Genotype-Phenotype Map

The fitness which the individuals of a species of plants can attain by adjusting themselves to the special conditions is, as we have seen, a kind of stepping aside, a morphological motion, put forth by the organism itself as truly as are the coordinated muscular acts which enable the higher animals to move from place to place and thus to choose their own environments. A perennial plant must arrange to tolerate whatever extremes of temperature, moisture, and exposure to sunlight its habitat may provide. Its powers of making such adjustments may be reckoned as functions of its tissues and organs in quite the same sense as locomotion and sustained high temperature are functions of the animal organism.— O. F. Cook, Aspects of Kinetic Evolution (1907)

... genes, and the genotype as a whole, are by no means the direct cause of the concrete way in which the different characters are formed. Only if uniform conditions are maintained in the laboratory, where so-called "other equal conditions" can be eliminated is it possible to establish the correlation between "genes" and "characters" (which geneticists succeed in doing in a number of cases). If, however, the genotype is, so to speak, carried out to the field (when the seeds are sown), not a trace of these "other equal conditions" is left. Here, one must know the specific role these field conditions play in the development of the genotype. When that is known, it becomes clear that the nature of a given character is directly determined by the concrete course of the phases, or stages, of development, under the definite conditions of existence of these characters. Moreover, the action of most diverse factors not required by the cycle of development inevitably intrudes here and only the whole of this chain moulds the given concrete characters. The genotype is merely the inherited general foundation of the development of the species, variety, etc., which determines the general direction of a plant's development and the character of its varietal requirements of conditions of existence; it does not predetermine the concrete nature of characters. The hereditary foundation is the ancestral basis, which is relatively conservative and within definite limits preserves its specific structure. But it itself undergoes development in the course of the plant's individual life, developing through phases and stages into the plant's characters.— T. D. Lysenko, Agrobiology (1954)

An experiment has shown that the rate of tillering (= asexual reproduction) in perennial ryegrass can be significantly altered by selection within clones. The response to this somatic selection depended on the age of the clone such that response was obtained in young clones raised from seedlings but not in clones with a long history of uninterrupted asexual propagation. The response was also dependent on the genotype of the clone and there was some evidence to suggest that the somatic lability of genotypes was predisposed by a history of adaptation to asexual propagation previous to the sexual cycle.— E. L.Breeze et al., Somatic Selection in Perennial Ryegrass (1965)

Turney, Whitley, Anderson: Evolution, Learning, and Instinct: 100 Years of the Baldwin Effect

Baldwin: A New Factor in Evolution. American Naturalist 30: 441-451 (1896)
                                                                                     part 2: 30: 536-553 (1896)

Morgan: Baldwin Effect (1896)

Osborn: Baldwin Effect (1896)

Waddington: Acquired Characters / Canalization (1952)

Waddington: Evolution of adaptations / Canalization (1953)

Waddington: Acquired Characteristics / Canalization (1953)

Allard & Bradshaw: Genotype-Environment Interactions (1964)

Altenberg: Genome Growth and the Evolution of the Genotype-Phenotype Map (1995)

Wagner, Altenberg: Complex Adaptations and the Evolution of Evolvability (1996)

Schlichting: Plasticity integration: Coordinating the phenotype across changing environments (1998)

Ancel: Simpson-Baldwin Effect (1999)

Ancel & Fontana: Genotype-Phenotype Map (2000?)

Mezey et al.: Is the Genotype-Phenotype Map Modular? (2000)

Stephens: Effect of Mutation and Recombination on the Genotype-Phenotype Map (2000)

Amzallag: Connectance in Sorghum development: beyond the genotype-phenotype duality. (2000)

Di Ferdinando et al.: Evolving Modular Architectures for Neural Networks (2001)

Wagner et al.: Natural Selection and the Origin of Modules (2001)

Stadler: The Genotype-Phenotype Map (2002)

Rasmuson: The genotype-phenotype link (2002)

Fontana: Modelling evo-devo with RNA (2002

Siegal & Bergman: Waddington’s canalization revisited (2002)

Schuster: A Testable Genotype-Phenotype Map: Modeling Evolution of RNA Molecules (2002)

Altenberg: Modularity in Evolution: Some Low-Level Questions (2004)

Wagner et al.: The Road to Modularity (2007)