Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T18:39:08.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Size change in development and evolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2017

John Tyler Bonner
John Tyler Bonner*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phylogeny is a succession of ontogenies, and the two have been compared by considering them in terms of rates of size change. In development, the larger the organism, the slower its rate of size increase. In evolution, the rates of size change can be put into three distinct categories: fast, medium, and slow. The fast changes occur over short periods of time (1–10 thousand years) and are as likely to show size decrease as increase. The medium changes occur over longer time spans (5–20 million years) and are predominantly or entirely instances of size increase. The slow changes occur over the entire span of organic evolution and represent the maximum size attained in various phyla, which again show an over-all increase.

For ontogeny, a decrease in rate of size change is correlated with an increase in complexity, an increase in the number of gene actions. For evolution, it is correlated with an increase in the number of genetic changes required of the genome by natural selection in fluctuating environments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 42 , Issue S2: Paleontological Society Memoir 2. Paleobiological Aspects of Growth and Development: A Symposium , September 1968 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © 1968 Paleontological Society 

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.)

References

Bidder, G. P., 1932, Senescence: Brit. Med. J., v. 2, p. 5831.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonner, J. T., 1965, Size and cycle: Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 219 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. L., & Wilson, E. O., 1956, Character displacement: Syst. Zool., v. 5, p. 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, J. C., Keck, D. D., & Hiesey, W. M., 1948, Experimental studies on the nature of species. III. Environmental responses of climatic races of Achillea: Carnegie Inst. Washington Pub. No. 581, 129 p.Google Scholar
Corbet, G. B., 1964, Regional bank variation in the bank-vole Clethrionomys glareolus in the British Isles: Proc. Zool. Soc. London, v. 143, p. 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Beer, G. R., 1958, Embryos and ancestors, 3rd ed.: Oxford, Oxford Univ. Press, 197 p.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. G., 1960, Latitudinal variations in organic diversity: Evolution, v. 14, p. 64–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garstang, Walter, 1922, The theory of recapitulation: a critical restatement of the biogenetic law: J. Linn. Soc. London, v. 35, p. 81–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garstang, Walter, 1928, The origin and evolution of larval forms: Report Brit. Assoc. Adv. Science, Sec. D., p. 77–98.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., 1966, Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny: Biol. Rev., v. 41, p. 587–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haldane, J. B. S., 1949, Suggestions as to quantitative measurement of rates of evolution: Evolution, v. 3, p. 51–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haldane, J. B. S., 1959, Natural selection, in Bell, P. R., ed., Darwin's biological work: Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, p. 101–149.Google Scholar
Horridge, G. A., 1956, The flight of very small insects: Nature, v. 178, p. 1334–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchinson, G. E., 1959, Homage to Santa Rosalia or why are there so many kinds of animals?: Amer. Nat., v. 93, p. 145–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, J. S., 1932, Problems of relative growth: London, Methuen, 276 p.Google Scholar
Kurtén, Bjork, 1959, Rates of evolution in fossil mammals, Cold Spring Harbor symposium: Quant. Biol., v. 24, p. 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsey, C. C., 1966, Body size of poikilotherm vertebrates at different latitudes: Evolution, v. 20, p. 456–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mac Arthur, R. H., & Wilson, E. O., 1967, The theory of island biogeography: Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 203 p.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst, 1963, Animal species and evolution: Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press, 797 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newell, N. D., 1949, Phyletic size increase, an important trend illustrated by fossil invertebrates: Evolution, v. 3, p. 103–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ray, Carleton, 1960, The application of Bergmann's and Allen's rules to the poikilotherms: J. Morph., v. 106, p. 85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rensch, Bernhard, 1960, Evolution above the species level: New York, Columbia Univ. Press, 419 p.Google Scholar
Rosenzweig, M. L., 1967, The strategy of body size in mammalian carnivores: , University of Pennsylvania.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoener, T. W., 1965, The evolution of bill size difference among sympatric congeneric species of birds: Evolution, v. 19, p. 189–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholander, P. F., 1956, Climatic rules: Evolution, v. 10, p. 339–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G., 1953, The major features of evolution: New York, Columbia Univ. Press, 434 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F. E., 1954, Quantitative aspects of population growth, in Boell, E. J., ed., Dynamics of growth processes: Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 11th Growth Symposium, p. 277–294.Google Scholar
Thompson, D'A. W., 1942, On growth and form, 2nd ed.: Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1116 p.Google Scholar