In defense of anagenesis, grades, and evolutionary scales

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid


It is shown that the 1st 3 criticisms by J. P. Capitanio and D. W. Leger (see record 1979-30020-001) of the M. Yarczower and L. Hazlett (see record 1978-24293-001) article are unfounded and that the 4th is premature: (a) Contemporary leaders in the study of evolution define anagenesis in the same way as did Yarczower and Hazlett. (b) Their use of the term “evolutionary grade” was internally consistent and consistent with usage by E. Mayr (1975), whom Capitanio and Leger cited as having used it differently. (c) Classification of species into higher taxa does not represent “typological thinking.” (d) Although analyses by grades of social behaviors are more difficult than those of sensory systems, as was noted by Yarczower and Hazlett, it is premature to conclude that the effort will not bear fruit. (19 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles