The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology
Abstract
A theoretical approach to the analysis of historical factors (Raup 1972) in evolutionary morphology is presented which addresses transformational hypotheses about structural systems. This (structural) approach to testing historical hypotheses about phylogenetic constraints on form and function and structural and functional versatility involves (1) the reconstruction of nested sets of structural features in monophyletic taxa, (2) the use of general or emergent organizational properties of structural and functional systems (as opposed to uniquely derived morphological features), and (3) the comparative examination of the consequences for structural and functional diversity of these general features in related monophyletic taxa. Three examples of emergent organizational properties are considered: structural complexity, repetition of parts, and the decoupling of primitively constrained systems. Two classes of hypotheses about the evolution of design are proposed. Transformational hypotheses concern historical pathways of change in form as a consequence of general organizational features which are primitive for a lineage. Relational hypotheses involve correlations between structure-function networks primitive for a clade and morphological diversity both between and within terminal taxa. To the extent that transformational and relational hypotheses about form are corroborated, they provide evidence of underlying regularity in the transformation of organic design that may be a consequence of the hierarchical organization of structural and functional patterns in organisms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mayr, E. (1963) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674865327 · Cited by 10,175
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 · Cited by 7,770
Cited by
Phylogenetic approaches in comparative physiology
Garland, T., Bennett, A. F., & Rezende, E. L. (2005) · Journal of Experimental Biology · doi:10.1242/jeb.01745 · Cited by 692
Many-to-One Mapping of Form to Function: A General Principle in Organismal Design?
Wainwright, P. C. (2005) · Integrative and Comparative Biology · doi:10.1093/icb/45.2.256 · Cited by 486
Recent Developments in the Analysis of Comparative Data
Pagel, M. D., & Harvey, P. H. (1988) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/416027 · Cited by 442
THE EVOLUTIONARY INTERACTION AMONG SPECIES: Selection, Escalation, and Coevolution
Vermeij, G. J. (1994) · Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics · doi:10.1146/annurev.es.25.110194.001251 · Cited by 393
Comparative methods for explaining adaptations
Harvey, P. H., & Purvis, A. (1991) · Nature · doi:10.1038/351619a0 · Cited by 383
Metadata
- Authors
- Lauder, G. V.
- Venue
- Paleobiology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1981
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 430-442
- ISSN
- 0094-8373 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-5331
- OpenAlex
- W2275850409
- Cited by
- 393
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0094837300025495
- The paper
- Lauder, G. V. (1981). Form and function: structural analysis in evolutionary morphology. Paleobiology. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0094837300025495
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.