Skip to main content
Log in

Beyond Haeckel’s Law: Walter Garstang and the Evolutionary Biology that Might Have Been

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

At the beginning of the twentieth century Haeckel’s biogenetic law was widely questioned. On the one hand, there were those who wanted to dismiss it altogether: ontogeny and phylogeny did not have any systematic or interesting relation. On the other hand, there were those who sought to revise it. They argued that while Haeckel’s recapitulationism might have been erroneous, this should not deter the research over the relation between evolution and development. The British embryologist Walter Garstang was one of the main figures on the “revisionists” side. In this paper, I first situate Garstang’s contribution to embryology and evolution within the extraordinarily creative period of the first three decades of the twentieth century. Then, I review some of Garstang’s specific ideas in detail, especially his most well-known 1922 paper “The Theory of Recapitulation.” Finally, I look at how the demise of the biogenetic law in light of Garstang’s views—as well as from the perspective of contemporary developmental evolution—should be understood. My main concern is not about the dismissal of Haeckel’s law or the sidelining of embryology in the twentieth-century evolutionary biology. I am rather interested in exploring why Garstang’s revised version of biogenetic law—which was entirely consistent with the neo-Darwinian perspective underpinning the Modern synthesis—did not spur a major new agenda in evolutionary biology after the 1930s.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In his introduction to Garstang’s posthumously published book of biological verses (1951), Alister Hardy wondered why so few biologists recognized the significance of Garstang’s ideas in the 1930s, asking: “Why even now, among the younger generation, are there not more who acknowledge the importance of the contribution he has made to the theory of evolution?” (Hardy 1962, p. 1).

  2. For a thorough analysis on counterfactual history and historiography, see Radick (2008, 2016).

  3. De Beer credited Garstang, together with S. G. Kryzanowsky and H. H. Swinnerton, as those who first argued that phylogeny should not be seen as a chronological set of adult forms (1951, p. 9).

  4. On the relation between genetics and medicine, see Comfort (2012).

References

  • Allen, Garland. 1975. Life Science in the Twentieth Century. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, Garland. 1978. Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and His Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson, Ronald. 2005. The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought: Roots of Evo-Devo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Beer, Gavin. 1930. Embryology and Evolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Beer, Gavin. 1954. Embryos and Ancestors, Revised ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Beer, Gavin. 1958. Darwin’s Views on the Relations Between Embryology and Evolution. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society 56 (365): 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, Peter. 1996. Life’s Splendid Drama. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breidbach, Olaf, and Michael Ghiselin. 2007. Evolution and Development: Past, Present and Future. Theory in Biosciences 125: 157–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, Frederick. 1980. The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis and the Biogenetic Law. In The Evolutionary Synthesis, Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, ed. E. Mayr and W. Provine, 112–122. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, Frederick. 2007. Living with the Biogenetic Law: A Reappraisal. In From Embryology to Evo-Devo: A History of Developmental Evolution, ed. M. Laubichler and J. Maienschein, 37–81. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comfort, Nathaniel. 2012. The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Heart of American Medicine. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, Charles. 1868. The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Gregory K., Michael Dietrich, and David K. Jacobs. 2009. Homeotic Mutants and the Assimilation of Developmental Genetics into the Evolutionary Synthesis, 1915–1952. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series 99 (1): 133–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastham, L. 1949. Prof. Walter Garstang. Nature 163: 518–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, Maurizio. 2014. Problematic “Idiosyncrasies”: Rediscovering the Historical Context of D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson’s Science of Form. Science in Context 27 (1): 79–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, Maurizio. 2015. More than the Parts: W. E. Ritter, the Scripps Marine Association, and the Organismal Conception of Life. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 45 (2): 273–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, Maurizio. 2017a. The Organismal Synthesis: Holistic Science and Developmental Evolution in the English-speaking World, 1915–1954. In The Darwinian Tradition in Context: Research Programs in Evolutionary Biology, ed. R.G. Delisle, 219–241. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esposito, Maurizio. 2017b. Expectation and Futurity: The Remarkable Success of Genetic Determinism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 62: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garstang, Walter. 1894. Preliminary Note on a New Theory of the Phylogeny of the Chordata. Zoologischer Anzeiger 17: 122–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garstang, Walter. 1922. The Theory of Recapitulation: A Critical Re-statement of the Biogenetic Law. Zoological Journal of the Linnaean Society 35 (232): 81–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garstang, Walter. 1929. The Origin and Evolution of Larval Forms. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Section D) 96: 77–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garstang, Walter. 1951. Larval Forms and Other Zoological Verses. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Stephen Jay. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, Stephen Jay. 1989. Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Brian Keith. 2000. Balfour, Garstang and de Beer: The First Century of Evolutionary Embryology. American Zoologist 40: 718–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger, Viktor. 1980. Embryology and the Modern Synthesis in Evolutionary Biology. In The Evolutionary Synthesis, Perspectives on the Unification of Biology, ed. E. Mayr and W.B. Provine, 97–112. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, Alister C. 1951. Walter Garstang, 1868–1949. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 29 (3): 561–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, Alister C. 1962. Introduction. In Larval Forms and Other Zoological Verses, ed. Walter Garstang. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, Nicholas. 2011. Walter Garstang: A Retrospective. Theory on Biosciences 130: 247–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horder, Tim. 2008. A History of Evo-Devo in Britain: Theoretical Ideals Confront Biological Complexity. Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology 13: 101–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kay, Lily. 1993. The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockfeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levit, Georgy, Uwe Hossfeld, and Lennart Olsson. 2004. The Integration of Darwinism and Evolutionary Morphology: Alexej Nikolajevich Sewertzoff (1866–1936) and the Developmental Basis of Evolutionary Change. Journal of Experimental Zoology B 302 (4): 343–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love, Alan, and Rudolf Raff. 2003. Knowing your Ancestors: Themes in the History of Evo-Devo. Evoloutionary Development 5: 327–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyhart, Lynn. 1995. Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800–1900. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, Lennart, Uwe Hossfeld, and Olaf Breidbach. 2009. Preface. Between Ernst Haeckel and the Homeobox: The Role of Developmental Biology in Explaining Evolution. Theory in Biosciences 128: 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, Lennart, Georgy Levit, and Uwe Hossfeld. 2010. Evolutionary Developmental Biology, Its Concepts and History with Focus on Russian and German Contributions. Naturwissenschaften 97 (11): 951–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, Lennart, Georgy Levit, and Uwe Hossfeld. 2017. The “Biogenetic Law” in Zoology: From Ernst Haeckel’s Formulation to Current Approaches. Theory in Biosciences 136: 19–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provine, William. 1980. Introduction. In The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspective on the Unification of Biology, ed. E. Mayr and W. Provine, 96–97. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radick, Gregory. 2008. Why What If? Isis 99: 547–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radick, Gregory. 2016. Experimenting with the Scientific Past. British Journal for the History of Science 49: 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, Nicholas. 1991. The Decline of Recapitulationism in Early Twentieth-century Biology: Disciplinary Conflict and Consensus on the Battleground of Theory. Journal of the History of Biology 24: 51–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, Mark. 1986. Embryology and Classical Zoology in Britain. In A History of Embryology, ed. T.J. Horder, J.A. Witkowski, and C.C. Wylie, 35–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, Eduard Stuart. 1916. Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology. London: John Murray.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1917. On Growth and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by Fondecyt Chile (Grant No. 1171017).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurizio Esposito.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Esposito, M. Beyond Haeckel’s Law: Walter Garstang and the Evolutionary Biology that Might Have Been. J Hist Biol 53, 249–268 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-020-09602-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-020-09602-9

Keywords

Navigation