Since 1990 the recognition of deep homologies among metazoan developmental processes and the spread of more mechanistic approaches to developmental biology have led to a resurgence of interest in evolutionary novelty and innovation. Other evolutionary biologists have proposed central roles for behaviour and phenotypic plasticity in generating the conditions for the construction of novel morphologies, or invoked the accessibility of new regions of vast sequence spaces. These approaches contrast with more traditional emphasis on the exploitation of ecological opportunities as the primary source of novelty. This definitional cornucopia reflects differing stress placed on three attributes of novelties: their radical nature, the generation of new taxa, and ecological and evolutionary impact. Such different emphasis has led to conflating four distinct issues: the origin of novel attributes (genes, developmental processes, phenotypic characters), new functions, higher clades and the ecological impact of new structures and functions. Here I distinguish novelty (the origin of new characters, deep character transformations, or new combinations) from innovation, the ecological and evolutionary success of clades. Evidence from the fossil record of macroevolutionary lags between the origin of a novelty and its ecological success demonstrates that novelty may be decoupled from innovation, and only definitions of novelty based on radicality (rather than generativity or consequentiality) can be assessed without reference to the subsequent history of the clade to which a novelty belongs. These considerations suggest a conceptual framework for novelty and innovation, involving: (i) generation of the potential for novelty; (ii) the formation of novel attributes; (iii) refinement of novelties through adaptation; (iv) exploitation of novelties by a clade, which may coincide with a new round of ecological or environmental potentiation; followed by (v) the establishment of innovations through ecological processes. This framework recognizes that there is little empirical support for either the dominance of ecological opportunity, nor abrupt discontinuities (often caricatured as ‘hopeful monsters’). This general framework may be extended to aspects of cultural and social innovation.

中文翻译：

---

进化新颖性和创新的概念框架

自 1990 年以来，对后生动物发育过程中深层同源性的认识以及对发育生物学的更多机械方法的传播导致对进化新颖性和创新的兴趣重新抬头。其他进化生物学家提出了行为和表型可塑性在产生构建新形态的条件方面的核心作用，或调用了巨大序列空间新区域的可访问性。这些方法与更传统的强调利用生态机会作为新颖性的主要来源形成鲜明对比。这种定义性的聚宝盆反映了对新事物三个属性的不同强调：它们的激进性质、新分类群的产生以及生态和进化影响。这种不同的侧重点导致了四个不同的问题混为一谈：新属性的起源（基因、发育过程、表型特征）、新功能、高级进化枝以及新结构和功能的生态影响。在这里，我将新颖性（新角色的起源、深度角色转换或新组合）与创新、进化枝的生态和进化成功区分开来。来自新颖性起源与其生态成功之间宏观进化滞后的化石记录的证据表明，新颖性可能与创新脱钩，并且只能评估基于激进性（而不是生成性或后果性）的新颖性定义，而无需参考后续的新奇事物所属的进化枝的历史。这些考虑提出了新颖性和创新的概念框架，包括：(i) 产生新颖性的潜力；(ii) 新属性的形成；(iii) 通过改编改进新颖性；(iv) 进化枝对新事物的开发，这可能与新一轮的生态或环境增强相吻合；其次是 (v) 通过生态过程建立创新。该框架认识到，无论是生态机会的主导地位还是突然的不连续性（通常被讽刺为“有希望的怪物”），都几乎没有经验支持。这个总体框架可以扩展到文化和社会创新的各个方面。(iii) 通过改编改进新颖性；(iv) 进化枝对新事物的开发，这可能与新一轮的生态或环境增强相吻合；其次是 (v) 通过生态过程建立创新。该框架认识到，无论是生态机会的主导地位还是突然的不连续性（通常被讽刺为“有希望的怪物”），都几乎没有经验支持。这个总体框架可以扩展到文化和社会创新的各个方面。(iii) 通过改编改进新颖性；(iv) 进化枝对新事物的开发，这可能与新一轮的生态或环境增强相吻合；其次是 (v) 通过生态过程建立创新。该框架认识到，无论是生态机会的主导地位还是突然的不连续性（通常被讽刺为“有希望的怪物”），都几乎没有经验支持。这个总体框架可以扩展到文化和社会创新的各个方面。也不会突然中断（通常被讽刺为“有希望的怪物”）。这个总体框架可以扩展到文化和社会创新的各个方面。也不会突然中断（通常被讽刺为“有希望的怪物”）。这个总体框架可以扩展到文化和社会创新的各个方面。