A Particular Synthesis: Aleksandr Promptov and Speciation in Birds

During the 1930s, Aleksandr Promptov—a student of the founder of Russian population genetics Sergei Chetverikov—developed an elaborate concept of speciation in birds. He conducted field investigations aimed at giving a naturalistic content to the theoretical formulations and laboratory models of evolutionary processes advanced within the framework of population genetics, placing particular emphasis on the evolutionary role of bird behavior. Yet, although highly synthetic in combining biogeographical, taxonomic, genetic, ecological, and behavioral studies, Promptov’s speciation concept was ignored by the architects of the 1930s and 1940s evolutionary synthesis, including Theodosius Dobzhnasky, Ernst Mayr, and Julian Huxley. In this article, I argue that the story of Promptov’s concept and its reception by other evolutionists challenges the traditional presentation of the synthesis as a singular, international process of the unification of biology, which led to the creation of a universal synthetic theory of evolution. It suggests that during the same time period, within largely the same theoretical framework, there were multiple, intrinsically local, attempts at creating synthetic evolutionary concepts. These concepts were often quite particular—in their taxonomic applicability, in their explanations of various evolutionary factors, and in the range of disciplines unified in the synthesis. Apparently, these concepts ran contrary to the universal aspirations of the synthesis architects, and as a result, they were disregarded, first by the architects and later by historians of the evolutionary synthesis.     

The Price equation framework to study disease within-host evolution

The evolution of infectious diseases is known to affect epidemiological dynamics, but, for some viruses and bacteria, this evolution also takes place inside a host during the course of an infection. I develop an original approach to study intrahost evolutionary dynamics of quantitative disease traits. This approach can be expressed mathematically using the ‘Price equation’ framework recently developed in evolutionary epidemiology. This framework combines population genetics and within-host population dynamics models to identify trade-offs that affect disease intrahost evolution and to predict short-term evolutionary dynamics of life-history traits. I show that this can be applied to study the evolution of viruses competing for host cells or to study the coevolution between parasites and the immune system of the host. This framework can also easily incorporate experimental data. Studying intrahost evolutionary dynamics provides insight at the within-host level, because it allows us to better understand the course of chronic infections, and at the epidemiological level, because it helps to study multi-scale evolutionary processes. This framework can be used to address important biological issues, from immune escape to disease evolutionary response to treatments.     

On the origin of the typological/population distinction in Ernst Mayr’s changing views of species, 1942–1959

Ernst Mayr’s typological/population distinction is a conceptual thread that runs throughout much of his work in systematics, evolutionary biology, and the history and philosophy of biology. Mayr himself claims that typological thinking originated in the philosophy of Plato and that population thinking was first introduced by Charles Darwin and field naturalists. A more proximate origin of the typological/population thinking, however, is found in Mayr’s own work on species. This paper traces the antecedents of the typological/population distinction by detailing Mayr’s changing views of species between 1942 and 1955. During this period, Mayr struggles to refine the biological species concept in the face of tensions that exist between studying species locally and studying them as geographically distributed collections of variable populations. The typological/population distinction is first formulated in 1955, when Mayr generalizes from the type concept versus the population concept in taxonomy to typological versus population thinking in biology more generally. Mayr’s appeal to the more general distinction between typological and population thinking coincides with the waning status of natural history and evolutionary biology that occurs in the early 1950s and the distinction plays an important role in Mayr’s efforts to legitimate the natural historical sciences.     

A theoretical framework for defining some concepts in evolution.

We present a theoretical framework for biological evolution with the intention of giving precise mathematical definitions of some concepts in evolutionary biology such as fitness, evolutionary pressure, specialization and natural selection. In this framework, such concepts are identified with well-known mathematical terms within the theory of dynamical systems. We also discuss some more general implications in evolution; for instance, the fact that our model naturally exhibits a frequency spectrum of the type 1/f for low frequencies of evolutionary events.     

Biological applications of the theory of birth-and-death processes

In this review, we discuss applications of the theory of birth-and-death processes to problems in biology, primarily, those of evolutionary genomics. The mathematical principles of the theory of these processes are briefly described. Birth-and-death processes, with some straightforward additions such as innovation, are a simple, natural and formal framework for modeling a vast variety of biological processes such as population dynamics, speciation, genome evolution, including growth of paralogous gene families and horizontal gene transfer and somatic evolution of cancers. We further describe how empirical data, e.g. distributions of paralogous gene family size, can be used to choose the model that best reflects the actual course of evolution among different versions of birth-death-and-innovation models. We conclude that birth-and-death processes, thanks to their mathematical transparency, flexibility and relevance to fundamental biological processes, are going to be an indispensable mathematical tool for the burgeoning field of systems biology.     

Georges Teissier (1900–1972) and the Modern Synthesis in France

This Perspectives is devoted to the ideas of the French zoologist Georges Teissier about the mechanisms of evolution and the relations between micro- and macroevolution. Working in an almost universally neo-Lamarckian context in France, Teissier was one of the very few Darwinians there at the time of the evolutionary synthesis. The general atmosphere of French zoology during the 1920s and the 1930s will first be recalled, to understand the specific conditions in which Teissier became a zoologist. After a brief overview of his joint work with Philippe L’Héritier on the experimental genetics of Drosophila, this article describes the ways Teissier, during the 1950s, conceptualized the mechanisms that could allow for macroevolutionary transitions.IT is usually acknowledged that France did not significantly participate in the elaboration of 20th century evolutionary theory, often designated The Modern Synthesis. In their classical book on the history of the synthesis, Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine devoted a whole—nonetheless small—chapter to this specific issue (Mayr and Provine 1998, pp. 309–328). Mayr clearly stated that “France is the only major scientific nation that did not contribute significantly to the evolutionary synthesis” (Mayr 1998, p. 309). In the absence of a French architect of the synthesis, Mayr and Provine asked Ernest Boesiger, a Swiss population geneticist and a former student of Georges Teissier, to tell the story of what had happened in French biology at the time of the evolutionary synthesis. Boesiger, who died in 1975, wrote a paper in 1974 that provided the firm basis of the chapter. In very strong terms, he depicted French biology as “a kind of living fossil in the rejection of modern evolutionary theories” (Boesiger 1998, p. 309). He insisted on the fact that, even in 1974, most French biologists and philosophers were still reluctant to accept Darwinism. As regards the period of the 1930s, Boesiger was able to think of only two exceptions: Georges Teissier and Philippe L’Héritier. He then referred to their joint research in population genetics, which was based on the new technique of the population cages with the species Drosophila melanogaster, and listed their contributions to this new discipline.If Teissier and L’Héritier’s works on Drosophila are nowadays more widely recognized than in 1974, due in particular to the efforts of Jean Gayon and Michel Veuille (Gayon and Veuille 2001), this recognition could have as an unintended consequence the reduction of both Teissier and L’Héritier to being simply the inventors of a useful technique, namely the population cages (see especially how Mayr presented their work in his other classical book, Mayr 1982, p. 574), or as the founders of a French school of population geneticists (Gayon and Veuille 2001). The aim of this article is to reevaluate the way Georges Teissier (1900–1972) conceived Darwinian natural selection not only as an important mechanism for evolution at the population level but more fundamentally as a general key for the unification of biology, exactly as Julian Huxley or Ernst Mayr did during the same period (1930–1970). However, starting in the early 1950s, Teissier went on to conceive a very specific understanding of the evolutionary synthesis.In this article, I will first describe the general atmosphere of evolutionary issues in French biology at the time when Teissier started working as a zoologist, to understand against what he developed his joint research program with L’Héritier and afterward his general conceptions about evolution. During the 1930s and the 1940s, only a very few scientists in France could be seen as Darwinians. In addition to Teissier and L’Héritier, one may also consider Marcel Prenant, Boris Ephrussi, and the mathematician Gustave Malécot. Building on Jean Gayon and Michel Veuille’s work, I will then give a quick overview of L’Héritier and Teissier’s most important achievements in the field of population genetics. In the third part, I will discuss the discovery made by Teissier and L’Héritier of a case of cytoplasmic inheritance in Drosophila. This unexpected finding led them into the field of non-Mendelian heredity. I will then develop in detail the way Teissier finally went on to conceive the relation between microevolution and macroevolution, in light of the general context of French biology and of the development of the field of cytoplasmic inheritance.     

UNVEILing connections between genotype,phenotype, and fitness in natural populations

Understanding the links between genetic variation and fitness in natural populations is a central goal of evolutionary genetics. This monumental task spans the fields of classical and molecular genetics, population genetics, biochemistry, physiology, developmental biology, and ecology. Advances to our molecular and developmental toolkits are facilitating integrative approaches across these traditionally separate fields, providing a more complete picture of the genotype‐phenotype map in natural and non‐model systems. Here, we summarize research presented at the first annual symposium of the UNVEIL Network, an NSF‐funded collaboration between the University of Montana and the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, which took place from the 1st to the 3rd of June, 2018. We discuss how this body of work advances basic evolutionary science, what it implies for our ability to predict evolutionary change, and how it might inform novel conservation strategies.     

Darwinian adaptation,population genetics and the streetcar theory of evolution

 This paper investigates the problem of how to conceive a robust theory of phenotypic adaptation in non-trivial models of evolutionary biology. A particular effort is made to develop a foundation of this theory in the context of n-locus population genetics. Therefore, the evolution of phenotypic traits is considered that are coded for by more than one gene. The potential for epistatic gene interactions is not a priori excluded. Furthermore, emphasis is laid on the intricacies of frequency-dependent selection. It is first discussed how strongly the scope for phenotypic adaptation is restricted by the complex nature of ‘reproduction mechanics’ in sexually reproducing diploid populations. This discussion shows that one can easily lose the traces of Darwinism in n-locus models of population genetics. In order to retrieve these traces, the outline of a new theory is given that I call ‘streetcar theory of evolution’. This theory is based on the same models that geneticists have used in order to demonstrate substantial problems with the ‘adaptationist programme’. However, these models are now analyzed differently by including thoughts about the evolutionary removal of genetic constraints. This requires consideration of a sufficiently wide range of potential mutant alleles and careful examination of what to consider as a stable state of the evolutionary process. A particular notion of stability is introduced in order to describe population states that are phenotypically stable against the effects of all mutant alleles that are to be expected in the long-run. Surprisingly, a long-term stable state can be characterized at the phenotypic level as a fitness maximum, a Nash equilibrium or an ESS. The paper presents these mathematical results and discusses – at unusual length for a mathematical journal – their fundamental role in our current understanding of evolution. Received 22 April 1994; received in revised form 10 July 1995     

Rupert Riedl and the re-synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology: body plans and evolvability

This paper reviews the scientific career of Rupert Riedl and his contributions to evolutionary biology. Rupert Riedl, a native of Vienna, Austria, began his career as a marine biologist who made important contributions to the systematics and anatomy of major invertebrate groups, as well as to marine ecology. When he assumed a professorship at the University of North Carolina in 1968, the predominant thinking in evolutionary biology focused on population genetics, to the virtual exclusion of most of the rest of biology. In this atmosphere Riedl developed his "systems theory" of evolution, which emphasizes the role of functional and developmental integration in limiting and enabling adaptive evolution by natural selection. The main objective of this theory is to account for the observed patterns of morphological evolution, such as the conservation of body plans. In contrast to other "alternative" theories of evolution, Riedl never denied the importance of natural selection as the driving force of evolution, but thought it necessary to contextualize natural selection with the organismal boundary conditions of adaptation. In Riedl's view development is the most important factor besides natural selection in shaping the pattern and processes of morphological evolution.     

Styles of scientific reasoning: Adolf Remane (1898–1976) and the German evolutionary synthesis

Adolf Remane is widely considered to have been one of the most influential German zoologists of the 20th Century, yet Ernst Mayr persistently characterized him as an idealistic morphologist, that is, a typologist unable to understand population genetics or indeed Darwinian theory. This stands in sharp contrast to Mayr's praise for Bernhard Rensch as one of the most important German contributors to the Modern Synthesis of evolutionary theory. Remane's style of scientific reasoning is analysed in his writings on microsystematics, ecology, comparative morphology and phylogenetics and found to be highly consistent throughout these varied fields of research, while differing fundamentally from the eminently statistical foundations of both population genetics and natural selection theory that were embraced by Mayr. A comparative analysis of Rensch's understanding of science in general, and biology in particular, shows him to share core values with Remane, both authors rooted in the Mandarin tradition of the German professoriate. Biographical and socio‐political factors appear to have influenced Mayr's contrasting perception of Remane and Rensch, one that would influence later biologists and historians of science.     

Embryology and evolution 1920-1960: worlds apart?

During the early part of the 20th century most embryologists were skeptical about the significance of Mendelian genetics to embryological development. A few embryologists began to study the developmental effects of Mendelian genes around 1940. Such work was a necessary step on the path to modern developmental biology. It occurred during the time when the Evolutionary Synthesis was integrating Mendelian and population genetics into a unified evolutionary theory. Why did the first embryological geneticists begin their study at that particular time? One possible explanation is that developmental genetics was a potential avenue of alliance between embryology and evolutionary biology, two fields that had been separated since the 1890s. To assess this possible motive it is necessary to explore the methodological contrasts that obtained between embryology and both Mendelian-chromosomal genetics and neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. Some of these contrasts persist to the present day.     

“The Theory was Beautiful Indeed”: Rise,Fall and Circulation of Maximizing Methods in Population Genetics (1930–1980)

Describing the theoretical population geneticists of the 1960s, Joseph Felsenstein reminisced: “our central obsession was finding out what function evolution would try to maximize. Population geneticists used to think, following Sewall Wright, that mean relative fitness, W, would be maximized by natural selection” (Felsenstein 2000). The present paper describes the genesis, diffusion and fall of this “obsession”, by giving a biography of the mean fitness function in population genetics. This modeling method devised by Sewall Wright in the 1930s found its heyday in the late 1950s and early 1960s, in the wake of Motoo Kimura’s and Richard Lewontin’s works. It seemed a reliable guide in the mathematical study of deterministic effects (the study of natural selection in populations of infinite size, with no drift), leading to powerful generalizations presenting law-like properties. Progress in population genetics theory, it then seemed, would come from the application of this method to the study of systems with several genes. This ambition came to a halt in the context of the influential objections made by the Australian mathematician Patrick Moran in 1963. These objections triggered a controversy between mathematically- and biologically-inclined geneticists, with affected both the formal standards and the aims of population genetics as a science. Over the course of the 1960s, the mean fitness method withered with the ambition of developing the deterministic theory. The mathematical theory became increasingly complex. Kimura re-focused his modeling work on the theory of random processes; as a result of his computer simulations, Lewontin became the staunchest critic of maximizing principles in evolutionary biology. The mean fitness method then migrated to other research areas, being refashioned and used in evolutionary quantitative genetics and behavioral ecology.     

The proximate/ultimate distinction in the multiple careers of Ernst Mayr

Ernst Mayr's distinction between “ultimate” and “proximate” causes is justly considered a major contribution to philosophy of biology. But how did Mayr come to this “philosophical” distinction, and what role did it play in his earlier “scientific” work? I address these issues by dividing Mayr's work into three careers or phases: 1) Mayr the naturalist/researcher, 2) Mayr the representative of and spokesman for evolutionary biology and systematics, and more recently 3) Mayr the historian and philosopher of biology. If we want to understand the role of the proximate/ultimate distinction in Mayr's more recent career as a philosopher and historian, then it helps to consider hisearlier use of the distinction, in the course of his research, and in his promotion of the professions of evolutionary biology and systematics. I believe that this approach would also shed light on some other important “philosophical” positions that Mayr has defended, including the distinction between “essentialism: and “population thinking.”     

The morphogenesis of evolutionary developmental biology

The early studies of evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) come from several sources. Tributaries flowing into Evo-Devo came from such disciplines as embryology, developmental genetics, evolutionary biology, ecology, paleontology, systematics, medical embryology and mathematical modeling. This essay will trace one of the major pathways, that from evolutionary embryology to Evo-Devo and it will show the interactions of this pathway with two other sources of Evo-Devo: ecological developmental biology and medical developmental biology. Together, these three fields are forming a more inclusive evolutionary developmental biology that is revitalizing and providing answers to old and important questions involving the formation of biodiversity on Earth. The phenotype of Evo-Devo is limited by internal constraints on what could be known given the methods and equipment of the time and it has been framed by external factors that include both academic and global politics.     

Population genetics of fungal diseases of plants

Although parasitism is one of the most common lifestyles among eukaryotes, population genetics on parasites lag for behind those on free-living organisms. Yet, the advent of molecular markers offers great tools for studying important processes, such as dispersal, mating systems, adaptation to host and speciation. Here we highlight some studies that used molecular markers to address questions about the population genetics of fungal (including oomycetes) plant pathogens. We conclude that population genetics approaches have provided tremendous insights into the biology of a few fungal parasites and warrant more wide use in phytopathology. However, theoretical advances are badly needed to best apply the existing methods. Fungi are of prime interest not only because they are major parasites of plants and animals, but they also constitute tractable and highly useful models for understanding evolutionary processes. We hope that the emerging field of fungal evolution will attract more evolutionary biologists in the near future.     

The contribution of statistical physics to evolutionary biology

Evolutionary biology shares many concepts with statistical physics: both deal with populations, whether of molecules or organisms, and both seek to simplify evolution in very many dimensions. Often, methodologies have undergone parallel and independent development, as with stochastic methods in population genetics. Here, we discuss aspects of population genetics that have embraced methods from physics: non-equilibrium statistical mechanics, travelling waves and Monte-Carlo methods, among others, have been used to study polygenic evolution, rates of adaptation and range expansions. These applications indicate that evolutionary biology can further benefit from interactions with other areas of statistical physics; for example, by following the distribution of paths taken by a population through time.     

MATHEMATICS OF KIN‐ AND GROUP‐SELECTION: FORMALLY EQUIVALENT?

Evolutionary game theory is a general mathematical framework that describes the evolution of social traits. This framework forms the basis of many multilevel selection models and is also frequently used to model evolutionary dynamics on networks. Kin selection, which was initially restricted to describe social interactions between relatives, has also led to a broader mathematical approach, inclusive fitness, that can not only describe social evolution among relatives, but also in group structured populations or on social networks. It turns out that the underlying mathematics of game theory is fundamentally different from the approach of inclusive fitness. Thus, both approaches—evolutionary game theory and inclusive fitness—can be helpful to understand the evolution of social traits in group structured or spatially extended populations.     

Developing a Curriculum for Evolutionary Medicine: Case Studies of Scurvy and Female Reproductive Tract Cancers

Most early evolutionary thinkers came from medicine, yet evolution has had a checkered history in medical education. It is only in the last few decades that serious efforts have begun to be made to integrate evolutionary biology into the medical curriculum. However, it is not clear when, where (independently or as part of preclinical or clinical teaching courses) and, most importantly, how should medical students learn the basic principles of evolutionary biology applied to medicine, known today as evolutionary or Darwinian medicine. Most clinicians are ill-prepared to teach evolutionary biology and most evolutionary biologists ill-equipped to formulate clinical examples. Yet, if evolutionary science is to have impact on clinical thought, then teaching material that embeds evolution within the clinical framework must be developed. In this paper, we use two clinical case studies to demonstrate how such may be used to teach evolutionary medicine to medical students in a way that is approachable as well as informative and relevant.