cycles: Toward a Developmental Reaction Norms Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

James Griesemer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Biological reproduction is a material process of intertwined, recursive propagule generation and development, assuming that development produces simple life cycles. Most organisms, however, have more or less complex life cycles. Here, I attempt to reconcile recent articulations of a reproducer account with traditional approaches to complex life cycles by generalizing genetic demarcation criteria for life cycle generations in terms of the “scaffolded” development of hybrid reproducers. I argue that scaffolding provides a general method for identifying developmental bottlenecks and suggests in turn a new way of understanding developmental reaction norms.

Information

Type
Complex Life Cycles and Reproduction
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 83 , Issue 5 , December 2016 , pp. 803 - 815
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

Thanks to Maureen O’Malley for organizing the symposium, co-symposiasts Peter Godfrey-Smith and Matt Herron, commentator and chair Thomas Pradeu, and the audience in Chicago. Thanks also to Roberta Millstein, Jun Otsuka, Mark Fedyk, Thomas Pradeu, Gerd Müller, Alessandro Minelli, and especially Linnda Caporael for helpful discussion. An anonymous reviewer provided valuable comments on the manuscript. I am grateful for the financial support of the Dean of Social Sciences, University of California, Davis, and the people of California.

References

Bickhard, Mark. 1992. “Scaffolding and Self-Scaffolding: Central Aspects of Development.” In Children’s Development within Social Contexts, Vol. 2, Research and Methodology, ed. Winegar, L.T. and Valsiner, J., 33–52. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Valsiner, J. 2005. “Functional Scaffolding and Self-Scaffolding.” New Ideas in Psychology 23:166–73.Google Scholar
Bonner, John. 1974. On Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Buss, Leo. 1987. The Evolution of Individuality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Caporael, Linnda, Griesemer, James, and Wimsatt, William, eds. 2014. Developing Scaffolds in Evolution, Culture, and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1983. The Extended Phenotype. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc, and Pedroso, Maxmiller. 2013. “Biological Individuality: The Case of Biofilms.” Biology and Philosophy 28:331–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Scott, and Epel, David. 2009. Ecological Developmental Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2009. Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter 2016. “Complex Life Cycles and the Evolutionary Process.” Philosophy of Science, in this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, James. 2000a. “Development, Culture and the Units of Inheritance.” Philosophy of Science 67 (Proceedings): S348–S368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, James 2000b. “The Units of Evolutionary Transition.” Selection 1:67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, James 2005. “The Informational Gene and the Substantial Body: On the Generalization of Evolutionary Theory by Abstraction.” In Idealization XII: Correcting the Model, Idealization and Abstraction in the Sciences, ed. Jones, Martin R. and Cartwright, Nancy, 59–115. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy 2014a. “Reproduction and the Scaffolded Development of Hybrids.” In Caporael et al. 2014, 23–55.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy 2014b. “Reproduction and Scaffolded Developmental Processes: An Integrated Evolutionary Perspective.” In Towards a Theory of Development, ed. Alessandro Minelli and Thomas Pradeu, 183–202. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, James, and Wade, Michael. 2000. “Populational Heritability: Extending Punnett Square Concepts to Evolution at the Metapopulation Level.” Biology and Philosophy 15 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul, and Gray, Russell. 1994. “Developmental Systems and Evolutionary Explanation.” Journal of Philosophy 91:277–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul, and Stotz, Karola. 2013. Genetics and Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosberg, Richard, and Strathmann, Richard. 1998. “One Cell, Two Cell, Red Cell, Blue Cell: The Persistence of a Unicellular Stage in Multicellular Life Histories.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13 (3): 112–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herron, Matthew. 2016. “Fitness and Individuality in Complex Life Cycles.” Philosophy of Science, in this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonka, Eva, and Lamb, Marion. 2005. Evolution in Four Dimensions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard. 1974. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John, and Szathmáry, Eörs. 1995. The Major Transitions in Evolution. Oxford: Freeman/Spektrum.Google Scholar
Minelli, Alessandro. 2003. The Development of Animal Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, Nancy. 1994. “Adaptation and Constraint in the Complex Life Cycles of Animals.” Annual Reviews of Ecology and Systematics 25:573–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Malley, Maureen. 2016. “Reproduction Expanded: Multigenerational and Multilineal Units of Evolution.” Philosophy of Science, in this issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyama, Susan. 1985/1985. The Ontogeny of Information. Repr. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Oyama, Susan, Griffiths, Paul, and Gray, Russell, eds. 2001. Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Queller, David, and Strathmann, Joan. 2009. “Beyond Society: The Evolution of Organismality.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364:3143–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlichting, Carl, and Pigliucci, Massimo. 1998. Phenotypic Evolution: A Reaction Norm Perspective. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Sultan, Sonia. 2015. Organism and Environment: Ecological Development, Niche Construction, and Adaptation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Günter, and Altenberg, Lee. 1996. “Perspective—Complex Adaptations and the Evolution of Evolvability.” Evolution 50 (3): 967–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wiegemann, Maja, Kowalik, Thomas, and Hartwig, Andreas. 2006. “Noncovalent Bonds Are Key Mechanisms for the Cohesion of Barnacle (Balanus crenatus) Adhesion.” Marine Biology 149:241–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William. 2007. Re-engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings: Piecewise Approximations to Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William, and Griesemer, James. 2007. “Reproducing Entrenchments to Scaffold Culture: The Central Role of Development in Cultural Evolution.” In Integrating Evolution and Development: From Theory to Practice, ed. Sansom, Roger and Brandon, Robert, 227–323. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar