A guide to the nomenclature of heterochrony
- 1 January 1986
- journal article
- society records-and-activities
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Journal of Paleontology
- Vol. 60 (1), 4-13
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022336000021454
Abstract
Since Haeckel's Biogenetic Law (‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny’) fell into disrepute early in the twentieth century, there has been intermittent debate, particularly in recent years (de Beer, 1958; Gould, 1977; Alberch et al., 1979; Alberch, 1980; Bonner, 1982; McNamara, 1982a), on the nature of the relationship between an individual's development and phylogenetic history. Important questions under discussion include the following: If a strong causal relationship does exist, what is its nature? How does it work? What is its importance in evolution? How can it be recognized in the fossil record?Keywords
This publication has 25 references indexed in Scilit:
- Titanothere Allometry, Heterochrony, and Biomechanics: Revising an Evolutionary ClassicEvolution, 1985
- Control of Larval Growth Variation in a Population of Pseudacris triseriata (Anura: hylidae)Evolution, 1981
- Ontogenesis and Morphological DiversificationAmerican Zoologist, 1980
- Ontogeny, Phylogeny, Paleontology, and the Biogenetic LawSystematic Zoology, 1978
- A unity underlying the different zebra striping patternsJournal of Zoology, 1977
- ALLOMETRY AND SIZE IN ONTOGENY AND PHYLOGENYBiological Reviews, 1966
- Evolution in trilobitesQuarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 1959
- Phyletic Size Increase, An Important Trend Illustrated by Fossil InvertebratesEvolution, 1949
- CEPHALIC SUTURES AND THEIR BEARING ON CURRENT CLASSIFICATIONS OF TRILOBITESBiological Reviews, 1936
- On the Evolution of Zaphrentis delanouei in Lower Carboniferous TimesQuarterly Journal of the Geological Society, 1910