Theory in Biosciences

, Volume 136, Issue 1–2, pp 19–29 | Cite as

The “Biogenetic Law” in zoology: from Ernst Haeckel’s formulation to current approaches

Original Paper

Abstract

150 years ago, in 1866, Ernst Haeckel published a book in two volumes called “Generelle Morphologie der Organismen” (General Morphology of Organisms) in which he formulated his biogenetic law, famously stating that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Here we describe Haeckel’s original idea and follow its development in the thinking of two scientists inspired by Haeckel, Alexei Sewertzoff and Adolf Naef. Sewertzoff and Naef initially approached the problem of reformulating Haeckel’s law in similar ways, and formulated comparable hypotheses at a purely descriptive level. But their theoretical viewpoints were crucially different. While Sewertzoff laid the foundations for a Darwinian evolutionary morphology and is regarded as a forerunner of the Modern Synthesis, Naef was one of the most important figures in ‘idealistic morphology’, usually seen as a type of anti-Darwinism. Both Naef and Sewertzoff aimed to revise Haeckel’s biogenetic law and came to comparable conclusions at the empirical level. We end our review with a brief look at the present situation in which molecular data are used to test the “hour-glass model”, which can be seen as a modern version of the biogenetic law.

Keywords

Ontogeny Phylogeny Heterochrony Atavisms Homeobox 

References

  1. Bowler P (1996) Life’s Splendid Drama. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Breidbach O, Ghiselin M (eds) (2008) Fritz Müller. Für Darwin und andere Schriften zur Biologie. Olms, HildesheimGoogle Scholar
  3. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex, vol 2. J. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. de Beer GR (1932) Book review: A.N. Sewertzoff ‘Morphologische Gesetzmässigkeiten der Evolution’. Nature 129:490–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Domazet-Lošo T, Tautz D (2010) A phylogenetically based transcriptome age index mirrors ontogenetic divergence patterns. Nature 468:815–818CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Duboule D (1994) Temporal colinearity and the phylotypic progression: a basis for the stability of a vertebrate Bauplan and the evolution of morphologies through heterochrony. Dev Suppl 1:135–142Google Scholar
  7. Franz V (1927) Ontogenie und Phylogenie. Das sogenannte biogenetische Grundgesetz und die biometabolischen Modi (Abhandlungen zur Theorie der organischen Entwicklung, III). Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilbert SF (2003) Evo-devo, devo-evo, and devgen-popgen. Biol Philos 18:347–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gould SJ (1977) Ontogeny and phylogeny. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Gourko H, Williamson DI, Tauber AI (eds) (2000) The Evolutionary biology papers of elie metchnikoff. Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Kluwer Acad. Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  11. Grell KG (1979) Die gastraea-theorie. Medizinhistorisches J 14:275–291Google Scholar
  12. Haeckel E (1866) Generelle morphologie der organismen, 2 Bde. Georg Reimer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haeckel E (1872) Die Kalkschwämme. Eine Monographie, 3 Bde. Georg Reimer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  14. Haeckel E (1874) Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen. Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Grundzüge der menschlichen Keimes- und Stammesgeschichte. Wilhelm Engelmann, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  15. Haeckel E (1875) Die Gastrula und die Eifurchung der Thiere. Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 9:402–508Google Scholar
  16. Haeckel E (1917) Kristallseelen: Studien über das anorganische Leben. Kröner Verlag, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall BK (1984) Development mechanisms underlying the formation of atavisms. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 59:89–124CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall BK (1995) Atavisms and atavistic mutations. Nat Genet 10:126–127CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hall BK (2000) Evo-devo or devo-evo—does it matter? Evol Dev 2:177–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoßfeld U (2001) ≫Aufstieg und Fall≪ der Evolutionsmorphologie im deutschen Sprachraum: Aspekte des Recyclings eines interdisziplinären Konzepts. Gesnerus Swiss J Hist Med Sci 58:53–75Google Scholar
  21. Hoßfeld U (2010) Ernst Haeckel. Biographienreihe absolute, Orange Press, Freiburg i. BrGoogle Scholar
  22. Hoßfeld U (2016a) Geschichte der biologischen Anthropologie in Deutschland. Von den Anfängen bis in die Nachkriegszeit. 2. Auflage. Franz Steiner Verlag, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoßfeld U (2016b) 150 Jahre Haeckel’sche Biologie. Blätter zur Landeskunde Thüringens, Landeszentrale für politische Bildung Erfurt, Heft 114Google Scholar
  24. Hoßfeld U, Levit GS (2012) Alexej Nikolajevich Sewertzoff (1866-1936): Darwinist und Evolutionsmorphologe aus Leidenschaft. Biol unserer Zeit 42:133–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoßfeld U, Olsson L (2003) The road from Haeckel. The Jena tradition in evolutionary morphology and the origin of “Evo-Devo”. Biol Philos 18:285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoßfeld U, Olsson L (2008) Entwicklung und Evolution—ein zeitloses Thema. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften/Biologie in der Schule—Themenheft. Evolution und Entwicklungsbiologie 57:4–8Google Scholar
  27. Hoßfeld U, Olsson L, Breidbach O (eds) (2003) Carl Gegenbaur and evolutionary morphology. Theory Biosci 122:105–302Google Scholar
  28. Hoßfeld U, Levit GS, Olsson L (2016) Haeckel reloaded: 150 Jahre “Biogenetisches Grundgesetz”. Biol unserer Zeit 46:190–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hoßfeld U, Watts E, Levit GS (2017) The first Darwinian tree of plants. Trends Plant Sci (CellPress) 22:100–102Google Scholar
  30. Irie N, Kuratani S (2014) The developmental hourglass model: a predictor of the basic body plan? Development 141:4649–4655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalinka AT, Varga KM, Gerrard DT, Preibisch S, Corcoran DL, Jarrells J, Ohler U, Bergman CM, Tomancak P (2010) Gene expression divergence recapitulates the developmental hourglass model. Nature 468:811–814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kolchinsky EI (2014) The unity of evolutionary theory in the 20th century divided world. Nestor-Historia, St. PetersburgGoogle Scholar
  33. Krauße E (1984) Ernst Haeckel. Teubner, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  34. Kutschera U (2016) Haeckel’s 1866 tree of life and the origin of eukaryotes. Nature Microbiol 1:16114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Levin M, Anavy L, Cole AG et al (2016) The mid-developmental transition and the evolution of animal body plans. Nature 531:637–641CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Levit GS (2007) The roots of Evo-Devo in Russia: is there a characteristic “Russian tradition”? Theory Biosci 4:131–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Levit GS, Hoßfeld U (2006) The Forgotten “Old-Darwinian” Synthesis: The Theoretical System of Ludwig H. Plate (1862–1937). Internationale Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Ethik der Naturwissenschaft, Technik und Medizin (NTM), N.S. 14:9–25Google Scholar
  38. Levit GS, Hoßfeld U (2011) Darwin without borders? Looking at “generalised Darwinism” through the prism of the “hourglass model”. Theory Biosci 130:299–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Levit GS, Meister K (2005) Methodological ideologies in the German-language morphology. Yearb Eur Cult Sci 2:35–62Google Scholar
  40. Levit GS, Meister K (2006) The history of essentialism vs. Ernst Mayr’s ‘Essentialism story’: a case study of German idealistic morphology. Theory Biosci 124:281–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Levit GS, Hoßfeld U, Olsson L (2004) The integration of Darwinism and evolutionary morphology: Alexej Nikolajevich Sewertzoff (1866-1936) and the developmental basis of evolutionary change. J Exp Zool B (Mol Dev Evol) 302:343–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levit GS, Hoßfeld U, Olsson L (2015) Alexei Sewertzoff and Adolf Naef: revising Haeckel’s biogenetic law. Hist Philos Life Sci 36:357–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Mayr E (2001) What evolution is. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Meister K (2005a) Metaphysische Konsequenz—Die idealistische Morphologie Edgar Dacqués. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologische und Paläontologische Abhandlungen 235:197–233Google Scholar
  45. Meister K (2005b) Wilhelm Troll (1897–1978)—Tradierung, idealistischer Morphologie in den deutschen botanischen Wissenschaften des 20. Jahrhunderts. Hist Philos Life Sci 27:221–247PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Müller F (1864) Für Darwin. Wilhelm Engelmann, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  47. Naef A (1911) Studien zur generellen Morphologie der Mollusken. Ergebnisse und Fortschritte der Zoologie 3:73–164Google Scholar
  48. Naef A (1913) Studien zur generellen Morphologie der Mollusken. 2. Das coelomsystem in seinen topographischen Beziehungen. Ergebnisse und Fortschritte der Zoologie 3:329–462Google Scholar
  49. Naef A (1917) Die individuelle Entwicklung organischer Formen als Urkunde ihrer Stammesgeschichte. Gustav Fischer, JenaGoogle Scholar
  50. Naef A (1919) Idealistische morphologie und phylogenetik. Gustav Fischer, JenaGoogle Scholar
  51. Naef A (1923) Über systematische Morphologie und ihre Bedeutung für die Wissenschaft und Lehre vom Leben. Vierteljahresschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Zürich 68:387–397Google Scholar
  52. Naef A (1931) Phylogenie der Tiere. In: Baur E, Hartmann M (eds) Handbuch der Vererbungswissenschaft, vol 3. Bornträger, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  53. Naef A [1928] (2000) Cephalopoda. Embryology. English translation by S. v. Boletzky. Smithsonian Institute Libraries, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  54. Niklas KJ, Kutschera U (2017) From Goethe’s plant archetype via Haeckel’s Biogenetic Law to plant Evo-Devo 2016. Theory Biosci (in press) Google Scholar
  55. Niklas KJ, Cobb ED, Kutschera U (2016) Haeckel’s biogenetic law and the land plant phylotypic stage. Bioscience 66:510–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nöthlich R, Wetzel N, Hoßfeld U, Olsson L (2006) “Ich acquirierte das Schwein sofort, ließ nach dem Niederstechen die Pfoten abhacken u. schickte dieselben an Darwin”—der Briefwechsel von Otto Zacharias mit Ernst Haeckel (1874–1898). Ann Hist Philos Biol 11:177–248Google Scholar
  57. Olsson L (2005) Alternatives to Darwinism in Sweden: Lamarckism and idealistic morphology, disbelief in mutations and the poverty of selection. Jahrbuch für Europäische Wissenschaftskultur 1:47–60Google Scholar
  58. Olsson L, Hoßfeld U (2007) Die Entwicklung: Die Zeit des Lebens. Ausgewählte Themen zur Geschichte der Entwicklungsbiologie. In: Höxtermann E, Hilger H (eds) Lebenswissen. Eine Einführung in die die Geschichte der Biologie. Natur & Text, Rangsdorf, pp 218–243Google Scholar
  59. Olsson L, Hoßfeld U, Breidbach O (2009a) Preface. Between Ernst Haeckel and the homeobox: the role of developmental biology in explaining evolution. Theory Biosci 128:1–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Olsson L, Hoßfeld U, Breidbach O (eds) (2009) Special issue “Between Ernst Haeckel and the Homeobox: the role of developmental biology in explaining evolution”. Theory Biosci 128:1–74Google Scholar
  61. Olsson L, Levit GS, Hoßfeld U (2010) Evolutionary developmental biology: its concepts and history with a focus on Russian and German contributions. Naturwissenschaften 97:951–969CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Raff R (1996) The shape of life: genes, development, and the evolution of animal form. Chicago University Press, Chicago, LondonGoogle Scholar
  63. Reif WE (1998) Adolf Naefs idealistische Morphologie und das Paradigma typologischer Evolutionstheorien. Verhandlungen zur Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie 1:411–424Google Scholar
  64. Reif WE, Junker T, Hoßfeld U (2000) The synthetic theory of evolution: general problems and the German contribution to the synthesis. Theory Biosci 119:41–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Richards RJ (2008) The tragic sense of life: ernst haeckel and the struggle over evolutionary thought. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Rieppel O (2011a) Wilhelm Troll (1897–1978): idealistic morphology, physics, and phylogenetics. Hist Philos Life Sci 33:321–342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Rieppel O (2011b) Adolf Naef (1883–1949): systematic morphology and phylogenetics. J Zool Syst Evol Res 50:2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rieppel O (2016) Phylogenetic systematics: Haeckel to Hennig. Taylor and Francis, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  69. Rieppel O, Williams DM, Ebach MC (2013) Adolf Naef (1883–1949): on foundational concepts and principles of systematic morphology. J Hist Biol 46:445–510CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Schmalhausen II (1969) Problemy darwinizma. Nauka, Leningrad (in Russian) Google Scholar
  71. Severtzov AS (1970) On the evolution of ontogenesis. J Gen Biol 31:222–235Google Scholar
  72. Sewertzoff AN (1927) Über die Beziehung zwischen der Ontogenese und Phylogenese der Tiere. Jenaische Zeitschrift fu¨r Naturwissenschaften 63:51–180Google Scholar
  73. Sewertzoff AN (1934) Morfologitcheskije zakonomernosti evoliutzonnogo prozessa. Sozialisticheskaja Rekonstruktzija i Nauka 83:21–37 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  74. Sewertzoff AN (1931) Morphologische Gesetzmäßigkeiten der evolution. Gustav Fischer, JenaGoogle Scholar
  75. Sewertzoff AN (1939) Morfologitcheskije zakonomernosti evoliutzii. Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk, Moscow-Leningrad (in Russian) Google Scholar
  76. Sewertzoff AN (1949) Sobranije sotchinenij, vol 5. Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk, Moscow (in Russian) Google Scholar
  77. Uschmann G (1956) Die Promotion von W.O. Kowalevsky in Jena, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der evolutionistischen Paläontologie. EHH, G. Uschmanns Nachlass: B. 11, 15–17 (Hefter: Vorträge III)Google Scholar
  78. Williams DM (2006) Ernst Haeckel and Louis Agassiz: trees that bite and their geographical dimension. In: Ebach M, Tangey R (eds) Biogeography in a Changing World. CRC Press Publisher, Boca Raton, pp 1–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Spezielle Zoologie und Evolutionsbiologie mit Phyletischem MuseumFriedrich-Schiller-UniversitätJenaGermany
  2. 2.AG BiologiedidaktikFriedrich-Schiller-UniversitätJenaGermany
  3. 3.University ITMOSt. PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations