Hopwood Nick
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, UK.
Int J Dev Biol. 2007;51(1):1-26. doi: 10.1387/ijdb.062189nh.
Developmental biology is today unimaginable without the normal stages that define standard divisions of development. This history of normal stages, and the related normal plates and normal tables, shows how these standards have shaped and been shaped by disciplinary change in vertebrate embryology. The article highlights the Normal Plates of the Development of the Vertebrates edited by the German anatomist Franz Keibel (16 volumes, 1897-1938). These were a major response to problems in the relations between ontogeny and phylogeny that amounted in practical terms to a crisis in staging embryos, not just between, but (for some) also within species. Keibel's design adapted a plate by Wilhelm His and tables by Albert Oppel in order to go beyond the already controversial comparative plates of the Darwinist propagandist Ernst Haeckel. The project responded to local pressures, including intense concern with individual variation, but recruited internationally and mapped an embryological empire. Though theoretically inconclusive, the plates became standard laboratory tools and forged a network within which the Institut International d'Embryologie (today the International Society of Developmental Biologists) was founded in 1911. After World War I, experimentalists, led by Ross Harrison and Viktor Hamburger, and human embryologists, especially George Streeter at the Carnegie Department of Embryology, transformed Keibel's complex, bulky tomes to suit their own contrasting demands. In developmental biology after World War II, normal stages-reduced to a few journal pages-helped domesticate model organisms. Staging systems had emerged from discussions that questioned the very possibility of assigning an embryo to a stage. The historical issues resonate today as developmental biologists work to improve and extend stage series, to make results from different laboratories easier to compare and to take individual variation into account.
如今,如果没有定义发育标准划分的正常阶段,发育生物学将难以想象。这段正常阶段的历史,以及相关的正常图谱和正常表格,展示了这些标准是如何塑造脊椎动物胚胎学的学科变化,以及如何被学科变化所塑造的。本文重点介绍了由德国解剖学家弗朗茨·凯贝尔编辑的《脊椎动物发育的正常图谱》(共16卷,1897 - 1938年)。这些图谱是对个体发育与系统发育关系中出现的问题的一种主要回应,实际上这些问题导致了胚胎分期方面的危机,不仅存在于不同物种之间,(对某些物种而言)也存在于同一物种内部。凯贝尔的设计借鉴了威廉·希斯的图谱和阿尔伯特·奥佩尔的表格,以超越达尔文主义宣传者恩斯特·海克尔已经颇具争议的比较图谱。该项目回应了当地的压力,包括对个体变异的高度关注,但在国际范围内招募人员,并绘制了一个胚胎学帝国的版图。尽管从理论上来说尚无定论,但这些图谱成为了标准的实验室工具,并形成了一个网络,1911年国际胚胎学研究所(如今的国际发育生物学家协会)就在这个网络内成立。第一次世界大战后,以罗斯·哈里森和维克托·汉堡为首的实验学家,以及人类胚胎学家,尤其是卡内基胚胎学系的乔治·斯特里特,对凯贝尔复杂、厚重的大部头著作进行了改造,以满足他们各自不同的需求。在第二次世界大战后的发育生物学中,正常阶段被简化为几页期刊篇幅,这有助于驯化模式生物。分期系统是从对将胚胎归入某个阶段的可能性提出质疑的讨论中产生的。如今,随着发育生物学家努力改进和扩展分期系列,使不同实验室的结果更易于比较,并考虑个体变异,这些历史问题再次引起了共鸣。