03.01.2015 Views

Terrestrial Palaeoecology and Global Change

Terrestrial Palaeoecology and Global Change

Terrestrial Palaeoecology and Global Change

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

320 Valentin A. Krassilov. <strong>Terrestrial</strong> <strong>Palaeoecology</strong><br />

pre-existing pattern of ecotypic differentiation. In fluctuant ecosystems, the morphological<br />

disparity increases through developmental acceleration rendering a macromutaional phenotypic<br />

effect (Goldschmidt, 1940). Subsequent splitting of macropolymorphic species may<br />

result in superspecies configurations (Krassilov, 1989b).<br />

This model is further discussed in relation to genetic assimilation (VIII.6) <strong>and</strong> biospheric<br />

crises (IX.9.3).<br />

VIII.6. Genetic assimilation<br />

In the 1890’s-1920’s, many palaeontologists shared orthogenetic views later sunk into<br />

oblivion due to the fierce opposition of neo-Darwinians. In essence, the orthogenetic<br />

theory stated that closely related species represent successive stages of individual development<br />

(Eimer, 1898). Evidence in favour of orthogenesis came from all branches of<br />

palaeontological research (e.g., Hyatt, 1986; Cope, 1887; Plate, 1920). Classical examples<br />

are furnished by the evolutionary successions of ammonoids, horses, humans, etc.<br />

In the early l<strong>and</strong> plants, the progressive webbing of syntelomic branchlets on the way to<br />

leaf blades <strong>and</strong> a concurrent differentiation of vascular system are likewise orthogenetic,<br />

fixed at different developmental stages over the arrays of co-existing forms.<br />

Morphological modes of such developments were thoroughly investigated (Severtsov,<br />

1939; De Beer, 1940; Rensch, 1954), yet the genetic mechanisms remained obscure<br />

until, in the 1970’s, a correlation was revealed between the interpopulation variability in<br />

developmental traits (the emergence time, growth rates, metamorphosis, germination,<br />

etc.) <strong>and</strong> the differences in the genomic structures, in particular, the repetitive DNA<br />

(Schroeter & Hewitt, 1974, John & King, 1977; Beverstock et al., 1976; Lubs et al.,<br />

1977). Fast adaptive shifts were related to a repatternings of repetitive DNA (Bernardi<br />

et al., 1976; Mukai & Cockerham, 1977) causing developmental heterochronies. Certain<br />

genetic polymorphisms were interpreted as paedomorphic, a retention of juvenile isozymes<br />

patterns in the adults (Maters & Holmes, 1975; Nair et al., 1977).<br />

Geographic clines of polymorphic traits were shown to conform to their developmental<br />

sequences. A correlation of developmental heterochronies at morphological <strong>and</strong> molecular<br />

levels was extended from conspecific populations to closely related species in<br />

various groups of plants <strong>and</strong> animals (Laird & McCarthy, 1969, Maher & Cox, 1973;<br />

Narayan & Rees, 1977; Vladychenskaya & Kedrova, 1977; Buongiorno-Nardelli et al.,<br />

1977, Macgregor & Andrews, 1977) thus supporting the orthogenetic model.<br />

A denial of orthogenesis pertains to the difficulties it poses for the conventional mutation/selection<br />

mechanism. The genetic differences between local ecotypes are conventionally<br />

ascribed either to drift or selection, or else to recruitment of pre-adapted<br />

genotypes from a polymorphous source. However, the differentiation is too rapid for<br />

such mechanisms to play a substantial role, suggesting a more direct adaptive response<br />

either through an effect on intercellular environment modifying the transcriptional activ-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!