Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-gr6zb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T14:14:54.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 July 2015

Kenneth J. McNamara
Kenneth J. McNamara*
Affiliation:
Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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?

Type
Society Records and Activities
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , January 1986 , pp. 4 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The Journal of Paleontology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberch, P. 1980. Ontogenesis and morphological diversification. American Zoologist, 20:653–667.Google Scholar
Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F. and Wake, D. B. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology, 5:296–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, J. B. L. 1977. A unity underlying the different zebra striping patterns. Journal of Zoology, 183:527–539.Google Scholar
Bonner, J. T. (ed.). 1982. Evolution and Development. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 356 p.Google Scholar
Caruthers, R. G. 1910. On the evolution of Zaphrentis delanoui in Lower Carboniferous times. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 66:523–538.Google Scholar
Cock, A. G. 1966. Genetical aspects of metrical growth and form in animals. Quarterly Review of Biology, 41:131–190.Google Scholar
Cope, E. D. 1887. The Origin of the Fittest. Macmillan, New York, 467 p.Google Scholar
de Beer, G. R. 1930. Embryology and Evolution. Clarendon, Oxford, 116 p.Google Scholar
de Beer, G. R. 1958. Embryos and Ancestors. Clarendon, Oxford, 197 p.Google Scholar
Elles, G. L. 1922. The graptolite fauna of the British Isles. Proceedings of the Geologists' Association, 33:168–200.Google Scholar
Elles, G. L. 1923. Evolutional palaeontology in relation to the Lower Palaeozoic rocks. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 91:83–107.Google Scholar
Fink, W. L. 1982. The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology, 8:254–264.Google Scholar
Garstang, M. 1928. The morphology of the Tunicata, and its bearing on the phylogeny of the Chordata. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 72:51–187.Google Scholar
Giard, D. 1887. La castration parasitaire et son influence sur les caractères extérieurs du sexe male ches les crustacés decapodes. Bulletin scientifique du departement du Nord, 18:1–28.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biological Reviews, 41:587–640.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1969. An evolutionary microcosm: Pleistocene and recent history of the land snail P. (Poecilozonites) in Bermuda. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 138:407–532.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1970. Land snail communities and Pleistocene climates in Bermuda: a multivariate analysis of microgastropod diversity. Proceedings of the North American Paleontological Convention, part E, 486–521.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1974. The evolutionary significance of ‘bizarre’ structures: antler size and skull size in the ‘Irish Elk’, Megaloceros gigantans . Evolution, 28:191–220.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Belknap, Cambridge, 501 p.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. 1982. Patterns of speciation in Jurassic Gryphaea . Paleobiology, 8:354–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hupé, P. 1953a. Contribution à l'étude du Cambrien Inférieur et du Précambrian III de l'Anti-Atlas Morocain. Notes et Mémoires du Service des Mines et de la Carte géologique du Maroc, 103:41–402.Google Scholar
Hupé, P. 1953b. Classification des trilobites. Annales de Paléontologie, 39:1–110.Google Scholar
Hyatt, A. 1889. Genesis of the Arietidae. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 16:1–238.Google Scholar
Hyatt, A. 1893. Phylogeny of an acquired characteristic. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 32:349–647.Google Scholar
Kollman, J. 1885. Das Ueberwintern von europäischen Frosch- und Tritonlarven und die Umwandlung des mexikanischen Axolotl. Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel, 7:387–398.Google Scholar
Ludvigsen, R. 1979. The Ordovician trilobite Pseudogygites Kobayashi in eastern and Arctic North America. Life Science Contributions of the Royal Ontario Museum, 120:1–41.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1984. Allometry and heterochrony in an Eocene echinoid lineage: morphological change as a by-product of size selection. Paleobiology, 10:407–419.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. and Schoch, R. M. 1985. Titanothere allometry, heterochrony, and biomechanics: revising an evolutionary classic. Evolution, 39:1352–1363.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1978. Paedomorphosis in Scottish olenellid trilobites (early Cambrian). Palaeontology, 21:635–655.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1981. The role of paedomorphosis in the evolution of Cambrian trilobites. Open-File Report of the U.S. Geological Survey, 81–743:126–129.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1982a. Heterochrony and phylogenetic trends. Paleobiology, 8:130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1982b. Taxonomy and evolution of living species of Breynia (Echinoidea: Spatangoida) from Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum, 10:167–197.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1983a. The earliest Tegulorhynchia (Brachiopoda: Rhynchonellida) and its evolutionary significance. Journal of Paleontology, 57:461–473.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1983b. Progenesis in trilobites, p. 59–68. In Briggs, D. E. G. and Lane, P. D. (eds.), Trilobites and Other Arthropods: Papers in Honour of H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. Special Papers in Palaeontology, 31:59–68.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1984. Taxonomy and evolution of the Cainozoic spatangoid echinoid Protenaster . Palaeontology, 28:311–330.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. and Philip, G. M. 1980. Australian Tertiary schizasterid echinoids. Alcheringa, 4:47–65.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. and Philip, G. M. 1984. A revision of the spatangoid echinoid Pericosmus from the Tertiary of Australia. Records of the Western Australian Museum, 11:319–356.Google Scholar
Medawar, P. B. 1945. Size, shape and age, p. 157–187. In LeGros Clark, W. E. and Medawar, P. B. (eds.), Essays on Growth and Form. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Nevessakaya, L. A. 1967. Problems of species differentiation in light of paleontological data. Paleontological Journal, 4:1–17.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. J. 1978. Ontogeny, phylogeny, paleontology, and the biogenetic law. Systematic Zoology, 27:324–345.Google Scholar
Newell, N. D. 1949. Phyletic size increase, an important trend illustrated by fossil invertebrates. Evolution, 3:103–124.Google Scholar
Philip, G. M. 1963. Two Australian Tertiary neolampadids and the classification of cassiduloid echinoids. Palaeontology, 6:718–726.Google Scholar
Richter, R. 1933. Crustacea, p. 840–863. In Handworterbuch der Naturwissenschaften. Jena.Google Scholar
Schinderwolf, O. H. 1929. Ontogenie und phylogenie. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 11:54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Severtzov, A. N. 1926. Über die Beziehungen zwischen der Ontogenese und der Phylogenese der Tiere. Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft, 56:51–180.Google Scholar
Sprinkle, J. and Bell, B. M. 1978. Paedomorphosis in edrioasteroid echinoderms. Paleobiology, 4:82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1972. Functional morphology and evolution of byssally attached bivalve mollusks. Journal of Paleontology, 46:165–212.Google Scholar
Stubblefield, C. J. 1936. Cephalic sutures and their bearing on current classifications of trilobites. Biological Reviews, 11:407–440.Google Scholar
Stubblefield, C. J. 1959. Evolution in trilobites. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 115:145–162.Google Scholar
Travis, J. 1981. Control of larval growth variation in a population of Pseudacris triseriata (Anura: Hylidae). Evolution, 35:423–432.Google Scholar
Urbanek, A. 1973. Organization and evolution of graptolite colonies, p. 441–514. In Boardman, R. S., Cheetham, A. H. and Oliver, W. A. (eds.), Animal Colonies, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg.Google Scholar
Wake, D. B. 1966. Comparative osteology and evolution of the lungless salamanders, family Plethodontidae. Memoirs, Southern California Academy of Sciences, 4:1–111.Google Scholar
Wright, C. W. and Kennedy, W. J. 1980. Origin, evolution and systematics of the dwarf acanthoceratid Protancanthoceras Spath, 1923. (Cretaceous Ammonoidea). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Geology), 34:65–107.Google Scholar