References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary ThoughtRoots of Evo-Devo, pp. 259 - 274Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005
References
(1962). Essay on classification. Reprint of 1859 edition. Edited by . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberch, Pere (1982). “Developmental constraints in evolutionary processes.” In Evolution and development. Edited by . New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 313–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989). “The logic of monsters: Evidence for internal constraint in development and evolution,” Geobios, mémoire spécial no. 12: 21–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1966). “Thomas Hunt Morgan and the problem of sex determination, 1903–1910,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 110: 53Google Scholar
(1978a). Life sciences in the twentieth century. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
(1978b). Thomas Hunt Morgan: The man and his science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
Allen, Garland E. (1985). “T. H. Morgan and the split between embryology and genetics, 1910–35.” In A history of embryology. Edited by , , and . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 113–146Google Scholar
(1983). “E. C. Tolman and the intervening variable: A study in the epistemological history of psychology,” Philosophy of Science 50: 268–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1985). “Psychology and epistemology: The place versus response controversy,” Cognition 20: 127–153CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1986). “The unknown epistemology of E. C. Tolman,” British Journal of Psychology 77: 525–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amundson, Ron (1989). “The trials and tribulations of selectionist explanations.” In Issues in evolutionary epistemology. Edited by and . New York: State University of New York Press, pp. 413–432
(1994). “Two concepts of constraint: Adaptationism and the challenge from developmental biology,” Philosophy of Science 61: 556–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amundson, Ron (1996). “Historical development of the concept of adaptation.” In Adaptation. Edited by and . New York: Academic Press, pp. 11–53Google Scholar
(2000). “Embryology and evolution 1920–1960: Worlds apart?,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 22: 335–352Google ScholarPubMed
(2003). “Phylogenetic reconstruction then and now,” Biology and Philosophy 17: 679–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(forthcoming). “Functions of myth: Essentialism as the foe of twentieth-century evolution theory,” Journal of the History of BiologyGoogle Scholar
(1987). The Cuvier–Geoffroy debate: French biology in the decades before Darwin. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
(1997). The origin of animal body plans: A study in evolutionary developmental biology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001). “Developmental drive: An important determinant of the direction of phenotypic evolution,” Evolution and Development 3: 271–278CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1996). Following form and function: A philosophical archaelogy of life science. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University PressGoogle Scholar
(1990). Cognitive foundations of natural history. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
, , , , and (1987). Charles Darwin's notebooks, 1836–1844. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University PressGoogle Scholar
(1837a). “On the unity of structure in the animal kingdom,” The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 22 (January): 116–141Google Scholar
(1837b). “Further observations on the unity of structure,” The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 22 (April): 345–364Google Scholar
Beatty, John (1985). “Speaking of species: Darwin's strategy,” In The Darwinian heritage. Editing by . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 265–281Google Scholar
Beatty, John (1986). “The Synthesis and the synthetic theory.” In Integrating scientific disciplines. Edited by . Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994). “The proximate/ultimate distinction in the multiple careers of Ernst Mayr,” Biology and Philosophy 9: 333–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1833). The hand: Its mechanism and vital endowments as evincing design. London: William PickeringGoogle Scholar
, , and (2000). The concept of the gene in development and evolution. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolker, Jessica A. (2001). “Evolutionary developmental biology: Developmental and genetic mechanisms of evolutionary change.” In Encyclopedia of the life sciences. New York: Macmillan. www.els.net [doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0001517]
(1977). “Darwinism and the argument from design: Suggestions for a reevaluation,” Journal of the History of Biology 10: 29–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1984). Evolution: The history of an idea. Berkeley, CA: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Peter J. (1999). “Evolution: History.” In Encyclopedia of the life sciences. New York: Macmillan. www.els.net [doi: 10.1038/npg.els.0001517]
(1991). “Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds,” Philosophical Studies 61: 127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1999). “Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa.” In Species: new interdisciplinary essays. Edited by . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 141–186Google Scholar
Bromberger, Sylvan (1966). “Why-questions.” In Mind and cosmos. Edited by . Pittsburgh, PA: Pittburgh University Press, pp. 86–108Google Scholar
Brower, Andrew V. Z. (2000). “Homology and the inference of systematic relationships: Some historical and philosophical perspectives.” In Homology and systematics. Edited by and . London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 10–21Google Scholar
(2002). “How theories become knowledge: Morgan's chromosome theory of heredity in America and Britain,” Journal of the History of Biology 35: 471–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1836). Geology and mineralogy considered with reference to natural theology, 2 vols. London: William PickeringCrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). “Does evolution in body patterning genes drive morphological change – or vice versa?,” Bioessays 21: 326–3323.0.CO;2-0>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burian, Richard M. (1997). “On conflicts between developmental and genetic viewpoints – and their attempted resolution in molecular biology.” In Structures and norms in science. Edited by . Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 243–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burian, Richard M. (2005). “Lillie's Paradox – or, some hazards of cellular geography.” In The epistemology of development, evolution, and genetics. Edited by . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183–209Google Scholar
Burian, Richard M., Jean Gayon, and Doris T. Zallen (1991). “Boris Ephrussi and the synthesis of genetics and embryology.” In A conceptual history of modern embryology. Edited by . New York: Plenum Press, pp. 207–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1986). Correspondence of Charles Darwin. Vol. 2. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
(1958). “Logic and memory in Linnaeus's system of taxonomy,” Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 169: 144–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001). “Richard Owen, morphology, and evolution,” Journal of the History of Biology 34: 481–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1978). Science in culture: The early Victorian period. Vol. 2. New York: Dawson and Science HistoryGoogle Scholar
(1838). “Review of Whewell, ‘A history of the inductive sciences,’” British and Foreign Medical Review 5: 319–342Google Scholar
Carroll, Sean B. (2000). “Homeotic genes and the evolution of arthropods and chordates.” In Shaking the tree: Readings from nature in the history of life. Edited by . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 69–88Google Scholar
(2003). “On the origin of the typological/population distinction in Ernst Mayr's changing views of species, 1942–1959,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34C: 277–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1974). “William Johannsen and the genotype concept,” Journal of the History of Biology 7: 5–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Churchill, Frederick B. (1980). “The modern evolutionary synthesis and the biogenetic law.” In The evolutionary synthesis. Edited by and . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1976). “Morphology between type concept and descent theory,” Journal of the History of Medicine 31: 149–175Google ScholarPubMed
Coleman, William (1980). “Morphology in the evolutionary synthesis.” In The evolutionary synthesis. Edited by and . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 174–180Google Scholar
(1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition. 4 vols. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar
(1857). “Thoughts on species,” Annals and Magazine of Natural History 20: 485–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1909). The foundations of the origin of species: Two essays written in 1842 and 1844 by Charles Darwin. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Davis, D. Dwight (1949). “Comparative anatomy and the evolution of vertebrates.” In Genetics, paleontology and evolution. Edited by , , and Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 64–87Google Scholar
De Beer, Gavin R. (1938). “Embryology and evolution.” In Evolution: essays on aspects of evolutionary biology presented to Professor E. S. Goodrich on his seventieth birthday. Edited by . Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, pp. 57–78Google Scholar
, and (1996). “A common plan for dorsoventral patterning in Bilateria,” Nature 380: 37–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Robertis, Eddy M., and Yoshiki Sasai (2000). “A common plan for dorsoventral patterning in Bilateria.” In Shaking the tree: Readings from nature in the history of life. Edited by Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 89–99Google Scholar
(1995). “A wolf in sheep's clothing: Carl Gegenbaur, Ernst Haeckel, the vertebral theory of the skull, and the survival of Richard Owen,” Journal of the History of Biology 28: 247–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995). “Richard Goldschmidt's ‘heresies’ and the Evolutionary Synthesis,” Journal of the History of Biology 28: 431–461CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1950). “Human diversity and adaptation,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 15: 385–400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1951). Genetics and the origin of species. 3rd and revised New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
(1997). “Overcoming first impressions: George Cuvier's types,” Journal of the History of Biology 30: 179–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1988). “The processes of evolution: Towards a newer synthesis,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 395–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ephrussi, Boris (1951). “Remarks on cell heredity.” In Genetics in the twentieth century. Edited by . New York: Macmillan, pp. 241–262Google Scholar
(1953). Nucleo-cytoplasmic relations in micro-organisms. Oxford, England: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
(2001). The poverty of the Linnean hierarchy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falk, Raphael (2000). “The gene – a concept in tension.” In The concept of the gene in development and evolution. Edited by , , and . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 317–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1993). “Morgan's hypothesis of the genetic control of development,” Genetics 134: 671–674Google ScholarPubMed
(1976). “The type-concept in zoology during the first half of the nineteenth century,” Journal of the History of Biology 9: 93–119Google Scholar
(1989). “Critics and criticisms of the Modern Synthesis: The viewpoint of a philosopher,” Evolutionary Biology 26: 1–49Google Scholar
(1998). Darwinism's stuggle for survival. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Gayon, Jean (2000). “From measurement to organization: A philosophical scheme for the history of the concept of heredity.” In The concept of the gene in development and evolution. Edited by , , and . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Shaking the tree: Readings from nature in the history of life. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
(1870). “Die Stellung und Bedeutung der Morphologie,” Gegenbaurs Morphologisches Jahrbuch 1: 1–19Google Scholar
(1969). The triumph of the Darwinian method. Berkeley, CA: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael T. (1980). “The failure of morphology to assimilate Darwinism.” In The Evolutionary Synthesis. Edited by and . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 180–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1997). Metaphysics and the origin of species. Albany, NY: State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar
(2002). “An autobiographical anatomy,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 24: 285–291CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2001). “Ecological developmental biology: Developmental biology meets the real world,” Developmental Biology 233: 1–12CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1978). “The embryological origins of the gene theory,” Journal of the History of Biology 11: 307–351CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1980). “Owen's Vertebral Archetype and evolutionary genetics – a Platonic appreciation,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 23: 475–488CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, Scott F. (1991). “Induction and the origins of developmental genetics.” In A conceptual history of modern embryology. Edited by . New York: Plenum Press, pp. 181–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Scott F. (1996). “Enzymatic adaptation and the entrance of molecular biology into embryology.” In The philosophy and history of molecular biology: New perspectives. Edited by . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 101–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1998). “Bearing crosses: A historiography of genetics,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 76: 168–1823.0.CO;2-J>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, Scott F. (2000). “Genes classical and genes developmental: The different uses of genes in evolutionary syntheses.” In Concept of the gene in development and evolution: Historical and epistemological perspectives. Edited by , , and . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 178–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003b). “Evo–devo, devo–evo, and devgen–popgen,” Biology and Philosophy 18: 347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2001). “Homologies of process and modular elements of embryolic construction,” Journal of Experimental Zoology (Molecular and Developmental Evolution) 291: 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Scott F., and Marion Faber (1996). “Looking at embryos: The visual and conceptual aesthetics of emerging form.” In The elusive synthesis: Aesthetics and science. Edited by . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 125–151Google Scholar
, , and (1996). “Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology,” Developmental Biology 173: 357–372CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1987). “Natural order, natural theology, and social order: John Ray and the ‘Newtonian ideology,’” Journal of the History of Biology 20: 1–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay (1980). “G. G. Simpson, paleontology, and the Modern Synthesis.” In The Evolutionary Synthesis. Edited by and . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 153–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay (1983). “The hardening of the modern synthesis.” In dimensions of Darwinism. Edited by . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71–93Google Scholar
, and (1979). “The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B205: 581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1982). “Exaptation – a missing term in the science of form,” Paleobiology 8: 4–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, James R. (2000). “Reproduction and the reduction of genetics.” In Concept of the gene in development and evolution: Historical and epistemological perspectives. Edited by , , and . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 240–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, James R., and William C. Wimsatt (1989). “Picturing Weismannism: A case study of conceptual evolution.” In What the philosophy of biology is. Edited by . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 75–137CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1987). Kant and the claims of knowledge. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1983). Representing and intervening. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994). Homology: The hierarchical basis of comparative biology. San Diego, CA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
(2000). “Evo–devo or devo–evo – does it matter?,” Evolution and Development 2: 177–178CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamburger, Viktor (1980). “Embryology and the Modern Synthesis in evolutionary theory.” In The Evolutionary Synthesis. Edited by and . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 97–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1894). The biological problem of to-day: Preformation or epigenesis?New York: MacmillanGoogle Scholar
(1934). “Probleme der heutigen Vererbungslehre,” Die Naturwissenschaften 25: 425–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinchliffe, J. Richard (1989). “Reconstructing the archetype: Innovation and conservatism in the evolution and development of the pentadactyl limb.” In Complex organismal functions: Integration and evolution in vertebrates. Edited by and Chichester, England: Wiley, pp. 171–189Google Scholar
Hodge, M. J. S. (1985). “Darwin as a lifelong generation theorist.” In The Darwinian heritage. Edited by . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 207–243Google Scholar
(1983). “Developmental constraints and the evolution of vertebrate digit patterns,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 104: 451–471CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1998). “Major transitions in animal evolution: A developmental genetic perspective,” American Zoologist 38: 829–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1860). “Physical theories of the phenomenon of life,” Fraser's Magazine (June): 739–753Google Scholar
Horder, T. J. (1989). “Syllabus for an embryological synthesis.” In Complex organismal functions: Integration and evolution in vertebrates. Edited by and . Chichester, England: Wiley, pp. 315–348Google Scholar
Horn, H. S., J. T. Bonner, W. Pohle, M. J. Katz, M. A. R. Koehl, H. Meinhardt, R. A. Raff, W.-E. Reif, S. C. Stearns, and R. Strathman (1982). “Adaptive aspects of development.” In Evolution and development. Edited by . New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 215–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1966). “A molecular approach to the study of genic heterozygosity in natural populations I. The number of alleles at different loci in Drosophila pseudoobscura,” Genetics 54: 577–594Google Scholar
(1965). “The effect of essentialism on taxonomy: 2000 years of stasis,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15, 16: 314–326, 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, David L. (1983). “Darwin and the nature of science.” In Evolution from molecules to men. Edited by . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 63–80Google Scholar
Hull, David L. (1999). “Why did Darwin fail? The role of John Stuart Mill.” In Biology and epistemology. Edited by and . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 48–63Google Scholar
(1965). Hume, Newton, and the design argument. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska PressGoogle Scholar
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1893a). “Evolution in biology.” In Collected essays vol. 2: Darwiniana. London: Macmillan, pp. 187–226
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1893b). “Lectures on evolution.” In Collected essays vol. 4: Science and Hebrew tradition. London: Macmillan, pp. 46–138
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1894). “Owen's position in the history of anatomical science.” In The life of Richard Owen, by his grandson. Vol. 2. Edited by . London: John Murray 273–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1961). “Genetic regulatory mechanisms in the synthesis of proteins,” Journal of Molecular Biology 3: 318–356CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1966). “Inductive processes in embryonic development,” Science 152 (3718): 25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1949). Genetics, Paleontology, and evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
, and (1990). “Neophenogenesis: A developmental theory of phenotype evolution,” Journal of Theoretical Biology 147: 471–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Evelyn Fox (2000b). “Decoding the genetic program.” In The concept of the gene in development and evolution. Edited by , , and . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , , , , and (1999). “Recruitment of a hedgehog regulatory circuit in butterfly eyespot evolution,” Science 283: 532–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1870). “On the use of the term homology in modern zoology, and the distinction between homogenetic and homoplastic agreements,” Annual Magazine of Natural History 6: 34–43Google Scholar
Lankester, E. Ray (1967). “Degeneration: A chapter in Darwinism.” In The intepretation of animal form. Edited by . New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, pp. 57–132Google Scholar
(1994). Interpreting nature: The science of living form from Linnaeus to Kant. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University PressGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1980). “Why was the logic of discovery abandoned?” In Scientific discovery: Logic and rationality. Edited by . Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 173–183Google Scholar
(2003). “Evolutionary morphology, innovation, and the synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology,” Biology and Philosophy 18: 309–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2003). “Knowing your ancestors: Themes in the history of evo–devo,” Evolution and Development 5: 327–330CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1999). Thomas Henry Huxley: The evolution of a scientist. Amherst, NY: Prometheus BooksGoogle Scholar
Maienschein, Jane (1991a). “The origins of Entwicklungsmechanik.” In A conceptual history of modern embryology. Edited by . New York: Plenum Press, pp. 43–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1991b). Transforming traditions in American biology: 1880–1915. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins PressGoogle Scholar
Maienschein, Jane (1999). “Competing epistemologies and developmental biology.” In Biology and epistemology. Edited by and . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 122–137Google Scholar
(1982). Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , , , , , , and (1985). “Developmental constraints and evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology 60: 265–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1959a). “Concerning a new biography of Charles Darwin, and its scientific shortcomings: Review of Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution,” Scientific American 201 (11): 209–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1959b). “Darwin and the evolutionary theory in biology.” In Evolution and anthropology: A centennial appraisal. Edited by . Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
(1959c). “Where are we?,” Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 24: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1974). “Behavior programs and evolutionary strategies,” American Scientist 62: 650–659Google ScholarPubMed
Mayr, Ernst (1976). “Agassiz, Darwin, and evolution.” In Evolution and the diversity of life: Selected essays. Edited by . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 251–276Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1980a). “Prologue: Some thoughts on the history of the Evolutionary Synthesis.” In The Evolutionary Synthesis. Edited by and . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 1–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1984). “The triumph of the evolutionary synthesis,” Times Literary Supplement November 2, 1984: 1261–1262Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1991). “An overview of current evolutionary biology.” In New perspectives on evolution. Edited by and . New York: Wiley Liss, pp. 1–14Google Scholar
(1994a). “Recapitulation reinterpreted: The somatic program,” Quarterly Review of Biology 69: 223–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1980). The Evolutionary Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996). “Species, rules and meaning: The politics of language and the ends of definitions in 19th century natural history,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 27 (4): 473–519CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1991). “Deconstructing Darwinism: The politics of evolution in the 1860s,” Journal of the History of Biology 24: 353–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1995). “Linnaeus concept of a “symmetry of all parts,” Jahrbuch für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie 2: 41–47Google Scholar
Olson, Everett C. (1960). “Morphology, paleontology, and evolution.” In Evolution after Darwin, vol. 1: The evolution of life. Edited by . Chicago: Chicago University Press, pp. 523–545Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, Jane M. (1966). “The growth and development of developmental biology.” In Major problems in developmental biology. Edited by . New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–27Google Scholar
(1981). The development of Darwin's theory. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
(1843). Lectures on the comparative anatomy and physiology of the invertebrate animals. London: Longman Brown Green and LongmansGoogle Scholar
(1848). The archetype and homologies of the vertebrate skeleton. London: J. van VoorstCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulton, Edward B. (1908). “What is a species?” In Essays on evolution. Edited by . Oxford, England: Clarendon Press, pp. 46–94Google Scholar
(1971). The origins of theoretical population genetics. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
Provine, William (1980). “Epilogue.” In The Evolutionary Synthesis. Edited by and . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Provine, William (1988). “Progress in evolution and meaning in life.” In Evolutionary progress. Edited by . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 49–74Google Scholar
Quine, Willard van Orman (1969). “Natural kinds.” In Ontological relativity and other essays. Edited by . New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 114–138Google Scholar
, and (1983). Embryos, genes, and evolution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University PressGoogle Scholar
, and (1993). “Adaptation and the goals of evolutionary research,” Quarterly Review of Biology 68: 1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (2000). “The synthetic theory of evolution: General problems and the German contribution to the synthesis,” Theory in Biosciences 119: 41–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1987). “A question of property rights: Richard Owen's evolutionism reassessed,” British Journal for the History of Science 20: 129–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1992). “Constancy and change of basipodial variation patterns: A comparative study of crested and marbled newts – Triturus cristatus, Triturus marmoratus – and their natural hybrids,” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 5: 307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). “How developmental is evolutionary developmental biology?,” Biology and Philosophy 17: 591–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1834). Animal and vegetable physiology considered with respect to natural theology. 2 vols.London: William PickeringGoogle Scholar
Roth, V. Louise (1988). “The biological basis of homology.” In Ontogeny and systematics. Edited by . New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 1–26Google Scholar
Roux, Wilhelm (1986). “The problems, methods, and scope of developmental mechanics.” In Defining biology: Lectures from the 1890s. Edited by . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 108–146Google Scholar
(1996). Monad to man: The concept of progress in evolutionary biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Saha, Margaret (1991). “Spemann seen through a lens.” In A conceptual history of modern embryology. Edited by . New York: Plenum Press, pp. 91–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sander, Klaus (1983). “The evolution of patterning mechanisms: Gleanings from insect embryogenesis and spermatogenesis.” In Development and evolution. Edited by , , and . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 353–379Google Scholar
Sander, Klaus (1985). “The role of genes in ontogenesis: Evolving concepts from 1883 to 1983 as perceived by an insect embryologist.” In A history of embryology. Edited by , , and . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 363–395Google Scholar
, and (1985). “A conceptual ambiguity that contributed to the neglect of Mendel's paper,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 7: 3–70Google ScholarPubMed
(1987). Beyond the gene: Cytoplasmic inheritance and the struggle for authority in genetics. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Sapp, Jan (1990). “The nine lives of Gregor Mendel.” In Experimental inquiries. Edited by . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 137–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). “From the Reactionsnorm to the adaptive norm: The norm of reaction, 1909–1960,” Biology and Philosophy 14: 235–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharf, Sara (2003). “Contrasts along a continuum: Purposes and constraints in natural and artificial classifications in systematic biology, 1730s–1830s,” unpublished manuscript, University of Toronto
Schwartz, Sara (2000). “The differential concept of the gene.” In Concept of the gene in development and evolution: Historical and epistemological perspectives. Edited by , , and . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (1997). “Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs,” Nature 388: 639–648CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shubin, Neil, Cliff Tabin, and Sean Carroll (2000). “Fossils, genes and the evolution of animal limbs.” In Shaking the tree: Readings from nature in the history of life. Edited by . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 100–127Google Scholar
, , and (1995). “Morphological variation in the limbs of Taricha granulosa (Caudata: Salamandridae): Evolutionary and phylogenetic mechanisms,” Evolution 49: 874–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1986). “A morphological approach to the origin and basic organization of the tetrapod limb,” Evolutionary Biology 20: 319–387Google Scholar
Sloan, Phillip R. (1992). “On the edge of evolution.” In The Hunterian lectures in comparative anatomy, May and June 1837. Edited by . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–72Google Scholar
(2002). “Preforming the categories: Eighteenth-century generation theory and the biological roots of Kant's a priori,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 40: 229–253CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2003). “Whewell's philosophy of discovery and the Archetype of the vertebrate skeleton,” Annals of Science 60: 39–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1992). “Expression cloning of noggin, a new dorsalizing factor localized to the Spemann organizer in Xenopus embryos,” Cell 70: 829–840CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(1992). “Unifying biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and modern biology,” Journal of the History of Biology 25: 1–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1996). Unifying biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and modern biology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
(1999). “The 1959 Darwin centennial celebration in America,” Osiris 14: 274–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spemann, H. (1915). “Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Begriffs der Homologie.” In Die Kultur der Gegenwart. Edited by . Leipzig, Germany: Teubner, pp. 63–96Google Scholar
(1949). “Remarks on Vavilov's law of homologous variation,” Supplemento a La Ricerca Scientifica 19: 18–24Google Scholar
(1994). The development of biological systematics. New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
(1997). “How to interpret botanical classifications – suggestions from history,” Bioscience 47: 243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1990). “Linnaeus, the cortex-medulla theory, and the key to his understanding of plant form and natural relationships,” Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 71: 179–220Google Scholar
(1840). “Observations on the affinities and analogies of organized beings,” Magazine of Natural History 4: 210–226Google Scholar
(1960). Evolution after Darwin vol. 1: The evolution of life. Chicago: Chicago University PressGoogle Scholar
(1996). “Escherichia coli as a model system with which to study cell differentiation,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 18: 163–193Google ScholarPubMed
(1996). “Screening-off and natural selection,” Philosophy of Science 63: 115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1999). Images of development: Environmental causes in ontogeny. Albany, NY: State University of New York PressGoogle Scholar
(2002). “Philosophers and biologists exploring epigenetics,” Biology and Philosophy 17: 743–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1922). “The law of homologous series in variation,” Journal of Genetics 12: 47–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, Conrad H. (1953). “Epigenetics and evolution.” In Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology VII: Evolution. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 186–199
(1989a). “The biological homology concept,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20: 51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1989b). “The origin of morphological characters and the biological basis of homology,” Evolution 43: 1157–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). “What is the promise of developmental evolution? Part I: Why is developmental biology necessary to explain evolutionary innovations,” Journal of Experimental Zoology 288: 95–983.0.CO;2-5>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, Günter P. (2001b). “Characters, units, and natural kinds: An introduction.” In The character concept in evolutionary biology. Edited by . San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 1–10Google Scholar
(forthcoming). The biological homology concept and its applications. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
(1988). “The importance of morphology in the Evolutionary Synthesis as demonstrated by the contributions of the Oxford Group: Goodrich, Huxley, and de Beer,” Journal of the History of Biology 21: 291–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1991). “Homoplasy: The result of natural selection, or evidence of design limitations?,” American Naturalist 138: 543–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wake, David B. (1996). “Evolutionary developmental biology – prospects for an evolutionary synthesis at the developmental level.” In New perspectives on the history of life: Essays on systematic biology as historical narrative. Edited by and . San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences, pp. 97–107Google Scholar
Wallace, Bruce (1986). “Can embryologists contribute to an understanding of evolutionary mechanisms?” In Integrating scientific disciplines. Edited by . Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). “Fit and diversity: Explaining adaptive evolution,” Philosophy of Science 70: 280–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1843). “Observations on the classification of the Mammalia,” Annals and Magazine of Natural History 12: 399–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1836). Astronomy and general physics, considered with reference to natural theology. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & BlanchardCrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1837). History of the inductive sciences: From the earliest to the present times. 2 vols., 1st ed. New York: AppletonGoogle Scholar
(1863). History of the inductive sciences: From the earliest to the present times. 2 vols., 3rd ed., with additions. New York: AppletonGoogle Scholar
(1992). Natural selection: Domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford, England: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
(1976). Starfish, jellyfish, and the order of life. New Haven, CT: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
(1979). “Louis Agassiz and the species question,” Studies in History of Biology 4: 89–117Google Scholar
(2003). “Non-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy,” Biology and Philosophy 18: 387–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(forthcoming). “The creation of the Essentialism Story (an exercise in metahistory),” Journal of the History of BiologyGoogle Scholar
(2000). “Darwin on variation and heredity,” Journal of the History of Biology 33: 425–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001). “August Weismann on germ-plasm variation,” Journal of the History of Biology 34: 517–555CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
(2001). “Development: Resolving the Hox paradox,” Science 292 (5525): 2256–2257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zirkle, Conway (1951). “The knowledge of heredity before 1900.” In Genetics in the 20th century. Edited by . New York: Macmillan, pp. 35–57Google Scholar
(1959). “Species before Darwin,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 103: 636–644Google Scholar