Ernst haeckel's ontogenetic recapitulation: irritation and incentive from 1866 to our time

Abstract

Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) must count among the most widely known biologists of his time. His monographs on radiolarian skeletons, sponges and medusae immediately became standard works, owing partly to lavish illustrations that later on culminated in his "Art Forms in Nature", which markedly influenced the "art nouveau" of the early 20th century. Haeckel's main impact, however, came from his numerous popular books that were crucial in transferring Darwin's ideas to continental Europe. Haeckel's main addition was his claim that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. It was partly founded on pre-Darwinian observations by J.F. Meckel and K.E. v. Baer who noticed that vertebrate embryos of different species resemble each other more strongly during early ontogenesis than later on. Wishing to illustrate this clearly, Haeckel clandestinely generalized some figures showing early embryos of animals and Man. This "fraud" provided ammunition for his many adversaries, most of whom felt provoked by his antireligious campaigns. The resulting controversies continued well into the 20th century but then subsided. Quite recently, however, they have flared up again, perhaps in connection with progress in molecular embryology that revealed an amazing evolutionary conservation of genes and their cooperation in signal transduction chains. The scientific publications that triggered this flare, and a selection of "Letters to the Editor" in both international science magazines and the German popular press, serve here to show that Haeckel's idea of recapitulation, while having proven its heuristic value, is still causing considerable irritation. This results from the widespread intuition that the marvels of ontogenesis and other biological phenomena must reflect some "intelligent design" rather than Darwinian evolution.