On von Baerian and Haeckelian Recapitulation

Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) and the reality of natural groups

“…Like Cuvier and Agassiz, Riedl (1975) argued that the more basic (more general: de Queiroz, 1985: 283) features, characterizing more inclusive groups, carry a heavier "burden" than less general features, characterizing less inclusive groups. A corollary of Riedl's hierarchical view of nature is that ontogeny, the causal mechanism of branching phylogeny, recapitulates the subordinated hierarchy of classification, progressing from top to bottom as ontogenetic differentiation proceeds from the more general to the less general (Riedl, 1975: 126, 252, 312-313; see also Lovtrup's [1978] concept of von Baerian recapitulation based on "epigenetic" characters).…”

“…The basic statement of any classification entails the judgement: "A is closer to B than either is to C", or any permutation thereof. The "basic classification" therefore comprises three taxa (Lovtrup, 1977), and it formulates a hierarchy of sistergroup relationships within these three taxa (A is the sister of B, with C being the sister of these two -or any permutation thereof). As Gaffney (1979) has shown, all fully dichotomous classifications can be broken down into a series of internested three-taxon statements.…”

“…Ontogeny has been evoked as a test of homology (synonymous with synapomorphy) by pattern cladists (Patterson, 1982b), because it again is viewed as a process progressing from the differentiation of more generally distributed characters to that of less generally distributed features (Nelson, 1978;Lovtrup, 1978;Patterson, 1982b). As mentioned above, however, the ontogenetic method is not independent from outgroup comparison (Rieppel, 1979;Fink, 1982;Kluge, 1985): indeed, ontogeny has to be interpreted in the light of phylogenetic hypotheses if the pitfalls of heterochrony, insertions and deletions are to be avoided.…”

Phylogeny, Neoteny and Growth of the Cranial Base in Hominoids

“…Haeckel's theory of recapitu lation (which can be regarded as a special case of Baerian recapitulation [Lovtrup, 1978a]) proved a major influence and formed an influential framework for biological and palaeontological thought and research during the latter half of the 19th century. However, when Bolk [1926] reviewed these ideas in the context of human evolution, he suggested that a more suitable mechanism was a gen eral and pervasive retardation of develop ment, resulting in the retention of the fea tures of juvenile ancestors in adult descen dants.…”

Haeckel or Hennig?

“…The fundamental question of the validity of constructs depending on their reliance on epigenetic or non-epigenetic characters has been raised by Lovtrup [1978;see also Wiley, 1981], If it is really necessary to open the black box, the answer perhaps lies in a cybernetic approach [see the attempt of Riedl, 1975], Questions of this nature are relevant to the consistency of scientific thinking. Neglecting them would result in the confining of phylo genetic research within routines which, if not totally parochial and fashionable, would have at least restricted and occasional validity.…”