Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation, and the Synthesis of Evolutionary and Developmental Biology

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One foundational question in contemporarybiology is how to `rejoin’ evolution anddevelopment. The emerging research program(evolutionary developmental biology or`evo-devo’) requires a meshing of disciplines,concepts, and explanations that have beendeveloped largely in independence over the pastcentury. In the attempt to comprehend thepresent separation between evolution anddevelopment much attention has been paid to thesplit between genetics and embryology in theearly part of the 20th century with itscodification in the exclusion of embryologyfrom the Modern Synthesis. This encourages acharacterization of evolutionary developmentalbiology as the marriage of evolutionary theoryand embryology via developmental genetics. Butthere remains a largely untold story about thesignificance of morphology and comparativeanatomy (also minimized in the ModernSynthesis). Functional and evolutionarymorphology are critical for understanding thedevelopment of a concept central toevolutionary developmental biology,evolutionary innovation. Highlighting thediscipline of morphology and the concepts ofinnovation and novelty provides an alternativeway of conceptualizing the `evo’ and the `devo’to be synthesized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberch, P., Gould, S.J., Oster, G.F. and Wake, D.B.: 1979, ‘Size and Shape in Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Paleobiology 5, 296–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, G.: 1986, ‘T.H. Morgan and the Split between Embryology and Genetics, 1910–1935’, in J.A. Witkowski, T.J. Horder and C.C. Wylie (eds), A History of Embryology: The Eighth Symposium of the British Society for Developmental Biology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 113–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson, R.: 1994, ‘Two Concepts of Constraint: Adaptationism and the Challenge from Developmental Biology’, Philosophy of Science 61(4), 556–578.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson, R.: 1998, ‘Typology Reconsidered: Two Doctrines on the History of Evolutionary Biology’, Biology and Philosophy 13, 153–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson, R.: 2000, ‘Embryology and Evolution 1920–1960: Worlds Apart?’ History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 22, 335–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson, R.: 2001, ‘Adaptation and Development: On the Lack of Common Ground’, in S.H. Orzack and E. Sober (eds), Adaptationism and Optimality, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 303–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W.: 1997, The Origin of Animal Body Plans: A Study in Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W.: 2000a, ‘The Concept of Developmental Reprogramming and the Quest for an Inclusive Theory of Evolutionary Mechanisms’, Evolution and Development 2(1), 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W.: 2000b, ‘Intraspecific Variation in Developmental Characters: The Origin of Evolutionary Novelties’, American Zoologist 40, 811–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W.: 2002, ‘The Emerging Conceptual Framework of Evolutionary Developmental Biology’, Nature 415, 757–764.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, J.W.: 1992, ‘Conceptual Issues in the Reunion of Development and Evolution’, Synthese 91, 93–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, C.: 1991, ‘What Functional Morphology Cannot Explain: A Model of Sea Urchin Growth and a Discussion of the Role of Morphogenetic Explanations in Evolutionary Biology’, in E.C. Dudley (ed.), The Unity of Evolutionary Biology: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology, Volume 1, Dioscorides Press, Portland, OR, pp. 471–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, W. (ed.): 1986a, Integrating Scientific Disciplines. M. Nijhoff, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechtel, W. (ed.): 1986b, ‘The Nature of Scientific Integration’, in W. Bechtel (ed.), Integrating Scientific Disciplines, M. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp. 3–52.

  • Bock, W.J.: 1959, ‘Preadaptation and Multiple Evolutionary Pathways’, Evolution 13, 194–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, W.J. and von Wahlert, G.: 1965, ‘Adaptation and the Form-Function Complex’, Evolution 19, 269–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner, J.T. (ed.): 1982, Evolution and Development, Dahlem Conferenzen, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bookstein, F.L.: 1991, Morphometric Tools for Landmark Data: Geometry and Biology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, P.J.: 1996, Life’s Splendid Drama: Evolutionary Biology and the Reconstruction of Life’s Ancestry, 1860–1940, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, R.: 1999, ‘Homeostasis, Species and Higher Taxa’, in R.A. Wilson (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 141–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budd, G.E.: 2001, ‘Why are Arthropods Segmented?’, Evolution and Development 3(5), 332–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burian, R.: 2000, ‘General Introduction to the Symposium on Evolutionary Developmental biology: Paradigms, Problems, and Prospects’, American Zoologist 40, 711–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, A.C.: 1989, ‘Development of the Turtle Carapace: Implications for the Evolution of a Novel Bauplan’, Journal of Morphology 199, 363–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, J.A.: 1994, ‘Ernst Mayr as Community Architect: Launching the Society for the Study of Evolution and the Journal Evolution’, Biology and Philosophy 9, 387–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, N.A. and Reece, J.B.: 2002, Biology (6th edn.), Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, R.L.: 1997, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, S.B.: 1995, ‘Homeotic Genes and the Evolution of Arthropods and Chordates’, Nature 376, 479–485.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, S.B., Grenier, J.K. and Weatherbee, S.D.: 2001, From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design, Blackwell Science, Inc., Malden, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman W.: 1980, ‘Morphology in the Evolutionary Synthesis’, in E. Mayr and W.B. Provine (eds), The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 174–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J.P., Zerba, K.E. and Sredl, M.J.: 1994, ‘Shaping Intraspecific Variation: Development, Ecology and the Evolution of Morphology and Life History Variation in Tiger Salamanders’, in T.A. Markow (ed.), Developmental Instability: Its Origins and Evolutionary Implications, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 169–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cracraft, J.: 1990, ‘The Origin of Evolutionary Novelties: Pattern and Process at Different Hierarchical Levels’, in M.H. Nitecki (ed.), Evolutionary Innovations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 21–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D.D.: 1949, ‘Comparative Anatomy and the Evolution of Vertebrates’, in G.L. Jepsen, E. Mayr and G.G. Simpson (eds), Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 64–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D.D.: 1960, ‘The Proper Goal of Comparative Anatomy’, in R.D. Purchon (ed.), Proceedings of the Centenary and Bicentenary Congress of Biology Singapore, December 2–9, 1958, University of Malaya Press, Singapore, pp. 44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D.D.: 1964, The Giant Panda: A Morphological Study of Evolutionary Mechanisms. Fieldiana; Zoology Memoirs v. 3. Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delsol, M.: 1977, ‘Embryogenesis, Morphogenesis, Genetics, and Evolution’, in M.K. Hecht, P.C. Goody and B.M. Hecht (eds.), Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 119–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dullemeijer, P.: 1974, Concepts and Approaches in Animal Morphology, Van Gorcum & Comp. B.V., Assen, The Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dullemeijer, P.: 1981, ‘Functional Morphology and Evolutionary Biology’, Acta Biotheoretica 29, 151–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncker, H.-R.: 1989, ‘The Significance of Morphology in the Biological Sciences: the Necessity for Pictorial Illustrations of the Complexity of Morphological Structures’, in H. Splechtna and H. Hilgers (eds), Trends in Vertebrate Morphology: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Vertebrate Morphology, Vienna, 1986, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 619–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard, W.G.: 2001, ‘Multiple Origins of a Major Novelty: Moveable Abdominal Lobes in Male Sepsid Flies (Diptera: epsidae), and the Question of Developmental Constraints’, Evolution and Development 3(3), 206–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D.C.: 1985, ‘Evolutionary Morphology: Beyond the Analogous, the Anecdotal, and the ad hoc’, Paleobiology 11(1), 120–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganfornina, M.D. and Sánchez, D.: 1999, ‘Generation of Evolutionary Novelty by Functional Shift’, BioEssays 21, 432–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, C.: 1969, ‘Functional Components versus Mechanical Units in Descriptive Morphology’, Journal of Morphology 128, 365–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, C.: 1985, ‘VertebrateMorphology: Tale of a Phoenix’, American Zoologist 25, 689–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, C.: 1989, ‘Morphology, Today and Tomorrow’, in H. Splechtna and H. Hilgers (eds), Trends in Vertebrate Morphology: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Vertebrate Morphology, Vienna, 1986, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 631–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gayon, J.: 2000, ‘History of the Concept of Allometry’, American Zoologist 40, 748–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerhart, J. and Kirschner, M.: 1997, Cells, Embryos, and Evolution: Towards a Cellular and Developmental Understanding of Phenotypic Variation and Evolutionary Adaptability, Blackwell Science, Inc., Malden, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.T.: 1980, ‘The Failure of Morphology to Assimilate Darwinism’, in E. Mayr and W.B. Provine (eds), The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 180–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S.F.: 1997, Developmental Biology (5th edn.), Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S.F.: 2000, Developmental Biology (6th edn.), Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S.F. and Bolker, J.A.: 2001, ‘Homologies of Process and Modular Elements of Embryonic Construction’, in G.P. Wagner (ed.), The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 437–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S.F., Loredo, G.A., Brukman, A. and Burke, A.C.: 2001, ‘Morphogenesis of the Turtle Shell: The Development of a Novel Structure in Tetrapod Evolution’, Evolution and Development 3(2), 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, S.F., Opitz, J.M. and Raff, R.A.: 1996, ‘Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology’, Developmental Biology 173, 357–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmid, A. and Kotrschal, K.: 1989, ‘Ecomorphology: Development and Concepts’, in H. Splechtna and H. Hilgers (eds), Trends in Vertebrate Morphology: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Vertebrate Morphology, Vienna, 1986, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 501–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, B.C., Holder, N. and Wylie, C.C. (eds): 1983, Development and Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J.: 1966, ‘Allometry and Size in Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 41, 587–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J.: 1974, ‘The Shape of Things to Come’, Systematic Zoology 22, 401–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J.: 1977, Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap/Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, L.E., Cook, M.E. and Busse, J.S.: 2000, ‘The Origin of Plants: Body Plan Changes Contributing to a Major Evolutionary Radiation’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97, 4535–4540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, W.K.: 1950, ‘Parallel and Diverging Evolution in Vertebrates and Arthropods’, Evolution 4, 164–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, P.E.: 1999, ‘Squaring the Circle: Natural Kinds with Historical Essences’, in R.A. Wilson (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays, MIT Press, A Bradford Book, Cambridge, MA, pp. 209–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B.K.: 1996, ‘Baupläne, Phylotypic Stages, and Constraint:Why There Are So Few Types of Animals’, in M.K. Hecht, R.J. Macintyre and M.T. Clegg (eds), Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 29, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 215–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B.K.: 1999, Evolutionary Developmental Biology (2nd edn.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B.K.: 2000, ‘Guest Editorial: Evo-Devo or Devo-Evo - Does It Matter?’ Evolution and Development 2(4), 177–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B.K.: 2001, ‘The Gene is Not Dead, Merely Orphaned and Seeking a Home’, Evolution and Development 3(4), 225–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B.K.: 2002, ‘Palaeontology and Evolutionary Developmental Biology: A Science of the Nineteenth and Twenty-First Centuries’, Palaeontology 45(4), 647–669.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger, V.: 1980, ‘Embryology and the Modern Synthesis in Evolutionary Theory’, in E. Mayr and W.B. Provine (eds), The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 97–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanken, J. and Wake, M.H.: 1991, ‘Introduction to the Symposium: Experimental Approaches to the Analysis of Form and Function’, American Zoologist 31, 603–604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A.A. and Parsons, P.A.: 1997, Extreme Environmental Change and Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P.W.H.: 1999, ‘The Future of Evolutionary Developmental Biology’, Nature 402(Supplement), C41–C44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Homberger, D.G.: 1988, ‘Models and Tests in Functional Morphology: The Significance of Description and Integration’, American Zoologist 28, 217–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horder, T.J.: 1989, ‘Syllabus for an Embryological Synthesis’, in D.B. Wake and G. Roth (eds), Complex Organismal Functions: Integration and Evolution, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 315–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D.: 2001, Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J.P.: 1998, ‘Key Innovations and the Ecology of Macroevolution’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J.P. and Jernvall, J.: 1995, ‘The Hypocone as a Key Innovation in Mammalian Evolution’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 92, 10718–10722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussey, T.: 1999, ‘Evolutionary Change and Epistemology’, Biology and Philosophy 14, 561–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, J.S.: 1990, ‘Plausibility and Testability: Assessing the Consequences of Evolutionary Innovation’, in M.H. Nitecki (ed.), Evolutionary Innovations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 171–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jernvall, J.: 2000, ‘Linking Development with Generation of Novelty in Mammalian Teeth’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97, 2641–2645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jernvall, J., Keränen, S.V.E. and Thesleff, I.: 2000, ‘Evolutionary Modification of Development in Mammalian Teeth: Quantifying Gene Expression Patterns and Topography’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97, 14444–14448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klingenberg, C.P., Badyaev, A.V., Sowry, S.M. and Beckwith, N.J.: 2001, ‘Inferring Developmental Modularity from Morphological Integration: Analysis of Individual Variation and Asymmetry in Bumblebee Wings’, American Naturalist 157(1), 11–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauder, G.V.: 1981, ‘Form and Function: Structural Analysis in Evolutionary Morphology’, Paleobiology 7(4), 430–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauder, G.V.: 1982a, ‘Historical biology and the Problem of Design’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 97, 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauder, G.V.: 1982b, ‘Introduction’, in E.S. Russell, Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. xi–xlv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauder, G.V.: 1990, ‘Functional Morphology: Studying Functional Patterns in an Historical Context’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 21, 317–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauder, G.V. and Liem, K.F.: 1989, ‘The Role of Historical Factors in the Evolution of Complex Organismal Functions’, in D.B. Wake and G. Roth (eds), Complex Organismal Functions: Integration and Evolution, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 63–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennox, J.G., 2001. ‘History and Philosophy of Science: The Phylogenetic Approach’, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/documents/disk0/00/00/03/78/index.html.

  • Liem, K.F.: 1973, ‘Evolutionary Strategies and Morphological Innovations: Cichlid Pharyngeal Jaws’, Systematic Zoology 22, 425–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liem, K.F.: 1980, ‘Adaptive Significance of Intra-and Interspecific Differences in the Feeding Repertoires of Cichlid Fishes’, American Zoologist 20, 295–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liem, K.F.: 1990, ‘Key Evolutionary Innovations, Differential Diversity, and Symecomorphosis’, in M.H. Nitecki (ed.), Evolutionary Innovations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 147–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liem, K.F. and Wake, D.B.: 1985, ‘Morphology: Current Approaches and Concepts’, in M. Hildebrand, D.M. Bramble, K.F. Liem and D.B. Wake (eds), Functional Vertebrate Morphology, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 366–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, A.C.: 2003, ‘Morphological and Paleontological Perspectives for a History of Evo-Devo’, in J. Maienschein and M. Laubichler (eds), From Embryology to Evo-Devo (forthcoming).

  • Mabee, P.M.: 2000, ‘Developmental Data and Phylogenetic Systematics: Evolution of the Vertebrate Limb’, American Zoologist 40, 789–800.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maienschein, J.: 1987, ‘Heredity/Development in the United States, circa 1900’, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 9, 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maienschein, J.: 1991, Transforming Traditions in American Biology, 1880–1915, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C.R., Orr, H.A. and Patel, N.H.: 1999, ‘Morphological Innovation and Developmental Genetics’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96, 9995–9996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J.: 1998, Shaping Life: Genes, Embryos, and Evolution, Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. and Szathmáry, E.: 1995, The Major Transitions in Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1959, ‘Darwin and the Evolutionary Theory in Biology’, in B.J. Meggers (ed.), Evolution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal, Theo Gaus’ Sons, Inc, Brooklyn, NY, pp. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1960, ‘The Emergence of Evolutionary Novelties’, in S. Tax (ed.), Evolution After Darwin. Volume 1: The Evolution of Life, its Origin, History and Future, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 349–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1980, ‘Prologue: Some Thoughts on the History of the Evolutionary Synthesis’, in E. Mayr and W.B. Provine (eds), The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1991, ‘An Overview of Current Evolutionary Biology’, in L. Warren and H. Koprowski (eds), New Perspectives on Evolution, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1993, ‘What was the Evolutionary Synthesis?’ Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8, 31–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1994, ‘Recapitulation Reinterpreted: The Somatic Program’, Quarterly Review of Biology 69, 223–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1997, ‘The Establishment of Evolutionary Biology as a Discrete Biological Discipline’, BioEssays 19(3), 263–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A.: 1987, ‘Phenotypic Plasticity and Heterochrony in Cichlasoma managuense (Pisces, Cichlidae) and their Implications for Speciation in Cichlid Fishes’, Evolution 41, 1357–1369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, S.D.: 1992, ‘On Pluralism and Competition in Evolutionary Explanations’, American Zoologist 32, 135–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Møller, A.P. and Swaddle, J.P.: 1997, Asymmetry, Developmental Stability, and Evolution, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, T.H.: 1926a, ‘Genetics and the Physiology of Development’, American Naturalist 60, 489–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, T.H.: 1926b, The Theory of the Gene, Yale University Press, New Haven.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, G.B.: 2003, ‘Embryonic Motility: Environmental Influences and Evolutionary Innovation’, Evolution and Development 5(1), 56–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, G.B. and Newman, S.A.: 1999, ‘Generation, Integration, Autonomy: Three Steps in the Evolution of Homology’, in G.R. Bock and G. Cardew (eds), Homology, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, pp. 65–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, G.B. and Wagner, G.P.: 1991, ‘Novelty in Evolution: Restructuring the Concept’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22, 229–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, S.A. and Müller, G.B.: 2000, ‘Epigenetic Mechanisms of Character Origination’, Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol) 288, 304–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, C.: 2001, Animal Evolution: Interrelationships of the Living Phyla (2nd edn.), Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nitecki, M.H.: 1990, ‘The Plurality of Evolutionary Innovations’, in M.H. Nitecki (ed.), Evolutionary Innovations, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhart, L.K.: 1995, Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800–1900, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E.C.: 1960, ‘Morphology, Paleontology, and Evolution’, in S. Tax (ed.), Evolution After Darwin. Volume 1: The Evolution of Life, its Origin, History and Future, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 523–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E.C. and Miller, R.L.: 1951, ‘A Mathematical Model Applied to a Study of the Evolution of Species’, Evolution 5, 325–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E.C. and Miller. R.L.: 1999 [1958], Morphological Integration, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, L. and Hall, B.K.: 1999, ‘Introduction to the Symposium: Developmental and Evolutionary Perspectives on Major Transformations in Body Organization’, American Zoologist 39, 612–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plesset, J., Scheiner, S. and Singer, S.: 2000, ‘Evolution and Development at the National Science Foundation’, Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol) 288, 285–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prum, R.O.: 1999, ‘Development and Evolutionary Origin of Feathers’, Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol) 285(4), 291–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raff, R.A.: 1996, The Shape of Life: Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raff, R.A.: 2000, ‘Evo-Devo: The Evolution of a New Discipline’, Nature Reviews Genetics 1, 74–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raff, R.A. and Kaufman. T.C.: 1983, Embryos, Genes, and Evolution: The Developmental-Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raup, D.M.: 1972, ‘Approaches to Morphologic Analysis’, in T.J.M. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology, Freeman, Cooper & Company, San Francisco, CA, pp. 28–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif, W.-E., Junker, T. and Hoßfeld, U.: 2000, ‘The Synthetic Theory of Evolution: General Problems and the German Contribution to the Synthesis’, Theory in Biosciences 119, 41–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, S.M.: 1994, ‘The Ecological Morphology of Metamorphosis: Heterochrony and the Evolution of Feeding Mechanisms in Salamanders’, in P.C. Wainwright and S.M. Reilly (eds), Ecological Morphology: Integrative Organismal Biology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 319–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rensch, B.: 1959, Evolution Above the Species Level, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M.K., Hanken, J. Gooneratne, M.L., Pieau, C., Raynaud, A., Selwood, L. and Wright, G.M.: 1997, ‘There is No Highly Conserved Embryonic Stage in the Vertebrates: Implications for Current Theories of Evolution and Development’, Anatomy and Embryology 196, 91–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, M.K., Minelli, A. and Coates, M.I.: 1999, ‘Some Problems with Typological Thinking in Evolution and Development’, Evolution and Development 1(1), 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, R.: 1977, ‘A Systems-Analytical Approach to Macro-Evolutionary Phenomena’, Quarterly Review of Biology 52(4), 351–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, R.: 1978, Order in Living Systems: A Systems Analysis of Evolution, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, R.: 1983, ‘The Role of Morphology in the Theory of Evolution’, in M. Grene (ed.), Dimensions of Darwinism: Themes and Counterthemes in Twentieth Century Evolutionary Theory, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 205–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, R.: 1989, ‘Opening address and Introduction’, in H. Splechtna and H. Hilgers (eds), Trends in Vertebrate Morphology: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Vertebrate Morphology, Vienna, 1986, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. vii–xvi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O.C.: 1988, Fundamentals of Comparative Biology, Birkhäuser Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, J.S.: 2001, ‘Interpreting the Homeobox: Metaphors of Gene action and Activation in Development and Evolution’, Evolution and Development 3(4), 287–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robert, J.S.: in press, ‘How Developmental is Evolutionary Developmental Biology?’, Biology and Philosophy.

  • Ronshaugen, M., McGinnis, N. and McGinnis, W.: 2002, ‘Hox Protein Mutation and Macroevolution of the Insect Body Plan’, Nature 415, 914–917.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, G. and Wake, D.B.: 1989, ‘Conservatism and Innovation in the Evolution of Feeding in Vertebrates’, in D.B. Wake and G. Roth (eds), Complex Organismal Functions: Integration and Evolution in Vertebrates, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 7–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, V.L. and Mercer, J.M.: 2000, ‘Morphometrics in Development and Evolution’, American Zoologist 40, 801–810.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, E.S.: 1982 [1916], Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salazar-Ciudad, I. and Jernvall, J.: 2002, ‘A Gene Network Model Accounting for Development and Evolution of Mammalian Teeth’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99, 8116–8120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapp, J.: 1987, Beyond the Gene: Cytoplasmic Inheritance and the Struggle for Authority in Genetics, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S.: 1999, ‘From the Reaktionsnorm to the Adaptive Norm: The Norm of Reaction 1909–1960’, Biology and Philosophy 14, 235–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S. and T. Fuller: 2003, ‘Generalized Norms of Reaction for Ecological Developmental Biology’, Evolution and Development 5(1), 106–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, B.: 1948, ‘The Origin of a Mammalian Ordinal Character’, Evolution 2, 164–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlichting, C.D. and Pigliucci, M.: 1998, Phenotypic Evolution: A Reaction Norm Perspective, Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schluter, D.: 1996, ‘Ecological Causes of Adaptive Radiation’, American Naturalist 148(Supplement), S40–S64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmalhausen, I.I.: 1986 [1949], Factors of Evolution: The Theory of Stabilizing Selection, T. Dobzhansky (ed.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenk, K.: 2001, ‘Functional Units and their Evolution’, in G.P. Wagner (ed.), The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology, Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 167–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seilacher, A.: 1973, ‘Fabricational Noise in Adaptive Morphology’, Systematic Zoology 22, 451–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimeld, S.M. and Holland, P.W.H.: 2000, ‘Vertebrate innovations’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97, 4449–4452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shubin, N. and Wake, D.: 1996, ‘Phylogeny, Variation, and Morphological Integration’, American Zoologist 36, 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shubin, N., Wake, D.B. and Crawford, A.J.: 1995, ‘Morphological Variation in the Limbs of Taricha granulose (Caudata: Salamandridae): Evolutionary and Phylogenetic Implications’, Evolution 49, 874–884.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shubin, N.H.: 1991, ‘The Implications of “The Bauplan” for Development and Evolution of the Tetrapod Limb’, in J.R. Hinchcliffe, J.M. Hurle and D. Summerbell (eds), Developmental Patterning of the Vertebrate Limb, Plenum Press, New York and London, pp. 411–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shubin, N.H. and Alberch, P.: 1986, ‘A Morphogenetic Approach to the Origin and Basic Organization of the Tetrapod Limb’, in M.K. Hecht, B. Wallace and G.T. Prance (eds), Evolutionary Biology, Vol. 20. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 319–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G.G.: 1949, ‘Essay-Review of Recent Works on Evolutionary Theory by Rensch, Zimmerman, and Schindewolf’, Evolution 3, 178–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G.G.: 1953, The Major Features of Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K.C.: 1992, ‘Neo-Rationalism versus Neo-Darwinism: Integrating Development and Evolution’, Biology and Philosophy 7, 431–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smocovitis, V.B.: 1996, Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Splechtna, H. and Hilgers, H. (eds.): 1989, Trends in Vertebrate Morphology: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Vertebrate Morphology, Vienna, 1986, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny, K.: 2000, ‘Development, Evolution, and Adaptation’, Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 67, S369–S387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, J.J. (ed.): 1995, Functional Morphology in Vertebrate Paleontology, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P.: 1996, ‘Homologues, Natural Kinds and the Evolution of Modularity’, American Zoologist 36, 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P.: 2000, ‘What is the Promise of Developmental Evolution? Part I: Why is Developmental Biology Necessary to Explain Evolutionary Innovations?’ Journal of Experimental Zoology (Mol Dev Evol) 288, 95–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P. (ed.): 2001, The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology, Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P., Chiu, C.-H. and Laubichler, M.: 2000, ‘Developmental Evolution as a Mechanistic Science: The Inference from Developmental Mechanisms to Evolutionary Processes’, American Zoologist 40, 819–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P. and Müller, G.B.: 2002, ‘Evolutionary Innovations Overcome Ancestral Constraints: A Re-Examination of Character Evolution in Male Sepsid Flies (Diptera:Sepsidae)’, Evolution and Development 4(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wainwright, P.C. and Reilly, S.M. (eds): 1994, Ecological Morphology: Integrative Organismal Biology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waisbren, S.J.: 1988, ‘The Importance of Morphology in the Evolutionary Synthesis as Demonstrated by the Contributions of the Oxford Group: Goodrich, Huxley, and de Beer’, Journal of the History of Biology 21, 291–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake, D.B.: 1982, ‘Functional and Evolutionary Morphology’, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 25, 603–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake, D.B.: 1986, ‘Foreword, 1986’, in T. Dobzhansky (ed.), Factors of Evolution: The Theory of Stabilizing Selection. I.I. Schmalhausen, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. v–xii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake, D.B., Mabee, P., Hanken, J. and Wagner, G.P.: 1991, ‘Development and Evolution - The Emergence of a New Field’, in E.C. Dudley (ed.), The Unity of Evolutionary Biology: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology, Volume 1, Dioscorides Press, Portland, OR, pp. 582–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake, D.B. and Roth, G.: 1989, ‘The Linkage between Ontogeny and Phylogeny in the Evolution of Complex Systems’, in D.B. Wake and G. Roth (eds), Complex Organismal Functions: Integration and Evolution in Vertebrates, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 361–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake, M.H.: 1991, ‘The Impact of Functional Morphology and Biomechanics on Studies of Evolutionary Biology’, in E.C. Dudley (ed.), The Unity of Evolutionary Biology: Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology, Volume 1. Dioscorides Press, Portland, OR, pp. 555–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wake, M.H.: 1992, ‘Morphology, the Study of Form and Function, in Modern Evolutionary Biology’, in D. Futuyma and J. Antonovics (ed.), Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, Volume 8. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 289–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, W.F., Jr. and Liem, K.F.: 1994, Functional Anatomy of the Vertebrates: An Evolutionary Perspective (2nd edn.), Saunders College Publishing, Harcourt Brace College Publishers, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, B.: 1986, ‘Can Embryologists Contribute to an Understanding of Evolutionary Mechanisms?’, in W. Bechtel (ed.), Integrating Scientific Disciplines, M. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp. 149–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • West-Eberhard, M.J.: 1989, ‘Phenotypic Plasticity and the Origins of Diversity’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20, 249–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins, A.S.: 2002, The Evolution of Developmental Pathways, Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wray, G.A.: 2000, ‘Editorial: Peering Ahead (Cautiously)’, Evolution and Development 2(3), 125–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zangerl, R.: 1948, ‘The Methods of Comparative Anatomy and its Contribution to the Study of Evolution’, Evolution 2, 351–374.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, CL 1017, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, U.S.A.

    Alan C. Love

Authors
  1. Alan C. Love
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Love, A.C. Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation, and the Synthesis of Evolutionary and Developmental Biology. Biology & Philosophy 18, 309–345 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023940220348

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023940220348

Search

Navigation