Mosaic evolution

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Mosaic evolution (or modular evolution) is the concept, mainly from

palaeontology, that evolutionary change takes place in some body parts or systems without simultaneous changes in other parts.[1] Another definition is the "evolution of characters at various rates both within and between species".[2]408 Its place in evolutionary theory comes under long-term trends or macroevolution.[2]

Background

In the

allomorphism. Organs develop at differing rhythms, as a creature grows and matures. Thus a "heterochronic clock" has three variants: 1) time, as a straight line; 2) general size, as a curved line; 3) shape, as another curved line.[3]

When a creature is advanced in size, it may develop at a smaller rate. Alternatively, it may maintain its original size or, if delayed, it may result in a larger sized creature. That is insufficient to understand heterochronic mechanism. Size must be combined with shape, so a creature may retain

paedomorphic features if advanced in shape or present recapitulatory appearance when retarded in shape. These names are not very indicative, as past theories of development were very confusing.[3]

A creature in its

neotenic features and retarded development, resulting in new features derived from an original creature only by regulatory genes. Most novel human features (compared to closely related apes) were of this nature, not implying major change in structural genes, as was classically considered.[3]

Taxonomic range

It is not claimed that this pattern is universal, but there is now a wide range of examples from many different taxa, including:

Mosaic evolution (in hominin)

Although mosaic evolution is usually seen in terms of animals such as

H. floresiensis. Group 2 relies on the different environmental impacts on the changes of a species. An example of this is the variability of bipedalism forming independently within all related species of hominin. Lastly, Group 3 involves the presence of behavior such as the human vernacular. Language is a mosaic composite of various elements working together for one specific attribute, and this is not a single trait an offspring can inherit directly.[14] In addition, it has been shown that an increase in social interactions corresponds to the evolution of human intelligence or in other words, an increase in brain size. This is provided and shown by Robin Dunbar's social brain hypothesis.[15] Moreover, this can be used as a level of transition in human evolution; of which also includes dental shapes.[16]

Brain size has shown intra-specific mosaic variability within its own development, as these differences are a result of environmental limitations. In other words, independent variability of brain structure is seen more when brain regions are unassociated from one another, ultimately, giving rise to perceptible features. When comparing current brain size and capacity between humans and chimpanzees, the ability to predict the evolutionary change between their ancestors was incredibly insightful. This granted the discovery that "local spatial interactions" were the main effect of the limitations.[17] Furthermore, alongside the cranial capacity and structure of the brain, dental shape provides another example of mosaicism.

Using fossil record, dental shape showed mosaic evolution within the canine teeth found in early hominin. Reduction of canine sizes are seen as an authentication mark of human ancestor evolution. However,

A. anamensis, discovered in Kenya, was found to have the largest mandibular canine root as part of Australopithecus evolution. This alters the authentication mark because the dimorphism between root and crown reduction has not been assessed. Although canine reduction has probably occurred prior to the evolution of Australopithecus, "changes in canine shape, in both crowns and roots, occurred in a mosaic fashion throughout the A. anamensis–afarensis lineage".[18]

See also

References

  1. ^
  2. ^ a b c Gould, S.J. 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
  3. ^ Jurmain, Robert. et al. 2008. Introduction to Physical Anthropology. Thompson Wadsworth. p479
  4. ^ Barnovsky, A.D. 1993. Mosaic evolution at population level in Microtus pennsylvanicus. In Morphological changes in Quaternary mammals of North America. ed R.A. Martin & A.D. Barnovsky. Cambridge University Press. pp24–59
  5. PMID 19828548
    .
  6. . Retrieved 6 June 2010.
  7. .
  8. .
  9. .
  10. .
  11. .
  12. .