scholarly journals Biological Systematics in the Evo-Devo era

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Minelli
Keyword(s):  
Phylogenetic Signal ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Morphological Data ◽  
Spatial And Temporal Patterns ◽  
Saltational Evolution ◽  
Biological Systematics ◽  
Developmental Modulation ◽  
Evo Devo ◽  
Whole Life Cycle ◽  
Sympatric Morphs

Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) suggests a distinction between modular and systemic variation. In the case of modular change, the conservation of the overall structure helps recognizing affinities, while a single, fast evolving module is likely to produce a bonanza for the taxonomist, while systemic changes produce strongly deviating morphologies that cause problems in tracing homologies. Similarly, changes affecting the whole life cycle are more challenging than those limited to one stage. Developmental modularity is a precondition for heterochrony. Analyzing a matrix of morphological data for paedomorphic taxa requires special care. It is, however, possible to extract phylogenetic signal from heterochronic patterns. The taxonomist should pay attention to the intricacies of the genotype→phenotype map. When using genetic data to infer phylogeny, a comparison of gene sequences is just a first step. To bridge the gap between genes and morphology we should consider the spatial and temporal patterns of gene expression, and their regulation. Minor genetic change can have major phenotypic effects, sometimes suggesting saltational evolution. Evo-devo is also relevant in respect to speciation: changes in developmental schedules are often implicated in the divergence between sympatric morphs, and a developmental modulation of ‘temporal phenotypes’ appears to be responsible for many cases of speciation.

Evo-Devo and the Structure(s) of Evolutionary Theory

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan C. Love
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Mechanistic Explanation ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Primary Concern ◽  
Adaptive Function ◽  
Specific Content ◽  
Central Location ◽  
Developmental Form ◽  
Evo Devo

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.

Amazing grass: developmental genetics of maize domestication

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 1502-1506 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Vollbrecht ◽  
B. Sigmon
Keyword(s):  
Reverse Genetics ◽  
Population Genomics ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Developmental Genetics ◽  
Crop Domestication ◽  
Modern Maize ◽  
Signatures Of Selection ◽  
Maize Domestication ◽  
Plant Form ◽  
Evo Devo

Crop plants were domesticated by prehistoric farmers through artificial selection to provide a means of feeding the human population. This article discusses the developmental genetics of crop domestication and improvement, including the historical framework and recent approaches in maize and other grasses. In many cases, selecting for a plant form that correlates with productivity involves controlling meristem activity. In the domestication of modern maize from its progenitor Zea mays ssp. parviglumis, QTL (quantitative trait loci) mapping, genetics and population genomics approaches have identified several genes that contain signatures of selection. Only a few genes involved in the derivation of the highly productive maize ear have been identified, including teosinte glume architecture1 and ramosa1. Future prospects hinge on forward and reverse genetics, as well as on other approaches from the developing discipline of evo-devo (evolutionary developmental biology).

scholarly journals Comparative Cladistics: Fossils, Morphological Data Partitions and Lost Branches in the Fossil Tree of Life

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Mounce
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Phylogenetic Signal ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
Molecular Data ◽  
Morphological Data ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Phylogenetic Groups ◽  
Use Of Data ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Cladistic Analyses

In this thesis I attempt to gather together a wide range of cladistic analyses of fossil and extant taxa representing a diverse array of phylogenetic groups. I use this data to quantitatively compare the effect of fossil taxa relative to extant taxa in terms of support for relationships, number of most parsimonious trees (MPTs) and leaf stability. In line with previous studies I find that the effects of fossil taxa are seldom different to extant taxa – although I highlight some interesting exceptions. I also use this data to compare the phylogenetic signal within vertebrate morphological data sets, by choosing to compare cranial data to postcranial data. Comparisons between molecular data and morphological data have been previously well explored, as have signals between different molecular loci. But comparative signal within morphological data sets is much less commonly characterized and certainly not across a wide array of clades. With this analysis I show that there are many studies in which the evidence provided by cranial data appears to be be significantly incongruent with the postcranial data – more than one would expect to see just by the effect of chance and noise alone. I devise and implement a modification to a rarely used measure of homoplasy that will hopefully encourage its wider usage. Previously it had some undesirable bias associated with the distribution of missing data in a dataset, but my modification controls for this. I also take an in-depth and extensive review of the ILD test, noting it is often misused or reported poorly, even in recent studies. Finally, in attempting to collect data and metadata on a large scale, I uncovered inefficiencies in the research publication system that obstruct re-use of data and scientific progress. I highlight the importance of replication and reproducibility – even simple reanalysis of high profile papers can turn up some very different results. Data is highly valuable and thus it must be retained and made available for further re-use to maximize the overall return on research investment.

scholarly journals Importance of the postcranial skeleton in eusuchian phylogeny: Reassessing the systematics of allodaposuchid crocodylians

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0251900
Author(s):  
Alejandro Blanco
Keyword(s):  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Phylogenetic Signal ◽  
Morphological Data ◽  
Phylogenetic Position ◽  
Postcranial Skeleton ◽  
Skull Morphology ◽  
Taxonomic Descriptions ◽  
The Family ◽  
Phylogenetic Hypotheses ◽  
Internal Relationships

Our current knowledge on the crocodyliform evolution is strongly biased towards the skull morphology, and the postcranial skeleton is usually neglected in many taxonomic descriptions. However, it is logical to expect that it can contribute with its own phylogenetic signal. In this paper, the changes in the tree topology caused by the addition of the postcranial information are analysed for the family Allodaposuchidae, the most representative eusuchians in the latest Cretaceous of Europe. At present, different phylogenetic hypotheses have been proposed for this group without reaching a consensus. The results of this paper evidence a shift in the phylogenetic position when the postcranium is included in the dataset, pointing to a relevant phylogenetic signal in the postcranial elements. Finally, the phylogenetic relationships of allodaposuchids within Eusuchia are reassessed; and the internal relationships within Allodaposuchidae are also reconsidered after an exhaustive revision of the morphological data. New and improved diagnoses for each species are here provided.

Evolutionary developmental biology

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Amundson
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Developmental Genetics ◽  
Comparative Biology ◽  
Embryological Development ◽  
Adult Form ◽  
The Core ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Evo Devo ◽  
Year 2000

Evolutionary developmental biology is the study of evolutionary change (called phylogeny) as it is revealed through the embryological development of individual organisms (called ontogeny). On this approach, the understanding of ontogeny contributes to our understanding of phylogeny, and vice versa. Evolutionary thinkers of the nineteenth century almost all held what may be called the core doctrine of evolutionary developmental biology: that in order to achieve a modification in the adult form, evolution must modify the embryological processes responsible for that form, so that an understanding of evolution requires an understanding of development. Evolutionary theory has no theoretical need for developmental views of evolution. Beginning around 1990 a series of discoveries and theoretical innovations in developmental genetics led to the reinvigoration of developmental approaches to evolution. Evolutionary developmental biology (‘evo-devo’ as it is now called) was inaugurated as a Division of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology in the year 2000.

scholarly journals Morphology and behaviour: functional links in development and evolution

2011 ◽  
Vol 366 (1574) ◽  
pp. 2056-2068 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rinaldo C. Bertossa
Keyword(s):  
Phenotypic Diversity ◽  
Decisive Role ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Form And Function ◽  
Biological Hierarchy ◽  
Object Of Study ◽  
And Function ◽  
Evo Devo ◽  
Versus Behaviour ◽  
Development And Evolution

Development and evolution of animal behaviour and morphology are frequently addressed independently, as reflected in the dichotomy of disciplines dedicated to their study distinguishing object of study (morphology versus behaviour) and perspective (ultimate versus proximate). Although traits are known to develop and evolve semi-independently, they are matched together in development and evolution to produce a unique functional phenotype. Here I highlight similarities shared by both traits, such as the decisive role played by the environment for their ontogeny. Considering the widespread developmental and functional entanglement between both traits, many cases of adaptive evolution are better understood when proximate and ultimate explanations are integrated. A field integrating these perspectives is evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), which studies the developmental basis of phenotypic diversity. Ultimate aspects in evo-devo studies—which have mostly focused on morphological traits—could become more apparent when behaviour, ‘the integrator of form and function’, is integrated into the same framework of analysis. Integrating a trait such as behaviour at a different level in the biological hierarchy will help to better understand not only how behavioural diversity is produced, but also how levels are connected to produce functional phenotypes and how these evolve. A possible framework to accommodate and compare form and function at different levels of the biological hierarchy is outlined. At the end, some methodological issues are discussed.

scholarly journals DNA Barcoding: Mixed results for big-headed flies (Diptera: Pipunculidae)

Zootaxa ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 1423 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
JEFFREY H. SKEVINGTON ◽  
CHRISTIAN KEHLMAIER ◽  
GUNILLA STÅHLS
Keyword(s):  
Dna Barcoding ◽  
Sequence Data ◽  
Phylogenetic Signal ◽  
Morphological Characters ◽  
Molecular Data ◽  
Morphological Data ◽  
Base Pairs ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Taxonomic Decision ◽  
Morphological Species

Sequence data from 658 base pairs of mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase I (cox1) were analysed for 28 described species of Pipunculidae (Diptera) in an effort to test the concept of DNA Barcoding on this family. Two recently revised but distantly related pipunculid lineages with presumed different evolutionary histories were used for the test (Clistoabdominalis Skevington, 2001 and Nephrocerus Zetterstedt, 1838). An effort was made to test the concept using sister taxa and morphologically similar sibling species swarms in these two genera. Morphological species concepts for Clistoabdominalis taxa were either supported by cox1 data or found to be too broad. Most of the discordance could be accounted for after reassessing morphological characters. In these cases, the molecular data were invaluable in assisting taxonomic decision-making. The radiation of Nearctic species of Nephrocerus could not be diagnosed using cox1. The ability of cox1 to recover phylogenetic signal was also tested on Clistoabdominalis. Morphological data for Clistoabdominalis were combined with the molecular data set. The pipunculid phylogeny from molecular data closely resembles the published phylogeny based on morphology. Partitioned Bremer support is used to localize areas of conflict between the datasets.

Evolution Makes More Sense in the Light of Development

2014 ◽  
Vol 76 (8) ◽  
pp. 493-498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kostas Kampourakis ◽  
Alessandro Minelli
Keyword(s):  
Developmental Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Conceptual Development ◽  
Evolutionary Developmental Biology ◽  
Public Communication ◽  
Common Ancestry ◽  
Development Research ◽  
The Public ◽  
Psychological Essentialism ◽  
Evo Devo

We highlight some important conceptual issues that biologists should take into account when teaching evolutionary biology or communicating it to the public. We first present conclusions from conceptual development research on how particular human intuitions, namely design teleology and psychological essentialism, influence the understanding of evolution. We argue that these two intuitions form important conceptual obstacles to understanding evolution that should be explicitly addressed during instruction and public communication. Given that a major issue in evolution is understanding how very different forms may share common ancestry – antievolutionists have argued that this is inconceivable – we suggest that evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), which provides concepts and evidence that large morphological change is possible, could be used to address the intuitions that organisms have fixed essences (psychological essentialism) and that their structure indicates some kind of intentional design (design teleology).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document