Modularity in Development and Why It Matters to Evo-Devo

Bolker, Jessica A.

doi:10.1093/icb/40.5.770

Cited by 131 publications

(157 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

148

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The evolution of higher facial colour complexity within genera indicates de-coupling of the phenotype of different facial regions, which is consistent with the idea that these might constitute variational modules 10 . Modularity of the primate face is a likely advantage of these more structured facial colour patterns because it can enable higher levels of interspecific diversity 10,36,37 that would in turn be beneficial for species recognition. A modular framework characterizes the cranial morphology of many mammals, including primates [38][39][40] ; however, facial colour patterns have not been investigated in the context of modularity even though research suggests that various aspects of this system might be modular.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive response to sociality and ecology drives the diversification of facial colour patterns in catarrhines

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The faces of Old World monkeys and apes (Catarrhini) exhibit every possible hue in the spectrum of mammal colours. Animal colouration experiences selection for communication, physiology and ecology; however, the relative importance of these factors in producing facial diversity in catarrhines is not known. Here we adopt a comparative approach to test whether facial traits have evolved in tandem with social, geographic and ecological pressures across four catarrhine radiations. Our analyses reveal the underlying correlates of two major axes in the evolution of facial diversity. Facial colour patterns are linked to social factors, such that gregarious and highly sympatric species have evolved more colours in their faces. Facial pigmentation tends to be dominated by ecological factors, and species living in tropical, densely forested and humid habitats in Africa have evolved darker faces. Thus, both sociality and ecology have played a role in producing the highest diversity of faces within mammals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptive response to sociality and ecology drives the diversification of facial colour patterns in catarrhines

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Modularity can result if the degree of functional integration (number, strength, and complexity of causal relations) within a module is greater than between modules, so that natural selection can adaptively modify one module without diminishing the functionality of others (Wagner 1996). Modules can be present at various level of organization, from gene regulatory networks and signaling pathways, to developmental processes and morphological structures (Bolker 2000;Glass and Bolker 2003;Prum 2005;von Dassow and Munro 1999). Some evo-devo discussions focus on how different modules can be rearranged so as to generate novel phenotypic outcomes, more precisely-since it is not a spatial shuffling of structures but a change in the procedural relations among developmental modules-how one module that was once causally connected with a second module becomes functionally detached from the latter and causally connected with a different module.…”

Section: How Mechanisms Adaptively React To Modification: Robustnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Limits of Philosophical Accounts of Mechanistic Explanation

Brigandt

2015

History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 broadened philosophical conception of mechanisms and mechanistic explanation.Mechanistic explanation (in terms of the qualitative interactions of the structural parts of a whole) has been developed as an alternative to the traditional idea of explanation as derivation from laws or quantitative principles. Against the picture promoted by Carl Craver, that mathematical models describe but usually do not explain, my discussion of cases from the strand of evo-devo which is concerned with developmental processes points to qualitative phenomena where quantitative mathematical models are an indispensable part of the explanation. While philosophical accounts have focused on the actual organization and operation of mechanisms, properties of developmental mechanisms that are about how a mechanism reacts to modifications are of major evolutionary significance, including robustness, phenotypic plasticity, and modularity. A philosophical conception of mechanisms is needed that takes into account quantitative changes, transient entities and the generation of novel types of entities, feedback loops and complex interaction networks, emergent properties, and, in particular, functional-dynamical aspects of mechanisms, including functional (as opposed to structural) organization and distributed, system-wide phenomena. I conclude with general remarks on philosophical accounts of explanation.

show abstract

“…In particular the literature on modularity aims at understanding how the developmental relations across different developmental-structural units that are internally highly integrated (modules) can be so weak that the interconnections among modules can be reorganized, thereby facilitating the generation of evolutionary novelty (Bolker 2000;Kirschner and Gerhart 2005;Schlosser and Wagner 2004;von Dassow and Munro 1999;Winther 2001). …”

Section: Bridging Developmental and Phylogenetic Approaches To Homologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Typology now: homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability

Brigandt

2007

Biol Philos

124

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 an organism's developmental constitution results in different homologues/characters as units that can evolve independently of each other. The explanans of an account of homology is developmental, yet the very explanandum is an evolutionary phenomenon: evolvability in a character-by-character fashion, which manifests itself in phylogenetic patterns as recognized by phylogenetic approaches to homology. While developmental constraints and selection have often been viewed as antagonistic forces, I argue that both are complementary as they concern different parts of the evolutionary process. Developmental constraints, conceived of as the presence of the same set of homologues across phenotypic change, pertain to how heritable variation can be generated in the first place (evolvability), while natural selection operates subsequently on the produced variation. TYPOLOGY NOW3

show abstract

Modularity in Development and Why It Matters to Evo-Devo

Cited by 131 publications

References 25 publications

Adaptive response to sociality and ecology drives the diversification of facial colour patterns in catarrhines

Adaptive response to sociality and ecology drives the diversification of facial colour patterns in catarrhines

Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Limits of Philosophical Accounts of Mechanistic Explanation

Typology now: homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About