A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Since Haeckel's Biogenetic Law (‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’) fell into disrepute early in the twentieth century, there has been intermittent debate, particularly in recent years (de Beer, 1958; Gould, 1977; Alberch et al., 1979; Alberch, 1980; Bonner, 1982; McNamara, 1982a), on the nature of the relationship between an individual's development and phylogenetic history. Important questions under discussion include the following: If a strong causal relationship does exist, what is its nature? How does it work? What is its importance in evolution? How can it be recognized in the fossil record?

Related collections

Most cited references 19

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny

Stephen Gould, Pere Alberch, David Wake … (1979)

We present a quantitative method for describing how heterochronic changes in ontogeny relate to phyletic trends. This is a step towards creating a unified view of developmental biology and evolutionary ecology in the study of morphological evolution. Using this representation, we obtain a greatly simplified and logical scheme of classification. We believe that this scheme will be particularly useful in studying the data of paleontology and comparative morphology and in the analysis of processes leading to adaptive radiation. We illustrate this scheme by examples drawn from the literature and our own work.