Skip to main content
Log in

Rethinking the Synthesis Period in Evolutionary Studies

  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I propose we abandon the unit concept of “the evolutionary synthesis”. There was much more to evolutionary studies in the 1920s and 1930s than is suggested in our commonplace narratives of this object in history. Instead, four organising threads capture much of evolutionary studies at this time. First, the nature of species and the process of speciation were dominating, unifying subjects. Second, research into these subjects developed along four main lines, or problem complexes: variation, divergence, isolation, and selection. Some calls for ‹synthesis’ focused on these problem complexes (sometimes on one of these; other times, all). In these calls, comprehensive and pluralist compendia of plausibly relevant elements were preferred over reaching consensus about the value of particular formulae. Third, increasing confidence in the study of common problems coincided with methodological and epistemic changes associated with experimental taxonomy. Finally, the surge of interest in species problems and speciation in the 1930s is intimately tied to larger trends, especially a shifting balance in the life sciences towards process-based biologies and away from object-based naturalist disciplines. Advocates of synthesis in evolution supported, and were adapting to, these larger trends.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AAAS. 1939. ‹Better Cotton, Tobacco, New Berry Resulting From Drug.’ The Science News-Letter 36(7): 99–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abir-Am, Pnina G. 1982. ‹The Discourse of Physical Power and Biological Knowledge in the 1930s: An Appraisal of the Rockefeller Foundation’s ‹Policy’ in Molecular Biology.’ Social Studies of Science 12: 341–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abir-Am, Pnina G. 1997. ‹The Molecular Transformation of Twentieth-Century Biology.’ J Krige, D Pestre (eds.), Science in the 20th Century. Amsterdam:Harwood Academic, pp. 495–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, Mark. 1980. ‹Sergei Chetverikov, the Kol’tsov Institute, and the Evolutionary Synthesis.’ E Mayr, W Provine (eds.), The Evolutionary Synthesis. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, pp. 242–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, Mark (ed.). 1994. The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anonymous. 1938. Speeding Up Evolution. Evolution: A Journal of Nature 4(2): 12.

  • Babcock, Ernest B, Stebbins, G Ledyard, Jenkins, JA. 1942. ‹Genetic Evolutionary Processes in Crepis.’ American Naturalist 76: 337–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beams, HW, King, RL. 1938. ‹An Experimental Study on Mitosis in the Somatic Cells of Wheat.’ Biological Bulletin 75(1): 189–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, John. 1992. Julian Huxley and the Evolutionary Synthesis. In Julian Huxley. Biologist and Statesman of Science. C.K. Waters and A.V. Helden (eds.), Proceedings of a Conference Held at Rice University 25–27 September 1987. Houston, TX: Rice University Press. pp. 181–189, 306–307.

  • Bechtel, William. 2006. Discovering Cell Mechanisms: The Creation of Modern Cell Biology. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeslee, AF. 1937. ‹Redoublement du Nombre de Chromosomes chez les Plantes par Traitement Chimique.’ Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des sciences 205: 476–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeslee, Albert F, Avery, Amos G. 1937a. ‹Methods of Inducing Chromosome Doubling in Plants by Treatment with Colchicine.’ Science 86: 408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeslee, Albert F, Avery, Amos G. 1937b. ‹Methods of Inducing Doubling of Chromosome in Plants.’ Journal of Heredity 28(12): 393–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowler, Peter J. 1996. Life’s Splendid Drama: Evolutionary Biology and the Reconstruction of Life’s Ancestry, 1860–1940. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, Richard. 1981. ‹On the Emergence of Ethology as a Scientific Discipline.’ Conspectus of History 1(7): 62–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, Richard. 1983. ‹The Development of an Evolutionary Ethology.’ DS Bendall (ed.), Evolution from Molecules to Men. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, pp. 429–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhardt, Richard. 1987. ‹The Journal of Animal Behavior and the Early History of Animal Behavior Studies in America.’ Journal of Comparative Psychology 101: 223–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Joe. 2000a. ‹For the ‹Promotion’ and ‹Integration’ of Various Fields: First Years of Evolution, 1947–1949.’ Archives of Natural History 27(2): 231–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Joe. 2001. ‹David Lack and the Development of Field Ornithology.’ W Bynum (ed.), Encyclopedia of Life Sciences. London:Macmillan Reference Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Joe. 2002a. ‹Co-opting Colleagues: Appropriating Dobzhansky’s 1936 Lectures at Columbia.’ Journal of the History of Biology 35: 207–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Joe. 2002b. ‹Epistemic and Community Transition in American Evolutionary Studies: The ‹Committee on Common Problems of Genetics, Paleontology, and Systematics’ (1942–1949).’ Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 33(2): 283–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Joe. 2003. ‹A Matter of Perspective: Disparate Voices in the Evolutionary Synthesis.’ Archives of Natural History 30(1): 28–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Joe. 2004a. ‹Launching the Society of Systematic Zoology in 1947.’ DM Williams, PL Forey (eds.), Milestones in Systematics. London:CRC Press, pp. 19–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Joe (ed.). 2004b. Exploring the Borderlands: Documents of the Committee on Common Problems of Genetics, Paleontology, and Systematics, 1943–1944. Philadelphia, PA:American Philosophical Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Joe (ed.). 2007. Regular Contact with Anyone Interested: Documents of the Society for the Study of Speciation, 2nd ed. London:Euston Grove Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Joe. 2009. ‹Ritual Patricide: Why Stephen Jay Gould Assassinated George Gaylord Simpson.’ D Sepkoski, M Ruse (eds.), The Paleobiological Revolution: Essays on the Growth of Modern Paleontology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press, pp. 346–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Joseph. 2000b. ‹Towards a ‹Greater Degree of Integration’: The Society for the Study of Speciation, 1939–1941.’ British Journal for the History of Science 33: 85–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clausen, Jens, Keck, David D, Hiesey, William M. 1940. ‹Experimental Studies on the Nature of Species. I. Effect of Varied Environments on Western North American Plants.’ Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 540: 1–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Harry M, Evans, Robert. 2002. ‹The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.’ Social Studies of Science 32(2): 235–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin, Edwin G. 1930. Present Problems of Evolution. Evolution: A Journal of Nature 3: 5–6

  • Creager, Angela NH, Lunbeck, Elizabeth, Wise, M Norton (eds.). 2007. Science Without Laws: Model Systems, Cases, Exemplary Narratives. Durham, NC:Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darlington, Cyril Dean. 1932. Recent Advances in Cytology, 2nd ed. London:Churchill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, John. 1979. ‹Controversy over Classification: A Case Study from the History of Botany.’ B Barnes, S Shapin (eds.), Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture. London:Sage, pp. 211–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York:Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, Theodosius, Sturtevant, AH. 1938. ‹Inversions in the Chromosomes of Drosophila pseudoobscura.’ Genetics 23(1): 28–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Editor. 1937. Colchicine and Double Diploids. Journal of Heredity 28(12): 411–412.

  • Fisher, R.A. 1928. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. 2nd edition revised and enlarged. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh.

  • Fox Keller, Evelyn. 2002. Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Development with Models, Metaphors, and Machines. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haffer, Jurgen. 1994. ‹The Genesis of Erwin Stresemann’s Aves (1927–1934) in the Handbuch der Zoologie, and his Contribution to the Evolutionary Synthesis.’ Archives of Natural History 21(2): 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haffer, Jurgen. 1997. ‹‹We Must Lead the Way on New Paths’. The Work of Hartert, Stresemann, [and] Ernst Mayr - International Ornithologists.’ Ökologie der VÖgel 19: 1–980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, Joel. 1983. ‹The Development of Experimental Methods in Plant Taxonomy, 1920–1950.’ Taxon 32(3): 406–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, Joel. 1984. ‹Experimentalists and Naturalists in Twentieth-Century Botany: Experimental Taxonomy, 1920–1950.’ Journal of the History of Biology 17: 249–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, Oren. 2004. The Man Who Invented the Chromosome: A Life of Cyril Darlington. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, Oren. 2006. ‹‹Method as a Function of “Disciplinary Landscape’: C.D. Darlington and Cytology, Genetics and Evolution, 1932–1950.’ Journal of the History of Biology 39: 165–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Havas, Laszlo J. 1940. ‹A Colchicine Chronology.’ Journal of Heredity 31: 115–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbs, Carl. 1934. ‹Racial and Individual Variation in Animals, Especially Fishes.’ American Naturalist 68(715): 115–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbs, Carl. 1940a. ‹Fishes of the Desert.’ The Biologist 22(2 (December)): 61–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbs, Carl. 1940b. ‹Speciation in Fishes.’ American Naturalist 74(752): 198–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, Julian. 1932. Problems of Relative Growth. New York:The Dial Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, Julian. 1934. Private Life of the Gannets. London: London Film Productions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, Julian. 1935. Problems in Experimental Embryology being the 36th Robert Boyle Lecture before the Oxford University Junior Scientific Club on May 26, 1954. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley, Julian. 1936. At the Zoo. London:G. Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilerbaig, Juan. 2009. ‹“The View-Point of a Naturalist”: American Field Zoologists and the Evolutionary Synthesis, 1900–1945.’ J Cain, M Ruse (eds.), Descended from Darwin: Insights into the History of Evolutionary Studies, 1900–1970. Philadelphia:American Philosophical Society, pp. 23–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Kristin. 2003. Karl Jordan: A Life in Systematics, History of Science. Corvallis, OR:Oregon State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Kristin. 2004. ‹The Ibis: Transformations in a Twentieth Century British Natural History Journal.’ Journal of the History of Biology 37: 515–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Kristin. 2007. ‹Natural History as Stamp Collecting: A Brief History.’ Archives of Natural History 34(2): 244–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junker, Thomas, Hossfeld, Uwe. 2002. ‹The Architects of the Evolutionary Synthesis in National Socialist Germany: Science and Politics.’ Biology and Philosophy 17(2): 223–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellert, Stephen H, Longino, Helen E, Waters, C Kenneth (eds.). 2006. Scientific Pluralism. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsland, Sharon E. 1991. ‹The Battling Botanist: Daniel Trembly MacDougal, Mutation Theory, and the Rise of Experiment Evolutionary Biology in America, 1900–1912.’ Isis 82: 479–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, Alfred. 1923. ‹The Gall Wasp Genus Neuroterus (Hymenoptera).’ Indiana University Studies 10(58): 1–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, Alfred. 1926. An Introduction to Biology. Philadelphia:J. B. Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, Alfred. 1927. Field and Laboratory Manual. Philadelphia:J. B. Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, Alfred. 1929. ‹The Gall Wasp Genus Cynips. A Study in the Origin of Species.’ Indiana University Studies 16: 1–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, Alfred. 1933. New Introduction to Biology. Chicago:J. B. Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, Alfred. 1936. ‹The Origin of Higher Categories in Cynips.’ Indiana University Publications, Science Series 4: 1–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kinsey, Alfred. 1937. Methods in Biology. Chicago:J. B. Lippincott.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, Kim. 2002. ‹How Graphical Innovations Assisted Edgar Anderson’s Discoveries in Evolutionary Biology.’ Chance 15(3): 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, Kim. 2009. ‹Biosystematics and the Origin of Species: Edgar Anderson, W. H. Camp, and the Evolutionary Synthesis.’ J Cain, M Ruse (eds.), Descended from Darwin: Insights into the History of Evolutionary Studies, 1900–1970. Philadelphia:American Philosophical Society, pp. 73–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, Robert. 2002. Landscapes and Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, Robert. 2008. ‹Lab History: Reflections.’ Isis 99: 761–768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krementsov, Nikolai. 2005. International Science Between the World Wars: The Case of Genetics. London:Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krementsov, Nikolai. 2007. ‹A Particular Synthesis: Aleksandr Promptov and Speciation in Birds.’ Journal of the History of Biology 40: 637–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laporte, Leo. 1994. ‹Simpson on Species.’ Journal of the History of Biology 27: 141–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno. 1993. We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, Richard C, Moore, John A, Provine, William B, Wallace, Bruce (eds.). 1981. Dobzhansky’s Genetics of Natural Populations. New York:Columbia University Press, pp. I–XLIII.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnello, M Eileen. 1996. ‹Karl Pearson’s Gresham lectures: W. F. R. Weldon, Speciation and the Origins of Pearsonian Statistics.’ British Journal for the History of Science 29: 43–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mallet, James. 2003. ‹Poulton, Wallace and Jordan: how discoveries in Papilio butterflies led to a new species concept 100 years ago.’ Systematics and Biodiversity 1: 441–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marren, Peter. 1995. The New Naturalists. London:HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, Ernst. 1940. ‹Speciation Phenomena in Birds.’ American Naturalist 74: 249–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, Ernst. 1941. ‹The Origin of Gaps Between Species.’ The Collecting Net 16: 137–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, Ernst. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species: From the Viewpoint of a Zoologist. New York:Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, Ernst. 1955. ‹Karl Jordan’s Contribution to Current Concepts in Systematics and Evolution.’ Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 107: 45–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milam, Erika Lorraine. 2009. ‹“The Experimental Animal from the Naturalist’s Point of View”: Behavior and Evolution at the American Museum of Natural History, 1928–1954.’ J Cain, M Ruse (eds.), Descended from Darwin: Insights into the History of Evolutionary Studies, 1900–1970. Philadelphia:American Philosophical Society, pp. 157–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitman, Gregg. 1992. The State of Nature: Ecology, Community, and American Social Thought, 1900–1950. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitman, Gregg, Burkhardt, Richard. 1991. ‹Struggling for Identity: The Study of Animal Behavior in America, 1930–1945.’ K Benson, J Maienschein, R Rainger (eds.), The Expansion of American Biology. New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press, pp. 164–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Thomas Hunt, Sturtevant, Alfred H, Muller, Hermann J, Bridges, Calvin B. 1915. Mechanisms of Mendelian Heredity. New York:Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller, Hermann Joseph. 1930. How Evolution Works. Evolution: A Journal of Nature 3(3–4): 14–17

  • Nebel, BR, Ruttle, ML. 1938. ‹The Cytological and Genetical Significance of Colchicine.’ Journal of Heredity 29: 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nice, Margaret. 1937. ‹Studies in the Life History of the Song Sparrow I.’ Transactions of the Linnaean Society of New York 4: 1–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Painter, Theophilus S. 1934. ‹A New Method for the Study of Chromosome Aberrations and the Plotting of Chromosome Maps in Drosophila melanogaster.’ Genetics 19(3): 175–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Theodore M. 2009. ‹How Science Became Technical.’ Isis 100: 292–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provine, William. 1981. ‹Origins of the Genetics of Natural Populations Series.’ RC Lewontin, JA Moore, WB Provine, B Wallace (eds.), Dobzhansky’s Genetics of Natural Populations, I–XLIII. New York:Columbia University Press, pp. 5–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provine, William. 1994. ‹The Origin of Dobzhansky’s Genetics and the Origin of Species.’ M Adams (ed.), The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press, pp. 99–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Provine, William B. 1979. ‹Francis B. Sumner and the Evolutionary Synthesis.’ Studies in History of Biology 3: 211–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainger, Ronald. 1986. ‹Just Before Simpson: William Diller Matthew’s Understanding of Evolution.’ Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 130: 453–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainger, Ronald. 1991. An Agenda for Antiquity: Henry Fairfield Osborn and Vertebrate Paleontology and the American Museum of Natural History, 1890–1935. Tuscaloosa, AL:University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainger, Ronald. 1993. ‹Biology, Geology, Neither, or Both: Vertebrate Paleontology at the University of Chicago, 1892–1950.’ Perspectives on Science 1(3): 478–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudge, David Wyss. 2006. ‹H.B.D. Kettlewell’s Research 1937–1953: The Influence of E.B. Ford, E.A. Cockayne and P.M. Sheppard.’ History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 28: 359–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudge, David Wÿss. 2009. ‹H. B. D. Kettlewell’s Research, 1934–1961: The Influence of J. W. Heslop Harrison.’ J Cain, M Ruse (eds.), Descended from Darwin: Insights into the History of Evolutionary Studies, 1900–1970. Philadelphia:American Philosophical Society, pp. 243–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schickore, Jutta. 2006. ‹Misperception, Illusion and Epistemological Optimism: Vision Studies in Early Nineteenth-Century Britain and Germany.’ British Journal for the History of Science 39(3): 383–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sepkoski, David. 2005. ‹Stephen Jay Gould, Jack Sepkoski, and the ‹Quantitative Revolution’ in American Paleobiology.’ Journal of the History of Biology 38(2): 209–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sepkoski, David. 2009. ‹The “Delayed Synthesis”: Paleobiology in the 1970s.’ J Cain, M Ruse (eds.), Descended from Darwin: Insights into the History of Evolutionary Studies, 1900–1970. Philadelphia:American Philosophical Society, pp. 111–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shor, Elizabeth N, Rosenblatt, Richard H, Isaacs, John D. 1987. ‹Carl Leavitt Hubbs.’ Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Science 56: 215–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, George Gaylord. 1937. ‹The Fort Union of the Crazy Mountain field, Montana, and Its Mammalian Faunas.’ Bulletin of the United States National Museum 169: 1–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, George Gaylord. 1944. Tempo and Mode in Evolution. New York:Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, George Gaylord. 1951. Horses: The Story of the Horse Family in the Modern World and Through Sixty Million Years of History. New York:Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, George Gaylord, Roe, Anne. 1939. Quantitative Zoology: Numerical Concepts and Methods in the Study of Recent and Fossil Animals. New York:McGraw-Hill Book Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smocovitis, Vassiliki Betty. 2001. ‹G. Ledyard Stebbins and the Evolutionary Synthesis.’ Annual Review of Genetics 35: 803–814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snedecor, George W. 1937. Statistical Methods. Applied to Experiments in Agriculture and Biology. Ames, IA:Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbins, G Ledyard. 1940. ‹The Significance of Polyploidy in Plant Evolution.’ American Naturalist 74: 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturtevant, AH, Dobzhansky, Theodosius. 1936. ‹Inversions in the Third Chromosome of Wild Races of Drosophila pseudoobscura and Their Use in the Study of the History of the Species.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 22: 448–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner, Francis B. 1924. ‹The Stability of Subspecific Characters Under Changed Conditions of Environment.’ American Naturalist 58: 481–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner, Francis B. 1926. ‹An Analysis of Geographical Variation in Mice of the Peromyscus polionotus Group from Florida and Alabama.’ Journal of Mammalogy 7: 149–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner, Francis B. 1932. ‹Genetic, Distributional and Evolutionary Studies of the Sub-Species of Deer Mice (Peromyscus).’ Bibliographia Genetica 9: 1–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winsor, Mary Pickard. 1995. ‹The English Debate on Taxonomy and Phylogeny, 1937–1940.’ History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 17(2): 227–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winsor, Mary Pickard. 2000. ‹Species, Demes, and the Omega Taxonomy: Gilmour and the New Systematics.’ Biology and Philosophy 15: 349–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Sewall. 1931. ‹Evolution in Mendelian Populations.’ Genetics 16: 97–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, Sewall. 1932. The Roles of Mutation, Inbreeding, Crossbreeding and Selection in Evolution. Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of Genetics 1: 356–366.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joe Cain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cain, J. Rethinking the Synthesis Period in Evolutionary Studies. J Hist Biol 42, 621–648 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-009-9206-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-009-9206-z

Keywords

Navigation