Can Modern Evolutionary Theory Explain Macroevolution?

Phylogenetic conservatism and coordination in traits of Chinese woody endemic flora

Range-limited endemic species, often labeled as endangered due to their low adaptability to climate change, exhibit unclear evolutionary mechanisms influencing their distribution. This study explores the relationship between leaf length, maximum height, and seed diameter and their linkage to phylogeny and climate in the macroecology of 1,370 woody endemics. Using Bayesian analytical method that allows partitioning phylogenetic and environmental variances and covariance, we revealed moderate to high phylogenetic signals in these traits, indicating evolutionary constraints potentially impacting climate change adaptability. The study uncovered a phylogenetically conserved coordination between height and leaf length which showed to be independent of macroecological patterns of temperature and precipitation. These findings emphasize the role of phylogenetic ancestry in shaping the distribution of woody endemics, highlighting the need for prioritized in-situ conservation and providing insights for ex situ conservation strategies.

Thomas S. Kuhn: key to a better understanding of the extended evolutionary synthesis

In recent years, some scholars have explicitly questioned the desirability or utility of applying the classical and "old-fashioned" theories of scientific change by the likes of Karl Popper and Thomas S. Kuhn to the question of the precise nature and significance of the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). Supposedly, these twentieth-century philosophers are completely irrelevant for a better understanding of this new theoretical framework for the study of evolution. Here, it will be argued that the EES can be fruitfully interpreted in terms of, as yet, insufficiently considered or even overlooked elements from Kuhn's theory. First, in his original, historical philosophy of science, Kuhn not only distinguished between small and big scientific revolutions, he also pointed out that paradigms can be extended and reformulated. In contrast with what its name suggests, the mainstream EES can be interpreted as a Kuhnian reformulation of modern evolutionary theory. Second, it has, as yet, also been overlooked that the EES can be interpreted in terms of Kuhn's later, tentative evolutionary philosophy of science. With the EES, an old dichotomy in evolutionary biology is maybe being formalized and institutionalized.

Potential and limits of (mal)adaptive mutation rate plasticity in plants

Genetic mutations provide the heritable material for plant adaptation to their environments. At the same time, the environment can affect the mutation rate across plant genomes. However, the extent to which environmental plasticity in mutation rates can facilitate or hinder adaptation remains a longstanding and unresolved question. Emerging discoveries of mechanisms affecting mutation rate variability provide opportunities to consider this question in a new light. Links between chromatin states, transposable elements, and DNA repair suggest cases of adaptive mutation rate plasticity could occur. Yet, numerous evolutionary and biological forces are expected to limit the impact of any such mutation rate plasticity on adaptive evolution. Persistent uncertainty about the significance of mutation rate plasticity on adaptation motivates new experimental and theoretical research relevant to understanding plant responses in changing environments.

Evolvability and Macroevolution: Overview and Synthesis

Evolvability is best addressed from a multi-level, macroevolutionary perspective through a comparative approach that tests for among-clade differences in phenotypic diversification in response to an opportunity, such as encountered after a mass extinction, entering a new adaptive zone, or entering a new geographic area. Analyzing the dynamics of clades under similar environmental conditions can (partially) factor out shared external drivers to recognize intrinsic differences in evolvability, aiming for a macroevolutionary analog of a common-garden experiment. Analyses will be most powerful when integrating neontological and paleontological data: determining differences among extant populations that can be hypothesized to generate large-scale, long-term contrasts in evolvability among clades; or observing large-scale differences among clade histories that can by hypothesized to reflect contrasts in genetics and development observed directly in extant populations. However, many comparative analyses can be informative on their own, as explored in this overview. Differences in clade-level evolvability can be visualized in diversity-disparity plots, which can quantify positive and negative departures of phenotypic productivity from stochastic expectations scaled to taxonomic diversification. Factors that evidently can promote evolvability include modularity—when selection aligns with modular structure or with morphological integration patterns; pronounced ontogenetic changes in morphology, as in allometry or multiphase life cycles; genome size; and a variety of evolutionary novelties, which can also be evaluated using macroevolutionary lags between the acquisition of a trait and phenotypic diversification, and dead-clade-walking patterns that may signal a loss of evolvability when extrinsic factors can be excluded. High speciation rates may indirectly foster phenotypic evolvability, and vice versa. Mechanisms are controversial, but clade evolvability may be higher in the Cambrian, and possibly early in the history of clades at other times; in the tropics; and, for marine organisms, in shallow-water disturbed habitats.

Evolution in small steps and giant leaps

The first Editor of Evolution was Ernst Mayr. His foreword to the first issue of Evolution published in 1947 framed evolution as a "problem of interaction" that was just beginning to be studied in this broad context. First, I explore progress and prospects on understanding the subsidiary interactions identified by Mayr, including interactions between parts of organisms, between individuals and populations, between species, and between the organism and its abiotic environment. Mayr's overall "problem of interaction" framework is examined in the context of coevolution within and among levels of biological organization. This leads to a comparison in the relative roles of biotic versus abiotic agents of selection and fluctuating versus directional selection, followed by stabilizing selection in shaping the genomic architecture of adaptation. Oligogenic architectures may be typical for traits shaped more by fluctuating selection and biotic selection. Conversely, polygenic architectures may be typical for traits shaped more by directional followed by stabilizing selection and abiotic selection. The distribution of effect sizes and turnover dynamics of adaptive alleles in these scenarios deserves further study. Second, I review two case studies on the evolution of acquired toxicity in animals, one involving cardiac glycosides obtained from plants and one involving bacterial virulence factors horizontally transferred to animals. The approaches used in these studies and the results gained directly flow from Mayr's vision of an evolutionary biology that revolves around the "problem of interaction."

Recombination facilitates genetic assimilation of new traits in gene regulatory networks

A new phenotypic variant may appear first in organisms through plasticity, that is, as a response to an environmental signal or other nongenetic perturbation. If such trait is beneficial, selection may increase the frequency of alleles that enable and facilitate its development. Thus, genes may take control of such traits, decreasing dependence on nongenetic disturbances, in a process called genetic assimilation. Despite an increasing amount of empirical studies supporting genetic assimilation, its significance is still controversial. Whether genetic assimilation is widespread depends, to a great extent, on how easily mutation and recombination reduce the trait's dependence on nongenetic perturbations. Previous research suggests that this is the case for mutations. Here we use simulations of gene regulatory network dynamics to address this issue with respect to recombination. We find that recombinant offspring of parents that produce a new phenotype through plasticity are more likely to produce the same phenotype without requiring any perturbation. They are also prone to preserve the ability to produce that phenotype after genetic and nongenetic perturbations. Our work also suggests that ancestral plasticity can play an important role for setting the course that evolution takes. In sum, our results indicate that the manner in which phenotypic variation maps unto genetic variation facilitates evolution through genetic assimilation in gene regulatory networks. Thus, we contend that the importance of this evolutionary mechanism should not be easily neglected.

Why aren't warning signals everywhere? On the prevalence of aposematism and mimicry in communities

Warning signals are a striking example of natural selection present in almost every ecological community - from Nordic meadows to tropical rainforests, defended prey species and their mimics ward off potential predators before they attack. Yet despite the wide distribution of warning signals, they are relatively scarce as a proportion of the total prey available, and more so in some biomes than others. Classically, warning signals are thought to be governed by positive density-dependent selection, i.e. they succeed better when they are more common. Therefore, after surmounting this initial barrier to their evolution, it is puzzling that they remain uncommon on the scale of the community. Here, we explore factors likely to determine the prevalence of warning signals in prey assemblages. These factors include the nature of prey defences and any constraints upon them, the behavioural interactions of predators with different prey defences, the numerical responses of predators governed by movement and reproduction, the diversity and abundance of undefended alternative prey and Batesian mimics in the community, and variability in other ecological circumstances. We also discuss the macroevolution of warning signals. Our review finds that we have a basic understanding of how many species in some taxonomic groups have warning signals, but very little information on the interrelationships among population abundances across prey communities, the diversity of signal phenotypes, and prey defences. We also have detailed knowledge of how a few generalist predator species forage in artificial laboratory environments, but we know much less about how predators forage in complex natural communities with variable prey defences. We describe how empirical work to address each of these knowledge gaps can test specific hypotheses for why warning signals exhibit their particular patterns of distribution. This will help us to understand how behavioural interactions shape ecological communities.

A conceptual framework of evolutionary novelty and innovation

Since 1990 the recognition of deep homologies among metazoan developmental processes and the spread of more mechanistic approaches to developmental biology have led to a resurgence of interest in evolutionary novelty and innovation. Other evolutionary biologists have proposed central roles for behaviour and phenotypic plasticity in generating the conditions for the construction of novel morphologies, or invoked the accessibility of new regions of vast sequence spaces. These approaches contrast with more traditional emphasis on the exploitation of ecological opportunities as the primary source of novelty. This definitional cornucopia reflects differing stress placed on three attributes of novelties: their radical nature, the generation of new taxa, and ecological and evolutionary impact. Such different emphasis has led to conflating four distinct issues: the origin of novel attributes (genes, developmental processes, phenotypic characters), new functions, higher clades and the ecological impact of new structures and functions. Here I distinguish novelty (the origin of new characters, deep character transformations, or new combinations) from innovation, the ecological and evolutionary success of clades. Evidence from the fossil record of macroevolutionary lags between the origin of a novelty and its ecological success demonstrates that novelty may be decoupled from innovation, and only definitions of novelty based on radicality (rather than generativity or consequentiality) can be assessed without reference to the subsequent history of the clade to which a novelty belongs. These considerations suggest a conceptual framework for novelty and innovation, involving: (i) generation of the potential for novelty; (ii) the formation of novel attributes; (iii) refinement of novelties through adaptation; (iv) exploitation of novelties by a clade, which may coincide with a new round of ecological or environmental potentiation; followed by (v) the establishment of innovations through ecological processes. This framework recognizes that there is little empirical support for either the dominance of ecological opportunity, nor abrupt discontinuities (often caricatured as 'hopeful monsters'). This general framework may be extended to aspects of cultural and social innovation.

A striking example of developmental bias in an evolutionary process: The "domestication syndrome"

The question of whether "developmental bias" can influence evolution is still controversial, despite much circumstantial evidence and a good theoretical argument. Here, I will argue that the domestication of mammalian species, which took place independently more than two dozen times, provides a particularly convincing example of developmental bias in evolution. The singular finding that underlies this claim is the repeated occurrence in domesticated mammals of a set of distinctive traits, none of which were deliberately selected. This phenomenon has been termed "the domestication syndrome". In this article, I will: (a) describe the properties of the domestication syndrome; (b) show how it can be explained in terms of the operation of a specific genetic regulatory network, that which governs neural crest cell development; and (c) discuss Dmitry Belyaev's idea of "destabilizing selection," which holds that selecting for a new behavior often entails neuroendocrine alterations that alter many aspects of development. Finally, I will argue for the potential general significance of such destabilizing selection, in combination with developmental bias, in animal evolution.

Developmental bias in the fossil record

The role of developmental bias and plasticity in evolution is a central research interest in evolutionary biology. Studies of these concepts and related processes are usually conducted on extant systems and have seen limited investigation in the fossil record. Here, I identify plasticity-led evolution (PLE) as a form of developmental bias accessible through scrutiny of paleontological material. I summarize the process of PLE and describe it in terms of the environmentally mediated accumulation and release of cryptic genetic variation. Given this structure, I then predict its manifestation in the fossil record, discuss its similarity to quantum evolution and punctuated equilibrium, and argue that these describe macroevolutionary patterns concordant with PLE. Finally, I suggest methods and directions towards providing evidence of PLE in the fossil record and conclude that such endeavors are likely to be highly rewarding.

Plasticity-led evolution: evaluating the key prediction of frequency-dependent adaptation

Plasticity-led evolution occurs when a change in the environment triggers a change in phenotype via phenotypic plasticity, and this pre-existing plasticity is subsequently refined by selection into an adaptive phenotype. A critical, but largely untested prediction of plasticity-led evolution (and evolution by natural selection generally) is that the rate and magnitude of evolutionary change should be positively associated with a phenotype's frequency of expression in a population. Essentially, the more often a phenotype is expressed and exposed to selection, the greater its opportunity for adaptive refinement. We tested this prediction by competing against each other spadefoot toad tadpoles from different natural populations that vary in how frequently they express a novel, environmentally induced carnivore ecomorph. As expected, laboratory-reared tadpoles whose parents were derived from populations that express the carnivore ecomorph more frequently were superior competitors for the resource for which this ecomorph is specialized-fairy shrimp. These tadpoles were better at using this resource both because they were more efficient at capturing and consuming shrimp and because they produced more exaggerated carnivore traits. Moreover, they exhibited these more carnivore-like features even without experiencing the inducing cue, suggesting that this ecomorph has undergone an extreme form of plasticity-led evolution-genetic assimilation. Thus, our findings provide evidence that the frequency of trait expression drives the magnitude of adaptive refinement, thereby validating a key prediction of plasticity-led evolution specifically and adaptive evolution generally.

Developmental Bias and Evolution: A Regulatory Network Perspective

Phenotypic variation is generated by the processes of development, with some variants arising more readily than others-a phenomenon known as "developmental bias." Developmental bias and natural selection have often been portrayed as alternative explanations, but this is a false dichotomy: developmental bias can evolve through natural selection, and bias and selection jointly influence phenotypic evolution. Here, we briefly review the evidence for developmental bias and illustrate how it is studied empirically. We describe recent theory on regulatory networks that explains why the influence of genetic and environmental perturbation on phenotypes is typically not uniform, and may even be biased toward adaptive phenotypic variation. We show how bias produced by developmental processes constitutes an evolving property able to impose direction on adaptive evolution and influence patterns of taxonomic and phenotypic diversity. Taking these considerations together, we argue that it is not sufficient to accommodate developmental bias into evolutionary theory merely as a constraint on evolutionary adaptation. The influence of natural selection in shaping developmental bias, and conversely, the influence of developmental bias in shaping subsequent opportunities for adaptation, requires mechanistic models of development to be expanded and incorporated into evolutionary theory. A regulatory network perspective on phenotypic evolution thus helps to integrate the generation of phenotypic variation with natural selection, leaving evolutionary biology better placed to explain how organisms adapt and diversify.

The emerging structure of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: where does Evo-Devo fit in?

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) debate is gaining ground in contemporary evolutionary biology. In parallel, a number of philosophical standpoints have emerged in an attempt to clarify what exactly is represented by the EES. For Massimo Pigliucci, we are in the wake of the newest instantiation of a persisting Kuhnian paradigm; in contrast, Telmo Pievani has contended that the transition to an EES could be best represented as a progressive reformation of a prior Lakatosian scientific research program, with the extension of its Neo-Darwinian core and the addition of a brand-new protective belt of assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses. Here, we argue that those philosophical vantage points are not the only ways to interpret what current proposals to 'extend' the Modern Synthesis-derived 'standard evolutionary theory' (SET) entail in terms of theoretical change in evolutionary biology. We specifically propose the image of the emergent EES as a vast network of models and interweaved representations that, instantiated in diverse practices, are connected and related in multiple ways. Under that assumption, the EES could be articulated around a paraconsistent network of evolutionary theories (including some elements of the SET), as well as models, practices and representation systems of contemporary evolutionary biology, with edges and nodes that change their position and centrality as a consequence of the co-construction and stabilization of facts and historical discussions revolving around the epistemic goals of this area of the life sciences. We then critically examine the purported structure of the EES-published by Laland and collaborators in 2015-in light of our own network-based proposal. Finally, we consider which epistemic units of Evo-Devo are present or still missing from the EES, in preparation for further analyses of the topic of explanatory integration in this conceptual framework.

The sources of adaptive variation

The role of natural selection in the evolution of adaptive phenotypes has undergone constant probing by evolutionary biologists, employing both theoretical and empirical approaches. As Darwin noted, natural selection can act together with other processes, including random changes in the frequencies of phenotypic differences that are not under strong selection, and changes in the environment, which may reflect evolutionary changes in the organisms themselves. As understanding of genetics developed after 1900, the new genetic discoveries were incorporated into evolutionary biology. The resulting general principles were summarized by Julian Huxley in his 1942 book Evolution: the modern synthesis Here, we examine how recent advances in genetics, developmental biology and molecular biology, including epigenetics, relate to today's understanding of the evolution of adaptations. We illustrate how careful genetic studies have repeatedly shown that apparently puzzling results in a wide diversity of organisms involve processes that are consistent with neo-Darwinism. They do not support important roles in adaptation for processes such as directed mutation or the inheritance of acquired characters, and therefore no radical revision of our understanding of the mechanism of adaptive evolution is needed.

Approaches to Macroevolution: 2. Sorting of Variation, Some Overarching Issues, and General Conclusions

Approaches to macroevolution require integration of its two fundamental components, within a hierarchical framework. Following a companion paper on the origin of variation, I here discuss sorting within an evolutionary hierarchy. Species sorting-sometimes termed species selection in the broad sense, meaning differential origination and extinction owing to intrinsic biological properties-can be split into strict-sense species selection, in which rate differentials are governed by emergent, species-level traits such as geographic range size, and effect macroevolution, in which rates are governed by organism-level traits such as body size; both processes can create hitchhiking effects, indirectly causing the proliferation or decline of other traits. Several methods can operationalize the concept of emergence, so that rigorous separation of these processes is increasingly feasible. A macroevolutionary tradeoff, underlain by the intrinsic traits that influence evolutionary dynamics, causes speciation and extinction rates to covary in many clades, resulting in evolutionary volatility of some clades and more subdued behavior of others; the few clades that break the tradeoff can achieve especially prolific diversification. In addition to intrinsic biological traits at multiple levels, extrinsic events can drive the waxing and waning of clades, and the interaction of traits and events are difficult but important to disentangle. Evolutionary trends can arise in many ways, and at any hierarchical level; descriptive models can be fitted to clade trajectories in phenotypic or functional spaces, but they may not be diagnostic regarding processes, and close attention must be paid to both leading and trailing edges of apparent trends. Biotic interactions can have negative or positive effects on taxonomic diversity within a clade, but cannot be readily extrapolated from the nature of such interactions at the organismic level. The relationships among macroevolutionary currencies through time (taxonomic richness, morphologic disparity, functional variety) are crucial for understanding the nature of evolutionary diversification. A novel approach to diversity-disparity analysis shows that taxonomic diversifications can lag behind, occur in concert with, or precede, increases in disparity. Some overarching issues relating to both the origin and sorting of clades and phenotypes include the macroevolutionary role of mass extinctions, the potential differences between plant and animal macroevolution, whether macroevolutionary processes have changed through geologic time, and the growing human impact on present-day macroevolution. Many challenges remain, but progress is being made on two of the key ones: (a) the integration of variation-generating mechanisms and the multilevel sorting processes that act on that variation, and (b) the integration of paleontological and neontological approaches to historical biology.

Developmental push or environmental pull? The causes of macroevolutionary dynamics

Have the large-scale evolutionary patterns illustrated by the fossil record been driven by fluctuations in environmental opportunity, by biotic factors, or by changes in the types of phenotypic variants available for evolutionary change? Since the Modern Synthesis most evolutionary biologists have maintained that microevolutionary processes carrying on over sufficient time will generate macroevolutionary patterns, with no need for other pattern-generating mechanisms such as punctuated equilibrium or species selection. This view was challenged by paleontologists in the 1970s with proposals that the differential sorting and selection of species and clades, and the effects of biotic crises such as mass extinctions, were important extensions to traditional evolutionary theory. More recently those interested in macroevolution have debated the relative importance of abiotic and biotic factors in driving macroevolutionary patterns and have introduced comparative phylogenetic methods to analyze the rates of change in taxonomic diversity. Applying Peter Godfrey-Smith's distinction between distributional explanations and explanations focusing on the origin of variation, most macroevolutionary studies have provided distributional explanations of macroevolutionary patterns. Comparative studies of developmental evolution, however, have implicated the origin of variants as a driving macroevolution force. In particular, the repatterning of gene regulatory networks provides new insights into the origins of developmental novelties. This raises the question of whether macroevolution has been pulled by the generation of environmental opportunity, or pushed by the introduction of new morphologies. The contrast between distributional and origination scenarios has implications for understanding evolutionary novelty and innovation and how macroevolutionary process may have evolved over time.

Evolutionary biology today and the call for an extended synthesis

Evolutionary theory has been extended almost continually since the evolutionary synthesis (ES), but except for the much greater importance afforded genetic drift, the principal tenets of the ES have been strongly supported. Adaptations are attributable to the sorting of genetic variation by natural selection, which remains the only known cause of increase in fitness. Mutations are not adaptively directed, but as principal authors of the ES recognized, the material (structural) bases of biochemistry and development affect the variety of phenotypic variations that arise by mutation and recombination. Against this historical background, I analyse major propositions in the movement for an 'extended evolutionary synthesis'. 'Niche construction' is a new label for a wide variety of well-known phenomena, many of which have been extensively studied, but (as with every topic in evolutionary biology) some aspects may have been understudied. There is no reason to consider it a neglected 'process' of evolution. The proposition that phenotypic plasticity may engender new adaptive phenotypes that are later genetically assimilated or accommodated is theoretically plausible; it may be most likely when the new phenotype is not truly novel, but is instead a slight extension of a reaction norm already shaped by natural selection in similar environments. However, evolution in new environments often compensates for maladaptive plastic phenotypic responses. The union of population genetic theory with mechanistic understanding of developmental processes enables more complete understanding by joining ultimate and proximate causation; but the latter does not replace or invalidate the former. Newly discovered molecular phenomena have been easily accommodated in the past by elaborating orthodox evolutionary theory, and it appears that the same holds today for phenomena such as epigenetic inheritance. In several of these areas, empirical evidence is needed to evaluate enthusiastic speculation. Evolutionary theory will continue to be extended, but there is no sign that it requires emendation.

On Reciprocal Causation in the Evolutionary Process

Recent calls for a revision of standard evolutionary theory (SET) are based partly on arguments about the reciprocal causation. Reciprocal causation means that cause-effect relationships are bi-directional, as a cause could later become an effect and vice versa. Such dynamic cause-effect relationships raise questions about the distinction between proximate and ultimate causes, as originally formulated by Ernst Mayr. They have also motivated some biologists and philosophers to argue for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). The EES will supposedly expand the scope of the Modern Synthesis (MS) and SET, which has been characterized as gene-centred, relying primarily on natural selection and largely neglecting reciprocal causation. Here, I critically examine these claims, with a special focus on the last conjecture. I conclude that reciprocal causation has long been recognized as important by naturalists, ecologists and evolutionary biologists working in the in the MS tradition, although it it could be explored even further. Numerous empirical examples of reciprocal causation in the form of positive and negative feedback are now well known from both natural and laboratory systems. Reciprocal causation have also been explicitly incorporated in mathematical models of coevolutionary arms races, frequency-dependent selection, eco-evolutionary dynamics and sexual selection. Such dynamic feedback were already recognized by Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin in their bok The Dialectical Biologist. Reciprocal causation and dynamic feedback might also be one of the few contributions of dialectical thinking and Marxist philosophy in evolutionary theory. I discuss some promising empirical and analytical tools to study reciprocal causation and the implications for the EES. Finally, I briefly discuss how quantitative genetics can be adapated to studies of reciprocal causation, constructive inheritance and phenotypic plasticity and suggest that the flexibility of this approach might have been underestimated by critics of contemporary evolutionary biology.

Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and multiple inheritance systems, the ‘-omics’ revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge about the factors responsible for evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process. A renewed and extended theoretical synthesis, advocated by several authors in this issue, aims to unite pertinent concepts that emerge from the novel fields with elements of the standard theory. The resulting theoretical framework differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities. Whereas the MS theory and its various amendments concentrate on genetic and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasizes the role of constructive processes, ecological interactions and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity as well as its social and cultural conditions. Single-level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process. All these features stimulate research into new areas of evolutionary biology.

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.

The challenges to inferring the regulators of biodiversity in deep time

Attempts to infer the ecological drivers of macroevolution in deep time have long drawn inspiration from work on extant systems, but long-term evolutionary and geological changes complicate the simple extrapolation of such theory. Recent efforts to incorporate a more informed ecology into macroevolution have moved beyond the descriptive, seeking to isolate generating mechanisms and produce testable hypotheses of how groups of organisms usurp each other or coexist over vast timespans. This theme issue aims to exemplify this progress, providing a series of case studies of how novel modelling approaches are helping infer the regulators of biodiversity in deep time. In this Introduction, we explore the challenges of these new approaches. First, we discuss how our choices of taxonomic units have implications for the conclusions drawn. Second, we emphasize the need to embrace the interdependence of biotic and abiotic changes, because no living organism ignores its environment. Third, in the light of parts 1 and 2, we discuss the set of dynamic signatures that we might expect to observe in the fossil record. Finally, we ask whether these dynamics represent the most ecologically informative foci for research efforts aimed at inferring the regulators of biodiversity in deep time. The papers in this theme issue contribute in each of these areas.

Anatomy, morphology and evolution of the patella in squamate lizards and tuatara (Sphenodon punctatus)

The patella (kneecap) is the largest and best-known of the sesamoid bones, postulated to confer biomechanical advantages including increasing joint leverage and reinforcing the tendon against compression. It has evolved several times independently in amniotes, but despite apparently widespread occurrence in lizards, the patella remains poorly characterised in this group and is, as yet, completely undescribed in their nearest extant relative Sphenodon (Rhynchocephalia). Through radiography, osteological and fossil studies we examined patellar presence in diverse lizard and lepidosauromorph taxa, and using computed tomography, dissection and histology we investigated in greater depth the anatomy and morphology of the patella in 16 lizard species and 19 Sphenodon specimens. We have found the first unambiguous evidence of a mineralised patella in Sphenodon, which appears similar to the patella of lizards and shares several gross and microscopic anatomical features. Although there may be a common mature morphology, the squamate patella exhibits a great deal of variability in development (whether from a cartilage anlage or not, and in the number of mineralised centres) and composition (bone, mineralised cartilage or fibrotendinous tissue). Unlike in mammals and birds, the patella in certain lizards and Sphenodon appears to be a polymorphic trait. We have also explored the evolution of the patella through ancestral state reconstruction, finding that the patella is ancestral for lizards and possibly Lepidosauria as a whole. Clear evidence of the patella in rhynchocephalian or stem lepidosaurian fossil taxa would clarify the evolutionary origin(s) of the patella, but due to the small size of this bone and the opportunity for degradation or loss we could not definitively conclude presence or absence in the fossils examined. The pattern of evolution in lepidosaurs is unclear but our data suggest that the emergence of this sesamoid may be related to the evolution of secondary ossification centres and/or changes in knee joint conformation, where enhancement of extensor muscle leverage would be more beneficial.

Exploring macroevolution using modern and fossil data

Macroevolution, encompassing the deep-time patterns of the origins of modern biodiversity, has been discussed in many contexts. Non-Darwinian models such as macromutations have been proposed as a means of bridging seemingly large gaps in knowledge, or as a means to explain the origin of exquisitely adapted body plans. However, such gaps can be spanned by new fossil finds, and complex, integrated organisms can be shown to have evolved piecemeal. For example, the fossil record between dinosaurs and Archaeopteryx has now filled up with astonishing fossil intermediates that show how the unique plexus of avian adaptations emerged step by step over 60 Myr. New numerical approaches to morphometrics and phylogenetic comparative methods allow palaeontologists and biologists to work together on deep-time questions of evolution, to explore how diversity, morphology and function have changed through time. Patterns are more complex than sometimes expected, with frequent decoupling of species diversity and morphological diversity, pointing to the need for some new generalizations about the processes that lie behind such patterns.