000 02426nab|a22002897a|4500
001 67466
003 MX-TxCIM
005 20240506162800.0
008 20244s2024||||mx |||p|op||||00||0|eng|d
022 _a1369-8486
024 8 _ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.01.003
040 _aMX-TxCIM
041 _aeng
100 1 _aNicoglou, A.
_933853
245 1 4 _aThe evolution of phenotypic plasticity :
_bGenealogy of a debate in genetics
260 _b Elsevier Ltd.,
_c2015.
_aUnited Kingdom :
500 _aPeer review
520 _aThe paper describes the context and the origin of a particular debate that concerns the evolution of phenotypic plasticity. In 1965, British biologist A. D. Bradshaw proposed a widely cited model intended to explain the evolution of norms of reaction, based on his studies of plant populations. Bradshaw's model went beyond the notion of the “adaptive norm of reaction” discussed before him by Dobzhansky and Schmalhausen by suggesting that “plasticity”—the ability of a phenotype to be modified by the environment—should be genetically determined. To prove Bradshaw's hypothesis, it became necessary for some authors to identify the pressures exerted by natural selection on phenotypic plasticity in particular traits, and thus to model its evolution. In this paper, I contrast two different views, based on quantitative genetic models, proposed in the mid-1980s: Russell Lande and Sara Via's conception of phenotypic plasticity, which assumes that the evolution of plasticity is linked to the evolution of the plastic trait itself, and Samuel Scheiner and Richard Lyman's view, which assumes that the evolution of plasticity is independent from the evolution of the trait. I show how the origin of this specific debate, and different assumptions about the evolution of phenotypic plasticity, depended on Bradshaw's definition of plasticity and the context of quantitative genetics.
546 _aText in English
600 1 0 _933794
_aBradshaw, A.D.
650 7 _2AGROVOC
_99391
_aPhenotypic plasticity
650 7 _2AGROVOC
_98815
_aEvolution
650 7 _2AGROVOC
_91233
_aQuantitative genetics
650 7 _2AGROVOC
_921623
_aPlasticity
773 0 _tStudies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences
_dUnited Kingdom : Elsevier Ltd., 2015.
_gv. 20, p. 67-76
_x1369-8486
942 _cJA
_n0
_2ddc
999 _c67466
_d67458