Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Mosaic evolution

Mosaic evolution refers to the process by which different traits, body parts, or functional systems within an organism or lineage evolve independently and at varying rates, often resulting in a mosaic-like combination of ancestral and derived characteristics rather than uniform change across the entire organism.^[1]^[2] The term was coined by embryologist Gavin de Beer in 1954 to describe the mix of primitive reptilian and advanced avian features observed in the fossil Archaeopteryx, highlighting how evolutionary transitions can produce transitional forms with disparate trait developments.^[3] It gained prominence in paleontology and anthropology, particularly through Wilfrid Le Gros Clark's 1959 application to human evolution, where he noted the asynchronous development of traits like bipedalism and increased brain size.^[3] This concept underscores the modular nature of evolution, influenced by factors such as genetic, developmental, and ecological constraints that allow semi-autonomous modules—like specific cranial regions or locomotor systems—to evolve at different paces.^[2] In hominin evolution, mosaic patterns are evident over millions of years, with early Pliocene adaptations in energetics and bipedal locomotion (e.g., *Australopithecus* afarensis around 3.7 million years ago) preceding later Plio-Pleistocene innovations in technology, such as stone tool use at 3.3 million years ago, and Quaternary advancements in cognition and symbolic behavior.^[1] Similarly, in avian crania, developmental modules derived from distinct embryonic tissues, like the rostrum and cranial vault, exhibit accelerated evolutionary rates and greater morphological disparity compared to more integrated regions, as seen in clades such as parrots (Psittaciformes) and falcons (Falconiformes).^[2] These examples illustrate how mosaic evolution facilitates adaptation to diverse selective pressures without requiring coordinated changes across the entire phenotype. The implications of mosaic evolution extend to understanding macroevolutionary dynamics, revealing that major transitions—such as the emergence of modern humans—arise from cumulative microevolutionary shifts rather than singular events, and it challenges linear models of progression by emphasizing the hierarchical and modular structure of organismal development.^[1]^[2] This framework has broad applications across taxa, informing studies on disparity, integration, and the tempo of evolutionary change in the fossil record.^[3]

Definition and History

Definition

Mosaic evolution refers to the evolutionary process in which changes occur in certain body parts, systems, or traits at different rates or times, independent of others within a lineage, resulting in a patchwork of ancestral and derived features.^[4] This pattern arises from the modular organization of organisms, where developmental pathways for different traits are sufficiently decoupled to allow semi-independent evolution.^[5] In contrast to uniform evolution, which posits synchronized, gradual changes across all traits in a lineage, mosaic evolution emphasizes the non-uniform progression of morphological and functional elements, often driven by varying selective pressures or developmental constraints on specific modules.^[5] This modularity facilitates evolutionary flexibility, as alterations in one trait do not necessarily propagate to others, enabling adaptive responses that are piecemeal rather than holistic.^[4] As a key pattern in macroevolution, mosaic evolution manifests over geological timescales through the accumulation of such decoupled changes, distinguishing it from microevolutionary processes that typically involve more uniform shifts within populations.^[5] Central to this phenomenon are processes like heterochrony, which involves shifts in the timing or rate of developmental events; allometry, describing how shape varies with size during growth; and paedomorphosis, the retention of juvenile traits into adulthood, all of which contribute to the independent trajectories of traits.^[5]

Historical Development

The concept of mosaic evolution emerged in the mid-20th century as an extension of Neo-Darwinian principles, which integrated Charles Darwin's emphasis on gradual, uniform evolutionary change with Mendelian genetics during the Modern Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s. While Darwin's framework in On the Origin of Species (1859) posited steady adaptation through natural selection, early paleontologists recognized that traits often evolved at disparate rates, challenging strict gradualism. This non-uniformity became explicit in British embryologist Gavin de Beer's 1954 analysis of Archaeopteryx, where he coined the term "mosaic evolution" to describe the fossil's patchwork of reptilian and avian features, reflecting independent evolutionary histories of body parts under varying selective pressures. In 1959, Wilfrid Le Gros Clark applied the concept to human evolution, highlighting asynchronous developments in traits such as bipedalism and brain size among early hominins.^[3] Stephen Jay Gould advanced the idea significantly from 1977 onward, framing mosaic evolution through the lens of heterochrony—shifts in developmental timing that produce variations in size, shape, and timing across traits, akin to a "heterochronic clock." In his seminal book Ontogeny and Phylogeny (1977), Gould detailed how such changes enable decoupled trait evolution, refuting notions of harmonious, synchronized development and linking it to allometric (size-related) modifications. Complementing this, in Ever Since Darwin (1977), he applied the concept to human evolution, illustrating how bipedalism preceded encephalization in australopithecines, resulting in mosaic patterns observable in the fossil record. Gould's work emphasized that organs evolve independently to meet specific ecological demands, laying groundwork for viewing evolution as modular rather than monolithic.^[6] Post-1980s developments expanded mosaic evolution in paleontology, particularly through analyses of fossil sequences that revealed irregular trait combinations, often tied to Gould and Niles Eldredge's punctuated equilibrium model (initially proposed in 1972 but elaborated in subsequent works like Gould's 1989 Wonderful Life). This framework highlighted stasis punctuated by rapid shifts, allowing mosaic patterns to emerge in response to environmental instability, as seen in hominin transitions documented in key publications such as Eldredge and Gould's 1986 refinements. Studies of fossil records, including post-1980 discoveries like Australopithecus garhi (1999), reinforced these patterns by showing asynchronous advancements in locomotion, tool use, and cranial capacity. By the 21st century, mosaic evolution integrated into evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), emphasizing genetic modularity and non-linear trajectories. Works like Christian P. Klingenberg's 2008 explorations of geometric morphometrics in evo-devo underscored how developmental modules enable independent trait evolution, aligning with mosaic principles. A key modern refinement appears in Andrea Parravicini and Telmo Pievani's 2019 analysis, which classifies mosaic evolution into morphological, temporal, and sub-component types in hominin phylogeny, portraying it as a non-linear process driven by ecological perturbations rather than uniform progression. This evo-devo perspective, current through 2025, continues to inform interpretations of fossil mosaics, such as those in Homo naledi (2015), and recent studies on carnivoran skeletal adaptations and butterfly neural circuits (both 2024), without contradicting core Neo-Darwinian mechanisms.^[7]^[8]^[9]

Mechanisms

Developmental and Genetic Mechanisms

Mosaic evolution is facilitated at the genetic level by the action of regulatory genes, particularly through cis-regulatory elements that modulate the timing, location, and level of gene expression in discrete developmental modules. These elements, often located in non-coding regions upstream or downstream of coding sequences, allow for fine-tuned control without altering the protein-coding portions of genes, thereby enabling independent evolution of traits while minimizing pleiotropic effects across the genome. For instance, Hox genes, which specify segmental identity along the anterior-posterior axis in bilaterian animals, rely on such cis-regulatory modules to direct spatially restricted expression patterns, permitting evolutionary changes in body plan segmentation without disrupting overall developmental integrity.^[10]^[11] Heterochronic processes further contribute to mosaic evolution by altering the timing or rate of developmental events in specific traits relative to the ancestral condition. Paedomorphosis, a form of underdevelopment, occurs when descendant species retain ancestral juvenile features into adulthood; this can arise through neoteny, where somatic development slows while sexual maturation proceeds normally, as seen in humans retaining juvenile ape-like cranial features. Peramorphosis, conversely, involves overdevelopment, achieved via extended growth periods or accelerated rates in particular traits, leading to exaggerated adult forms beyond the ancestral state. Progenesis represents another paedomorphic variant, characterized by early reproductive maturation that truncates somatic development, resulting in adults with juvenile-like morphology. These shifts, often governed by changes in regulatory networks, allow traits to evolve asynchronously, promoting mosaic patterns without uniform heterochrony across the organism.^[12]^[13] Developmental modularity provides a structural basis for mosaic evolution by organizing biological systems into semi-independent units, such as brain regions or limb structures, that can vary with reduced interference from other parts of the organism. This modularity arises from genetic architectures that limit pleiotropy—the multiple effects of single genes—through compartmentalized regulatory interactions, enabling selective pressures to target specific modules without widespread repercussions. Evolutionary modules thus function as integrated complexes where internal cohesion is high, but connections between modules are sparse, facilitating decoupled evolutionary trajectories and enhancing overall evolvability.^[14]^[15] Genetic evidence from evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) underscores how mutations in non-coding DNA drive mosaic patterns by rewiring gene regulatory networks. Studies reveal that sequence variations in cis-regulatory elements can alter expression domains of conserved toolkit genes, leading to trait-specific innovations without coding sequence changes, as demonstrated in comparative analyses of developmental enhancers across species. Such mutations accumulate preferentially in modular contexts, allowing parallel or mosaic-like evolution of phenotypes while preserving core developmental functions. Seminal work in evo-devo highlights that these non-coding alterations account for much of morphological diversity, providing a mechanistic foundation for independent trait evolution.00817-9)^[16]

Selective and Environmental Drivers

Mosaic evolution is driven by natural selection acting differentially on modular traits, where certain phenotypic components face stronger selective pressures than others, resulting in asynchronous rates of change across the organism. For instance, traits linked to locomotion or foraging may experience intense selection due to immediate survival demands, evolving rapidly, whereas traits associated with reproduction or internal physiology encounter milder pressures and progress more gradually. This modular selection fosters the patchwork pattern characteristic of mosaic evolution, as independent adaptive responses accumulate unevenly.^[17] Environmental heterogeneity amplifies these patterns by creating spatially or temporally variable conditions that impose targeted selective forces on specific traits, prompting accelerated evolution in adaptive features while conserving others. Shifts in climate, habitat structure, or resource availability can rapidly select for modifications in externally exposed traits, such as those involved in sensory perception or structural support, even as less directly affected traits lag behind due to stable selective regimes. Such variability ensures that evolutionary trajectories diverge across traits, contributing to the overall mosaic without uniform progression.^[18]^[19] Exaptation further contributes to mosaic patterns by enabling traits to be repurposed for novel functions, allowing opportunistic evolutionary advances in certain modules, while developmental, physical, or ecological constraints hinder change in others. A trait initially adapted for one role may be co-opted to meet new environmental demands, accelerating its diversification relative to constrained counterparts that face biomechanical limitations or lack suitable variation. This interplay between facilitation and restriction underscores the uneven tempo of evolution. Quantitatively, mosaic evolution manifests in varying rates of phenotypic change, measurable through disparity indices that assess morphological variance across traits in fossil assemblages. These indices highlight accelerated disparity in select modules compared to more static ones, providing evidence of differential evolutionary tempos without implying coordinated shifts. Such analyses confirm the prevalence of mosaic dynamics across lineages, emphasizing selective and environmental influences over uniform adaptation.^[20]

Examples Across Taxa

In Hominins

Mosaic evolution in hominins is exemplified by the independent development of key traits, such as bipedalism, brain enlargement, and dental modifications, which did not occur synchronously across the lineage. Fossil evidence reveals that these changes responded to varying selective pressures, resulting in species exhibiting combinations of primitive and derived features. This pattern underscores the modular nature of hominin adaptation, where anatomical regions evolved at different rates and under distinct environmental influences.^[21]^[22] Brain evolution in hominins demonstrates rapid encephalization decoupled from body size changes, with average cranial capacities increasing from approximately 400-450 cc in Australopithecus species around 4 million years ago to about 1350 cc in modern Homo sapiens. This expansion, tripling in volume over the past four million years, occurred in pulses rather than steadily, while body mass and stature exhibited periods of stasis or slower increase, averaging around 25-40 kg in early australopiths with minimal overall escalation until later Homo. For instance, early Homo species like H. habilis showed brain sizes around 600 cc alongside relatively small bodies, highlighting the independence of neural growth from somatic scaling. Such decoupling suggests that cognitive advancements, possibly driven by social or dietary factors, outpaced physical size evolution.^[23]^[24]^[25] Bipedalism emerged early in the hominin lineage, with evidence from Ardipithecus species dated 6-4 million years ago indicating facultative upright walking without concurrent increases in brain size or tool use. Ardipithecus ramidus, for example, combined bipedal adaptations in the pelvis and foot with arboreal traits in the hands and arms, reflecting a transitional locomotor repertoire in wooded environments. Later species like Australopithecus sediba (around 2 million years ago) further illustrate locomotor mosaicism, featuring human-like hip and knee joints for efficient bipedality alongside curved phalanges suited for climbing, suggesting retained arboreality despite advanced terrestrial capabilities. Similarly, Homo naledi (dated 335-236 thousand years ago) displays variability in locomotion, with long lower limbs indicative of striding bipedalism but small joint surfaces that may have limited speed or endurance, pointing to diverse ecological niches within the genus Homo.^[26]^[27] Dental and cranial traits evolved independently of other hominin features, as seen in the early canine reduction in Australopithecus anamensis around 4.2 million years ago, which involved decreased size and sexual dimorphism without accompanying brain expansion. This reduction, marked by smaller canine crowns and roots relative to postcanine teeth, likely reflected shifts in social behavior or diet, predating significant encephalization by millions of years. In Homo floresiensis (approximately 100-50 thousand years ago), a pronounced mosaic appears in the combination of a small brain (around 380-430 cc) with primitive limb proportions and robust wrists, alongside relatively large teeth adapted for tough foods, illustrating how insular isolation could amplify trait independence. Studies of dental morphology further reveal that evolutionary rates in tooth size reduction lagged behind brain growth, with no direct linkage between these trends across hominin species.^[28]^[29]^[30] Behavioral mosaics in hominins, including the evolution of language and social complexity, developed separately from physical adaptations, as proposed by Dunbar's social brain hypothesis, which correlates neocortex expansion with increased group sizes and interaction demands. This framework posits that brain size increases in hominins facilitated larger social networks—up to around 150 stable relationships in modern humans—enabling complex cooperation and communication without requiring proportional changes in locomotion or dentition. Fossil and comparative evidence supports this decoupling, with early Homo showing enhanced sociality inferred from group-oriented behaviors, even as body plans remained australopith-like.^[31]^[32] Fossil analyses highlight groups of traits evolving independently under environmental influences, as demonstrated by studies on dental disparity showing accelerated morphological change in certain hominin lineages without uniform progression across the skeleton. For example, geometric morphometric assessments reveal that postcanine dental evolution proceeded at varying rates among species, influenced by dietary shifts, while cranial and postcranial elements responded differently to habitat mosaics. Behavioral inferences from these fossils, such as tool use variability, further indicate that cognitive traits developed asynchronously with physical ones, reinforcing the mosaic pattern in hominin phylogeny.^[29]^[33]^[21]

In Non-Human Vertebrates

Mosaic evolution is evident in non-human vertebrates through disparate rates of change in morphological traits, often driven by localized selective pressures on specific body modules. In birds, Darwin's finches (Geospiza spp.) exemplify this process, where beak morphology has diversified rapidly in response to varying food sources, independent of changes in body size or flight capabilities. Studies of cranial development reveal that beak shape variation arises from modular shifts in growth patterns, allowing adaptive radiation without uniform body plan alterations.^[2]^[34] Among mammals, the meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus) demonstrates mosaic evolution at the population level, with dental traits evolving rapidly—such as occlusal pattern complexity in molars—while cranial dimensions remain relatively stable over Quaternary periods. This decoupling highlights how functional demands on feeding structures can proceed asynchronously from overall skull morphology. In fossil Equidae, limb elongation and cursorial adaptations evolved mosaic-wise from browsing ancestors, with metapodial bones lengthening progressively while hypsodonty in teeth developed at different tempos, as seen in Miocene-to-Pliocene transitions.^[35]^[36]^[37] Reptiles and other vertebrates further illustrate this pattern. In pterosaurs, such as Darwinopterus modularis, wing membrane structures and associated skeletal supports evolved advanced features while retaining a primitive long-tailed body plan, representing modular shifts that facilitated flight without comprehensive reorganization. Cetaceans exhibit similar asynchrony in the transition from terrestrial limbs to aquatic flippers, where forelimb modifications for propulsion occurred alongside retained hindlimb remnants and gradual body streamlining, spanning Eocene fossils like Pakicetus to modern forms.^[38]^[39] Rate variations underscore mosaic dynamics via heterochrony, where developmental timing differs across traits. In fish, such as labrid species, cranial elements like jaws evolve through accelerated ossification independent of scale or fin patterning, enabling specialized feeding without synchronized body changes. Amphibians show this in metamorphosis, where larval tail resorption and adult limb development proceed at decoupled rates, as in anurans where cranial modules diversify modularly post-metamorphosis.^[40]^[41]^[42] Paleontological records provide robust evidence of non-synchronous trait shifts, from Devonian fish fossils showing disparate fin and scale evolution to Cenozoic mammal sequences revealing staggered dental and locomotor changes, complemented by modern genomic studies confirming modular genetic bases. These examples across vertebrates emphasize how mosaic evolution accommodates environmental demands through trait-specific adaptations.^[4]^[43]

Implications

In Evolutionary Theory

Mosaic evolution challenges the uniformitarian view of evolution as a gradual, clock-like process across all traits, where change occurs at consistent rates driven by uniform underlying mechanisms. Instead, it reveals that traits within a lineage can evolve at disparate rates and modes—some remaining static while others undergo rapid shifts—contrasting with the expectation of synchronous, incremental adaptation. This pattern aligns with and supports punctuated equilibrium models, which posit long periods of stasis punctuated by bursts of change, particularly during speciation events. By unpacking traits into modular components, mosaic evolution demonstrates that single-trait analyses often fail to capture species-level dynamics, as conflicting evolutionary modes (e.g., gradualism in one trait versus stasis in another) are common within lineages, necessitating a more nuanced assessment of macroevolutionary trends.^[44] In evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), mosaic evolution is explained through the lens of developmental modularity, where semi-autonomous modules—such as brain regions or organ systems—allow for independent variation and bursts of morphological change without disrupting overall organismal function. Spatial proximity and weak integration among modules, as seen in mammalian brain evolution, facilitate this decoupling, enabling sequential acquisition of derived traits over time. This modularity enhances evolvability by permitting rapid adaptation to selective pressures while imposing constraints on highly integrated systems, where change in one component could cascade disruptively. When developmental modularity persists across macroevolutionary timescales, it promotes mosaic patterns by allowing functionally associated traits to diverge at different rates, thereby influencing theories on how novelty arises under environmental instability.^[45]^[46] Mosaic evolution underscores the non-linearity of evolutionary trajectories, providing evidence against strictly adaptive, linear progress toward a singular endpoint. Rather than a unidirectional march of progressive adaptation, it highlights a branched, multi-species phylogeny with side branches and experimental adaptive strategies, often triggered by ecological perturbations like climate instability. In this framework, traits do not evolve in harmonious lockstep but exhibit independent histories, rejecting anagenetic models of continuous transformation in favor of cladogenetic diversification. This perspective reframes evolution as a reticulate process of contingency and opportunism, where mosaic patterns reveal the limitations of teleological narratives.^[47] Theoretically, mosaic evolution refines understandings of convergence and parallelism by illustrating how modular trait independence enables similar adaptive solutions to arise repeatedly across distantly related lineages under comparable selective regimes, as modularity facilitates the reuse of developmental pathways. Recent syntheses in macroevolutionary models, up to 2025, integrate these insights to depict evolution as a mosaic of pathways accumulating disparity, particularly in diverse radiations like deep-sea fishes, where habitat-specific rates and colonizations drive non-uniform diversification. These models emphasize how mosaic dynamics contribute to broader patterns of phenotypic novelty and lineage sorting, bridging micro- and macroevolutionary scales without assuming uniform processes.^[48]^[49]

In Paleoanthropology

In paleoanthropology, mosaic evolution provides a framework for reinterpreting hominin fossils that exhibit combinations of primitive and derived traits, challenging traditional linear progression models of human ancestry that assume uniform advancement across body systems. For instance, Homo floresiensis, discovered on the island of Flores, Indonesia, displays a mosaic of features including a small brain size reminiscent of early hominins like Australopithecus, alongside evidence of stone tool use associated with the species and postcranial adaptations suggestive of early hominins, such as small body size (approx. 1 m stature) and primitive wrist morphology. This combination has led researchers to view H. floresiensis as a "mosaic species" rather than a direct linear descendant, highlighting how insular environments may have driven independent trait evolution without a straightforward progression toward larger brains or bipedal efficiency.^[21] Methodologically, mosaic evolution informs disparity analyses in paleoanthropology by enabling assessments of trait independence, where morphological variations in specific features are quantified to reveal non-synchronous evolutionary rates. A key example is the study of early hominin dentition from Kanapoi, Kenya, where new fossils of Australopithecus anamensis demonstrate mosaic evolution in canine morphology, with intermediate occlusal shapes between great apes and A. afarensis and larger, more dimorphic roots, underscoring how sexual dimorphism and dietary pressures acted selectively on dental modules independent of other features like molars. Such analyses, often using geometric morphometrics or cladistic methods, help quantify evolutionary modularity and avoid overinterpreting fossils as transitional forms in a linear lineage.^[50] Debates in paleoanthropology have shifted from outdated linear views, popularized in mid-20th-century reconstructions emphasizing a teleological march toward Homo sapiens, toward mosaic models that better accommodate fossil variability, as confirmed by refined dating and morphometric studies since the 1970s. Recent 2020s research, including geometric morphometric analyses of Homo erectus crania, supports mosaic brain evolution through evidence of independent trajectories in frontal and occipital regions, with higher intraspecific variation in H. erectus than in modern humans, potentially reflecting greater genetic diversity and localized selective pressures on neural architecture. These findings for H. erectus, derived from endocast reconstructions, illustrate decoupled neurocranial expansion. For later hominins like Neanderthals, ancient DNA insights into introgression further bolster interpretations of mosaic evolution through retained archaic sequences in modern genomes. Recent 2025 discoveries from Ledi-Geraru, Ethiopia, of new Australopithecus fossils with mosaic dental and cranial traits, continue to support these models.^[51]^[52] Beyond hominins, mosaic evolution extends to broader paleontological applications in reconstructing adaptive landscapes for non-human vertebrates, addressing a historical bias toward human-focused interpretations. For example, analyses of avian crania reveal modular evolution where beak and braincase traits respond independently to ecological demands, such as flight versus foraging, allowing for more accurate phylogenetic placements of fossil birds. Similarly, in carnivorans, skeletal disparity studies show mosaic patterns in mandible and limb evolution, driven by predatory niches, which inform reconstructions of extinct mammal communities and their environmental interactions. These applications enhance paleoanthropological methods by providing comparative baselines for trait decoupling across taxa.^[53]^[8]

References

[1]
Mosaic evolution and the pattern of transitions in the hominin lineage
It is not one phase of becoming human that represents a major transition, but the cumulative effect of them, the processes of mosaic evolution, and the very ...
[2]
Developmental origins of mosaic evolution in the avian cranium
Dec 26, 2017 · Mosaic evolution, which results from multiple influences shaping morphological traits and can lead to the presence of a mixture of ancestral and ...
[3]
[PDF] "Mosaic evolution" in
In. 1959, Wilfrid Le Gros Clark (see le gros clark, wilfrid edward) first applied the term mosaic evolution to describe this disjunction between brain and ...
[4]
Evolutionary mode routinely varies among morphological traits ...
Nov 26, 2012 · ... mosaic evolution are pervasive across groups of organisms throughout Earth's history. ... In 1944, G. G. Simpson “inextricably bound the ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
[5]
Approaches to Macroevolution: 1. General Concepts and Origin of ...
Jun 3, 2017 · The fact that mosaic evolution is entrenched in our textbooks reflects the ubiquity of some form of phenotypic modularity (to use the ...
[6]
Ontogeny and Phylogeny - Harvard University Press
Jan 17, 1985 · Gould argues that the primary evolutionary value of heterochrony may lie in immediate ecological advantages for slow or rapid maturation ...
[7]
[PDF] Mosaic evolution in hominin phylogeny: meanings, implications, and ...
We argue that the relevance of such mosaic patterns needs a macro-evolutionary interpretation, which takes into consideration the interaction between general ...
[8]
Variation and constraint in Hox gene evolution - PNAS
Jan 22, 2013 · Much of our current understanding rests on the observation that genes diversify through changes in cis-regulatory elements (CREs), whereas the ...
[9]
Evolution of Gene Regulatory Networks that Control Embryonic ...
Alteration of the functional organization of the gene regulatory networks (GRNs) that control development of the body plan causes evolutionary change in animal ...
[10]
Heterochrony: the Evolution of Development
Jun 5, 2012 · Heterochrony takes the form of both increased and decreased degrees of development, known as “peramorphosis” and “paedomorphosis,” respectively.Heterochrony: The Evolution... · Introduction · Classifying HeterochronyMissing: mosaic | Show results with:mosaic
[11]
Heterochrony, disparity, and macroevolution - GeoScienceWorld
Mar 3, 2017 · G. 2003 . Mosaic evolution of neural development in anurans: acceleration of spinal cord development in the direct developing frog ...
[12]
Modularity: genes, development and evolution - PMC
Sep 27, 2017 · Modularity has emerged as a central concept for evolutionary biology, providing the field with a theory of organismal structure and variation.Missing: avoidance | Show results with:avoidance
[13]
The evolutionary origins of modularity - Journals
Mar 22, 2013 · A key driver of evolvability is the widespread modularity of biological networks—their organization as functional, sparsely connected subunits ...Missing: mosaic | Show results with:mosaic
[14]
Evo-Devo and an Expanding Evolutionary Synthesis: A Genetic ...
Jul 11, 2008 · A genetic theory of morphological evolution, which states that (1) form evolves largely by altering the expression of functionally conserved proteins.
[15]
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2012.2863
[16]
Evolution of genome–phenome diversity under environmental stress
Biodiversity evolution, even in small isolated populations, is primarily driven by natural selection, including diversifying, balancing, cyclical, and purifying ...
[17]
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.809842
[18]
Analyzing Disparity and Rates of Morphological Evolution with ...
Dec 2, 2021 · Abstract. Understanding variation in rates of evolution and morphological disparity is a goal of macroevolutionary research.
[19]
Mosaic evolution and the pattern of transitions in the hominin lineage
Jul 5, 2016 · Mosaic evolution means different traits evolve independently and at different times, and different domains of evolution change at different ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[20]
Mosaic Evolution in Hominin Phylogeny: Meanings, Implications ...
We propose here a classification in three different meanings of the notion of mosaic in human evolution: 1) morphological (inter-specific and intra-specific) ...
[21]
Evolutionary–developmental (evo-devo) dynamics of hominin brain ...
May 27, 2024 · The fossil record shows a sharp expansion in hominin brain size, tripling over the past four million years from australopithecines to modern ...
[22]
Hominin brain size increase has emerged from within-species ...
Encephalization (i.e., relative brain size increase) during human evolution has long been debated, and several studies have compared hominin cranial capacities ...
[23]
Long-term patterns of body mass and stature evolution within the ...
Nov 8, 2017 · At the end of the Late Pleistocene and Holocene, body size in Homo sapiens declines on average, but also extends to lower limits not seen in ...
[24]
Ardipithecus ramidus - Smithsonian's Human Origins
Jan 3, 2024 · The pelvis, reconstructed from a crushed specimen, is said to show adaptations that combine tree-climbing and bipedal activity. The discoverers ...Missing: mosaic | Show results with:mosaic
[25]
Long legs and small joints: The locomotor capabilities of Homo naledi
Jan 21, 2025 · Large articular surfaces in the hind limbs are thought to be due to increased mechanical loading due to terrestrial locomotion (Jungers, 1988; ...Missing: variability | Show results with:variability
[26]
Anterior dental evolution in the Australopithecus anamensis ...
Canine roots diminish in size and dimorphism, especially relative to the size of the postcanine teeth. Molar crowns become higher. Tooth rows become more ...
[27]
No known hominin species matches the expected dental ... - PNAS
Oct 21, 2013 · No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans. Aida Gómez-Robles ...Missing: disparity | Show results with:disparity
[28]
Dental evolutionary rates and its implications for the Neanderthal ...
May 15, 2019 · The results of these analyses have important implications regarding the mechanisms promoting dental evolution in early Neanderthals, the most ...Missing: disparity | Show results with:disparity
[29]
The social brain hypothesis and its implications for social evolution
The social brain hypothesis was proposed as an explanation for the fact that primates have unusually large brains for body size compared to all other ...Missing: hominins | Show results with:hominins
[30]
Full article: The social brain hypothesis – thirty years on
Jul 12, 2024 · The social brain hypothesis, and its use to predict a natural grouping size for humans (Dunbar's Number), was established empirically thirty ...
[31]
Brain enlargement and dental reduction were not linked in hominin ...
Jan 3, 2017 · Our results show that different species evolved at different rates and that brain evolution in early Homo was faster than dental evolution.Missing: disparity | Show results with:disparity
[32]
Concerted and mosaic evolution of functional modules in songbird ...
May 10, 2017 · Depth-to-length ratio accounts for most of the geometric shape variation in Darwin's finches ... mosaic evolution. In our data, the song ...
[33]
Mosaic evolution at the population level in Microtus pennsylvanicus ...
3 - Mosaic evolution at the population level in Microtus pennsylvanicus. Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 December 2009. By. Anthony D ...
[34]
Patterns of Phylogeny and Rates of Evolution in Fossil Horses - jstor
of mosaic evolution (deBeer 1954) that occurs in a functionally interrelated ... Late Hemphillian horses (Mammalia,. Equidae) from the Bone Valley Formation of ...
[35]
Fossil Horses and Rate of Evolution - Science
... horses, an example of mosaic evolution (4). With some important caveats (2), Haldane's method is an effective way to compare morphological rates evidenced ...
[36]
Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms ...
Dec 11, 2002 · Like so many organisms cetaceans displayed mosaic evolution; organ systems evolved at different rates as their ancestors lost traits that ...
[37]
Combating the Assumption of Evolutionary Progress: Lessons from ...
Jan 25, 2012 · Overall, the picture is one of an increasingly aquatic existence over a period of about 12–15 Mya, accompanied by “mosaic evolution” of several ...
[38]
Evolutionary Patterns of Modularity in the Linkage Systems of the ...
Mosaic evolution of the skull in labrid fishes involves differences in both tempo and mode of morphological change. Syst Biol 72:419–32. [DOI] [PubMed] ...
[39]
Correlated and decoupled evolution of adult and larval body size in ...
Aug 19, 2020 · Adaptive decoupling is thought to lead to 'mosaic evolution', in which traits from different stages evolve independently of each other [1,8].
[40]
Evolutionary integration of the frog cranium | Evolution
Finally, anuran cranial modules show diverse morphological disparities, supporting the hypothesis that modular variation allows mosaic evolution of the ...
[41]
A new method for quantifying heterochrony in evolutionary lineages
May 14, 2021 · Each character represents an aspect of morphology that may exhibit a paedomorphic, peramorphic, or neutral heterochronic expression. The ...
[42]
Abstract: PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM MEETS MOSAIC EVOLUTION
We find that different evolutionary modes characterize different traits within most of the species lineages we analyzed. Moreover, the likelihood of conflicting ...
[43]
Modular structure facilitates mosaic evolution of the brain in ... - Nature
Jul 22, 2014 · We show that chimpanzee and human brains have a modular structure that may have facilitated mosaic evolution from their last common ancestor.Missing: seminal | Show results with:seminal
[44]
https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2012AM/webprogram/Paper208069.html
[45]
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5469
[46]
Evolvability and Macroevolution: Overview and Synthesis
Jul 7, 2022 · Modularity as manifest in mosaic evolution has been a major theme in beak evolution ... Convergent evolution: Limited forms most beautiful.
[47]
https://doi.org/10.4436/jass.97001
[48]
(PDF) The Primitive Wrist of Homo floresiensis and Its Implications ...
The anatomy of Homo floresiensis is a quintessential example of mosaic evolution, wherein different anatomical traits appear to have evolved at different rates ...
[49]
New hominin fossils from Kanapoi, Kenya, and the mosaic evolution ...
Mar 1, 2012 · Here we present three new associated dentitions attributed to A. anamensis, recently recovered from the type site of Kanapoi, Kenya, that ...
[50]
Fossils and the Mosaic Nature of Human Evolution - Science
These new fossils, dates, analyses, and interpretations lead to confirmation and refinement of the mosaic scheme of human evolution as proposed by early ...
[51]
Reconstructing cranial evolution in an extinct hominin - Journals
Jan 20, 2021 · The study found H. erectus had higher cranial variation than H. sapiens, with distinct evolutionary histories for frontal and occipital bones, ...
[52]
Developmental origins of mosaic evolution in the avian cranium
Mosaic evolution, which results from multiple influences shaping morphological traits and can lead to the presence of a mixture of ancestral and derived ...
[53]
Uncovering the mosaic evolution of the carnivoran skeletal system
Jan 24, 2024 · We hypothesize that the decoupled evolution of individual skeletal components may have led to the origination of distinct adaptive zones and ...Missing: non- | Show results with:non-