PubMed · 11634574
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M de Castro. 1976. [Not Available].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11634574/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Constraints are factors that limit evolutionary change. A subset of constraints is developmental, and acts during embryonic development. There is some uncertainty about how to define developmental constraints, and how to formulate them as testable hypotheses. Furthermore, concepts such as constraint-breaking, universal constraints, and forbidden morphologies present some conceptual difficulties. One of our aims is to clarify these issues. After briefly reviewing current classifications of constraint, we define developmental constraints as those affecting morphogenetic processes in ontogeny. They may be generative or selective, although a clear distinction cannot always be drawn. We support the idea that statements about constraints are in fact statements about the relative frequency of particular transformations (where 'transformation' indicates a change from the ancestral condition). An important consequence of this is that the same transformation may be constrained in one developmental or phylogenetic context, but evolutionarily plastic in another. In this paper, we analyse developmental constraints within a phylogenetic framework, building on similar work by previous authors. Our approach is based on the following assumptions from the literature: (1) constraints are identified when there is a discrepancy between the observed frequency of a transformation, and its expected frequency; (2) the 'expected' distribution is derived by examining the phylogenetic distribution of the transformation and its associated selection pressures. Thus, by looking for congruence between these various phylogenetic distribution patterns, we can test hypotheses about constraint. We critically examine this approach using a test case: variation in phalanx-number in the amniote limb.
We present the most extensive phylogenetic analysis to date, to our knowledge, of higher-level nemertean relationships, based on sequence data from four different genes (the nuclear genes for nuclear large subunit rRNA (28S rRNA) and histone H3 (H3), and the mitochondrial genes for mitochondrial large subunit rRNA (16S rRNA) and cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI)). Well-supported clades are, in general, compatible with earlier, more limited, analyses, and current classification is largely in agreement with our results, although there are some notable exceptions. Bdellonemertea (represented by Malacobdella) is found to be a part of Monostilifera, and Polystilifera is the monophyletic sister group to Monostilifera. Cratenemertidae is the sister group to the remaining monostiliferans (including Malacobdella), a group to which we apply the new name Distromatonemertea. Heteronemertea is monophyletic and forms a clade with Hubrechtella; for this clade we introduce the name Pilidiophora. Finally, Pilidiophora and Hoplonemertea (with Malacobdella) form a monophyletic group, and we introduce the name Neonemertea to refer to this group. Palaeonemertea is found to be non-monophyletic and basal among nemerteans.
The evolutionary-ecology approach to studying immune defences has generated a number of hypotheses that help to explain the observed variance in responses. Here, selected topics are reviewed in an attempt to identify the common problems, connections and generalities of the approach. In particular, the cost of immune defence, response specificity, sexual selection, neighbourhood effects and questions of optimal defence portfolios are discussed. While these questions still warrant further investigation, future challenges are the development of synthetic concepts for vertebrate and invertebrate systems and also of the theory that predicts immune responses based on a priori principles of evolutionary ecology.