About this topic
Summary The Modern Synthesis (of genetics and evolutionary theory) in the early 20th Century  did not assign development a significant role in explaining why certain phenotypes were expressed. Evolutionary Developmental Biology (evo-devo)  is broadly construed as the attempt to integrate developmental and evolutionary biology. Though discussions about Developmental Constraints, and morphogenetic fields (Process Structuralism) share the same goal of bringing developmental phenomena to bear on evolutionary arguments, papers included in the evo-devo sub-category will be those that argue for (or against) a contemporary re-synthesis in biology that would include developmental processes as evolvable traits. Such traits can be selected for, and in this way development is not merely a constraint on possible phenotypes but is itself, a trait that can evolve. This distinguishes the category of evo-devo from other models of the relationship between developmental phenomena and evolution.
Key works

  Show all references
Related categories
Siblings:
175 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 175
  1. Ron Amundson, Accounting For Vertebrate Limbs: From Owen's Homology To Novelty In Evo-Devo.
    This article reviews the recent reissuing of Richard Owen’s On the Nature of Limbs and its three novel, introductory essays. These essays make Owen’s 1849 text very accessible by discussing the historical context of his work and explaining how Owen’s ideas relate to his larger intellectual framework. In addition to the ways in which the essays point to Owen’s relevance for contemporary biology, I discuss how Owen’s unity of type theory and his homology claims about fins and limbs compare with (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Ronald Amundson (2005). The Changing Rule of the Embryo in Evolutionary Biology Structure and Synthesis. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Ronald A. Amundson (2006). EvoDevo as Cognitive Psychology. Biological Theory 1 (1):10-11.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Ping Ao (2007). Darwinian Dynamics Implies Developmental Ascendency. Biological Theory 2 (1):113-115.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Stephen T. Asma (1996). Darwin's Causal Pluralism. Biology and Philosophy 11 (1):1-20.
    Historians of Biology have divided nineteenth century naturalists into two basic camps, Functionalists and Structuralists. This division is supposed to demarcate the alternative causal presuppositions working beneath research programs. If one is functionally oriented, then organic form will be contingent upon the causal powers of the environment. If structurally oriented, one argues for nonfunctional mechanisms (e.g., internal laws of growth) to account for organic form.Traditionally, Darwin has been grouped with the functionalists because natural selection (an adaptational mechanism) plays the prominent (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. James Mark Baldwin (1903). Development and Evolution. Philosophical Review 12 (4):442-451.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Gillian Barker, Eric Desjardins & Trevor Pearce (eds.) (2014). Entangled Life: Organism and Environment in the Biological and Social Sciences. Springer.
  8. Antonio Benítez-Burraco & Cedric Boeckx (forthcoming). Universal Grammar and Biological Variation: An EvoDevo Agenda for Comparative Biolinguistics. Biological Theory.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Barbara Pfeffer Billauer, Human Reproductive Cloning: Science, Jewish Law and Metaphysics. ssrn.com.
    Abstract: Under traditional Jewish Law (halacha), assessment of human reproductive cloning (HRC) has been formulated along four lines of inquiry, which I discussed in Part I of this paper. Therein I also analyze five relevant doctrines of Talmudic Law, concluding that under with a risk-benefit analysis HRC fails to fulfill the obligation ‘to be fruitful and multiply’ and should be strictly prohibited. Here, I review of the topic from an exigetical Biblical and Kabbalistic perspective, beginning with exploring comments of the (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Marion Blute (2008). Is It Time for an Updated 'Eco-Evo-Devo'definition of Evolution by Natural Selection? Spontaneous Generations 2 (1):1.
    Abstract A lot of science has passed under the bridge since the classic definition of evolution as a change in gene frequencies in a population became common. Much knowledge has accumulated since then about evolution, heredity, ecology, development, phenotypic plasticity, niche construction and genetic drift. Building on Van Valen’s description of evolution as “the control of development by ecology,” it is suggested that the classic definition be replaced by a updated ‘eco‐evo-evo’ definition of evolution by natural selection which acknowledges this (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Marion Blute (2006). Origins and the EcoEvoDevo Problem. Biological Theory 1 (2):116-118.
  12. Jessica Bolker (2013). The Use of Natural Kinds in Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Biological Theory 7 (2):121-129.
    Evolutionary developmental biologists categorize many different kinds of things, from ontogenetic stages to modules of gene activity. The process of categorization—the establishment of “kinds”—is an implicit part of describing the natural world in consistent, useful ways, and has an essentially practical rather than philosophical basis. Kinds commonly serve one of three purposes: they may function (1) as practical tools for communication; (2) to support prediction and generalization; or (3) as a basis for theoretical discussions. Beyond the minimal requirement that classifications (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Jessica A. Bolker (2008). From Embryology to Evo-Devo: A History of Developmental Evolution. BioScience 58 (5):461.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Peter Bowler (2007). The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought: The Roots of Evo-Devo. [REVIEW] British Journal for the History of Science 40 (3):460-462.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Irving Brick (1987). Unity in Development Developmental Biology Scott F. Gilbert. BioScience 37 (6):430-430.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Ingo Brigandt (forthcoming). Do We Need a ‘Theory’ of Development? Biology and Philosophy:1-15.
    Edited by Alessandro Minelli and Thomas Pradeu, Towards a Theory of Development gathers essays by biologists and philosophers, which display a diversity of theoretical perspectives. The discussions not only cover the state of art, but broaden our vision of what development includes and provide pointers for future research. Interestingly, all contributors agree that explanations should not just be gene-centered, and virtually none use design and other engineering metaphors to articulate principles of cellular and organismal organization. I comment in particular on (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Ingo Brigandt (2015). Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Limits of Philosophical Accounts of Mechanistic Explanation. In P.-A. Braillard & C. Malaterre (eds.), Explanation in Biology: An Enquiry into the Diversity of Explanatory Patterns in the Life Sciences. Springer 135–173.
    Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is considered a ‘mechanistic science,’ in that it causally explains morphological evolution in terms of changes in developmental mechanisms. Evo-devo is also an interdisciplinary and integrative approach, as its explanations use contributions from many fields and pertain to different levels of organismal organization. Philosophical accounts of mechanistic explanation are currently highly prominent, and have been particularly able to capture the integrative nature of multifield and multilevel explanations. However, I argue that evo-devo demonstrates the need for a (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Ingo Brigandt (2015). From Developmental Constraint to Evolvability: How Concepts Figure in Explanation and Disciplinary Identity. In Alan C. Love (ed.), Conceptual Change in Biology: Scientific and Philosophical Perspectives on Evolution and Development. Springer 305-325.
    The concept of developmental constraint was at the heart of developmental approaches to evolution of the 1980s. While this idea was widely used to criticize neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, critique does not yield an alternative framework that offers evolutionary explanations. In current Evo-devo the concept of constraint is of minor importance, whereas notions as evolvability are at the center of attention. The latter clearly defines an explanatory agenda for evolutionary research, so that one could view the historical shift from ‘developmental constraint’ (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Ingo Brigandt, Essay: Homology. The Embryo Project Encyclopedia.
    Homology is a central concept of comparative and evolutionary biology, referring to the presence of the same bodily parts (e.g., morphological structures) in different species. The existence of homologies is explained by common ancestry, and according to modern definitions of homology, two structures in different species are homologous if they are derived from the same structure in the common ancestor. Homology has traditionally been contrasted with analogy, the presence of similar traits in different species not necessarily due to common ancestry (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Ingo Brigandt (2010). Beyond Reduction and Pluralism: Toward an Epistemology of Explanatory Integration in Biology. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 73 (3):295-311.
    The paper works towards an account of explanatory integration in biology, using as a case study explanations of the evolutionary origin of novelties-a problem requiring the integration of several biological fields and approaches. In contrast to the idea that fields studying lower level phenomena are always more fundamental in explanations, I argue that the particular combination of disciplines and theoretical approaches needed to address a complex biological problem and which among them is explanatorily more fundamental varies with the problem pursued. (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Ingo Brigandt (2009). Accounting for Vertebrate Limbs: From Owen's Homology to Novelty in Evo-Devo. [REVIEW] Philosophy & Theory in Biology 1 (20130604):e004.
    This article reviews the recent reissuing of Richard Owen’s On the Nature of Limbs and its three novel, introductory essays. These essays make Owen’s 1849 text very accessible by discussing the historical context of his work and explaining how Owen’s ideas relate to his larger intellectual framework. In addition to the ways in which the essays point to Owen’s relevance for contemporary biology, I discuss how Owen’s unity of type theory and his homology claims about fins and limbs compare with (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Ingo Brigandt (2007). Typology Now: Homology and Developmental Constraints Explain Evolvability. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 22 (5):709-725.
    By linking the concepts of homology and morphological organization to evolvability, this paper attempts to (1) bridge the gap between developmental and phylogenetic approaches to homology and to (2) show that developmental constraints and natural selection are compatible and in fact complementary. I conceive of a homologue as a unit of morphological evolvability, i.e., as a part of an organism that can exhibit heritable phenotypic variation independently of the organism’s other homologues. An account of homology therefore consists in explaining how (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Ingo Brigandt (2006). A Theory of Conceptual Advance: Explaining Conceptual Change in Evolutionary, Molecular, and Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
    The theory of concepts advanced in the dissertation aims at accounting for a) how a concept makes successful practice possible, and b) how a scientific concept can be subject to rational change in the course of history. Traditional accounts in the philosophy of science have usually studied concepts in terms only of their reference; their concern is to establish a stability of reference in order to address the incommensurability problem. My discussion, in contrast, suggests that each scientific concept consists of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Ingo Brigandt (2006). Homology and Heterochrony: The Evolutionary Embryologist Gavin Rylands de Beer (1899-1972). Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution) 306:317–328.
    The evolutionary embryologist Gavin Rylands de Beer can be viewed as one of the forerunners of modern evolutionary developmental biology in that he posed crucial questions and proposed relevant answers about the causal relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. In his developmental approach to the phylogenetic phenomenon of homology, he emphasized that homology of morphological structures is to be identified neither with the sameness of the underlying developmental processes nor with the homology of the genes that are in involved in the (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Ingo Brigandt (2003). Homology in Comparative, Molecular, and Evolutionary Developmental Biology: The Radiation of a Concept. Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution) 299:9-17.
    The present paper analyzes the use and understanding of the homology concept across different biological disciplines. It is argued that in its history, the homology concept underwent a sort of adaptive radiation. Once it migrated from comparative anatomy into new biological fields, the homology concept changed in accordance with the theoretical aims and interests of these disciplines. The paper gives a case study of the theoretical role that homology plays in comparative and evolutionary biology, in molecular biology, and in evolutionary (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Ingo Brigandt & Alan C. Love (2012). Conceptualizing Evolutionary Novelty: Moving Beyond Definitional Debates. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution 318:417-427.
    According to many biologists, explaining the evolution of morphological novelty and behavioral innovation are central endeavors in contemporary evolutionary biology. These endeavors are inherently multidisciplinary but also have involved a high degree of controversy. One key source of controversy is the definitional diversity associated with the concept of evolutionary novelty, which can lead to contradictory claims (a novel trait according to one definition is not a novel trait according to another). We argue that this diversity should be interpreted in light (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Rachael L. Brown (2013). Identifying Behavioral Novelty. Biological Theory:1-14.
    Although there is no in-principle impediment to an EvoDevo of behavior, such an endeavor is not as straightforward as one might think; many of the key terms and concepts used in EvoDevo are tailored to suit its traditional focus on morphology, and are consequently difficult to apply to behavior. In this light, the application of the EvoDevo conceptual toolkit to the behavioral domain requires the establishment of a set of tractable concepts that are readily applicable to behavioral characters. Here, I (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Rachael L. Brown (2013). Learning, Evolvability and Exploratory Behaviour: Extending the Evolutionary Reach of Learning. Biology and Philosophy 28 (6):933-955.
    Traditional accounts of the role of learning in evolution have concentrated upon its capacity as a source of fitness to individuals. In this paper I use a case study from invasive species biology—the role of conditioned taste aversion in mitigating the impact of cane toads on the native species of Northern Australia—to highlight a role for learning beyond this—as a source of evolvability to populations. This has two benefits. First, it highlights an otherwise under-appreciated role for learning in evolution that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Rachael L. Brown (2013). What Evolvability Really Is. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (3):axt014.
    In recent years, the concept of evolvability has been gaining in prominence both within evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) and the broader field of evolutionary biology. Despite this, there remains considerable disagreement about what evolvability is. This article offers a solution to this problem. I argue that, in focusing too closely on the role played by evolvability as an explanandum in evo-devo, existing philosophical attempts to clarify the evolvability concept have been overly narrow. Within evolutionary biology more broadly, evolvability offers a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Anne Buchanan (2010). Quirks of Human Anatomy: An Evo‐Devo Look at the Human Body. Bioessays 32 (6):537-538.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Richard M. Burian (1986). On Integrating the Study of Evolution and of Development. In William Bechtel (ed.), Integrating Scientific Disciplines. 209--228.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Richard M. Burian & Denis Thieffry (2000). Introduction to the Special Issue 'From Embryology to Developmental Biology'. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 22 (3):313 - 323.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Brett Calcott (2013). Why How and Why Aren't Enough: More Problems with Mayr's Proximate-Ultimate Distinction. Biology and Philosophy 28 (5):767-780.
    Like Laland et al., I think Mayr’s distinction is problematic, but I identify a further problem with it. I argue that Mayr’s distinction is a false dichotomy, and obscures an important question about evolutionary change. I show how this question, once revealed, sheds light on some debates in evo-devo that Laland et al.’s analysis cannot, and suggest that it provides a different view about how future integration between biological disciplines might proceed.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Werner Callebaut (2010). Contingency and Inherency in Evolutionary Developmental Biology. In Mauricio Suarez, Mauro Dorato & Miklos Redei (eds.), Epsa Philosophical Issues in the Sciences. Springer 1--7.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Gustavo Caponi (2009). Desarrollo, causas remotas e historia natural. Principia 13 (1):29-50.
    Having as starting point that a proximal cause is one which effects can be registered in the states of an individual organism, in this work I will argue that what defines an ultimate cause is the fact that its effects can be registered in the evolution of lineages, and not simply in population states. This, on the other hand, not only will allow us to clarify how the developmental constraints can be understood as causes of the evolutionary phenomena; but also (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Gustavo Caponi (2008). Selección Interna (Internal Selection). Theoria 23 (2):195-218.
    RESUMEN: La idea de selección interna, propuesta originalmente por Lancelot Whyte, no sólo sirve para entender el papel causal que los constreñimientos del desarrollo tienen en evolución; sino que además puede hacernos comprender de qué modo esos factores organísmicos o internos, cuya importancia la Biología Evolucionaria del Desarrollo hoy quiere rescatar, son pasibles de ser considerados desde una perspectiva variacional o seleccional compatible, pero no asimilable, a la Teoría de la Selección Natural. Así, considerado como un concepto autónomo y diferente (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Lynn Chiu & Scott F. Gilbert (forthcoming). The Birth of the Holobiont: Multi-Species Birthing Through Mutual Scaffolding and Niche Construction. Biosemiotics:1-20.
    Holobionts are multicellular eukaryotes with multiple species of persistent symbionts. They are not individuals in the genetic sense— composed of and regulated by the same genome—but they are anatomical, physiological, developmental, immunological, and evolutionary units, evolved from a shared relationship between different species. We argue that many of the interactions between human and microbiota symbionts and the reproductive process of a new holobiont are best understood as instances of reciprocal scaffolding of developmental processes and mutual construction of developmental, ecological, and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Jonathan Cooke (1992). Nato‐Limbo‐Devo‐Evo. Developmental Patterning of the Vertebrate Limb (Nato Asi Series A: Life Sciences Vol. 205) (1991). Edited by J. Richard Hinchcliffe. Juan M. Hurle and Dennis Summerbell. Plenum Publishing Co., New York and London. $115 in Usa/Canada, $138 Outside, $82.65 Uk. Pp. XI+452. Isbn 0‐306‐43927‐1. [REVIEW] Bioessays 14 (11):793-793.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Lindsay R. Craig (2009). Defending Evo‐Devo: A Response to Hoekstra and Coyne. Philosophy of Science 76 (3):335-344.
    The study of evolutionary developmental biology (“evo‐devo”) has recently experienced a dramatic surge in popularity among researchers and theorists concerned with evolution. However, some biologists and philosophers remain skeptical of the claims of evo‐devo. This paper discusses and responds to the recent high profile criticisms of evo‐devo presented by biologists Hopi E. Hoekstra and Jerry A. Coyne. I argue that their objections are unconvincing. Indeed, empirical research supports the main tenets of evo‐devo, including the claim that morphological evolution is the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Edward Dale (2011). Evolutionary Developmental Biology, the Human Life Course, and Transpersonal Experience. Journal of Mind and Behavior 32 (4):277.
    This paper explicates secular psychodynamic growth through the life time and meditation as routes to the transpersonal from the perspective of evolutionary developmental biology, based around a multi-line model of growth. A multi-line model raises many significant points for a transpersonal audience. Such models have been pioneered by Hunt. When set on the footing of evolutionary developmental biology and nonlinear dynamics these kind of models become all the more cogent, penetrating and far reaching, validating plurality and diversity in both the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Rob DeSalle (2002). Bold yet Austere. Bioessays 24 (9):865-866.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Jean S. Deutsch (2001). Evo/Devo Coming to Age: The First Textbook. Bioessays 23 (8):757-758.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Gabriel A. Dover (1992). Challenges: Observing Development Through Evolutionary Eyes: A Practical Approach. Bioessays 14 (4):281-287.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Douglas J. Emlen (2000). Integrating Development with Evolution:A Case Study with Beetle Horns. BioScience 50 (5):403.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Douglas J. Emlen (2000). Integrating Development with Evolution: A Case Study with Beetle Horns Results From Studies of the Mechanisms of Horn Development Shed New Light on Our Understanding of Beetle Horn Evolution. BioScience 50 (5):403-418.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Douglas H. Erwin (2004). Book Review: Origination of Organismal Form. Beyond the Gene in Development and Evolutionary Biology. [REVIEW] Bioessays 26 (4):459-460.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Arantza Etxeberria & Laura Nuño De La Rosa García, A World of Opportunity Within Constraint: Pere Alberch's Early EvoDevo.
    The work of Pere Alberch is crucial to study the early stages of evo-devo. In particular, it illustrates very persuasively why developmental systems have so much to say about the course of evolutionary change. In addition to an important empirical work, he elaborated a stimulating framework of theoretical ideas on biological form, morphological variation, and how developmental processes establish possible evolutionary paths previous to the action of natural selection. In this framework, the study of development and evolution are related through (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Anne Fausto-Sterling (1981). Developmental Biology of Animals Foundations of Animal Development Arthur F. Hopper Nathan H. Hart. BioScience 31 (6):464-465.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Walter Fontana (2002). Modelling 'Evo‐Devo' with RNA. Bioessays 24 (12):1164-1177.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Gary Freeman (1989). Developmental Approach to Macroevolution A Theory of the Evolution of Development Wallace Arthur. BioScience 39 (8):568-569.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 175