Comparative Patterns of Growth and Development in Cricetine Rodents and the Evolution of Ontogeny

Abstract

The quantitative description of growth curves for morphometric traits provides a basis for assessing the ontogenetic patterns underlying differences in morphological structure, as demonstrated with comparisons among neotomine-peromyscine rodents. Morphometric differences among contemporary rodent species are shown to result from relatively simple changes in relative growth rates and timing. Quantitative ontogenetic studies add a dynamic component to the assessment of morphological similarity, thus providing a more robust procedure for detecting homoplasy than static comparison of adult morphology. Applying the principles of phylogenetic systematics to studies of developmental timing among closely related taxa may be a useful and informative complement to studies based on molecular similarity or static comparison of adult morphology. Interspecific and intraspecific differences in allometric scaling of anatomical structures may reflect differences in growth patterns among the taxa compared; caution is warranted in inferring patterns of genetic correlation from data on phenotypic scaling.

Diversity trends and their ontogenetic basis: an exploration of allometric disparity in rodents

“…It has been proposed that the more distant the comparison between taxa, in terms of evolutionary relationship, the more likely differences are consequent of slope change rather than changes that conserve the direction of the ontogenetic trajectory (Weston 2003), namely, either an extension or truncation in trajectory (ontogenetic scaling), or a translation in log-transformed space, reflecting a lateral transposition of trajectory; such changes are indicative of an alteration in the duration of growth or a change in prenatal development, respectively. Conservation of direction, through lateral transposition or scaling, is considered to be more easily accomplished and thus more likely to occur during morphological evolution (Creighton & Strauss 1986;Gomez 1992). Further work directed to quantifying the capacity of slope change as a mechanism to generate morphological disparity represents one potentially fruitful future expansion of these methods, considering the evolutionary constraint associated with a conservation of direction and its implications for confounding phylogenetic reconstructions through the promotion of evolutionary convergence.…”

Heterochronic Variation in the Developmental Timing of Cranial Ossifications in Poeciliid Fishes (Cyprinodontiformes)

“…By evaluating the patterns of morphological change during ontogeny and the ways in which they depend on developmental events, we might discern the way selection has altered growth patterns to affect the variation that we observe in adult morphology (Guerrant, 1982). A significant advantage of evaluating the ontogeny of morphological traits is that instances in which similarity in adult structure results from different underlying developmental trends (convergence) can be identified (Creighton and Strauss, 1986).…”

“…Qualitative aspects of the profiles mapped onto the resulting phylogenetic tree then reveal possible sequences of evolutionary timing transformations. The morphological significance of such ontogenetic shifts is as yet unknown, but they may well provide the raw material for morphological diversification (Atchley et al, 1984;Hall, 1984;Creighton and Strauss, 1986).…”

“…Although most of the vast literature on heterochrony concerns the classical cases of paedomorphosis and recapitulation, it has been increasingly recognized that many ofthe species-specific differences that we observe among adult forms may be accounted for by continuous variation in developmental timing processes that are neither strictly paedomorphic nor peramorphic (Alberch et aI., 1979;Kluge and Strauss, 1985). Furthermore, such developmental changes may retain a significant historical or phylogenetic component (Creighton and Strauss, 1986), allowing construction of phylogenetic hypotheses based directly on 'dynamic' ontogenetic criteria rather than static adult morphologies.…”

Ontogenies in Mice Selected for High Voluntary Wheel-Running Activity. I. Mean Ontogenies

“…The correlated response of an ontogeny to selection is rarely studied, yet it is an important mechanism for the evolution of various forms and functions on both macro-and microevolutionary time scales (e.g., Gould 1977;Alberch et al 1979;Creighton and Strauss 1986;Zelditch 1988;Brooks 3 Present address: Department of Genetics, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7614. 1991; Jones 1992; Klingenberg and Zimmermann 1992;Bjö rklund 1997;Hoying and Kunz 1998;Zelditch et al 2000;Badyaev et al 2001;Loy et al 2001).…”