Developmental constraints versus flexibility in morphological evolution

Evolutionary developmental biology has encouraged a change of research emphasis from the sorting of phenotypic variation by natural selection to the production of that variation through development. Some morphologies are more readily generated than others, and developmental mechanisms can limit or channel evolutionary change. Such biases determine how readily populations are able to respond to selection, and have been postulated to explain stasis in morphological evolution and unexplored morphologies. There has been much discussion about evolutionary constraints but empirical data testing them directly are sparse. The spectacular diversity in butterfly wing patterns is suggestive of how little constrained morphological evolution can be. However, for wing patterns involving serial repeats of the same element, developmental properties suggest that some directions of evolutionary change might be restricted. Here we show that despite the developmental coupling between different eyespots in the butterfly Bicyclus anynana, there is great potential for independent changes. This flexibility is consistent with the diversity of wing patterns across species and argues for a dominant role of natural selection, rather than internal constraints, in shaping existing variation.

[1]  Elizabeth A. Kellogg,et al.  An ordinal classification for the families of flowering plants , 1998 .

[2]  B. Bremer,et al.  Phylogenetic relationships within the Gentianales based on NDHF and RBCL sequences, with particular reference to the Loganiaceae. , 2000, American journal of botany.

[3]  M. Condamin Monographie du genre Bicyclus : Lepidoptera Satyridae , 1973 .

[4]  P. Brakefield,et al.  Contribution of Distal-less to quantitative variation in butterfly eyespots , 2002, Nature.

[5]  L Partridge,et al.  Limits to natural selection , 2000, BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology.

[6]  J. Levinton Developmental Constraints and Evolutionary Saltations: A Discussion and Critique , 1986 .

[7]  H. Nijhout,et al.  PHENOTYPIC CORRELATION STRUCTURE AMONG ELEMENTS OF THE COLOR PATTERN IN PRECIS COENIA (LEPIDOPTERA: NYMPHALIDAE) , 1993, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[8]  V. French,et al.  THE EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS AND DEVELOPMENTAL BASIS OF WING PATTERN VARIATION IN THE BUTTERFLY BICYCLUS ANYNANA , 1994, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[9]  H. Nijhout Independent development of homologous pattern elements in the wing patterns of butterflies. , 1985, Developmental Biology.

[10]  B. Bremer,et al.  More characters or more taxa for a robust phylogeny--case study from the coffee family (Rubiaceae). , 1999, Systematic biology.

[11]  J. Cheverud,et al.  Quantitative genetics and developmental constraints on evolution by selection. , 1984, Journal of theoretical biology.

[12]  S. Miller,et al.  Quantifying Biodiversity: Experience with Parataxonomists and Digital Photography in Papua New Guinea and Guyana , 2000 .

[13]  H. Nijhout,et al.  The development and evolution of butterfly wing patterns , 1991 .

[14]  A. F. Bennett,et al.  Experimental tests of the roles of adaptation, chance, and history in evolution. , 1995, Science.

[15]  John Maynard Smith,et al.  Organizational Constraints on the Dynamics of Evolution , 1990 .

[16]  Susan M. Paulsen Quantitative genetics of butterfly wing color patterns , 1994 .

[17]  P. Brakefield The evolution–development interface and advances with the eyespot patterns of Bicyclus butterflies , 1998, Heredity.

[18]  P. Brakefield Structure of a character and the evolution of butterfly eyespot patterns. , 2001, The Journal of experimental zoology.

[19]  S. Gould,et al.  A DEVELOPMENTAL CONSTRAINT IN CERION, WITH COMMENTS ON THE DEFINITION AND INTERPRETATION OF CONSTRAINT IN EVOLUTION , 1989, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[20]  G. Weiblen Phylogenetic relationships of functionally dioecious FICUS (Moraceae) based on ribosomal DNA sequences and morphology. , 2000, American journal of botany.

[21]  K. Campbell,et al.  Rates of Evolution , 1987 .

[22]  Michael R. Rose,et al.  Variation in the reversibility of evolution , 2000, Nature.

[23]  PERSPECTIVE: EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIATION , 2000 .

[24]  Sean B. Carroll,et al.  "Development, Plasticity and Evolution of Butterfly Eyespot Patterns" (1996), by Paul M. Brakefield et al. , 2013 .

[25]  D. Janzen Ecological Characterization of a Costa Rican Dry Forest Caterpillar Fauna , 1988 .

[26]  D. Stern PERSPECTIVE: EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY AND THE PROBLEM OF VARIATION , 2000, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[27]  W. Kress,et al.  Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from 18S rDNA, rbcL, and atpB sequences , 2000 .

[28]  Günter P. Wagner,et al.  The influence of variation and of developmental constraints on the rate of multivariate phenotypic evolution , 1988 .

[29]  V. French,et al.  Eyespot development on butterfly wings: the focal signal. , 1995, Developmental biology.

[30]  D. Roff Evolutionary Quantitative Genetics , 1997, Springer US.

[31]  Hilla Peretz,et al.  Ju n 20 03 Schrödinger ’ s Cat : The rules of engagement , 2003 .

[32]  S. Miller,et al.  How many species of host-specific insects feed on a species of tropical tree? , 1996 .

[33]  V. French,et al.  BUTTERFLY EYESPOTS: THE GENETICS AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COLOR RINGS , 1997, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[34]  H. Nijhout Symmetry systems and compartments in Lepidopteran wings: the evolution of a patterning mechanism , 1994 .

[35]  A. Hallam,et al.  How many species? , 1977, Nature.

[36]  J. Antonovics,et al.  Ontoecogenophyloconstraints? The chaos of constraint terminology. , 1991, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[37]  S. Carroll,et al.  The generation and diversification of butterfly eyespot color patterns , 2001, Current Biology.

[38]  S. Gould,et al.  The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme , 1979, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[39]  Joe C. Campbell,et al.  Developmental Constraints and Evolution: A Perspective from the Mountain Lake Conference on Development and Evolution , 1985, The Quarterly Review of Biology.

[40]  K. Weber How small are the smallest selectable domains of form? , 1992, Genetics.

[41]  M. Pigliucci,et al.  The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later. , 2000, Trends in ecology & evolution.