Skip to main content
Log in

Morphology and Phylogeny

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The concept that renders morphology a tool for phylogeny reconstruction is homology. The concept of homology is rooted in pre-evolutionary idealistic morphology. The claim that the goal of idealistic morphology was the seriability of form may sound paradoxical given that this discipline proceeded within a framework of strictly delimited types. But the types only demarcate where seriability starts and where it comes to an end. Carl Gegenbaur’s (Grundzüge der vergleichenden Anatomie, Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, 1859) was recognized as a milestone in idealistic morphology. A comparison with the second edition of 1870 illustrates Gegenbaur’s turn to evolutionary morphology. The methodology remained the same–seriability of form–but the series was no longer merely descriptive or conceptual but now a historical, evolutionary one. Gegenbaur emphasized that seriability of form was possible not only between species of the same type, but also between parts (organs) of organisms of the same type. Pursuing this project, he found that different parts of organisms evolve at different rates, resulting in an incongruence between the series of parts (organs) relative to the series of species under comparison. This incongrence was called chevauchement des spécialisations by Louis Dollo, Spezialisationskreuzungen by Othenio Abel, and heterobathmy of characters by Armen Takhtajan. Willi Hennig, the founder of modern methods in phylogenetic systematics, discovered that the heterobathmy of characters was a precondition for the establishment of the phylogenetic relationships based on shared derived characters. The result was a replacement of the search for ancestors by a search for relative degrees of phylogenetic relationships (sister-group relationships).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abel, O. 1913. Neuere Wege phylogenetischer Forschung. Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Aerzte 85: 116–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abel, O. 1929. Paläobiologie und Stammesgeschichte. Jena: Gustav Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appel, T.A. 1987. The Cuvier—Geoffroy Debate. French Biology in the Decades Before Darwin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, C. E. v. 1828. Ueber Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere. Beobachtung und Reflexion, Theil I. Königsberg: Gebr. Bornträger.

  • Beatty, J. 1982. Classes and Cladists. Systematic Zoology 31: 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronn, H.G. 1858. Morphologische Studien über die Gestaltungs-Gesetze der Naturkörper überhaupt und der organischen insbesondere. Leipzig: G. F. Winter’sche Verlagshandlung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronn, H.G. 1860. Charles Darwin, über die Entstehung der Arten im Thier- und Pflanzen-Reich durch natürliche Züchtung, oder Erhaltung der vervollkommneten Rassen im Kampfe um’s Daseyn. Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbartsche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, R.L. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. New York: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, F.J. 1949. A History of Comparative Anatomy. From Aristotle to the Eighteenth Century. London: Macmillan Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, W. 1976. Morphology Between Type Concept and Descent Theory. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 31: 149–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuvier, G. 1817. Le Règne Animal distribué d‘après son organisation, pour servir de base a l’histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a l’anatomie comparée. Paris: Deterville.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Beer, G.R. 1954. Archaeopteryx and Evolution. Advancement of Science, London 11: 160–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dollo, L. 1895. Sur la phylogénie des dipneustes. Bulletin de la Société Belge de Géologie, de Paléontologie, et d’Hydrologie 9: 79–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gegenbaur, C. 1859. Grundzüge der vergleichenden Anatomie. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gegenbaur, C. 1870a. Grundzüge der vergleichenden Anatomie. Zweite, umgearbeitete Auflage. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

  • Gegenbaur, C. 1870b. Ueber das Skelet der Gliedmassen der Wirbelthiere im Allgemeinen und der Hintergliedmassen der Selachier insbesondere. Jenaische Zeitschrift für Medizin und Naturwissenschaft 5: 397–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gegenbaur, C. 1876. Die Stellung und Bedeutung der Morphologie. Morphologisches Jahrbuch. Eine Zeitschrift für Anatomie und Entwickelungsgeschichte 1: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gegenbaur, C. 1898. Vergleichende Anatomie der Wirbelthiere, mit Berücksichtigung der Wirbellosen. Erster Band. Einleitung, Integument, Skeletsystem, Muskelsystem, Nervensystem und Sinnesorgane. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.

  • Haeckel, E. 1864. Über die Entwickelungstheorie Darwins. Amtlicher Bericht über die Versammlung Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte 38: 17–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeckel, E. 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, vol. 2. Berlin: Georg Reimer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der Phylogenetischen Systematik. Berlin: Deutscher Zentralverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. 1965. Phylogenetic Systematics. Annual Review of Entomology 10: 97–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D.L. 1988. Science as a Process. An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn-Schnyder, E.S., and H. Rieber. 1984. Ziele und Grenzen der Paläontologie. Die Naturwissenschaften 71: 199–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levit, G.S., and U. Hoßfeld. 2006. The Forgotten “Old-Darwinian” Synthesis: The Evolutionary Theory of Ludwig H. Plate (1862–1937). NTM: International Journal of History & Ethics of Natural Sciences Technology & Medicine 14: 9–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzen, S. 1994. Phylogenetische Systematik gestern, heute und morgen. Biologie in unserer Zeit 24: 200–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Abich, A. 1934. Die Axiome der Biologie. Nova Acta Leopoldina N.F 1: 474–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naef, A. 1926. Zur Diskussion des Homologiebegriffes. Biologisches Zentralblatt 46: 187–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G. 2004. Cladistics: Its Arrested Development. In Milestones in Systematics, ed. D.M. Williams and P.L. Forey, 127–147. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhart, L.K. 1995. Biology Takes Form. Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800–1900. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhart, L.K. 2003. The Importance of the “Gegenbaur School” for German Morphology. Theory in Bioscience 122: 162–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R. 1843. Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Invertebrate Animals, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons, from Notes taken by William White Cooper, M.R.C.S., and Revised by Professor Owen. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R. 1855. Principes d’ostéologie comparée, ou recherches sur l’archétype et les homologies du squelette vertébré. Paris: J.-B. Baillière.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, R. 1866. On the Anatomy of Vertebrates. Vol. I. Fishes and Reptiles. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

  • Patterson, C. 1982. Morphological Characters and Homology. In Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction, ed. K.A. Joysey and A.E. Friday, 21–74. London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peyer, B. 1950. Goethes Wirbeltheorie des Schädels. Neujahrsblatt der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich. 152. Stück. Zürich: Gebr. Fretz.

  • Remane, A. 1952. Die Grundlagen des Natürlichen Systems, der Vergeichenden Anatomie, und der Phylogenetik. Theoretische Morphologie und Systematik. Leipzig: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R.J. 2002. The Romantic Conception of Life. Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R.J. 2008. The Tragic Sense of Life. Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O. 2011a. Wilhelm Troll (1897–1978): Idealistic Morphology, Physics, and Phylogenetics. History and Philosophy of Life Sciences 33: 321–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O. 2011b. The Gegenbaur Transformation: A Paradigm Change in Comparative Biology. Systematics and Biodiversity 9: 177–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O. 2012. Adolf Naef (1883–1949), Systematic Morphology and Phylogenetics. Journal for Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 50: 2–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O. 2013. Othenio Abel (1875–1946) and “The Phylogeny of the Parts”. Cladistics 29: 328–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O. 2016. Phylogenetic Systematics. Haeckel to Hennig. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupke, N.A. 1994. Richard Owen. Victorian Naturalist. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, B., and M. Williams. 1977. Relationships of Fossil and Living Elasmobranchs. American Zoologist 17: 293–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. 2014. Willi Hennig’s Part in the History of Systematics. In The Evolution of Phylogenetic Systematics, ed. A. Hamilton, 47–62. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. 2016. Willi Hennig: A Shy Man Behind a Scientific Revolution. In The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics. The Legacy of Willi Hennig, ed. D. Williams, M. Schmitt, and Q. Wheeler, 21–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, P.F. 1983. Report of Third Annual Willi Hennig Society Meeting. Systematic Zoology 32: 285–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takhtajan, A. 1959. Die Evolution der Angiospermen. Jena: Gustav Fischer.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Goethe, J.W. 1817. Zur Morphologie. Stuttgart: Cotta’sche Buchhandlung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, Q.D. 2008. Undisciplined Thinking: Morphology and Hennig’s Unfinished Revolution. Systematic Entomology 33: 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D., M. Schmitt, and Q. Wheeler. 2016. Introduction. In The Future of Phylogenetic Systematics. The Legacy of Willi Hennig, ed. D. Williams, M. Schmitt, and Q. Wheeler, 1–9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X., H. You, and F. Han. 2011. An Archaeopteryx-like Theropod from China and the Origin of Avialae. Nature 475: 465–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zangerl, R., and G.R. Case. 1976. Obelodus aculeatus (Cope), an Anacanthous Shark from Pennsylvanian Black Shales of North America. Palaeontographica A 154: 107–157.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Marco Tamborini for the invitation to contribute to this volume, and for his constructive criticism of an earlier draft of this paper. Scott Gilbert and an anonymous reviewer likewise offered helpful comments that improved an earlier version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Rieppel.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rieppel, O. Morphology and Phylogeny. J Hist Biol 53, 217–230 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-020-09600-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-020-09600-x

Keywords

Navigation