Turtles as hopeful monsters.

A recently published study on the development of the turtle shell highlights the important role that development plays in the origin of evolutionary novelties. The evolution of the highly derived adult anatomy of turtles is a prime example of a macroevolutionary event triggered by changes in early embryonic development. Early ontogenetic deviation may cause patterns of morphological change that are not compatible with scenarios of gradualistic, stepwise transformation.     

Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay

Since 150 years it is hypothesized now that evolution always proceeds in a countless number of very small steps (Darwin in On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle of life, Murray, London, 1859), a view termed “gradualism”. Few contemporary biologists will doubt that gradualism reflects the most frequent mode of evolution, but whether it is the only one remains controversial. It has been suggested that in some cases profound (“saltational”) changes may have occurred within one or a few generations of organisms. Organisms with a profound mutant phenotype that have the potential to establish a new evolutionary lineage have been termed “hopeful monsters”. Recently I have reviewed the concept of hopeful monsters in this journal mainly from a historical perspective, and provided some evidence for their past and present existence. Here I provide a brief update on data and discussions supporting the view that hopeful monsters and saltational evolution are valuable biological concepts. I suggest that far from being mutually exclusive scenarios, both gradual and saltational evolution are required to explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth. In my view, gradual changes represent the usual mode of evolution, but are unlikely to be able to explain all key innovations and changes in body plans. Saltational changes involving hopeful monsters are probably very exceptional events, but since they have the potential to establish profound novelties sometimes facilitating adaptive radiations, they are of quite some importance, even if they would occur in any evolutionary lineage less than once in a million years. From that point of view saltational changes are not more bizarre scenarios of evolutionary change than whole genome duplications, endosymbiosis or impacts of meteorites. In conclusion I argue that the complete dismissal of saltational evolution is a major historical error of evolutionary biology tracing back to Darwin that needs to be rectified.     

The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology

Hopeful monsters are organisms with a profound mutant phenotype that have the potential to establish a new evolutionary lineage. The Synthetic Theory of evolutionary biology has rejected the evolutionary relevance of hopeful monsters, but could not fully explain the mechanism and mode of macroevolution. On the other hand, several lines of evidence suggest that hopeful monsters played an important role during the origin of key innovations and novel body plans by saltational rather than gradual evolution. Homeotic mutants are identified as an especially promising class of hopeful monsters. Examples for animal and plant lineages that may have originated as hopeful monsters are given. Nevertheless, a brief review of the history of the concept of hopeful monsters reveals that it needs refinements and empirical tests if it is to be a useful addition to evolutionary biology. While evolutionary biology is traditionally zoocentric, hopeful monsters might be more relevant for plant than for animal evolution. Even though during recent years developmental genetics has provided detailed knowledge about how hopeful monsters can originate in the first place, we know almost nothing about their performance in natural populations and thus the ultimate difference between hopeful and hopeless. Studying the fitness of candidate hopeful monsters (suitable mutants with profound phenotype) in natural habitats thus remains a considerable challenge for the future.     

Reinventing Richard Goldschmidt: Reputation,Memory, and Biography

Richard Goldschmidt was one of the most controversial biologists of the mid-twentieth century. Rather than fade from view, Goldschmidt’s work and reputation has persisted in the biological community long after he has. Goldschmidt’s longevity is due in large part to how he was represented by Stephen J. Gould. When viewed from the perspective of the biographer, Gould’s revival of Goldschmidt as an evolutionary heretic in the 1970s and 1980s represents a selective reinvention of Goldschmidt that provides a contrast to other kinds of biographical commemorations by scientists.     

R. Goldschmidt and J. Huxley: creative parallelisms

The comparative analysis of scientific heritage of Richard Goldschmidt and Julian Huxley shows convincingly the resemblance of these two scientists' views over the core problems of evolutionary theory, genetics and development biology. They both contributed to developing a triad "genetics--development--evolution". The problem of a relative growth of animals was the central point in both Goldschmidt's and Huxley's works. Huxley developed a formula of the allometric growth (law of constant differential growth) while Goldschmidt was the first to draw up the broad interpretation of the consequences of that phenomenon. Both scientists belonged to initiators of development genetics and used the "non-morganian" genetics in their efforts of solving problems of macroevolution. Goldschmidt tended toward an idea of an important role of macromutation in the process of macroevolution, though Huxley adhered to more moderate views. But at the same time the concept of preadaptive mutations proposed by Huxley was close to Goldschmidt's idea of macromutants. It is shown that both scientists analyzed profoundly the changes in early stages of embryogenesis in respect to macroevolution. It is not likely to be reasonable to oppose firmly Goldschmidt's saltationism to the evolutionary synthesis of Huxley. They developed the larger biological problems in a similar way, and undoubtedly their works in the field helped to enrich the development of the views over genetics and evolution. The open-minded analysis of Goldschmidt's and Huxley's concepts leads to creating modern and up-to-date views over the theory of evolution where seemingly incompatible things go together rather well and supplement each other. Evo-Devo rediscovered Goldshmidt's Biology and Huxley's Synthesis.     

Microscopic, biochemical, and molecular characteristics of the Chilean Blob and a comparison with the remains of other sea monsters: nothing but whales

We have employed electron microscopic, biochemical, and molecular techniques to clarify the species of origin of the "Chilean Blob," the remains of a large sea creature that beached on the Chilean coast in July 2003. Electron microscopy revealed that the remains are largely composed of an acellular, fibrous network reminiscent of the collagen fiber network in whale blubber. Amino acid analyses of an acid hydrolysate indicated that the fibers are composed of 31% glycine residues and also contain hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine, all diagnostic of collagen. Using primers designed to the mitochondrial gene nad2, an 800-bp product of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was amplified from DNA that had been purified from the carcass. The DNA sequence of the PCR product was 100% identical to nad2 of sperm whale (Physeter catadon). These results unequivocally demonstrate that the Chilean Blob is the almost completely decomposed remains of the blubber layer of a sperm whale. This identification is the same as those we have obtained before from other relics such as the so-called giant octopus of St. Augustine (Florida), the Tasmanian West Coast Monster, two Bermuda Blobs, and the Nantucket Blob. It is clear now that all of these blobs of popular and cryptozoological interest are, in fact, the decomposed remains of large cetaceans.