Chironomid midges: a forgotten model of developmental biology research

For more than a century, embryologists have been exploring various model systems to gain insights into developmental processes. This article presents an overview of the role of chironomid midges in embryology research since their introduction as model organisms in the 19th century. We present the vestiges of bibliography since the days of Weismann (1834–1914), who raised preliminary queries to unravel many unique features of insect embryogenesis using midges as a crucible. Unfortunately, over the years, chironomid midges got lost into obscurity as a model for developmental biology, which is evident from the paucity of developmental biology–related literature on midges in the past decades. Through this essay, the authors intend to share reminiscences of the heydays of chironomid research with the wider community of zoologists with an aim of reviving chironomid embryology. Midges not only possess the basic qualities essential for an ideal model system, but being one of the ancestral dipteran stocks, they can also prove an excellent test system for evo‐devo, transgenetic, and embryogenomic investigations that utilize methodologies at the interface of developmental biology and high‐throughput molecular genetic and genomics approach. An introspection of re‐introducing chironomid midgesas model system will be rewarding for the contemporary developmental biologists.     

Genes,development, and evolvability in primate evolution

Development is the process whereby a fertilized cell becomes a mature individual. In metazoans, this complex process involves the differentiation of somatic cells into committed cell and tissue types; the organization and migration of cells, tissues, and anatomical structures relative to one another; and growth. 1 Development matters to evolution in two ways. First, development carries out heritable genetic instructions contained in zygotes to produce functioning yet phenotypically varied individuals. At the population level, this variation in form and function among individuals provides the “raw material” for evolution. Second, the mechanisms of development influence the magnitude, direction, and interdependence of heritable phenotypic variation among traits. Together with phenomena such as genetic drift, organismal development determines the raw material available to selection and thus influences the rate and direction of phenotypic evolution. 2 , 3     

How reversible is development? Contrast between developmentally plastic gain and loss of segments in barnacle feeding legs

Segmented organisms and structures have fascinated biologists since William Bateson first described homeotic transformation and recognized the fundamental evolutionary significance of segmental organization. On evolutionary time scales, segments may be lost or gained during major morphological transitions. But how segment loss compares to gain on developmental time scales remains mysterious. Here, we examine the ease of reverse development (opposite to normal growth) by comparing developmentally plastic leg segment loss versus gain in individual barnacles transplanted between different water flow conditions. Plastic segment addition occurred rapidly (one to two molts) and exclusively near the limb base. In contrast, developmentally plastic segment loss—the first observation in any arthropod—took much longer (>10 molts) and, remarkably, occurred throughout the leg (23% of losses occurred mid‐limb). Segment loss was not a simple reversal of segment addition. Intersegmental membranes fused first, followed by elimination of duplicate tendons and gradual shortening (but not loss) of duplicate setae. Setal loss, in particular, may impose a severe developmental constraint on arthropod segment fusion. This asymmetric developmental potential (time lag of phenotypic response)—plastic segment addition (amplified normal development) is faster and more orderly than segment loss (reverse development)—adds a new dimension to models of developmental plasticity because the cost of making a developmental mistake in one direction will be greater than in the other.     

Deconstructing morphology

Scholtz, G. 2010. Deconstructing morphology. —Acta Zoologica (Stockholm) 91 : 44–63 Morphology as the science of form is, in particular, related to the overwhelming diversity of animal forms. Due to its long pre‐Darwinian tradition, organismic morphology is partly burdened by ahistorical typological views. On the other hand, the study of organismic form has always implied concepts of transformation, which helped to pave the way for evolutionary theories. This contradictory history and the fact that we need words to describe organismic form lead in many cases to morphological concepts implying a mixture of structural, functional, developmental, ecological, typological, and evolutionary aspects in current morphological approaches. Because these mixed views lead to contradictory and misleading interpretations of animal form, I stress the need to deconstruct morphological concepts at all levels. I propose a morphology that analyses transformation of animal forms strictly at the structural level in combination with genealogical thinking. Function and other biological aspects of form should be considered in an independent second analytical step. A comparative pattern approach, including developmental patterns, of animal structure in an evolutionary framework allows for the analysis of morphological change, in particular, phylogenetic reconstructions, homology assessment, and the recognition of evolutionary independent morphological units.     

Evolutionary stasis in Euphorbiaceae pollen: selection and constraints

Although much attention has been paid to the role of stabilizing selection, empirical analyses testing the role of developmental constraints in evolutionary stasis remain rare, particularly for plants. This topic is studied here with a focus on the evolution of a pollen ontogenetic feature, the last points of callose deposition (LPCD) pattern, involved in the determination of an adaptive morphological pollen character (aperture pattern). The LPCD pattern exhibits a low level of evolution in eudicots, as compared to the evolution observed in monocots. Stasis in this pattern might be explained by developmental constraints expressed during male meiosis (microsporogenesis) or by selective pressures expressed through the adaptive role of the aperture pattern. Here, we demonstrate that the LPCD pattern is conserved in Euphorbiaceae s.s. and that this conservatism is primarily due to selective pressures. A phylogenetic association was found between the putative removal of selective pressures on pollen morphology after the origin of inaperturate pollen, and the appearance of variation in microsporogenesis and in the resulting LPCD pattern, suggesting that stasis was due to these selective pressures. However, even in a neutral context, variation in microsporogenesis was biased. This should therefore favour the appearance of some developmental and morphological phenotypes rather than others.