Approaches to Macroevolution: 1. General Concepts and Origin of Variation

Approaches to macroevolution require integration of its two fundamental components, i.e. the origin and the sorting of variation, in a hierarchical framework. Macroevolution occurs in multiple currencies that are only loosely correlated, notably taxonomic diversity, morphological disparity, and functional variety. The origin of variation within this conceptual framework is increasingly understood in developmental terms, with the semi-hierarchical structure of gene regulatory networks (GRNs, used here in a broad sense incorporating not just the genetic circuitry per se but the factors controlling the timing and location of gene expression and repression), the non-linear relation between magnitude of genetic change and the phenotypic results, the evolutionary potential of co-opting existing GRNs, and developmental responsiveness to nongenetic signals (i.e. epigenetics and plasticity), all requiring modification of standard microevolutionary models, and rendering difficult any simple definition of evolutionary novelty. The developmental factors underlying macroevolution create anisotropic probabilities-i.e., an uneven density distribution-of evolutionary change around any given phenotypic starting point, and the potential for coordinated changes among traits that can accommodate change via epigenetic mechanisms. From this standpoint, "punctuated equilibrium" and "phyletic gradualism" simply represent two cells in a matrix of evolutionary models of phenotypic change, and the origin of trends and evolutionary novelty are not simply functions of ecological opportunity. Over long timescales, contingency becomes especially important, and can be viewed in terms of macroevolutionary lags (the temporal separation between the origin of a trait or clade and subsequent diversification); such lags can arise by several mechanisms: as geological or phylogenetic artifacts, or when diversifications require synergistic interactions among traits, or between traits and external events. The temporal and spatial patterns of the origins of evolutionary novelties are a challenge to macroevolutionary theory; individual events can be described retrospectively, but a general model relating development, genetics, and ecology is needed. An accompanying paper (Jablonski in Evol Biol 2017) reviews diversity dynamics and the sorting of variation, with some general conclusions.

A Bigger Picture: Organismal Function at the Nexus of Development, Ecology, and Evolution: An Introduction to the Symposium

Over the past 40 years of research, two perspectives have dominated the study of ecomorphology at ontogenetic and evolutionary timescales. For key anatomical complexes (e.g., feeding apparatus, locomotor systems, sensory structures), morphological changes during ontogeny are often interpreted in functional terms and linked to their putative importance for fitness. Across larger timescales, morphological transformations in these complexes are examined through character stability or mutability during cladogenesis. Because the fittest organisms must pass through ontogenetic changes in size and shape, addressing transformations in morphology at different time scales, from life histories to macroevolution, has the potential to illuminate major factors contributing to phenotypic diversity. To date, most studies have relied on the assumption that organismal form is tightly constrained by the adult niche. Although this could be accurate for organisms that rapidly reach and spend a substantial portion of their life history at the adult phenotype (e.g., birds, mammals), it may not always hold true for species that experience substantial growth after one or more major fitness filters during their ontogeny (e.g., some fishes, reptiles). In such circumstances, examining the adult phenotype as the primary result of selective processes may be erroneous as it likely obscures the developmental configuration of morphology that was most critical to early survival. Given this discrepancy-and its potential to mislead interpretations of how selection may shape a taxon's phenotype-this symposium addresses the question: how do we identify such ontogenetic "inertia," and how do we integrate developmental information into our phylogenetic, ecological, and functional interpretations of complex phenotypes?