Ehud Lamm
Tel Aviv University
This article describes how empirical discoveries in the 1930s–1950s regarding population variation for chromosomal inversions affected Theodosius Dobzhansky and Richard Goldschmidt. A significant fraction of the empirical work I discuss was done by Dobzhansky and his coworkers; Goldschmidt was an astute interpreter, with strong and unusual commitments. I argue that both belong to a mechanistic tradition in genetics, concerned with the effects of chromosomal organization and systems on the inheritance patterns of species. Their different trajectories illustrate how scientists’ commitments affect how they interpret new evidence and adjust to it. Dobzhansky was moved to revised views about selection, while Goldschmidt moved his attention to different genetic phenomena. However different, there are significant connections between the two that enrich our understanding of their views. I focus on two: the role of developmental considerations in Dobzhansky’s thought and the role of neutrality and drift in Goldschmidt’s evolutionary account. Dobzhansky’s struggle with chromosomal variation is not solely about competing schools of thought within the selectionist camp, as insightfully articulated by John Beatty, but also a story of competition between selectionist thinking and developmental perspectives. In contraposition, Goldschmidt emphasized the role of low penetrance mutations that spread neutrally and pointed out that drift could result from developmental canalization. This account adds to the dominant story about Goldschmidt’s resistance to the splitting of development from genetics, as told by Garland Allen and Michael Dietrich. The story I tell illustrates how developmental thinking and genetic thinking conflicted and influenced researchers with different convictions about the significance of chromosomal organization.
Keywords Chromosomal inversions  Coadaptation  Heterosis  Systemic mutations  Levels of selection  Evolution of Genetic Systems  Neutral evolution  Explanation  Evidence  Models
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10739-015-9400-0
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 51,707
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Theodosius Dobzhansky and the Genetic Race Concept.Lisa Gannett - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (3):250-261.
The Material Basis of Evolution.Richard Goldschmidt - 1941 - Philosophy of Science 8 (3):394-395.
Weighing the Risks: Stalemate in the Classical/Balance Controversy.John Beatty - 1987 - Journal of the History of Biology 20 (3):289-319.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

“A Temporary Oversimplification”: Mayr, Simpson, Dobzhansky, and the Origins of the Typology/Population Dichotomy.Joeri Witteveen - 2015 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 55:20-33.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
27 ( #362,860 of 2,333,198 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #587,885 of 2,333,198 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes