Talk:Evolutionary physiology

Image:Phenotypic Hierarchy 1.svg

This image is highly dubious. No reference is offered. Natural selection does not act on behavior, per se. Rather, Genes produce morphology which produces behavior, which is more or less successful, with physics and the ecology acting as constraints. With the same factors, a counter clockwise circle of arrows would make more sense with constraints expressed in some other way. Without a reference, the image should be removed as OR and Synthesis.μηδείς (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, no, evolution acts on behavior without mechanistic changes (bird courtship shows tremendous variation in species with no important differences in musculo-skeletal morphology), mechanistic changes can occur without changes in behavior (all frog jumps are pretty much the same motor pattern, from toads to treefrogs), and the same net mechanical output can be produced by the same motor pattern acting on different morphologies (terrestrial lateral undulation of eels and snakes has the same EMG pattern, in spite of *massive* differences in muscular anatomy). Yes, morphology acts as a constraint (no elephant long-jumpers or brachiating fish), but motor control is highly plastic, both evolutionarily and within the individual (learning to ride a bike is impossible under your conceptualization, since morphology hasn't changed). Sure, you could argue that "morphology" includes the layout of neurons in the brain, the receptor genes they express, etc, but that's stretching too far. There's much more to biology than just genes.

As for the source, I've seen about 100 versions of this in powerpoint slides over the years, including in my own - go to any job talk for a morphology/physiology position, and you'll see some variant of this within the first 5 slides. I'd say it crops up in about 10% of symposium talks, maybe up to 30% if it's an interdisciplinary crowd. The concept of the inter-relation of these factors is not just prevalent, it's the basis for entire fields and careers. Just because this exact form hasn't been printed before doesn't make it invalid, OR or synthesis.Mokele (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate your effort, assuming the chart is your creation, and your effort at explanation of the science. But evolution is variation and selection in cyclical iteration. "Act on" is fatally vague, and fails to reflect the relevant cyclicality of the causation. But I am not interested in debating. Unless there is a reference for the chart in its actual form it amounts to OR.μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's not mine. And it's not actually cyclical - selection constantly acts on a continually replenished pool of variation. The closest you get to a cycle in a real system is annual plants or insects where the entire population is eggs/seeds for some period of time.

As for referencing, there are *loads* of similar charts all over WP that illustrate concepts such as lift, torque, etc without any attribution at all. Plus, google the name in the file attribution - this isn't some random graph pulled out of the ether, but a central concept of an entire field contributed directly to WP by a leader of that field. Mokele (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we can't apply the rules here until they are applied elswhere? If there is a good rationale for this, i.e., if there are slides like this all over, it shouldn't be hard to provide a reference.μηδείς (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you want a reference for the general concept, or this exact version? The former is easy, the latter, not so much. I think you're getting needlessly hung up on trivial rules to the detriment of the article as a whole - remember, Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. Mokele (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

This section has grown out of control, so I have moved it out of the article into this talk page. Please see Wikipedia:Further reading and put only entries that are topical, reliable and balanced, and please, keep the section limited in size. "Wikipedia is not a catalogue of all existing works." Please, if you add an entry back into the article, motivate why. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 08:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Angilletta, M. J., Jr., P. H. Niewiarowski, and C. A. Navas. 2002. The evolution of thermal physiology in ectotherms. Journal of Thermal Biology 27:249-268.
• Berenbrink, M., P. Koldkjær, O. Kepp, and A. R. Cossins. 2005. Evolution of oxygen secretion in fishes and the emergence of a complex physiological system. Science 307:1752-1757.
• Bradley, T. J., and W. Zamer. 1999. Introduction to the Symposium: What is evolutionary physiology? American Zoologist 39:321-322.
• Burggren, W. W., and W. E. Bemis. 1990. Studying physiological evolution: paradigms and pitfalls. Pages 191-238 in M. H. Nitecki, ed. Evolutionary innovations. Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Calow, P., ed. 1987. Evolutionary physiological ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 239 pp.
• Dean, A. M., and J. W. Thornton. 2007. Mechanistic approaches to the study of evolution: the functional synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics 8:675-688. PDF
• Diamond, J. M. 1993. Evolutionary physiology. Pages 89–111 in C. A. R. Boyd and D. Noble, eds. The logic of life: the challenge of integrative physiology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
• Dudley, R. 2000. The biomechanics of insect flight: form, function, evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Dudley, R. 2000. The evolutionary physiology of animal flight: paleobiological and present perspectives. Annual Review of Physiology 62:135-155.
• Dudley, R., and C. Gans. 1991. A critique of symmorphosis and optimality models in physiology. Physiological Zoology 64:627-637.
• Feder, M. E., A. F. Bennett, and R. B. Huey. 2000. Evolutionary physiology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 31:315-341. PDF
• Gans, C. 1974. Biomechanics: an approach to vertebrate biology. J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia. 261 pp.
• Garland, T., Jr., and S. C. Adolph. 1994. Why not to do two-species comparative studies: limitations on inferring adaptation. Physiological Zoology 67:797-828. PDF
• Garland, T., Jr., and P. A. Carter. 1994. Evolutionary physiology. Annual Review of Physiology 56:579-621. PDF
• Garland, T., Jr., and M. R. Rose, eds. 2009. Experimental Evolution: Concepts, Methods, and Applications of Selection Experiments. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. PDF of Table of Contents
• Gilmour, K. M., R. W. Wilson, and K. A. Sloman. 2005. The integration of behaviour into comparative physiology. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 78:669-678.
• Hochachka, P. W., and G. N. Somero. 2002. Biochemical adaptation — mechanism and process in physiological evolution. Oxford University Press. 478 pp. Catalog listing
• Irschick, D. J., A. Herrel, B. Vanhooydonck, and R. Van Damme. 2007. A functional approach to sexual selection. Functional Ecology 21:621-626.
• Lailvaux, S. P., and D. J. Irschick. 2006. A functional perspective on sexual selection: insights and future prospects. Animal Behaviour 72:263-273.
• Mangum, C. P., and P. W. Hochachka. 1998. New directions in comparative physiology and biochemistry: mechanisms, adaptations, and evolution. Physiological Zoology 71:471-484.
• McKenzie, J. A., and P. Batterham. 1994. The genetic, molecular and phenotypic consequences of selection for insecticide resistance. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9:166-169.
• Mottishaw, P. D., S. J. Thornton, and P. W. Hochachka. 1999. The diving response mechanism and its surprising evolutionary path in seals and sealions. American Zoologist 39:434-450.
• Natochin, Y. V., and T. V. Chernigovskaya. 1997. Evolutionary physiology: History, principles. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology A 118:63-79.
• Nunn, C. L., and S. M Altizer. 2006. Infectious diseases in primates: behavior, ecology and evolution. Oxford University Press (Series in Ecology and Evolution). Catalog Listing
• Rezende, E. L., F. R. Gomes, C. K. Ghalambor, G. A. Russell, and M. A. Chappell. 2005. An evolutionary frame of work to study physiological adaptation to high altitudes. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 78:323-336. PDF file
• Speakman, J.R. 2000. The cost of living: Field metabolic rates of small mammals. Advances in Ecological Research 30: 177-297
• Speakman, J.R. Krol, E. and Johnston, M.S. 2004. The functional significance of individual variations in BMR. Physiological and Biochemical Zoology 77:900-915
• Speakman, J.R. 2005. Body size, energy metabolism and lifespan. Journal of Experimental biology 208:1717-30
• Speakman, J.R. 2008. The physiological cost of reproduction in small mammals. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 363:375-398
• Spicer, J. I., and K. J. Gaston. 1999. Physiological diversity and its ecological implications. Blackwell Science, Oxford, U.K. x + 241 pp.
• Swallow, J. G., and T. Garland, Jr. 2005. Selection experiments as a tool in evolutionary and comparative physiology: insights into complex traits - An introduction to the symposium. Integrative and Comparative Biology 45:387-390. PDF
• Vogel, S. 2003. Comparative biomechanics: life's physical world. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford. xii + 580 pp. Catalog listing
• Young, R. L., and A. V. Badyaev. 2006. Evolutionary persistence of phenotypic integration: Influence of developmental and functional relationships on complex trait evolution. Evolution 60:1291-1299.
• Zera, A. J., and L. G. Harshman. 2001. The physiology of life history trade-offs. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 32:95-127.