Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-01T20:13:23.038Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theoretical Morphology: State of the Art - Theoretical Morphology: The Concept and Its Applications. George R. McGhee Jr. Columbia University Press, New York. 1999. 316 pages. Cloth $60.00, paper $26.50.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2016

Gunther J. Eble
Gunther J. Eble*
Affiliation:
Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution, MRC-121 Washington, D.C. 20560 Santa Fe Institute 1399 Hyde Park Road Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 E-mail: ebleg@nmnh.si.edu, eble@santafe.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The morphological diversity of life has captivated systematists in the construction of classifications, embryologists in the study of development, and evolutionists in the formulation of theories of organic change. In a century marked by the advances of molecular biology, has the discipline of morphology produced anything … new? Yes. The solidification of paleontology and systematics and the emergence of macroevolution as a legitimate field owe much to an increased rigor in the analysis of morphological data. At the same time, the discipline of morphology has achieved an unprecedented sophistication through another development, the very expression of its maturity: theoretical morphology. Theoretical morphology forms the subject of McGhee's landmark book, an elegant combination of compendium and manifesto. Its richness and scope provide an opportunity for a critical appraisal of the discipline of morphology, particularly quantitative and developmental morphology.

Type
Book Review
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , Summer 2000 , pp. 520 - 528
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Alberch, P. 1989. The logic of monsters: evidence for internal constraint in development and evolution. Geobios Mémoire Spécial 12:21–57.CrossRefGoogle 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
Arthur, W. 1997. The origin of animal body plans. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, W. 1896. Materials for the study of variation. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore(reprint 1992).Google Scholar
Benton, M. J. 1987. Progress and competition in macroevolution. Biological Reviews 62:305–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bookstein, F., Chernoff, B., Elder, R., Humphries, J., Smith, G., and Strauss, R. 1985. Morphometrics in evolutionary biology. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia Special Publication 15.Google Scholar
Briggs, D. E. G., Fortey, R. A., and Wills, M. A. 1992. Morphological disparity in the Cambrian. Science 256:1670–1673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, R. E., Rasskin-Gutman, D., and Weishampel, D. B. 1996. Exploring the evolutionary history of a group using multiple morphospaces of varying complexity and philosophy. Paleontological Society Special Publication 8:66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, S. Conway 1998. The crucible of creation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
David, B., and Laurin, B. 1996. Morphometrics and cladistics: measuring phylogeny in the sea urchin Echinocardium. Evolution 50:348–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deleuze, G. 1973. A quoi reconnaît-on le structuralisme? Pp. 293–329in Châtelet, F., ed. Histoire de la philosophie: le XXe siècle. Librairie Hachette, Paris.Google Scholar
Dommergues, J-L, Laurin, B., and Meister, C. 1996. Evolution of ammonoid morphospace during the Early Jurassic radiation. Paleobiology 22:219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eble, G. J. 1998. The role of development in evolutionary radiations. Pp. 132–161in McKinney, M. L. and Drake, J. A., eds. Biodiversity dynamics: turnover of populations, taxa, and communities. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Eble, G. J. 2000. Contrasting evolutionary flexibility in sister groups: disparity and diversity in Mesozoic atelostomate echinoids. Paleobiology 26:56–79.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, A. W. F. 1992. Likelihood. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N. 1989. Macroevolutionary dynamics. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Erwin, D. H. 1994. Early introduction of major morphological innovations. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 38:281–294.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. C. 1986. Progress in organismal design. Pp. 99–117in Raup, D. M. and Jablonski, D., eds. Patterns and processes in the history of life. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontana, W., and Schuster, P. 1998. Continuity in evolution: on the nature of transitions. Science 280:1451–1455.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. 1992. Paleozoic record of morphological diversity in blastozoan echinoderms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 89:7325–7329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foote, M. 1993. Discordance and concordance between morphological and taxonomic diversity. Paleobiology 19:185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1995. Morphological diversification of Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology 21:273–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1996. Models of morphological diversification. Pp. 62–86in Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J. H., eds. Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 1997. The evolution of morphological diversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:129–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1999. Morphological diversity in the evolutionary radiation of Paleozoic and post-Paleozoic crinoids. Paleobiology Memoirs No. 1. Paleobiology 25(Suppl. to No. 2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M., and Gould, S. J. 1992. Cambrian and Recent morphological disparity. Science 258:1816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saint-Hilaire, E. Geoffroy 1830. Principes de philosophie zoologique. Privately published. Paris. Reprinted inGuyader, H. Le1998. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire: un naturaliste visionnaire. Editions Belin, Paris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, L. R., and Sutherland, M. R. 1995. What's growth got to do with it? Process and product in the evolution of ontogeny. Journal of Human Evolution 29:405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, B. C. 1990. Structuralism in biology. Science Progress 74:227–244.Google Scholar
Goodwin, B. C., and Trainor, L. E. H. 1983. The ontogeny and phylogeny of the pentadactyl limb. Pp. 75–98in Goodwin, B. C., Holder, N., and Wylie, C. C., eds. Development and evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful life. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 1991. The disparity of the Burgess Shale arthropod fauna and the limits of cladistic analysis: why we must strive to quantify morphospace. Paleobiology 17:411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, S. J. 2000. Beyond competition. Paleobiology 26:1–6.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, B. K. 1998. Evolutionary developmental biology, 2d ed. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Hickman, C. S. 1993. Theoretical design space: a new program for the analysis of structural diversity. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 190:183–190.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Bottjer, D. J. 1990. The ecology of evolutionary innovation: the fossil record. Pp. 253–288in Nitecki, M., ed. Evolutionary innovations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kaandorp, J. 1994. Fractal modelling: growth and form in biology. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffman, S. A. 1993. The origins of order. Oxford University Press, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, D. M., and Hughes, A. J. 1986. Keywords and concepts in structuralist and functionalist biology. Journal of Theoretical Biology 133:133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindenmayer, A. 1968. Mathematical models for cellular interactions in development. Journal of Theoretical Biology 18:280–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maurer, B. A. 1999. Untangling ecological complexity: the macroscopic perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Smith, J. Maynard 1970. Natural selection and the concept of protein space. Nature 225:563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, J. Maynard, Burian, R., Kauffman, S., Alberch, P., Campbell, J., Goodwin, B., Lande, R., Raup, D., and Wolpert, L. 1985. Developmental constraints and evolution. Quarterly Review of Biology 60:265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGhee, G. R. Jr. 1991. Theoretical morphology: the concept and its applications. In Gilinsky, N. L. and Signor, P. W., eds. Analytical paleobiology. Short Courses in Paleontology 4:87–102. Paleontological Society, Knoxville, Tenn.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L., and McNamara, K. J. 1991. Heterochrony: the evolution of ontogeny. Plenum, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShea, D. W. 1993. Arguments, tests, and the Burgess Shale—a commentary on the debate. Paleobiology 19:399–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShea, D. W. 1994. Mechanisms of large-scale evolutionary trends. Evolution 48:1747–1763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, D., ed. 1995. Goethe. The collected works, Vol. 12. Scientific studies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.Google Scholar
Mitchell, M., and Taylor, C. E. 1999. Evolutionary computation: an overview. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30:593–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, G. B., and Wagner, G. P. 1991. Novelty in evolution: restructuring the concept. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 22:229–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nijhout, H. F. 1994. Pattern formation in biological systems. Pp. 269–297in Nijhout, H. F., Nadel, L., and Stein, D., eds. Pattern formation in the physical and biological sciences. Santa Fe Institute studies in the sciences of complexity. Lecture notes, Vol. 5. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
Oster, G., and Alberch, P. 1982. Evolution and bifurcation of developmental programs. Evolution 36:444–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Provine, W. B. 1986. Sewall Wright and evolutionary biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Prusinkiewicz, P., and Lindenmayer, A. 1990. The algorithmic beauty of plants. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raff, R. A. 1996. The shape of life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1966. Geometric analysis of shell coiling: general problems. Journal of Paleontology 40:1178–1190.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1969. Modeling and simulation of morphology by computer. Pp. 71–83in Yochelson, E., ed. Proceedings of the North American paleontological convention, Vol. 1, Part B. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kans.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1972. Approaches to morphologic analysis. Pp. 28–44in Schopf, T. J. M., ed. Models in paleobiology. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M. 1987. Neutral models in paleobiology. Pp. 121–132in Nitecki, M. H. and Hoffman, A., eds. Neutral models in biology. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Gould, S. J. 1974. Stochastic simulation and evolution of morphology—towards a nomothetic paleontology. Systematic Zoology 23:305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raup, D. M., and Michelson, A. 1965. Theoretical morphology of the coiled shell. Science 147:1294–1295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reif, W.-E., and Weishampel, D. B. 1991. Theoretical morphology, an annotated bibliography. Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg 142:1–140.Google Scholar
Rice, S. H. 1997. The analysis of ontogenetic trajectories: when a change in size or shape is not heterochrony. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 94:907–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, S. H. 1998. The bio-geometry of mollusc shells. Paleobiology 24:133–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, K. 1994. Effects of the Mesozoic Marine Revolution on the taxonomic, morphologic, and biogeographic evolution of a group: aporrhaid gastropods during the Mesozoic. Paleobiology 20:274–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, W. B., and Work, D. M., 1996. Shell morphology and suture complexity in Upper Carboniferous ammonoids. Paleobiology 22:189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1970. Arbeitskonzept zur Konstruktions-Morphologie. Lethaia 3:393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seilacher, A. 1991. Self-organizing mechanisms in morphogenesis and evolution. Pp. 251–271in Schmidt-Kittler, N. and Vogel, K., eds. Constructional morphology and evolution. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sepkoski, J. J. Jr. 1996. Competition in macroevolution: the double wedge revisited. Pp. 211–255in Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J. H., eds. Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Shubin, N., and Alberch, P. 1986. A morphogenetic approach to the origin and basic organization of the tetrapod limb. Evolutionary Biology 20:319–387.Google Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A., and Sokal, R. R. 1973. Numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Thomas, R. D. K., and Reif, W.-E. 1993. The skeleton space: a finite set of organic designs. Evolution 47:341–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, D' A. W. 1917. On growth and form. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valen, L. 1974. Multivariate structural statistics in natural history. Journal of Theoretical Biology 45:235–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, G. P., and Altenberg, L. 1996. Complex adaptations and the evolution of evolvability. Evolution 50:967–976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, P. J. 1996. Contrasting the underlying patterns of active trends in morphologic evolution. Evolution 50:990–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, P. J. 1997. Patterns of morphologic diversification among the Rostroconchia. Paleobiology 23:115–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, G., and Goodwin, B. C. 1996. Form and transformation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wills, M. A., Briggs, D. E. G., and Fortey, R. A. 1994. Disparity as an evolutionary index: a comparison of Cambrian and Recent arthropods. Paleobiology 20:93–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zelditch, M. L., and Fink, W. L. 1996. Heterochrony and heterotopy: stability and innovation in the evolution of form. Paleobiology 22:241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar