Search for: All records

Macroevolutionary biologists have classically rejected the notion that higher-level patterns of divergence arise through microevolutionary processes acting within populations. For morphology, this consensus partly derives from the inability of quantitative genetics models to correctly predict the behaviour of evolutionary processes at the scale of millions of years. Developmental studies (evo-devo) have been proposed to reconcile micro- and macroevolution. However, there has been little progress in establishing a formal framework to apply evo-devo models of phenotypic diversification. Here we reframe this issue by asking whether using evo-devo models to quantify biological variation can improve the explanatory power of comparative models, thus helping us bridge the gap between micro- and macroevolution. We test this prediction by evaluating the evolution of primate lower molars in a comprehensive dataset densely sampled across living and extinct taxa. Our results suggest that biologically informed morphospaces alongside quantitative genetics models allow a seamless transition between the micro- and macroscales, whereas biologically uninformed spaces do not. We show that the adaptive landscape for primate teeth is corridor like, with changes in morphology within the corridor being nearly neutral. Overall, our framework provides a basis for integrating evo-devo into the modern synthesis, allowing an operational way to evaluate the ultimate causes of macroevolution. 

A central challenge for biology is to reveal how different levels of biological variation interact and shape diversity. However, recent experimental studies have indicated that prevailing models of evolution cannot readily explain the link between micro- and macroevolution at deep timescales. Here, we suggest that this paradox could be the result of a common mechanism driving a correlated pattern of evolution. We examine the proportionality between genetic variance and patterns of trait evolution in a system whose developmental processes are well understood to gain insight into how such alignment between morphological divergence and genetic variation might be maintained over macroevolutionary time. Primate molars present a model system by which to link developmental processes to evolutionary dynamics because of the biased pattern of variation that results from the developmental architecture regulating their formation. We consider how this biased variation is expressed at the population level, and how it manifests through evolution across primates. There is a strong correspondence between the macroevolutionary rates of primate molar divergence and their genetic variation. This suggests a model of evolution in which selection is closely aligned with the direction of genetic variance, phenotypic variance, and the underlying developmental architecture of anatomical traits. 

The prevalence of stasis on macroevolution has been classically taken as evidence of the strong role of stabilizing selection in constraining morphological change. Rates of evolution calculated over longer timescales tend to fall below the expected under genetic drift, suggesting that directional selection signals are erased at longer timescales. Here, we investigated the rates of morphological evolution of the skull in a fossil lineage that underwent extreme morphological modification, the glyptodonts. Contrary to what was expected, we show here that directional selection was the primary process during the evolution of glyptodonts. Furthermore, the reconstruction of selection patterns shows that traits selected to generate a glyptodont morphology are markedly different from those operating on extant armadillos. Changes in both direction and magnitude of selection are probably tied to glyptodonts' invasion of a specialist-herbivore adaptive zone. These results suggest that directional selection might have played a more critical role in the evolution of extreme morphologies than previously imagined. 

Abstract Researchers are increasingly using museum collections for taxonomy, systematics, phylogenetics, and faunal analyses, and they assume that taxonomic identifications on museum labels are correct. However, identifications may be incorrect or out of date, which could result in false conclusions from subsequent research. A recent geometric morphometrics analysis of skulls of African canids by Machado and Teta (2020) suggested that Canis lupaster soudanicus is a junior synonym of Lupulella adusta. However, the holotype of soudanicus was not measured and further investigation of the putative soudanicus specimens used in this study showed that these originally were identified as L. adusta. This original identification was confirmed by dental measurements, which also confirm that the holotype of soudanicus is Canis lupaster. Hence, soudanicus should not be synonymized with L. adusta. This example highlights the importance of careful checking of species identifications of museum specimens prior to research and, where possible, including (holo)types of taxa, before making taxonomic changes that could have important consequences for species conservation and management.