@article{doi101086284428,
    author = "Alberch, Pere",
    title = "Developmental Constraints: Why St. Bernards Often Have an Extra Digit and Poodles Never Do",
    year = "1985",
    journal = "The American Naturalist",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1086/284428",
    doi = "10.1086/284428",
    note = "discovered\_from = {doi101007s1206400000046}",
    number = "3",
    pages = "430-433",
    volume = "126"
}

@article{doi101086414425,
    author = "Smith, J. Maynard and Burian, R. and Kauffman, S. and Alberch, P. and Campbell, J. and Goodwin, B. and Lande, R. and Raup, D. and Wolpert, L.",
    title = "Developmental Constraints and Evolution: A Perspective from the Mountain Lake Conference on Development and Evolution",
    year = "1985",
    journal = "The Quarterly Review of Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1086/414425",
    doi = "10.1086/414425",
    note = "discovered\_from = {doi101007s1206400000046}",
    number = "3",
    pages = "265-287",
    volume = "60"
}

@article{doi101006jtbi19950059,
    author = "Resnik, David",
    title = "Developmental constraints and patterns: some pertinent distinctions",
    year = "1995",
    journal = "Journal of Theoretical Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.1995.0059",
    doi = "10.1006/jtbi.1995.0059",
    note = "discovered\_from = {doi101007s1206400000046}",
    number = "3",
    pages = "231-240",
    volume = "173"
}

@article{doi1011111475498300253,
    author = "Hall, Brian K.",
    title = "Palaeontology and Evolutionary Developmental Biology: A Science of the Nineteenth and Twenty–first Centuries",
    year = "2002",
    journal = "Palaeontology",
    abstract = "A wind of change has swept through palaeontology in the past few decades. Contrast Sir Peter Medawar’s dismissive: ‘palaeontology is a particularly undemanding branch of science’ (as recalled by John Maynard Smith in Sabbagh 1999, p. 158) with ‘Palaeontology: grasping the opportunities in the science of the twenty–first century’, the title of a contribution to a special issue of Geobios by the Cambridge palaeontologist, Simon Conway Morris (1998 a). The winds of change have come partly from palaeontologists seeking to broaden the impact of their studies and partly from biologists (neontologists) realizing the contributions that palaeontology can make to their disciplines. Consequently, impressions of past life preserved in stone are coming alive. Fossils are being described and analyzed using new tools and languages as the static fossil record becomes a record of transitions in patterns that can be explained and related to biological, ecological, climatic and tectonic changes. The latest addition is evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘evo–devo’, whose language provides a new basis upon which to interpret anatomical change, both materially and mechanistically. In this review I examine the major contributions made by palaeontology, how palaeontology has been linked to evolution and to embryology in the past, and how links with evo–devo have enlivened and will continue to enliven both palaeontology and evo–devo. Closer links between the two fields should illuminate important unresolved issues related to the origin of the metazoans (e.g. Why is there a conflict between molecular clocks and the fossil record in timing the metazoan radiation; were Precambrian metazoan ancestors similar to extant larvae or to miniature adults?) and to diversification of the metazoans (e.g. How do developmental constraints bias the direction of evolution; how do microevolutionary developmental processes relate to macroevolutionary changes?).",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4983.00253",
    doi = "10.1111/1475-4983.00253",
    note = "discovered\_from = {doi1010179781108648608}",
    number = "4",
    pages = "647-669",
    volume = "45"
}

@article{doi101002dvdy10387,
    author = "Bird, Nathan C. and Mabee, Paula",
    title = "Developmental morphology of the axial skeleton of the zebrafish, Danio rerio (Ostariophysi: Cyprinidae)",
    year = "2003",
    journal = "Developmental Dynamics",
    abstract = "Before our rapidly increasing knowledge of gene interactions can be connected with the morphologic defects in mutant zebrafish, the normal course of skeletal development must be understood. Here, we describe the developmental morphology of the axial skeleton of zebrafish and review it in relation to the morphology of related species. The relative sequence of ossification in the skeleton is described. Two separate centers of development were found in the axial skeleton (Weberian apparatus and caudal fin) in contrast to tetrapods, which have a single anterior center. Slight variation was found in the overall relative timing of development. The extensive ichthyological literature on teleost anatomy and recent genetic data form the basis for our review and interpretation of homologies of various elements of the axial skeleton. Because homology forms the basis for all evolutionary comparisons, these data are critical for integration in evo-devo studies.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/dvdy.10387",
    doi = "10.1002/dvdy.10387",
    openalex = "W2015261096"
}

@article{doi101017s1464793102006097,
    author = "Hall, Brian K.",
    title = "Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution",
    year = "2003",
    journal = "Biological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society",
    abstract = "Homology is at the foundation of comparative studies in biology at all levels from genes to phenotypes. Homology is similarity because of common descent and ancestry, homoplasy is similarity arrived at via independent evolution. However, given that there is but one tree of life, all organisms, and therefore all features of organisms, share some degree of relationship and similarity one to another. That sharing may be similarity or even identity of structure and the sharing of a most recent common ancestor--as in the homology of the arms of humans and apes--or it may reflect some (often small) degree of similarity, such as that between the wings of insects and the wings of birds, groups whose shared ancestor lies deep within the evolutionary history of the Metazoa. It may reflect sharing of entire developmental pathways, partial sharing, or divergent pathways. This review compares features classified as homologous with the classes of features normally grouped as homoplastic, the latter being convergence, parallelism, reversals, rudiments, vestiges, and atavisms. On the one hand, developmental mechanisms may be conserved, even when a complete structure does not form (rudiments, vestiges), or when a structure appears only in some individuals (atavisms). On the other hand, different developmental mechanisms can produce similar (homologous) features. Joint examination of nearness of relationship and degree of shared development reveals a continuum within an expanded category of homology, extending from homology --> reversals --> rudiments --> vestiges --> atavisms --> parallelism, with convergence as the only class of homoplasy, an idea that turns out to be surprisingly old. This realignment provides a glimmer of a way to bridge phylogenetic and developmental approaches to homology and homoplasy, a bridge that should provide a key pillar for evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). It will not, and in a practical sense cannot, alter how homoplastic features are identified in phylogenetic analyses. But seeing rudiments, reversals, vestiges, atavisms and parallelism as closer to homology than to homoplasy should guide us toward searching for the common elements underlying the formation of the phenotype (what some have called the deep homology of genetic and/or cellular mechanisms), rather than discussing features in terms of shared or independent evolution.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1017/s1464793102006097",
    doi = "10.1017/s1464793102006097",
    openalex = "W2168524476"
}

@article{doi101387ijdb14756322,
    author = "Gilbert, Scott F.",
    title = "The morphogenesis of evolutionary developmental biology",
    year = "2003",
    journal = "The International Journal of Developmental Biology",
    abstract = "The early studies of evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) come from several sources. Tributaries flowing into Evo-Devo came from such disciplines as embryology, developmental genetics, evolutionary biology, ecology, paleontology, systematics, medical embryology and mathematical modeling. This essay will trace one of the major pathways, that from evolutionary embryology to Evo-Devo and it will show the interactions of this pathway with two other sources of Evo-Devo: ecological developmental biology and medical developmental biology. Together, these three fields are forming a more inclusive evolutionary developmental biology that is revitalizing and providing answers to old and important questions involving the formation of biodiversity on Earth. The phenotype of Evo-Devo is limited by internal constraints on what could be known given the methods and equipment of the time and it has been framed by external factors that include both academic and global politics.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1387/ijdb.14756322",
    doi = "10.1387/ijdb.14756322",
    openalex = "W157366043"
}

@article{doi101387ijdb14756324,
    author = "Hall, Brian K.",
    title = "Evo-Devo: evolutionary developmental mechanisms",
    year = "2003",
    journal = "The International Journal of Developmental Biology",
    abstract = "Evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) as a discipline is concerned, among other things, with discovering and understanding the role of changes in developmental mechanisms in the evolutionary origin of aspects of the phenotype. In a very real sense, Evo-Devo opens the black box between genotype and phenotype, or more properly, phenotypes as multiple life history stages arise in many organisms from a single genotype. Changes in the timing or positioning of an aspect of development in a descendant relative to an ancestor (heterochrony and heterotopy) were two evolutionary developmental mechanisms identified by Ernst Haeckel in the 1870s. Many more have since been identified, in large part because of our enhanced understanding of development and because new mechanisms emerge as development proceeds: the transfer from maternal to zygotic genomic control; cell-to-cell interactions; cell differentiation and cell migration; embryonic inductions; functional interactions at the tissue and organ levels; growth. Within these emergent processes, gene networks and gene cascades (genetic modules) link the genotype with morphogenetic units (cellular modules, namely germ layers, embryonic fields or cellular condensations), while epigenetic processes such as embryonic inductions, tissue interactions and functional integration, link morphogenetic units to the phenotype. Evolutionary developmental mechanisms also include interactions between individuals of the same species, individuals of different species, and species and their biotic and/or abiotic environment. Such interactions link ecological communities. Importantly, there is little to distinguish the causality that underlies these interactions from that which underlies inductive interactions within embryos.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1387/ijdb.14756324",
    doi = "10.1387/ijdb.14756324",
    openalex = "W2140849278"
}

@article{doi101002jezb21029,
    author = "Narita, Yuichi and Kuratani, Shigeru",
    title = "Evolution of the vertebral formulae in mammals: A perspective on developmental constraints",
    year = "2005",
    journal = "Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.21029",
    doi = "10.1002/jez.b.21029",
    note = "discovered\_from = {doi101038nature05627}",
    number = "2",
    pages = "91-106",
    volume = "304B"
}

@incollection{doi101016b9780120887774500132,
    author = "Klingenberg, Christian Peter",
    title = "Developmental Constraints, Modules, and Evolvability",
    year = "2005",
    booktitle = "Variation",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-012088777-4/50013-2",
    doi = "10.1016/b978-012088777-4/50013-2",
    note = "discovered\_from = {doi101111joa70143}",
    pages = "219-247"
}

@article{doi101098rstb20110001,
    author = "Scharff, Constance and Petri, Jana",
    title = "Evo-devo, deep homology and FoxP2: implications for the evolution of speech and language",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences",
    abstract = "The evolution of novel morphological features, such as feathers, involves the modification of developmental processes regulated by gene networks. The fact that genetic novelty operates within developmental constraints is the central tenet of the 'evo-devo' conceptual framework. It is supported by findings that certain molecular regulatory pathways act in a similar manner in the development of morphological adaptations, which are not directly related by common ancestry but evolved convergently. The Pax6 gene, important for vision in molluscs, insects and vertebrates, and Hox genes, important for tetrapod limbs and fish fins, exemplify this 'deep homology'. Recently, 'evo-devo' has expanded to the molecular analysis of behavioural traits, including social behaviour, learning and memory. Here, we apply this approach to the evolution of human language. Human speech is a form of auditory-guided, learned vocal motor behaviour that also evolved in certain species of birds, bats and ocean mammals. Genes relevant for language, including the transcription factor FOXP2, have been identified. We review evidence that FoxP2 and its regulatory gene network shapes neural plasticity in cortico-basal ganglia circuits underlying the sensory-guided motor learning in animal models. The emerging picture can help us understand how complex cognitive traits can 'descend with modification'.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0001",
    doi = "10.1098/rstb.2011.0001",
    openalex = "W2144703909",
    references = "c1998the24, d2000the38, d2005twentyfirst70, d2009adams27, d2010the18, doi101002cne10654, doi101002cne21699, doi101002cne21740, doi101002cne21881, doi101002cne22318, doi101002dneu20393, doi101002dneu20772, doi101002dvdy20504, doi101002dvg20305, doi101002humu20814, doi101002jnr10638, doi101006anbe20001410, doi101006brln20002323, doi101006dbio19960032, doi101007bf00619194, doi101007s000180066021y, doi101007s0011400601279, doi101007s0026500407687, doi101007s0042700600738, doi101007s100710080203y, doi101016016310479090797a, doi101016016622369290355c, doi1010160271530994900191, doi1010160378216688900185, doi101016janbehav200306016, doi101016janbehav200906007, doi101016jbandl200910002, doi101016jbandl200911002, doi101016jbeproc200812005, doi101016jbrainres200801049, doi101016jbrainres200906092, doi101016jcell200806030, doi101016jcell200810028, doi101016jcell200903041, doi101016jcognition200502005, doi101016jcognition201006009, doi101016jconb200510004, doi101016jconb200808002, doi101016jcub200710008, doi101016jcub200801060, doi101016jjneumeth200604026, doi101016jneuroscience200912055, doi101016jneuroscience201011042, doi101016jtics200608001, doi101016jtics200903003, doi101016jtics200911007, doi101016jtig200705001, doi101016jtig200903002, doi101016jtins200809005, doi101016jyfrne200905007, doi101016s0003347205800478, doi101016s0003347286802524, doi101016s0065345410410013, doi101016s1364661300014947, doi101016s1364661399013339, doi101017cbo9780511817755015, doi101017cbo9780511817779, doi101017s0140525x00081061, doi101023a1021487710547, doi101037073570361032149, doi101037e400082009004, doi10103835097076, doi101038374453a0, doi10103841710, doi101038434455a, doi101038nature01025, doi101038nature01495, doi101038nature03127, doi101038nature03275, doi101038nature07891, doi101038nature08549, doi101038nn0408382, doi101038nrn2931, doi101038scientificamerican096088, doi101056nejmoa0802828, doi101073pnas0503739102, doi101073pnas0607098103, doi101073pnas0712298105, doi101073pnas0908113106, doi101073pnas0914624107, doi101073pnas2135499100, doi101074jbcm100636200, doi101074jbcm207174200, doi101075lald2416hul, doi10108021548331196711707799, doi101086414425, doi101086430841, doi101086522237, doi101086522238, doi101093acprofoso97801953054320030007, doi101093acprofoso97801992168400030014, doi101093brainawf058, doi101093brainawg247, doi101093genetics16241825, doi101093hmgddl392, doi101093hmgddm213, doi101093hmgddp457, doi101093jbmvm235, doi101093jheredesi025, doi101093molbevmsn091, doi101093molbevmsp143, doi101093molbevmsq182, doi1010970000175619940908000007, doi1010970000175620010212000034, doi101098rsbl20090685, doi101098rspb20000994, doi101098rspb20042699, doi101098rspb20091788, doi101098rstb19520012, doi101098rstb20100336, doi101098rstb20100346, doi101098rstb20110007, doi101098rstb20110028, doi101101gad142142, doi101111j13652583200800775x, doi101111j143903101970tb01913x, doi101111j143903101975tb00907x, doi101111j143903101980tb01044x, doi101111j143903101990tb00781x, doi101111j146987491990tb16948x, doi101111j1474919x1958tb07960x, doi101111j15585646200700105x, doi101111j1601183x201000570x, doi101111j1601183x201000607x, doi101111j174966322002tb07561x, doi10112112161827, doi101126science1127889, doi101126science1157704, doi101126science1158997, doi101126science1159277, doi101126science1733997585, doi101126science1934249235, doi101126science29855981569, doi101128mcb2428098222004, doi101136jmg2007052324, doi101139z85157, doi101146annurevneuro221567, doi101152jn005392004, doi101152jn904152008, doi101163156853904322981914, doi101163156853989x00141, doi1011861471213x8103, doi101196annals1298038, doi101371journalpbio0030245, doi101371journalpbio0030386, doi101371journalpbio0050321, doi101371journalpone0000073, doi101371journalpone0000900, doi101371journalpone0001768, doi101371journalpone0006746, doi101371journalpone0007808, doi101371journalpone0008548, doi101371journalpone0008592, doi101387ijdb052065rs, doi1015159780691221731, doi101523jneurosci0168102010, doi101523jneurosci1109028961991, doi101523jneurosci1662062006, doi101523jneurosci2127092009, doi101523jneurosci4369032004, doi101523jneurosci5589032004, doi101542peds20053016, doi102307284226, doi1023074085282, doi10310913682829209012027, doi103161150811010x504707, doi105962bhltitle11332, doi105964bioling8583, doi105964bioling8585, doi107551mitpress23590010001, f2000the16, j1996the22, j2008social73, m1996grooming23, p2004natures45, p2010geographic47, p2010society169, r1992animal71, r2007the72, t2009the84, v1967the85, w1998principles40"
}

@article{doi101007s120520120418x,
    author = "Hall, Brian K.",
    title = "Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo): Past, Present, and Future",
    year = "2012",
    journal = "Evolution Education and Outreach",
    abstract = "Abstract Evolutionary developmental biology (evo–devo) is that part of biology concerned with how changes in embryonic development during single generations relate to the evolutionary changes that occur between generations. Charles Darwin argued for the importance of development (embryology) in understanding evolution. After the discovery in 1900 of Mendel’s research on genetics, however, any relationship between development and evolution was either regarded as unimportant for understanding the process(es) of evolution or as a black box into which it was hard to see. Research over the past two decades has opened that black box, revealing how studies in evo–devo highlight the mechanisms that link genes (the genotype) with structures (the phenotype). This is vitally important because genes do not make structures. Developmental processes make structures using road maps provided by genes, but using many other signals as well—physical forces such as mechanical stimulation, temperature of the environment, and interaction with chemical products produced by other species—often species in entirely different kingdoms as in interactions between bacteria and squid or between leaves and larvae (Greene Science 243:643–666, 1989). Not only do genes not make structures (the phenotype), but new properties and mechanisms emerge during embryonic development: genes are regulated differentially in different cells and places; aggregations of similar cells provide the cellular resources (modules) from which tissues and organs arise; modules and populations of differently differentiated cells interact to set development along particular tracks; and organisms interact with their environment and create their niche in that environment. Such interactions are often termed “epigenetic,” meaning that they direct gene activity using mechanisms that are not encoded in the DNA of the genes. This paper reviews the origins of evo–devo, how the field has changed over the past 30 years, evaluates the recognition of the importance for development and evolution of mechanisms that are not encoded in DNA, and evaluates what the future might bring for evo–devo. Although impossible to know, history tells us that we might expect more of the same; expansion of evo–devo into other areas of biology (ecology, physiology, behavior); absorption of evo–devo by evolution or a unification of biology in which evo–devo plays a major role.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/s12052-012-0418-x",
    doi = "10.1007/s12052-012-0418-x",
    openalex = "W2028966172"
}

@article{doi101111ede12125,
    author = "Moczek, Armin P. and Sears, Karen E. and Stollewerk, Angelika and Wittkopp, Patricia J. and Diggle, Pamela K. and Dworkin, Ian and Ledón‐Rettig, Cristina C. and Matus, David Q. and Roth, Siegfried and Abouheif, Ehab and Brown, Federico D. and Chiu, Chi-hua and Cohen, Sarah and Tomaso, Anthony W. De and Gilbert, Scott F. and Hall, Brian K. and Love, Alan C. and Lyons, Deirdre C. and Sanger, Thomas J. and Smith, Joel and Specht, Chelsea D. and Vallejo‐Marín, Mario and Extavour, Cassandra G.",
    title = "The significance and scope of evolutionary developmental biology: a vision for the 21st century",
    year = "2015",
    journal = "Evolution \& Development",
    abstract = "Evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) has undergone dramatic transformations since its emergence as a distinct discipline. This paper aims to highlight the scope, power, and future promise of evo-devo to transform and unify diverse aspects of biology. We articulate key questions at the core of eleven biological disciplines-from Evolution, Development, Paleontology, and Neurobiology to Cellular and Molecular Biology, Quantitative Genetics, Human Diseases, Ecology, Agriculture and Science Education, and lastly, Evolutionary Developmental Biology itself-and discuss why evo-devo is uniquely situated to substantially improve our ability to find meaningful answers to these fundamental questions. We posit that the tools, concepts, and ways of thinking developed by evo-devo have profound potential to advance, integrate, and unify biological sciences as well as inform policy decisions and illuminate science education. We look to the next generation of evolutionary developmental biologists to help shape this process as we confront the scientific challenges of the 21st century.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1111/ede.12125",
    doi = "10.1111/ede.12125",
    openalex = "W2145274681"
}

@article{diogo2016where,
    author = "Diogo, Rui",
    title = "Where is the Evo in Evo‐Devo (evolutionary developmental biology)?",
    year = "2016",
    journal = "Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution",
    abstract = "I provide a brief discussion of the present/future of Evo‐Devo, reviewing opinions expressed by colleagues with different opinions/backgrounds about what Evo‐Devo should be and the potential of this flourishing field and combining them with an analysis of the recent, and excellent inaugural meeting of the Pan‐American Society for Evo‐Devo. As an advocate of Evo‐Devo and its enormous future potential, I feel that despite our different views and fields of research, we Evo‐Devoists are all in the same boat and should try our best to make sure this potential is fully expressed. Therefore, I call attention to some concerns raised by other colleagues, which in my opinion are demonstrated by a quantitative analysis of the titles/abstracts of the 56 talks at this meeting. This analysis is very simple, in order to maintain the needed objectivity and minimize bias. Yet, it is profound in its implications, precisely because of its simplicity and because this meeting is clearly a major landmark for the development/future directions of Evo‐Devo. The analysis shows that terms associated with development at the more molecular/genetic level were vastly overrepresented compared to terms related to evolution or to development at the whole organism level. That is, it provides support for the idea that current Evo‐Devo is mainly focused on Devo, and that Devo itself is largely focused on “Geno,” that is, on molecular/genetic developmental studies. This trend seems to be leading towards a loss of focus on the whole organism and on the major microevolutionary and macroevolutionary questions/theories that remain to be solved/tested. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 326B:9–18, 2016. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.22664",
    doi = "10.1002/jez.b.22664",
    number = "1",
    pages = "9-18",
    volume = "326"
}

@article{doi101146annurevento031616035601,
    author = "Toth, Amy L. and Rehan, Sandra M.",
    title = "Molecular Evolution of Insect Sociality: An Eco-Evo-Devo Perspective",
    year = "2016",
    journal = "Annual Review of Entomology",
    abstract = "The evolution of eusociality is a perennial issue in evolutionary biology, and genomic advances have fueled steadily growing interest in the genetic changes underlying social evolution. Along with a recent flurry of research on comparative and evolutionary genomics in different eusocial insect groups (bees, ants, wasps, and termites), several mechanistic explanations have emerged to describe the molecular evolution of eusociality from solitary behavior. These include solitary physiological ground plans, genetic toolkits of deeply conserved genes, evolutionary changes in protein-coding genes, cis regulation, and the structure of gene networks, epigenetics, and novel genes. Despite this proliferation of ideas, there has been little synthesis, even though these ideas are not mutually exclusive and may in fact be complementary. We review available data on molecular evolution of insect sociality and highlight key biotic and abiotic factors influencing social insect genomes. We then suggest both phylogenetic and ecological evolutionary developmental biology (eco-evo-devo) perspectives for a more synthetic view of molecular evolution in insect societies.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035601",
    doi = "10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035601",
    openalex = "W2358712384"
}

@article{doi103732ajb1500441,
    author = "Specht, Chelsea D.",
    title = "The rise of evo‐devo: Pan‐American Society for Evolutionary Developmental Biology sets the stage",
    year = "2016",
    journal = "American Journal of Botany",
    abstract = "On 5–9 August 2015, the newly formed Pan-American Society for Evolutionary Development Biology held its first meeting on the Clark Kerr campus of the University of California, Berkeley. The Society emerged as an outcome of a 2013 NSF-funded workshop organized by Dr. Cassandra Extavour (Harvard University) and Dr. Allen Rodrigo (NESCent). The goal of the workshop was to explore and define the future of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) as an integrative scientific discipline, with its own specific intellectual goals and biological questions, and to define initiatives to advance collaborative research, education, infrastructure development, training and outreach related to furthering the study of evo-devo (Moczek et al., 2015). The society was officially established during this workshop, with a mission to promote the study of evo-devo in all organisms and provide a forum for establishing tools for collaboration, communication, and education in the field of evo-devo and a commitment to excellence, equity, and diversity. The first meeting—organized by the Society's President Ehab Abouheif, Vice President Karen Sears, and local organizers Nipam Patel and Chris Lowe—served to further this mission and highlight this commitment. The meeting, which was attended by 163 faculty, 59 postdoctoral researchers, and 106 student members of the Society, was organized around a strong lineup of invited speakers—an international group of men and women who are engaged in research investigating the foundations of developmental evolution from both theoretical and experimental perspectives. The presented research incorporated diverse organisms, and the speakers spanned all career stages. This meeting was one of the first where the “plant” and “animal” researchers did not retreat to their own sessions, but rather talks flowed seamlessly. Topics included the evolution of gene regulatory networks, evolution of form and function, and patterning and plasticity in plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates; evolution of multicellular and unicellular organisms; and developmental patterning in extinct and extant lineages. It was a meeting of researchers united by a common interest in developmental evolution and those areas of research addressing the genotypic causation underlying the evolution of shared and derived phenotypes. With few parallel sessions, barriers typically found among subdisciplines were eliminated, and attendees shared ideas and discussed details of plenary talks and workshops. Whereas the animal evo-devo community has traditionally participated in meetings held by organizations such as the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB), providing an opportunity to assemble and share evo-devo research, the plant evo-devo community has not reached a critical mass at any single botanical meeting, resulting in a division of the community. On a yearly basis, plant evo-devo researchers self-select among evolution and organismal diversity-based meetings (e.g., botany, evolution) and model system-based developmental biology meetings (e.g., American Society of Plant Biologists; FASEB Mechanisms in Plant Development; Society for Developmental Biology). A common ground where plant biologists can discuss the methods, philosophy, and theory inherent to evo-devo has been lacking. The Pan-American Society for Evolutionary Developmental Biology (PanAmEvoDevo or PASEDB) fills that void, as demonstrated by the success of this meeting. In fact, in a report on The Node (http://thenode.biologists.com/meeting-report-pan-evo-devos-first-meeting/news/), vertebrate biologist Dr. Tamara Franz-Odendaal and invertebrate biologist Allison Edgar (graduate student at Duke University) both commented on the integrative nature of the meeting, specifically stating how much they enjoyed hearing “the plant talks” and how these talks sparked their interest in plant diversity and developmental evolution. As such, the society and its inaugural meeting formed a bridge among all evo-devo biologists and brought plant research into the fold of methodological, technological, and philosophical innovations that are shaping evo-devo biology today. Nelima Sinha (University of California, Davis) gave one of the introductory keynote addresses, starting off the meeting with an excellent example of how plant-specific studies share approaches common across evo-devo research. Sinha provided the audience with a clear and concise understanding of the role of gene regulatory networks in moderating leaf development, presenting the leaf as a key innovation in land plant diversification and as a model organ to analyze the mechanisms underlying morphological diversification and adaptation. Focusing on the natural diversity of leaves inherent to the Solanum genus, and using transcriptomic approaches combined with self-organizing map clustering, Sinha and her group have characterized the gene expression patterns underlying differential leaf development and have been able to model how different gene regulatory networks (GRNs) evolve to generate the natural diversity of leaf form. Richard Palmer (University of Alberta) used both plant and animal systems to give an insightful presentation on the sources of new variation within populations, investigating the role of developmental plasticity and using variation in asymmetry within and among species to explore these concepts. Through his investigation of the development and evolution of “handedness” and asymmetries in various bilaterians and in orchid flowers, Palmer's research promises to yield insights into the genetic and developmental mechanisms underlying the evolution of asymmetry. This research could be applied to understanding mechanisms of floral symmetry as well as processes underlying phyllotaxis and its evolution across land plants. Following Palmer was Joceyln Hall (University of Alberta) discussing the basis of floral variation in Cleome. Hall provided a colorful introduction to the diversity of flower morphology in Cleomaceae and compared this diversity with the limited flower diversity, yet high fruit morphological diversity, in the sister family Brassicaceae. Hall went on to discuss the role of the TCP genes in floral symmetry, in particular focusing on their role in the development of differences in petal color and shape. She also touched on their novel role in the formation of a large adaxial nectary gland, which generates monosymmetric flowers. Other plenary talks by an impressive international cohort of plant evolutionary and developmental biologists continued over the second and third days of the meeting. Angela Hay (Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research) spoke on the morphomechanical innovations driving explosive seed dispersal in Cardamine hirsuta and engaged the audience on the intricacies of plant movement (did you know that the fruit valves work like “slap bracelets”?!). James Umen (Donald Danforth Plant Science Center) discussed the coevolution of sexes and multicellularity in volvocine algae. Stacey D. Smith (University of Colorado, Boulder) discussed the mechanisms of flower color convergence across multiple evolutionary time scales, and Vivian Irish (Yale University) investigated “a thorny question” by showing how thorns can evolve in plants via development of a novel mode of arrested cell division. The first Early Career Award from the Society went to Natalia Pabón-Mora of the Universidad de Antioquia, Medellin, Colombia. Pabón-Mora received her Ph.D. in 2012 from the City University of New York as part of the New York Botanical Garden's graduate program and has been on the faculty at the University de Angioquia for the past 3 years. Dr. Pabón-Mora provided an engaging overview the history of the ABC model and its role in understanding plant development, emphasizing how distantly related some of the various plant lineages are that we are trying to compare and how challenging homology statements—among genes and among structures—can be. She honed in on the role of gene duplication in flowering plant diversification, in particular how gene duplications in key gene families have played a role in the evolution of the morphological diversity found in the flowers of the family Aristolochiaceae. Pabón-Mora brought five students to the meeting, both undergraduates and graduates, and their posters and presentations throughout the meeting demonstrated the excellence of the research, teaching, and training program she has developed at the Universidad de Antioquia. With most of the invited and contributed papers held as plenary sessions, the bulk of the meeting was attended by all conference attendees, making conversations over meals and during breaks very community-oriented. One morning featured four concurrent sessions, with 24 contributed papers carefully selected from over 200 submitted abstracts. Nationality, gender, and career stage were all taken into consideration as the best abstracts were selected. The five selected speakers who spoke on topics of plant evo-devo ranged in career stage from an undergraduate researcher to two recently hired junior faculty, hailed from institutions in Kansas, California, Mexico, and Colombia, and included research on eudicots, monocots, seed plants, and cell–cell interactions. The first of these speakers, Carolyn Wessinger (University of Kansas), described her use of QTL data to investigate the genetic mechanisms and directionality underlying parallel shifts from bee to hummingbird pollination in Penstemon, concluding that a gain of hummingbird pollination may be easy to achieve genetically but may be difficult to reverse. Evangeline Bellerini (University of California Santa Barbara) likewise used a QTL approach, in this case to identify the genomic regions controlling variation in species-specific traits such as flower color and nectar spur length in Aquilegia. Alma Piñeyro-Nelson (University of California, Berkeley) discussed the potential role of the F-box gene UNUSUAL FLORAL ORGANS (UFO) in differential petal and stamen development across monocots, while Cecilia Zumajo Cardona, an undergraduate researcher (University of Antioquia, Medellin), presented her work on the role of APETALA2 gene duplication and subsequent shifts in expression patterns during the evolution of angiosperms, characterizing novel protein motifs, and identifying genes that have lost their miR172 binding sites. Finally, Marianna Benitez (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, UNAM) provided a thought-provoking analysis of the organization of multicellular aggregates of plant cells, combining mathematical models and theory to investigate the role of physiochemical processes on the formation and patterning of multicellular structures. The poster session was a central focus of the meeting, with over 180 posters presented by students, postdocs, and faculty in all areas—from data to theory and laboratory techniques to bioinformatic modeling. Posters were not grouped topically, encouraging general browsing across the session. I identified 18 posters by botanists and evolutionary plant biologists from all career stages, from professor to undergraduate researcher. David Baum (University of Wisconsin, Madison) presented a poster that provided a theoretical framework for identifying the role of selection in the evolution of development, providing a mechanism for defining homology in a way that is independent of perceived similarities and presenting fresh perspectives on developmental constraints, selection, and fitness. Benjamin Blackman (University of Virginia) used the poster session to update the community on his work investigating the developmental basis of seasonal cues in Mimulus, demonstrating how copy number variation plays a role in geographic divergence and developmental plasticity. Topics of student and postdoctoral posters largely focused on understanding phenotypic and developmental aspects of floral biology, leaf and lateral organ morphology, and the evolution of adaptive traits such as vernalization and cold tolerance (Table 1). Common themes throughout the poster session included the evolution of gene regulatory networks and their role in morphological diversification and the emerging experimental role of transcriptomics and expression analyses in investigating the origins and evolution of novel physiological traits and morphological structures. The panel was composed of six junior and midcareer faculty, including Dr. Lena Hileman, plant evolutionary biologist from the University of Kansas. Held from 8 to 10 pm on Friday night, the panel packed the Krutch Theater, including the balcony, to capacity. Opening the floor to the community, questions for the panelists ranged from appropriate use of funding to how to educate the public and other scientists about evo-devo. It was clear from the discussion that the future of evo-devo as a discipline requires increased communication within the evo-devo community as well as those in other scientific disciplines who can learn and benefit from an evo-devo perspective, with students who can be drawn into the field, and with the public who might not understand how much human livelihood benefits from evo-devo research (e.g., medicine and agriculture). As one attendee noted during the discussion, we are not a marginal field any longer, neither philosophically nor technically; comparative evo-devo research successfully extends across different hierarchies of organismal diversification and can address key genetic, genomic, and environmental aspects of trait evolution. Pulling from a poster-board of issues, thoughts, and ideas that attendees were encouraged to post throughout the meeting, the panel discussion worked to address fundamental questions such as: “What are the big questions for evo-devo research?” “How do we integrate population level questions with more traditional macro-evolutionary approaches?” Attendees were also invited to look at how they linked to one another through their research expertise and interests (Fig. 1). Panelist Lena Hileman stated “[I] saw groups of people deeply engaged in discussion over these sorts of questions outside, after the panel, and I am pretty certain those discussions went on for a long time over beers, etc.” In this way, the panel functioned to introduce the broad audience to specific areas of disciplinary interest and helped individuals to identify potential collaborators for moving forward in developing synthetic evo-devo research programs. Public poster boards were set up for attendees to post comments throughout the duration of the meeting. This poster board asked researchers to connect their areas of research, demonstrating overlap of research programs and providing fodder for conversation among researchers with similar or complementary areas of interest. On the second evening, parallel worships were held on evo-devo education, Latin American challenges in evo-devo, new and developing tools for emerging model organisms, theory, and diversity and mentoring. These workshops provided mechanisms to determine how the society could best fill a gap in providing information and facilitating technology transfer and collaborations to ease some of the challenges associated with developing model systems. During the theory workshop, the speakers stressed that evo-devo theory is about the nonlinear relationship between genotype and phenotype and demonstrated how this shapes the potential for evolution. The workshop highlighted the emerging challenge that gene-regulatory-network diagrams are not adequate to support theory; for that, one also needs detailed temporal and spatial quantitative information. Discussions also touched on tools for developing models of gene network evolution and formats for distributing and sharing theory-based protocols and practices. The teaching workshop directly addressed the development of online and shared tools for teaching evo-devo at undergraduate and graduate levels, while the diversity and mentoring workshop discussed mechanisms for increasing diversity within the evo-devo field and also best practices for mentoring students from diverse backgrounds. Results from the workshops are posted on the society website, and new permanent council positions were voted into place to ensure that the issues raised concerning equity and inclusion, technology transfer, and education during some of these sessions will continue to be at the forefront of the mission of the society. During lunch and session breaks, the Society held informal gatherings for self-identified members of under-represented groups: people of color, LGBTQ folk, women, and people with disabilities. These informal gatherings were hosted by council members, and welcomed anyone who identified as a member of or advocate for the group in question. The goal was to open dialog and provide a safe place to discuss issues and build social and scientific networks with other scientists who have similar experiences or who are interested in recognizing societal challenges and advocating for change. This first meeting of evo-devo biologists highlighted several unique aspects of evo-devo as a discipline. Through this inaugural meeting, we have found common ground as a group of scientists motivated by fundamental concepts in evolutionary biology and by the ability to use increasingly complex tools to more fully explore the patterns and processes underlying the diversity of life. Our field brings together amazing organisms and fantastic facts that together can explain the diversity of forms and functions that we see on Earth and can be used to test both the universality and the uniqueness of underlying developmental patterns and processes. Finally, PanAmEvoDevo as a society is functioning to organize a highly integrated network of researchers engaged and invested in teaching and training the next generation of scientists to advance the study of the genetic and evolutionary mechanisms that generate diversity of form. The author thanks David Baum and Pamela Diggle for constructive comments on this letter, Lena Hileman for comments on the panel and for her personal insights that were woven into the concluding paragraph, and the Associate Editor and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. The author also acknowledges the efforts of Karen Sears, Pamela Diggle, and Pierre Kerner in tweeting prolifically throughout the conference, providing a long-term record of the proceedings. For more information, check out \#evodevo15 and www.evodevopanam.org.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1500441",
    doi = "10.3732/ajb.1500441",
    openalex = "W2243611823"
}

@article{diogo2018where,
    author = "Diogo, Rui",
    title = "Where is, in 2017, the evo in evo‐devo (evolutionary developmental biology)?",
    year = "2018",
    journal = "Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution",
    abstract = "After the inaugural Pan‐American‐Evo‐Devo meeting (2015, Berkeley), I showed how major concerns about evo‐devo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology) research were demonstrated by a simple, non‐biased quantitative analysis of the titles/abstracts of that meeting's talks. Here, I apply the same methodology to the titles/abstracts of the recent Pan‐American‐Evo‐Devo meeting (2017, Calgary). The aim is to evaluate if the concerns raised by me in that paper and by other authors have been addressed and/or if there are other types of differences between the two meetings that may reflect trends within the field of evo‐devo. This analysis shows that the proportion of presentations referring to “morphology”, “organism”, “selection”, “adaptive”, “phylogeny”, and their derivatives was higher in the 2017 meeting, which therefore had a more “organismal” feel. However, there was a decrease in the use of “evolution”/its derivatives and of macroevolutionary terms related to the tempo and mode of evolution in the 2017 meeting. Moreover, the disproportionately high use of genetic/genomic terms clearly shows that evo‐devo continues to be mainly focused on devo, and particularly on “Geno”, that is, on molecular/genetic studies. Furthermore, the vast majority of animal evo‐devo studies are focused only on hard tissues, which are just a small fraction of the whole organism—for example, only 15\% of the tissue mass of the human body. The lack of an integrative approach is also evidenced by the lack of studies addressing conceptual/long‐standing broader questions, including the links between ecology and particularly behavior and developmental/evolutionary variability and between evo‐devo and evolutionary medicine.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.b.22791",
    doi = "10.1002/jez.b.22791",
    number = "1",
    pages = "15-22",
    volume = "330"
}