Advertisement

Views on the Form-Function Correlation and Biological Design

  • Sergio F. VizcaínoEmail author
  • M. Susana Bargo
Review
  • 62 Downloads

Abstract

The linkage between form and function is a fascinating field for intellectual analysis and contemplation in natural sciences by naturalists, biologists, anatomists, as well as philosophers and theologians. In the early nineteenth century, creationists’ approaches (Cuvier-Paley) helped to install the idea of a form-function binomial that gained scientific status in the second half of that century when it was contextualized within the framework of evolution by natural selection. In the mid-twentieth century, W.J. Bock and G. von Wahlert settled the modern basis for the elucidation of adaptation based on morphology, function, environment, and their interconnections. The paleontologist Leonard Burton Radinsky made significant contributions to the development of form-function studies. Also, his posthumously published book The Evolution of Vertebrate Design (1987), inspired many young biologists to embrace form-function approaches. Radinsky emphasized the importance of looking for the behaviors or functions that are actually correlated with a particular anatomical form in living species, together with a biomechanical design analysis as looking at that anatomical structure from a biomechanical or engineering perspective. Field biology research and testing form-function correlation should be a prerequisite in adaptation research programs.

Keywords

Radinsky Morphology Biomechanics Adaptation Mammals 

Notes

Acknowledgments

To Guillermo Cassini and Néstor Toledo, organizers of the Symposium El paradigma de correlación forma-función en mastozoología: un tributo a Leonard Radinsky (1937–1985), held during the XXXI Jornadas Argentinas de Mastozoología (October 23-26, 2018) in La Rioja, Argentina. To G. Cassini, N. Toledo, and Richard Kay for fruitful discussions before and during the writing of this manuscript. To two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on the manuscript.

Funding Information

This is a contribution funded by Universidad Nacional de La Plata (UNLP 11/N867) and Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (PICT 2017–1081), Argentina.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Comment on Ethics

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Abzhanov A (2017) The old and new faces of morphology: the legacy of D'Arcy Thompson's ‘theory of transformations' and ‘laws of growth'. Development 144: 4284–4297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander RMcN (1996) Optima for Animals. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Amador LI, Almeida FC, Giannini NP (2019) Evolution of traditional aerodynamic variables in bats (Mammalia: Chiroptera) within a comprehensive phylogenetic framework. J Mammal Evol (this volume)Google Scholar
  4. Ayala FJ (2007) Darwin’s greatest discovery: design without designer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 8567–8573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bock WJ (2009) Design – an inappropriate concept in evolutionary theory. J Zool Syst Evol Res 47:7–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bock WJ, von Wahlert YG (1965) Adaptation and the form-function complex. Evolution 19:269–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonnan MT (2016) The Bare Bones: An Unconventional Evolutionary History of the Skeleton. Indiana University Press, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Capra F (2007) The Science of Leonardo: Inside the Mind of the Great Genius of the Renaissance. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Carrizo LV, Tulli MJ, Abdala V (2019) Functional indices and postnatal ontogeny of long bones of the forelimb in the sigmodontine rodents (Rodentia: Cricetidae). J Mammal Evol (this volume)Google Scholar
  10. Cassini GH, Toledo N, Vizcaíno SF (2019) Form-function correlation paradigm in mammalogy. A tribute to Leonard B. Radinsky (1937–1985). J Mammal Evol (this volume)Google Scholar
  11. Darwin C (1872) 1903 Letter to Alpheus Hyatt. In: Darwin F, Seward AC (eds) More Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, Letter 254. John Murray, London, pp 341–344Google Scholar
  12. Dawkins R (1987) The Blind Watchmaker. Why the Evidence of Evolution reveals a Universe without Design. WW Norton & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Dawson G (2016) Show Me the Bone. Reconstructing Prehistoric Monsters in Nineteenth-century Britain and America. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Gould SJ (1971) D'Arcy Thompson and the science of form. New Literary History 2: 229–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hopson JA (1989) Leonard Burton Radinsky (1937–1985). In: Prothero DR, Schoch RM (eds) The Evolution of Perissodactyls. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 2–12Google Scholar
  16. Hopson JA, Radinsky LB (1980) Vertebrate paleontology: new approaches and new insights. Paleobiology 6:250–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huneman P (2006) Naturalising purpose: from comparative anatomy to the ‘adventure of reason’. Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 37:649–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kay RF (this volume) Leonard B. Radinsky (1937-1985), Radical Biologist. J Mammal EvolGoogle Scholar
  19. Lister AM (2014) Behavioural leads in evolution: evidence from the fossil record. Biol J Linn Soc 112:315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marchesi MC, Dans SL, Mora MS, González-José R (2019) Allometry and ontongeny in the vertebral column of South American dolphins: a 3D approach. J Mammal Evol (this volume)Google Scholar
  21. Muñoz NA (2019) Locomotion in rodents and small carnivorans: are they so different? J Mammal Evol (this volume)Google Scholar
  22. Padian K (1995) Form and function: the evolution of a dialectic. In: Thomason JJ (ed) Functional Morphology and Vertebrate Paleontology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 264–277Google Scholar
  23. Plotnick R, Baumiller T (2000) Invention by evolution: functional analysis in paleobiology. In: Erwin DH, Wing SL (eds) Deep Time: Paleobiology’s Perspective. Supplement to vol. 26(4) of Paleobiology, pp 305–323Google Scholar
  24. Radinsky LB (1987) The Evolution of Vertebrate Design. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sánchez MS, Carrizo LV (2019) Interplay between forelimb morphology and foraging ecology in four families of Neotropical bats. J Mammal Evol (this volume)Google Scholar
  26. Schwenk K (2000) Feeding. Form, Function and Evolution in Tetrapod Vertebrates. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  27. Toledo N, Muñoz NA, Cassini GH (2019) Ulna of extant xenarthrans: shape, size and funtion. J Mammal Evol (this volume)Google Scholar
  28. Thompson DW (1917). On Growth and Form. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Vizcaíno SF, Bargo, MS, Cassini GH, Toledo N (2016) Forma y función en paleobiología de vertebrados. Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata (EDULP) https://libros.unlp.edu.ar/index.php/unlp/catalog/book/612. Access 9/9/2019
  30. Vizcaíno SF, Fariña RA, Mazzetta G (1999) Ulnar dimensions and fossoriality in armadillos and other South American mammals. Acta Theriol 44:309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vizcaíno SF, Manera T, Fernicola JC (2009) Viaje al sepulcro de los gigantes. Darwin y los mamíferos fósiles de América del Sur. Ciencia Hoy 19: 8–73Google Scholar
  32. Weibel ER, Taylor CR, Bolis L (1998) Principles of Animal Design: The Optimization and Symmorphosis Debate. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.División Paleontología Vertebrados, Museo de La Plata, Unidades de Investigación Anexo MuseoFacultad de Ciencias Naturales y MuseoLa PlataArgentina
  2. 2.Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)Buenos AiresArgentina
  3. 3.Comisión de Investigaciones Científicas (CIC)Buenos AiresArgentina

Personalised recommendations