The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
Page 223
From Fisher, 1930.
7.02
Drawing by Laszlo Meszoly.
7.03
From Biological Science: An Ecological Approach, BSCS Green Version, 3e. (Boulder, CO: Rand McNally and Company, 1973), p. 622, fig. 18.15.
Part II
From Filippo Buonanni, Ricreatione dell'occhio e della mente nell'osservation delle Chiocciole (Rome, 1681).
8.01
From Jere H. Lipps (ed.), Fossil Prokaryotes and Protists (London: Blackwell Science Ltd., 1993), p. 45, fig. 4.14. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Science Ltd.
8.02
Drawing by Laszlo Meszoly.
8.03
From Thomas J. Schopf, Models in Paieobiology (New York: Freeman, Cooper & Company, 1972), p. 113, fig. 5-10.
8.04
Used with permission, from Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics, Vol. 26 © 1991 by Annual Reviews, www.AnnualReviews.org.
8.05
Drawing by Laszlo Meszoly.
8.06
Drawing by Laszlo Meszoly.
8.07
From Arnold, Kelly, and Parker, 1995, p. 204, fig. 1.
8.08a
From Wagner, 1996, p. 999, fig. 7.
8.08b
From Wagner, 1996, p. 1000, fig. 8.
9.01
Drawing by Laszlo Meszoly.
9.02
From author's collection.
9.03a
Reprinted with permission from Nature, vol. 293, no. 5832, Oct. 8,1981, p. 4, fig. 8. Copyright ©1981 Macmillian Magazines Limited.
9.03b
Reprinted with permission from Nature, vol. 293, no. 5832, Oct. 8,1981, p. 5, fig. 4. Copyright ©1981 Macmillian Magazines Limited.
9.04
From Goodfriend and Gould, 1996, p. 1896, fig. 3. Copyright ©1996 American Association for the Advancement of Science.
9.05
From R. C. Moore, C. G. Lalicker, and A. G. Fischer, Invertebrate Fossils (New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 1952), p. 33, fig. 1.14. Copyright © 1952 by The McGraw-Hill Companies. Reproduced with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
9.06
From Simpson, 1944.
9.07
From R. C. Moore, C. G. Lalicker, and A. G. Fischer, Invertebrate Fossils, (New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 1952), p. 33, fig. 1.15. Copyright © 1952 by The McGraw-Hill Companies. Reproduced with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies.
9.08
From Michaux, 1989.
9.09
Drawing by Laszlo Meszoly.
9.10
From Gould and Eldredge, 1989, p. 142.
9.11
From Proc. Natl. Acad. Set., USA, 91 (1994), p. 6811, fig. 5. Copyright ©1994 National Academy of Sciences, USA. Used by permission.
9.12a
From Glenn L. Jepson, Ernst Mayr, and George Gaylord Simpson (eds.), Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949). Copyright ©1949 by Princeton University Press. Reprinted by permission of Princeton University Press.
[Page 1390]
Figure
Source
9.12b
From Raup, David M. and Steven M. Stanley, Principles of Paleontology (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co. 1971), p. 266, fig. 10-10a.
9.13
From Erwin and Anstey, 1995. Copyright ©1995 by Columbia University Press. Reproduced with permission of Columbia University Press in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.
9.14
From Smith and Paul, 1985, p. 35, fig. 4. Reprinted by permission of the Paleontological Association.
9.15
From Cronin, 1985, p. 61, fig. 1b.
9.16
From Kucera and Malmgran, 1998, p. 56, fig. 6.
9.17
From Kucera and Malmgran, 1998, p. 57, fig. 7.
9.18
From Cheerham, 1986, p. 196, fig. 5,
9.19
From H. M. McHenry, “Tempo and mode in human evolution,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Set., USA 91, 1994, p. 6781, fig. 1b. Copyright ©1994 National Academy of Sciences, USA. Used by permission.
9.20
From Hearon, 1993, p. 302, fig. 11.
9.21
From Heaton, 1993, p. 299, fig. 3.
9.22
From Heaton, 1993, p. 301, fig. 9.
9.23
From Kelley, 1984, p. 1247, fig. 11.
9.24
From Stanley and Yang, 1987, p. 124, fig. 8.
9.25
From Stanley and Yang, 1987, p. 132, fig. 16.
9.26
From Prothero and Heaton, 1996, p. 262, fig. 2. Copyright ©1996, with permission from Elsevier Science.
9.27
From Erwin and Anstey, 1995, p. 68, fig. 3.1. Copyright ©1995 by Columbia University Press. Reproduced with permission of Columbia University Press in the format Textbook via Copyright Clearance Center.
9.28
From Sheldon, 1996, p. 214, fig. 1. Copyright ©1996, with permission from Elsevier Science.
9.29
Adapted from illustrations by David Starwood, from “The Evolution of Life on the Earih” by Stephen Jay Gould. Scientific American, October 1994, p. 86. Copyright ©1994 by Scientific American. All rights reserved.
9.30
Adapted from “Universal Phylogenetic Tree in Rooted Form.” Copyright ©1994 by Carl R. Woese. Microbiological Reviews, 58, 1994, pp. 1-9. Adapted with permission of the author.
9.31
From Gould, 1996a, p. 150, fig. 21. Copyright ©1996. Used by permission of Crown Publishers.
9.32
Adapted from Gould, 1988b. Copyright ©1988 by Stephen Jay Gould. Adapted with permission of Journal of Paleontology.
9.33
From “The Evolution of the Horse” by W. D. Matthew. Appeared in Quarterly Review of Biology 1926. Neg. no. 123823. Courtesy Department of Library Services, American Museum of Natural History,
9.34
From Lenski and Travisano, 1994, p. 6810, fig. 2. Copyright ©1994 National Academy of Sciences, USA. Used by permission.
9.35
From Blackburn, 1995, p. 203, fig. 1. Used by permission of Academic Press, London.
9.36
From Kilgour, 1998. Copyright ©1998 by Frederick Kilgour. Used by permission of Oxford University Press, Inc.
9.37
“Poorly punctuated equilibrium,” American Scientist, May-June 1997, p. 225. Used by permission of Mark Heath.
9.38
Adapted from Bliss, Parker, and Gish, 1980. Drawing by Laszlo Meszoly.
[Page 1391]
Figure
Source
9.39
From Price, 1996. Copyright ©1996. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, an imprint of Wadsworth Group, a division of Thompson Learning. Fax 800-730-2215.
10.01
From Jones and Gould, 1999, p. 161, fig. 1.
10.02
From Jones and Gould, 1999, p. 173, fig. 7.
10.03
From Stephen Jay Gould, “Of coiled oysters and big brains,” Evolution & Development, 2:5, September-October 2000, p. 248, fig. 3. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Science Ltd.
10.04
From Stephen Jay Gould, “Of coiled oysters and big brains.” Evolution & Development, 2:5, September-October 2000, p. 247, fig. 1. Reprinted by permission of BlackweU Science Ltd.
10.05
From Gould, 1980f, p. 199, fig. 23.
10.06
From Gould, 1980f, p. 120, fig. 24.
10.07
From Gould , 1989a, p. 521, fig. 2.
10.08
From Gould, 1984b, p. 219, fig. 1.
10.09
From Gould, 1984b, p. 219, fig. 3.
10.10
Drawing by Laszlo Meszoly.
10.11
Drawing by Laszlo Meszoly.
10.12
From Weigel and Mayerowitz, 1994, p. 204, fig. 1. Copyright ©1994, with permission from Elsevier Science.
&nbs
p; 10.13
From Osborn, 1905.
10.14
From Weigel and Mayerowitz, 1994, p. 204, fig. 2. Copyright ©1994, with permission from Elsevier Science.
10.15
From author's collection.
10.16
From Rudolf A. Raff, The Shape of Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 343, fig. 10.2. Reprinted by permission of the publisher, The University of Chicago Press.
10.17
Reprinted with permission from Nature, vol. 358, August 20, 1992, p. 627. Copyright ©1992 Macmillan Magazines, Limited.
10.18
Reprinted with permission from Andrew Lumsden and Robb Krumlauf, “Patterning the vertebrate Neuraxis,” Science, vol. 274, Nov. 15, 1996, p. 1112, fig. 5. Copyright ©1996 American Association for the Advancement of Science.
10.19
From Gaskell, 1908.
10.20
From E. M. De Robertis and Y. Sasai. Reprinted with permission from Nature, volume 380. Copyright ©1996 by Macmillan Magazines Limited.
10.21
From Gehring, 1996, p. 14, figs. 3a and 3b. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell Science Ltd.
10.22
From author's collection.
10.23
From Tomarev, Callaerts, Kos, Zinovieva, Holder, Gehring, and Piatigorsky, 1997, p. 2425, fig. 4A. Copyright ©1997 National Academy of Sciences, USA. Used by permission.
10.24
Reprinted with permission from Nature, vol. 399, June 24, 1999, p. 775. Copyright ©1999 Macmillan Magazines Limited.
10.25
From Pennisi and Roush, 1997, p. 37. Copyright ©1997 American Association for the Advancement of Science. Reprinted with permission From Pennisi and Roush.
10.26
From Cartwright, Bowsber, and Buss, 1999, p. 2183, fig. 1. Copyright ©1999 National Academy of Sciences, USA. Used by permission.
10.27
Reprinted with permission from Nature, vol. 376, August 3,1995, p. 423, fig. 4. Copyright ©1995 Macmillan Magazines Limited.
[Page 1392]
Figure
Source
10.28
From Carrol, 1995, p. 61, fig. 4. Reprinted with permission from Nature. Copyright ©1995 Macmillan Magazines Limited.
10.29
From Could, 1989c.
10.30
From Coates and Cohn, 1998, p. 374, fig. 2. Copyright ©1998 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Reprinted by permission of Wiley-Leiss, Inc., a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
10.31
From Dobzhansky, 1937.
11.01
From Thompson, 1917.
11.02
From Gould, 1971b, p. 243, fig. 1. Copyright ©The University of Virginia. Reprinted by permission of the Johns Hopkins University Press.
11.03
From Thompson, 1917.
11.04
From Thompson, 1917.
11.05
From Gould, 1971b, p. 243, fig. 3. Copyright ©The University of Virginia. Reprinted by permission of the Johns Hopkins University Press.
11.06
From Thompson, 1917.
11.07
From Arnold, 1994, p. 140, fig. 4. Copyright ©1994. Used by permission of Academic Press Ltd., London.
11.08
From Otto Deumus, The Mosaics of San Marco in Venice I: The Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries. Volume Two: Plates (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1984), Plate 1. Reprinted by permission of the publisher, The University of Chicago Press.
11.09
From Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA, 94 (1997), p. 10751, fig. 1. Copyright ©1997 National Academy of Sciences, USA. Used by permission.
11.10
From Megaloceros from Cougnac Cave, southwest France. Modified after Lorblancet et al., 1993, by A. M. Lister, 1994, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, London. Used by permission of Dr. A. M. Lister.
12.01
From David Jablonski, Douglas H. Erwin, and Jere H. Lipps, Evolutionary Paleobiology (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 422, fig. 16.1. Reprinted by permission of the publisher, The University of Chicago Press.
12.02
From David Jablonski, Douglas H. Erwin, and Jere H. Lipps, Evolutionary Paleobiology (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 423, fig. 16.2. Reprinted by permission of the publisher, The University of Chicago Press.
Footnotes
* Two of these three ranked as “folk wisdom” in Darwin's day and needed no further justification — variation and inheritance (the mechanism of inheritance remained unknown, but its factuality could scarcely be doubted). Only the principle that all organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive — superfecundity, in Darwin's lovely term — ran counter to popular assumptions about nature's benevolence, and required Darwin's specific defense in the Origin.
* As so much unnecessary rancor has been generated by simple verbal confusion among different meanings of this word, and not by meaningful conceptual disagreements, I should be clear that I intend only the purely descriptive definition when I write “macroevolution” — that is, a designation of evolutionary phenomenology from the origin of species on up, in contrast with evolutionary change within populations of a single species. In so doing, I follow Goldschmidt's own definitional preferences (1940) in the book that established his apostasy within the Modern Synthesis. Misunderstanding has arisen because, to some, the world “macroevolution” has implied a theoretical claim for distinct causes, particularly for nonstandard genetic mechanisms, that conflict with, or do not occur at, the microevolutionary level. But Goldschmidt — and I follow him here — urged a nonconfrontational definition that could stand as a neutral descriptor for a set of results that would then permit evolutionists to pose the tough question without prejudice: does macroevolutionary phenomenology demand unique macroevolutionary mechanics? Thus, in this book, “macroevolution” is descriptive higher-level phenomenology, not pugnacious anti-Darwinian interpretation.
* I base this chapter on an exploration of the logic of argument in the first edition of the Origin of Species (1859). Provine (in lectures and personal communications) has argued that Darwinian historiography should focus on the definitive 6th edition of 1872, not only as Darwin's most considered and nuanced account, but primarily because this last edition has enjoyed such overwhelmingly greater influence through endless reprinting (continuing today) and translation into all major languages. The first edition had a print run of 1500 copies and sold out on the first day. I doubt that this original version ever reappeared in print before the facsimile edition edited by Mayr (1964), and this initial version remains rare relative to the ubiquitous sixth of almost every modern reprint. I agree with Provine's argument and, in fact, personally prefer the sixth edition for its subtleties on issues of macroevolution and adaptation. But I choose the first edition for this chapter as a necessary consequence of my idiosyncratic habits of historiographical work. I appreciate, and shamelessly exploit, the historian's central concern for social context and the multifarious sources of intellectual arguments. But I am an internalist at heart, though wearing the sheep's clothing of my own Darwinian heritage with its emphasis on external adaptation, part by part. I love to follow the logic of argument, to treat a great text as Cuvier considered an organism — as an integrity, held together by sinews of logic (whatever the social or psychological origin of any particular item). I love to explore these connections, and to grasp the beauty of the totality. Thus, I prefer to practice the rather old-fashioned technique of explication des textes (see my longer rationale and attempt in Gould, 1987b, on Burnet, Hutton and Lyell). For this exercise, the first edition, despite its hurried composition as the scourge of Ternate breathed down Darwin's neck, represents the most coherent document, before all subsequent, externally-driven “adaptations” to critical commentary fixed the flaws and hedged the difficulties. Errors and inconsistencies build vital parts of integrity; I may share Cuvier's concern wi
th necessary connections, but not his belief in optimal design. True integrity, in a messy world, implies rough edges, which not only have a beauty of their own, but also provide our best evidence for the logic of argument.
* I have been both amused and infuriated that this issue still haunts us. I understand why American fundamentalists who call themselves “creation scientists,” with their usual mixture of cynicism and ignorance, use the following argument for rhetorical advantage: (1) evolution treats the ultimate origin of life; (2) evolutionists can't resolve this issue; (3) the question is inherently religious; (4) therefore evolution is religion, and our brand deserves just as much time as theirs in science classrooms. We reply, although creationists do not choose to listen or understand, that we agree with points two and three, and therefore do not study the question of ultimate origins or view this issue as part of scientific inquiry at all (point one). I was surprised that Mr. Justice Scalia accepted this fundamentalist argument as the basis for his singularly inept dissent in the Louisiana creationism case, Edwards v. Aguillard (see Gould, 1991b).