Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T19:58:54.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

M. L. Zelditch, (ed.). Beyond Heterochrony: The Evolution of Development. Wiley-Liss, ISBN 0-471-37973-5.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2016

Norm MacLeod
Norm MacLeod*
Affiliation:
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Paleontology , Volume 77 , Issue 2 , March 2003 , pp. 400 - 405
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society

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. 1985. Problems with the interpretation of developmental sequences. Systematic Zoology, 34:46–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., Wake, D. B. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology, 5:296–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F., Chernoff, B., Elder, R., Humphries, J., Smith, G., Strauss, R. 1985. Morphometrics in Evolutionary Biology. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Fink, W. L. 1982. The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology, 8:254–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, W. L. 1988. Phylogenetic analysis and the detection of ontogenetic patterns, p. 71–92. In McKinney, M. L. (ed.), Heterochrony in Evolution: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., Lewontin, R. C. 1979. The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 205:581–598.Google Scholar
Harvey, P. H., Brown, A. J. Leigh, Smith, J. M., Nee, S. 1996. New Uses for New Phylogenies. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Harvey, P. H., Pagel, M. D. 1991. The Comparative Method in Evolutionary Biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1997. Shapes of Time: The Evolution of Growth and Development. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1988. Heterochrony in Evolution: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, M. L., McNammara, K. J. 1991. Heterochrony: The Evolution of Ontogeny. Plenum Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olson, E., Miller, R. 1958. Morphological Integration. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Nehm, R. H. 1998. Macroevolution and development in marginellid gastropods from the Neogene of the Caribbean Basin. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California-Berkeley.Google Scholar
Raff, R. A. 1996. The Shape of Life: Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raff, R. A., Wray, G. A. 1998. Heterochrony: developmental mechanisms and evolutionary results. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 2:409–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, R. E., Bookstein, F. L. 1982. The truss: body form reconstruction in morphometrics. Systematic Zoology, 31:113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Fink, W. L. 1996. Heterochrony and heterotopy: stability and innovation in the evolution of gform. Paleobiology, 22:241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar