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

Structuralism and Adaptationism: Friends? Or foes?

Historically, the empirical study of phenotypic diversification has fallen into two rough camps; (1) "structuralist approaches" focusing on developmental constraint, bias, and innovation (with evo-devo at the core); and (2) "adaptationist approaches" focusing on adaptation, and natural selection. Whilst debates, such as that surrounding the proposed "Extended" Evolutionary Synthesis, often juxtapose these two positions, this review focuses on the grey space in between. Specifically, here I present a novel analysis of structuralism which enables us to take a more nuanced look at the motivations behind the structuralist and adaptationist positions. This makes clear how the two approaches can conflict, and points of potential commensurability. The review clarifies (a) the value of the evo-devo approach to phenotypic diversity, but also (b) how it properly relates to other predominant approaches to the same issues in evolutionary biology more broadly.

The biogenetic law and the Gastraea theory: From Ernst Haeckel's discoveries to contemporary views

More than 150 years ago, in 1866, Ernst Haeckel published a book in two volumes called Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (General Morphology of Organisms) in the first volume of which he formulated his biogenetic law, famously stating that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Here, we describe Haeckel's original idea as first formulated in the Generelle Morphologie der Organismen and later further developed in other publications until the present situation in which molecular data are used to test the "hourglass model," which can be seen as a modern version of the biogenetic law. We also tell the story about his discovery, while traveling in Norway, of an unknown organism, Magosphaera planula, that was important in that it helped to precipitate his ideas into what was to become the Gastraea theory. We also follow further development and reformulations of the Gastraea theory by other scientists, notably the Russian school. Elias Metchnikoff developed the Phagocytella hypothesis for the origin of metazoans based on studies of a colonial flagellate. Alexey Zakhvatin focused on deducing the ancestral life cycle and the cell types of the last common ancestor of all metazoans, and Kirill V. Mikhailov recently pursued this line of research further.

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

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.

The Modern Synthesis: Theoretical or Institutional Event?

This paper surveys questions about the nature of the Modern Synthesis as a historical event : was it rather theoretical than institutional? When and where did it actually happen? Who was involved? It argues that all answers to these questions are interrelated, and that systematic sets of answers define specific perspectives on the Modern Synthesis that are all complementary.

Russian editions of E. Haeckel's works and the evolution of their perception

The article aims to clarify the dynamics of the publication of E. Haeckel's works in Russia, and the evolution of their perception by the authorities, various social groups and scientists in a rapidly changing sociocultural context and in relation to the various stages of the evolutionary synthesis. It is shown that his works were reprinted nearly 50 times. Until the beginning of twentieth century, the translations of his works to some extent reflected the evolution of Haeckel's interests. His scientific ideas and concepts freely spread in the Russian-speaking world and predetermined phylogenetic studies. They define many specific features of the evolutionary synthesis in the Russian-speaking world. At the same time, Russian translations of Haeckel's philosophical and paradigmatic works, many of which were used by radicals in their ideological and political struggle and in anti-religious propaganda, were banned by the tsarist authorities and criticized by conservatives. After the 1917 revolution, numerous attempts were made in Russia to use Haeckel's monism for the dialectization of natural science, to defend the principle of inheritance of acquired characteristics and to substantiate Lysenkoism. Nevertheless, his works in Russian have not been published and have never been a subject of any serious historical or scientific research for almost 80 years.

Ernst Haeckel's contribution to Evo-Devo and scientific debate: a re-evaluation of Haeckel's controversial illustrations in US textbooks in response to creationist accusations

As Blackwell (Am Biol Teach 69:135-136, 2007) pointed out, multiple authors have attempted to discredit Haeckel, stating that modern embryological studies have shown that Haeckel's drawings are stylized or embellished. More importantly, though, it has been shown that the discussion within the scientific community concerning Haeckel's drawings and the question of whether embryonic similarities are convergent or conserved have been extrapolated outside the science community in an attempt to discredit Darwin and evolutionary theory in general (Behe in Science 281:347-351, 1998; Blackwell in Am Biol Teach 69:135-136, 2007; Pickett et al. in Am Biol Teach 67:275, 2005; Wells in Am Biol Teach 61:345-349, 1999; Icons of evolution: science or myth? Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2002). In this paper, we address the controversy surrounding Haeckel and his work in order to clarify the line between the shortcomings and the benefits of his research and illustrations. Specifically, we show that while his illustrations were not perfect anatomical representations, they were useful educational visualizations and did serve an important role in furthering studies in embryology.

Ernst Haeckel's embryology in biology textbooks in the German Democratic Republic, 1951-1988

In our era of computers and computer models, the importance of physical or graphical models for both research and education in developmental biology (embryology) is often forgotten or at least underappreciated. Still, one important aspect of embryology is the (evolutionary) developmental anatomy of both human and animal embryos. Here, we present a short history of the visualization of Ernst Haeckel's "biogenetic law" and his "gastraea theory" in biology textbooks from the German Democratic Republic (GDR) between 1951 and 1988. Our analysis of GDR textbooks showed embryology was integrated into different disciplines and remained an educational constant within the school textbooks throughout the GDR despite various educational reforms. While the majority of these textbooks failed to reference either Ernst Haeckel or his contributions to embryology, they often did mention Haeckel in sections dedicated to the theory of evolution and the promotion of Soviet ideals such as materialism.

The "Biogenetic Law" in zoology: from Ernst Haeckel's formulation to current approaches

150 years ago, in 1866, Ernst Haeckel published a book in two volumes called "Generelle Morphologie der Organismen" (General Morphology of Organisms) in which he formulated his biogenetic law, famously stating that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Here we describe Haeckel's original idea and follow its development in the thinking of two scientists inspired by Haeckel, Alexei Sewertzoff and Adolf Naef. Sewertzoff and Naef initially approached the problem of reformulating Haeckel's law in similar ways, and formulated comparable hypotheses at a purely descriptive level. But their theoretical viewpoints were crucially different. While Sewertzoff laid the foundations for a Darwinian evolutionary morphology and is regarded as a forerunner of the Modern Synthesis, Naef was one of the most important figures in 'idealistic morphology', usually seen as a type of anti-Darwinism. Both Naef and Sewertzoff aimed to revise Haeckel's biogenetic law and came to comparable conclusions at the empirical level. We end our review with a brief look at the present situation in which molecular data are used to test the "hour-glass model", which can be seen as a modern version of the biogenetic law.

Paedomorphosis as an Evolutionary Driving Force: Insights from Deep-Sea Brittle Stars

Heterochronic development has been proposed to have played an important role in the evolution of echinoderms. In the class Ophiuroidea, paedomorphosis (retention of juvenile characters into adulthood) has been documented in the families Ophiuridae and Ophiolepididae but not been investigated on a broader taxonomic scale. Historical errors, confusing juvenile stages with paedomorphic species, show the difficulties in correctly identifying the effects of heterochrony on development and evolution. This study presents a detailed analysis of 40 species with morphologies showing various degrees of juvenile appearance in late ontogeny. They are compared to a range of early ontogenetic stages from paedomorphic and non-paedomorphic species. Both quantitative and qualitative measurements are taken and analysed. The results suggest that strongly paedomorphic species are usually larger than other species at comparable developmental stage. The findings support recent notions of polyphyletic origin of the families Ophiuridae and Ophiolepididae. The importance of paedomorphosis and its correct recognition for the practice of taxonomy and phylogeny are emphasized.

Leeches of the genus Helobdella as model organisms for Evo-Devo studies

Model organisms are important tools in modern biology and have been used elucidate mechanism underlying processes, such as development, heredity, neuronal signaling, and phototropism, to name but a few. In this context, the use of model organisms is predicated on uncovering evolutionarily conserved features of biological processes in the expectation that the findings will be applicable to organisms that are either inaccessible or intractable for direct experimentation. For the most part, particular species have been adapted as model organisms because they can be easily reared and manipulated in the laboratory. In contrast, a major goal in the field of evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo) is to identify and elucidate the differences in developmental processes among species associated with the dramatic range of body plans among organisms, and how these differences have emerged over time in various branches of phylogeny. At first glance then, it would appear that the concept of model organisms for Evo-Devo is oxymoronic. In fact, however, laboratory-compatible, experimentally tractable species are of great use for Evo-Devo, subject to the condition that the ensemble of models investigated should reflect the range of taxonomic diversity, and for this purpose glossiphoniid leeches are useful. Four decades ago (1975), leeches of the species-rich genus Helobdella (Lophotrochozoa; Annelida; Clitellata; Hirudinida; Glossiphoniidae) were collected in Stow Lake, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA (USA). These and other Helobdella species may be taken as Evo-Devo models of leeches, clitellate annelids, and the super-phylum Lophotrochozoa. Here we depict/discuss the biology/taxonomy of these Evo-Devo systems, and the challenges of identifying species within Helobdella. In addition, we document that H. austinensis has been established as a new model organism that can easily be cultivated in the laboratory. Finally, we provide an updated scheme illustrating the unique germ line/soma-differentiation during early development and speculate on the mechanisms of sympatric speciation in this group of aquatic annelids.

Placental Evolution within the Supraordinal Clades of Eutheria with the Perspective of Alternative Animal Models for Human Placentation

Here a survey of placental evolution is conducted. Placentation is a key factor for the evolution of placental mammals that had evolved an astonishing diversity. As a temporary organ that does not allow easy access, it is still not well understood. The lack of data also is a restriction for better understanding of placental development, structure, and function in the human. Animal models are essential, because experimental access to the human placenta is naturally restricted. However, there is not a single ideal model that is entirely similar to humans. It is particularly important to establish other models than the mouse, which is characterised by a short gestation period and poorly developed neonates that may provide insights only for early human pregnancy. In conclusion, current evolutionary studies have contributed essentially to providing a pool of experimental models for recent and future approaches that may also meet the requirements of a long gestation period and advanced developmental status of the newborn in the human. Suitability and limitations of taxa as alternative animal models are discussed. However, further investigations especially in wildlife taxa should be conducted in order to learn more about the full evolutionary plasticity of the placenta system.

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.

Heredity, development and evolution: the unmodern synthesis of E.S. Russell

In 1930, while R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, E.B. Ford and S.G. Wright were laying the foundations of what a decade later J.S. Huxley dubbed "Modern Synthesis", E.S. Russell published a groundbreaking work, The Interpretation of Development and Heredity. In this book Russell not only condemned Mendelian genetics and neo-Darwinism, but also proposed an alternative synthesis unifying heredity, development, and evolution. The book did not represent the work of a mind operating in isolation. Rather, it was a synthetic work connecting ideas and doctrines of many influential scientists working in Europe and the USA. Through the analysis of archival documents and rarely or never mentioned sources, this article provides an unconventional picture of Russell's theoretical biology. It will be shown that Russell was an international celebrity; he was at the centre of a large network of scholars who shared his ideas and insights. He was one of several biologists arguing for a different synthesis; a synthesis perhaps less visible, less institutionalised, and less 'modern', nevertheless with its influential advocates and international support. Finally, this study shows that Russell's synthesis was not rooted in the classic pantheon of towering figures in the history of biology, i.e. Darwin, Wallace, and Mendel, but was based on the teachings of Kant, Goethe, Cuvier, von Baer, and Müller.

Optimal foraging, not biogenetic law, predicts spider orb web allometry

The biogenetic law posits that the ontogeny of an organism recapitulates the pattern of evolutionary changes. Morphological evidence has offered some support for, but also considerable evidence against, the hypothesis. However, biogenetic law in behavior remains underexplored. As physical manifestation of behavior, spider webs offer an interesting model for the study of ontogenetic behavioral changes. In orb-weaving spiders, web symmetry often gets distorted through ontogeny, and these changes have been interpreted to reflect the biogenetic law. Here, we test the biogenetic law hypothesis against the alternative, the optimal foraging hypothesis, by studying the allometry in Leucauge venusta orb webs. These webs range in inclination from vertical through tilted to horizontal; biogenetic law predicts that allometry relates to ontogenetic stage, whereas optimal foraging predicts that allometry relates to gravity. Specifically, pronounced asymmetry should only be seen in vertical webs under optimal foraging theory. We show that, through ontogeny, vertical webs in L. venusta become more asymmetrical in contrast to tilted and horizontal webs. Biogenetic law thus cannot explain L. venusta web allometry, but our results instead support optimization of foraging area in response to spider size.

Russian comparative embryology takes form: a conceptual metamorphosis toward "evo-devo"

This essay recapitulates major paths followed by the Russian tradition of what we refer to today as evolutionary developmental biology ("evo-devo"). The article addresses several questions regarding the conceptual history of evolutionary embryological thought in its particularly Russian perspective: (1) the assertion by the St. Petersburg academician Wolff regarding the possible connections between environmental modifications during morphogenesis and the "transformation" of species, (2) the discovery of shared "principles" underlying animal development by von Baer, (3) the experimental expression of Baer's principles by Kowalevsky and Mechnikoff, (4) Severtsov's theory of phylembryogenesis, (5) Filatov's approach to the study of evolution using comparative "developmental mechanics", and (6) Shmalgausen's concept of "stabilizing" selection as an attempt to elucidate the evolution of developmental mechanisms. The focus on comparative evolutionary embryology, which was established by Kowalevsky and Mechnikoff, still continues to be popular in present-day "evo-devo" research in Russia.

The phylotypic stage as a boundary of modular memory: non mechanistic perspective

The concept of the phylotypic stage has been strongly integrated into developmental biology, thanks mostly to drawings presented by Haeckel (Anthropogenie oder Entwicklungsgeschichte des Menschen, 1874). They are printed in every textbook as proof of the existence of the phylotypic stage and the fact of its conservation, albeit many times criticized as misleading and simplifying (Richardson in Develop Biol 172:412-421, 1995, Richardson et al. in Anat Embryo 196:91-106, 1997; Bininda-Emons et al. in Proc R Soc Lond 270:341-346, 2003). Although generally accepted by modern biology, doubt still exists concerning the very existence or the usefulness of the concept. What kind of evolutionary and developmental horizons does it open indeed? This article begins with the history of the concept, discusses its validity and draws this into connotation with the idea of a memory activated throughout the development. Barbieri (The organic codes. An introduction to semantic biology, 2003) considers the phylotypic stage to be a crucial boundary when the genetic program ceases to suffice for further development of the embryo, and supracellular memory of the body plan is activated. This moment clearly coincides with the commencing of the modular development of the embryo. In this article the nature of such putative memory will be discussed.

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.

Walter Garstang: a retrospective

Although, Walter Garstang died over 60 years ago, his work is still cited--sometimes praised, but sometimes belittled. On the negative side, he often appropriated ideas of others without attribution, ignored earlier studies conflicting with his theories, and clung to notions like inheritance of acquired characters, progressive evolution, and saltation after many of his contemporaries were advancing toward the modern synthesis. Moreover, his evolutionary scenarios--especially his derivation of vertebrates from a sessile ascidian--have not been well supported by recent work in developmental genetics and molecular phylogenetics. On the positive side, Garstang firmly established several points of view that remain useful in the age of evolutionary development (evo-devo). He popularized the valid idea that adaptive changes in larvae combined with shifts in developmental timing (heterochrony) could radically change adult morphology and provide an escape from overspecialization. Moreover, his re-statement of the biogenetic law is now widely accepted: namely, that recapitulation results when characters at one stage of development are required for the correct formation of other characters at subsequent stages (his stepping stone model). In other words, ontogeny creates phylogeny because some developmental features are constraints, favoring particular evolutionary outcomes while excluding others. This viewpoint is a useful basis for advancing concepts of homology and for comparing the phylogeny of ontogenies across a series of animals to ascertain the timing and the nature of the underlying ontogenetic changes.

From the scala naturae to the symbiogenetic and dynamic tree of life

All living beings on Earth, from bacteria to humans, are connected through descent from common ancestors and represent the summation of their corresponding, ca. 3500 million year long evolutionary history. However, the evolution of phenotypic features is not predictable, and biologists no longer use terms such as "primitive" or "perfect organisms". Despite these insights, the Bible-based concept of the so-called "ladder of life" or Scala Naturae, i.e., the idea that all living beings can be viewed as representing various degrees of "perfection", with humans at the very top of this biological hierarchy, was popular among naturalists until ca. 1850 (Charles Bonnet, Jean Lamarck and others). Charles Darwin is usually credited with the establishment of a branched evolutionary "Tree of Life". This insight of 1859 was based on his now firmly corroborated proposals of common ancestry and natural selection. In this article I argue that Darwin was still influenced by "ladder thinking", a theological view that prevailed throughout the 19th century and is also part of Ernst Haeckel's famous Oak tree (of Life) of 1866, which is, like Darwin's scheme, static. In 1910, Constantin Mereschkowsky proposed an alternative, "anti-selectionist" concept of biological evolution, which became known as the symbiogenesis-theory. According to the symbiogenesis-scenario, eukaryotic cells evolved on a static Earth from archaic prokaryotes via the fusion and subsequent cooperation of certain microbes. In 1929, Alfred Wegener published his theory of continental drift, which was later corroborated, modified and extended. The resulting theory of plate tectonics is now the principal organizing concept of geology. Over millions of years, plate tectonics and hence the "dynamic Earth" has caused destructive volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. At the same time, it created mountain ranges, deep oceans, novel freshwater habitats, and deserts. As a result, these geologic processes destroyed numerous populations of organisms, and produced the environmental conditions for new species of animals, plants and microbes to adapt and evolve. In this article I propose a tree-like "symbiogenesis, natural selection, and dynamic Earth (synade)-model" of macroevolution that is based on these novel facts and data.