Summary
In this paper we analyze Carl Gegenbaur’s conception of the relationship between embryology (“Ontogenie”) and comparative anatomy and his related ideas about homology. We argue that Gegenbaur’s conviction of the primacy of comparative anatomy and his careful consideration of caenogenesis led him to a more balanced view about the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny than his good friend Ernst Haeckel. We also argue that Gegenbaur’s ideas about the centrality of comparative anatomy and his definitions of homology actually laid the conceptual foundations for Hans Spemann’s (1915) later analysis of homology.
We also analyze Gegenbaur’s reception in the United States and how the discussions between E.B. Wilson and Edwin Conklin about the role of the “embryological criterion of homology” and the latter’s argument for an even earlier concept of cellular homology reflect the recurring theme of preformism in ontogeny, a theme that finds its modern equivalent in various genetic definitions of homology, only recently challenged by the emerging synthesis of evolutionary developmental biology. Finally, we conclude that Gegenbaur’s own careful methodological principles can serve as an important model for proponents of present day “evo-devo”, especially with respect to the integration of ontogeny with phylogeny embedded in comparative anatomy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Conklin, E. C. (1897) “Cleavage and Differentiation.” In: Biological Lectures, pp. 151–193.
Fürbringer, M. (1903) Carl Gegenbaur. Heidelberg, Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Gegenbaur, C. (1870) Grundzüge der vergleichenden Anatomie. Leipzig, Wilhelm Engelmann.
Gegenbaur, C. (1874) Grundriß der vergleichenden Anatomie. Leipzig, Wilhelm Engelmann.
Gegenbaur, C. (1875) „Die Stellung und Bedeutung der Morphologie.“ Morphologisches Jahrbuch 1: 1–20.
Gegenbaur, C. (1878) Grundriss der vergleichenden Anatomie. Leipzig, Wilhelm Engelmann.
Gegenbaur, C. (1888) „Über Cänogenese.“ Anatomischer Anzeiger 3: 493–499.
Gegenbaur, C. (1889) „Ontogenie und Anatomie, in ihren Wechselbeziehungen betrachtet.“ Morphologisches Jahrbuch 15: 1–9.
Gegenbaur, C. (1898) Vergleichende Anatomie der Wirbeltiere mit Berücksichtigung der Wirbellosen. Leipzig, Wilhelm Engelmann.
Gegenbaur, C. (1901) Vergleichende Anatomie der Wirbeltiere mit Berücksichtigung der Wirbellosen. Leipzig, Wilhelm Engelmann.
Goethe, J. W. (1989) Zur Naturwissenschaft überhaupt, besonders zur Morphologie. Münchner Ausgabe Band 12. München, Hanser.
Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire, E. (1818) Philosophie anatomique. Paris, Mequigon-Marvis.
Haeckel, E. (1866) Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Berlin, Reimer.
Lankester, R. (1870) “On the use of the term homology.” The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Zoology, Botany, and Geology, 6: 34–43.
Nyhart, Lynn (1995) Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800–1900. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Owen, R. (1848) On the archetype and homologies of the vertebrate skeleton. London, J. Van Voorst.
Russell, E. B. (1916) Form and Function. London, Murray
Spemann, H. (1915) „Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Begriffs der Homologie.“ In: Chun, C. and Johannsen, W. (eds.) Allgemeine Biologie. Leipzig, Wilhelm Engelmann. pp. 63–86.
Wilson, E. B. (1894) “The Embtyological Criterion of Homology.” In: Biological Lectures, pp. 101–124.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Laubichler, M.D., Maienschein, J. Ontogeny, anatomy, and the problem of homology: Carl Gegenbaur and the American tradition of cell lineage studies. Theory Biosci. 122, 194–203 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-003-0053-8
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-003-0053-8