Abstract
This paper has three principal aims: first, through a detailed analysis of the hypotheses and assumptions underlying Weismann’s and Morgan’s disagreement on the nature of animal regeneration, it seeks to readdress the imbalance in coverage of their discussion, providing, at the same time, a fascinating case-study for those interested in general issues related to controversies in science. Second, contrary to Morgan’s beliefs according to which Weismann employed a speculative and unempirical method of scientific investigation, the article shows that Weismann performed experiments, made observations and proposed ‘undogmatic’ theories open to refutation. Third, through the reconstruction of Weismann’s and Morgan’s disagreement, this study illustrates how biology, during the very late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, was undergoing important changes. I argue that this controversy clearly and convincingly demonstrates how some important epistemic assumptions became increasingly problematic for some members of the younger generations of biologists. At the end of my discussion I will also argue that Weismann and Morgan both had strong well-grounded arguments supporting their conclusions; for this reason I suggest a few factors (“taken-for-granted” beliefs or assumptions) that could explain why their disagreement was doomed to remain unresolved. In particular, I will analyze their diverse explicative interests, their different theoretical concerns and their distinct use of the available evidence.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al-Chueyr, L.P.M. 2011. “Regeneration as a Difficulty for the Theory of Natural Selection: Morgan’s Changing Attitudes, 1897–1932.” Brazilian Studies in Philosophy and History of science, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 290: 119–129.
Allen, G.E. 1968. “Thomas Hunt Morgan and the Problem of Natural Selection.” Journal of the History of Biology 1(1): 113–139.
Allen, G.E. 1978a. Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and his Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Allen, G.E. 1978b. Life Sciences in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Allen, G.E. 1979. “Naturalist and Experimentalists: The Genotype and the Phenotype.” Studies in the History of Biology 3: 179–209.
Bardeen, C.R. 1903. “Factors in Heteromorphosis in Planaria.” W. Roux’ Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen 16(1): 1–20.
Benson, K.R. 1981. “Problems of Individual Development: Descriptive Embryological Morphology in America at the Turn of the Century.” Journal of the History of Biology 14(1): 115–128.
Beatty, J. 1994. “The Proximate/Ultimate Distinction in the Multiple Careers of Ernst Mayr.” Biology and Philosophy 9: 333–356.
Churchill, F.B. 1968. “August Weismann and the Break from Tradition.” Journal of the History of Biology 1(1): 91–112.
Churchill, F.B. 1985. “Weismann, Hydromedusae, and the Biogenetic Imperative: A Reconsideration.” T.J. Horder, J.A. Witkowski, and C.C. Wylie (eds.), A History of Embryology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Churchill, F.B. 1999. “August Weismann: A Developmental Evolutionist.” F.B. Churchill and H. Risler (eds.), August Weismann: Selected Letters and Documents. Freiburg: Universitatsbibliothek Freiburg.
Gaupp, E. 1917. August Weismann, sein Leben und sein Werk. Jena: Gustav Fischer.
Goss, R.J. 1969. Principles of Regeneration. New York: Academic Press.
Gould, S.J. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Leydig, F. 1872. Die in Deutschland Lebenden Arten der Saurier. Tübingen: H. Laupp, Harvard University.
Maienschein, J. 1981. “Shifting Assumptions in American Biology: Embryology, 1890–1910.” Journal of the History of Biology 14(1): 89–113.
Maienschein, J. 1991. Transforming Traditions in American Biology, 1880–1915. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Maienschein, J. 1992. “T. H. Morgan’s Regeneration, Epigenesis, and (W)holism.” C.E. Dinsmore (ed.), A History of Regeneration Research. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Mayr, E. 1961. “Cause and Effect in Biology.” Science 134: 1501–1506.
Mayr, E. 1985. “Weismann and Evolution.” Journal of the History of Biology 18(3): 295–329.
McCullogh, D.M. 1969. “W. K. Brooks’s Role in the History of American Biology.” Journal of the History of Biology 2(2): 411–438.
Morgan, T.H. 1897. “Regeneration in Allolobophora foetida.” W. Roux’ Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen 5(3): 570–586.
Morgan, T.H. 1898. “Experimental Studies of the Regeneration of Planaria Maculata.” W. Roux’ Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen 7(2–3): 364–397.
Morgan, T.H. 1899. “Regeneration in the Hydromedusa, Gonionemus Vertens.” The American Naturalist 33(396): 939–951.
Morgan, T.H. 1900. “Regeneration, Old and New Interpretations.” Biological Lectures from the Marine Biological Laboratory of Wood’s Hole, 1899. Boston: Ginn, pp. 185–208.
Morgan, T.H. 1901. Regeneration. New York: The MacMillan Company.
Morgan, T.H. 1904. “The Control of Heteromorphosis in Planaria Maculata.” W. Roux’ Archiv für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen 17(4): 683–695.
Morgan, T.H. 1906. “The Physiology of Regeneration.” Journal of Experimental Zoology 3(4): 457–500.
Philippeaux, J.M. 1866. “Note sur la Régénération de la Rate.” Comp Rend de 1’ Acad de. Sciences 576: 1058.
Ruse, M. 1975. “Darwin’s Debt to Philosophy: And Examination of the Influence of the Philosophical Ideas of John F. W. Herschel and William Whewell of the Development of Evolution.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 6(2): 159–181.
Stanford, P.K. 2005. “August Weismann’s Theory of the Germ-Plasm and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 27: 163–199.
Sunderland, M.E. 2010. “Regeneration: Thomas Hunt Morgan’s Window into Development.” Journal of the History of Biology 43: 325–361.
Temkin, O. 1950. “German Concepts of Ontogeny and History Around 1800.” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 24: 227–246.
Weismann, A. 1893. The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Weismann, A. 1899. “Regeneration: Facts and Interpretations.” Natural Science 14: 305–328.
Whewell, W. 1847. The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded Upon Their History, vol. 2. London: John W. Parker.
Winther, R.G. 2001. “August Weismann on Germ-Plasm Variation.” Journal of the History of Biology 34: 517–555.
Wolpert, L. 1992. “Morgan’s Ambivalence: A History of Gradients and Regeneration.” C.E. Dinsmore (ed.), A History of Regeneration Research. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Esposito, M. Weismann Versus Morgan Revisited: Clashing Interpretations on Animal Regeneration. J Hist Biol 46, 511–541 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-012-9341-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-012-9341-9