Search

Study of the model organisms of developmental biology was crucial in establishing evo-devo as a new discipline. However, it has been claimed that this limited sample of organisms paints a biased picture of the role of development in evolution. Consequently, judicious choice of new model organisms is necessary to provide a more balanced picture. The challenge is to determine the best criteria for choosing new model organisms, given limited resources.

Although flourishing, I argue that evo-devo is not yet a mature scientific discipline. Its philosophical foundation exhibits an internal inconsistency that results from a metaphysical confusion. In modern evolutionary biology, species and other taxa are most commonly considered as individuals. I accept this thesis to be the best available foundation for modern evolutionary biology. However, evo-devo is characterized by a remarkable degree of typological thinking, which instead treats taxa as classes. This metaphysical incompatibility causes much distorted thinking. In this paper, I will discuss the logical implications of accepting the individuality thesis for evo-devo. First, I will illustrate the degree to which typological thinking pervades evo-devo. This ranges from the relatively innocent use of typologically tainted language to the more serious misuse of differences between taxa as evidence against homology and monophyly, and the logically flawed concept of partial homology. Second, I will illustrate how, in a context of typological thinking, evo-devo's harmless preoccupation with distant ancestors has become transformed into a pernicious problem afflicting the choice of model organisms. I will expose the logical flaws underlying the common assumption that model organisms can be expected to represent the clades they are a part of in an unambiguous way. I will expose the logical flaws underlying the general assumption that basal taxa are the best available stand-ins for ancestors and that they best represent the clade of which they are a part, while also allowing for optimal extrapolation of results.

Libbie Hyman is the most influential comparative invertebrate zoologist of the 20th century in the English-speaking world. During the first part of her career Hyman conducted experimental research on the metabolic and developmental physiology of a host of invertebrates and vertebrate embryos. One important aim of these studies was to elucidate the hidden processes of morphogenesis. Some of the papers from this early phase of Hyman's career already contain the seeds for her subsequent occupation with comparative embryology and morphology to address questions about animal body plan evolution and metazoan phylogeny. Hyman's views on invertebrate evolution and phylogeny have become widely incorporated into textbooks, and until very recently Hyman's ideas have been equated with 'traditional' or 'classical' views on animal evolution. Hyman's enduring fame and significance for modern evo-devo is primarily based upon her magisterial six-volume series The Invertebrates, which is the most encompassing single-author synthesis of invertebrate structure and development of the 20th century. In The Invertebrates Hyman addressed numerous questions about the evolution of animal body plans and metazoan phylogeny that are nowadays core items on the research agenda of evo-devo. In addition, Hyman had a lasting influence on teaching with the publication of her widely used laboratory manuals for elementary zoology, and especially comparative vertebrate anatomy.

A renewed emphasis on the gaps in organization that exist between the crown-group body plans of higher-level animal taxa is a hallmark of the emerging consensus in metazoan phylogenetics. Bridging these gaps is the greatest hurdle that stands in the way of translating our knowledge of phylogeny into a renewed understanding of the macroevolution of animal body plans. Unless a good fossil record is available, there is little hope that we will be able to bridge many of these gaps empirically. We have, therefore, little choice but to resort to our more-or-less informed imagination to produce the historical narratives that are the ultimate goal of our studies of animal evolution. Only by fully engaging with the challenges of devising testable scenarios will we be able to tell where along the spectrum of science and fiction our understanding of animal body plan evolution will finally come to rest. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

SUMMARY Comprehensive integrative studies are the hallmark of evolutionary developmental biology. A properly defined phylogenetic framework takes a central place in such analyses as the meeting ground for observation and inference. Molecular phylogenies take this place in many current studies on animal body plan evolution. In particular, 18S rRNA/DNA sequence analyses have yielded a new view of animal evolution that is often contrasted with a presumed traditional or classical view. First, I expose this traditional view to be a simplified historical abstraction that became textbook dogma. Second, I discuss how two recent important studies of animal body plan evolution, examining the evolution of the platyhelminth body plan and the evolutionary significance of indirect development and set-aside cells, have actively incorporated two problematic aspects of the newly emerging molecular view of animal evolution: incomplete and unresolved phylogenies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]