Birds evolved from and are phylogenetically recognized as members of the theropod dinosaurs; their first known member is the Late Jurassic Archaeopteryx, now represented by seven skeletons and a feather, and their closest known non-avian relatives are the dromaeosaurid theropods such as Deinonychus. Bird flight is widely thought to have evolved from the trees down, but Archaeopteryx and its outgroups show no obvious arboreal or tree-climbing characters, and its wing planform and wing loading do not resemble those of gliders. The ancestors of birds were bipedal, terrestrial, agile, cursorial and carnivorous or omnivorous. Apart from a perching foot and some skeletal fusions, a great many characters that are usually considered ‘avian’ (e.g. the furcula, the elongated forearm, the laterally flexing wrist and apparently feathers) evolved in non-avian theropods for reasons unrelated to birds or to flight. Soon after Archaeopteryx, avian features such as the pygostyle, fusion of the carpometacarpus, and elongated curved pedal claws with a reversed, fully descended and opposable hallux, indicate improved flying ability and arboreal habits. In the further evolution of birds, characters related to the flight apparatus phylogenetically preceded those related to the rest of the skeleton and skull. Mesozoic birds are more diverse and numerous than thought previously and the most diverse known group of Cretaceous birds, the Enantiornithes, was not even recognized until 1981. The vast majority of Mesozoic bird groups have no Tertiary records: Enantiornithes, Hesperornithiformes, Ichthyornithiformes and several other lineages disappeared by the end of the Cretaceous. By that time, a few Linnean ‘Orders’ of extant birds had appeared, but none of these taxa belongs to extant ‘families’, and it is not until the Paleocene or (in most cases) the Eocene that the majority of extant bird ‘Orders’ are known in the fossil record. There is no evidence for a major or mass extinction of birds at the end of the Cretaceous, nor for a sudden ‘bottleneck’ in diversity that fostered the early Tertiary origination of living bird ‘Orders’.

Nuptial feeding encompasses any form of nutrient transfer from the male to the female during or directly after courtship and/or copulation. In insects, nuptial gifts may take the form of food captured or collected by the male, parts, or even the whole of the male's body, or glandular products of the male such as salivary secretions, external glandular secretions, the spermatophore and substances in the ejaculate. Over the past decade, there has been considerable debate over the current function of nuptial feeding in insects. This debate has centred on the issue of whether nuptial gifts function as paternal investment (i.e. function to increase the fitness and/or number of the gift-giving male's own offspring) or as mating effort (i.e. function to attract females, facilitate coupling, and/or to maximize ejaculate transfer), although the two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive. In the present article, evidence for the potential of nuptial gifts to function as either paternal investment, mating effort, or both is reviewed for each form of nuptial feeding in each insect taxon for which sufficient data are available. Empirical evidence suggests that many diverse forms of nuptial feeding in different insect taxa function, at least in part, as mating effort. For example, nuptial prey and salivary masses in the Mecoptera, regurgitated food in Drosophila (Diptera), hind-wing feeding in Cyphoderris (Orthoptera) and the secretion of the male's cephalic gland in Neopyrochroa (Coleoptera) and Zorotypus (Zoraptera) appear to function to entice females to copulate and/or to facilitate coupling. Nuptial prey and salivary masses in the Mecoptera also appear to function to maximize ejaculate transfer (which is also a form of mating effort), as do nuptial prey in Empis (Diptera), external glandular secretions in Oecanthus and Allonemobius (Orthoptera) and the spermatophylax in gryllids and tettigoniids (Orthoptera). Large spermatophores in, for example, the Lepidoptera and Coleoptera, also appear to be maintained by selection on the male to maximize ejaculate transfer and thereby counter the effects of sperm competition. In contrast to the large amount of evidence in support of the mating effort hypothesis, there is a relative lack of good evidence to support the paternal investment hypothesis. Certain studies have demonstrated an increase in the weight and/or number of eggs laid as a result of the receipt of larger gifts, or a greater number of gifts, in tettigoniids, gryllids, acridids, mantids, bruchid beetles, drosophilids and lepidopterans. However, virtually all of these studies (with the possible exception of studies of the spermatophylax in tettigoniids) have failed to control adequately for hormonal substances in the ejaculate that are known to affect female reproductive output. Furthermore, in at least four tettigoniids (but not in the case of two species), three lepidopterans, a drosophilid and probably also bruchid beetles and bittacids, evidence suggests that the male has a low probability of fertilising the eggs that stand to benefit from his nuptial gift nutrients. Therefore, the hypothesis that paternal investment might account for the function of nuptial gifts in general is not supported.

The connection between development and evolution has become the focus of an increasing amount of research in recent years, and heterochrony has long been a key concept in this relation. Heterochrony is defined as evolutionary change in rates and timing of developmental processes; the dimension of time is therefore an essential part in studies of heterochrony. Over the past two decades, evolutionary biologists have used several methodological frameworks to analyse heterochrony, which differ substantially in the way they characterize evolutionary changes in ontogenies and in the resulting classification, although they mostly use the same terms. This review examines how these methods compare ancestral and descendant ontogenies, emphasizing their differences and the potential for contradictory results from analyses using different frameworks. One of the two principal methods uses a clock as a graphical display for comparisons of size, shape and age at a particular ontogenic stage, whereas the other characterizes a developmental process by its time of onset, rate, and time of cessation. The literature on human heterochrony provides particularly clear examples of how these differences produce apparent contradictions when applied to the same problem. Developmental biologists recently have extended the concept of heterochrony to the earliest stages of development and have applied it at the cellular and molecular scale. This extension brought considerations of developmental mechanisms and genetics into the study of heterochrony, which previously was based primarily on phenomenological characterizations of morphological change in ontogeny. Allometry is the pattern of covariation among several morphological traits or between measures of size and shape; unlike heterochrony, allometry does not deal with time explicitly. Two main approaches to the study of allometry are distinguished, which differ in the way they characterize organismal form. One approach defines shape as proportions among measurements, based on considerations of geometric similarity, whereas the other focuses on the covariation among measurements in ontogeny and evolution. Both are related conceptually and through the use of similar algebra. In addition, there are close connections between heterochrony and changes in allometric growth trajectories, although there is no one-to-one correspondence. These relationships and outline links between different analytical frameworks are discussed.