Haeckel - Hopwood 2015

Haeckel's embryos: Images, evolution and Fraud

II - Two Small Embryos in Spirits of Wine

• Conferenciomania na Alemanha. Certa ligação prévia com as palestras de Agassiz. Bem comum nas universidades alemãs. 29-30

IV - Drawing and Darwinism

• Haeckel seguia o programa darwinista em seus desenhos. 53
• Haeckel tinha influência romântica, mas tinha consciência de evitar teleologia. Não pretendia seguir o empirismo de Kölliker. 57 Contudo, apenas romanticismo não explica as críticas:
• the new figures would be censured as part of scolding the turn to nature philosophy in his general books, and then, as scientists’ tolerance of idealization declined and Haeckel became more widely known as an artist, his status as a Romantic became an all-purpose explanation, accusation, and excuse—including for the radiolaria.36 Romantic traits can be traced back, but were not a significant obstacle in his early career, even among colleagues committed to exact, empirical science. 60
• Haeckel leu trad de Bronn entre 1860-1 61
• Situação geracional. Haeckel, Vogt e Büchner, naturalistas mais jovens, tiveram mais facilidade de abraçar o darwinismo que os medalhões como Virchow, Baer e Kölliker. 62
• Haeckel sobre o darwinismo no início [mais ou menos em 1863]:
• Haeckel acknowledged weaknesses and that much remained to be worked out. Darwin had overemphasized natural selection at the expense of the conditions of existence, but in Haeckel’s vision, too, a “merciless and incessant war of all against all” ruled nature, no less than human society. The same natural “law of progress” acted everywhere, immune to “tyrants’ weapons” and the “curses of priests.”54 This combative denunciation of tradition, superstition, and prejudice sounded revolutionary—while drawing on attitudes common in the liberal, educated, Protestant middle class 63
• Já no Generelle avançou o uso das árvores. Não mais como um modelo proposto, mas uma hipótese filogenética. Já com os problemas de teleologia. 65, 87
• Darwinismus não é tão romântico quanto se diz. Haeckel utilizava a NS e Darwin assinou embaixo. Contudo sua metafísica causava estranheza. 66
• O NHC foi chamado de 'worlds chief source of Darwin' 66
• As palestras de 1865-6 deveriam ser populares e acadêmicas ao mesmo tempo. Libertação do conhecimento. 67 "Haeckel styled himself as a hero liberating secrets from a learned caste who failed to recognize their true meaning." 110
• Os embriões já tiveram uma recepção mista logo no início. 70
• Estudou embriologia atendendo ao chamado do Origin. 71
• Já aplica o homem desde o começa na explicação da lei da recapitulação 70-1
• Figuras foram planejadas para popularizar mais ainda o tema. 73
• Haeckel não dava fonte das figuras, mas também não acreditava que deveria haver um único original para cada. Essa essencialização do objeto representado não era tão comum. 73
• Haeckel chamava de "esquemático", mas Hopwood diz que ele ia além disso nas modificações didáticas. 76
• Essa era sua resposta para as acusações de His. 76-7
• Questão da ilustração repetida três vezes muito óbvia, foi reconhecida por Haeckel como erro e não há evidência de má fé. 79
• A grade e disposição foi construída, não importada, para publicação e aumentada ao longo das décadas 82.
• Função didática comparativa muito forte. A grade dava uma lógica em colunas e linhas 78, 83-4
• Nas primeiras edições tinha o frontispício dos humanos. Criticava quem não aplicava a descendência comum aos humanos. 86-7
• 'Nobles as well commoners' 87
• Embriologia fundamental para a doutrina evolutiva tanto para Haeckel quanto para Darwin 87
• Sumário do capítulo:
• Embryos had never been compared so vividly before, offering powerful evidence of common descent and weak points for attack, but had the text not treated the plate as proof it might still have passed as an unusual schematic. Haeckel pushed acceptable practice to the limit, with liberties not taken by other professors addressing lay audiences at the time. He would admit that a few of his pictures were bad. He schematized to suit himself. But only in the cases of the three clichés did he undoubtedly, indefensibly, and, for his argument, unnecessarily sin against the standards of his day. There is no evidence of dishonest intent, and it is implausible that he sought to deceive. The repetition of the blocks was too easily detected and too little rode on the exact forms: irreproachable illustrations could have shown the similarity of vertebrate embryos. This judgment takes full advantage of hindsight, including manuscript testimony that has only recently come to light. 88

VI - Professors and Progress

•  Análise da recepção do NHC.
• Rutimeyer, primeiro grande antagonista em 1869. Era evolucionista latu sensu. Rejeitava NS e materialismo. Aceitava descendência comum 92
• Acusava de fantasy literature 94
• Criticou todas as imagens:
• Rütimeyer seems to have objected to the figures’ summary character—by doing so much work they tempted readers to skip the text—as well as to their makeshift appearance and lack of honest originality. They “neither create the impression of being intended to last, nor are they altogether new.” Rütimeyer deplored the publication of the frontispiece, a kind of drawing “well enough known in convivial circles of friends,” and of the evolutionary trees, hypothetical “sketches” such as had long existed “for private orientation” where they should have stayed, “in desk drawers.”24 94
• Não fez uma acusação aberta de fraude, mas deixou bem implícito. E Haeckel não respondeu com muita graça. 94
• His entra em cena. Abordagem mecânica para a embriologia. "Lei fundamental de crescimento." Mas era especulativo 97-9 Geral:
• This approach was consistent with common descent; His embraced Rütimeyer’s teleological evolutionism and the growth laws included the environment. But His gave this such a minimal role, and paid so little attention to change over geological time, that the whole scheme might as well have been preordained.38 He had set it up without reference to evolution and worked to preserve for embryology a phylogeny-free zone 99
• Não atacou Haeckel diretamente. Era concorrente apenas. 99
• Revisões de Haeckel:
• For the second edition, published in 1870 in the higher run of fifteen hundred,49 Haeckel revised and expanded the chapters of pedigrees. Though he signed the new preface in early May 1870, late enough to have answered Rütimeyer and likely also His, he avoided for the moment publicizing accusations that had acquired little momentum, and took on more general charges instead. He denied being “hyper-Darwinistic”; if the theory of evolution was true, it must be possible to sketch the special applications using hypotheses which should then be improved. Nor was his approach materialistic and atheist, but rather monistic and pantheist: unifying matter and spirit and placing God in nature. A natural religion was higher than belief in a personal god.5 [...] revise and double the primate gallery for a new engraving. To help laypeople he added some “urgently desired” figures of invertebrate ancestors [...] Haeckel did respond, silently, to Rütimeyer’s only incontestable charge, that of using the same blocks for different objects. 99
• Haeckel kept on adding illustrations and using new prefaces to respond to criticisms, provoke opponents, and keep the book in the news.64 For the lightly revised third edition he capitulated to the continued attacks and removed the “ape plate,” even though it had been a selling point.65 The embryos, harder to criticize and newly praised, were redone for a long haul. 102
• Descent of man, Darwin assina embaixo de Haeckel. Alguns consideraram que ele estava sendo desviado por Haeckel (nota 58: p 321). Darwin trouxe figuras deixando muito claras suas fontes e modificações, mas confirmando Haeckel 101
• Nem sempre respondia corretamente aos críticos 103, 104
• Não recebeu apoio de pesquisadores em vertebrados. 105
• Sumário:
• Haeckel had had to remove the ape plate and the illicitly repeated woodcuts, but the latter were a minor issue, and he was not under enough pressure to alter the embryological arrays, which no one had called forgeries yet. Close colleagues and distant supporters found nothing wrong, those in the middle kept their heads down, and opponents rejected so much they could be dismissed. Rütimeyer’s criticisms had little initial effect, even when the experts agreed, because he addressed a small readership in elitist terms and neither he nor, for the moment, anyone else followed up. Most life scientists had no interest in joining the attack, and Haeckel, riding high in the culture of progress, drew some of the sting by suppressing the repeats. New editions of the Schöpfungsgeschichte misrepresented the criticisms while establishing early vertebrate similarity as a fact. For the audience that mattered most, not the specialists but the larger group who taught embryology in the universities, his embryos still had to be made problematic. Nonscientists had even less chance of assessing representations the likes of which few had ever seen. 105-6

VII - Visual Strategies

• Morfologia evolutiva e populismo de Haeckel versus fisiologia e exatidão anatômica de His. Um focava em desenhar semelhanças o outro não. 'Clash of representational ideas ... but it was not the main issue' 107
• Anthropogenie surge do NHC 108
• Haeckel admite a "falsificação" dos estágios embriológicos, mas ainda acredita na lei biogenética. Sobre His: " did not oppose evolution, Haeckel derided his “great law of development” as an antievolutionary pseudo-explanation, and the analogies as ridiculous." 108
• "Haeckel may have taken a branching view of life,17 but his most influential works sketched the trunk route to human beings." 111
• Adiciounou várias espécies nas pranchas do Anthropogenie. 115-7
• "Haeckel's frame was recapitulationist" e His "Embryology should not be mined for phylogenetic evidence; this “physiological science” must rather explain “every developmental stage” as “a necessary result of that immediately preceding.”30 He also wished to foster a research ethos and attitude to visual evidence to counter the populist system-building of the Anthropogenie." 119
• His: aenas paleontologia e biogeografia eram evidências diretas, embriologia não. Até Fritz Müller admitia a "falsificação" no livro onde propôs a recapitulação. 121 warned against dogmatism, smoothing over gaps in knowledge, writing about topics not mastered, and worse 123
• Desenvolveu as críticas de Rutimeyer. Em geral, que os desenhos eram completamente imaginados. 123 Também havia responsabilidade com o público: 'Laypeople might spot weak arguments, but had to trust an expert’s evidence. ' 124
• Haeckel se defendia dizendo que preenchia lacunas em suas figuras esquemáticas, não eram reproduções mecânicas. Foco em didática e essência. 'Todos as figuras esquemáticas são inventadas' 125-6
• His diz que isso era uma apenas uma desculpa para seu viés 126

VIII - Schematics, Forgery, and the So-Called Educated

• Haeckel criticava muito os religiosos, principalmente católicos. Mas do lado dos religiosos, o próprio Darwinismo já havia se tornado uma religião e merecia ter seus dogmas criticados. 129-31
• Acusação de Fraude aberta aparece em 1875. Polêmica ganha público mais amplo. 134
• Semper (foi importante no debate católico "Now that a scientist had protested, liberal theologians could more confidently combat Darwinist excess—while accepting much of evolutionism"): 
• Zoologists owed Darwinism attention and funding, Semper acknowledged, but risked everything by overstepping the bounds. In the struggle over the border regions Haeckel had sadly deceived himself into the same dogmatism and credulity he rejected in the church. 134
• Católicos eram mais restritos 135, mas haviam protestantes mais conciliatórios. 134
• Utilizar as críticas internas era padrão do anti-darwinismo cristão. 135
• Fraude não era o principal problema 135
• Virchow entra em 1877
• Haeckel told the first general session that the theory of evolution, so firmly established that anyone who still asked for evidence proved only his own ignorance, should link the natural sciences and the humanities, including in the schools. But he overreached. Virchow, who had campaigned for science lessons and supported him in Stettin in 1863, felt compelled to answer. Later in the meeting the leading left-liberal reminded scientists of the fragility of their liberty in the face of orthodox Protestant and ultramontane Catholic threats. He advocated restraint, lest the immoderate propagation of “personal speculations” subvert “that favorable feeling of the nation which we enjoy.” They could expect freedom of research, but not to ground intellectual life in uncertain results. Virchow blamed theories like evolution for the Paris Commune and warned of socialist appropriation of such ideas. He had easy sport with Haeckel’s plastidule souls, but himself saw evolution, especially the origin of life and human descent, as too hypothetical to teach. Having long urged caution while pushing forward the frontiers of science, Virchow joined du Bois-Reymond in exchanging limits for autonomy within them and His in urging “resignation.”57 
• The speech delighted the religious right; secular liberals and the left could not believe the betrayal. Did Virchow really mean that the Bible was better grounded than evolution? How could he smear Darwinism as socialist? Haeckel responded with a pamphlet, Freie Wissenschaft und freie Lehre (Freedom in Science and Teaching), which suggested in passing that, if anything, Darwinism was “aristocratic” because “all are called, but few are chosen,” while also stressing his own want of political talent or ambition as a contrast to Virchow’s career. 137
• Consenso sobre as figuras nunca foi atingido
• No one needed it enough, and large, independent power bases sustained rival interpretations. For religious conservatives Haeckel’s trickery showed the bankruptcy of evolutionism, while liberals divided over his transgressions. Almost all competent scientists subscribed to the fact of evolution, and it was looking unprofitable to debate other issues with him. 138 
• Mortiz Reymond foi outro crítico importante. 138
• Sumário:
• Haeckel’s striking designs, provocative rhetoric, and dual audience of scientists and laypeople all courted controversy, and the Basel anatomists’ attitudes and interests led them to sound the alarm. But the fate of the embryo plates depended on what users could and would do, as we can see by comparing these with the other illustrations Rütimeyer singled out: the repeated blocks, the ape plate, and the stem trees. 
• Haeckel suppressed the blocks, and the repetition, however discrediting, was not publicly toxic in the first six years; later too, in-print images mattered more. The ape plate was criticized as a forgery, and succumbed because too many people could judge it. By contrast, the trees, to some extent protected as hypothetical, were generally criticized only as speculative and dogmatic, and so grew on. The more esoteric embryo plates initially escaped scot-free. An early apology might have defused the issue, but Haeckel goaded his critics and then intensified the struggle just as concern mounted over his approach. By 1875 his character was so contested that a host of enemies took even the most honest error as a sign of bad faith. 
• The flawed hero of German Darwinism lived to fight another day, though as a man better at lighting fires than putting them out he never shook the charges off. The embryo plates also survived their first controversy because scrutiny never became concerted enough. Among scientists only hostile experts had faulted comparisons that vividly, if approximately, conveyed what many accepted as an established fact. So when the first phases of production and debate ended in the late 1870s, the pictures and the charges still had most of their lives before them. Though specialists tightened standards, the embryos gained influence as ever more people saw them, in Haeckel’s books and as copies with greater reach. This eventually prepared the ground for the larger contest that followed the rewarming of the accusations for an expanded audience around 1900. Haeckel delivered the casus belli by drawing ever more ambitious grids. 143

IX - Imperial Grids

• Edições e traduções
• Originality is so strongly associated with first editions that revised illustrations are typically either ignored or captioned as if present from the start.5 Yet the earliest grid appeared in the second edition of the Schöpfungsgeschichte, and one of the biggest controversies targeted figures Haeckel only introduced in the fifth edition of the Anthropogenie. 6 Translation, similarly, is usually understood in terms of loss of text and meanings, and it is easy to see images and their quality in the same way. If viewed side by side with the German originals, Haeckel’s English plates do look worse—and some are comically mislabeled—but in this new context their authority increased.7 By cutting illustrations, an English translation also showed what then proved true in German: as the market for evolutionism grew in the early twentieth century, the Anthropogenie and its plates did better apart. 145
• 'expansion was a selling point' pro NHC, revisão não tanto. Para isso apontava o Anthropogenie. O Anthropogenie, por sua vez, perdeu o 'popular' de seu título 146 para ganhar de novo depois 148
• Eventualmente publica-se o Weträtsel, síntese da filosofia monista. Church of nature 146-8
• Lenin gostava do Weltratsel 148
• Ver tabela de vendas e modificações 152
• Em 1877
•  Haeckel’s more mature view thus acknowledged early differences: very similar eggs developed into rather varied gastrulae which then converged on the stage in the first row of the main embryo plates, before diverging again.33 His headline affirmations and most prominent pictures still implied initial identity. Haeckel more directly extended the grids a quarter century later, when the fifth edition of the Anthropogenie put in some “sandal germs,” of which the first row looks less alike (fig. 9.9).34 But he mainly added species as new ones came in. 155
• Já em 1891 Passa a usar o termo diagrama eventualmente 161 Sobre os desenhos:
• Haeckel confessed that for “perhaps 6 or 8 percent” of his “pictures of embryos,” “the available observational material is so incomplete or insufficient that in constructing a continuous developmental series one is forced to fill the gaps with hypotheses and to reconstruct the missing members by comparative synthesis.”
• Haeckel gave sources for borrowed figures, but not for the embryo plates, which he treated as original. They mixed recognizable copies with drawings either of new specimens or from his imagination 
• he admitted silently substituting a related group for a missing middle stage. Unexceptionable as a hypothesis or with an explanation,72 this was difficult to stomach as fact.163
• Ao invés de deixar espaço na grade para descobertas futuras, preferia preencher com desenhos especulativos (esquemas ou diagramas) mas as placas eram apresentadas como representações exatas.
• Tradução
• Translation distanced the plates from Haeckel and had several other effects. Illustrating a work in a new language demands negotiation between publishers, and poses special problems, not least of labeling. Subject to different pressures, though often freer from an author’s control, translations not only revise, abridge, or comment on texts, but also alter, cut, or add figures.  172
• [nota 73 322. Historians of science increasingly study international knowledge transfer: e.g., Daum 2001; J. Secord 2010; we have yet to explore systematically the translation of illustrations, but see, e.g., Simon 2011.
• Appleton e King e Kegan Paul se juntaram para tentar regular o esquema de pirataria do estados unidos. 163
• No inglês as trads não foram feitas da quarta edição mais revisada do Anthropogenie contendo as ilustrações corrigidas por Haeckel. 166
• Gains in translation
• These losses of quality and variety should not obscure what was “gained in translation.”86 The embryo plates acquired authority from the nontranslation of the apologia that this edition alone contained and the other main documents of the disputes with His and Semper.87 Although German natural science was imported to the United States, with its large immigrant communities, and much translated,88 the accusations were hardly reported in English. Biologists discussed them, but only a rare specialist sounded the alarm. 166-7
• Nos EUA e UK o NHC era uma pesquisa importante mas não a fonte principal de darwinismo. Mas o Weltratsel o deixou ainda mais famoso. 167
• Problemas com a trad de McCabe envolvendo nomes de organismos. 167

• Em 1908-9 um novo debate envolvendo His, motivado também parcialmente pelo sucesso do Weltratsel, eclodiu. Mesmo rechaçado, ele continuava a aumentar os embriões nas pranchas. 170

X - Setting Standards

• His inventa as normal plates para padronizar a representação dos embriões. 172 visava institucionalizar a embrio rechaçando os médicos e amadores 173, 180
• His trouxe o questionamento de Krause que havia usado um embrião de ave. Haeckel eventualmente removeu Krause com um contra-argumento. 178
• The exclusion of Krause’s embryo should be recognized as the founding event of modern human embryology. Early human specimens had once been almost an afterthought in textbooks ostensibly devoted to the topic, but now anatomists left gaps rather than present surrogate material. 178 (ver mais em 181 com Oppel e 182 com Kiebel)
• Lei biogenética ainda em 1874
• According to the biogenetic law, the development of all animals marches in parallel, so that ontogeny repeats phylogeny. Haeckel admitted that they never correspond exactly. Just as transmission and translation corrupted texts, so ontogeny “falsified” the ancestral record. He distinguished the faithful palingenesis from the corrupting cenogenesis, with its major mechanisms, heterochrony and heterotopy. Heterochronies are changes in the timing of development; for example, in vertebrates the heart appears earlier in relation to the other organs than it did in evolution. Heterotopies  are changes in place, especially shifts of cells from one germ layer to another: the sex glands arose in the mesoderm, but must originally have developed from one of the primary germ layers.37 This made the evidence of evolution tougher to interpret, but as long as the cenogenetic chaff could be separated from the palingenetic grain, the doctrine of recapitulation accommodated exceptions so readily it could never be disproved. 179
• Keibel conclui que a lei era falsa para os mamíferos.  Mas seguia um discipulo de Haeckel que preferia encarar isso como heterocronias a serem pesquisadas. 182
• The crisis of evolutionary embryology may thus be reinterpreted as a crisis of staging within species as well as between them. Critiques of the biogenetic law made it impossible to line up ontogenetic and phylogenetic stages. Critiques of casually identifying specimens with stages highlighted individual variation. Normal plates offered a way out. 182
• Staging systems had emerged from discussions that questioned the very possibility of assigning an embryo to a stage. 187
• Mas a normal plates não tinha o mesmo vigor visual. 184 E os textos em tabela não pegaram deixando as pranchas de Haeckel livres, especialmente para não-embriologistas 187

XI - Forbidden Fruit

• Livros banidos por muitos religiosos e no sistema de ensino ainda controlado por diferente igrejas. 189
• Haeckel animou os progressivistas ligados a educação sexual. Ortodoxos não gostaram. 190
• Revoluções no sistema de educação alemão que não tinha muita educação em ciências até então. 190
• Mas Haeckel era muito popular com jovens. 191 Inclusive com implicações políticas:
• Evolutionism would rival Marxism in the ideology of German social democracy, which grew through illegality in the 1880s to reemerge as the largest socialist movement in the world before 1914. Darwin plus Marx convinced social democrats that the struggle for existence in nature, continued in the class struggles of human history, would deliver the future to them. Friedrich Engels used the Schöpfungsgeschichte, and the party leader August Bebel, having read the book in prison, quoted it in his bestsell[er] [...] a Conservative warned that “Haeckel-Darwinism” would raise “a generation whose confessions are atheism and nihilism and whose political philosophy is communism.” 191
• Isso atrapalhou o programa de educação de Haeckel, embora alguns ainda ensinassem (ver Hermann Muller 192) e os jovens ainda se interessassem. 191
• "Haeckel’s critique of religious orthodoxy offered a new unity for a fragmented age." 192
• Na universidade ele era evitado e as figuras não eram usadas até por virem de um livro popular. Mas os livros eram lidos em cursos mais amplos. 192
• Ampla relação negativa ou positiva com o público feminino e a educação sexual. 194
• Católicos eram muito contra, moderados abriam algumas concessões em um espírito deísta incluindo teólogos com várias decisões. 198 'in orthodox circles, many accepted the forgery story sight unseen. ' 200

XII - Creative Copying

• Figuras de Haeckel copiadas em vários livros, as vezes sem fonte, e encapsuladas em caixas pretas. 203
• Figuras mais usadas eram as primeiras, menos corrigidas. E 'economics drove selection' 207-8
• Os embriões as vezes levavam a controvérsia. 215
• 'Copying was creative'. 215

XIII - Trials and Tributes

•  As Christian conservatives boosted clerical influence in the schools, Haeckel attacked superstition and backed campaigns against legislation that limited free speech 218
• Situação geral nos 1890s
• Every embryologist had considered recapitulation, but then recognized that it did not work. Haeckel had decided it must. When he “encountered a certain recalcitrance in the material,” he concluded that “nature just forged a little now and again.” “Because nature falsified his biogenetic law, Haeckel cenogeneticized nature back in the manner described by His” to create a world as compromised as himself. 220 
• Revision gave the Anthropogenie a double identity, as a relic of the early editions and a contemporary work, with the contrast a tribute to the research Haeckel had inspired. Friends and students recalled how the Schöpfungsgeschichte had awakened their interest in biology, and assured him it remained “the best book” on “these important general questions,”36 while publicly celebrating the German Darwin more safely as a historical figure. 222
• For about a decade the last representative of the heroic age of evolutionism was more newsworthy than Darwin. He fed the new mass-media machine with the most controversial science book, and then gave interviews, responded to critics, wrote a sequel, and staged public events. An international celebrity, he was so distant from research that specifics were no longer at stake. He stood for a whole worldview. 226
• Continuava com a desculpa do schematics though. Acusava His de usar isso também, mas His não via problema com isso. 220
• Finalmente adereçou a primeira crítica de Rutimeyer diretamente. Reclamando de Hensen que tornava a criticar isso 221
• Bolsche era outro crítico 222 Outros foram Hamann e Fleischmann na condição de apóstatas. 223-4

XIV - Scandals for the People

• Política, religião e ciência
• The politics of evolution changed slowly. A more aggressive selectionism was opening Darwinism up for the right; Haeckel’s own rightward shift is well known. But eugenics, or racial hygiene, which Haeckel helped promote around 1900, drew support also from leftwing professionals, and Darwinism remained first and foremost a major plank of social-democratic ideology. ... Christians were engaging more closely with natural science, however, and so were more interested not just in countering a threat, but also in providing versions the faithful could use. At the same time, right-wingers challenged scientists’ autonomy on a widening range of issues, such as vivisection, cadaver dissection, the antisyphilitic drug Salvarsan, and later relativity. 230
• Rise of Monism
• In 1904 Haeckel rallied followers to create a campaigning organization for social reform based on his nature philosophy, chiefly through propaganda for an evolutionist worldview, fighting church influence in the schools and encouraging the replacement of Christianity with a rational religion of nature. Though the international congress of freethinkers in Rome declared him “anti-pope,” many worried about his metaphysical commitments and doubted that yet another forum would help a minority interest break into the mainstream. But in Jena in January 1906 admirers formed the German Monist League under his honorary presidency and with his personal assistant as general secretary. One of Wilhelmine Germany’s numerous middle-class protest movements, the league claimed 2,500 members within a year, mostly from the free professions, but still only 6,000 in 1914, in forty-two local branches. The monists published magazines and pamphlets, put on lectures, and arranged solstice festivals and secular confirmations. Some scientists joined, but many regarded monism as illegitimate scientism, an institutionalized rejection of limits, that mixed questionable doctrine with uncongenial ideology. The league was politically diverse and split in the early years between promoting science and developing new religious practices, but Haeckel dominated and big lectures kept his profile high.7 230
• Wasmann entra em cena como novo antagonista. Via o monismo como socialismo e anarquismo. O resto dos argumentos eram o mesmo 230
• Outros cristãos também não gostaram 233
• Forma-se o Keplerbund, chefiado por Dennert para ir contra o monismo. Abordagem sincrética entre fé cristã e ciência. 234-6
• Brass, novo crítico. 236 Colocava os embriões lado a lado pela primeira vez. 238 Sumarizando
• Brass aimed new and sensational charges at Haeckel’s pictures as atheist, liberal, modernist distortions of a national Christian tradition. He provided the first direct pictorial comparisons through which laypeople could see how Haeckel had cheated. But the booklet, off-putting in its language and not always easy to follow, needed publicity.4 241
• Haeckel publicou uma "confissão" que era ironia mal entendida segundo Hopwood. 242
• Zacharias, amigo de Haeckel, o defendeu em seu jornal. 245
• Declaração dos 46, em favor da evolução mas não presos a Haeckel. 246
• Respodndia por um documento assinado por 37 em apoio a Keplerbund, mas com muito menos tração. 248
• Keplerbund visava uma accountability dos cientistas como defesa de seu ataque a Haeckel.
• Sumário
• The declaration of the forty-six ended the main phase of the debate, and Haeckel’s biographers have given it the last word,81 but it was not the last, even from several signatories, any more than Dennert’s take on the “forgeries” represented his own settled opinion, let alone that of the Kepler League. With a more diverse press, the scope to cultivate group-specific interpretations had grown, and so had the competition to shape a dominant view. Haeckel would see his colleagues as intervening “in my favor” and “for me,”82 while Catholic critics read them as rescuing German science from him. The Kepler League moved on to the wider issues, and lured Haeckel into another unwise defense. They might have lost the argument with the embryologists; they had shaped views of relations between natural science and Christian religion for many decades, and ensured that the allegations would dog his reputation for ever. His followers soon complained that forging pictures was the only thing most Germans knew he had done. 248

XV - A Hundred Haeckels

•  'Neutrality was impossible' 249
• Situação geral:
• Some conceded his services to science and regretted the damage his failings would do the developmentalist cause. Wasmann argued more polemically that Haeckel had played a “sophistical game with the term ‘schematic figure,’” but that his forgery of ideas was worse. Catholic commentators agreed that the declaration of the forty-six amounted to a veiled condemnation: obliged to disavow his actions, biologists had attacked the Kepler League to sugar the pill.2 250
• Haeckel confessed great failings and many errors. Enthusiasm, “often criticized by my enemies as ‘fanaticism,’” had combined with what friends called a “drive for completeness” to lead him to fill gaps by hypothesis and deduction. (It had also brought him to the nature philosophy he regarded as his most valuable contribution.)33 He had long ago admitted sometimes schematizing too much, but considered the embryo comparisons, except for a few deductions and interpolations, regular schematics.34 He likewise defended the Kunstformen as “true to nature” and “objective”; “of reconstruction, trimming, schematizing, or forgery there can be no question at all.”35 A few biologists accepted this;36 most forgave the pioneer of Darwinism while rejecting his pictures. 252 
• Mas em 1910 Haeckel começa a polemizar de novo. 250-1
• Gasman. Haeckel cai nas mãos do nazismo como exemplo de ciência alemã. Crimes: Haeckel’s worship of Bismarck, antisocialism, wartime propaganda, racial features, and eugenics (Haeckel had promoted biological racism, eugenics, and euthanasia and moved to the right; his Romantic modernism looked to have an affinity for Nazi ideas, which included elements of Darwinism; and some of his followers were Nazis. 262). Aparentemente o Monist league também foi cooptado. Mas não virou. Nazistas permitiram o ensino de bio em escolas, evo estudada em genética, antro e higiene racial e incluia evidência embriológica na forma das tabelas de Hesse (264):
• Yet in the next two years nazifying Haeckel became controversial as the party rejected attempts by scientists to align pet approaches with the new politics.70 For the educationalist Ernst Krieck, finding forerunners was “nonsense.” Franz Lenbach’s Haeckel portrait hung in the “Great Germans” exhibition during the Berlin Olympics, but he was described as having failed “to sow eternal values.”71 Critics in the Nazi Party Office of Racial Policy worked to neutralize the threat to race constancy of his views on inheritance and adaptation.72 For the Kepler League, of which leading lights were close to National Socialism even before 1933, the increasingly nonconformist Bavink protested against honoring Haeckel, who had opposed holistic biology, in what the Führer had ruled should be a Christian state.73 A small Ernst Haeckel Society was nevertheless permitted under Astel’s auspices in 1942.74 257
• Para Hopwood
• Haeckel today seems an unlikely “proto-Nazi,” and his “Darwinist movement” not to be “fully understood as a prelude to the doctrine of National Socialism,” not least because of the diversity reviewed here.117 .... but the stain of nazism would be hard to wash of a Romantic German eugenicist 262
• (nota 117 331 Gasman 1971, xiv; also Weikart 2004; for critiques: Weindling 1989b; Evans 1997, 63–68; Hoßfeld 2005a, 241–63, 280–339; R. Richards 2008)
• Haeckel socialista retorna na alemanha oriental 257
• As controvérsias de Haeckel não circularam muito entre anglófonos
• usable accounts of the accusations barely crossed the North Sea, let alone the Atlantic. A few biologists criticized Haeckel,90 and sizeable communities read German, but the key documents went untranslated, Popular Science Monthly did not cover the story, and British and American critics rarely picked it up.91 Encyclopedias warned darkly of “the dangers of artistic and speculative imagination.” 259
• Até a de 1909-10 que foi bem coberta nos eua
• Haeckel foi apagado na síntese. 262

XVI - The Textbook Illustration

• Tendência de cópia de imagens. 263
• Nos EUA, suporte a Haeckel por Kellog e Jordan. 265
• Entrou nos livros americanos. Difícil emplacar na escola devido aos movimentos anti-darwinistas americanos.
• use was stereotyped, uncoupled from Haeckel, in part historical, and immune from marginal critics 275
• Age may have contributed to a sense that they should not be taken too seriously. Having avoided his pictures for over a century, embryology imported them without debate. ... Bowdlerization saved the grids in high schools, while in colleges they found a niche, protected by captioning, as a fairly stable imagetext. ...  Copying in general textbooks kept the grids available to developmental biology in the 1980s. They soon littered the subject like so much unexploded ordnance in the fields after a forgotten war. No scientist a century before could have imagined the result: the figures once again framed a defining dispute in a fresh, young field. Now-powerful creationists ensured maximum damage when they blew up.  280

XVII - Iconoclasm

• 'Modelo da ampulheta' substituto da lei biogenética considerada superada hoje. 285 (ver Lezbit et al 2020 e Olson et al 2017)
• 1997 Richardson e a nova polêmica. 286
• Embryology still supported evolution; the minor issue was the extent to which natural selection acted on the phylotypic stage. 288
• Geral
• In fact, Gould explained, experts had recognized Haeckel’s “artistic license” immediately, but hard-pressed textbook authors recycled the figures from popular works. While Gould asserted that Richardson “never claimed originality in uncovering the fraud,” Richardson confessed that he had said as much in interviews. But he shared the blame: if historians knew, why had they kept quiet?49 The answer, for anglophone historians of biology, is probably that most did not know of the charges,50 and that the few who did had not realized how much the embryos were still used; I had not thought about that myself. 
• Richardson had begun criticizing Haeckel almost as if he were a contemporary, by comparing old images to current specimens. He moved into history to contest contextualizing attempts to excuse the drawings as legitimate schematics. In Nature he now proposed a general method for identifying fraudulent illustrations: changes that bolstered an author’s theory implied dishonest intent. So Haeckel was guilty as charged, and—a truly original claim—even His had produced “dubious” figures: his “specific physiognomies” were more advanced than Haeckel’s first row and his deer embryo had cloven hooves, which a work published over thirty years later did not show.51 Anachronism apart, Richardson ignored the inevitable theory-ladenness of observation. But he softened his stance the following year. 
• A long review in the end found only “some evidence of doctoring” in the grids.52 This was too late to affect the mainstream reception. Haeckel had already joined the collections of fraudsters, swindlers, and charlatans that burgeoned as a nonfiction genre from the late 1990s, and so for most people the story ended with the rediscovery of fraud, sometimes including the repeated blocks.53 The smaller audience of evo-devo aficionados debated the phylotypic stage for a further few years,54 but now generally accept that this is a more extended period in vertebrates and accessible to evolution, while subject to internal constraints.55 It is also respectable to maintain some role for recapitulation in development.56 289
• ew evolutionists defended the figures,82 but influential responses claimed (with some exaggeration) that textbooks had typically reproduced them in a historical context, and (justifiably) that authors used them to argue that Haeckelian recapitulation was wrong. Many already preferred more accurate drawings or photographs; all should now replace “cartoonish drawings.”
• Molecular
• More fundamentally, evolutionists underscored not just the striking similarities in internal anatomy, but also the deep molecular homologies beneath superficial differences in the earliest stages. As a book coauthored by Wells’s PhD supervisor put it: “The real anatomy of the conserved phylotypic stage of vertebrates is not simply the overt shapes and bumps that Haeckel may have embellished, but a highly conserved map of compartments of expressed selector genes, whose functions can be tested individually by genetic experiments. An unbiased view of some of these embryos and the corresponding selector gene domains is shown in [fig. 17.8], where the anatomical similarities are still obvious.”84 Developmental biology had not “been finding growing disparities” but rather “showing us . . . greater . . . similarity between species than previously suspected.”85 Recent research had generated positive images galore, but ID proponents kept the focus on the most problematic. 293
• Várias questões com o ID 295
• Função da HC
• e biologists had forgotten or never learned about the first two, was both more historical and more contemporary. 295
• ' “good science” was hard to separate from “media hype” when a scientist had fed a journalist the story.' 295