Historians of biology have sometimes failed to recognize the important contfibution of morphology to the evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s' because of widespread prejudices against descriptive work. This bias against morphology can be traced to the 1880s, when experimental interests began to prevail in biology.2 The preference for analytical over descriptive-morphological work has become so ingrained in the scientific community that few scientists are even conscious of their prejudices. In fact, until a few years ago, the editors of the Journal of Cell Biology wrote in their "information for contributors" section that "the Journal prefers not to publish manuscripts presenting strictly morphological findings."3 And when historians identified the various contributors to the evolutionary synthesis, they usually rejected those from the field of morphology. Morphology is best defined as the science of animal and plant form.4 Broadly, "morphology includes anatomy, histology, organo-