The DOI matches its Crossref record; 129 of the 129 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolution of morphological allometry
Open accessAbstract
Morphological allometry refers to patterns of covariance between body parts resulting from variation in body size. Whether measured during growth (ontogenetic allometry), among individuals at similar developmental stage (static allometry), or among populations or species (evolutionary allometry), allometric relationships are often tight and relatively invariant. Consequently, it has been suggested that allometries have low evolvability and could constrain phenotypic evolution by forcing evolving species along fixed trajectories. Alternatively, allometric relationships may result from natural selection for functional optimization. Despite nearly a century of active research, distinguishing between these alternatives remains difficult, partly due to wide differences in the meaning assigned to the term allometry. In particular, a broad use of the term, encompassing any monotonic relationship between body parts, has become common. This usage breaks the connection to the proportional growth regulation that motivated Huxley's original narrow‐sense use of allometry to refer to power–law relationships between traits. Focusing on the narrow‐sense definition of allometry, we review here evidence for and against the allometry‐as‐a‐constraint hypothesis. Although the low evolvability and the evolutionary invariance of the static allometric slope observed in some studies suggest a possible constraining effect of this parameter on phenotypic evolution, the lack of knowledge about selection on allometry prevents firm conclusions.
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
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
Andersson, M. (1994) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9780691207278 · Cited by 7,401
(1977) · Cited by 4,052
Size, Function, and Life History
Calder, W. A. (1984) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,864
The structure of evolutionary theory
(2002) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.39-6411 · Cited by 2,756
Scaling: Why is Animal Size so Important?
Schmidt-Nielsen, K. (1984) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139167826 · Cited by 2,677
Scaling Why is animal size so important?
Schmidt‐Nielsen, K. (1984) · Cited by 2,654
QUANTITATIVE GENETIC ANALYSIS OF MULTIVARIATE EVOLUTION, APPLIED TO BRAIN:BODY SIZE ALLOMETRY
Lande, R. (1979) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.1979.tb04694.x · Cited by 2,648
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
GOULD, S. J. (2002) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctvjsf433 · Cited by 2,530
Lovtrup, S., & Gould, S. J. (1978) · Systematic Zoology · doi:10.2307/2412825 · Cited by 2,339
Metadata
- Authors
- Pélabon, C., Firmat, C., Bolstad, G. H., Voje, K. L., Houle, D., Cassara, J., Rouzic, A. L., & Hansen, T. F.
- Venue
- Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2014-06-09
- Volume
- 1320
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 58-75
- ISSN
- 0077-8923 (ISSN-L)
- 1749-6632
- OpenAlex
- W1606996339
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 129
- FWCI
- 24.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Evolution of morphological allometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nyas.12470
- The paper
- Pélabon, C., Firmat, C., Bolstad, G. H., Voje, K. L., Houle, D., Cassara, J., Rouzic, A. L., & Hansen, T. F. (2014). Evolution of morphological allometry. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12470
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.