Evolution of eye development in arthropods: phylogenetic aspects

The architecture of the adult arthropod visual system for many decades has contributed important character sets that are useful for reconstructing the phylogenetic relationships within this group. In the current paper we explore whether aspects of eye development can also contribute new arguments to the discussion of arthropod phylogeny. We review the current knowledge on eye formation in Trilobita, Xiphosura, Myriapoda, Hexapoda, and Crustacea. All euarthropod taxa share the motif of a proliferation zone at the side of the developing eye field that contributes new eye elements. Two major variations of this common motif can be distinguished: 1. The “row by row type” of Trilobita, Xiphosura, and Diplopoda. In this type, the proliferation zone at the side of the eye field generates new single, large elements with a high and variable cell number, which are added to the side of the eye and extend rows of existing eye elements. Cell proliferation, differentiation and ommatidial assembly seem to be separated in time but spatially confined within the precursors of the optic units which grow continuously once they are formed (intercalary growth). 2. The “morphogenetic front type” of eye formation in Crustacea + Hexapoda (Tetraconata). In this type, there is a clear temporal and spatial separation of the formation and differentiation processes. Proliferation and the initial steps of pattern formation take place in linear and parallel mitotic and morphogenetic fronts (the mitotic waves and the morphogenetic furrow/transition zone) and numerous but small new elements with a strictly fixed set of cells are added to the eye field. In Tetraconata, once formed, the individual ommatidia do not grow any more. Scutigeromorph chilopods take an intermediate position between these two major types. We suggest that the “row by row type” as seen in Trilobita, Xiphosura and Diplopoda represents the plesiomorphic developmental mode of eye formation from the euarthropod ground pattern whereas the “morphogenetic front type” is apomorphic for the Tetraconata. Our data are discussed with regard to two competing hypotheses on arthropod phylogeny, the “Tracheata” versus “Tetraconata” concept. The modes of eye development in Myriapoda is more parsimonious to explain in the Tetraconata hypothesis so that our data raise the possibility that myriapod eyes may not be secondarily reconstructed insect eyes as the prevailing hypothesis suggests.     

ftz evolution: findings, hypotheses and speculations (response to DOI 10.1002/bies.201100019)

In a recent paper, Merabet and Hudry discuss models explaining the functional evolution of fushi tarazu (ftz) from an ancestral homeotic to a pair-rule segmentation gene in Drosophila. As most of the experimental work underlying these models comes from our research, we wish to reply to Merabet and Hudry providing an explanation of the experimental approaches and logical framework underlying them. We review experimental data that support our hypotheses and discuss misconceptions in the literature. We emphasize that the change in ftz function required changes in both expression pattern and protein function and review the evidence that these functional changes involved a switch in cofactor-interaction motifs during arthropod radiations. While agreeing with Merabet and Hudry that protein context likely contributes to Ftz function, we argue that until supporting evidence for alternative mechanisms is obtained, the role of cofactor-interaction motifs in driving a functional switch remains compelling.     

Intraspecific difference among herbivore lineages and their host‐plant specialization drive the strength of trophic cascades

Trophic cascades – the indirect effect of predators on non‐adjacent lower trophic levels – are important drivers of the structure and dynamics of ecological communities. However, the influence of intraspecific trait variation on the strength of trophic cascade remains largely unexplored, which limits our understanding of the mechanisms underlying ecological networks. Here we experimentally investigated how intraspecific difference among herbivore lineages specialized on different host plants influences trophic cascade strength in a terrestrial tri‐trophic system. We found that the occurrence and strength of the trophic cascade are strongly influenced by herbivores’ lineage and host‐plant specialization but are not associated with density‐dependent effects mediated by the growth rate of herbivore populations. Our findings stress the importance of intraspecific heterogeneities and evolutionary specialization as drivers of trophic cascade strength and underline that intraspecific variation should not be overlooked to decipher the joint influence of evolutionary and ecological factors on the functioning of multi‐trophic interactions.     

How a growing organismal perspective is adding new depth to integrative studies of morphological evolution

Over the past half century, the field of Evolutionary Developmental Biology, or Evo‐devo, has integrated diverse fields of biology into a more synthetic understanding of morphological diversity. This has resulted in numerous insights into how development can evolve and reciprocally influence morphological evolution, as well as generated several novel theoretical areas. Although comparative by default, there remains a great gap in our understanding of adaptive morphological diversification and how developmental mechanisms influence the shape and pattern of phenotypic variation. Herein we highlight areas of research that are in the process of filling this void, and areas, if investigated more fully, that will add new insights into the diversification of morphology. At the centre of our discussion is an explicit awareness of organismal biology. Here we discuss an organismal framework that is supported by three distinct pillars. First, there is a need for Evo‐devo to adopt a high‐resolution phylogenetic approach in the study of morphological variation and its developmental underpinnings. Secondly, we propose that to understand the dynamic nature of morphological evolution, investigators need to give more explicit attention to the processes that generate evolutionarily relevant variation at the population level. Finally, we emphasize the need to address more thoroughly the processes that structure variation at micro‐ and macroevolutionary scales including modularity, morphological integration, constraint, and plasticity. We illustrate the power of these three pillars using numerous examples from both invertebrates and vertebrates to emphasize that many of these approaches are already present within the field, but have yet to be formally integrated into many research programs. We feel that the most exciting new insights will come where the traditional experimental approaches to Evo‐devo are integrated more thoroughly with the principles of this organismal framework.