In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

FUNCTIONAL AND EVOLUTIONARY MORPHOLOGY DAVIDB. WAKE* Introduction In 1956 anatomy was moribund; the field of functional and evolutionary morphology barely existed as a scientific discipline. The dawning of the era of molecular biology was apparent, and among anatomically inclined biologists there was a headlong rush into cell (especially ultrastructural ) and molecular biology, or at least ancillary fields. Anatomical science can rightly claim to be the oldest area of biology, and any history of biology is filled with accounts of anatomically based discoveries and interpretations [I]. During the nineteenth century comparative anatomy came to reign supreme and included in its ranks the vast majority of biologists, working from the cell to the whole organismal levels of organization . But in the twentieth century the ranks of anatomists became progressively depleted. To a large extent this was simply the result of increased technical opportunity as well as the successes of the early anatomists in establishing a firm empirical base for more specialized investigations . It was inevitable that increased sophistication should also be accompanied by diversification. It was not that anatomical investigations were considered unimportant; on the contrary, so much was known that little challenge remained. THE DECLINE OF ANATOMY By the 1950s, anatomical science in the United States was centered largely in medical schools, although there remained a few strong laboratories in general zoology departments as well. The "gross anatomists" of medical schools were not in a very happy state, for although their The author expresses his appreciation for the many discussions with and stimulating comments of Marvalee H. Wake and Harry W. Greene. This paper was written during a fellowship of the John Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, and the research was supported by the National Science Foundation (DEB 78-03008). *Department of Zoology and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720.© 1982 by The University of Chicago. AU rights reserved. 003 1-5982/82/2504-0307$01 .00 Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 25, 4 ¦ Summer 1982 | 603 service in teaching was essential, gross anatomical research was not held in high esteem. Unfortunate tendencies existed both in medical schools and in zoology departments to assume that any biologist who set his or her mind to it could teach gross human or comparative anatomy, and, since there were not many productive graduate programs in these areas, many individuals with research interests in relatively remote subjects were offered teaching posts. As a result, a self-fulfilling prophecy was promulgated and in many universities gross and comparative anatomy courses began to be taught as technical, rote-learning disciplines, with little intellectual content. What I have described characterizes the United States perhaps more than other parts of the world, for such widely respected figures as Sir Solly Zuckerman and Wilfred Le Gros Clark in Great Britain proudly counted themselves as anatomists. However, the tendency to diminish the role and significance of anatomy was felt everywhere. Anatomists were made to feel "old-fashioned." How had the field come to fall on such hard times? I think it was largely the result of a century-long trend toward reductionism. As we became more and more able to probe microstructure, ultrastructure, and finally even molecular structure, those with interests in the structural and functional foundations of biology simply moved to greener pastures. Certainly it cannot be said that the field inherently lacked intellectual discipline and stimulation. Many have written accounts of the intense stimulation provided by anatomical studies. Others have written wistfully of the departure from the center stage of comparative anatomy. For example, Medawar and Medawar [2, pp. 19-20] write, "The modern impatience with research as slow moving as comparative anatomy must not be allowed to distract attention from the fact that the study of comparative anatomy is an exacting and formally very beautiful discipline. Indeed, in the hands of some of its greatest practitioners it became almost a biological art form: a biologist who cannot appreciate and marvel at Edwin Goodrich's Studies in the Structure and Development of Vertebrates (Dover Press, 1930) deserves sympathy." These authors attribute the decline ofcomparative anatomy simply to the apparent fact that "the greater part of the work has already been done." In a sense, then, anatomy as...

pdf

Share