Science News
from research organizations

Organismal biologists needed to interpret new trees of life

July 16, 2014
American Institute of Biological Sciences
Molecular information forces the revision of many ideas about the evolution of animal body plans, but providing persuasive explanations for events that occurred in the remote past is likely to remain a major challenge. To construct evolutionary hypotheses that integrate the new data with science more generally, organismal biologists need to use their imaginations. But they should also be disciplined about assessing the broadest possible range of evidence, to avoid being misled by faulty intuitions.

Rapidly accumulating data on the molecular sequences of animal genes are overturning some standard zoological narratives about how major animal groups evolved. The turmoil means that biologists should adopt guidelines to ensure that their evolutionary scenarios remain consistent with new information -- which a surprising number of scenarios are not, according to a critical overview article to be published in the August issue of BioScience and now available with Advance Access.

The article, by Ronald A Jenner of the Natural History Museum in London, describes how evolutionary trees inferred from genomic information have overtaken and even displaced traditional studies of animal forms. The traditional studies sought explanations for how the body plans of the three dozen or so major animal groups most likely evolved, but molecular data provide strong evidence about genealogical relationships without yielding explanations. So even though data are accumulating as researchers study more and more animal genes, there remain severe limits on researchers' ability to construct satisfying accounts of how diverse animal forms evolved.

The difficulty arises because the major evolutionary changes that established the principal animal groups occurred in the remote past, and there are too few surviving intermediate forms to infer evolution's steps in detail. This has sometimes led zoologists to give imagination too free a rein when they devise their hypotheses, Jenner argues. In other cases, new data have forced biologists to accept accounts they had previously found unimaginable. Imagination will remain important in evolutionary studies, Jenner stresses, but biologists will best advance science if they ensure their proposals are consistent with evolutionary trees that are well supported by molecular data, if they look for incompatible evidence and obvious difficulties, and if they evaluate alternative scenarios, as well as their preferred ones. They should also examine the basis of their intuitions and build their ideas on the broadest possible base of evidence, including, for example, that from newly discovered fossils and from new anatomical information. New fields of inquiry offer hope that progress will be made, but "we desperately need" well-funded organismal biologists to achieve it, according to Jenner, not just bioinformaticians and molecular evolutionists.

Story Source:

The above post is reprinted from materials provided by American Institute of Biological Sciences. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

Journal Reference:

  1. R. A. Jenner. Macroevolution of Animal Body Plans: Is There Science after the Tree? BioScience, 2014; DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biu099

Cite This Page:

American Institute of Biological Sciences. "Organismal biologists needed to interpret new trees of life." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 16 July 2014. <>.
American Institute of Biological Sciences. (2014, July 16). Organismal biologists needed to interpret new trees of life. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 10, 2015 from
American Institute of Biological Sciences. "Organismal biologists needed to interpret new trees of life." ScienceDaily. (accessed October 10, 2015).

Share This Page: