title: The failure of morphology to contribute to the modern synthesis.
abstract: How much, if anything, morphology contributed to the modern synthesis is partly a matter of how one defines that term. In the strict sense, morphology is a purely formal discipline and had very little to contribute. Morphology may also be considered a kind of data, and when it becomes functional a better case can be made for its role in evolutionary studies. Be that as it may, the incorporation of morphology into the synthesis was a later development. The initial focus was at the populational level, including the problems of speciation, which makes sense because that was where the opportunities seemed to be. As the synthesis evolved and matured it expanded its horizons and incorporated a larger range of topics. Very little discussion of morphology occurs in the canonical writings of the so-called architects. At the time when the synthesis was supposedly complete, which was around 1950, the incorporation of morphology into it was just beginning.
authors.affiliation: Department of Invertebrate Zoology and Geology, California Academy of Sciences, 875 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94103, USA. mghiselin@calacademy.org
authors.forename: Michael T
authors.initials: MT
authors.lastname: Ghiselin
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D005075:Biological Evolution; D002965:Classification; D049672:History, 19th Century; D049673:History, 20th Century; D049674:History, 21st Century; D006801:Humans; D009024:Morphogenesis