Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 479–533 | Cite as

The Fate of the Method of ‘Paradigms’ in Paleobiology

  • Martin J. S. RudwickEmail author
Open Access
Original Research


An earlier article described the mid-twentieth century origins of the method of “paradigms” in paleobiology, as a way of making testable hypotheses about the functional morphology of extinct organisms. The present article describes the use of “paradigms” through the 1970s and, briefly, to the end of the century. After I had proposed the paradigm method to help interpret the ecological history of brachiopods, my students developed it in relation to that and other invertebrate phyla, notably in Euan Clarkson’s analysis of vision in trilobites. David Raup’s computer-aided “theoretical morphology” was then combined with my functional or adaptive emphasis, in Adolf Seilacher’s tripartite “constructional morphology.” Stephen Jay Gould, who had strongly endorsed the method, later switched to criticizing the “adaptationist program” he claimed it embodied. Although the explicit use of paradigms in paleobiology had declined by the end of the century, the method was tacitly subsumed into functional morphology as “biomechanics.”


Paleobiology Functional morphology Paradigm Stephen Jay Gould  David Raup Adolf Seilacher Martin Rudwick 


  1. Abel, Othenio. 1912. Grundzüge der Paläobiologie der Wirbelthiere. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart.Google Scholar
  2. Ager, Derek V. 1963. Principles of Paleoecology: An Introduction to the Study of How and Where Animals and Plants Lived in the Past. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Ager, Derek V. 1965. “The Adaptations of Mesozoic Brachiopods to Different Environments.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 1: 143–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beerbower, James R. 1960. Search for the Past: An Introduction to Paleontology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Briggs, Derek E. G. (ed.). 2005. Evolving Form and Function: Fossils and Development. New Haven: Peabody Museum.Google Scholar
  6. Briggs, Derek E. G. (ed.). 2005b. “Seilacher on the science of form and function.” E. G. Briggs (ed.), Evolving Form and Function. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
  7. Carter, Robert M. 1968. “Functional Studies on the Cretaceous Oyster Arctostrea.” Palaeontology 11: 458–485.Google Scholar
  8. Clarkson, Euan N. K. 1966a. “Schizochroal Eyes and Vision in Some Silurian Acastid Trilobites.” Palaeontology 9: 1–29.Google Scholar
  9. Clarkson, Euan N. K. 1966b. “Schizochroal Eyes and Vision in Some Phacopid Trilobites.” Palaeontology 9: 464–487.Google Scholar
  10. Clarkson, Euan N. K. and Levi-Setti, R. 1975. “Trilobite Eyes and the Optics of Descartes and Huygens.” Science 254: 663–667.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, G. Arthur and Grant, Richard E. 1969. “New Permian Brachiopods from West Texas.” Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 1: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cooper, G. Arthur and Grant, Richard E. 1972–1977. “Permian brachiopods of West Texas.” Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 14, 15, 19, 21, 24, 32.Google Scholar
  13. Cowen, Richard. 1970. “Analogies Between the Recent Bivalve Tridacna and the Fossil Brachiopods Lyttoniacea and Richthofeniacea.” Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatiology Palaeoecology 8: 329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cowen, Richard. 1975. “‘Flapping Valves’ in Brachiopods.” Lethaia 8: 23–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cowen, Richard. 1979. “Morphology, Functional.” R. W. Fairbridge and D. Jablonski (eds.), Encyclopedia of Paleontology. Dowden: Hutchinson and Ross, pp. 487–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cowen, Richard and Kelley, John S. 1976. “Stereoscopic Vision Within the Schizochroal Eye of Trilobites.” Nature 261: 130–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeMar, R. E. 1976. “Functional Morphological Models: Evolutionary and Non-evolutionary.” Fieldiana, Geology 33: 339–354.Google Scholar
  18. Dresow, Max W. 2017. “Before Hierarchy: The Rise and Fall of Stephen Jay Gould’s First Macroevolutionary Synthesis.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 39. doi: 10.1007/s40656-017-0133-6.
  19. Dutro, J. Thomas, Jr. (ed.). 1971. Paleozoic Perspectives: A Paleontological Tribute to G. Arthur Cooper. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press [Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 3].Google Scholar
  20. Eldredge, Niles. 1971. “The Allopatric Model and Phylogeny in Paleozoic Invertebrates.” Evolution 25: 156–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eldredge, Niles. 1972. “Systematics and Evolution of Phacops rana (Green 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo (1835): Trilobita in the Middle Devonian of North America.” Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 47: 45–114.Google Scholar
  22. Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J. 1972. “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism.” T. J. M. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper & Co, pp. 83–115.Google Scholar
  23. Erwin, Douglas H. and Wing, Scott L. (eds.). 2000. Deep Time: Paleobiology’s Perspective. Paleobiology 26(4), supplement.Google Scholar
  24. Fairbridge, Rhodes W. and Jablonski, David (eds.). 1979. The Encyclopedia of Paleontology. Stroudsburg (Pennsylvania): Dowden Hutchinson and Ross.Google Scholar
  25. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1966. “Allometry and Size in Ontogeny and Phylogeny.” Biological Reviews 41: 587–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1968. “Ontogeny and the Explanation of Form: An Allometric Analysis.” Donald B. Macurda, Jr. (ed.), Growth and Development. Knoxville, TN: Paleontological Society, pp. 81–93.Google Scholar
  27. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1970. “Evolutionary Paleontology and the Science of Form.” Earth Science Reviews 6: 77–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1971a. “D’Arcy Thompson and the Science of Form.” New Literary History 2: 229–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1971b. “Tübingen Meeting on Form.” Journal of Paleontology 45: 1042–1043.Google Scholar
  30. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1971c. “Muscular Mechanics and the Ontogeny of Swimming in Scallops.” Palaeontology 14: 61–94.Google Scholar
  31. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1977. Ever Since Darwin. New York:W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  32. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1980. “The Promise of Paleobiology as a Nomothetic Evolutionary Discipline.” Paleobiology 6: 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gould, Stephen Jay. 1984. “The Life and Work of T. J. M. Schopf (1939–1984).” Paleobiology 10: 280–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gould, Stephen Jay and Katz, Michael. 1975. “Disruption of Ideal Geometry in the Growth of Receptaculitids: A Natural Experiment in Theoretical Morphology.” Paleobiology 1: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gould, Stephen Jay and Lewontin, R. C. 1979. “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 205: 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Grant, Richard E. 1963. “Unusual Attachment of a Permian Linoproductid Brachiopod.” Journal of Paleontology 37: 137–140.Google Scholar
  37. Grant, Richard E. 1966. “Spine Arrangement and Life Habits of the Productoid Brachiopod Waagenoconcha.” Journal of Paleontology 40: 1063–1069.Google Scholar
  38. Grant, Richard E. 1968. “Structural Adaptation in Two Permian Brachiopod Genera, Salt Range, West Pakistan.” Journal of Paleontology 42: 1–32.Google Scholar
  39. Grant, Richard E. 1971. “Brachiopods in the Permian Reef Environment of West Texas.” Proceedings of the North American Paleontological Convention 1969 J: 1444–1481.Google Scholar
  40. Grant, Richard E. 1972. “The Lophophore and Feeding Mechanism of the Productidina (Brachiopoda).” Journal of Paleontology 46: 213–248.Google Scholar
  41. Grant, Richard E. 1975. “Methods and Conclusions in Functional Analysis: A Reply.” Lethaia 8: 31–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hallam, Anthony 1967. “The Bearing of Certain Palaeozoogeographic Data on Continental Drift.” Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 3: 201–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hallam, Anthony. 1968. “Morphology, Palaeoecology and Evolution of the Genus Gryphaea in the British Lias.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 91–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Harland, W. Brian, et al. (eds.). 1967. The Fossil Record. London: Geological Society.Google Scholar
  45. Joysey, Kenneth A. 1959. “The Evolution of the Liassic Oysters Ostrea-Gryphaea.” Biological Reviews 34: 297–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kullman, J. and Scheuch, J. 1970. “Wachstums-Änderungen in der Ontogenese palÄozoischer Ammonoiden.” Lethaia 3: 397–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laubichler, Manfred D. and Niklas, Karl J. 2009. “The Morphological Tradition in German Paleontology: Otto Jaekel, Walter Zimmermann, and Otto Schindewolf.” D. Sepkoski and M. Ruse (eds.), Paleobiological Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 279–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Macurda, Donald B., Jr. (ed.). 1968. Paleobiological Aspects of Growth and Development. Knoxville, TN: Paleontological Society, Memoir 2 [Journal of Paleontology 42, Supplement].Google Scholar
  50. Moore, Raymond C. (ed.). 1965–1971. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology [first edition]. Boulder: Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  51. Nairn, A. E. M. (ed.). 1964. Problems in Paleoclimatology. London: Interscience Publications.Google Scholar
  52. Nichols, David. 1959a. “Changes in the Chalk Heart-Urchin Micraster Interpreted in Relation to Living Forms.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B 242: 347–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nichols, David. 1959b. “Mode of Life and Taxonomy in Irregular Sea-Urchins.” Systematics Association Publications 3 [Function and Taxonomic Importance]: 61–80.Google Scholar
  54. Pantin, Carl F A. 1951. “Organic Design.” Advancement of Science 30: 138–150.Google Scholar
  55. Paul, Christopher R. C. 1967. “The Functional Morphology and Mode of Life of the Cystoid Pleurocystites E. Billings 1854.” Symposia of the Zoological Society of London 20: 105–123.Google Scholar
  56. Paul, Christopher R. C. 1968. “The Morphology and Function of Dichoporite Pore-Structures in Cystoids.” Palaeontology 11: 697–730.Google Scholar
  57. Paul, Christopher R. C. 1972. “Morphology and Function of Exothecal Pore-Structures in Cystoids.” Palaeontology 15: 1–28.Google Scholar
  58. Paul, Christopher R. C. 1975. “A Reappraisal of the Paradigm Method of Functional Analysis in Fossils.” Lethaia 8: 14–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Paul, Christopher R. C. 1999. “The Paradigm Method.” E. Savazzi (ed.), Functional Morphology of the Invertebrate Skeleton. Chichester: Wiley, pp. 25–28.Google Scholar
  60. Philip, G. M. 1962. “The Evolution of Gryphaea.” Geological Magazine 99: 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Plotnik, Roy E. and Baumiller, Tomasz K. 2000. “Invention by Evolution: Functional Analysis in Paleobiology.” D. H. Erwin and S. L. King (eds.), Deep Time, pp. 305–323.Google Scholar
  62. Raup, David M. 1962. “Computer as Aid in Describing Form in Gastropod Shells.” Science 138: 150–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Raup, David M. 1966. “Geometric Analysis of Shell Coiling: General Problems.” Journal of Paleontology 40: 1178–1190.Google Scholar
  64. Raup, David M. 1967. “Geometric Analysis of Shell Coiling in Ammonoids.” Journal of Paleontology 41: 43–65.Google Scholar
  65. Raup, David M. 1968. “Theoretical Morphology of Echinoid Growth.” Donald B. Macurda, Jr. (ed.), Growth and Development. Knoxville, TN: Paleontological Society, pp. 50–63.Google Scholar
  66. Raup, David M. 1972. “Approaches to Morphological Analysis.” T. J. M. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper & Co, pp. 28–45.Google Scholar
  67. Raup, David M. 1975. “Taxonomic Survivorship Curves and Van Valen’s Law.” Paleobiology 1: 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Raup, David M. 1978. “Approaches to the Extinction Problem.” Journal of Paleontology 52: 517–523.Google Scholar
  69. Raup, David M. and Gould, Stephen J. 1974. “Stochastic Simulation and the Evolution of Morphology – Towards a Nomothetic Paleontology.” Systematic Zoology 23: 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Raup, David M., Gould, Stephen J., Schopf, Thomas J. M. and Simberloff, Daniel S. 1973. “Stochastic Models of Phylogeny and the Evolution of Diversity.” Journal of Geology 81: 525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Raup, David M. and Michelson, Arnold. 1965. “Theoretical Morphology of the Coiled Shell.” Science 147: 1294–1295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Raup, David M. and Seilacher, Adolf. 1969. “Fossil Foraging Behavior: Computer Simulations.” Science 166: 994–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Raup, David M. and Stanley, Steven M. 1971. Principles of Paleontology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman [2nd ed., 1978].Google Scholar
  74. Reif, Wolf-Ernst. 1975. “Lenkende und limitierende Faktoran in der Evolution.” Acta Biotheoretica 24: 136–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Reif, Wolf-Ernst. (ed.). 1981a. Funktionsmorphologie. München: Paläontologische Gesellschaft [Paläontologische Kursbücher 1].Google Scholar
  76. Reif, Wolf-Ernst. 1981b. “Konzepte und Methoden der Funktionsmorphologie.” Wolf-Ernst Reif (ed.), Funktionsmorphologie. München: Paläontologische Gesellschaft [Paläontologische Kursbücher 1]: pp. 11–24.Google Scholar
  77. Reif, Wolf-Ernst. 1982. “Functional Morphology on the Procrustean Bed of the Neutralism-Selectionism Debate – Notes on the Constructional Morphology Approach.” Neues Jahrbuch der Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 164: 46–59.Google Scholar
  78. Reif, Wolf-Ernst and Robinson, Jane A. 1975. “Geometric Relationships and the Form-Function Complex: Animal Skeletons [Konstruktionsmorphologie Nr. 31].” Neues Jahrbuch der Geologie und Paläontologie, Monatshefte 1975: 304–309.Google Scholar
  79. Rudwick, Martin J. S. 1959. “The Growth and Form of Brachiopod Shells.” Geological Magazine 96: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Rudwick, Martin J. S. 1961. “The Feeding Mechanism of the Permian Brachiopod Prorichthofenia.” Palaeontology 3: 450–471.Google Scholar
  81. Rudwick, Martin J. S. 1962. “Filter-Feeding Mechanisms in Some Brachiopods from New Zealand.” Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology 44: 592–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rudwick, Martin J. S. 1964a. “The Function of Zigzag Deflexions in the Commissures of Fossil Brachiopods.” Palaeontology 7: 135–171.Google Scholar
  83. Rudwick, Martin J. S. 1964b. “The Inference of Function from Structure in Fossils.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15: 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Rudwick, Martin J. S. 1965. “Sensory Spines in the Jurassic Brachiopod Acanthothiris.” Palaeontology 8: 604–617.Google Scholar
  85. Rudwick, Martin J. S. 1968. “Some Analytic Methods in the Study of Ontogeny in Fossils with Accretionary Skeletons.” Donald B. Macurda, Jr. (ed.), Growth and Development. Knoxville, TN: Paleontological Society, pp. 35–49.Google Scholar
  86. Rudwick, Martin J. S. 1970. Living and Fossil Brachiopods. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  87. Rudwick, Martin J. S. 1971. “The Functional Morphology of the Pennsylvanian Oldhaminoid Brachiopod Poikilosakos.” J. Thomas Dutro, Jr. (ed.), Paleozoic Perspectives: A Paleontological Tribute to G. Arthur Cooper. Washington, D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press [Smithsonian Contributions to Peleobiology 3], 267–282.Google Scholar
  88. Rudwick, Martin J. S. 2008. Worlds Before Adam: The Reconstruction of Geohistory in the Age of Reform. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rudwick, Martin J. S. 2017. “Functional Morphology in Paleobiology: Origins of the Method of Paradigms.” Journal of the History of Biology. doi: 10.1007/s10739-017-9478-4.Google Scholar
  90. Rudwick, Martin J. S. and Cowen, Richard C. 1968. “The Functional Morphology of Some Aberrant Strophomenide Brachiopods from the Permian of Sicily.” Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana 6 [‘1967’]: 113–176.Google Scholar
  91. Russell, E. S. 1916. Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  92. Savazzi, Enrico (ed.). 1999. Functional Morphology of the Invertebrate Skeleton. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  93. Schopf, Thomas J. M. (ed.). 1972a. Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper.Google Scholar
  94. Schopf, Thomas J. M. (ed.). 1972b. “Varieties of Paleobiological Experience.” T. J. M. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman Cooper & Co, pp. 8–25.Google Scholar
  95. Schopf, Thomas J. M., Raup, David M, Gould, Stephen Jay and Simberloff, S. 1975. “Geonomic Versus Morphologic Rates of Evolution: Influence of Morphologic Complexity.” Paleobiology 1: 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Seilacher, Adolf. 1953a. “Studien zur Palichnologie. I. Über die Methoden der Palichnologie.” Neues Jahrbuch der Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 96: 421–452.Google Scholar
  97. Seilacher, Adolf. 1953b. “Studien zur Palichnologie. II. Die fossile Ruhespuren (Cubichnia).” Neues Jahrbuch der Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 98: 87–124.Google Scholar
  98. Seilacher, Adolf. 1968. “Form and Function of the Stem in a Pseudoplanktonic Crinoid (Seirocrinus).” Palaeontology 11: 275–282.Google Scholar
  99. Seilacher, Adolf. 1970. “Arbeitskonzept zur Konstruktions-Morphologie.” Lethaia 3: 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Seilacher, Adolf. 1972. “Divaricate Patterns in Pelecypod Shells.” Lethaia 5: 325–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Seilacher, Adolf. 1979. “Constructional Morphology of Sand Dollars.” Paleobiology 5: 191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Seilacher, Adolf. 2012. Rereading the Fossil Record: The Growth of Paleobiology as an Evolutionary Discipline. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  103. Sepkoski, David. 2005. “Stephen J. Gould, Jack Sepkoski and the ‘Quantitative Revolution’ in American Paleobiology.” Journal of the History of Biology 38: 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Seilacher, Adolf and Ruse, Michael (eds.). 2009. The Paleobiological Revolution: Essays on the Growth of Modern Paleontology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  105. Signor, Ph.W. 1982. “A Critical Re-evaluation of the Paradigm Method of Constructional Inference.” Neues Jahrbuch der Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 164: 59–63.Google Scholar
  106. Stanley, Steven M. 1968. “Post-Paleozoic Adaptive Radiation of Infaunal Bivalve Molluscs – A Consequence of Mantle Fusion and Siphon Formation.” Journal of Paleontology 42: 214–229.Google Scholar
  107. Stanley, Steven M. 1970. “Relation of Shell Form to Life Habits of the Bivalvia (Mollusca).” Geological Society of America, Memoir 125: 1–296.Google Scholar
  108. Stanley, Steven M. 1975. “Why Clams have the Shape They have: An Experimental Analysis of Burrowing.” Paleobiology 1: 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Stehli, Frank G. 1964. “Permian Zoogeography and Its Bearing on Climate.” A. E. M. Nairn (ed.), Problems in Paleoclimatology. London: Interscience Publications, pp. 537–549.Google Scholar
  110. Stockton, William L. and Cowen, Richard. 1976. “Stereoscopic Vision in One Eye: The Paleophysiology of the Schizochroal Eye of Trilobites.” Paleobiology 2: 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Thomas, R. D. K. 1979. “Morphology, Constructional.” Rhodes W Fairbridge, David Jablonski (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Paleontology. Stroudsburg (Pennsylvania):Dowden Hutchinson and Ross, pp. 482–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Thompson, D’Arcy W. 1917. On Growth and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [2nd ed., 1942].Google Scholar
  113. Trueman, Arthur E. 1922. “The Use of Gryphaea in the Correlation of the Lower Lias.” Geological Magazine 59: 256–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Valentine, James W. 1973. Evolutionary Paleoecology of the Marine Biosphere. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  115. Vogel, Klaus. 1960. “Zur Struktur und Funktion der ‘Siphonalpfeiler’ der Hippuriten (Lamellibranchiata).” Paläontologische Zeitschrift 34: 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Vogel, Klaus. 1966. “Ein funktionsmorphologische Studie an der Brachiopoden-Gattung Pygope (Malm bis Unterkreide).” Neues Jahrbuch der Geologie und Paläontologie, Abhandlungen 125: 423–442.Google Scholar
  117. Williams, Alwyn. 1953. “The Morphology and Classification of the Oldhaminoid Brachiopods.” Journal of the Washington Academy of Science 43: 279–287.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations