PubMed · 11615310
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
K Grundmann. 1995. [Not Available].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11615310/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The present study examines comparatively the soft parts of turbinids Astraea latispina and Astraea olfersii. The characters of soft parts of these species, in agreement with Trochoidea organization, allow a differential diagnosis on the cefalic lappets, appendix of eye-stalk, hypobranchial glands, jaws, radulae, and stomach spiral caecum, which information will be helpful in taxonomic studies.
Over the last twenty years, there has been rapid growth of a new approach to understanding the evolution of organismic form. This evolutionary developmental biology, or 'evo-devo', is focused on the developmental genetic machinery that lies behind embryological phenotypes, which were all that could be studied in the past. Are there any general concepts emerging from this new approach, and if so, how do they impact on the conceptual structure of traditional evolutionary biology? In providing answers to these questions, this review assesses whether evo-devo is merely filling in some missing details, or whether it will cause a large-scale change in our thinking about the evolutionary process.
A century ago, Carl Gegenbaur's program of vertebrate evolutionary morphology faced its greatest challenges. The controversy over the evolutionary origin of the vertebrate paired limbs between 1875 and 1906 illustrates the failure of the traditional methods of comparative anatomy and embryology (supported by Haeckel's biogenetic law) to choose between different phylogenetic hypotheses. The controversy over morphology's status as science intensified at the turn of the twentieth century, when the legitimacy of historical explanation itself as a mode of scientific understanding came under fire. Gegenbaur's intellectual grandson, Hermann Braus, sought to defend the legitimacy of phylogenetic reconstruction while updating it to include experimental and causal-analytical approaches, but was unable to sustain a viable synthetic research program. The article concludes with reflections on approaches to the past used by historians and evolutionary morphologists.