Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 481–515 | Cite as

Richard Owen, Morphology and Evolution

  • Giovanni Camardi
Article

Abstract

Richard Owen has been condemned by Darwinians as an anti-evolutionist and an essentialist. In recent years he has been the object of a revisionist analysis intended to uncover evolutionary elements in his scientific enterprise. In this paper I will examine Owen's evolutionary hypothesis and its connections with von Baer's idea of divergent development. To give appropriate importance to Owen's evolutionism is the first condition to develop an up-to-date understanding of his scientific enterprise, that is to disentagle Owen's contribution to the modernization of typology and morphology. I will argue that Owen's Platonic essentialism is rhetorical and incongruous. On the contrary, an interpretation of the archetype based on Aristotle's biological works makes possible a new conception of type, based on a homeostatic mechanism of stability. The renewal of morphology hinges on homological correspondences and a homeostatic process is also the origin of serial and special homology. I will argue that special homology shows an evolutionary orientation insofar as it is a typically inter-specific character while serial homology is determined through an elementary usage of the categories of developmental morphology.

Aristotle divergent development epigenesis evolution homology morphology Owen typology von Baer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amundson, Ron. 1994. “Two Concepts of Constraints: Adaptationism and the Challenge from Developmental Biology.” Philosophy of Science 61: 556–578.Google Scholar
  2. –– 1998. “Typology Reconsidered: Two Doctrines on the History of Evolutionary Biology.” Biology and Philosophy 13: 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appel, Toby. 1987. The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arthur, Wallace. 1997. The Origin of Animal Body Plans. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Baer, Karl Ernst von. 1853. “Fragments Relating to Philosophical Zoology.” In: Thomas H. Huxley and A. Henfrey (eds.), Scientific Memoirs, Selected from the Transactions of Foreign Academies of Science. London: Taylor & Francis; part. engl. transl. of Beiträge zur Kenntnis der niedern Thiere (1826) and Ueber Entwicklungsgeschichte der Thiere (1828).Google Scholar
  6. Balme, David. 1987. “Aristotle's Biology Was not Essentialist.” In: A. Gotthelf and J.G. Lennox (eds.), Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barry, Martin. 1836–37a. “On the Unity of Structure in the Animal Kingdom.” The Edinburgh New Philosophic Journal 22: 116–141.Google Scholar
  8. –– 1836–37b. “Further Observations on the Unity of Structure in the Animal Kingdom, and on Congenital Anomalies.” The Edinburgh New Philosophic Journal 22: 345–364.Google Scholar
  9. Bateson, William. 1894. Materials for the Study of Variation. London: Macmillan. Reprinted 1992, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bowler, P. 1973. “Bonnet and Buffon: Theories of Generation and the Problem of Species.” Journal of the History of Biology 6: 259–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. –– 1975. “The Changing Meaning of Evolution.” Journal of the History of Ideas 36: 95–115.Google Scholar
  12. –– 1976. Fossils and Progress. New York: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  13. –– 1988. The Non-Darwinian Revolution. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  14. –– 1992. “Foreword” to Bateson, William. 1894. Materials for the Study of Variation.Google Scholar
  15. –– 1996. Life's Splendid Drama. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Boyd, Richard. 1999. “Homeostasis, Species and Higher Taxa.” In: Wilson, Robert. 1999.Google Scholar
  17. Camardi, G. (Forthcoming). “Ideal Types and Scientific Theories.” Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of Science and the Humanities.Google Scholar
  18. Churchill, Frederick B. 1991. “The Rise of Classical Descriptive Embryology.” In: Scott F. Gilbert (ed.), A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  19. Clarke, D.M. 1982. Descartes' Philosophy of Science. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Coleman, William. 1976. “Morphology between Type Concept and Descent Theory.” Journal of the History of Medicine 31: 149–175.Google Scholar
  21. Desmond, Adrian. 1982. Archetypes and Ancestors. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. –– 1989. The Politics of Evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Di Gregorio, Mario. 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: 247–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farber, Paul. 1976. “The Type-Concept in Zoology during the First Half of the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Biology 9: 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gilbert, Scott, Opitz, J.M. and Raff, R.A. 1996. “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology.” Developmental Biology 173: 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghiselin, Michael. 1974. “A Radical Solution to the Species Problem.” Systematic Zoology 23: 536–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. –– 1980. “The Failure of Morphology to Assimilate Darwinism.” In: Ernst Mayr and W. Provine (eds.), The Evolutionary Synthesis, pp. 180–192.Google Scholar
  28. –– 1997. Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gould, Steven. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gray, Asa. 1963. Darwiniana. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Grene, Marjorie. 1958. “Two Evolutionary Theories.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 9: 110–127, 185–193.Google Scholar
  32. Griffiths, Paul. 1997. What Emotions Really are. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. –– 1999. “Squaring the Circle: Natural Kinds with Historical Essences.” In: Wilson, Robert. 1999.Google Scholar
  34. Hall, Brian (ed.). 1994. Homology. The Hierarchcal Basis of Comparative Biology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  35. Hodge, Jonathan. 1985. “Darwin as a Lifelong Generation Theorist.” In: David Kohn (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  36. –– 2000, “Knowing about Life: Darwin and His Theory of Natural Selection.” In: R. Creath and J. Maienschein (eds.), Biology and Epistemology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Hull, David. 1965. “The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy: Two Thousand years of Stasis.” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15: 314–326; 16: 1–18.Google Scholar
  38. –– 1974. Darwin and His Critics. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. –– 1976. “Are Species Really Individuals?” Systematic Zoology 25: 174–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. –– 1988. Science as a Process. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. –– 1989. “Darwin and the Nature of Science” (1983); reprinted in Hull, David. The Metaphysics of Evolution. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  42. Hull, David and M. Ruse (eds.). 1998. The Philosophy of Biology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Huxley, Thomas H. 1898. “On the Theory of the Vertebrate Skull” (1858). In: M. Foster and E.R. Lankester (eds.), Scientific Memoirs of T. H. Huxley, vol. I. London: Mac Millan, pp. 539–581.Google Scholar
  44. Kant, Immanuel. 1952. Critique of Judgement, engl. transl. J. C. Meredith. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kauffman, Stuart. 1983. “Developmental Constraints: Internal Factors in Evolution.” Brian Goodwin, N. Holder and C. Wylie (eds.), Development and Evolution. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. –– 1993. The Origins of Order. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lankester, E. Ray. 1870. “On the Use of the Term Homology in Modern Zoology, and the Distinction between Homogenetic and Homoplastic Agreements.” Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 4th series, VI: 34–43.Google Scholar
  48. Lennox, James G. 1985. “Are Aristotelian Species Eternal?” In: A. Gotthelf (ed.), Aristotle on Nature and Living Things: Philosophical and Historical Studies. Pittsburgh: Mathesis Publications.Google Scholar
  49. –– 1987. “Kinds, Form of Kinds and the More and the Less in Aristotle's Biology.” In: A. Gotthelf and J.G. Lennox (eds.), Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. –– 2001. Aristotle's Philosophy of Biology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Lenoir, Timothy. 1981. “The Göttingen School and the Development of Transcendental Naturphilosophie in the Romantic Era.” Studies in the History of Biology, vol. 5. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  52. –– 1982. The Strategy of Life. Teleology and Mechanism in Nineteenth-Century German Biology. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  53. Levere, Trevor. 1981. Poetry Realized in Nature. S. T. Coleridge and early 19th Century Science. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lyell Charles. 1830–1833. Principles of Geology, 3 vols. London: Murray. Reprinted 1990, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Lyons, Sherrie. 1999. Thomas Henry Huxley. The Evolution of a Scientist. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  56. MacLeod, Roy M. 1965. “Evolutionism and Richard Owen, 1830–1868: An Episode in Darwin's Century.” Isis 56: 259–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Maynard Smith, John et al. 1985. “Developmental Constraints and Evolution.” Quarterly Review of Biology 60: 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mayr, Ernst. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  59. –– 1975. Evolution and the Diversity of Life. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University press.Google Scholar
  60. Mayr, Ernst and W. Provine 1980. The Evolutionary Synthesis. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Needham, John. 1959. A History of Embryology. New York: Schuman.Google Scholar
  62. Nelson, G. 1994. “Homology and Systematics.” In: Hall, Brian. 1994.Google Scholar
  63. Nyhart, Lynn. 1995. Biology takes Form. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  64. Oppenheimer, Jane. 1959. “An Embryological enigma in The Origin of Species.” In: B. Glass, O. Temkin and W.L. Straus (eds.), Forerunners of Darwin. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  65. Ospovat, Dov. 1976. “The Influence of Karl Ernst von Baer Embryology, 1828–1859.” Journal of the History of Biology 9: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. –– 1981. The Development of Darwin's Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Owen, Richard. 1837. “Preface” and Notes to Hunter, John. 1840. Observations on Certain Parts of Animal Œconomy. Philadelphia: Haswell, Barrington and Haswell.Google Scholar
  68. –– 1843. Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of Invertebrates Animals. London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
  69. –– 1848. On the Archetype and Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton. London: Van Voorst.Google Scholar
  70. –– 1849. On the Nature of the Limb. London: Van Voorst.Google Scholar
  71. –– 1851. “Lyell - on Life and its Successive Development.” Quarterly Review 87: 412–451.Google Scholar
  72. –– 1853. “Generalizations of Comparative Anatomy.” Quarterly Review 93: 46–83.Google Scholar
  73. –– 1859. On the Classification and Geographical Distribution of the Mammalia. London: Parker.Google Scholar
  74. –– 1860. Paleontology. Edinburgh: Black.Google Scholar
  75. –– 1863a. Monograph on the Aye-Aye. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  76. –– 1863b. “Origin of Species.” Athenæum, 2 May: 586–587.Google Scholar
  77. –– 1866. “On the Osteology of the Dodo.” Transaction of the Zoological Society VI: 49–83.Google Scholar
  78. –– 1866–68. On the Anatomy of Vertebrates, 3 Vols. London: Longmans Green.Google Scholar
  79. –– 1884. “Oken, Lorenz.” Encyclopaedia Britannica, IX ed., vol. XVII: 749–752.Google Scholar
  80. –– 1970. “Presidential Address to B.A.A.S.” Leeds, 1858. Repr. in G. Basalla, W. Coleman and R. H. Kargon (eds.), Victorian Science. Garden City: Doubleday & C.Google Scholar
  81. –– 1974. “Darwin on the Origin of Species.” Edinburgh Review. 1860. 11: 487–532. Repr. in Hull. 1974: 175–213.Google Scholar
  82. –– 1992. The Hunterian Lectures in Comparative Anatomy (1837). University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  83. Owen, Rev. Richard. 1894. The Life of Richard Owen. London: Murray.Google Scholar
  84. Panchen, Alec L. 1992. Classification, Evolution and the Nature of Biology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Patterson C. 1982, “Morphological Characters and Homology.” In: K. Joysey and A. Friday (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  86. Raff, Rudolf. 1996. The Shape of Life. Genes, Development and the Evolution of Animal Form. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  87. Richards, Evelleen. 1987. “A Question of Property Rights: Richard Owen's Evolutionism Reassessed.” The British Journal for the History of Science 20: 129–171.Google Scholar
  88. Richards, Robert. 1992. The Meaning of Evolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  89. Ridley, Mark. 1986a. Evolution and Classification. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  90. –– 1986b. “Embryology and Classical Zoology in Great Britain.” In: T. Horder, J. Witkowski and C. Wylie (eds.), A History of Embryology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Roe, Shirley. 1981. Matter, Life and Generation. 18th Century Embriology and the Haller-Wolff Debate. Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
  92. Roth, Louise. 1994. “Within and between Organism: Replicators, Lineages and Homologues.” In: Hall, Brian. 1994.Google Scholar
  93. Rupke, Nicolaas. 1994. Richard Owen Victorian Naturalist. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Ruse, Michael. 1979. The Darwinian Revolution. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  95. –– 1996. Monad to Man. The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Russell, E.S. 1917. Form and Function. New York: Dutton & C.Google Scholar
  97. Shubin, Neil. 1994. “History, Ontogeny and evolution of the Archetype.” In: Hall, Brian. 1994.Google Scholar
  98. Simpson, George G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Sloan, Philip. 1979. “Buffon, German Biology and the Historical Interpretation of Biological Species.” The British Journal for the History of Science 12: 109–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. –– 1992. “On the Edge of Evolution.” Introductory Essay to Owen, Richard. 1992.Google Scholar
  101. Wagner, Günther. 1989. “The Origin of Morphological Characters and the Biological Basis of Homology.” Evolution 43: 1157–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. –– 1994. “Homology and the Mechanism of Development.” In: Hall, Brian. 1994.Google Scholar
  103. Webster, Gerry and Brian Goodwin. 1996. Form and Transformation: Generative and Relational Principles in Biology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Whewell, William. 1847. Philosophy of Inductive Sciences, 2 vols. London: Parker; Reprint 1967. New York: Johnson Repr.Google Scholar
  105. Wilson, Leonard. 1996. “The Gorilla and the Question of Human Origins: The Brain Controversy.” Journal of the History of Medicine 51: 184–207.Google Scholar
  106. Wilson, Robert A. 1999. Species. New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge,Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  107. Winsor, Mary. 1976. Starfish, Jellyfish and the Order of Life. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Woodger, J. H. 1945. “On Biological Transformations.” In: W. Le Gros Clark and P. Medawar (eds.), Essays on Growth and Form Presented to D'Arcy W. Thompson. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giovanni Camardi
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze UmaneUniversità di CataniaCataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations