To sum up: Recognizing that certain facts remain which at present defy interpretation and which call for further analysis, I believe that the evidence which has thus far been brought forward from various sources justifies the following interpretation of the genesis of phenocopies. As mutant genes produce a dislocation in the integrated functions of the normal genotype, so do certain external agents, whether physical or chemical, intervene in gene-determined developmental events by preventing them at one point or another from accomplishing their appointed ends, leading thereby to a mutant-like phenotype. The point of interference varies according to the existing genotype, the developmental stage at intervention, kind and quantity of the external agent, and still other factors. But I believe that in all instances the resulting phenocopies are the result of external pressure which has a suppressing, retarding or disorienting effect on one or more gene-controlled components of the normal or mutant genotype in question. It is probable that with sufficient or the proper kind of pressure many gene-controlled events can be made to appear as being the result of sub-threshold alleles, but I do not believe that the existence of such isoalleles as determiners of phenocopies has been proven or that it is likely. I believe that the phenotypic homologies between mutants and phenocopies, whether they be only superficial or intrinsic, represent two different ways in which weaknesses of ontogenetic integration are revealed. The fact that, in our experience, those mutant phenotypes which exist as several independent gene substitutions are also the ones which can most readily be produced as phenocopies, and that the affected events depend on complex developmental interactions presumably enhances the likelihood of "derailments" to occur. The deficiencies in developmental integration and stability which we have in mind must, of course, be viewed as a failure of evolution to provide me chanisms which could cope with the genic or environmental sources of dislocation. There is abundant evidence, however, for the widespread occurrence of specific modifiers, as constituents of the residual genotype, which in a similar manner alleviate mutant and phenocopic development. This is important in view of the many facts which suggest that these modifiers are in reality an integral, if varying, part of the normal genic endowment of organisms. Taking all evidence into account it seems to me that the most exciting aspect of the study of phenocopies is the opportunity it may provide of shedding light, if only indirectly, on the developmental functions of that awesome skeleton in the closets of genetical science-the normal genotype.
Read full abstract