Talk:Recapitulation theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Barnacles[edit]

Don't know if this resolves the point about selective pressures, but as an example: Barnacles have two distinct larval stages, the nauplius and the cyprid, before developing into a mature adult. The nauplius is the larval stage of crustaceans, and this finding was the clue for scientists that barnacles are a crustacean. . dave souza, talk 07:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Possible useful source: " in 1835 the presence of larval stages of cirripedes was still a matter of dispute among naturalists.
    Prior to the publication in 1830 of John Vaughan Thompson's account of the developmental history of cirripedes, which pointed out the similarity of barnacle larvae to those of Crustacea, most naturalists had followed Linnaeus and Cuvier in classifying the cirripedes as molluscs because of their external shelly covering and because their mantle cavity contained sea-water (Winsor 1969). Thompson’s sequential observations of the metamorphosis of nauplius and cypris larvae into adult barnacles, reinforced (and reinterpreted) a few years later by Hermann Burmeister (Burmeister 1834), first revealed the developmental stages of these organisms. The consequent sudden shift of the Cirripedia from one branch of the animal kingdom to another—from the Mollusca to the Articulata—indicated to mid-nineteenth century naturalists that a revaluation of the group, based on a systematic and anatomical comparison intra se and with other Crustacea, was needed. . . .
    Darwin's evolutionary interpretation of the meaning of classification explains why he readily adopted embryology as a methodological tool for revealing homologies. . . . [1] . . ." dave souza, talk 07:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Behavioral development[edit]

removed behaviorial development from fields in which recapitulation theory is seen as plausible. The citation does not match the assertion. The citation is from someone who incorrectly believes that recapitulation theory is plausible in anatomy and then argues that it's *not* correct in behavioral development.

In fact, recapitulation theory is pretty discredited in the field of early childhood development. I'll add some text when I get citations

like Behavioral Development,[1]

Roadrunner (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Theory still cited as fact in science writing[edit]

Elizabeth Royte in her book, The Tapir's Morning Bath, assumes this theory as fact when describing the development of her baby during her pregnancy while on Barro Colorado Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.150.32 (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi! The talk page is for discussing the article, not the subject. Is there anything in the article you would like to discuss here? With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 10:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Tagged as too narrow[edit]

The article is tagged as being too narrowly focussed on the 19th century biological theory (Haeckel et al), but in fact both the lead and the body of the article seem quite gracefully to discuss both the discredited biological theory and the existence of newer theories in other fields. Any reason not to remove the tag? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Recapitulation theory/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The Haeckel drawing used in this article is also referred to on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawings

as Romanes's drawings, which are "often attributed incorrectly to Haeckel."

Last edited at 17:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Substituted at 04:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Medicus1992 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).