Article

The Pattern of Variation in Centipede Segment Number as an Example of Developmental Constraint in Evolution

Ecology Centre, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, SR1 3SD, U.K.
Journal of Theoretical Biology (Impact Factor: 2.3). 10/1999; 200(2):183-91. DOI: 10.1006/jtbi.1999.0986
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The range of animal morphologies observed in nature is partly determined by natural selection. However, there is no agreement yet regarding whether it is also partly determined by developmental constraint. Testing for the effects of constraint has been difficult due to the lack of both an appropriate null model and a sufficiently simple system capable of yielding unambiguous results regarding the model's plausibility. Here we examine the case of variation in segment number in geophilomorph centipedes. Curiously, while this ranges between 29 and 191, there are no species in which an even number of segments is observed, in contrast to about 1000 species with odd numbers of segments. It seems unlikely that this distribution of character values is determined by selection alone. Using an approach based on Bayesian inference, we attempt to quantify the probability of obtaining the observed distribution of values given a null model in which developmental constraint is absent. Since this probability is in the region of 10(-20), we conclude that constraint must be involved. We discuss various implications of this conclusion, and comment on the unexpected absence of neoteny and progenesis in centipede evolution. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Wallace Arthur, May 29, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
77 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Convergent evolution of similar phenotypic features in similar environmental contexts has long been taken as evidence of adaptation. Nonetheless, recent conceptual and empirical developments in many fields have led to a proliferation of ideas about the relationship between convergence and adaptation. Despite criticism from some systematically minded biologists, I reaffirm that convergence in taxa occupying similar selective environments often is the result of natural selection. However, convergent evolution of a trait in a particular environment can occur for reasons other than selection on that trait in that environment, and species can respond to similar selective pressures by evolving nonconvergent adaptations. For these reasons, studies of convergence should be coupled with other methods-such as direct measurements of selection or investigations of the functional correlates of trait evolution-to test hypotheses of adaptation. The independent acquisition of similar phenotypes by the same genetic or developmental pathway has been suggested as evidence of constraints on adaptation, a view widely repeated as genomic studies have documented phenotypic convergence resulting from change in the same genes, sometimes even by the same mutation. Contrary to some claims, convergence by changes in the same genes is not necessarily evidence of constraint, but rather suggests hypotheses that can test the relative roles of constraint and selection in directing phenotypic evolution.
    Evolution 07/2011; 65(7):1827-40. DOI:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01289.x · 4.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Developmental constraints have been proposed to interfere with natural selection in limiting the available set of potential adaptations. Whereas this concept has long been debated on theoretical grounds, it has been investigated empirically only in a few studies. In this article, we evaluate the importance of developmental constraints during microsporogenesis (male meiosis in plants), with an emphasis on phylogenetic patterns in Asparagales. Different developmental constraints were tested by character reshuffling or by simulated distributions. Among the different characteristics of microsporogenesis, only cell wall formation appeared as constrained. We show that constraints may also result from biases in the correlated occurrence of developmental steps (e.g., lack of successive cytokinesis when wall formation is centripetal). We document such biases and their potential outcomes, notably the establishment of intermediate stages, which allow development to bypass such constraints. These insights are discussed with regard to potential selection on pollen morphology.
    Evolution & Development 09/2007; 9(5):460-71. DOI:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2007.00183.x · 2.68 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: SUMMARY In addressing phenotypic evolution, this article reconsiders natural selection, random drift, developmental constraints, and internal selection in the new extended context of evolutionary developmental biology. The change of perspective from the “evolution of phenotypes” toward an “evolution of ontogenies” (evo-devo perspective) affects the reciprocal relationships among these different processes. Random drift and natural selection are sibling processes: two forms of post-productional sorting among alternative developmental trajectories, the former random, the latter nonrandom. Developmental constraint is a compound concept; it contains even some forms of natural (“external” and “internal”) selection. A narrower definition (“reproductive constraints”) is proposed. Internal selection is not a selection caused by an internal agent. It is a form of environment-independent selection depending on the level of the organism's internal developmental or functional coordination. Selection and constraints are the main deterministic processes in phenotypic evolution but they are not opposing forces. Indeed, they are continuously interacting processes of evolutionary change, but with different roles that should not be confused.
    Evolution & Development 06/2001; 3(4):279 - 286. DOI:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003004279.x · 2.68 Impact Factor