scholarly journals Evolvability in the fossil record

Paleobiology ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Alan C. Love ◽  
Mark Grabowski ◽  
David Houle ◽  
Lee Hsiang Liow ◽  
Arthur Porto ◽  
...  

Abstract The concept of evolvability—the capacity of a population to produce and maintain evolutionarily relevant variation—has become increasingly prominent in evolutionary biology. Paleontology has a long history of investigating questions of evolvability, but paleontological thinking has tended to neglect recent discussions, because many tools used in the current evolvability literature are challenging to apply to the fossil record. The fundamental difficulty is how to disentangle whether the causes of evolutionary patterns arise from variational properties of traits or lineages rather than being due to selection and ecological success. Despite these obstacles, the fossil record offers unique and growing sources of data that capture evolutionary patterns of sustained duration and significance otherwise inaccessible to evolutionary biologists. Additionally, there exist a variety of strategic possibilities for combining prominent neontological approaches to evolvability with those from paleontology. We illustrate three of these possibilities with quantitative genetics, evolutionary developmental biology, and phylogenetic models of macroevolution. In conclusion, we provide a methodological schema that focuses on the conceptualization, measurement, and testing of hypotheses to motivate and provide guidance for future empirical and theoretical studies of evolvability in the fossil record.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan C Love ◽  
Mark Grabowski ◽  
David Houle ◽  
Lee Hsiang Liow ◽  
Arthur Porto ◽  
...  

The concept of evolvability—the capacity of a population to produce and maintain evolutionarily relevant variation—has become increasingly prominent in evolutionary biology. Although paleontology has a long history of investigating questions of evolvability, often invoking different but allied terminology, the study of evolvability in the fossil record has seemed intrinsically problematic. How can we surmount difficulties in disentangling whether the causes of evolutionary patterns arise from variational properties of traits or lineages rather than due to selection and ecological success? Despite these challenges, the fossil record is unique in offering growing sources of data that span millions of years and therefore capture evolutionary patterns of sustained duration and significance otherwise inaccessible to evolutionary biologists. Additionally, there are a variety of strategic possibilities for combining prominent neontological approaches to evolvability with those from paleontology. We illustrate three of these possibilities with quantitative genetics, evolutionary developmental biology, and phylogenetic models of macroevolution. In conclusion, we provide a methodological schema that focuses on the conceptualization, measurement, and testing of hypotheses to motivate and provide guidance for future empirical and theoretical studies of evolvability in the fossil record.


2002 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 267-288 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blaire Van Valkenburgh ◽  
Ian Jenkins

Synapsids include modern mammals and their fossil ancestors, the non-mammalian synapsids, or ‘mammal-like reptiles' of old classifications. The synapsid fossil record extends from the Late Carboniferous to the present, a span of nearly 300 million years. However, it can be broken into two distinct phases of diversification, separated by about 150 million years. The first phase extends from the Late Carboniferous to the mid-Triassic, includes the first large land predators on Earth, and is almost entirely non-mammalian. The second phase begins about 65 million years ago after the demise of the dinosaurs, includes only mammals, and extends to the present. In this overview of synapsid predators, we emphasize terrestrial species of large size, and their adaptations for killing and feeding, rather than locomotion. Despite fundamental differences in jaw mechanics and tooth morphology, there are significant parallels in the non-mammalian and mammalian radiations of synapsid predators. Both groups evolve sabertooth forms more than once, and both evolve short-snouted, powerful biting forms. In addition, both the Late Carboniferous—Triassic and Cenozoic phases are characterized by repeated patterns of clade replacement, in which one or a few clades evolve large size and seem to dominate the carnivore guild for several million years, but then decline and are replaced by new taxa. Moreover, within both ancient and Cenozoic predator clades, there are parallel trends over time toward increased body size and hypercarnivory that likely result from a combination of interspecific competition and energetic constraints.


2008 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 17-40
Author(s):  
Richard K. Bambach

Although this paper mentions many specific discoveries and advances it is not intended as a catalog of the “biggest hits” in the sense of public notice, but rather it is an effort to chart how the diversity of paleontological work in the last century fits into the context of the biggest hit of all, the emergence of a “new paleontology” in which conceptual advances have revolutionized every aspect of our profession. When the Paleontological Society was founded no unambiguous fossils were known from the immense stretch of Precambrian time and no hominine fossils were known from Africa. Rigorous phylogenetic analysis and a seat for paleontology at the “high table” of evolutionary biology were in the future. Where once we learned a series of guide fossils and thought we had studied paleontology, now students explore taphonomy, paleoeocology, geobiology and macroevolution in our general courses on paleontology. This paper attempts to take notice of some of the highlights of our evolution from a field focused on cataloging and describing the contents of the fossil record into a complex, multidisciplinary endeavor focused on analytical study of general questions. Some of those hits have been discoveries that document the course of evolution, some have been new conceptual approaches that give us insights that link pattern to process, some are new ways of compiling, analyzing or communicating our knowledge. But with all that the study of the history of life remains at the heart of our profession. The change has been the shift in goal from description to understanding of that history, from “what” to “how.” The greatest hits have been the steps that have opened the way to understanding, that have made following the path possible.


Author(s):  
Heinz A. Lowenstam ◽  
Stephen Weiner

Biomineralization among living organisms is widespread, occurring in both prokaryotes and eukaryotes. It is diverse with some 60 or so minerals known to be formed by organisms under a wide variety of conditions. They are deposited at many different locations both inside and outside cells. Biomineralization occurs on such an enormous scale that it influences processes in the biosphere itself. It is, therefore, of interest to determine how this all came about—the evolution of biomineralization. The evolutionary history of biomineralization is a fascinating subject in its own right, which is the primary reason for including it in this book. However, a well-substantiated understanding of this subject is also of crucial importance to the interpretation of many aspects of research into the mechanisms of biomineralization in living organisms. An example is the observation by Veis et al. (1986) that antibodies raised against the rat incisor acidic proteins, phosphophoryns, crossreact with proteins extracted from a sea urchin test. The proteins presumably share some similar molecular structures. Did they inherit them from a common ancestor or did they evolve independently from each other to fulfill similar functions? This type of question can be asked about many comparative studies in biomineralization between phyla or even within lower taxa of the same phyla. As long as we do not have answers to these questions, the powerful tool of comparative biology in biomineralization is compromised. Studying the evolution of biomineralization has one enormous advantage over many other topics in evolutionary biology; the very material that we are interested in has the best chance of surviving the vagaries of time and being preserved in the fossil record. The fossil record at least during the last 600 million years or so is, for the most part, a documentation of remnants of the history of mineralized hard part formation by organisms. Thus, the evolution of biomineralization is one topic that can, and that should be based on the direct documentation of the fossil record. This is the way it is presented in this chapter. The corollary of this statement is also worth considering. The fossil record should be interpreted bearing in mind the evolution of biomineralization.


2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. David Archibald

Studies of the origin and diversification of major groups of plants and animals are contentious topics in current evolutionary biology. This includes the study of the timing and relationships of the two major clades of extant mammals – marsupials and placentals. Molecular studies concerned with marsupial and placental origin and diversification can be at odds with the fossil record. Such studies are, however, not a recent phenomenon. Over 150 years ago Charles Darwin weighed two alternative views on the origin of marsupials and placentals. Less than a year after the publication of On the origin of species, Darwin outlined these in a letter to Charles Lyell dated 23 September 1860. The letter concluded with two competing phylogenetic diagrams. One showed marsupials as ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals, whereas the other showed a non-marsupial, non-placental as being ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals. These two diagrams are published here for the first time. These are the only such competing phylogenetic diagrams that Darwin is known to have produced. In addition to examining the question of mammalian origins in this letter and in other manuscript notes discussed here, Darwin confronted the broader issue as to whether major groups of animals had a single origin (monophyly) or were the result of “continuous creation” as advocated for some groups by Richard Owen. Charles Lyell had held similar views to those of Owen, but it is clear from correspondence with Darwin that he was beginning to accept the idea of monophyly of major groups.


Studies of animal behavior often assume that all members of a species exhibit the same behavior. Geographic Variation in Behavior shows that, on the contrary, there is substantional variation within species across a wide range of taxa. Including work from pioneers in the field, this volume provides a balanced overview of research on behavioral characteristics that vary geographically. The authors explore the mechanisms by which behavioral differences evolve and examine related methodological issues. Taken together, the work collected here demonstrates that genetically based geographic variation may be far more widespread than previously suspected. The book also shows how variation in behavior can illuminate both behavioral evolution and general evolutionary patterns. Unique among books on behavior in its emphasis on geographic variation, this volume is a valuable new resource for students and researchers in animal behavior and evolutionary biology.


2002 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 97-118
Author(s):  
Charles R. Marshall

Ever since Darwin proposed his theory of evolution (or more correctly, theories; see Mayr, 1991) it has been assumed that intermediates now extinct once existed between living species. For some, the hunt for these so-called missing links in the fossil record became an obsession, a search for evidence thought needed to establish the veracity of evolutionary theory. Few modern paleontologists, however, search explicitly for ancestors in the fossil record because we now know that fossils can be used to chart the order of evolution regardless of whether they are directly ancestral either to extinct organisms or to those living today.


1992 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 16-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard K. Bambach ◽  
J. John Sepkoski

The first two ranks above the species level in the traditional Linnean hierarchy — the genus and family — are species based: genera have been erected to unify groups of morphologically similar, closely related species and families have been erected to group genera recognized as closely related because of the shared morphologic characteristics of their species. Diversity patterns of traditional genera and families thus appear congruent with those of species in (a) the Recent (e. g., latitudinal gradients in many groups), (b) compilations of all marine taxa for the entire Phanerozoic (including the stage level), (c) comparisons through time within individual taxa (e. g., Foraminifera, Rugosa, Conodonta), and (d) simulation studies. Genera and families often have a more robust fossil record of diversity than species, especially for poorly sampled groups (e. g., echinoids), because of the range-through record of these polytypic taxa. Simulation studies indicate that paraphyly among traditionally defined taxa is not a fatal problem for diversity studies; in fact, when degradation of the quality of the fossil record is modelled, both diversity and rates of origination and extinction are better represented by including paraphyletic taxa than by restricting data to monophyletic clades. This result underscores the utility of traditional rank-based analyses of the history of diversity.In contrast, the three higher ranks of the Linnean hierarchy — orders, classes and phyla — are defined and recognized by key character complexes assumed to be rooted deep in the developmental program and, therefore, considered to be of special significance. These taxa are unified on the basis of body plan and function, not species morphology. Even if paraphyletic, recognition of such taxa is useful because they represent different functional complexes that reflect biological organization and major evolutionary innovations, often with different ecological capacities. Phanerozoic diversity patterns of orders, classes and phyla are not congruent with those of lower taxa; the higher groups each increased rapidly in the early Paleozoic, during the explosive diversification of body plans in the Cambrian, and then remained stable or declined slightly after the Ordovician. The diversity history of orders superficially resembles that of lower taxa, but this is a result only of ordinal turnover among the Echinodermata coupled with ordinal radiation in the Chordata; it is not a highly damped signal derived from the diversity of species, genera, or families. Despite the stability of numbers among post-Ordovician Linnean higher taxa, the diversity of lower taxa within many of these Bauplan groups fluctuated widely, and these diversity patterns signal embedded ecologic information, such as differences in flexibility in filling or utilizing ecospace.Phylogenetic analysis is vital for understanding the origins and genealogical structure of higher taxa. Only in such fashion can convergence and its implications for ecological constraints and/or opportunities be understood. But blind insistence on the use of monophyletic classifications in all studies would obscure some of the important information contained in traditional taxonomic groupings. The developmental modifications that characterize Linnean higher taxa (and traditionally separate them from their paraphyletic ancestral taxa) provide keys to understanding the role of shifting ecology in macroevolutionary success.


boundary 2 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-34
Author(s):  
David Golumbia

The history of philology provides an exceptionally rich vein for locating what Derrida came to call deconstructions: nodes or pseudo-events in the development of discourse where it appears that foundations collapse, only to be rebuilt in forms that may or may not have changed. The history of philology engages language, the sciences (especially evolutionary biology), and race, all of which are evidenced in the work of the German philologist Wilhelm von Humboldt. The relationships among these discourses have been repeatedly subject to deconstruction, sometimes so as to enhance appreciation of human diversity, and at other times against it. Understanding the history of philology is critical to understanding our present, but there remains significant work to do to reconstruct its liberatory aspects in the service of a more egalitarian future.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document