Modularity

[Dani]

This Wednesday we discussed functional evo-devo. The topic of
modularity was discussed at length. We specifically discussed the
ambiguity surrounding some definitions of modularity, their meaning at
different scales, and the meaning for phylogenetics.

The following paper is relevant:

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/5/770.short

[Dani]

This paper is also relevant:

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/36/1/36.short

This paper explores the modes of evolution that may be responsible for
the evolution of modularity.

[Dani]

From Thomas Hossie:

So lets see if we can come up with a working definition of a module -
with the understanding that a given module is necessarily not
completely independent from the rest of the organism.

On Feb 16, 5:37 pm, Dani <danielle.lee.fra...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dani]

I fail to see how there can be modules if they are not independent. To
me, the entire organism becomes a module.

I agree that for the purpose of study we need to define our unit
interest. But we still need to be informed on the developmental links
among body parts before defining our study region. If you wanted to
study the size of the vertebrate eye and relate it to being nocturnal
or diurnal, you would not want to study the size of the eyeball
separately from the size of the eye socket. In my opinion, you would
not have defined a module. If you were to study the eye socket and eye
size then you would have a more appropriate working definition.