Sepia officinalis: A new biological model for eco-evo-devo studies

2013 ◽  
Vol 447 ◽  
pp. 4-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yann Bassaglia ◽  
Auxane Buresi ◽  
Delphine Franko ◽  
Aude Andouche ◽  
Sébastien Baratte ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Anna Palumbo ◽  
Ida Gesualdo ◽  
Anna Di Cosmo ◽  
Luigi De Martino

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludwig Wildt ◽  
Katharina Winkler-Crepaz ◽  
Bettina Boettcher
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Stéphane Schmitt

The problem of the repeated parts of organisms was at the center of the biological sciences as early as the first decades of the 19th century. Some concepts and theories (e.g., serial homology, unity of plan, or colonial theory) introduced in order to explain the similarity as well as the differences between the repeated structures of an organism were reused throughout the 19th and the 20th century, in spite of the fundamental changes during this long period that saw the diffusion of the evolutionary theory, the rise of experimental approaches, and the emergence of new fields and disciplines. Interestingly, this conceptual heritage was at the core of any attempt to unify the problems of inheritance, development, and evolution, in particular in the last decades, with the rise of “evo-devo.” This chapter examines the conditions of this theoretical continuity and the challenges it brings out for the current evolutionary sciences.


Author(s):  
Alan C. Love

Many researchers have argued that evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) constitutes a challenge to standard evolutionary theory, requiring the explicit inclusion of developmental processes that generate variation and attention to organismal form (rather than adaptive function). An analysis of these developmental-form challenges indicates that the primary concern is not the inclusion of specific content but the epistemic organization or structure of evolutionary theory. Proponents of developmental-form challenges favor moving their considerations to a more central location in evolutionary theorizing, in part because of a commitment to the value of mechanistic explanation. This chapter argues there are multiple legitimate structures for evolutionary theory, instead of a single, overarching or canonical organization, and different theory presentations can be understood as idealizations that serve different investigative and explanatory goals in evolutionary inquiry.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document