WHATS GROWTH GOT TO DO WITH IT - PROCESS AND PRODUCT IN THE EVOLUTION OF ONTOGENY
WHATS GROWTH GOT TO DO WITH IT - PROCESS AND PRODUCT IN THE EVOLUTION OF ONTOGENY
复制标题
DOI：
10.1006/jhev.1995.1066
复制
发表时间：
1995-11-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
SUTHERLAND, MR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
GODFREY, LR;SUTHERLAND, MR
生长异速生长常用于诊断发育速率和时间的进化扰动，并研究它们对形态变化的影响。度量变量测量祖先和后代，绘制在对数尺度上，并比较两个估计的线性关系。这两条线之间的关系一直是推断异时病史的首选工具，特别是当年龄数据不可用时。横坐标上的大小常被用作年龄的代表;沿着纵坐标的变量通常测量个体发育变化的某些方面。在“异速生长异时性”的标题下，祖先和后代生长异速生长的斜率和截距的变化被用来揭示异时性过程（增长率的变化，抵消时间，和相对于大小的形状的开始时间）和它们的两个产物-幼态（在成熟后代中保留祖先的幼年特征）和变态（成熟后代获得超越祖先成人特征的特征）。这一框架据说是基于古尔德（1977）和阿尔贝奇等人（1979）的开创性工作。本文考察了异时分析中“形"的意义。我们认为，目前的诊断工具包显着偏离那些由古尔德（1977）和Alberch等人（1979），并承担他们解决的问题几乎没有相关性。我们展示了为什么生长异速生长（通常读）不捕捉生长（古尔德的“大小”）和发展（古尔德的“形状”）之间的进化关系。(C)1995年学术出版社
Growth allometries are regularly used to diagnose evolutionary perturbations in the rate and timing of development, and to study their effects on morphological change. Metric variables are measured for ancestor and descendant, plotted on logarithmic scales, and the two estimated linear relationships are compared. The relationship between these two lines has been a tool of choice for inferring heterochronic history, particularly when age data are not available. Size, plotted on the abscissa, is often used as a proxy for age; the variable plotted along the ordinate typically measures some aspect of ontogenetic change. Under the rubric of ''allometric heterochrony'', changes in the slopes and intercepts of ancestral and descendant growth allometries are taken to reveal heterochronic processes (changes in the rates of growth, offset timing, and onset timing of shape relative to size) and their two products-paedomorphosis (the retention in mature descendants of ancestral juvenile characteristics) and peramorphosis (the acquisition in mature descendants of features that transcend ancestral adult characteristics). This framework is said to be grounded in the pioneering work of Gould (1977) and Alberch et al. (1979). In this paper, we examine the meanings of ''shape'' in heterochronic analysis. We argue that the current diagnostic toolkit departs significantly from those constructed by Gould (1977) and Alberch et al. (1979), and bears little relevance to the problems they addressed. We show why growth allometries (as typically read) do not capture evolutionary relationships between growth (Gould's ''size'') and development (Gould's ''shape''). (C) 1995 Academic Press Limited