Structuralism and Friends? Or foes?

Historically, the empirical study of phenotypic diversification has fallen into two rough camps; (1) structuralist approaches focusing on developmental constraint, bias, and innovation (with evo-devo at the core); and (2) adaptationist approaches focusing on adaptation, and natural selection. Whilst debates, such as that sur-rounding the proposed Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, often juxtapose these two positions, this review fo-cuses on the grey space in between. Specifically, here I present a novel analysis of structuralism which enables us to take a more nuanced look at the motivations behind the structuralist and adaptationist positions. This makes clear how the two approaches can conflict, and points of potential commensurability. The review clarifies (a) the value of the evo-devo approach to phenotypic diversity, but also (b) how it properly relates to other predominant approaches to the same issues in evolutionary biology more broadly.

Automated summary

Historically, the study of phenotypic diversification has been divided into two camps: structuralist approaches focusing on development constraint and innovation, and adaptationist approaches focusing on adaptation and natural selection. This review explores the grey area between these two positions and provides a novel analysis of structuralism, highlighting its motivations and conflicts with adaptationist approaches. It clarifies the value of the evo-devo approach to phenotypic diversity and its relationship to other approaches in evolutionary biology.