Morphological Misfits and the Architecture of Development

Minelli, Alessandro

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-15045-1_10

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, bladderworts can be viewed as one phase only misfits (cf. Minelli, 2015 b ) because they return to the conventional branching pattern while forming flowers ( Rutishauser and Isler, 2001 ).…”

Section: The Bladderwort Puzzle: the Evolution Of Unusual Morphologiementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some plant groups were outlined as morphological misfits by Adrian Bell (1991), who highlighted the fact that morphological misfits are ‘misfits to a botanical discipline not misfits for a successful existence’. Morphological misfits are also observable in animals ( Minelli, 2015 b ). Various morphological misfits emerged as morphological key innovations (perhaps ‘hopeful monsters’) that gave rise to new evolutionary lines of organisms ( Theissen, 2006 , 2009 ; Masel and Siegal, 2009 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Morphological misfits provide opportunities for investigating character evolvability. The concept of ‘morphological misfits’ is an eye-catcher that allows labelling of all kinds of morphological deviations in the wild, mainly based on major genetic changes such as homeosis (ectopic gene expression in a seemingly wrong position), and other kinds of developmental repatterning ( Arthur, 2011 ; Minelli, 2015 b , 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evolution of unusual morphologies in Lentibulariaceae (bladderworts and allies) and Podostemaceae (river-weeds): a pictorial report at the interface of developmental biology and morphological diversification

Rutishauser

2015

Ann Bot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Various groups of flowering plants reveal profound (‘saltational’) changes of their bauplans (architectural rules) as compared with related taxa. These plants are known as morphological misfits that appear as rather large morphological deviations from the norm. Some of them emerged as morphological key innovations (perhaps ‘hopeful monsters’) that gave rise to new evolutionary lines of organisms, based on (major) genetic changes.Scope This pictorial report places emphasis on released bauplans as typical for bladderworts (Utricularia, approx. 230 secies, Lentibulariaceae) and river-weeds (Podostemaceae, three subfamilies, approx. 54 genera, approx. 310 species). Bladderworts (Utricularia) are carnivorous, possessing sucking traps. They live as submerged aquatics (except for their flowers), as humid terrestrials or as epiphytes. Most Podostemaceae are restricted to rocks in tropical river-rapids and waterfalls. They survive as submerged haptophytes in these extreme habitats during the rainy season, emerging with their flowers afterwards. The recent scientific progress in developmental biology and evolutionary history of both Lentibulariaceae and Podostemaceae is summarized.Conclusions Lentibulariaceae and Podostemaceae follow structural rules that are different from but related to those of more typical flowering plants. The roots, stems and leaves – as still distinguishable in related flowering plants – are blurred (‘fuzzy’). However, both families have stable floral bauplans. The developmental switches to unusual vegetative morphologies facilitated rather than prevented the evolution of species diversity in both families. The lack of one-to-one correspondence between structural categories and gene expression may have arisen from the re-use of existing genetic resources in novel contexts. Understanding what developmental patterns are followed in Lentibulariaceae and Podostemaceae is a necessary prerequisite to discover the genetic alterations that led to the evolution of these atypical plants. Future molecular genetic work on morphological misfits such as bladderworts and river-weeds will provide insight into developmental and evolutionary aspects of more typical vascular plants.

show abstract

Section: The Bladderwort Puzzle: the Evolution Of Unusual Morphologiementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evolution of unusual morphologies in Lentibulariaceae (bladderworts and allies) and Podostemaceae (river-weeds): a pictorial report at the interface of developmental biology and morphological diversification

Rutishauser

2015

Ann Bot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We believe that C. racemosa can be classified as a morphological misfit (e.g., Minelli, 2015). The distinctive features of C. racemosa could be interpreted as losses of developmental boundaries or as unification of developmental programs that are diversified in other species of the genus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Morphological diversity and evolution of Centrolepidaceae (Poales), a species‐poor clade with diverse body plans and developmental patterns

Sokoloff

Remizowa

Barrett

et al. 2015

American J of Botany

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ontogenetic changes in phyllotaxy differ fundamentally between some Centrolepidaceae and many grasses. Inferred evolutionary transformations of phyllotaxy in Centrolepidaceae inflorescences also differ from those in grasses. In contrast with grasses, some Centrolepidaceae possess ligulate leaves where the ligule represents the boundary between the bifacial hypophyll and unifacial hyperphyll. All the highly unusual features of the morphological-misfit species Centrolepis racemosa could result from the same saltational event. Centrolepidaceae offer good perspectives for studies of evolutionary developmental biology.

show abstract

“…Changes are sometimes modular, affecting individual modules that often emerge as hot points of morphological evolution, but in other instances evolutionary change is systemic, affecting -more or less literally -the whole organism (Minelli 2015). This distinction between modular and systemic change is of utmost interest to the taxonomist.…”

Section: The Scope Of Variationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Systematics in the Evo-Devo era

Minelli

2015

EJT

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) suggests a distinction between modular and systemic variation. in the case of modular change, the conservation of the overall structure helps recognizing affinities, while a single, fast evolving module is likely to produce a bonanza for the taxonomist, while systemic changes produce strongly deviating morphologies that cause problems in tracing homologies. Similarly, changes affecting the whole life cycle are more challenging than those limited to one stage. Developmental modularity is a precondition for heterochrony. Analyzing a matrix of morphological data for paedomorphic taxa requires special care. it is, however, possible to extract phylogenetic signal from heterochronic patterns. The taxonomist should pay attention to the intricacies of the genotype→phenotype map. When using genetic data to infer phylogeny, a comparison of gene sequences is just a first step. To bridge the gap between genes and morphology we should consider the spatial and temporal patterns of gene expression, and their regulation. Minor genetic change can have major phenotypic effects, sometimes suggesting saltational evolution. evo-devo is also relevant in respect to speciation: changes in developmental schedules are often implicated in the divergence between sympatric morphs, and a developmental modulation of 'temporal phenotypes' appears to be responsible for many cases of speciation.

show abstract

Morphological Misfits and the Architecture of Development

Cited by 9 publications

References 61 publications

Evolution of unusual morphologies in Lentibulariaceae (bladderworts and allies) and Podostemaceae (river-weeds): a pictorial report at the interface of developmental biology and morphological diversification

Evolution of unusual morphologies in Lentibulariaceae (bladderworts and allies) and Podostemaceae (river-weeds): a pictorial report at the interface of developmental biology and morphological diversification

Morphological diversity and evolution of Centrolepidaceae (Poales), a species‐poor clade with diverse body plans and developmental patterns

Biological Systematics in the Evo-Devo era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About