Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The conceptual framework of evolutionary morphology in the studies of Ernst Haeckel and Fritz Müller

  • Special Papers: From Evolutionary Morphology to the Modern Synthesis and “Evo-Devo”
  • Published:
Theory in Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In his Gastraea studies Ernst Haeckel characterized the initial stages of the animal embryo, describing complete and incomplete cleavages in various groups, until the gastrula stage. Thereby, he was able to point out various degrees of developmental diversification in these initial stages of development. As the functional meaning of such cleavages was not clear however, it was difficult to argue about putative functional adaptations. Information about the consequences for tissue formation initiated in this primary phase of development was simply lacking. Haeckel could only provide a vague picture of a highly diversified but systematically inconsistent distribution of various types of early embryogenesis. Thereby he discusses phylogenetically preserved (palingenetic) stages of development and adaptations to certain specific situations of the embryo (cenogenesis). To decide whether such types, in the initial stages of embryogenesis, are ceno- or phaenogenetic is quite difficult. Reference to the highly diversified distribution of certain types within specific groups is an indication that there is no strict adaptive pressure on these early parts of embryonic development. This makes it possible to formulate—as Haeckel did it—the idea, that in these initial phases palingenetic attributes are dominant. Thus, he tried to use these early phases of development for the classification of larger systematic units. The result is a concept of an evolutionary morphology, that was, however, never elaborated in detail by Haeckel. Therefore, it remained without effect for evolutionary biology. On the contrary, following the Darwinian approach towards a comparative analysis of embryogenesis, Fritz Müller presented a series of examples for a comparative developmental biology that allowed one to interpret certain morphological characteristics as the outcome of common evolutionary histories within different species. For various crustacean species, he was able to demonstrate that certain attributes are not to be characterized as functionally relevant adaptations, but are evolutionarity inherited.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • von Baer, K.E., 1828/1837. Über Entwicklungsgeschichte der Thiere. Beobachtung und Reflexion. Königsberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, P.J., 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism. Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900. Baltimore, London.

  • Bowler, P., 1989. Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley.

  • Bracegirdle, B., 1986. A History of Microtechnique. Lincolnwood.

  • Breidbach, O., 1998. Entphysiologisierte Morphologie. Vergleichende Entwicklungsbiologie in der Nachfolge Haeckels. Theory Biosci. 116, 328–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breidbach, O., 2002. The former synthesis. Some remarks on the typological background of Haeckel's ideas about evolution. Theory Biosci. 121, 280–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breidbach, O., 2004. Anschauliche Naturordnungen. Bemerungen zu Ernst Haeckels Studien über die Kristallseelen. In: Stahl, C. (Ed.), Lebendiger Kristall. Die Kristallefotografe der Neuen Sachlichkeit zwischen Ästhetik. Weltanschauung und Wissenschaft, Ostfildern-Ruit, pp. 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breidbach, O., 2006. Goethes Metamorphosenlehre. München.

  • Breidbach, O., Ghiselin, M., 2002. Lorenz Oken and Naturphilosophie in Jena, Paris and London. History Philos. Life Sci. 24, 219–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breidbach, O., Ghiselin, M., in preparation. Baroque Classification: A Missing Chapter in the History of Systematics.

  • Churchill, F.B., 1991. The rise of classifical dexcriptive embryology. In: Gilbert, S.F. (Ed.), A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology. New York, pp. 1–29.

  • Darwin, C., 1854. A Monograph on the Sub-class Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Balanidae (or sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae, etc. Ray Society, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daudin, H., 1926. De Linné à Jussieu: Méthodes de classification et l'idée de série en botanique et en zoologie (1740–1790). Paris.

  • Dayrat, B., 2003. The roots of phylogeny: how did Haeckel build his trees. Syst. Biol. 52, 515–527.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Diekmann, A., 1992. Klassifikation-System-“scala naturae”. Das Ordnen der Objekte in Naturwissenschaft und Pharmazie zwischen 1700 und 1850. Stuttgart.

  • Ghiselin, M., Groeben, C., 1997. Elias Metschnikoff, Anton Dohrn, and the metazoan common ancestor. J. Hist. Biol. 30, 211–228.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M., 2005. Lorenz Oken. In: Bach, T., Breidbach, O., (Eds.), Naturphilosophie nach Schelling. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, pp. 433–457.

  • Ghiselin, M., Jaffe, L., 1973. Phylogenetic classification in Darwin's monograph on the sub-class Cirripedia. Syst. Zool. 22, 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göbbel, L., Schultka, R., 2003. Meckel the Younder and his Epistemology of organic form: morphology in the pre-Gegenbaurian age. Theory Biosci. 122, 127–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J., 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, London.

  • Haeckel, E., 1855. Über die Eier der Scomberesoces. Müllers Archiv für Anatomie und Physiologie. pp. 23–32.

  • Haeckel, E., 1857. De telis quisdam astaci fluviatilis. Berlin.

  • Haeckel, E., 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, vol. 2. Berlin.

  • Haeckel, E., 1868. Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte. Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Entwickelungslehre im Allgemeinen und diejenige von Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck im Besonderen, über die Anwendung derselben auf den Ursprung des Menschen und andere damit zusammenhängende Grundfragen der Naturwissenschaft. Berlin.

  • Haeckel, E., 1872. Die Kalkschwämme. Berlin.

  • Haeckel, E., 1874a. Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen. Gemeinverständliche wissenschaftliche Vorträge über die Grundzüge der menschlichen Keimes- und Stammesgeschichte. Leipzig.

  • Haeckel, E., 1874b. Die Gastraea-Theorie, die phylogenetische Classification des Thierreichs und die Homologie der Keimblätter. Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft 8, 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeckel, E., 1877. Studien zur Gastraea-Theorie. Jena.

  • Haeckel, E., 1884. Ursprung und Entwickelung der thierischen Gewebe. Ein histogenetischer Beitrag zur Gastraea-Theorie. Jena.

  • His, W., 1874. Unsere Körperform und das physiologische Problem ihrer Entstehung. Berichte an einen befreundeten Naturforscher. leipzig.

  • Hoßfeld, U., Breidbach, O., 2005. Haeckel-Korrespondenz. Übersicht über den Briefbestand des Ernst-Haeckel-Archivs. VWB, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoßfeld, U., Olsson, L., 2003. The road from Haeckel: The Jena tradition in evolutionary morphology and the origins of “Evo-Devo”. Biol. Philos. 18, 285–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoßfeld, U., Olsson, L., Breidbach, O. (Eds.), 2003. Carl Gegenbaur and Evolutionary Morphology, Special Issue. Theory in Biosciences, vol. 122 (2/3).

  • Jahn, I., 2000. Humbotdt-Stipendien für Planktonforschung und die Haeckel-Hensen-Kontroverse (1881–1893). Verhandlungen zur Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie 5, 47–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinenberg, N., 1872. Hydra. Eine anatomisch-entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung. Leipzig.

  • Krauße, E., 1984. Ernst Haeckel. Leipzig.

  • Kutsch, W., Breidbach, O., 1994. Homologous structures in the nervous systems of Arthropoda. Adv. Insect Physiol. 24, 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenoir, T., 1982. The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanics in Nineteenth Century German Biology. Dordrecht, Boston.

  • Levit, G.S., Meister, K., Hoßfeld, U., 2005. Alternative Evolutionstheorien. In: Krohs, U., Toepfer, G. (Eds.), Philosophie der Biologie. Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, pp. 267–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meckel, J.F., 1811. Entwurf einer Darstellung der zwischen den Embryozuständen der höheren Tiere und den permanenten der niederen stattfindenden Parallele. Beiträge zur vergleichenden Anatomie 2, 1–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mocek, R., 1998. Die werdende Form. Eine Geschichte der Kausalen Morphologie. Marburg.

  • Müller, F., 1864. Für Darwin. Leipzig.

  • Müller-Wille, S., 1999. Botanik und weltweiter Handel. Zur begründung eines natürlichen Systems der Pflanzen durch Carl von Linné (1707–1778). Berlin.

  • Nordenskiöld, E., 1926. Die Geschichte der Biologie. Ubers. G. Schneider, Jena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhart, L.K., 1995. Biology Takes Form. Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800–1900. Chicago, London.

  • Paley, W., 1805. Natural Theory or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of The Deity Collected from the Appearences of Nature. London.

  • Panchen, A.L., 1994. Richard Owen and the concept of homology. In: Hall, B.K. (Ed.), Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. San Diego, pp. 21–62.

  • Patterson, C., 1988. Homology in classical and molecular biology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5, 603–625.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Radl, E., 1909. Geschichte der biologischen Theorien seit dem Ende des 17. Jahrhunderst, vol. 2. Leipzig.

  • Richards, R.J., 1992. The Meaning of Evolution: The Morphological Construction and Ideological Reconstruction of Darwin's Theory. Chicago.

  • Richardson, M.K., Keuck, G., 2002. Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development. Biol. Rev. 77, 495–528.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roux, W., 1897. Programm und Forschungsmethoden der Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen. Leipzig.

  • Rupke, N.A., 1994. Richard Owen. Victorian Naturalist. New Haven, London.

  • Sewertzoff, A.N., 1931. Morphologische Gesetzmässigkeiten der Evolution. Gustav Fischer, Jena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R.R., Sneath, P.H.A., 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco.

  • Stevens, P.F., 1994. The development of biological systematics. Antioine-Laurent de Jussieu, Nature, and the Natural System. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P., 1999. A research programme for testing the biological homology concept. In: Hall, B. (Ed.), Homology. Chichester, pp. 125–140.

  • West, D.A., 2003. Fritz Müller: A Naturalist in Brazil. Blacksburg.

  • Wray, G.A., 1999. Evolutionary dissociations between homologous genes and homologues structures. In: Hall, B. (Ed.), Homology. Chichester, pp. 189–206.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Geschichte der Medizin, Naturwissenschaft und Technik, Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Berggasse 7, D-07745, Jena, Germany

    Olaf Breidbach

Authors
  1. Olaf Breidbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olaf Breidbach.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Breidbach, O. The conceptual framework of evolutionary morphology in the studies of Ernst Haeckel and Fritz Müller. Theory Biosci. 124, 265–280 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thbio.2005.11.005

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.thbio.2005.11.005

Keywords

Search

Navigation