Abstract
Heterochrony, or change in the relative timing of developmental events, has been a dominant concept in the study of the relation between evolution and development since even before the term was coined in the mid-nineteenth century. Its popularity exploded beginning in the late 1970s and 1980s as part of the resurgence of interest in Evo-devo that also began at that time, and reflecting a basic premise that heterochronic analysis is indispensible to a meaningful understanding and explanation of morphological diversification. Yet the gradual recognition that the molecular and developmental mechanisms that underlie morphological evolution may be understood more effectively in terms of other processes has increasingly qualified the universality of heterochrony as an explanatory tool. Consequently, while heterochrony still has an important role to play in contemporary studies of Evo-devo, it is not an all-encompassing and exclusive role. Instead, a more nuanced view of heterochrony—as an important paradigm, but not the sole paradigm—provides a more comprehensive depiction and understanding of the developmental basis of evolutionary change.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Abzhanov, A., M. Protas, B.R. Grant, P.R. Grant, and C.J. Tabin. 2004. Bmp4 and morphological variation of beaks in Darwin’s finches. Science 305: 1462–1465.
Abzhanov, A., W.P. Kuo, C. Hartmann, B.R. Grant, P.R. Grant, and C.J. Tabin. 2006. The calmodulin pathway and evolution of elongated beak morphology in Darwin’s finches. Nature 442: 563–567.
Alberch, P. 1983. Morphological variation in the neotropical salamander genus Bolitoglossa. Evolution 37: 906–919.
Alberch, P., S.J. Gould, G. Oster, and D. Wake. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 5: 296–317.
Ambros, V., and H.R. Horvitz. 1984. Heterochronic mutants of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Science 226: 409–416.
Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., J.E. Jeffrey, and M.K. Richardson. 2003. Is sequence heterochrony an important evolutionary mechanism in mammals? Journal of Mammalian Evolution 10: 335–361.
Bonner, J.T. (ed.). 1982. Evolution and development. Report of the Dahlem workshop on evolution and development Berlin 1981, May 10–15. Berlin: Springer.
Brylski, P., and B.K. Hall. 1988a. Epithelial behaviors and threshold effects in the development and evolution of internal and external cheek pouches in rodents. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 26: 144–154.
Brylski, P., and B.K. Hall. 1988b. Ontogeny of a macroevolutionary phenotype: The external cheek pouches of geomyoid rodents. Evolution 42: 391–395.
Campàs, O., R. Mallarino, A. Herrell, A. Abzhanov, and M.P. Brenner. 2010. Scaling and shear transformations capture beak shape variation in Darwin’s finches. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 107: 3356–3360.
Carroll, S.B., J.K. Grenier, and S.D. Weatherbee. 2005. From DNA to diversity: Molecular genetics and the evolution of animal design, 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Science.
Churchill, F.B. 1980. The modern evolutionary synthesis and the biogenetic law. In The evolutionary synthesis: Perspectives on the unification of biology, ed. E. Mayr and W.B. Provine, 112–122. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
de Beer, G.R. 1930. Embryology and evolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
de Beer, G.R. 1940. Embryos and ancestors. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gerhart, J., and M. Kirschner. 1997. Cells, embryos, and evolution: toward a cellular and developmental understanding of phenotypic variation and evolutionary adaptability. Boston: Blackwell Science.
Goldschmidt, R. 1940. The material basis of evolution. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Goodwin, B.C., N. Holder, and C.C. Wylie (eds.). 1983. Development and evolution: The sixth symposium of the British Society for Developmental Biology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gould, S.J. 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
Gould, S.J. 1982. Change in developmental timing as a mechanism of macroevolution. In Evolution and development, ed. J.T. Bonner, 333–346. Berlin: Springer.
Guerrant Jr., E.O. 1982. Neotenic evolution of Delphinium nudicaule (Ranunculaceae): A hummingbird-pollinated larkspur. Evolution 36: 699–712.
Haeckel, E. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. (2 vols). Berlin: Remier.
Hall, B.K. 1990. Heterochronic change in vertebrate development. Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology 1: 237–243.
Hall, B.K. 1999. Evolutionary developmental biology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hall, B.K. 2001. Foreword. In Beyond heterochrony: The evolution of development, ed. M. Zelditch, vii–ix. New York: Wiley-Liss.
Hamburger, V. 1980. Embryology and the modern synthesis in evolutionary theory. In The evolutionary synthesis: Perspectives on the unification of biology, ed. E. Mayr and W.B. Provine, 97–112. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hanken, J. 1984. Miniaturization and its effects on cranial morphology in plethodontid salamanders, genus Thorius (Amphibia: Plethodontidae). I. Osteological variation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 23: 55–75.
Huxley, J.S. 1932. Problems of relative growth. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Huxley, J. 1942. Evolution: The modern synthesis. London: Allen & Unwin.
McKinney, M.L. (ed.). 1988. Heterochrony in evolution: A multidisciplinary approach. New York: Plenum Press.
McKinney, M.L., and K.J. McNamara. 1991. Heterochrony: The evolution of ontogeny. New York: Plenum Press.
McNamara, K.J. 1986. A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony. Journal of Paleontology 60: 4–13.
Parichy, D.M. 2001. Pigment patterns of ectothermic vertebrates: Heterochronic vs. nonheterochronic models for pigment pattern evolution. In Beyond heterochrony: The evolution of development, ed. M. Zelditch, 229–269. New York: Wiley-Liss.
Radinsky, L. 1983. Allometry and reorganization in horse skull proportions. Science 221: 1189–1191.
Raff, R.A. 1996. The shape of life: genes, development and the evolution of animal form. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Raff, R.A., and T.C. Kaufman. 1983. Embryos, genes, and evolution: The developmental-genetic basis of evolutionary change. New York: Macmillan.
Raff, R.A., and E.C. Raff (eds.). 1987. Development as an evolutionary process: proceedings of a meeting held at the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, August 23 and 24, 1985. New York: A.R. Liss.
Raff, R.A., and G.A. Wray. 1989. Heterochrony: Developmental mechanisms and evolutionary results. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 2: 409–434.
Raff, R.A., J.A. Anstrom, C.J. Huffman, D.S. Leaf, J.-H. Loo, R.M. Showman, and D.E. Wells. 1984. Origin of a gene regulatory mechanism in the evolution of echinoderms. Nature 310: 312–314.
Reilly, S.M., E.O. Wiley, and D.J. Meinhardt. 1997. An integrative approach to heterochrony: The distinction between interspecific and intraspecific phenomena. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 60: 119–143.
Richardson, M.K. 1999. Vertebrate evolution: The developmental origins of adult variation. BioEssays 21: 604–613.
Roth, G., and D.B. Wake. 1985. Trends in the functional morphology and sensorimotor control of feeding behaviour in salamanders: An example of the role of internal dynamics in evolution. Acta Biotheoretica 34: 175–192.
Shea, B.T. 1983. Allometry and heterochrony in the African apes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 62: 275–289.
Thomson, K.S. 1988. Morphogenesis and evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wake, D.B., and A. Larson. 1987. Multidimensional analysis of an evolving lineage. Science 238: 42–48.
Wilkins, A.S. 2002. The evolution of developmental pathways. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates.
Zelditch, M.L., and W.L. Fink. 1996. Heterochrony and heterotopy: Stability and innovation in the evolution of form. Paleobiology 22: 242–254.
Zelditch, M.L., H.D. Sheets, and W.L. Fink. 2000. Spatiotemporal reorganization of growth rates in the evolution of ontogeny. Evolution 54: 1363–1371.
Acknowledgments
I thank Alan Love for inviting my contribution to this volume and to the corresponding symposium. Melissa Woolley prepared the illustrations. Mary Sears conducted the bibliographic search for “heterochrony.” David Parichy and Arkhat Abzhanov kindly provided copies of their published images.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hanken, J. (2015). Is Heterochrony Still an Effective Paradigm for Contemporary Studies of Evo-devo?. In: Love, A. (eds) Conceptual Change in Biology. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 307. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9412-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9412-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9411-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9412-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)