Skip Navigation


Integrative and Comparative Biology Advance Access originally published online on August 24, 2006
Integrative and Comparative Biology 2006 46(6):795-807; doi:10.1093/icb/icl033
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
46/6/795    most recent
icl033v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Erezyilmaz, D. F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 2006 The Author(s)
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/uk/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Imperfect eggs and oviform nymphs: a history of ideas about the origins of insect metamorphosis

Deniz F. Erezyilmaz1
Department of Biology, University of Washington Box 351800, Seattle, WA 98195-1800, USA

Correspondence: 1E-mail: denizere{at}u.washington.edu

The problem of insect metamorphosis has inspired naturalists for centuries. One question that often arises is why some insects, such as butterflies and bees, undergo a fairly radical metamorphosis while others, such as crickets and lice, do not. Even before the concept of homology emerged scientists speculated which stage found in more direct-developing insects would correspond with the pupal stage of metamorphosing insects. William Harvey (1651) considered the pupal stage to be a continuation of embryonic events, calling it a "second egg." Since then variations of this idea have emerged over the centuries of scientific research and have been supported by a wide variety of methods and rationales. This review will follow those ideas and the ideas that emerged in opposition to them to the present state of the field.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 DevelopmentHome page
Y. Suzuki, J. W. Truman, and L. M. Riddiford
The role of Broad in the development of Tribolium castaneum: implications for the evolution of the holometabolous insect pupa
Development, February 1, 2008; 135(3): 569 - 577.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.