Georgy S. Levit

The history of essentialism vs. Ernst Mayr's “Essentialism Story”: A case study of German idealistic morphology

Idealistic morphology as perhaps the most important historical manifestation of typology is very suitable for a historical analysis of Ernst Mayrs “Essentialism Story”, which postulates an antagonism between “typological thinking” and “population thinking”. We show that Germanlanguage idealistic-morphological theories consisted of two clearly distinguishable parts. The cornerstone of these theories was the concept of the type as an abstract pattern representing a certain class of phenomena and embodying the norm of this class. The primary objective of pure typology was to create a non-phylogenetic classification system for living organisms based on structurally explicable characters. Thus, typology, as a non-phylogenetic foundation of idealistic morphology, was conceptually neutral with respect to hypotheses of evolutionary mechanisms. Typology was often accompanied by concepts such as Lamarckism, orthogenesis, creationism, essentialism, etc. These peripheral (with respect to pure typology) concepts were autonomous constructions and did not represent a direct logical consequence of typology. In our view “population thinking”, as part of the Darwinian theory of evolutionary mechanism, could not be directly opposed to “typological thinking”. Rather, it was peripheral concepts such as essentialism or creationism that led to conflicts between the Modern Synthesis and idealistic morphology.

Evolutionary developmental biology: its concepts and history with a focus on Russian and German contributions

Evolutionary theory has been likened to a “universal acid” (Dennett 1995) that eats its way into more and more areas of science. Recently, developmental biology has been infused by evolutionary concepts and perspectives, and a new field of research—evolutionary developmental biology—has been created and is often called EvoDevo for short. However, this is not the first attempt to make a synthesis between these two areas of biology. In contrast, beginning right after the publication of Darwin’s Origin in 1859, Ernst Haeckel formulated his biogenetic law in 1872, famously stating that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Haeckel was in his turn influenced by pre-Darwinian thinkers such as Karl Ernst von Baer, who had noted that earlier developmental stages show similarities not seen in the adults. In this review, written for an audience of non-specialists, we first give an overview of the history of EvoDevo, especially the tradition emanating from Haeckel and other comparative embryologists and morphologists, which has often been neglected in discussions about the history of EvoDevo and evolutionary biology. Here we emphasize contributions from Russian and German scientists to compensate for the Anglo-American bias in the literature. In Germany, the direct influence of Ernst Haeckel was felt particularly in Jena, where he spent his entire career as a professor, and we give an overview of the “Jena school” of evolutionary morphology, with protagonists such as Oscar Hertwig, Ludwig Plate, and Victor Franz, who all developed ideas that we would nowadays think of as belonging to EvoDevo. Franz ideas about “biometabolic modi” are similar to those of a Russian comparative morphologist that visited Jena repeatedly, A. N. Sewertzoff, who made important contributions to what we now call heterochrony research—heterochrony meaning changes in the relative timing of developmental events. His student I. I. Schmalhausen became an important contributor to the synthetic theory of evolution in Russia and is only partly known outside of the Russian-reading world because only one of his many books was translated into English early on. He made many important contributions to evolutionary theory and we point out the important parallels between Schmalhausen’s ideas (stabilizing selection, autonomization) and C. H. Waddington’s (canalization, genetic assimilation). This is one of the many parallels that have contributed to an increased appreciation of the internationality of progress in evolutionary thinking in the first half of the twentieth century. A direct link between German and Russian evolutionary biology is provided by N. V. Timoféeff-Ressovsky, whose work on, e.g., fly genetics in Berlin is a crucial part of the history of evo-devo. To emphasize the international nature of heterochrony research as predecessor to the modern era of EvoDevo, we include Sir G. R. de Beer’s work in the UK. This historical part is followed by a short review of the discovery and importance of homeobox genes and of some of the major concepts that form the core of modern EvoDevo, such as modularity, constraints, and evolutionary novelties. Major trends in contemporary EvoDevo are then outlined, such as increased use of genomics and molecular genetics, computational and bioinformatics approaches, ecological developmental biology (eco-devo), and phylogenetically informed comparative embryology. Based on our survey, we end the review with an outlook on future trends and important issues in EvoDevo.

The roots of evo-devo in Russia: is there a characteristic "Russian tradition"?

This paper raises the general question of whether there are any national peculiarities that characterize the scientific and philosophical roots of Russian-language evolutionary developmental biology. The researchers and theories are surveyed which, with hindsight, have been crucial for the Russian tradition when it comes to general methodological principles and constituting concepts. Based on published works and archival documents the main concepts of the “founding fathers” of the Russian tradition with their “Western analogues” are compared. The focus is on A. O. Kowalevsky (1840–1901), I. I. Metschnikov (1945–1916), A. N. Sewertzoff (1866–1936), I. I. Schmalhausen (1884–1963) and the parallelisms between them and E. Haeckel (1834–1919), V. Franz (1883–1950), and C. H. Waddington (1905–1977). In addition, the problem of specific influences constituting the Russian-language context of the Modern Synthesis is addressed. The major thesis of this paper is that the very character of the Russian developmental biology and its intellectual environment predisposed a strong bias towards environmentalist interpretations and thus anticipated what we now call “ecological developmental biology”.

Psychoontogeny and psychophylogeny: Bernhard Rensch’s (1900–1990) selectionist turn through the prism of panpsychistic identism

Toward the end of the 1930s, Bernhard Rensch (1900–1990) turned from Lamarckism and orthogenesis to selectionism and became one of the key figures in the making of the Synthetic Theory of Evolution (STE). He contributed to the Darwinization of biological systematics, the criticism of various anti-Darwinian movements in the German lands, but more importantly founded a macroevolutionary theory based on Darwinian gradualism. In the course of time, Rensch’s version of the STE developed into an all-embracing metaphysical conception based on a kind of Spinozism. Here we approach Rensch’s “selectionist turn” by outlining its context, and by analyzing his theoretical transformation. We try to reconstruct the immanent logic of Rensch’s evolution from a “Lamarckian Synthesis” to a “Darwinian Synthesis”. We will pay close attention to his pre-Darwinian works, because this period has not been treated in detail in English before. We demonstrate an astonishing continuity in topics, methodology, and empirical generalizations despite the shift in Rensch’s views on evolutionary mechanisms. We argue that the continuity in Rensch’s theoretical system can be explained, at last in part, by the guiding role of general methodological principles which underlie the entire system, explicitly or implicitly. Specifically, we argue that Rensch’s philosophy became an asylum for the concept of orthogenesis which Rensch banned from evolutionary theory. Unable to explain the directionality of evolution in terms of empirically based science, he “pre-programmed” the occurrence of human-level intelligence by a sophisticated philosophy combined with a supposedly naturalistic evolutionary biology.

Major Research Traditions in Twentieth-Century Evolutionary Biology: The Relations of Germany’s Darwinism with Them

Evolutionary theory has been likened to a “universal acid” (Daniel Dennett) that erodes its way into more and more areas of science. Yet, every single branch of biology has developed this context with its own specific characteristics, which, either through hindering or promoting, has affected the national scientific developments in evolutionary biology. We will argue that the Darwinian theories interacted with national research traditions such that the resulting conceptual body represented an amalgamation of a metatheoretical framework with the “purely empirical” theoretical beliefs such as the theory of natural selection. We will demonstrate this using the example of the German research tradition in evolutionary biology. We will analyse this German tradition comparing it to other major traditions in evolutionary biology such as the English- and Russian-speaking evolutionism. The problem of specific influences constituting the German, English-language (Great Britain and the USA), and Russian-language context of the first and the second Darwinian revolutions will be addressed. In addition, we will introduce a concept of “metaparadigm” reflecting the specificity of German evolutionary theory at the time of the first and the second Darwinian Revolutions.

Darwin without borders? Looking at ‘generalised Darwinism’ through the prism of the ‘hourglass model’

This article critically analyzes the arguments of the ‘generalized Darwinism’ recently proposed for the analysis of social-economical systems. We argue that ‘generalized Darwinism’ is both restrictive and empty. It is restrictive because it excludes alternative (non-selectionist) evolutionary mechanisms such as orthogenesis, saltationism and mutationism without any examination of their suitability for modeling socio-economic processes and ignoring their important roles in the development of contemporary evolutionary theory. It is empty, because it reduces Darwinism to an abstract triple-principle scheme (variation, selection and inheritance) thus ignoring the actual structure of Darwinism as a complex and dynamic theoretical structure inseparable from a very detailed system of theoretical constraints. Arguing against ‘generalised Darwinism’ we present our vision of the history of evolutionary biology with the help of the ‘hourglass model’ reflecting the internal dynamic of competing theories of evolution.

From molecules to the biosphere: Nikolai V. Timofeeff-Ressovsky's (1900-1981) research program within a totalitarian landscape

Nikolai Vladimirovich Timoféeff-Ressovsky was one of the key figures in the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. Living and researching under what was arguably the two most powerful and cruel totalitarian regimes in human history, the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, Timoféeff-Ressovsky succeeded in developing an ambitious research program aiming to explain evolution on all major levels, from the molecular-genetic, the populational, and the biogeocenotic to the level of the entire Biosphere. Yet his scientific biography remains largely unwritten and his role under totalitarianism, especially in Nazi Germany, remains highly controversial. Here we approach the problem of his hypothetical cooperation with Nazi authorities examining both the crucial episodes of his biography and summarizing the development of his research program. We conclude that the key decisions he made reflected the specificity of his research program that was focused on the fundamental questions of evolutionary biology.

At home among strangers: Alfred Russel Wallace in Russia

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) was an influential figure within Russian pre-Synthetic evolutionary biology, i.e. the time period before the Synthetic Theory of Evolution was established (ca. 1880–1930s). His major works were translated into Russian and his general ideas were read and discussed by both insiders and outsiders of scientific evolutionism. At the same time, Wallace played a controversial role in the growth of Darwinism in Russia, and Charles Robert Darwin (1809–1882) has eclipsed Wallace in his influence on Russian evolutionary thinking. In this paper we briefly outline Wallace’s impact on Russian pre-Synthetic scientific evolutionism and its general intellectual climate. We demonstrate that both Russian pro-Darwinian evolutionists and anti-Darwinians (scientific anti-Darwinians as well as creationists) were fully aware of Wallace’s contributions to the development of evolutionary theory. Yet, Wallace’s radical selectionism, as well as his controversial arguments for “design in nature”, predetermined his special place within the Russian intellectual landscape.

Valentin Haecker (1864–1927) as a pioneer of phenogenetics: Building the bridge between genotype and phenotype

ABSTRACT Valentin Haecker is one of the forerunners of experimental biology, genetics, and developmental physiology. Haecker introduced the term Phänogenetik (phenogenetics) in 1918 in Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Eigenschaftsanalyse (Evolutionary Analysis of Characters), in which he described the earliest stages in the development of the phenotype.1 His major objective in this publication was to integrate the 2 most important concepts of Mendelian genetics—phenotype and genotype—within a well-articulated theory. Haecker realized that a proper analysis of how the genotype gives rise to the phenotype requires the integration of knowledge of morphology, physiology, and experimental embryology.

A bridge-builder: Wolf-Ernst Reif and the Darwinisation of German paleontology

Wolf-Ernst Reif was an outstanding German paleontologist, who, along with his empirical studies (biomechanics, functional and constructional morphology, etc.), paid significant attention to theoretical issues and the history of his discipline. Reif was a bridge-builder, skillfully synthesising history, theory and empirical studies within German-language paleontology. This paper briefly discusses sophisticated relationships between German paleontology and Darwinism based on the historical studies of Wolf-Ernst Reif. German paleontology did not fully embrace Darwinism until the 1970s. There are several reasons for this. First, alternative evolutionary theories (saltationism, neo-Lamarckism, orthogenesis) occupied a significant segment of the theoretical landscape in the German life sciences. Second, typological thinking persisted in German paleontology after the Second World War. Third, German paleontologists were relatively uninterested in discussing mechanisms of evolution, concentrating instead on reconstructing phylogenetic history.