In evolutionary developmental biology, heterochrony is defined as a developmental change in the timing or rate of events, leading to changes in size and shape. There are two main components, namely (i) the onset and offset of a particular process, and (ii) the rate at which the process operates. A developmental process in one species can only be described as heterochronic in relation to the same process in another species, considered the basal or ancestral state, which operates with different onset and offset times, and at different rates. The concept was introduced by Ernst Haeckel in 1875.[1][2]


There are three dimensions of heterochrony:[3][4]


Heterochrony can be identified by comparing phylogenetically close species, for example a group of different bird species whose legs differ in their average length. These comparisons are complex because there are no universal ontogenetic time markers. The method of event pairing attempts to overcome this by comparing the relative timing of two events at a time.[5] This method detects event heterochronies, as opposed to allometric changes. It is cumbersome to use because the number of event pair characters increases with the square of the number of events compared. Event pairing can however be automated, for instance with the PARSIMOV script.[6] A more recent method, continuous analysis, rests on a simple standardization of ontogenetic time or sequences, on squared change parsimony and phylogenetic independent contrasts.[7]


Paedomorphosis can be observed in the axolotl. Axolotls are sexually mature, but retain their gills and fins. They remain in aquatic environments.[8][9]

In three species of bagworm moths, females become flightless when their wings become degenerate, reduced, or wingless due to apoptosis. The reduction in their wings begins in their late larval stage to pupal stage. A common misconception of insects is the importance of acquiring the ability of flight.[10] From an evolutionary perspective, if there is no demand for flight, then natural selection will favor flightlessness.


Peramorphosis is delayed maturation and extended periods of growth. The extinct Irish elk is an example of peramorphosis. From the fossil record, its antlers spanned up to 12 feet wide, which is about a third larger than the antlers of its close relative, the moose. The Irish elk had larger antlers due to extended development during their period of growth. In addition, these huge antlers exemplify outweighed benefits of sexual selection by ecological selection. Due to the nutrient costs of maintaining these antlers combined with rapid climate change, the Irish elk could not adapt and evolve smaller antlers fast enough, which led to its extinction.[11][12] Another example of peramorphosis is the insular (island) rodents. Their characteristics include gigantism, wider cheek and teeth, reduced litter size, and longer life span. Their relatives that inhabit continental environments are much smaller. These insular rodents have evolved gigantism, wider cheeks, and larger teeth to accommodate the abundance of larger food and resources they have on their islands. These factors are part of a complex phenomenon termed Island Syndrome.[13] With less predation and competition for resources, selection favored overdevelopment of these species. Reduced litter sizes enable overdevelopment of their bodies into larger ones. In some species of frogs, such as the Puerto Rican tree frog, they skip their entire larval stage. These frogs hatch out of their eggs into froglets with limbs, severely reduced gills (or no gills), and gill slits. Their habitats include forests, gardens, under rocks, and logs, which are non-aquatic.[14][15]

Paedomorphic species are mainly aquatic, while peramorphic species are mainly terrestrial. The mole salamander, a close relative to the Axolotl, displays both paedomorphosis and paramorphosis. The larva can develop in either direction, but not backwards. Population density, food, and the amount of water may have an effect on the expression of heterochrony. A study conducted on the mole salamander in 1987 found it evident that a higher percentage of individuals became paedomorphic when there was a low larval population density in a constant water level as opposed to a high larval population density in drying water.[16] This had an implication that led to hypotheses claiming that selective pressures imposed by the environment, such as predation and loss of resources, were instrumental to the cause of these trends.[17] These ideas were reinforced by other studies, such as peramorphosis in the Puerto Rican Tree frog. Another reason could be generation time, or the lifespan of the species in question. When a species has a relatively short lifespan, natural selection will favor evolution of paedomorphosis (e.g. Axolotl: 7–10 years). On the flip side, in long lifespans natural selection will favor evolution of peramorphosis (e.g. Irish Elk: 20–22 years).[13]

In humans

Several heterochronies have been described in humans, relative to the chimpanzee. For instance, in chimpanzee fetuses brain and head growth starts at about the same developmental stage and present a growth rate similar to that of humans, but end soon after birth. Humans, on the contrary, continue their brain and head growth several years after birth. This particular type of heterochrony is named hypermorphosis and involves a delay in the offset of a developmental process, or what is the same, the presence of an early developmental process in later stages of development. In addition, humans are known for presenting about 30 different neotenies in comparison to the chimpanzee.[18]


  1. Horder, Tim (April 2006). "Heterochrony". Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  2. Hall, B. K. (2003). "Evo-Devo: evolutionary developmental mechanisms". International Journal of Developmental Biology. 47 (7-8): 491–495. PMID 14756324.
  3. Reilly, Stephen M., E. O. Wiley, and J. Daniel (1997). "An integrative approach to heterochrony: the distinction between interspecific and intraspecific phenomena" (PDF). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 60 (1): 119–143. doi:10.1006/bijl.1996.0092. Retrieved 9 October 2013.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Rice, S. H. "Heterochrony". November 2007. Accessed July 14, 2011.
  5. Velhagen W (1997). "Analyzing developmental sequences using sequences units". Systematic Biology. 46 (1): 204–210. doi:10.1093/sysbio/46.1.204.
  6. Jeffery J, Bininda-Emonds O, Coates M, Richardson M (2005). "A new technique for identifying sequence heterochrony". Systematic Biology. 54 (2): 230–240. doi:10.1080/10635150590923227.
  7. Germain D, Laurin M (2009). "Evolution of ossification sequences in salamanders and urodele origins assessed through event-pairing and new methods". Evolution & Development. 11 (2): 170–190. doi:10.1111/j.1525-142X.2009.00318.x.
  8. Malacinski, George M. (1978). "The Mexican axolotl, Ambystoma mexicanum: its biology and developmental genetics, and its autonomous cell-lethal genes". American Zoologist. 18 (2): 195–206. doi:10.1093/icb/18.2.195.
  9. Wake, D. B (2009). "What salamanders have taught us about evolution" (PDF). Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics. 40: 333–352. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173552. Retrieved 9 October 2013.
  10. Niitsu, S. H. U. H. E. I., and Yukimasa Kobayashi (2008). "The developmental process during metamorphosis that results in wing reduction in females of three species of wingless-legged bagworm moths, Taleporia trichopterella, Bacotia sakabei and Proutia sp.(Lepidoptera: Psychidae)". European Journal of Entomology. 105 (4): 697–706. doi:10.14411/eje.2008.095.
  11. Futuyma, Douglas (2013). Evolution. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. pp. 64–66. ISBN 1605351156.
  12. Moenm Ron A., John Pastor, Yosef Cohen (1999). "Antler growth and extinction of Irish elk.". Evolutionary Ecology Research. 1 (2): 235–249.
  13. 1 2 Raia, Pasquale et al. (2010). "The blue lizard spandrel and the island syndrome". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 10 (1): 289. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-10-289.
  14. Elizabeth M. Callery, Hung Fang, Richard P. Elinson (2001). "Frogs without polliwogs: evolution of anuran direct development". BioEssays. 23 (3): 233–241. doi:10.1002/1521-1878(200103)23:3<233::aid-bies1033>3.0.co;2-q.
  15. Daniel S. Townsend and Margaret M. Stewart (1985). "Direct Development in Eleutherodactylus coqui (Anura: Leptodactylidae): A Staging Table". Copeia. 1985 (2): 423–436. doi:10.2307/1444854.
  16. Semlitsch, Raymond D. (1987). "Paedomorphosis in Ambystoma talpoideum: effects of density, food, and pond drying". Ecology: 992–1002. doi:10.2307/1938370.
  17. M. Denoel, P. Joly (2000). "Neoteny and progenesis as two heterochronic processes involved in paedomorphosis in Triturus alpestris (Amphibia: Caudata)". Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences. B. 267 (1451): 1481–1485. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1168.
  18. Mitteroecker P, Gunz P, Bernhard M, Schaefer K, Bookstein FL (June 2004). "Comparison of cranial ontogenetic trajectories among great apes and humans". J. Hum. Evol. 46 (6): 679–97. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.03.006. PMID 15183670.
    Penin X, Berge C, Baylac M (May 2002). "Ontogenetic study of the skull in modern humans and the common chimpanzees: neotenic hypothesis reconsidered with a tridimensional Procrustes analysis". Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 118 (1): 50–62. doi:10.1002/ajpa.10044. PMID 11953945.

See also

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/1/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.