Embryogenesis, Morphogenesis, Genetics and Evolution

  • Michel Delsol
Part of the NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series book series (NSSB, volume 14)


For a long time biologists have known that comparisons can be made between the succession of species in a lineage (phylogeny) and the succession of embryonic stages of a species situated at the end of this line (ontogeny). But it was Haeckel (1866, 1875a, 1875b) who first codified and explained these comparisons, allowing their integration within the setting of the mechanisms and modalities of evolution.


Embryonic Development Aortic Arch Embryonic Stage Batrachian Tadpole Allometric Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beer de, G., 1930, “Embryology and Evolution.” Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beer de, G., 1932, “Embryologie et Evolution,” A. Legrand, Paris, 147 p.Google Scholar
  3. Beer de, G., 1958, “Embryos and Ancestors,” Oxford University Press, Third edition, 197 p. (1st ed., 1940; 2nd ed., 1951)Google Scholar
  4. Bolk, L., 1926, “Das Problem der Menschwerdung,” Gustav Fisher Verlag, Jena.Google Scholar
  5. Brien, P., 1962, Etude de la formation de la structure des ecailles des Dipneustes actuels et de leur comparaison avec les autres types d’ecailles des Poissons. Ann. Mus. Roy. Af. Centr. Tervuren, Belgique, ser. 8, Sc. Zool. 108: 55–128.Google Scholar
  6. Brien, P., 1969, Polymorphisme intraspecifique et Evolution epigenetique. Bull. Soc. Roy. Sci. Liege, 38: 718–734.Google Scholar
  7. Brien, P., 1974a, “Propos d’un zoologiste. Le Vivant. Epigenese. Evolution epigenetique,” Editions de l’Universite de Bruxelles, 155 p.Google Scholar
  8. Brien, P., 1947b, La Forme et l’Epigenese,“ Annee Biol., 13, 1–2, pp. 3–8.Google Scholar
  9. Clausen, H.J., 1930, Rate of histolysis of Anuran tail, skin and muscle during metamorphosis. Biol. Bull., 59: 199–210.Google Scholar
  10. Delattre A. and Fenart, R., 1960, “L’hominisation du crane,” Edit. du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 418 p.Google Scholar
  11. Delsol, M., 1952, Action du thiouracile sur les larves de Batraciens: Neotenie experimentale. Role de l’hypophyse dans ce phenomene. Archives de Biol., 63: 279–392.Google Scholar
  12. Delsol, M., 1953, Action du benzoate de dihydrofolliculine sur les canaux de Muller de quelques Batraciens Anoures et Urodeles a l’etat de tetards: phenomenes de neotenie partielle. C.R. Soc. Biol., 147: 1895–1898.Google Scholar
  13. Delsol, M. and Flatin, J., 1969, Metamorphose experimentale de la peau de queue du tetard d’Alytes obstetricans Laur. normalement destinee a degenerer. Experientia, 25: 392–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delsol, M. and Tintant, H., 1971, Discussion autour d’un vieux probleme: les relations entre Embryologie et Evolution. Revue des Questions Scientifiques, 142: 85–101.Google Scholar
  15. Dollander, A. and Fenart, R., 1970, “Elements dEmbryologie,” Ed. medicale Flammarion, Paris, tome 1, 366 p.Google Scholar
  16. Dullemeijer, P., 1975, Bolk’s Foetalization Theory. Acta. Morphol. Neerl. Scand., 13: 77–86.Google Scholar
  17. Durand, J.P., 1976, Rudimentation des Yeux chez les Poissons et Urodeles souterrains. Bull. Soc. Zool. Fr., suppl. No.1, vol. 101, pp. 13–21.Google Scholar
  18. Gans, C., 1975, Tetrapod limblessness evolution and functional corollaries. Amer. Zool., 15: 455–467.Google Scholar
  19. Garstang, W., 1922, The Theory of Recapitulation: a critical restatement of the biogenetic law. J. Linn. Soc. London Zool., 35: 81–101.Google Scholar
  20. Gasc, J.P., 1970, Reflexions sur le concept de regression des organes. Revue des Questions Scientifiques, 141: 175–195.Google Scholar
  21. Goldschmidt, R., 1935, Gene und Ausseneigenschaft. I, Zeits.ind. Abst. Vererb., 69: 38–69.Google Scholar
  22. Goldschmidt, R., 1940, “The material basis of evolution,” Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  23. Gould, S.J., 1966a, Allometry in Pleistocene land snails from Bermuda: the influence of size upon shape. J. Paleontol., 40: 1131–1141.Google Scholar
  24. Gould, S.J., 1966b, Allometry and Size in Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Biol.Rev.Cambridge Phil.Soc., 41: 587–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gould, S.J., 1971, Geometric similarity in allometric growth: a contribution to the problem of scaling in the evolution of size. Amer. Natur., 105: 113–136.Google Scholar
  26. Gould, S.J., 1974, The origin and function of “bizarre” structures: antler size and skull size in the “Irish elk” Megaloceros giganteus. Evolution, 28: 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gould, S.J., 1975, On the scaling of tooth size in the Mammals. Amer. Zool., 15: 351–362.Google Scholar
  28. Haeckel, E., 1866, Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, Berlin.Google Scholar
  29. Haeckel, E., 1875a, Die Gastrula und die Eifurchung der Thiere. Jen.Zeit.fur Natur., 9: 402.Google Scholar
  30. Haeckel, E., 1875b, Ziele und Wege der heutigen Entwicklungsgeschichte, Jena.Google Scholar
  31. Helff, O.M. and Clausen, H.J., 1929, Studies on amphibian metamorphosis - 5 - The atrophy of anuran tail muscle during metamorphosis. Physiol. Zool., 2: 575.Google Scholar
  32. Kemp, N.E., 1961, Replacement of the Larval basement lamella by adult-type basement membrane in Anuran skin during metamorphosis. Develop. Biol., 3: 391–410.Google Scholar
  33. King, M.C. and Wilson, A.C., 1975, Evolution and two levels in Humans and Chimpanzees. Science, 188 No. 4184, pp. 107–116.Google Scholar
  34. Lamotte, M. and Xavier, F., 1972, Recherches sur le developpement embryonnaire de Nectophrynoides occidentalis, amphibien anoure vivipare. I: Principaux traits morphologiques et biometriques du developpement. Ann.dEmbryol. et Morphol., 5: 315–340.Google Scholar
  35. Lindeman, V.F., 1929, Integumentary pigmentation in the Frog, Rana pipiens during metamorphosis, with special reference to tail-skin histolysis. Physiol. Zool., 2, 2, pp. 255–268.Google Scholar
  36. Lovtrup, S., 1974, “Epigenetics: a Treatise on Theoretical Biology,” John Wiley and Sons, Garden City Press, 547 p.Google Scholar
  37. Marshall, A.M., 1951, “The Frog: an Introduction to Anatomy, Histology and Embryology,” Twelfth Ed., Macmillan and Co., London, 182 p.Google Scholar
  38. Millard, N., 1941, The vascular anatomy of Xenopus laevis. Trans. Roy.Soc.S.Afr., 28: 387–439.Google Scholar
  39. Millard, N., 1945, The development of the arterial system of Xenopus laevis including experiments on the destruction of the larval aortic arches. Trans. Roy.Soc.S.Afr., 30: 217–234.Google Scholar
  40. Ohno, S., 1972, An argument for the genetic simplicity of man and other Mammals. Journ. Human Evol., Vol. 1, pp. 651–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Prager, E.M. and Wilson, A.C., 1975, Slow evolutionary loss of the potential for interspecific hybridization in Birds: a manifestation of slow regulatory evolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 72, 1, pp. 200–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raynaud, A., 1972, Morphogenese des membres rudimentaires chez les Reptiles: un probleme dEmbryologie et d’Evolution. Bull.Soc.Zool., 97 (3): 469–485.Google Scholar
  43. Schindewolf, O.H., 1950, “Grundfragen der Paleontologie,” E. Schweizerbart’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Stuttgart, 506 p.Google Scholar
  44. Stahl, W.R., 1962, Similarity and Dimensional Methods in Biology, Science, 137, N° 3525, pp. 205–212.Google Scholar
  45. Szarski, H., 1964, The structure of respiratory organs in relation to body size in Amphibia. Evolution, 18: 118–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Terhal, H.J.J., 1941, On the heart and arterial arches of Salamandra maculosa Laur. and Ambystoma mexicanum Shaw during metamorphosis. Zool. laboratory of the Government University, Leyden.Google Scholar
  47. Thompson, d’Arcy W., 1942, “On Growth and Form,” 2nd édition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  48. Vachon, M., 1944, L’appendice arachnidien et son evolution. Bull. Soc.Zool.Fr., 69 (4): 172–177.Google Scholar
  49. Vodop’janova, N.K. and Kremanskji, V.I., 1974, Le principe de l’unite dialectique de la “preformation” et de l’epigenese dans l’embryologie, Filos.Nauki.URSS, 3: 42–50. (We have only read an abstract in the Bulletin Signaletique du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.)Google Scholar
  50. Waddington, C.H., 1962, “Genetics and Development,” Columbia University Press, p. 271.Google Scholar
  51. Waddington, C.H., 1969, The theory of evolution today, in “The Albach Symposium, Beyond Reductionism, New Perspectives in the Life Sciences, 1968, pp. 357–395, N.Y. Macmillan Co.Google Scholar
  52. Wassersug, R.J., 1975, The adaptive significance of the Tadpole Stage with comments on the maintenance of complex life cycles in Anurans. Amer. Zool., 15: 405–417.Google Scholar
  53. Wilson, A.C., Maxson, L.R. and Sarich, V.M., 1974a, Two types of molecular evolution - Evidence from studies of interspecific hybridization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 71, 7, pp. 28432847.Google Scholar
  54. Wilson, A.C., Maxson, L.R. and Sarich, V.M., 1974b, The importance of gene re-arrangement in Evolution: Evidence from studies on rates of chromosomal, protein and anatomical évolution. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 71, 8, pp. 3028–3030.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zouzouko, R.S., 1970, Evolution des greffes cutanees heterotypiques chez la larve et au cours de la metamorphose de Discoglossus pictus Oth. These de 3eme Cycle, Universite de Paris, Faculte Sci. Orsay, 70 p.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel Delsol
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes (Sorbonne-Paris)Faculte Catholique des Sciences de LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations