Mosaic heterochrony and evolutionary modularity: The trilobite genus zacanthopsis as a case study

Evolution

Volumn 65, Issue 11, 2011, Pages 3241-3252

  Gerber, Sylvain ^a,b   Hopkins, Melanie J ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^b University of Bath   (United Kingdom)

^c FIELD MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY   (United States)

Author keywords

Allometric space; Arthropods; Evolutionary developmental change; Geometric morphometrics; Morphospace; Ontogeny; Trilobites

Indexed keywords

ALLOMETRY; CAMBRIAN; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; DATABASE; DIACHRONISM; FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY; ONTOGENY; PHENOTYPE; TAXONOMY; TRILOBITE;

ANIMAL; ARTHROPOD; ARTICLE; EVOLUTION; FOSSIL; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HISTOLOGY; MORPHOGENESIS; MORPHOMETRICS; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; TIME;

ANIMALS; ARTHROPODS; BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION; BODY WEIGHTS AND MEASURES; FOSSILS; MORPHOGENESIS; PHENOTYPE; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS;

ARTHROPODA; TRILOBITOMORPHA;

EID: 80054945973     PISSN: 00143820     EISSN: 15585646     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01363.x     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Akam, M. 2000. Arthropods: developmental diversity within a (super) phylum. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 97:4438-3331.
2. Alberch, P. 1985. Problems with the interpretation of developmental sequences. Syst. Zool. 34:46-58.
3. Alberch, P., S. J. Gould, G. F. Oster, and D. B. Wake 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 5:296-317.
4. Arthur, W. 2000. The concept of developmental reprogramming and the quest for an inclusive theory of evolutionary mechanisms. Evol. Dev. 2:49-57.
5. Beeman, R. W., J. J. Stuart, S. J. Brown, and R. E. Denell 1993. Structure and function of the homeotic gene complex (Hom-C) in the beetle Tribolium castaneum. Bioessays 15:439-444.
6. Bolker, J. A. 2000. Modularity in development and why it matters to Evo-Devo. Am. Zool. 40:770-776.
7. Bonner, J. T. 1982. Evolution and development. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
8. Bookstein F. L. 1996. Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics. Pp. 131-151 in L. F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. Naylor, and D. Slice, eds. Advances in morphometrics. Plenum Press, New York
9. Callebaut, W., and D. Rasskin-Gutman 2005. Modularity: understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
10. Chatterton, B. D. E., and S. E. Speyer 1997. Ontogeny. Pp. 173-247 in R. L. Kaesler, ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part O, Arthropoda 1. Trilobita, Revised, 1. Geological Society of America. and Univ.of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS
11. Chernoff, B., and P. M. Magwene 1999. Morphological integration: forty years later. Pp. 319-353 in Olson, E. C. and R. L. Miller, eds. Morphological integration. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago
12. Cheverud, J. M., G. P. Wagner, and M. M. Dow 1989. Methods for the comparative analysis of variation patterns. Syst. Zool. 38:201-213.
13. Ciampaglio, C. N. 2002. Determining the role that ecological and developmental constraints play in controlling disparity: examples from the crinoid and blastozoan fossil record. Evol. Dev. 4:170-188.
14. David, B. 1990. Mosaic pattern of heterochronies: variation and diversity in Pourtalesiidae (deep-sea echinoids). Evol. Biol. 24:297-327.
15. Eble, G. J. 2000. Contrasting evolutionary flexibility in sister groups: disparity and diversity in Mesozoic atelostomate echinoids. Paleobiology 26:56-79.
16. Eble, G. J.. 2004. The macroevolution of phenotypic integration. Pp. 253-273 in M. Pigliucci and K. Preston, eds. Phenotypic integration: studying the ecology and evolution of complex phenotypes. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford
17. Eble, G. J.. 2005. Morphological modularity and macroevolution: conceptual and empirical aspects. Pp. 221-238 in W. Callebaut and D. Rasskin-Gutman, eds. Modularity: understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
18. Erwin, D. H. 2007. Disparity: morphological pattern and developmental context. Palaeontology 50:57-73.
19. Foote, M. J. 1989. Perimeter-based Fourier analysis: a new morphometric method applied to the trilobite cranidium. J. Paleontol. 63:880-885.
20. Foote, M. J.. 1991. Morphologic patterns of diversification: examples from trilobites. Palaeontology 34:461-485.
21. Foote, M. J.. 1993a. Contributions of individual taxa to overall morphological disparity. Paleobiology 19:403-419.
22. Foote, M. J.. 1993b. Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 19:185-204.
23. Foote, M. J.. 1994. Morphological disparity in Ordovician-Devonian crinoids and the early saturation of morphological space. Paleobiology 20:320-344.
24. Foote, M. J.. 1997. The evolution of morphological diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 28:129-152.
25. Fusco, G., N. C. Hughes, M. Webster, and A. Minelli 2004. Exploring developmental modes in a fossil arthopod: growth and trunk segmentation of the trilobite Aulacopleura konincki. Am. Nat. 163:167-183.
26. Gerber, S. 2011. Comparing the differential filling of morphospace and allometric space through time: the morphological and developmental dynamics of Early Jurassic ammonoids. Paleobiology 37:369-382.
27. Gerber, S., and M. J. Hopkins 2009. Theoretical developmental morphology and morphospace occupancy. An example with trilobite cranidia. Geol. Soc. Am., Abstracts with Programs. 41:684.
28. Gerber, S., P. Neige, and G. J. Eble 2007. Combining ontogenetic and evolutionary scales of morphological disparity: a study of early Jurassic ammonites. Evol. Dev. 9:472-482.
29. Gerber, S., G. J. Eble, and P. Neige 2008. Allometric space and allometric disparity: a developmental perspective in the macroevolutionary analysis of morphological disparity. Evolution 62:1450-1457.
30. Gerber, S., G. J. Eble, and P. Neige 2011. Developmental aspects of morphological disparity dynamics: a simple analytical exploration. Paleobiology 37:237-251.
31. Godfrey, L. R., and M. R. Sutherland 1995. Flawed inference: why size based tests of heterochronic processes do not work. J. Theor. Biol. 172:43-61.
32. Goswami, A. 2007. Cranial modularity and sequence heterochrony in mammals. Evol. Dev. 9:290-298.
33. Goswami, A., and P. D. Polly 2010a. Methods for studying morphological integration and modularity. Pp. 213-243 in J. Alroy and G. Hunt, eds. Quantitative methods in paleobiology. Paleontological Society Special Publications, 16. Yale University Printing and Publishing Services, New Haven, CT.
34. Goswami, A., and P. D. Polly 2010b. The influence of modularity on cranial morphological disparity in Carnivora and Primates (Mammalia). PLoSOne, 5:e9517.
35. Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biol. Rev. Camb. Phil. Soc. 41:587-640.
36. Gould, S. J.. 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge
37. Gould, S. J.. 1988. The use of heterochrony. Pp. 185-187 in M. L. McKinney, ed. Heterochrony in evolution: a multidisciplinary approach. Plenum Press, New York
38. Gould, S. J.. 1989. Wonderful life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history. Norton, New York
39. Gould, S. J.. 1991. The disparity of the Burgess Shale arthropod fauna and the limits of cladistic analysis: why we must strive to quantify morphospace. Paleobiology 17:411-423.
40. Gould, S. J.. 2000. Of coiled oysters and big brains: how to rescue the terminology of heterochrony, now gone astray. Evol. Dev. 2:241-248.
41. Hall, B. K. 2003. Evo-devo: evolutionary developmental mechanisms. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 47:491-495.
42. Hartnoll, R. G. 1969. Mating in Brachyura. Crustaceana 16:161-181.
43. Hopkins, M. J., and M. Webster 2008. Morphological and ontogenetic change in the "early" Cambrian trilobite Zacanthopsis during an interval of environmental change. Pp. 185-187 in I. Ribano, R. Gozalo, and D. Garcia-Bellido, eds. Advances in trilobite research. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero, 9. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid
44. Hopkins, M. J., and M. Webster 2009. Ontogeny and geographic variation of a new species of the corynexochine trilobite Zacanthopsis (Dyeran, Cambrian). J. Paleontol. 83:524-547.
45. Hughes, N. C. 2003a. Trilobite body patterning and the evolution of arthropod tagmosis. Bioessays 25:386-395.
46. Hughes, N. C.. 2003b. Trilobite tagmosis and body patterning from morphological and developmental perspectives. Integr. Comp. Biol. 43:185-206.
47. Hughes, N. C.. 2007. The evolution of trilobite body patterning. Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 35:401-434.
48. Hugues, N. C., and R. E. Chapman 1995. Growth and variation in the Silurian proetide trilobite Aulacopleura konincki and its implications for trilobite palaeobiology. Lethaia 28:333-353.
49. Jablonski, D. 2000. Micro- and macroevolution: scale and hierarchy in evolutionary biology and paleobiology. Pp. 15-52 in D. H. Erwin and S. L. Wing, eds. Deep time: paleobiology's perspective. Paleobiology, supp. 26. The Paleontological Society. Allen Press, Lawrence, KS
50. Kent, J. T., and K. V. Mardia 2001. Shape, Procrustes tangent projections and bilateral symmetry. Biometrika 88:469-485.
51. Klingenberg, C. P. 1996. Multivariate allometry. Pp. 23-49 in L. F. Marcus, M. Corti, A. Loy, G. Naylor, and D. Slice, eds. Advances in morphometrics. Plenum Press, New York
52. Klingenberg, C. P.. 1998. Heterochrony and allometry: the analysis of evolutionary change in ontogeny. Biol. Rev. 73:79-123.
53. Klingenberg, C. P.. 2008. Morphological integration and developmental modularity. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 39:115-132.
54. Klingenberg, C. P., and R. Froese 1991. A multivariate comparison of allometric growth patterns. Syst. Zool. 40:410-419.
55. Klingenberg, C. P., M. Barluenga, and A. Meyer 2002. Shape analysis of symmetric structures: quantifying variation among individuals and asymmetry. Evolution 56:1909-1920.
56. MacLeod, N. 1999. Generalizing and extending the eigenshape method of shape space visualization and analysis. Paleobiology 25:107-138.
57. Mardia, K. V., F. L. Bookstein, and I. J. Moreton 2000. Statistical assessment of bilateral symmetry of shapes. Biometrika 87:285-300.
58. McKinney, M. L., and K. J. McNamara 1991. Heterochrony: the evolution of ontogeny. Plenum Press, New York
59. McNamara, K. J., and M. L. McKinney 2005. Heterochrony, disparity, and macroevolution. Paleobiology 31:17-26.
60. McShea, D. W., and E. P. Venit 2001. What is a part? Pp. 259-284 in G. P. Wagner, ed. The character concept in evolutionary biology, Academic Press, San Diego, CA
61. Mitteroecker, P., P. Gunz, G. W. Weber, and F. L. Bookstein 2004. Regional dissociated heterochrony in multivariate analysis. Ann. Anat. 186:463-470.
62. Mitteroecker, P., P. Gunz, and F. L. Bookstein 2005. Heterochrony and geometric morphometrics: a comparison of cranial growth in Pan paniscus versus Pan troglodites. Evol. Dev. 7:244-258.
63. Mosimann, J. E. 1970. Size allometry: size and shape variables with characterizations of the lognormal and generalized gamma distributions. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 65:930-945.
64. Needham, J. 1933. On the dissociability of the fundamental processes in ontogenesis. Biol. Rev. 8:180-223.
65. Olson, E. C., and R. L. Miller 1958. Morphological integration. The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago
66. Olson, M. E., and J. A. Rosell 2006. Using heterochrony to detect modularity in the evolution of stem diversity in the plant family Moringaceae. Evolution 60:724-734.
67. Pavlicev, M., J. M. Cheverud, and G. P. Wagner 2009. Measuring morphological integration using eigenvalue variance. Evol. Biol. 36:157-170.
68. Poe, S. 2004. A test for patterns of modularity in sequences of developmental events. Evolution 58:1852-1855.
69. R. Development Core Team 2009. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R. Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Available at (accessed December 14, 2009).
70. Raff, R. 1996. The shape of life: genes, development, and the evolution of animal form. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago
71. Raff, E. C., and R. A. Raff 2000. Dissociability, modularity, evolvability. Evol. Dev. 2:235-237.
72. Rohlf, F. J. 1993. Relative warps analysis and an example of its application to mosquito wings. Pp. 131-159 in L. F. Marcus, E. Bello, and A. Garcia-Valdecasas, eds. Contributions to morphometrics. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid
73. Rohlf, F. J., and D. E. Slice 1990. Extensions of the Procrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst. Zool. 39:40-59.
74. Schlosser, G. 2001. Using heterochrony plots to detect the dissociated coevolution of characters. J. Exp. Zool. 291:282-304.
75. Schlosser, G.. 2004. The role of modules in development and evolution. Pp. 519-582 in G. Schlosser and G. P. Wagner, eds. Modularity in development and evolution. The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago
76. Schlosser, G., and G. P. Wagner 2004. Modularity in development and evolution. The Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago
77. Shea, B. T. 2002. Are some heterochronic transformations likelier than others? Pp. 79-101 in N. Minugh-Purvis and K. J. McNamara, eds. Human evolution through developmental change. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD
78. Smith, K. K. 2001. Heterochrony revisited: the evolution of developmental sequences. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 73:169-186.
79. Smith, K. K.. 2002. Sequence heterochrony and the evolution of development. J. Morphol. 252:82-97.
80. Stadler, B. M. R., P. F. Stadler, G. P. Wagner, and W. Fontana 2001. The topology of the possible: formal spaces underlying patterns of evolutionary change. J. Theor. Biol. 213:241-274.
81. Sundberg, F. A. 2000. Homeotic evolution in Cambrian trilobites. Paleobiology 26:258-270.
82. Van Valen, L. 1965. The study of morphological integration. Evolution 19:347-349
83. Von Dassow, G., and E. Munro 1999. Modularity in animal development and evolution: elements of a conceptual framework for EvoDevo. J. Exp. Zool. 285:307-325.
84. Wagner, G. P. 1984. On the eigenvalue distribution of genetic and phenotypic dispersion matrices: evidence for a nonrandom organization for quantitative character variation. J. Math. Biol. 21:77-95.
85. Wagner, G. P.. 1996. Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity. Am. Zool. 36:36-43.
86. Wagner, G. P., and L. Altenberg 1996. Perspective: complex adaptation and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution 50:967-976.
87. Wagner, G. P., J. Mezey, and R. Calabretta 2005. Natural selection and the origin of modules. Pp. 33-49 in W. Callebaut and D. Rasskin-Gutman, eds. Modularity: understanding the development and evolution of natural complex systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
88. Wagner, G. P., M. Pavlicev, and J. M Cheverud 2007. The road to modularity. Nat. Rev. Genet. 8:921-931.
89. Wagner, P. J. 1995. Testing evolutionary constraint hypotheses with Early Paleozoic gastropods. Paleobiology 21:248-272.
90. Webster, M., and M. L. Zelditch 2005. Evolutionary modifications of ontogeny: heterochrony and beyond. Paleobiology 31:354-372.
91. Webster, M., and M. L. Zelditch 2008. Integration and regulation of developmental systems in trilobites. Pp. 427-433 in I. Ribano, R. Gozalo, and D. Garcia-Bellido, eds. Advances in trilobite research. Cuadernos del Museo Geominero, 9. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid
92. Webster, M., and M. L. Zelditch 2011. Modularity of a Cambrian ptychoparioid trilobite cranidium. Evol. Dev. 13:96-109.
93. Whittington, H. B. 1992. Trilobites. Boydell Press, Bury St Edmunds, England
94. Whittington, H. B.. 1997. The trilobite body. Pp. 87-135 in R. L. Kaesler, ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part O, Arthropoda 1. Trilobita, Revised, 1. Geological Society of America and Univ. of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS
95. Whittington, H. B., and S. R. A. Kelly 1997. Morphological terms applied to Trilobita. Pp. 313-329 in R. L. Kaesler, ed. Treatise on invertebrate paleontology. Part O, Arthropoda 1. Trilobita, Revised, 1. Geological Society of America and Univ. of Kansas Press, Lawrence, KS