Pattern and process in constructional morphology

Evolution and Development

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 131-133

  Cubo, Jorge ^a  

^a SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MORPHOLOGY;

ADAPTATION; ANIMAL; CONFERENCE PAPER; HUMAN; MORPHOGENESIS; PHYLOGENY; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ADAPTATION, BIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; BODY PATTERNING; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; MORPHOGENESIS; PHYLOGENY;

EID: 2342452546     PISSN: 1520541X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2004.04018.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Arthur, W. 2001. Developmental drive: an important determinant of the direction of phenotypic evolution. Evol. Dev. 3: 271-278.
2. Blomberg, S. P., and Garland, T., Jr. 2002. Tempo and mode in evolution: phylogenetic inertia, adaptation and comparative methods. J. Evol. Biol. 15: 899-910.
3. Cubo, J. 2003. Evidence for speciational change in the evolution of ratites (Aves: Palaeognathae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 80: 99-106.
4. Darwin, C. 1859. The Origin of Species. 6th Ed. Oxford University Press, London.
5. Edwards, S. V., and Naeem, S. 1993. The phylogenetic component of cooperative breeding in perching birds. Am. Nat. 141: 754-789.
6. Freckleton, R. P., Harvey, P. H., and Pagel, M. 2002. Phylogenetic analysis and comparative data: a test and review of evidence. Am. Nat. 160: 712-726.
7. Gilbert, S. F. 2000. Developmental Biology. 6th Ed. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
8. Gittleman, J. L., Anderson, C. G., Kot, M., and Luh, H.-K. 1996. Phylogenetic lability and rates of evolution: a comparison of behavorial, morphological and life history. In E. P. Martins (ed.). Phylogenies and the Comparative Method in Animal Behavior. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 166-205.
9. Goodwin, B. C., and Trainor, L. E. H. 1980. A field description of the cleavage process in embryogenesis. J. Theor. Biol. 86: 757-770.
10. Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
11. Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R. C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205: 581-598.
12. Harvey, P. H., and Pagel, M. D. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Kauffman, S. A. 1993. The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press, New York.
14. Martins, E. P. 2000. Adaptation and the comparative method. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 296-299.
15. McGhee, G. R., Jr. 1999. Theoretical Morphology: The Concept and Its Applications. Columbia University Press, New York.
16. Pigliucci, M., and Kaplan, J. 2000. The fall and rise of Dr. Pangloss: adaptationism and the spandrels paper 20 years later. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 66-70.
17. Seilacher, A. 1970. Arbeitskonzept zur Konstruktions-Morphologie. Lethaia 3: 393-396.
18. Seilacher, A. 1991. Self-organizing mechanisms in morphogenesis and evolution. In N. Schmidt-Kittler and K. Vogel (eds.). Constructional Morphology and Evolution. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 251-271.
19. Starck, J. M., and Ricklefs, R. E. 1998. Variation, constraint, and phylogeny. Comparative analysis of variation in growth. In J. M. Starck and R. E. Ricklefs (eds.). Avian Growth and Development: Evolution within the Altricial-Precocial Spectrum. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 247-265.
20. Thompson, D. W. 1917. On Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.