Commentary - Physiological variation and phenotypic plasticity: a response to 'Plasticity in arthropod cryotypes' by Hawes and Bale.

Research output: Contribution to journal/Conference contribution in journal/Contribution to newspaperJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  • Department of Biological Sciences, Genetics and Ecology
In a recent publication, Hawes and Bale provide an extended discussion of phenotypic plasticity in the context of low temperature responses of animals. They argue that phenotypic plasticity may be partitioned phylogenetically at several levels and go on to explore these levels, and cold hardiness strategies that they term cryotypes, which in their view constitute cryotypic plasticity. Here we argue that this attempt to partition plasticity is misleading, that the term `genotypic plasticity' is potentially highly confusing and a misnomer for physiological variance, and that the term `superplasticity' should not be used. We also show that a definition of strategies as cryotypes is not useful and that the hypothesis about the relationship between evolutionary derivation and extent of plasticity in freeze-avoiding vs freeze-tolerant species is not supported by current evidence.
Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Experimental Biology
Volume211
Pages (from-to)3353-3357
ISSN0022-0949
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008

See relations at Aarhus University Citationformats

ID: 15107247