Loading…

Goethe's bone and the beginnings of morphology

Biology as a discipline per se and its agenda, seems not to have been burdened from its beginnings as heavily with neo‐Platonism as its subspecialty morphology, conceptualized at the same time by Goethe and Burdach. One of the reasons may have been that biologists were then regarded as “mere” natura...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of medical genetics 2004-04, Vol.126A (1), p.1-8
Main Author: Opitz, John M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4969-6d0185eb371f574c947bfa60c765d7cb4776e9100cdc4d70da3fa96bf46824f53
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4969-6d0185eb371f574c947bfa60c765d7cb4776e9100cdc4d70da3fa96bf46824f53
container_end_page 8
container_issue 1
container_start_page 1
container_title American journal of medical genetics
container_volume 126A
creator Opitz, John M.
description Biology as a discipline per se and its agenda, seems not to have been burdened from its beginnings as heavily with neo‐Platonism as its subspecialty morphology, conceptualized at the same time by Goethe and Burdach. One of the reasons may have been that biologists were then regarded as “mere” naturalists, “doing” anatomy and embryology, breeding, and field work (as did Darwin, Wallace, Bateson and a legion of others during the 19th century), whereas the, perhaps more elitist, morphologists, ab initio devoted themselves to the origin, even to the Kantian analysis of causes of development and its variability within and between species. Since Goethe included abnormal plant development in his studies, his definition of morphology as the science of the form, formation and transformation of living organisms may be modified to include the concept of malformation, although the embryological and comparative analysis of vertebrate/mammalian malformation had its real inception somewhat later with the younger Meckel. In view of the meaning attached by his French contemporaries to the term transformisme (eventually defined as evolution) one would err considering Goethe as a prophet of “descent;” he was not, referring primarily to the continuous state of flux of living beings. Nonetheless, Goethe and Burdach independently coined the concept of morphology and set its agenda, increasingly freed of Naturphilosophie, an agenda that dominated 19th century biology but which did not come to fruition in its causal analysis of form and its formation until the 20th century, after Mendel, Darwin and the pioneers of experimental embryology (a.o., Roux, Driesch, Spemann, Vogt). In his discovery of the intermaxillary bone in humans (Goethe's bone), he had a startling insight, against conventional wisdom, into the anatomical, hence developmental, similarity of primate/mammals. During his lifetime, this was still called analogie by his great French contemporary Etienne Geoffroy St‐Hilaire who actually meant what Owen later called homology which became one of Darwin's most powerful arguments for descent. A case of a pearl found by a blind chicken? Definitely not; Goethe had his nose far too close to the ground to have missed any of the major intellectual trends in the “life‐sciences” in the late 18th/early 19th century; but, he was too much of an amateur to have had the kind of insights of grand plans granted to von Baer, Mendel and Darwin. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/ajmg.a.20619
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71749578</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>19427232</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4969-6d0185eb371f574c947bfa60c765d7cb4776e9100cdc4d70da3fa96bf46824f53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0M1PwjAYBvDGaATRm2ezi3px2K5f9EiI4gcqiSiJl6brWhhuK64Q5b93CKInPbVNfu_7NA8Ahwg2EYTRuZrko6ZqRpAhsQXqiNIoJC2Mtzf3iNbAnvcTCDGknO2CGqIQC8F4HTS7zszG5tQHsStMoIokqJ5BbEZpUaTFyAfOBrkrp2OXudFiH-xYlXlzsD4b4OnyYtC5CnsP3etOuxdqIpgIWQJRi5oYc2QpJ1oQHlvFoOaMJlzHhHNmRPV9nWiScJgobJVgsSWsFRFLcQOcrPZOS_c2N34m89Rrk2WqMG7uJUecCMpb_0IkSMQjHFXwbAV16bwvjZXTMs1VuZAIymWRclmkVPKryIofrffO49wkP3jdXAWO10B5rTJbqkKn_pdjEBEOK4dX7j3NzOLPUNm-uet-x4erqdTPzMdmSpWvssrmVA7vu_L2sf8yEP2hfMafETiZiQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>19427232</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Goethe's bone and the beginnings of morphology</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Opitz, John M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Opitz, John M.</creatorcontrib><description>Biology as a discipline per se and its agenda, seems not to have been burdened from its beginnings as heavily with neo‐Platonism as its subspecialty morphology, conceptualized at the same time by Goethe and Burdach. One of the reasons may have been that biologists were then regarded as “mere” naturalists, “doing” anatomy and embryology, breeding, and field work (as did Darwin, Wallace, Bateson and a legion of others during the 19th century), whereas the, perhaps more elitist, morphologists, ab initio devoted themselves to the origin, even to the Kantian analysis of causes of development and its variability within and between species. Since Goethe included abnormal plant development in his studies, his definition of morphology as the science of the form, formation and transformation of living organisms may be modified to include the concept of malformation, although the embryological and comparative analysis of vertebrate/mammalian malformation had its real inception somewhat later with the younger Meckel. In view of the meaning attached by his French contemporaries to the term transformisme (eventually defined as evolution) one would err considering Goethe as a prophet of “descent;” he was not, referring primarily to the continuous state of flux of living beings. Nonetheless, Goethe and Burdach independently coined the concept of morphology and set its agenda, increasingly freed of Naturphilosophie, an agenda that dominated 19th century biology but which did not come to fruition in its causal analysis of form and its formation until the 20th century, after Mendel, Darwin and the pioneers of experimental embryology (a.o., Roux, Driesch, Spemann, Vogt). In his discovery of the intermaxillary bone in humans (Goethe's bone), he had a startling insight, against conventional wisdom, into the anatomical, hence developmental, similarity of primate/mammals. During his lifetime, this was still called analogie by his great French contemporary Etienne Geoffroy St‐Hilaire who actually meant what Owen later called homology which became one of Darwin's most powerful arguments for descent. A case of a pearl found by a blind chicken? Definitely not; Goethe had his nose far too close to the ground to have missed any of the major intellectual trends in the “life‐sciences” in the late 18th/early 19th century; but, he was too much of an amateur to have had the kind of insights of grand plans granted to von Baer, Mendel and Darwin. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1552-4825</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0148-7299</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-4833</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-8628</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.20619</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15039967</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AJMGDA</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>anatomy ; Anatomy - history ; Biological and medical sciences ; form ; formation ; General aspects. Genetic counseling ; Germany ; Goethe ; History, 18th Century ; History, 19th Century ; Humans ; intermaxillary bone ; malformation ; Maxilla - anatomy &amp; histology ; Medical genetics ; Medical sciences ; morphology ; Primates ; transformation</subject><ispartof>American journal of medical genetics, 2004-04, Vol.126A (1), p.1-8</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</rights><rights>2004 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4969-6d0185eb371f574c947bfa60c765d7cb4776e9100cdc4d70da3fa96bf46824f53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4969-6d0185eb371f574c947bfa60c765d7cb4776e9100cdc4d70da3fa96bf46824f53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,777,781,27905,27906</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=15601470$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15039967$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Opitz, John M.</creatorcontrib><title>Goethe's bone and the beginnings of morphology</title><title>American journal of medical genetics</title><addtitle>Am. J. Med. Genet</addtitle><description>Biology as a discipline per se and its agenda, seems not to have been burdened from its beginnings as heavily with neo‐Platonism as its subspecialty morphology, conceptualized at the same time by Goethe and Burdach. One of the reasons may have been that biologists were then regarded as “mere” naturalists, “doing” anatomy and embryology, breeding, and field work (as did Darwin, Wallace, Bateson and a legion of others during the 19th century), whereas the, perhaps more elitist, morphologists, ab initio devoted themselves to the origin, even to the Kantian analysis of causes of development and its variability within and between species. Since Goethe included abnormal plant development in his studies, his definition of morphology as the science of the form, formation and transformation of living organisms may be modified to include the concept of malformation, although the embryological and comparative analysis of vertebrate/mammalian malformation had its real inception somewhat later with the younger Meckel. In view of the meaning attached by his French contemporaries to the term transformisme (eventually defined as evolution) one would err considering Goethe as a prophet of “descent;” he was not, referring primarily to the continuous state of flux of living beings. Nonetheless, Goethe and Burdach independently coined the concept of morphology and set its agenda, increasingly freed of Naturphilosophie, an agenda that dominated 19th century biology but which did not come to fruition in its causal analysis of form and its formation until the 20th century, after Mendel, Darwin and the pioneers of experimental embryology (a.o., Roux, Driesch, Spemann, Vogt). In his discovery of the intermaxillary bone in humans (Goethe's bone), he had a startling insight, against conventional wisdom, into the anatomical, hence developmental, similarity of primate/mammals. During his lifetime, this was still called analogie by his great French contemporary Etienne Geoffroy St‐Hilaire who actually meant what Owen later called homology which became one of Darwin's most powerful arguments for descent. A case of a pearl found by a blind chicken? Definitely not; Goethe had his nose far too close to the ground to have missed any of the major intellectual trends in the “life‐sciences” in the late 18th/early 19th century; but, he was too much of an amateur to have had the kind of insights of grand plans granted to von Baer, Mendel and Darwin. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</description><subject>anatomy</subject><subject>Anatomy - history</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>form</subject><subject>formation</subject><subject>General aspects. Genetic counseling</subject><subject>Germany</subject><subject>Goethe</subject><subject>History, 18th Century</subject><subject>History, 19th Century</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>intermaxillary bone</subject><subject>malformation</subject><subject>Maxilla - anatomy &amp; histology</subject><subject>Medical genetics</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>morphology</subject><subject>Primates</subject><subject>transformation</subject><issn>1552-4825</issn><issn>0148-7299</issn><issn>1552-4833</issn><issn>1096-8628</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqF0M1PwjAYBvDGaATRm2ezi3px2K5f9EiI4gcqiSiJl6brWhhuK64Q5b93CKInPbVNfu_7NA8Ahwg2EYTRuZrko6ZqRpAhsQXqiNIoJC2Mtzf3iNbAnvcTCDGknO2CGqIQC8F4HTS7zszG5tQHsStMoIokqJ5BbEZpUaTFyAfOBrkrp2OXudFiH-xYlXlzsD4b4OnyYtC5CnsP3etOuxdqIpgIWQJRi5oYc2QpJ1oQHlvFoOaMJlzHhHNmRPV9nWiScJgobJVgsSWsFRFLcQOcrPZOS_c2N34m89Rrk2WqMG7uJUecCMpb_0IkSMQjHFXwbAV16bwvjZXTMs1VuZAIymWRclmkVPKryIofrffO49wkP3jdXAWO10B5rTJbqkKn_pdjEBEOK4dX7j3NzOLPUNm-uet-x4erqdTPzMdmSpWvssrmVA7vu_L2sf8yEP2hfMafETiZiQ</recordid><startdate>20040401</startdate><enddate>20040401</enddate><creator>Opitz, John M.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><general>Wiley-Liss</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040401</creationdate><title>Goethe's bone and the beginnings of morphology</title><author>Opitz, John M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4969-6d0185eb371f574c947bfa60c765d7cb4776e9100cdc4d70da3fa96bf46824f53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>anatomy</topic><topic>Anatomy - history</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>form</topic><topic>formation</topic><topic>General aspects. Genetic counseling</topic><topic>Germany</topic><topic>Goethe</topic><topic>History, 18th Century</topic><topic>History, 19th Century</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>intermaxillary bone</topic><topic>malformation</topic><topic>Maxilla - anatomy &amp; histology</topic><topic>Medical genetics</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>morphology</topic><topic>Primates</topic><topic>transformation</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Opitz, John M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of medical genetics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Opitz, John M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Goethe's bone and the beginnings of morphology</atitle><jtitle>American journal of medical genetics</jtitle><addtitle>Am. J. Med. Genet</addtitle><date>2004-04-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>126A</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>8</epage><pages>1-8</pages><issn>1552-4825</issn><issn>0148-7299</issn><eissn>1552-4833</eissn><eissn>1096-8628</eissn><coden>AJMGDA</coden><abstract>Biology as a discipline per se and its agenda, seems not to have been burdened from its beginnings as heavily with neo‐Platonism as its subspecialty morphology, conceptualized at the same time by Goethe and Burdach. One of the reasons may have been that biologists were then regarded as “mere” naturalists, “doing” anatomy and embryology, breeding, and field work (as did Darwin, Wallace, Bateson and a legion of others during the 19th century), whereas the, perhaps more elitist, morphologists, ab initio devoted themselves to the origin, even to the Kantian analysis of causes of development and its variability within and between species. Since Goethe included abnormal plant development in his studies, his definition of morphology as the science of the form, formation and transformation of living organisms may be modified to include the concept of malformation, although the embryological and comparative analysis of vertebrate/mammalian malformation had its real inception somewhat later with the younger Meckel. In view of the meaning attached by his French contemporaries to the term transformisme (eventually defined as evolution) one would err considering Goethe as a prophet of “descent;” he was not, referring primarily to the continuous state of flux of living beings. Nonetheless, Goethe and Burdach independently coined the concept of morphology and set its agenda, increasingly freed of Naturphilosophie, an agenda that dominated 19th century biology but which did not come to fruition in its causal analysis of form and its formation until the 20th century, after Mendel, Darwin and the pioneers of experimental embryology (a.o., Roux, Driesch, Spemann, Vogt). In his discovery of the intermaxillary bone in humans (Goethe's bone), he had a startling insight, against conventional wisdom, into the anatomical, hence developmental, similarity of primate/mammals. During his lifetime, this was still called analogie by his great French contemporary Etienne Geoffroy St‐Hilaire who actually meant what Owen later called homology which became one of Darwin's most powerful arguments for descent. A case of a pearl found by a blind chicken? Definitely not; Goethe had his nose far too close to the ground to have missed any of the major intellectual trends in the “life‐sciences” in the late 18th/early 19th century; but, he was too much of an amateur to have had the kind of insights of grand plans granted to von Baer, Mendel and Darwin. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.</abstract><cop>Hoboken</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>15039967</pmid><doi>10.1002/ajmg.a.20619</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1552-4825
ispartof American journal of medical genetics, 2004-04, Vol.126A (1), p.1-8
issn 1552-4825
0148-7299
1552-4833
1096-8628
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71749578
source Wiley
subjects anatomy
Anatomy - history
Biological and medical sciences
form
formation
General aspects. Genetic counseling
Germany
Goethe
History, 18th Century
History, 19th Century
Humans
intermaxillary bone
malformation
Maxilla - anatomy & histology
Medical genetics
Medical sciences
morphology
Primates
transformation
title Goethe's bone and the beginnings of morphology
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-20T05%3A15%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Goethe's%20bone%20and%20the%20beginnings%20of%20morphology&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20medical%20genetics&rft.au=Opitz,%20John%20M.&rft.date=2004-04-01&rft.volume=126A&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=8&rft.pages=1-8&rft.issn=1552-4825&rft.eissn=1552-4833&rft.coden=AJMGDA&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ajmg.a.20619&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E19427232%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4969-6d0185eb371f574c947bfa60c765d7cb4776e9100cdc4d70da3fa96bf46824f53%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=19427232&rft_id=info:pmid/15039967&rfr_iscdi=true