Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T18:54:10.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ontogenetic dynamics of shape disparity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

Miriam Leah Zelditch ,
H. David Sheets  and
William L. Fink
Miriam Leah Zelditch
Affiliation:
Museum of Paleontology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109. E-mail: [email protected]
H. David Sheets
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, Canisius College, Buffalo, New York 14208. E-mail: [email protected]
William L. Fink
Affiliation:
Museum of Zoology and Department of Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Disparity appears to decrease or remain stable over geological time in numerous groups. This pattern is sometimes explained in terms of developmental constraints, but labile developmental systems might produce the same pattern should novelties interact, counterbalancing their individual effects. We test the hypothesis that counterbalancing can reduce disparity by comparing ontogenies of shape among nine species of piranhas to identify the developmental novelties. All three parameters examined change multiple times, sometimes dramatically. By comparing levels of disparity between species at two developmental phases, at the transition from larval to juvenile phases, and at maximum adult body size, we find that disparity decreases significantly and substantially over ontogeny. That reduction occurs because of, rather than despite, novelties of postlarval morphogenesis. Some interacting novelties are historically independent and affect different developmental phases, others are historically independent and affect the same developmental phase, and still others are historically correlated and affect either the same or different developmental phases. By modeling hypothetical ontogenies, constraining developmental parameters mathematically to one of the observed values, we find that variation in each parameter, taken by itself, and combinations of them taken two at a time, tend to increase disparity. It is the interactions among all three that reduce disparity. In this group divergent ontogenies transform disparate larvae into similar adults.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , Winter 2003 , pp. 139 - 156
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 5:296–317.Google Scholar
Anstey, R. L. and Pachut, J. F. 1995. Phylogeny, diversity history, and speciation in Paleozoic bryozoans. Pp. 239–284in Erwin, D. H. and Anstey, R. L., eds. New approaches to speciation in the fossil record. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1989. Principal warps: thin-plate splines and the decomposition of deformations. Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 11:567–585.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1991. Morphometric tools for landmark data: geometry and biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bookstein, F. L. 1996. Combining the tools of geometric morphometrics. Pp. 131–151in Marcus, L. F., Corti, M., Loy, A., Naylor, G. J. P., and Slice, D. E., eds. Advances in morphometrics. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
Dryden, I. L., and Mardia, K. V. 1998. Statistical shape analysis. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Eble, G. J. 2000. Contrasting evolutionary flexibility in sister groups: disparity and diversity in Mesozoic atelostomate echinoids. Paleobiology 26:56–79.Google Scholar
Eble, G. J. 2001. Developmental morphospaces and evolution. Pp. 35–66in Crutchfield, J. P. and Schuster, P., eds. Evolutionary dynamics. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R. J. 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1994. Early introduction of major morphological innovations. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 38:281–294.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H., Valentine, J. W., and Sepkowski, J. J. Jr. 1987. A comparative study of diversification events: the early Paleozoic versus the Mesozoic. Evolution 41:1177–1186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falsetti, A. B., and Cole, T. M. 1992. Relative growth of the post-cranial skeleton in callitrichines. Journal of Human Evolution 23:79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, W. L. 1993. Revision of the piranha genus Pygocentrus (Teleostei, Characiformes). Copeia 1993:665–687.Google Scholar
Fink, W. L., and Machado-Allison, A. 1992. Three new species of piranhas from Brazil and Venezuela (Teleostei: Characiformes). Ichthyological Explorations of Freshwaters 3:55–71.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1992. Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:7325–7329.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1993a. Contributions of individual taxa to overall morphological disparity. Paleobiology 19:403–419.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1993b. Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic disparity. Paleobiology 19:185–204.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1994. Morphological disparity in Ordovician-Devonian crinoids and the early saturation of morphological space. Paleobiology 20:320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1995. Morphological diversification of Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology 21:273–299.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Gould, S. J. 1992. Cambrian and Recent morphological disparity. Science 258:1816.Google Scholar
Gavrilets, S. 1999. Dynamics of clade diversification on the morphological hypercube. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 266:817–824.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1991. The disparity of the Burgess Shale arthropod fauna and the limits of cladistic analysis: why we must strive to quantify morphospace. Paleobiology 17:411–423.Google Scholar
Hall, B. K. 1998. Evolutionary developmental biology, 2d ed. Chapman and Hall, New York.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Bottjer, D. J. 1990. The ecology of evolutionary innovations: the fossil record. Pp. 253–288in Nitecki, M. H., ed. Evolutionary innovations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Jacobs, D. K. 1990. Selector genes and the Cambrian radiation of Bilateria. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 87:4406–4410.Google Scholar
Klingenberg, C. P. 1998. Heterochrony and allometry: the analysis of evolutionary change in ontogeny. Biological Reviews 73:79–123.Google Scholar
Klingenberg, C. P., and Ekau, W. 1996. A combined morphometric and phylogenetic analysis of an ecomorphological trend: pelagization in Antarctic fishes (Perciformes: Nototheniidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 59:143–177.Google Scholar
Machado-Allison, A. 1985. Studies on the subfamily Serrasalminae, Part III. On the generic status and phylogenetic relationships of the genera Pygopristis, Pygocentrus, Pristobrycon, and Serrasalmus (Teleostei-Characidae-Serrasalminae). Acta Biologica Venezuela 12:19–42.Google Scholar
Mathworks, . 2000. MATLAB6. The Mathworks, Natick, Mass.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I., and Foote, M. 1996. Calibrating the Ordovician radiation of marine life: implications for Phanerozoic diversity trends. Paleobiology 22.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, F. R., Rieppel, O., and Sander, P. M. 1999. Shape dissociation and inferred heterochrony in a clade of pachypleurosaurs (Reptilia, Sauropterygia). Paleobiology 25:504–517.Google Scholar
Orti, G., Petry, P., Porto, J. I. R., Jegu, M. I., and Meyer, A. 1996. Patterns of nucleotide change in mitochondrial ribosomal RNA genes and the phylogeny of piranhas. Journal of Molecular Evolution 42:169–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ravosa, M. J., Meyers, D. M., and Glander, K. E. 1995. Heterochrony and the evolution of ecogeographic size variation in Malagasy sifakas. Pp. 261–276in McNamara, K. J., ed. Evolutionary change and heterochrony. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Robert, J. S., Hall, B. K., and Olson, W. M. 2001. Bridging the gap between developmental systems theory and evolutionary developmental biology. Bioessays 23:954–962.Google Scholar
Shea, B. 1985. Bivariate and multivariate growth allometry—statistical and biological considerations. Journal of Zoology 206:367–390.Google Scholar
Shea, B. 1992. Ontogenetic scaling of skeletal proportions in the talapoin monkey. Journal of Human Evolution 23:283–307.Google Scholar
Smith, L. H., and Bunje, P. M. 1999. Morphological diversity of inarticulate brachiopods through the Phanerozoic. Paleobiology 25:396–408.Google Scholar
Valentine, J. W. 1995. Why no new phyla after the Cambrian? Genome and ecospace hypotheses revisited. Palaios 10:190–194.Google Scholar
Voss, R. S., and Marcus, L. F. 1992. Morphological evolution in muroid rodents. 2. Craniometric factor divergence in 7 Neotropical genera, with experimental results from Zygodontomys. Evolution 46:1918–1934.Google Scholar
Wagner, P. J. 1995. Testing evolutionary constraint hypotheses with early Paleozoic gastropods. Paleobiology 21:248–272.Google Scholar
Wills, M. A., Briggs, D. E. G., and Fortey, R. A. 1994. Disparity as an evolutionary index: a comparison between Cambrian and Recent arthropods. Paleobiology 20:93–130.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Sheets, H. D., and Fink, W. L. 2000. Spatiotemporal reorganization of growth rates in the evolution of ontogeny. Evolution 54:1363–1371.Google Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., Sheets, H. D., and Fink, W. L. 2001. The spatial complexity and evolutionary dynamics of growth. Pp. 145–194in Zelditch, M. L., ed. Beyond heterochrony: the evolution of development. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar