Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:47:04.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological variation in a colonial marine hydroid: a comparison of size-based and age-based heterochrony

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Neil W. Blackstone  and
Philip O. Yund
Neil W. Blackstone
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511
Philip O. Yund
Affiliation:
Graduate Program of Ecology and Evolution, Box G, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In studies of heterochrony, timing of development is generally measured relative to some intrinsic dimension, usually size, which serves as a proxy for time. A complementary approach is to measure timing relative to chronological time, an extrinsic dimension. Here, colony growth of a marine hydroid, Hydractinia echinata, is used to compare size- and age-based approaches to rate heterochronies. Colonies consist of feeding polyps; a basal, encrusting mat; and, in some cases, stolons which extend from the mat. Size is measured by the area covered by the mat and, if present, the stolons. Rate of polyp production was compared between colonies using clonal replicates grown in a common environment. Age-based comparisons employed polyp specific growth rates calculated over the same ontogenetic time interval for each replicate. Specific growth rates for colony area were also calculated; rates-ratios (polyp/area) provided size-based measures of polyp growth, analogous to allometric coefficients commonly used in studies of rate heterochronies. These comparisons show that size can be a misleading referent for between-colony comparisons because the rate of areal growth is not constant among colonies. Size-based measures of changes in developmental rates may provide insight into patterns, but not necessarily processes, of heterochrony. The implications of the pattern-oriented framework of size-based heterochrony should be considered in paleontological studies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , Winter 1989 , pp. 1 - 10
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 5:296–313.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L. 1987. Astogeny and phylogeny: evolutionary heterochrony in Paleozoic bryozoans. Paleobiology 13:20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atchley, W. R. 1987. Developmental quantitative genetics and the evolution of ontogenies. Evolution 41:316–330.Google Scholar
Atchley, W. R., Riska, B., Kohn, L. A. P., Plummer, A. A., and Rutledge, J. J. 1984. A quantitative genetic analysis of brain and body size associations, their origin and ontogeny: data from mice. Evolution 38:1165–1179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beynon, A. D., and Wood, B. A. 1987. Patterns and rates of enamel growth in the molar teeth of early hominids. Nature 326:493–496.Google Scholar
Blackstone, N. W. 1986. Relative growth and specific growth rates in crustaceans. Growth 50:118–127.Google ScholarPubMed
Blackstone, N. W. 1987a. Specific growth rates of parts in a hermit crab Pagurus longicarpus: a reductionist approach to the study of allometry. Journal of Zoology, London (A) 211:531–545.Google Scholar
Blackstone, N. W. 1987b. Allometry and relative growth: pattern and process in evolutionary studies. Systematic Zoology 36:76–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackstone, N. W. 1987c. Size and time. Systematic Zoology 36:211–215.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L., Chernoff, B., Elder, R. L., Humphries, J. M., Smith, G. R., and Strauss, R. E. 1985. Morphometrics in evolutionary biology. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Special Publications 15.Google Scholar
Bonner, J. T. 1965. Size and Cycle. Princeton University Press; Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
Bonner, J. T., and Horn, H. S. 1982. Selection of size, shape, and developmental timing. Pp. 259–276. In Bonner, J. T. (ed.), Evolution and Development. Springer-Verlag; Berlin.Google Scholar
Braverman, M. 1974. The cellular basis for colony form in Podocoryne carnea. American Zoologist 14:673–698.Google Scholar
Bromage, T. G., and Dean, M. C. 1985. Re-evaluation of the age at death of immature fossil hominids. Nature 317:525–527.Google Scholar
Buss, L. W., McFadden, C. S., and Keene, D. R. 1984. Biology of hydractiniid hydroids. 2. Histocompatibility effector system/competitive mechanism mediated by nematocyst discharge. Biological Bulletin 167:139–158.Google Scholar
Calder, W. A. III. 1984. Size, Function, and Life History. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Calder, W. A. III. 1987. Scaling energetics of homeothermic vertebrates: an operational allometry. Annual Review of Physiology 49:107–120.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. L. 1977. Regulatory phenomena and the data of growth. Growth 41:25–32.Google Scholar
Cheverud, J. M., and Richtsmeier, J. T. 1986. Finite-element scaling applied to sexual dimorphism in rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta) facial growth. Systematic Zoology 35:381–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowell, S. 1974. Morphogenetic events associated with stolon elongation in colonial hydroids. American Zoologist 14:665–672.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1981. Introduction of Quantitative Genetics. Second Edition. Longman; London.Google Scholar
Fink, W. L. 1982. The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology 8:254–264.Google Scholar
Gerhart, J. C., Berking, S., Cooke, J., Freeman, G. F., Hilde-brandt, A., Jokusch, H., Lawrence, P. A., Nusslein-Volhard, C., Oster, G. F., Sander, K., Sauer, H. W., Stent, G. S., Wessells, N. K., and Wolpert, L. 1982. The cellular basis of morphogenetic change. Pp. 87–114. In Bonner, J. T. (ed.), Evolution and Development. Springer-Verlag; Berlin.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1982. Change in developmental timing as a mechanism of macroevolution. Pp. 333–346. In Bonner, J. T. (ed.), Evolution and Development. Springer-Verlag; Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J., and 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 B 205:581–598.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J., and Vrba, E. S. 1982. Exaptation—a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8:4–15.Google Scholar
Hall, B. K. 1984. Developmental processes underlying heterochrony as an evolutionary mechanism. Canadian Journal of Zoology 62:1–7.Google Scholar
Hills, M. 1978. On ratios—a response to Atchley, Gaskins, and Anderson. Systematic Zoology 27:61–62.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. 1950. Relative growth and form transformation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 137:465–469.Google Scholar
Katz, M. J. 1980. Allometry formula: a cellular model. Growth 44:89–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Kaufmann, K. W. 1981. Fitting and using growth curves. Oecologia 49:293–299.Google Scholar
Laird, A. K. 1965. Dynamics of relative growth. Growth 29:249–263.Google ScholarPubMed
Laird, A. K., Tyler, S. A., and Barton, A. D. 1965. Dynamics of normal growth. Growth 29:233–248.Google Scholar
Lewin, R. 1987. Debate over emergence of human tooth pattern. Science 235:748–750.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1978. Adaptation. Scientific American 239:212–230.Google Scholar
McFadden, C. S., McFarland, M. J., and Buss, L. W. 1984. Biology of hydractiniid hydroids. I. Colony ontogeny in Hydractinia echinata (Flemming). Biological Bulletin 166:54–67.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1986. Ecological causation of heterochrony: a test and implications for evolutionary theory. Paleobiology 12:282–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKinney, M. L. ed. 1988. Heterochrony in Evolution: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Plenum Press; New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maderson, P. F. A., Alberch, P., Goodwin, B. C., Gould, S. J., Hoffman, A., Murray, J. D., Raup, D. M., de Ricqles, A., Seilacher, A., Wagner, G. R., and Wake, D. B. 1982. The role of development in macroevolutionary change. Pp. 279–312. In Bonner, J. T. (ed.), Evolution and Development. Springer-Verlag; Berlin.Google Scholar
Nijhout, H. F., Wray, G. A., Kremen, C., and Teragawa, C. K. 1986. Ontogeny, phylogeny, and evolution of form: an algorithmic approach. Systematic Zoology 35:445–457.Google Scholar
Roth, V. L. 1984. How elephants grow: heterochrony and the calibration of developmental stages in some living and fossil species. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 4:126–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. 1984. Scaling: Why is Animal Size So Important? Cambridge University Press; Cambridge.Google Scholar
Schweitzer, P. N., Kaesler, R. L., and Lohman, G. P. 1986. Ontogeny and heterochrony in the ostracode Cavellina Coryell from Lower Permian rocks in Kansas. Paleobiology 12:290–301.Google Scholar
Shea, B. T. 1983. Allometry and heterochrony in the African apes. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 56:179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shea, B. T. 1985. Bivariate and multivariate growth allometry: statistical and biological considerations. Journal of Zoology, London (A) 206:367–390.Google Scholar
Slatkin, M. 1987. Quantitative genetics of heterochrony. Evolution 41:799–811.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981. Biometry. Second Edition. W. H. Freeman; San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stebbing, A. R. D. 1981. The kinetics of growth control in a colonial hydroid. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 61:35–63.Google Scholar
Strauss, R. E. 1987. On allometry and relative growth. Systematic Zoology 36:72–75.Google Scholar
Travis, J. 1980. Genetic variation for larval specific growth rate in the frog Hyla gratiosa. Growth 44:167–181.Google Scholar
Waddington, C. H. 1950. The biological foundations of measurements of growth and form. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 137:509–515.Google Scholar
Wayne, R. K. 1986. Cranial morphology of domestic and wild canids: the influence of development on morphological change. Evolution 40:243–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winer, B. J. 1971. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. Second Edition. McGraw-Hill; New York.Google Scholar
Yund, P. O. 1987. Intraspecific Competition and the Maintenance of Morphological Variation in the Colonial Hydroid Hydractinia symbioacadianus. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University. New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Zeger, S. L., and Harlow, S. D. 1987. Mathematical models from laws of growth to tools for biologic analysis: fifty years of Growth. Growth 51:1–21.Google Scholar