“…We can, however, put her perspective in historical context by noting that it has much in common with (a) classic critiques of the nature-nurture dichotomy (e.g., Lehrman, 1953Lehrman, , 1970Verplanck, 1955), (b) prior alternatives to "genetic imperialism" (e.g., Jennings, 1924;Weiss, 1971; see Oyama, 1989, p. 10), and (c) earlier emphases on life-span development (e.g., Beach, 1955;Kantor & Smith, 1975;Kuo, 1967Kuo, /1976Schneirla, 1966).3 Contemporary syntheses and extensions of this earlier work may be found under the rubrics of developmental interactionism, probabilistic epigenesis, an interactionist approach, dialectical materialism, and the inheritance of niches (see, e.g., Delprato, 1987;Gottlieb, 1983Gottlieb, , 1992Johnston, 1988;Levins & Lewontin, 1985;Miller, 1988a;West, King, & Arberg, 1988). Oyama herself acknowledges much of this classical and contemporary work and more, noting parallels between it and her own efforts.…”