Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Structuralism, functionalism, and the four Aristotelian causes

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

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abstract

  1. Paul K., Feyerabend, “Realism and Instrumentalism: Comments on the Logic of Factual Support,” in The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy, ed. Mario, Bunge (London: Macmillan, 1964), p. 305.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Julian, Huxley, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, 2nd ed. (London: Allen and Unwin, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ernst, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Niles, Eldredge and Stephen J., Gould, “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic gradualism,” in Models in Paleobiology ed. Thomas J. M., Schopf (San Franciso: Freeman, 1972), pp. 82–115. Stephen J. Gould and Niles Eldredge, “Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered,” Paleobiology, 3, (1977), 115–151.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ernst, Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1963). p. 481.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Frank H. T., Rhodes, “Gradualism, Punctuated Equilibria and the Origin of Species,” Nature, 305 (1983), 269–272; Roger Lewin, “Punctuated Equilibrium Is Now Old Hat,” Science, 231 (1986), 672–673.

    Google Scholar 

  7. David B., Wake, Gerhard, roth, and Marvallee H., Wake, “On the Problem of Stasis in Organismal Evolution,” J. Theoret. Biol., 101 (1983) 211–224.

    Google Scholar 

  8. George F., Oster, Neil, Shubin, James D., Murray, and Pere, Alberch, “Evolution and Morphogenetic Rules: The Shape of the Vertebrate Limb in Ontogeny and Phylogeny,” Evolution, 42 (1988), 862–884, quotation on p.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brian C., Goodwin, “Development and Evolution,” J. Theoret. Biol., 97 (1982), 43–55; idem, “Changing from an Evolutionary to a Generative Paradigm in Biology,” in Evolutionary Theory: Paths into the Future, ed. Jeffrey W. Pollard (Chichester: Wiley, 1984), pp. 99–120; Brian C. Goodwin, “A Relational Field Theory of Reproduction and Its Evolutionary Implications,” in Beyond Neo-Darwinism, ed. Mae-Wan Ho and P. T. Saunders (London: Academic Press, 1984), pp. 219–21; Brian C. Goodwin and L. E. H. Trainor, “The Ontogeny and Phylogeny of the Pentadactyl Limb,” in Development and Evolution, ed. Brian C. Goodwin, Nigel Holder, and C. C. Wylie (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 75–94; Nigel Holder, “Developmental Constraints and the Evolution of Vertebrate Digit Patterns,” J. Theoret. Biol., 104 (1983), 451–471; Neil Shubin and Pere Alberch, “A Morphogenetic Approach to the Origin and Basic Organization of the Tetrapod Limb,” Evol. Biol., 20 (1986), 319–387; Gregory B. Stock and Susan V. Bryant, “Studies of Digit Regeneration and Their Implications for Theories of Development and Evolution of Vertebrate Limbs,” J. Exp. Zool., 216 (1981), 423–433; Gerry Webster, “The Relations of Natural Forms,” in Ho and Saunders, Beyond Neo-Darwinism, pp. 193–217; Gerry Webster and Brian C. Goodwin, “The Origin of Species: A Structuralist Approach,” J. Soc. Biol. Struct., 5 (1982), 15–47.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Anthony J., Hughes and David M., Lambert, “Functionalism, Structuralism, and ‘Ways of Seeing,’” J. Theoret. Biol., 111 (1984), 787–800; Stephen J. Gould, “Archetype and Adaptation,” Nat. Hist., 10 (1986), 16–25; David B. Wake and Allan Larson, “Multidimensional Analysis of an Evolving Lineage,” Science, 238 (1987), 42–48.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jean, Piaget, Der Strukturalismus (Olten: Walter, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gould, “Archetype,” p. 18.

  13. Wake and Larson, “Multidimensional Analysis,” p. 42.

  14. Piaget, Strukturalismus.

  15. Webster and Goodwin, “Origin of Species,” p. 46.

  16. Piaget, Strukturalismus, pp. 12, 59.

  17. Thomas, Kesselring, Jean Piaget (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1988), p. 84; Wake and Larson, “Multidimensional Analysis,” p. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Piaget, Strukturalismus, p. 8.

  19. Jean, Piaget, Biologie und Erkenntnis (Frankfurt a.M.: S. Fischer, 1974), p. 141.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ronald H., Brady, “On the Independence of Systematics,” Cladistics, 1 (1985), 113–126; Olivier Rieppel, Fundamentals of comparative Biology (Basel: Birkhäuser, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shubin and Alberch, “Morphogenetic Approach,” p. 373.

  22. Piaget, Strukturalismus, p. 7; Wake and Larson, “Multidimensional Analysis,” p. 42.

  23. Olivier, Rieppel, “Atomism, Transformism and the Fossil Record,” Zool. J. Linn. Soc., 82 (1984), 17–32; idem, “Atomism, Epigenesis, Preformation and Pre-existence: A Clarification of Terms and Consequences,” Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 28 (1986), 331–341.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jacques, Roger, Les sciences de la vie dans la pensée française du XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Armand Colin, 1971); Peter J. Bowler, “Preformation and Preexistence in the Seventeenth Century: A Brief Analysis”, J. Hist. Biol., 4 (1971), 221–244.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Peter J., Bowler, “The Changing Meaning of ‘Evolution’”, J. Hist. Ideas, 36 (1975), 95–114.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Piaget, Biologie und Erkenntnis, p. 134.

  27. Michael H., Hoffheimer, “Maupertuis and the Eighteenth-Century Critique of Preexistence”, J. Hist. Biol., 15 (1982), 119–144.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rieppel, Fundamentals of Comparative Biology, pp. 24, 72, 112.

  29. Bentley, Glass, “Maupertuis, Pioneer of Genetics and Evolution”, in Forerunners of Darwin 1745–1859, ed. Bentley, Glass, Owsei, Temkin, and William L., Straus, Jr. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1959), pp. 51–83.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Piaget, Biologie und Erkenntnis, p. 134.

  31. Ibid., p. 134.

  32. Olivier, Rieppel, “Ontogeny and the Hierarchy of Types”, Cladistics, 1 (1985), 234–246.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Colin, Patterson, “Morphological Characters and Homology”, Syst. Ass. Spec. Vol., 21 (1982), 21–74.

    Google Scholar 

  34. William, Harvey, Disputations Touching the Generation of Animals, trans. Gweneth Whitteridge (London: Blackwell, 1981), p. 240; Pere Alberch, “Problems in the Interpretation of Developmental Sequences”, Syst. Zool. 24 (1985), 46–58.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See Rudolf A., Raff and Thomas C., Kaufman, Embryos, Genes, and Evolution (New York and London: Macmillan, 1983), pp. 251–261; Klaus Sander, “The Evolution of Patterning Mechanisms: Gleanings from Insect Embryogenesis and Spermatogenesis”, in Goodwin et al., Development and Evolution (above, n. 9), p. 145; V. Louise Roth, “The Biological Basis of Homology”, in Ontogeny and Systematics, ed. Chris Humphries (London: British Museum [Natural History], 1988), p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Keith S., Thomson, Morphogenesis and Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 74.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Stanley N., Salthe, Evolving Hierarchical Systems (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), pp. 93–94.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Oster et al., “Evolution and Morphogenesis Rules” (above, n. 8), p. 864.

  39. Shubin and Alberch, “Morphogenetic Approach”, p. 329.

  40. Oster et al., “Evolution and Morphogenetic Rules”, p. 869.

  41. Shubin and Alberch, “Morphogenetic Approach”, p. 373.

  42. Anthony J., Hughes and David M., Lambert, “Functionalism, Structuralism, and ‘Ways of Seeing’”, J. Theoret. Biol., 111 (1984), pp. 787–788; Wake and Larson, “Multidimensional Analysis”, p. 42.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Peter, Dullemeijer, Concepts and Approaches in Animal Morphology (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1974), p. 221.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Gould, “Archetype”, p. 25; Toby A. Appel, The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate: French Biology in the decades before Darwin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

  45. Olivier, Rieppel, “Ontogeny and the Hierarchy of Types”, Cladistics, 1 (1985), pp. 17–32; idem, “Muster und Prozess: Komplementarität im biologischen Denken”, Naturwissenschaften, 72 (1985), 337–342; idem, Fundamentals of Comparative Biology, pp. 36–38, 106–107.

    Google Scholar 

  46. William, Coleman, Georges Cuvier: Zoologist (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1964), pp. 162–163.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Gould, “Archetype”, p. 25; Pere Alberch, “The Logic of Monsters: Evidence for Internal Constraint in Development and Evolution”, Geobios (in press).

  48. Dov, Ospovat, The Development of Darwin's Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rieppel, “Muster und Prozess”, p. 338.

  50. Étienne Geoffroy, Saint-Hilaire, Principes de philosophie zoologique, discutés en mars 1830, au sein de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, (Paris: Pichon and Didier, 1830), p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rieppel, Fundamentals of Comparative Biology, p. 43.

  52. Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire “Le degŕe d'influence du monde ambiant pour modifier les formes animales: question intéressant l'origine des espèces téléosauriens et successivement celle des animaux de l'époque actuelle,” Mém. Acad. Roy. Sci. Inst. France, 12 (1833), 63–92; idem, “Troisiéme mémoire des recherches faites dans les carrières du calcaire oolithique de Caen, ayant donné lieu à la découverte de plusieurs beaux échantillons et de nouvelles espèces de téléosaures,” ibid., pp. 44–61.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Wake and Larson, “Multidimensional Analysis,” p. 42.

  54. Elliott, Sober, The Nature of Selection (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1984, p. 197).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Alberch, “Logic of monsters.”

  56. Gould, “Archetype.” p. 25.

  57. Allan, Gotthelf, “Aristotle's Conception of final Causality,” Rev. Metaphys.30 (1976), 253.

    Google Scholar 

  58. M., Delbrück, “Aristotle-totle,” in Of Microbes and Life, ed. Jacques, Monod and Ernest, Borek (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971), pp. 50–55.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ernst, Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1982), p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  60. (above, n. 25), pp. 95–114.

  61. Karl, Ernst von Baer, Über Entiwickelungsgeschichete der Thiere. Beobachtung und Reflexion, I (Königsberg: Bornträger, 1828), 224.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Oster et al., “Evolution and Norphogenetic Rules,” p. 873.

  63. Soren Lovtrup, “Epigenetics,” in Humphries, ontogeny and Systematics (above, n. 35), pp. 189–227.

  64. Robert T., Frank, The Female Sex Hormone (Springfield, Ill., and Baltimore: Charles C. Thomas, 1929) (above, n. 32), pp. 234–246.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Charles, Darwin, On the Origin of Species (London: Watts, 1959); reprint of 1st ed. pp. 176–177.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Mayr, Growth of Biological Thought, p. 67.

  67. Horst, Wilkens, “Zur Problematik der Rudimentation, untersucht an der Ontogenie des Auges von Höhlenfischen (Astyanax mexicanus)”, Z. zool. Syst. Evolutionsforsch., 18 (1980), 232–238.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Horst, Wilkens, “Evolution and Genetics of Epigean and Cave Astyanax fasciatus (Characidae, Pisces): Support for the Neutral Mutation Theory”, Evol. Biol., 23 (1988), 271–367.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ibid., p. 342.

  70. Wilkens, “Zur Problematik der Rudimentation”, p. 235.

  71. Moore and Price, “Gonad Hormone Functions.

  72. Harvey, Disputations Touching the Generation, pp. 232, 234, 241, 269, etc.; Charles Bonnet, Considérations sur les corps organisés, 2 vols. (Amsterdam: Marc-Michel Rey, 1762); idem, La palingénésie philosophique, 2 vols. (Geneva: Philibert and Chirol, 1769).

  73. Karl Ernst, von, Baer, “Über den Zweck in den Vorgängen der Natur”, in Reden gehalten in wissenschaftlichen Versammlungen und kleinere Aufsätze vermischten Inhalts. II. Studien aus dem Gebiete der Naturwissenschaften, 2nd ed. (Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1886), pp. 51–105; Karl Ernst von Baer, “Über Darwin's Lehre”, in ibid., pp. 237–480.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Olivier, Rieppel, “Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) and the Reality of Natural Groups”, Biol. Philos., 3 (1988), 239–247.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Alexander, Rosenberg, The Structure of Biological Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 65, 66.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Piaget, Strukturalismus, p. 131.

  77. Alexander, Rosenberg, The Structure of Biological Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Richard M., Burian, “Challenges to the Evolutionary Synthesis”, Evol. Biol., 23 (1988), 247–269.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Mayr, Growth of Biological Thought, pp. 301–305.

  80. Ibid., p. 302.

  81. Webster, “Relations of Natural Forms” (above, n.9), p. 206.

  82. Mayr, Growth of Biological Thought, p. 517.

  83. Robert, Huish, A Treaties on the Natural Economy and Practical Management of Bees (London: Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy, 1815), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Richard, Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (London: Penguin, 1988), p. 49.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Charles, Darwin, On the Origin of species (London: Watts, 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Ibid., p. 72.

  87. Ibid.

  88. Webster and Goodwin, “Origin of Species,” (above, n.9), p. 46.

  89. Ronald H. Brady, “On the Independence of Systematic” Cladistic, 1 (1985).

  90. Piaget, Strukturalismus, p. 12.

  91. Ibid., p. 14.

  92. Webster and Goodwin, “Origin of Species,” p.46.

  93. Emile, Callot, La philosophie de la vie au XVIIIe siécle (paris: Rivière, 1965), p. 407.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Webster, “Relations of Natural Forms,” p. 206.

  95. Oster et al., “Evolution and Morphogenetic Rules,” p. 874.

  96. Christian, Schwabe and Gregory W., Warr, “A Polyphyletic View of Evolution: The Genetic Potential Hypothesis,” Perspect. Biol. Med, 27 (1984), 465–483.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Rieppel, “Louis Agassiz,” p. 41.

  98. Piaget, Strukturalismus, p. 40.

  99. Olivier, Rieppel, Review of Begriff und Welt: Biologische grundlagen des Erkennens und Begreifens, by R. Riedl, Quart. Rev. Biol., 62. (1987), 425.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Patterson, “Morphological Characters and Homology” (above, n. 33), p. 42.

  101. Brady, “Independence of Systematics,” p. 119.

  102. See Wallace, Arthur, Mechanisms of Morphological Evolution (Chichester: Wiley, 1984); idem, A Theory of the Evolution of Development (Chichester: Wiley, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Oster et al., “Evolution and Morphogenetic Rules,” p. 875.

  104. Olivier Rieppel, “Character Incongruence: Noise or Data?” Abh. naturwiss. Ver. Hamburg (in press).

  105. Mayr, Growth of Biological Thought, p. 67.

  106. James, Valentine and Douglas H., Erwin, “Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record,” in Development as Evolutionary Process, ed. Rudolf A., Raff and Elizabeth C., Raff (New York: Liss, 1987), pp. 71–107.

    Google Scholar 

  107. George F., Oster and Pere, Alberch, “Evolution and Bifurcation of Developmental Programs,” Evolution, 36 (1982), 444–459.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Mayr, Growth of Biological Thought, p. 67.

  109. Toni Bürgin, “Beiträge zur Kopfanatomie der Plattfische (Teleostei; Pleuronectiformes,” Ph.D. diss., University of Basel, 1986).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Geology, Field Museum of Natural History, 60605-2496, Chicago, Illinois

    Olivier Rieppel

Authors
  1. Olivier Rieppel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rieppel, O. Structuralism, functionalism, and the four Aristotelian causes. J Hist Biol 23, 291–320 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00141473

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00141473

Search

Navigation