Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Broadening the Scope of the Discipline
Questions to Be Addressed
References
All Topics
Biology
Evolutionary Biology

Grand challenges in evolutionary developmental biology

Profile image of Alessandro MinelliAlessandro Minelli

2015, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution

https://doi.org/10.3389/FEVO.2014.00085
visibility

…

description

11 pages

link

1 file

Abstract
sparkles

AI

This article explores the challenges and identity of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) as it seeks to bridge the gap between evolutionary and developmental biology. It emphasizes the need for a deeper understanding of the complex interactions in the genotype-phenotype map, the role of epigenetic mechanisms, and environmental influences in development. The author argues for the exploration of less conventional biological phenomena, such as plant galls, and promotes a broader view of development that integrates these diverse factors.

Related papers

The emerging structure of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: where does Evo‑Devo fit in?
Alejandro Fábregas-Tejeda, Francisco Vergara-Silva

Theory in Biosciences, 2018

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) debate is gaining ground in contemporary evolutionary biology. In parallel, a number of philosophical standpoints have emerged in an attempt to clarify what exactly is represented by the EES. For Massimo Pigliucci, we are in the wake of the newest instantiation of a persisting Kuhnian paradigm; in contrast, Telmo Pievani has contended that the transition to an EES could be best represented as a progressive reformation of a prior Lakatosian scientific research program, with the extension of its Neo-Darwinian core and the addition of a brand-new protective belt of assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses. Here, we argue that those philosophical vantage points are not the only ways to interpret what current proposals to ‘extend’ the Modern Synthesis-derived ‘standard evolutionary theory’ (SET) entail in terms of theoretical change in evolutionary biology. We specifically propose the image of the emergent EES as a vast network of models and interweaved representations that, instantiated in diverse practices, are connected and related in multiple ways. Under that assumption, the EES could be articulated around a paraconsistent network of evolutionary theories (including some elements of the SET), as well as models, practices and representation systems of contemporary evolutionary biology, with edges and nodes that change their position and centrality as a consequence of the co-construction and stabilization of facts and historical discussions revolving around the epistemic goals of this area of the life sciences. We then critically examine the purported structure of the EES—published by Laland and collaborators in 2015—in light of our own network-based proposal. Finally, we consider which epistemic units of Evo-Devo are present or still missing from the EES, in preparation for further analyses of the topic of explanatory integration in this conceptual framework.

View PDFchevron_right
Introduction to Evo-Devo-Anthro
Julia Boughner

2015

Evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo, is a relatively young branch of biology concerned with how and why organismal development matters to evolution. Evo-devo encompasses a range of unified research questions and empirical approaches that can be grouped into two complementary research areas (Laublicher 2007). The first area concerns the process of organismal development. This research uses molecular tools such as studies of gene and protein expression patterns to understand how processes of organismal development have evolved and produced phenotypic diversification at macroevolutionary scales. The second approach focuses on the role that process plays in structuring the pattern of heritable phenotypic variation among individuals. This approach relies on quantitative genetic theory and morphometric tools to measure developmentally determined patterns of phenotypic variation, typically at the level of populations, and to understand how these patterns have biased or constrained the rate and direction of evolutionary change within and between species (Raff 2000). In the past couple of decades, the types of research questions that evo-devo addresses have also become of great interest to biological anthropologists. The discipline is gaining traction among researchers interested in the role(s) played by organismal development in the evolution of uniquely human, and non-human primate, traits. This volume aims to provide an overview of past and ongoing research in evo-devo specifically as it applies to the study of human and primate evolution-Evolutionary Developmental Anthropology (EDA, or Evo-Devo-Anthro). In this

View PDFchevron_right
The Developmental Basis for Evolvability
Benedikt Hallgrimsson

The MIT Press eBooks, 2023

View PDFchevron_right
The future of evo–devo: model systems and evolutionary theory
Ralf Sommer

Nature Reviews Genetics, 2009

There has been a recent trend in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) towards using increasing numbers of model species. I argue that, to understand phenotypic change and novelty, researchers who investigate evo-devo in animals should choose a limited number of model organisms in which to develop a sophisticated methodological tool kit for functional investigations. Furthermore, a synthesis of evo-devo with population genetics and evolutionary ecology is needed to meet future challenges.

View PDFchevron_right
The Generation of Novelty: The Province of Developmental Biology
Scott Gilbert

Biological Theory

View PDFchevron_right
The Dual Role of Evo-Devo Mechanisms and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
Nicolás Lavagnino

Principia: an international journal of epistemology, 2019

The distinction between mechanisms that generate biological variation and mechanisms that modify it has been important in contemporary Biology, especially since the establishment of the Evolutionary Synthesis (ES) in the first part of the twentieth century. In the ES, and in its subsequent legacy to evolutionary biology, the focus was directed at mechanisms that modify biological variation. In recent years, evo-devo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology) emerged as an area of knowledge that proposes to extend the ES in many forms. In this sense, given that evo-devo integrates different areas of Biology, different types of mechanisms can be found. In order to understand evo-devo mechanisms, as well as its relation with the ES, we analyzed the role that evo-devo mechanisms play with respect to biological variation. The main question in our analysis was: do evo-devo mechanisms have a function of generators and/or modifiers of biological variation? We focused on three evo-devo mechanisms:...

View PDFchevron_right
The innovation triad: an EvoDevo agenda
Gerd B. Müller

Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 2005

This article introduces a special issue on evolutionary innovation and morphological novelty, two interrelated themes that have received a remarkable increase of attention over the past few years. We begin with a discussion of the question of whether innovation and novelty represent distinct evolutionary problems that require a distinct conceptualization. We argue that the mechanisms of innovation and their phenotypic results-novelty-can only be properly addressed if they are distinguished from the standard evolutionary themes of variation and adaptation, and we present arguments for making such a distinction. We propose that origination, the first formation of biological structures, is another distinct problem of morphological evolution, and that together with innovation and novelty it constitutes a conceptual complex we call the innovation triad. We define a problem agenda of the triad, which separates the analysis of the initiating conditions from the mechanistic realization of innovation, and we discuss the theoretical problems that arise from treating innovation as distinct from variation. Further, we categorize the empirical approaches that address themes of the innovation triad in recognizing four major strands of research: the morphology and systematics program, the gene regulation program, the epigenetic program, and the theoretical biology program. We provide examples of each program, giving priority to contributions in the present issue. In conclusion, we observe that the innovation triad is one of the defining topics of EvoDevo research and may represent its most pertinent contribution to evolutionary theory. We point out that an inclusion of developmental systems properties into evolutionary theory represents a shift of explanatory emphasis from the external factors of natural selection to the internal dynamics of developmental systems, complementing adaptation with emergence, and contingency with inherency.

View PDFchevron_right
The morphogenesis of evolutionary developmental biology
Scott Gilbert

2003

The early studies of evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) come from several sources. Tributaries flowing into Evo-Devo came from such disciplines as embryology, developmental genetics, evolutionary biology, ecology, paleontology, systematics, medical embryology and mathematical modeling. This essay will trace one of the major pathways, that from evolutionary embryology to Evo-Devo and it will show the interactions of this pathway with two other sources of Evo-Devo: ecological developmental biology and medical developmental biology. Together, these three fields are forming a more inclusive evolutionary developmental biology that is revitalizing and providing answers to old and important questions involving the formation of biodiversity on Earth. The phenotype of Evo-Devo is limited by internal constraints on what could be known given the methods and equipment of the time and it has been framed by external factors that include both academic and global politics.

View PDFchevron_right
Comprehensive Reference for Evo-Devo or Collective Challenge to NEO-DARWINISM?1
Ehab Abouheif

Evolution, 2004

One way to capture the goals, directions, and vitality of a field of science is to analyze the terminology and concepts that scientists working in that field are using. In this regard, Keywords and Concepts in Evolutionary Developmental Biology is an attempt to define the current goals and future directions of the relatively new field of ''evo-devo,'' which, as the term implies, attempts to unite the disciplines of evolutionary and developmental biology. As John Tyler Bonner points out in the preface, ''There has been a remarkable explosion of interest in evolutionary developmental biology in the last twenty years.. . . '' This interest has led to many surprising and controversial discoveries that have challenged the way we think about key words and concepts in evolutionary biology. In this timely volume, Brian K. Hall and Wendy M. Olson have brought together more than 60 scientists from a variety of disciplines to document how the meanings of key words and concepts have been impacted by the recent rise of evo-devo. I expected this book to be similar to its predecessor, Keywords and Concepts in Evolutionary Biology, by Evelyn Fox Keller and Elisabeth Lloyd. Both list key words and concepts in alphabetical order, and both are meant to be used by scientists as works of reference. Thus, I was expecting a series of encyclopedia-like entries, in which each author presented a balanced view of each topic, showing the current discourse among researchers currently working in the field of evo-devo. But after examining Hall and Olson's book more closely, I realized that the goals of these two similarly titled volumes are fundamentally different. The goal of Keller and Lloyd's book was to provide a philosophical and linguistic analysis of the discourse among working scientists, whereas the goal of Hall and Olson's book is to reveal something unique about mechanisms of evolutionary change. In fact, Hall and Olson open the introduction with ''This book deals with evolutionary change, especially those mechanisms involving embryonic development as the vehicle for evolutionary change.'' They claim that the field of evo-devo is just beginning to understand the developmental and evolutionary processes that give rise to what they call ''evolutionary developmental mechanisms,'' which they define as ''the processes of development that mediate descent, whether descent involves modification or stasis.'' Thus, this book has a dual identity; on the one hand, it is meant to be used as a com-

View PDFchevron_right
The Interrelations between Genotype/Phenotype/Environment: A Semiotic Contribution to the Evo:Devo Debate
Eugenio Andrade

2005

Seemingly opposite views of evolution and development that conflict over the role assigned to either or structure/function, genes/environment, random/directed variations, innate/acquired characteristics, instructive/selective information, self-organization/natural selection, are still hotly debated. This conflict results from the self-referential loop present in the ontic (internal/external) and epistemic (individual-local/population-global) cuts, that together contribute to integrate developmental and evolutionary theories. It is assumed that development and evolution are non-programmed open ended processes of information increase. Organisms are modeled as Evolving Developing Agents that codify environmental information and possesses a general transformative tendency to reach a functional compromise between: a) Increments of phenotype's uniqueness (stability and specificity), and b) Anticipation to environmental changes. Accordingly, changes in mutual information content between the Phenotype/Environment drag subsequent changes in mutual information content between Genotype/Phenotype and Genotype/Environment at two parallel and interwoven scales: individual life cycle (ontogeny) and species time (phylogeny) respectively. Developmental terminal additions along with the minimization of developmental steps must be positively selected. This approach shows how the six Peircian space/time/function relations described by Taborsky provide a conceptual framework that favors this unifying view.

View PDFchevron_right

References (155)

  1. Alberch, P. (1991). From genes to phenotype: dynami- cal systems and evolvability. Genetica 84, 5-11. doi: 10.1007/BF00123979
  2. Albertson, R. C., and Kocher, T. D. (2006). Genetic and developmental basis of cichlid trophic diversity. Heredity (Edinb.) 97, 211-221. doi: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800864
  3. Altenberg, L. (1995). "Genome growth and the evolu- tion of the genotype-phenotype map," in Evolution and Biocomputation. Computational Models of Evolution, eds W. Banzhaf and F. H. Eeckman (Berlin: Springer), 205-259.
  4. Amundson, R. (2005). The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought: Roots of Evo- Devo. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139164856
  5. Arthur, W. (2004). Biased Embryos and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511606830
  6. Badyaev, A. V. (2009). Evolutionary significance of phenotypic accommodation in novel environ- ments: an empirical test of the Baldwin effect. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 364, 1125-1141. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0285
  7. Baldwin, J. M. (1896). A new factor in evolution. Am. Nat. 30, 441-451, 536-553.
  8. Ball, E. E., Hayward, D. C., Saint, R., and Miller, D. J. (2004). A simple plan -cnidarians and the origins of developmental mechanisms. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 567-577. doi: 10.1038/nrg1402
  9. Barrett, R. D. H., and Schluter, D. (2008). Adaptation from standing genetic variation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 38-44. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.09.008
  10. Bell, A. (1991). Plant form: An Illustrated Guide to Flowering Plant Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Bell, A. (2008). Plant form: An Illustrated Guide to Flowering Plant Morphology, New Edn. Portland, OR: Timber Press.
  12. Bertossa, R. C. (2011). Morphology and behaviour: functional links in development and evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 366, 2056-2068. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0035
  13. Beurton, P. J., Falk, R., and Rheinberger, H.-J. (2000). The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511527296
  14. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Jeffery, J. E., Coates, M. I., and Richardson, M. K. (2002). From Haeckel to event-pairing: the evolution of developmen- tal sequences. Theory Biosci. 121, 297-320. doi: 10.1007/s12064-002-0016-5
  15. Boero, F., Gravili, C., Pagliara, P., Piraino, S., Bouillon, J., and Schmid, V. (1998). The cnidarian premises of metazoan evolution: from triploblasty, to coelom formation, to metamery. Ital. J. Zool. 65, 5-9. doi: 10.1080/11250009809386722
  16. Bolker, J. A., and Raff, R. A. (1996). Developmental genetics and traditional homology. Bioessays 18, 489-494. doi: 10.1002/bies.950180611
  17. Boto, L. (2014). Horizontal gene transfer in the acquisition of novel traits by metazoans. Proc. Biol. Sci. 281, 20132450. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2013. 2450
  18. Bowsher, J. H., Ang, Y., Ferderer, T., and Meier, R. (2013). Deciphering the evolutionary history and developmental mechanisms of a complex sexual ornament: the abdominal appendages of Sepsidae (Diptera). Evolution 67, 1069-1080. doi: 10.1111/evo.12006
  19. Bradshaw, H. D., Otto, J., Frewen, B. E., McKay, J. K., and Schemske, D. W. (1998). Quantitative trait loci affecting differences in floral morphology between two species of monkeyflower (Mimulus). Genetics 149, 367-382.
  20. Braendle, C., Caillaud, M. C., and Stern, D. L. (2005a). Genetic mapping of aphicarus-a sex-linked locus controlling a wing polymorphism in the pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum). Heredity 94, 435-442. doi: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800633
  21. Braendle, C., Friebe, I., Caillaud, M. C., and Stern, D. L. (2005b). Genetic variation for an aphid wing polyphenism is genetically linked to a naturally occurring wing polymorphism. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 272, 657-664. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.2995
  22. Brakefield, P. M. (2006). Evo-devo and constraints on selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 362-368. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.05.001
  23. Brisson, J. A. (2010). Aphid wing dimorphisms: link- ing environmental and genetic control of trait variation. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 605-616. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0255
  24. Burton, P. M. (2008). Insights from diploblasts; the evolution of mesoderm and muscle.
  25. J. Exp. Zool. Mol. Dev. Evol. 310B, 5-14. doi: 10.1002/jez.b.21150
  26. Callebaut, W., and Rasskin-Gutman, D. (eds.). (2005). Modularity: Understanding the Development and Evolution of Natural Complex Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  27. Carroll, S. B., Gates, J., Keys, D. N., Paddock, S. W., Panganiban, G. E. F., Selegue, J. E., et al. (1994). Pattern formation and eyespot determina- tion in butterfly wings. Science 265, 109-114. doi: 10.1126/science.7912449
  28. Chipman, A. D. (2010). Parallel evolution of segmentation by cooption of ancestral gene regulatory networks. Bioessays 32, 60-70. doi: 10.1002/bies.200900130
  29. Claridge, M. F., Dawah, H. A., and Wilson, M. R. (eds.). (1997). Species: The Units of Biodiversity. London: Chapman & Hall.
  30. Colosimo, P. F., Hosemann, K. E., Balabhadra, S., Villarreal, G., Dickson, M., Grimwood, J., et al. (2005). Widespread parallel evolution in stickle- backs by repeated fixation of ectodysplasin alle- les. Science 307, 1928-1933. doi: 10.1126/sci- ence.1107239
  31. Cresko, W. A., Amores, A., Wilson, C., Murphy, J., Currey, M., Phillips, P., et al. (2004). Parallel genetic basis for repeated evolution of armor loss in Alaskan threespine stickleback populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 6050-6055. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0308479101
  32. Crispo, E. (2007). The Baldwin effect and genetic assimilation: revisiting two mechanisms of evolu- tionary change mediated by phenotypic plastic- ity. Evolution 61, 2469-2479. doi: 10.1111/j.1558- 5646.2007.00203.x de Beer, G. R. (1930). Embryology and Evolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  33. de Beer, G. R. (1940). Embryos and Ancestors. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  34. DeWitt, T. J., and Scheiner, S. M. (eds.). (2004). Phenotypic Plasticity: Functional and Conceptual Approaches. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  35. Dollo, L. (1893). Les lois de l'évolution. Bull. Soc. Belge Géol. Paleontol. Hydrol. 7, 164-166.
  36. Donoghue, M. J., and Ree, R. H. (2000). Homoplasy and developmental constraint: a model and example from plants. Am. Zool. 40, 759-769. doi: 10.1668/0003-1569(2000)040 [0759:HADCAM]2.0.CO;
  37. Duboule, D. (1994). Temporal colinearity and the phylotypic progression: a basis for the stability of a vertebrate Bauplan and the evolution of mor- phologies through heterochrony. Dev. Suppl. 1994, 135-142.
  38. Frankino, W. A., and Raff, R. A. (2004). "Evolutionary importance and pattern of phenotypic plasticity," in Phenotypic Plasticity: Functional and Conceptual Approaches, eds T. J. DeWitt and S. M. Scheiner (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 64-81.
  39. Fusco, G. (2001). How many processes are responsible for phenotypic evolution? Evol. Dev. 3, 279-286. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003004279.x
  40. Fusco, G., and Minelli, A. (2010). Phenotypic plas- ticity in development and evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 547-556. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0267
  41. Gibson, G., and Dworkin, I. (2004). Uncovering cryp- tic genetic variation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 5, 1199-1212. doi: 10.1038/nrg1426
  42. Gilbert, S. F. (2009). BIO. Evol. Dev. 11, 331-332. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2009.00339.x
  43. Gilbert, S. F., and Epel, D. (2008). Ecological Developmental Biology: Integrating Epigenetics, Medicine, and Evolution. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
  44. Gilbert, S. F., Loredo, G. A., Brukman, A., and Burke, A. C. (2001). Morphogenesis of the turtle shell: the development of a novel structure in tetrapod evolution. Evol. Dev. 3, 47-58. doi: 10.1046/j.1525- 142x.2001.003002047.x
  45. Gould, S. J. (1977). Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  46. Greene, E. (1999). "Phenotypic variation in lar- val development and evolution: polymorphism, polyphenism, and developmental reaction norms," in The Origin and Evolution of Larval Forms, eds M. Wake and B. K. Hall (New York, NY: Academic Press), 379-410.
  47. Griesemer, J. (2014a). "Reproduction and scaf- folded developmental processes: an integrated evolutionary perspective," in Towards a Theory of eds A. Minelli and T. Pradeu (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 183-202.
  48. Griesemer, J. (2014b). "Reproduction and the scaf- folded development of hybrids," in Developing Scaffolds in Evolution, Culture, and Cognition, eds. L. Caporael, J. Griesemer, and W. Wimsatt (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 23-55.
  49. Griesemer, J., and Szathmáry, E. (2009). "Gánti's chemoton model and life criteria," in Protocells: Bridging Nonliving and Living Matter, eds S. Rasmussen, M. A. Bedau, L.-H. Chen, D. Deamer, D. C. Krakauer, and P. F. Stadler (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 481-512.
  50. Hall, B. K. (1997). Phylotypic stage or phantom, is there a highly conserved embryonic stage in ver- tebrates? Trends Ecol. Evol. 12, 461-463.
  51. Hall, B. K. (2003). "Evolution as the control of devel- opment by ecology," in Environment, Evolution and Development: Towards a Synthesis, eds B. K. Hall, R. Pearson, and G. B. Müller (Cambridge. MA: MIT Press), ix-xxiii.
  52. Hall, B. K. (2012). Evolutionary developmental biol- ogy (Evo-Devo): past, present, and future. Evol. Edu. Outreach 5, 184-193. doi: 10.1007/s12052- 012-0418-x
  53. Hall, B. K. (2013). Homology, homoplasy, nov- elty, and behavior. Dev. Psychobiol. 55, 4-12. doi: 10.1002/dev.21039
  54. Hayward, D. C., Miller, D. J., and Ball, E. E. (2004). Snail expression during embryonic devel- opment of the coral Acropora: blurring the diploblast/triploblast divide? Dev. Genes Evol. 214, 257-260. doi: 10.1007/s00427-004-0398-0
  55. Hendrikse, J. L., Parsons, T. E., and Hallgrímsson, B. (2007). Evolvability as the proper focus of evolutionary developmental biology. Evol. Dev. 9, 393-401. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2007.00176.x
  56. Hinman, V. F., and Davidson, E. H. (2007). Evolutionary plasticity of developmental gene regulatory network architecture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 19404-19409. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0709994104
  57. Hoang, T.-H., McKay, R. I., Essam, D., and Hoai, N. X. (2011). On synergistic interactions between evolution, development and layered learning. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 15, 287-311. doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2011.2150752
  58. Holland, L. Z. (2014). Genomics, evolution and development of amphioxus and tunicates: the Goldilocks principle. J. Exp. Zool. Mol. Dev. Evol. doi: 10.1002/jez.b.22569. [Epub ahead of print].
  59. Hopwood, N. (2007). A history of normal plates, tables and stages in vertebrate embryology. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 51, 1-26. doi: 10.1387/ijdb.062189nh
  60. Jeffery, J. E., Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P., Coates, M. I., and Richardson, M. K. (2005). A new technique for identifying sequence heterochrony. Syst. Biol. 54, 230-240. doi: 10.1080/10635150590923227
  61. Jenner, R. A. (2006). Unburdening evo-devo: ances- tral attractions, model organisms, and basal baloney. Dev. Genes Evol. 216, 385-394. doi: 10.1007/s00427-006-0084-5
  62. Joron, M., Jiggins, C. D., Papanicolaou, A., and McMillan, W. O. (2006). Heliconius wing pat- terns: an evo-devo model for understanding phenotypic diversity. Heredity 97, 157-167. doi: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800873
  63. Kalinka, A. T., Varga, K. M., Gerrard, D. T., Preibisch, S., Corcoran, D. L., Jarrells, J., et al. (2010). Gene expression divergence recapitulates the develop- mental hourglass model. Nature 468, 811-814. doi: 10.1038/nature09634
  64. Kimmel, C. B., Ballard, W. W., Kimmel, S. R., Ullmann, B., and Schilling, T. F. (1995). Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Dev. Dyn. 203, 253-310. doi: 10.1002/aja.1002030302
  65. Kocher, T. D., Conroy, J. A., McKaye, K. R., and Stauffer, J. R. (1993). Similar morphologies of cichlid fish in lakes Tanganyika and Malawi are due to convergence. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 2, 158-165. doi: 10.1006/mpev.1993.1016
  66. Kostoff, D., and Kendall, J. (1929). Studies on the structure and development of certain cynipid galls. Biol. Bull. 56, 402-458.
  67. Kozmik, Z. (2005). Pax genes in eye development and evolution. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 15, 430-438. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2005.05.001
  68. Lahti, D. C., Johnson, N. A., Ajie, B. C., Otto, S. P., Hendry, A. P., Blumstein, D. T., et al. (2009). Relaxed selection in the wild. Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 487-496. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.010
  69. Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, J., and Gilbert, S. F. (2008). EvoDevo and niche construction: building bridges. J. Exp. Zool. Mol. Dev. Evol. 310, 549-566. doi: 10.1002/jez.b.21232
  70. Le Rouzic, A., and Carlborg, O. (2008). Evolutionary potential of hidden genetic variation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 33-37. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.09.014
  71. Levin, M., Hashimshony, T., Wagner, F., and Yanai, I. (2012). Developmental milestones punctuate gene expression in the Caenorhabditis embryo. Dev. Cell 22, 1101-1108. doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2012.04.004
  72. Love, A. C. (2008). Explaining evolutionary innova- tion and novelty: criteria of explanatory adequacy and epistemological prerequisites. Philos. Sci. 75, 874-886. doi: 10.1086/594531
  73. Love, A. C. (2010). Idealization in evolutionary developmental investigation: A tension between phenotypic plasticity and normal stages. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 679-690. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0262
  74. Maduro, M. F., and Rothman, J. H. (2002). Making worm guts: the gene regulatory network of the Caenorhabditis elegans endoderm. Dev. Biol. 246, 68-85. doi: 10.1006/dbio.2002.0655
  75. Martindale, M. Q., Pang, K., and Finnerty, J. R. (2004). Investigating the origins of triploblasty: 'meso- dermal' gene expression in a diploblastic animal, the sea anemone Nematostella vectensis (Phylum, Cnidaria; Class, Anthozoa). Development 131, 2463-2474. doi: 10.1242/dev.01119
  76. Maynard Smith, J., and Szathmáry, E. (1995). The Major Transitions in Evolution. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.
  77. Minelli, A. (1998). Molecules, developmental mod- ules and phenotypes: a combinatorial approach to homology. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 9, 340-347. doi: 10.1006/mpev.1997.0490
  78. Minelli, A. (2000). Limbs and tail as evolution- arily diverging duplicates of the main body axis. Evol. Dev. 2, 157-165. doi: 10.1046/j.1525- 142x.2000.00054.x
  79. Minelli, A. (2003a). The origin and evolution of appendages. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 47, 573-581.
  80. Minelli, A. (2003b). The Development of Animal Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  81. Minelli, A. (2009). Perspectives on Animal Phylogeny and Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  82. Minelli, A. (2011). Animal development, an open- ended segment of life. Biol. Theory 6, 4-15. doi: 10.1007/s13752-011-0002-6
  83. Minelli, A. (2014). "Developmental disparity," in Towards a Theory of Development, eds A. Minelli and T. Pradeu (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 227-245.
  84. Minelli, A., and Baedke, J. (2014). Model organisms in evo-devo: promises and pitfalls of the compara- tive approach. Hist. Philos. Life Sci. 36, 42-59. doi: 10.1007/s40656-014-0004-3
  85. Minelli, A., Chagas-Júnior, A., and Edgecombe, G. D. (2009). Saltational evolution of trunk segment number in centipedes. Evol. Dev. 11, 318-322. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2009.00334.x
  86. Minelli, A., and Fusco, G. (1995). "Body segmen- tation and segment differentiation: the scope for heterochronic change," in Evolutionary Change and Heterochrony, ed K. J. McNamara (London: Wiley), 49-63.
  87. Minelli, A., and Fusco, G. (2010). Developmental plasticity and the evolution of animal complex life cycles. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 631-640. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0268
  88. Minelli, A., and Fusco, G. (2012). On the evolutionary developmental biology of speciation. Evol. Biol. 39, 242-254. doi: 10.1007/s11692-012-9175-6
  89. Minelli, A., and Fusco, G. (2013a). "Homology," in The Philosophy of Biology: A Companion for Educators, ed K. Kampourakis (Dordrecht: Springer), 289-322.
  90. Minelli, A., and Fusco, G. (2013b). "Arthropod post-embryonic development," in Arthropod Biology and Evolution. Molecules, Development, Morphology, eds A. Minelli, G. Boxshall, and G. Fusco (Heidelberg: Springer), 91-122.
  91. Minelli, A., Negrisolo, E., and Fusco, G. (2007). "Reconstructing animal phylogeny in the light of evolutionary developmental biology," in Reconstructing the Tree of Life: Taxonomy and Systematics of Species Rich Taxa, eds T. R. Hodkinson, J. A. N. Parnell, and S. Waldren (Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis/CRC Press), 177-190.
  92. Minelli, A., and Pradeu, T. (eds.). (2014). Towards a Theory of Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780 199671427.001.0001
  93. Moczek, A. P. (2007). Developmental capacitance, genetic accommodation, and adaptive evolu- tion. Evol. Dev. 9, 299-305. doi: 10.1111/j.1525- 142X.2007.00162.x
  94. Moczek, A. P. (2008). On the origins of novelty in development and evolution. Bioessays 30, 432-447. doi: 10.1002/bies.20754
  95. Moczek, A. P., Sultan, S., Foster, S., Ledon-Rettig, C., Dworkin, I., Nijhout, H. F., et al. (2011). The role of developmental plasticity in evolutionary inno- vation. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 278, 2705-2713. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2011.0971
  96. Mondragón-Palomino, M., and Theißen, G. (2008). MADS about the evolution of orchid flowers. Trends Plant Sci. 13, 51-59. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2007.11.007
  97. Montgomery, S. H., Capellini, I., Venditti, C., Barton, R. A., and Mundy, N. I. (2011). Adaptive evolution of four microcephaly genes and the evolution of brain size in anthropoid primates. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28, 625-638. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msq237
  98. Müller, G. B., and Newman, S. A. (2005). The inno- vation triad: an EvoDevo agenda. J. Exp. Zool. Mol. Dev. Evol. 304, 487-503. doi: 10.1002/jez.b.21081
  99. Müller-Wille, S., and Rheinberger, H.-J. (2009). Das Gen im Zeitalter Postgenomik-Eine Wissenschaftshistorische Bestandsaufnahme. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.
  100. Newman, S. A. (1992). "Generic physical mechanisms of morphogenesis and pattern formation as deter- minants in the evolution of multicellular organi- zation," in Principles of Organization in Organisms, eds J. B. Mittenthal and A. B. Baskin (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley), 241-267.
  101. Newman, S. A. (1994). Generic physical mech- anisms of tissue morphogenesis: a common basis for development and evolution.
  102. J. Evol. Biol. 7, 467-488. doi: 10.1046/j.1420- 9101.1994.7040467.x Nietzsche, F. (1887). Zur Genealogie der Moral. Cited in this article after the translation by Ian Johnston. Available online at: http://records.viu. ca/∼johnstoi/Nietzsche/genealogytofc.htm [Accessed October 29, 2014].
  103. Nijhout, H. F. (1991). The Development and Evolution of Butterfly Wing Patterns. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
  104. Olson, M. E. (2012). The developmental renaissance in adaptationism. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 278-287. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.12.005
  105. Orr, H. A. (1998). The population genetics of adap- tation: the distribution of factors fixed during adaptive evolution. Evolution 52, 935-949. doi: 10.2307/2411226
  106. Owen, R. (1843). Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Invertebrate Animals, Delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons. London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans.
  107. Oyama, S. (2000). The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution, 2nd Edn. Durham: Duke University Press. doi: 10.1215/9780822380665
  108. Oyama, S., Griffiths, P., and Gray, R. (eds.). (2001). Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  109. Pass, G. (1998). "Accessory pulsatile organs," in Microscopic Anatomy of Invertebrates, 11B. Insecta, eds F. Harrison and M. Locke (New York, NY: Wiley), 621-640.
  110. Pearce, T. (2012). Convergence and parallelism in evo- lution: a neo-gouldian account. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 63, 429-448. doi: 10.1093/bjps/axr046
  111. Pfennig, D. W., Wund, M. A., Snell-Rood, E. C., Cruickshank, T., Schlichting, T. C., and Moczek, A. P. (2010). Phenotypic plasticity's impacts on diversification and speciation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 459-467. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2010.05.006
  112. Pigliucci, M. (2001). Phenotypic Plasticity: Beyond Nature and Nurture. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  113. Pigliucci, M. (2010). Genotype→phenotype mapping and the end of the 'genes as blueprint' metaphor. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 557-566. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2009.0241
  114. Pigliucci, M., and Müller, G. (eds.). (2010). Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  115. Pigliucci, M., and Murren, C. (2003). Genetic assim- ilation and a possible evolutionary paradox: can macroevolution sometimes be so fast as to pass us by? Evolution 57, 1455-1464. doi: 10.1111/j.0014- 3820.2003.tb00354.x
  116. Powell, R. (2007). Is convergence more than an analogy? Homoplasy and its implications for macroevolutionary predictability. Biol. Philos. 22, 565-578. doi: 10.1007/s10539-006-9057-3
  117. Pradeu, T. (2010). The organism in developmen- tal systems theory. Biol. Theory 5, 216-222. doi: 10.1162/BIOT_a_00042
  118. Raff, R. A. (1996). The Shape of Life: Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  119. Raff, R. A. (2000). Evo-devo: the evolution of a new discipline. Nat. Rev. Genet. 1, 74-79. doi: 10.1038/35049594
  120. Raff, R. A., and Sly, B. J. (2000). Modularity and dissociation in the evolution of gene expression territories in development. Evol. Dev. 2, 102-113. doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00035.x
  121. Richardson, M. K., and Brakefield, P. M. (2003). Hotspots for evolution. Nature 424, 894-895. doi: 10.1038/424894a
  122. Richardson, M. K., and Chipman, A. D. (2003). Developmental constraints in a comparative framework: a test case using variations in phalanx number during amniote evolution. J. Exp. Zool. Mol. Dev. Evol. 296, 8-22. doi: 10.1002/jez.b.13
  123. Richmond, D. L., and Oates, A. C. (2012). The seg- mentation clock: inherited trait or universal design principle? Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev. 22, 600-606. doi: 10.1016/j.gde.2012.10.003
  124. Rieppel, O. (2001). Turtles as hopeful monsters. Bioessays 23, 987-991. doi: 10.1002/bies.1143
  125. Robert, J. S. (2004). Embryology, Epigenesis, and Evolution: Taking Development Seriously. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511498541
  126. Robinson, B. W., and Dukas, R. (1999). The influ- ence of phenotypic modifications on evolution: the Baldwin effect and modern perspectives. Oikos 85, 528-589. doi: 10.2307/3546709
  127. Schiffer, P. H., Kroiher, M., Kraus, C., Koutsovoulos, G. D., Kumar, S., Camps, J. I. R., et al. (2013). The genome of Romanomermis culicivorax: reveal- ing fundamental changes in the core developmen- tal genetic toolkit in Nematoda. BMC Genomics 14:923. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-923
  128. Schlichting, C. D., and Pigliucci, M. (1998). Phenotypic Evolution: A Reaction Norm Perspective. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
  129. Schlichting, C. D., and Wund, M. A. (2014). Phenotypic plasticity and epigenetic mark- ing: an assessment of evidence for genetic accommodation. Evolution 68, 656-672. doi: 10.1111/evo.12348
  130. Schlosser, G., and Wagner, G. P. (2004). Modularity in Development and Evolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  131. Seipel, K., and Schmid, V. (2005). Evolution of stri- ated muscle: jellyfish and the origin of triploblasty. Dev. Biol. 282, 14-26. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2005. 03.032
  132. Seipel, K., and Schmid, V. (2006). Mesodermal anatomies in cnidarian polyps and medusa. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 50, 589-599. doi: 10.1387/ijdb.062150ks
  133. Shubin, N., Tabin, C., and Carroll, S. (2009). Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty. Nature 457, 818-823. doi: 10.1038/nature07891
  134. Smith, K. K. (2001). Heterochrony revisited: the evolution of developmental sequences. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 73, 169-186. doi: 10.1111/j.1095- 8312.2001.tb01355.x
  135. Snell-Rood, E. C., Van Dyken, J. D., Cruickshank, T., Wade, M. J., and Moczek, A. P. (2010). Toward a population genetic framework of developmen- tal evolution: costs, limits, and consequences of phenotypic plasticity. Bioessays 32, 71-81. doi: 10.1002/bies.200900132
  136. Spring, J., Yanze, N., Middel, A. M., Stierwald, M., Gröger, H., and Schmid, V. (2000). The mesoderm specification factor Twist in the life cycle of jellyfish. Dev. Biol. 228, 363-375. doi: 10.1006/dbio.2000.9956
  137. Stasiuk, S. J., Scott, M. J., and Grant, W. N. (2012). Developmental plasticity and the evolution of par- asitism in an unusual nematode, Parastrongyloides trichosuri. Evodevo 3:1. doi: 10.1186/2041- 9139-3-1
  138. Sucena, É., Vanderberghe, K., Zhurov, V., and Grbić, M. (2014). Reversion of developmental mode in insects: evolution from long germband to short germband in the polyembrionic wasp Macrocentrus cingulum Brischke. Evol. Dev. 16, 233-246. doi: 10.1111/ede.12086
  139. Theißen, G. (2009). Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay. Theory Biosci. 128, 43-51. doi: 10.1007/s12064-009-0058-z Tills, O., Rundle, S. D., Salinger, M., Haun, T., Pfenninger, M., and Spicer, J. I. (2011). A genetic basis for intraspecific differences in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution | Evolutionary Developmental Biology January 2015 | Volume 2 | Article 85 | 10 developmental timing? Evol. Dev. 13, 542-548. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2011.00510.x
  140. Tögel, M., Pass, G., and Paululat, A. (2008). The Drosophila wing hearts originate from pericardial cells and are essential for wing maturation. Dev. Biol. 318, 29-37. doi: 10.1016/j.ydbio.2008.02.043
  141. True, J. R., and Carroll, S. B. (2002). Gene co- option in physiological and morphological evo- lution. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 18, 53-80. doi: 10.1146/annurev.cellbio.18.020402.140619
  142. Van Dyken, J., and Wade, M. J. (2010). The genetic signature of conditional expression. Genetics 84, 557-570. doi: 10.1534/genetics.109.110163
  143. Velhagen, W. A. Jr. (1997). Analyzing developmen- tal sequences using sequence units. Syst. Biol. 46, 204-210. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/46.1.204
  144. Vervoort, M. (2014). "Comparison of animal and plant development: a right track to establish a theory of development?" in Towards a Theory of Development, eds A. Minelli and T. Pradeu (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 203-217.
  145. von Baer, K. E. (1828). Über Entwicklungsgeschichte der Thiere: Beobachtung und Reflexion, 1. Königsberg: Bornträger.
  146. Waddington, C. H. (1953). Genetic assimilation of an acquired character. Evolution 7, 118-126. doi: 10.2307/2405747
  147. Wagner, G. P. (1989). The biological homology con- cept. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20, 51-69.
  148. Wagner, G. P., and Zhang, J. (2011). The pleiotropic structure of the genotype-phenotype map: the evolvability of complex organisms. Nat. Rev. Genet. 12, 204-213. doi: 10.1038/ nrg2949
  149. West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  150. West-Eberhard, M. J. (2005a). Developmental plas- ticity and the origin of species differences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102, 6543-6549. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0501844102
  151. West-Eberhard, M. J. (2005b). Phenotypic accommo- dation: adaptive innovation due to developmen- tal plasticity. J. Exp. Zool. Mol. Dev. Evol. 304B, 610-618. doi: 10.1002/jez.b.21071
  152. Wiens, J. J. (2011). Re-evolution of lost mandibular teeth in frogs after more than 200 million years, and re-evaluating Dollo's law. Evolution 65, 1283-1296. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01221.x
  153. Wilkins, J. S., and Ebach, M. C. (2013). The Nature of Classification: Relationships and Kinds in the Natural Sciences. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9781137318121
  154. Willmer, P. (2003). "Convergence and homo- plasy in the evolution of organismal form," in Origination of Organismal Form. Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology, eds G. B. Müller and S. A. Newman (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 33-49.
  155. Zakhvatkin, Y. A. (1949). The Comparative Embryology of the Low Invertebrates. Sources and Method of the Origin of Metazoan Development. Moscow: Soviet Science.

Related papers

Evolvability as the proper focus of evolutionary developmental biology
Benedikt Hallgrímsson

Evolution & Development, 2007

Research conducted under the label of evolutionary developmental biology has tended to revolve around a few central issues such as modularity, integration, and canalization. Yet, as the field has grown, it has become increasingly difficult to define in terms of its central question and relation to broader evolutionary concerns. We argue that these central issues of evo-devo gain their currency from connections to a central question that defines the field, and we propose that this central question is about the nature of evolvability. However, not all research currently carried out under the label of ''evo-devo'' speaks to this focal concern.

View PDFchevron_right
Causing and Composing Evolution: Lessons from Evo-Devo Mechanisms
Cristina Villegas

New Mechanism: Explanation, Emergence and Reduction , 2024

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is often vindicated by theoreticians of the field as a mechanistic science that brings a mechanistic perspective into evolutionary biology. Usually, it is also portrayed as stressing the causal role that development plays in the evolutionary process. However, mechanistic studies in evo-devo typically refer to lineage-specific transformations and lack the generality that evolutionary explanations usually aim for. After reviewing the prospects and limits of a mechanistic view of evo-devo and their studies of homology and novelty, in this chapter I propose a way to combine the mechanistic view of evodevo with the population-level inclination of more classical approaches to evolution. Such a proposal provides a philosophical framework for understanding the causal role of development in evolution both as mechanistic and as generalizable, population-level.

View PDFchevron_right
Evo-Devo: evolutionary developmental mechanisms
Alex Suazo
View PDFchevron_right
Evo–devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis
Gerd B. Müller

Nature Reviews Genetics, 2007

| Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) explores the mechanistic relationships between the processes of individual development and phenotypic change during evolution. Although evo-devo is widely acknowledged to be revolutionizing our understanding of how the development of organisms has evolved, its substantial implications for the theoretical basis of evolution are often overlooked. This essay identifies major theoretical themes of current evo-devo research and highlights how its results take evolutionary theory beyond the boundaries of the Modern Synthesis. nATuRE REvIEwS | genetics vOluME 8 | dEcEMbER 2007 | 943 PErSPEcTivES f o c u s o n E V o -D E V o © 2007 Nature Publishing Group Nature Reviews | Genetics Evolution Development Environment Eco-evo-devo Devo-evo Evo-devo P E r s P E c t i V E s 946 | dEcEMbER 2007 | vOluME 8 www.nature.com/reviews/genetics P E r s P E c t i V E s All links Are Active in the online pDf P E r s P E c t i V E s nATuRE REvIEwS | genetics vOluME 8 | dEcEMbER 2007 | 949 f o c u s o n E V o -D E V o

View PDFchevron_right
Evo-devo and evolutionary change. The role of evolutionary developmental biology in changing our understanding of the problem of reductionism in biology
Riccardo Mona

ThUMB Summer School , 2019

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Evolutionary Biology
  • Biology
  • Evolutionary Physiology
  • Grand Challenges

    • Cited by

    A way forward with eco evo devo: an extended theory of resource polymorphism with postglacial fishes as model systems
    Alan G Hudson

    Biological Reviews

    A major goal of evolutionary science is to understand how biological diversity is generated and altered. Despite considerable advances, we still have limited insight into how phenotypic variation arises and is sorted by natural selection. Here we argue that an integrated view, which merges ecology, evolution and developmental biology (eco evo devo) on an equal footing, is needed to understand the multifaceted role of the environment in simultaneously determining the development of the phenotype and the nature of the selective environment, and how organisms in turn affect the environment through eco evo and eco devo feedbacks. To illustrate the usefulness of an integrated eco evo devo perspective, we connect it with the theory of resource polymorphism (i.e. the phenotypic and genetic diversification that occurs in response to variation in available resources). In so doing, we highlight fishes from recently glaciated freshwater systems as exceptionally well-suited model systems for testing predictions of an eco evo devo framework in studies of diversification. Studies on these fishes show that intraspecific diversity can evolve rapidly, and that this process is jointly facilitated by (i) the availability of diverse environments promoting divergent natural selection; (ii) dynamic developmental processes sensitive to environmental and genetic signals; and (iii) eco evo and eco devo

    View PDFchevron_right
    EvoDevo: Past and Future of Continuum and Process Plant Morphology
    Rolf Rutishauser

    Philosophies, 2020

    Plants and animals are both important for studies in evolutionary developmental biology (EvoDevo). Plant morphology as a valuable discipline of EvoDevo is set for a paradigm shift. Process thinking and the continuum approach in plant morphology allow us to perceive and interpret growing plants as combinations of developmental processes rather than as assemblages of structural units (“organs”) such as roots, stems, leaves, and flowers. These dynamic philosophical perspectives were already favored by botanists and philosophers such as Agnes Arber (1879–1960) and Rolf Sattler (*1936). The acceptance of growing plants as dynamic continua inspires EvoDevo scientists such as developmental geneticists and evolutionary biologists to move towards a more holistic understanding of plants in time and space. This review will appeal to many young scientists in the plant development research fields. It covers a wide range of relevant publications from the past to present.

    View PDFchevron_right
    Variation in egg size and offspring phenotype among and within seven Arctic charr morphs
    Skúli Skúlason

    Ecology and Evolution

    This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details.

    View PDFchevron_right
    580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved