Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:00:59.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Heterochrony in brontothere horn evolution: allometric interpretations and the effect of life history scaling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Gerald S. Bales*
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California 91766-1889

Abstract

The Brontotheriidae (Perissodactyla, Mammalia) are often used as an illustration of vertebrate macroevolutionary trends because their morphological evolution includes significant size increases accompanied by the disproportionate lengthening of bony frontonasal horns. The positive phylogenetic allometry for horn length vs. skull length is among the strongest known of such relationships in vertebrate phylogeny. Hypotheses explaining the change from small, incipient horns in Eocene ancestors to longer horns in Oligocene descendants have included two heterochronic mechanisms, hypermorphosis (extrapolation) and predisplacement (earlier onset time of horn growth). These proposed peramorphic mechanisms derive from interpretation of adult intergeneric allometries in logarithmic data spaces. Analysis of the raw (unlogged) data shows that the simple allometric model previously used is not an appropriate model for this specific problem. The heterochronic interpretations derived from them are therefore unsupported (but not disproven) by the allometries. A more appropriate allometric model for the data (full model) does not support any heterochronic interpretation. Previously unaccounted for in the heterochronic hypotheses is a complication due to body-size scaling effects on life history stage lengths. Neontological scaling patterns suggest that brontothere size increases were probably accompanied by increasing life spans and longer developmental stages. This effect broadens the types of heterochronies that may be postulated. Semiquantitative analyses comparing brontotheres with similarly sized extant ungulates show the hypothesized effect of larger size on brontothere life history stages. A scaled descendant ontogeny introduces the problem of relative vs. absolute time frames within which to view ontogenetic onset times. Thus, predisplacements, postdisplacements, or nondisplacements may be viewed as relative or absolute with respect to ancestral ontogenies. This raises a fundamental question about how development scales, which in turn affects how heterochronies are interpreted. A scaling effect suggests that brontothere horns are more likely postdisplaced in the traditional absolute time sense. Paradoxically then, while the descendant adult horn is peramorphic, its onset time may have shifted in a paedomorphic direction. Data for two Oligocene juvenile brontotheres suggest that most horn growth occurred late in their longer (i.e., descendant) ontogenies (hypermorphosis), and that the horns probably grew at faster rates (acceleration) than in Eocene taxa.

Type
Articles
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

Literature Cited

Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., and Wake, D. B. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 5:296317.Google Scholar
Albrecht, G. H., and Gelvin, B. R. 1988. The simple allometry equation reconsidered: assumptions, problems, and alternative solutions. American Zoologist 28:905.Google Scholar
Albrecht, G. H., Gelvin, B. R., and Hartman, S. E. 1993. Ratios as a size adjustment in morphometrics. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 91:441468.Google Scholar
Bales, G. S., and Albrecht, G. H. 1989. Scaling of titanothere horns: is the simple allometry equation appropriate for paleontological studies? Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 9(3):Suppl. 12A, No.7.Google Scholar
Bales, G. S., and Albrecht, G. H. 1990. Problems with heterochronic interpretations of allometric scaling: the case of titanothere horns. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 10(3):Suppl. 14A, No. 13.Google Scholar
Blueweiss, L., Fox, H., Kudzma, V., Nakashima, D., Peters, R., and Sams, S. 1978. Relationships between body size and some life history parameters. Oecologia 37:257272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Calder, W. A. III. 1984. Size, function, and life history. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Carroll, R. L. 1988. Vertebrate paleontology and evolution. W. H. Freeman, New York.Google Scholar
DeBeer, G. R. 1930. Embryology and evolution. Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
Dodson, P. 1975. Taxonomic implications of relative growth in lambeosaurine dinosaurs. Systematic Zoology 24(1):3754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futuyma, D. J. 1986. Evolutionary biology. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.Google Scholar
Goddard, J. 1970. Age criteria and vital statistics of a black rhinoceros population. East African Wildlife Journal 8:105123.Google Scholar
Godfrey, L. S., and Sutherland, M. R. 1996. Paradox of peramorphic paedomorphosis: heterochrony and human evolution. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 99:1742.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1966. Allometry and size in ontogeny and phylogeny. Biological Reviews 41:587640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hersh, A. H. 1934. Evolutionary relative growth in the brontotheres. American Naturalist 68:537561.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1932. Problems of relative growth. Meuthuen, London.Google Scholar
Klingenberg, P. K., and Spence, J. R. 1993. Heterochrony and allometry: lessons from the water strider genus Limnoporus. Evolution 47:18341853.Google Scholar
MacMahon, T., and Bonner, J. T. 1984. On size and life. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Mader, B. J. 1989. The Brontotheriidae: a systematic revision and preliminary phylogeny of north american genera. pp. 458484In Prothero, D. R. and Schoch, R. M., eds. The evolution of perissodactyls. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1988. Classifying heterochrony. Allometry, size, and time. pp. 1734in McKinney, M. L., ed. Heterochrony in evolution. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1991. Heterochrony. The evolution of ontogeny. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L., and Schoch, R. M. 1985. Titanothere allometry, heterochrony, and biomechanics: revising an evolutionary classic. Evolution 39:13521363.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1982. Heterochrony and phylogenetic trends. Paleobiology 8:130.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1986. A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony. Journal of Paleontology 60:413.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1988. Patterns of heterochrony in the fossil record. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 3:176.Google Scholar
Nowak, W. L., and Paradiso, J. L. 1983. Walker's mammals of the world, 4th ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Osborn, H. F. 1929. The titanotheres of ancient Wyoming, Dakota, and Nebraska. U.S. Geological Survey Monograph 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, R. H. 1983. The ecological implications of body size. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Prothero, J., and Jurgens, K. D. 1987. Scaling of maximal lifespan in mammals: a review. pp. 4974In Woodhead, A. D. and Thompson, K. H., eds. Evolution of longevity in animals: a comparative approach. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Raff, R. A. and Kaufmann, T. C. 1983. Embryos, genes, and evolution. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
Raven, P. H., and Johnson, G. B. 1992. Biology, 3d ed.Mosby YearBook, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Rensch, B. 1959. Evolution above the species level. John Wiley and Sons, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, P., Woodhead, A. D., and Thompson, K. H. 1981. The relationship between the Gompertz constant and maximum potential lifespan: its relevance to theories of aging. Experimental Gerontology 16:131135.Google Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1984. Scaling: why is animal size so important? Cambridge University Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacher, G. A. 1959. Relation of lifespan to brain weight and body weight in mammals. pp. 115141In Wolstenholme, G. E. and O'Connors, M., eds. The lifespan of animals. CIBA Foundation Colloquia On Aging 5, Churchill, London.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. 1949. The meaning of evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn:a new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28:447.Google Scholar