Comments on: Richard Owen’s archetype

By: John

John — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:34:21 +0000

You have said:
“Both special homology and serial homology are in common use today, the former is particularly applied in systematics where it is translated into characters for phylogenetic reconstruction and is understood as similarity due to common ancestry.”

But what is the common use tday of “serial homology”. Is that anagenesis?

By: Roberto Keller

Roberto Keller — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:57:49 +0000

That’s quite a clear quote on the idea, thank you for bringing it out to my attention. Is prototype the only term used by Diderot?

By: Gary Nelson

Gary Nelson — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:45:05 +0000

Sorry, the correct dates for Diderot are 1713-1784.

By: Gary Nelson

Gary Nelson — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:47:09 +0000

The history is a little older, going back at least to Denis Diderot (1713-1734). I won’t belabor the point, but quote briefly from his Thoughts on the interpretation of nature (from Thought 12):
“If we consider the animal kingdom, and observe that, among the mammals, every single one possesses functions and bodily parts — especially internal organs — fully resembling those of any other mammal, is it not easy to believe that in the beginning there was only a single animal which served as prototype for all the others, and that all nature has done is to lengthen, shorten, alter, multiply or eliminate certain organs. Imagine the fingers of the hand joined together, with the substance of the nails so extended and thickened that that it engulfs and covers the whole; then, instead of a human hand, you would have a horse’s hoof.”

By: andrea delgado

andrea delgado — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 15:47:59 +0000

esta super bueno pero no encontre lo que necesitaba

By: The Newton of Natural History who never was | Archetype

The Newton of Natural History who never was | Archetype — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 22:29:07 +0000

[...] have previously wrote about Owen’s archetype and his clarification of the terms homology and analogy, concepts that form the cornerstone of [...]

By: Roberto Keller

Roberto Keller — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:54:57 +0000

Mats Envall- In the abstract the internet is a free, democratic place where discussion is encourage and opposing points-of-view welcome. In reality you are a known forum troll that gets itself banned from posting in blogs. There is no food for trolls here, sorry. You may consider this just an extension on your other bans.

By: Mats Envall

Mats Envall — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:21:09 +0000

Once again, I have to emphasize the difference in multivariate statistics between class and segment. An analogy is a class concept, whereas a homology is a a segment concept. An analogy typifies an infinite class, whereas a homology typifies a finite class (i.e., a segment). The problem with homology (i.e., segment) is that segments are abstract, because reality and abstract are contraries, and if abstract are real, reality isn’t. It means that homology can’t be acknowledged without acknowledging holo- and paraphyly as homophyly if one acknowledges both reality and the abstract. Cladism does not acknowledge the difference between reality and the abstract (as neither John nor you appear to to do). Any comments?

By: Polly Winsor

Polly Winsor — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:56:37 +0000

The University of Chicago Press has recently published a reprint of Owen’s little 1849 book “On the Nature of Limbs,” which he wrote to explain to a popular audience the concepts he had already published for his fellow anatomists.

By: Carol Hart

Carol Hart — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:59:43 +0000

An elegant, informative and finely crafted essay. Enjoyed it very much.