Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-nr592 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T14:07:20.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The conceptual relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

William L. Fink
William L. Fink*
Affiliation:
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Studies of ontogenetic processes are fundamentally dependent on hypotheses of phylogeny. The model of Alberch et al. (1979) is reformulated in terms of phylogenetics and used to describe how heterochronic ontogenetic processes can be detected in nature. Heterochronic processes producing paedomorphosis can result in morphologies which resemble primitive (retained ancestral) traits; the conditions under which paedomorphic and primitive features can and cannot be distinguished are described. The utility of ontogeny for determination of evolutionary character transformations and character polarity and for detection of convergence and parallelism are considered. The ontogenetic criterion for assessing polarity is independent of hypotheses of phylogeny and may be as effective as outgroup comparison. Ontogenetic analysis may aid in the detection of convergence but not in the detection of parallelism.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , Summer 1982 , pp. 254 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Agassiz, L. 1859. Essay on Classification. Reprinted in 1962, Lurie, E., ed. 268 pp. Harvard Univ. Press; Cambridge.Google Scholar
Alberch, P., Gould, S. J., Oster, G. F., and Wake, D. B. 1979. Size and shape in ontogeny and phylogeny. Paleobiology. 5:296–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberch, P. and Alberch, J. 1981. Heterochronic mechanisms of morphological diversification and evolutionary change in the Neotropical salamander, Bolitoglossa occidentalis (Amphibia: Plethodontidae). J. Morphol. 167:249–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beatty, J. and Fink, W. L. 1979. Review of: Simplicity. by Sober, E., 1975. Clarendon Press; Oxford. Syst. Zool. 28:643–651.Google Scholar
Cracraft, J. 1981. Pattern and process in paleobiology: the role of cladistic analysis in systematic paleontology. Paleobiology. 7:456–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Beer, G. R. 1940. Embryos and Ancestors. 108 pp. Oxford University Press; London.Google Scholar
Dunbar, M. J. 1980. The blunting of Occam's Razor, or to hell with parsimony. Can. J. Zool. 58:123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. 349 pp. Columbia Univ. Press; New York.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1973. Systematic pluralism and the uses of history. Syst. Zool. 22:322–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. 501 pp. Harvard Univ. Press; Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. 263 pp. Univ. Illinois Press; Urbana.Google Scholar
Kluge, A. G. 1982. Cladistics and the classification of the great apes. Pp. 151–177. In: Ciochon, R. R. and Corruccini, R. R., eds. New Interpretations of Ape and Human Ancestry. Plenum Press; New York.Google Scholar
Lauder, G. V. 1981. Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology. Paleobiology. 7:430–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
L⊘vtrup, S. 1974. Epigenetics. 547 pp. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1978. Paedomorphosis in Scottish olenellid trilobites (early Cambrian). Palaeontology. 21:635–655.Google Scholar
McNamara, K. J. 1982. Heterochrony and phylogenetic trends. Paleobiology. 8:130–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. J. 1973. The higher-level phylogeny of vertebrates. Syst. Zool. 22:87–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. J. 1978. Ontogeny, phylogeny, paleontology, and the biogenetic law. Syst. Zool. 27:324–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O. 1980. Phylogenetic systematics and vicariance biogeography. Syst. Bot. 5:194–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar