The Systems Approach: An Interface Between Development and Population Genetic Aspects of Evolution

Wagner, G. P.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-70831-2_8

Cited by 40 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These levels are linked with the spiral direction of the sepals (Endress, 1999) so that the result is, strictly speaking, floral asymmetry. Such cases were reported from Ericaceae (personal observation), Polemoniaceae (Grant & Grant, 1965;Mabberley, 2000), Gentianaceae (Thiv & Kadereit, 2002a), Rubiaceae (Robbrecht, 1988), Boraginaceae (Taroda & Gibbs, 1986), Convolvulaceae (Wagner, 1989;Deroin, 1996), and Solanaceae (Robyns, 1930;Hunziker, 2001). These families are all in asterids I (lamiids), except for Ericaceae and Polemoniaceae, which are in the more isolated Ericales (basal asterids).…”

Section: Tubular Nectar Flowers With Anthers At Different Levelsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Petals are contort in Convolvulaceae and some Solanaceae (Eichler, 1875;Schoute, 1935;Endress, 1999). Anthers positioned at different levels in a flower, either by different filament length or different insertion height occur in taxa of both families, such as Convolvulus, Hildebrandtia in Convolvulaceae (Wagner, 1989;Deroin, 1996) and many genera in Solanaceae (Robyns, 1930;Hunziker, 2001). In Solanaceae, species of Solanum sect.…”

Section: Malpighialesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…These different kinds of floral monosymmetry and asymmetry are not necessarily all homologous, even if taken in the sense of biological homology (Wagner, 1989(Wagner, , 2007, i.e. based on the same genetic system, even if not all components of a clade have the particular symmetry feature.…”

Section: Summary: Evolution Of Floral Monosymmetry and Asymmetrymentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Immense Diversity of Floral Monosymmetry and Asymmetry Across Angiosperms

Endress

2012

Bot. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Floral monosymmetry and asymmetry are traced through the angiosperm orders and families. Both are diverse and widespread in angiosperms. The systematic distribution of the different forms of monosymmetry and asymmetry indicates that both evolved numerous times. Elaborate forms occur in highly synorganized flowers. Less elaborate forms occur by curvature of organs and by simplicity with minimal organ numbers. Elaborate forms of asymmetry evolved from elaborate monosymmetry. Less elaborate form come about by curvature or torsion of organs, by imbricate aestivation of perianth organs, or also by simplicity. Floral monosymmetry appears to be a key innovation in some groups (e.g., Orchidaceae, Fabaceae, Lamiales), but not in others. Floral asymmetry appears as a key innovation in Phaseoleae (Fabaceae). Simple patterns of monosymmetry appear easily "reverted" to polysymmetry, whereas elaborate monosymmetry is difficult to lose without disruption of floral function (e.g., Orchidaceae). Monosymmetry and asymmetry can be expressed at different stages of floral (and fruit) development and may be transient in some taxa. The two symmetries are most common in bee-pollinated flowers, and appear to be especially prone to develop in some specialized biological situations: monosymmetry, e.g., with buzz-pollinated flowers or with oil flowers, and asymmetry also with buzz-pollinated flowers, both based on the particular collection mechanisms by the pollinating bees. Floral monosymmetry has developed into a model trait in evo-devo studies, whereas floral asymmetry to date has not been tackled in molecular genetic studies.

show abstract

Section: Tubular Nectar Flowers With Anthers At Different Levelsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: Malpighialesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Immense Diversity of Floral Monosymmetry and Asymmetry Across Angiosperms

Endress

2012

Bot. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This sense of constraint plays a clear-cut role in explaining morphological evolution: "[development's] contribution will be to provide an understanding of the possible morphological transformations" (Alberch 1982, 327). e) Constraints can lead to such coordination among traits that they vary in an integrated and functional manner (Wagner 1986), shaping the potential for the future evolutionary change and the evolution of complex characters. In addition to these five basic effects attributed to constraints, developmental approaches to evolution in the 1980s had three distinct but compatible ways of using the concept of constraint as part of a positive explanatory agenda, which often were jointly employed by researchers.…”

Section: 'Constraint' As An Explanatory Project In Evolutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

From Developmental Constraint to Evolvability: How Concepts Figure in Explanation and Disciplinary Identity

Brigandt

2014

Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…2 The European view of metatheory tends to be more holistic and less empirical than its American counterpart. Riedl's and Wagner's systems-theoretic analyses of biology are illustrative of the consequences of such a view (Riedl 1978, Wagner 1986). 3 "Morphoscape" and "morphoset" are my own terms, not those of Process Structuralism.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Neo-rationalism versus neo-Darwinism: Integrating development and evolution

Smith

1992

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An increasing number of biologists are expressing discontent with the prevailing theory of neo-Darwinism. In particular, the tendency of neo-Darwinians to adopt genetic determinism and atomistic notions of both genes and organisms is seen as grossly unfair to the body of developmental theory. One faction of dissenters, the Process Structuralists, take their inspiration from the rational morphologists who preceded Darwin. These "neo-rationalists" argue that a mature biology must possess universal laws and that these "generative laws" should be sought within organismal development. Such a rational biology will only be possible once the neo-Darwinian paradigm, with its reliance on inherently stochastic processes, is overthrown.To facilitate this revolution, process structuralism launches a broad attack on the theoretical adequacy of its opponent. It is charged that neo-Darwinism is untestable and therefore its hypotheses are nothing more than adaptive stories. Further, the lamentable tendencies toward genetic determinism and atomism by modem biologists is seen as the inescapable consequences of adopting the neo-Darwinian outlook.I allow that neo-Darwinism is untestable but argue that this does not pose a major difficulty for the theory. Further, it is not clear to what extent genetic determinism and atomism result from sloppy methodology as opposed to fundamental theoretical commitments. But the process structuralist critique does reveal some deep-seated problems with orthodox evolutionary theory and some of its suggestions may be employed to good effect.

show abstract

The Systems Approach: An Interface Between Development and Population Genetic Aspects of Evolution

Cited by 40 publications

References 32 publications

The Immense Diversity of Floral Monosymmetry and Asymmetry Across Angiosperms

The Immense Diversity of Floral Monosymmetry and Asymmetry Across Angiosperms

From Developmental Constraint to Evolvability: How Concepts Figure in Explanation and Disciplinary Identity

Neo-rationalism versus neo-Darwinism: Integrating development and evolution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About