Diachronic Biology Meets Evo-Devo: C. H. Waddington's Approach to Evolutionary Developmental Biology1 (original) (raw)
Related papers
2008
Evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) is a new and rapidly developing field of biology which focuses on questions in the intersection of evolution and development and has been seen by many as a potential synthesis of these two fields. This synthesis is the topic of the books reviewed here. Integrating Evolution and Development (edited by Roger Sansom and Robert Brandon), is a collection of papers on conceptual issues in Evo-Devo, while From Embryology to Evo-Devo (edited by Manfred Laubichler and Jane Maienschein) is a history of the problem of the relations between ontogeny and phylogeny.
The Journal of experimental zoology, 2000
Some time in the late 1980s my good friend Jim Cheverud, at the time already a prominent quantitative geneticist, once asked me the innocuous question: "What is developmental evolution more than evolution of development?" To my dismay I was not able to give a convincing answer (not even one that was convincing to me). The mid-1980s were the last years of the "romantic phase" of developmental evolution (Wagner et al., 2000), and those of us interested in the subject expected great conceptual advances from the integration of development into evolutionary biology. This was after the publication of Gould's Ontogeny and Phylogeny ('77), Riedl's Order in Living Organisms ('78), and Raff and Kauffman's Embryos, Genes, and Evolution ('83). At the time, many thought that there would be a major transformation of evolutionary biology ahead of us (see for instance Horder, '89; Gilbert, '91; Wake et al., '91). Just the evolution of development clearly did not fit the bill. Indeed, for evolutionary biology, the molecular genetic revolution in developmental biology is in some respects like the invention of the electron microscope. A new level of biological organization has come within the grasp of science, and this very fact alone invites the comparative study of the features found at that level of description, i.e., the evolution of development. As such, developmental evolution would not be different than any other character specific study of variation, like the evolution of DNA sequences or the evolution of morphological characters. This research is clearly important, but it is not the kind of revolution many of my friends and I expected from developmental biology in the early and mid-1980s. At that time it was therefore not clear whether embryology or developmental biology would be able to play any explanatory role in evolutionary biology (see for instance Wallace, '86). Jim's question was answered, somewhat late though, at the inaugural meeting of the new divi
American Zoologist, 2000
SYNOPSIS. This symposium undertakes to examine some historical background relevant to the renaissance in biological studies linking evolution and development, to review the current status of research in this rapidly changing area (especially the problem of forging links between disciplines that have gone in divergent directions), to address the benefits and difficulties that arise from molecular studies of the relationship between evolution and development, and to help set the research agenda in evolutionary developmental biology in the next few years. Rather than introducing the individual contributions that follow, this paper aims to set some historical background for the topics they cover. I argue that old questions about the relationship of development to evolution, raised by such figures as William Bateson and Richard Goldschmidt, remain relevant to contemporary work, though they require major reformulation in light of subsequent developments. Many older questions, long set aside as intractable, remain open. Recently developed techniques may enable us to answer some of them. Accordingly, I suggest, it is worth reviewing the work of several historical figures in setting current research agendas.
The morphogenesis of evolutionary developmental biology
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.
The Quarterly Review of …, 1985
Developmental constraints (defined as biases on the production of variant phenotypes or limitations on phenotypic variability caused by the structure, character, composition, or dynamics of the developmental system) undoubtedly playa significant role in evolution. Yet there is little agreement on their importance as compared with selection) drift, and other suchfactors in shaping evolutionary history. This review distinguishes between "universal" and "local" constraints; it deals primarily with the latter, which apply to a limited range of taxa. Such constraints, typically, can be broken even within the taxa to which they apply, though with varying degrees of difficulty. The origin of constraints is discussed, five distinctive sources ofconstraint being explicitly considered. Three means of identifying constraints are set forth, as well as four means of distinguishing developmental from selective constraints. None of the latter (use of a priori adaptive predictions, direct measurement of selection, direct measurement of heritable variation, and use of the comparative method) is foolproof In the final section, three larger issues regarding the role of developmental constraints in evolution are discussed: the extent to which evolutionary stasis can be explained in developmental terms, the extent to which evolutionary trends and patterns might be a consequence ofdevelopmental constraints, and the extent to which various genetic and developmental mechanisms have evolved in virtue of the need of lineages t9 manifest evolutionary plasticity (or adaptability) if they are to survive. Although no definitive conclusions are reached on these larger issues, we bring recent advances in developmental biology, evolutionary theory, and (to a limited extent) molecular biology to bear on them.
Zygon, 2017
Using the evolution of the stickleback family of subarctic fish as a touchstone, we explore the effect of new discoveries about regulatory genetics, developmental plasticity, and epigenetic inheritance on the conceptual foundations of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. Identifying the creativity of natural selection as the hallmark of the Modern Synthesis, we show that since its inception its adherents have pursued a variety of research projects that at first seemed to conflict with its principles, but were accommodated. We situate challenges coming from developmental biology in a dialectic between innovation and tradition, suggesting on the basis of past episodes that even if developmental plasticity and epigenetic inheritance are aligned with its principles the Modern Synthesis (and its image in the public reception of evolution) will be significantly affected.
Naturwissenschaften, 2010
Evolutionary theory has been likened to a “universal acid” (Dennett 1995) that eats its way into more and more areas of science. Recently, developmental biology has been infused by evolutionary concepts and perspectives, and a new field of research—evolutionary developmental biology—has been created and is often called EvoDevo for short. However, this is not the first attempt to make a synthesis between these two areas of biology. In contrast, beginning right after the publication of Darwin’s Origin in 1859, Ernst Haeckel formulated his biogenetic law in 1872, famously stating that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Haeckel was in his turn influenced by pre-Darwinian thinkers such as Karl Ernst von Baer, who had noted that earlier developmental stages show similarities not seen in the adults. In this review, written for an audience of non-specialists, we first give an overview of the history of EvoDevo, especially the tradition emanating from Haeckel and other comparative embryologists and morphologists, which has often been neglected in discussions about the history of EvoDevo and evolutionary biology. Here we emphasize contributions from Russian and German scientists to compensate for the Anglo-American bias in the literature. In Germany, the direct influence of Ernst Haeckel was felt particularly in Jena, where he spent his entire career as a professor, and we give an overview of the “Jena school” of evolutionary morphology, with protagonists such as Oscar Hertwig, Ludwig Plate, and Victor Franz, who all developed ideas that we would nowadays think of as belonging to EvoDevo. Franz ideas about “biometabolic modi” are similar to those of a Russian comparative morphologist that visited Jena repeatedly, A. N. Sewertzoff, who made important contributions to what we now call heterochrony research—heterochrony meaning changes in the relative timing of developmental events. His student I. I. Schmalhausen became an important contributor to the synthetic theory of evolution in Russia and is only partly known outside of the Russian-reading world because only one of his many books was translated into English early on. He made many important contributions to evolutionary theory and we point out the important parallels between Schmalhausen’s ideas (stabilizing selection, autonomization) and C. H. Waddington’s (canalization, genetic assimilation). This is one of the many parallels that have contributed to an increased appreciation of the internationality of progress in evolutionary thinking in the first half of the twentieth century. A direct link between German and Russian evolutionary biology is provided by N. V. Timoféeff-Ressovsky, whose work on, e.g., fly genetics in Berlin is a crucial part of the history of evo-devo. To emphasize the international nature of heterochrony research as predecessor to the modern era of EvoDevo, we include Sir G. R. de Beer’s work in the UK. This historical part is followed by a short review of the discovery and importance of homeobox genes and of some of the major concepts that form the core of modern EvoDevo, such as modularity, constraints, and evolutionary novelties. Major trends in contemporary EvoDevo are then outlined, such as increased use of genomics and molecular genetics, computational and bioinformatics approaches, ecological developmental biology (eco-devo), and phylogenetically informed comparative embryology. Based on our survey, we end the review with an outlook on future trends and important issues in EvoDevo.
The significance and scope of evolutionary developmental biology
Evolutionary developmental biology (evodevo) has undergone dramatic transformations since its emergence as a distinct discipline. This paper aims to highlight the scope, power, and future promise of evo-devo to transform and unify diverse aspects of biology. We articulate key questions at the core of eleven biological disciplines-from Evolution, Development, Paleontology, and Neurobiology to Cellular and Molecular Biology, Quantitative Genetics, Human Diseases, Ecology, Agriculture and Science Education, and lastly, Evolutionary Developmental Biology itself-and discuss why evo-devo is uniquely situated to substantially improve our ability to find meaningful answers