ArticleTheory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften2009
Marine invertebrates, model organisms, and the modern synthesis: epistemic values, evo-devo, and exclusion.
Article in Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reflections on Model Species in Evolutionary Developmental Biology.Results and problems in cell differentiation · 2026Review
- Physiological Roles of Serotonin in Bivalves: Possible Interference by Environmental Chemicals Resulting in Neuroendocrine Disruption.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Review
- Animal Behavior, Population Biology and the Modern Synthesis (1955-1985).Journal of the history of biology · 2019Article
- The Experimental Study of Bacterial Evolution and Its Implications for the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Biology.Journal of the history of biology · 2018Article
- Evolutionary biology today and the call for an extended synthesis.Interface focus · 2017Article
- Leeches of the genus Helobdella as model organisms for Evo-Devo studies.Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2015Article
- Evolutionary developmental biology: its concepts and history with a focus on Russian and German contributions.Die Naturwissenschaften · 2010Review
- Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, directional selection, and the evolutionary sciences today.Die Naturwissenschaften · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A central reason that undergirds the significance of evo-devo is the claim that development was left out of the Modern synthesis. This claim turns out to be quite complicated, both in terms of whether development was genuinely excluded and how to understand the different kinds of embryological research that might have contributed. The present paper reevaluates this central claim by focusing on the practice of model organism choice. Through a survey of examples utilized in the literature of the Modern synthesis, I identify a previously overlooked feature: exclusion of research on marine invertebrates. Understanding the import of this pattern requires interpreting it in terms of two epistemic values operating in biological research: theoretical generality and explanatory completeness. In tandem, these values clarify and enhance the significance of this exclusion. The absence of marine invertebrates implied both a lack of generality in the resulting theory and a lack of completeness with respect to particular evolutionary problems, such as evolvability and the origin of novelty. These problems were salient to embryological researchers aware of the variation and diversity of larval forms in marine invertebrates. In closing, I apply this analysis to model organism choice in evo-devo and discuss its relevance for an extended evolutionary synthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.