4.2 Review

Views on the Form-Function Correlation and Biological Design

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAMMALIAN EVOLUTION
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 15-22

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10914-019-09487-4

关键词

Radinsky; Morphology; Biomechanics; Adaptation; Mammals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relationship between form and function has been a fascinating field of study in natural sciences, with different scholars from creationists in the 19th century to modern adaptation researchers in the 20th century exploring and analyzing this connection. Significant contributions by scholars in different periods have laid the foundation for modern form-function studies and development.
The linkage between form and function is a fascinating field for intellectual analysis and contemplation in natural sciences by naturalists, biologists, anatomists, as well as philosophers and theologians. In the early nineteenth century, creationists' approaches (Cuvier-Paley) helped to install the idea of a form-function binomial that gained scientific status in the second half of that century when it was contextualized within the framework of evolution by natural selection. In the mid-twentieth century, W.J. Bock and G. von Wahlert settled the modern basis for the elucidation of adaptation based on morphology, function, environment, and their interconnections. The paleontologist Leonard Burton Radinsky made significant contributions to the development of form-function studies. Also, his posthumously published book The Evolution of Vertebrate Design (1987), inspired many young biologists to embrace form-function approaches. Radinsky emphasized the importance of looking for the behaviors or functions that are actually correlated with a particular anatomical form in living species, together with a biomechanical design analysis as looking at that anatomical structure from a biomechanical or engineering perspective. Field biology research and testing form-function correlation should be a prerequisite in adaptation research programs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据