Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 147–154 | Cite as

Haeckel’s embryos: fraud not proven

Article

References

  1. Alberts B, Bray D, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Watson J (1994) Molecular biology of the cell, 3rd edn. Garland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Butler H, Juurlink B (1987) An atlas for staging mammalian and chick embryos. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  3. Collins P (1995) Embryology and development. In: Collins P (ed) Gray’s anatomy, 38th edn. Churchill Livingstone, London, pp 91–341Google Scholar
  4. Darwin C (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex, 2 vols, 1st edn. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Gould SJ (1977) Ever since Darwin. Norton, New York, pp 215–217Google Scholar
  6. Gould SJ (1980) The Panda’s Thumb. Norton, New York, pp 237–241, 346–347Google Scholar
  7. Gould SJ (1985) The Flamingo’s smile. Norton, New York, pp 90, 412–413Google Scholar
  8. Gould SJ (1989) Wonderful life. Norton, New York, pp 263–267Google Scholar
  9. Gould SJ (2000) Abscheulich! (Atrocious!), Haeckel’s distortions did not help Darwin. Nat Hist 109(2):42–49Google Scholar
  10. Gould SJ (2003) The Hedgehog, the Fox and the Magister’s Pox. Harmony Books, New York, pp 157–162Google Scholar
  11. Haeckel E (1874) Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen. Engelmann, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  12. Hawkes, N (1997) An Embryonic Liar (London) Times, p 14Google Scholar
  13. Pennisi E (1997) Haeckel’s embryos: fraud rediscovered. Science 277:1435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Richards RJ (2008) The tragic sense of life: Ernst Haeckel and the struggle over evolutionary thought. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  15. Richardson M, Keuck G (2003) Haeckel’s ABC of evolution and development. Biol Rev 77:495–528 (The authors write: Haeckel’s much criticized embryo drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution. While some criticisms of the drawings are legitimate, other are more tendentious, p 495)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Richardson M, Hanken J, Gooneratne M, Pieau C, Paynaud A, Selwood L, Wright G (1997) There is no highly conserved embryonic state n the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anat Embryol 196:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rütimeyer L (1868) Review of Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte by Ernst Haeckel. Arch Anthropol 3:301–302Google Scholar
  18. Slack J, Holland P, Graham C (1993) The zootype and the phylotypic stage. Nature 361:490–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wells J (2000) Icons of evolution. Regnery, Washington, DC, pp 81–109Google Scholar
  20. Wells J (2006) The politically incorrect guide to Darwinism and intelligent design. Regnery, Washington, DC, pp 27–29Google Scholar
  21. Wolpert L (1991) The triumph of the embryo. Oxford University, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Morris Fishbein Center for the History of ScienceThe University of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations