Acta Biotheretica 37: 321-327, 1988. © 1988 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
REVIEWS
Mae-Wan
Ho and Sidney
metaphors. In
the
theory
Wiley
last
few
of e v o l u t i o n
evolutionary fruitful Sidney
paradigm,
present
Fox
want
writes
more.
turning
point
underpinnings
multitude
of
write
their
in
try
critical
theme
is
which
returns
the common
criticism
of
of
looking
this book,
theory. a
should
with
a
Evolutioto these
attention.
denominator
predominant
on the
of selection, authors
as an external
in the
theme',
One of the elements
Various
As Ho
very crucial
regard
special
'is an emphasis
the book.
But Ho and
'try to a r t i c u l a t e be
a common
and
looks
new e v o l u t i o n a r y
may
the concept
is
they
perspective.
civilisation'.
nature'.
which
which
of what
'A
and
evidence
problems,
for
powerful
Ho and
of) N e o - D a r w i n i s m .
of human
of s e l e c t i o n
as a
New-Darwinism',
empirical
different
sounds.
with
throughout
metaphor
(versions
identify
introduction,
tion of the o r g a n i s m
In
'Beyond
so they deserve
to
it
processes
on e v o l u t i o n a r y
are p a r t i c u l a r l y
Fox
see
Mae-Wan
scientists
perspectives,
and
still
new h u m a n i s t i c
in the history
nary m e t a p h o r s humanistic
are
for a
or synthetic
as the core of
'Evolutionary
combination
They
and
is increasing.
of
to
debates
processes
1988.
regarded
biologists
regarding
her preface:
the conceptual
Ho
a
analysis
as a basis
in
been
the dissenters.
approaches
etc.,
the N e o - D a r w i n i a n
of Ho and Saunders'
for various
paradigm
Most
editors
The book offers
helpful
decades
are among
critical
conceptual
Chichester
but c r i t i c i s m
the
the successor
Evolutionary
(Eds.),
has g e n e r a l l y
biology.
Fox,
metaphors',
Fox
and Sons,
they
integraof this
a criticism argue
agent
that
working
322
upon passive nary
organisms
importance
levels,
from
tion, force.
(Goodwin)
to
not
Ho and
and that much of evolution
generate selection
assumption
and covert
in
at
unity over
of possible -
might
Oyama would
Oyama
in connection
Ho wants
with
this,
and
sees the
different
Though
Ho and
emphasis Still
different,
a
on the
these
On the
one hand
of
systems
separation (p. 121). But
be
related,
are
Ho,
approach
as and the
in her
here:
you
and external looks
view. is
the
a
one
to evolution.
Brian Goodwin
into
and
great differences
conflict
biologist
transformed
regards
To me Oyama's view
there
and a 'historical'
developmental
systems
organisms
(p. 259).
and Ho's anti-selectionist
should
agent and,
contradiction" internal
of the
internal
and selection
of
Susan
distinction
selecting
a separation
"serious
although
a 'rational'
definition
metaphorical
an active
interact
for selection
biology
the
selection,
for organism-environment
and interesting.
between
that
natural
here are two examples
not just the organism
between her approach - A
which
there are overt
differences.
with a
Within
continuously
against
consistent
of
away with
and
She opts
contribution,
forces
terms of
before
their views.
to do
against
evolve.
system as a whole,
can't be
not in
the processes
they seem to prefer
against
organisms
that
environment
own
the new paradigm
level
not be unimportant;
argues
forces.
the units
of
will agree:
scrutiny
be satisfied
between passive
external
evolutionary
interest:
While Mae-Wan
concept.
Oyama).
(p.13).
between
Fox are aware of some of them,
discrepancies
every
the book
discrepancies
paradigmatic
to
random nor arbitrary,
but through
variation
author
Ho)
shows that varia-
can be understood,
could be said to act"
Not every
Gray,
determining
are neither
of fitness,
form and
the
different
this idea as the core of the emerging
variation
the maximization
at
Pollard,
(Bateson,
this activity be
"The fundamental
form and
(Cullis,
behaviour
must
the evolutio-
organisms
to DNA
Fox all
even regard
new paradigm:
within
(Fox)
and
selection,
They
is that
forces
molecules
form-fields According
of
will not do. They stress
argues
more rational
323
science. form,
A
rational
that
determine
is
the
to Goodwin, stresses hand
laws
is p r i m a r i l y
the
internal
authors
like
argue
between
organisms
Although
the p r e v a i l i n g less
are
no unity. It
example, evolution turn
to
alternatives by vague
very
there
is
a
in
far
like
of a new
my opinion.
from clear,
out these
for
approach
differences
the
construction
This
undertaking
to may
of forceful is not
served
concepts. are
simple
deep anchors.
effective
and c o n v i n c i n g
If one takes
it is not only n e c e s s a r y
to d e v e l o p
book,
is c e r t a i n l y
'historical'
Working in
created
seriously
but also
and
of i n t e r a c t i o n
the a l t e r n a t i v e s
alarming
It
of N e w - D a r w i n i s m
developed
in science ones
is not at all attention.
and Patrick
the o u t l i n e s
in some respects
New-Darwinism.
The m e t a p h o r s and have
that
he thereby
in this
selection,
suggest
but
helpful
and h a s t i l y
enemies
which
according
On the other
Oyama
open process
of natural
in detail.
be to
organisms.
clear
laws of
field
Form,
fields;
Susan
are some
'rational'
differ
out
within
environment.
serious a
by such
Gray,
historically
The d i s u n i t y
how
determined
Ho and Fox
with
morphogenetic
and their
visible,
deserves
be c o n c e r n e d
of organisms.
relations
metaphor
clear.
paradigm
unity
Russell
for a
there
should
concerning
structural
Bateson
are
biology
metaphors
to c r i t i c i z e
old
alternatives.
Cor van der Weele Lucasbolwerk 3512
EH
14
Utrecht
The N e t h e r l a n d s
The
Leo W. Buss, University illustr.
evolution
Press,
Hardcover,
The author
of this
evolution
of
consistent
with
of
Princeton, U.S.
individuality, N.J.,
1987.
$ 40; paperback,
book
embryological Neo-Darwinism.
proposes
an
processes, Leo
Buss
Princeton
xv + 203 pp., U.S.
$ 12.95.
explanation from argues
a
52
of the
perspective (correctly,
I
324
believe)
that
either in the
Neo-Darwinism evolutionary
multicellularity, processes
(such
has
not
made enough emphasis,
transition
of
unicellularity to
or in how the more fundamental embryological as cleavage
patterns, gastrulation,
neurula-
tion, etc.) arose in evolution. The book
consists of
four chapters.
Buss critiques August Weissman's been
considered
Darwinism.
as
Briefly,
germ plasm
of
doctrine. This
fundamental
giving rise to gametes) early stage,
from
from
influences
inheritance of is considered
coming
the
acquired characteristics an impossibility.
says Buss, the
ontogeny
Second, tion
he
what is is
did
this
germ
Weissman proposed.
is separated
and is protected
latter.
Thus,
the
(in Lamarck's sense)
inheritance of acquired
perturbations occurring in
genetic material and not the germline.
in the great majority of
between
the
with the wrong theory. First,
isolated from the
Neo-
Buss proposes that, although
Weissman was right in questioning the characteristics,
for
in the individual,
from the somatoplasm at a very any
doctrine has
importance
it postulates that,
(germ cells,
In the first chapter,
and
existing phyla,
somatic
Usually,
the
lines
is
the separa-
not
embryo develops
as clear as from a group
of stem cells, which give rise to both germ and somatic lines. In many cases, individual.
stem cells persist
Moreover,
somatic
for the cells
cells. Therefore,
possibility for heritable mutants
calls them) to arise in somatic cells, and the germline. in
the
Lamarck's
This phenomenon,
course
of
of
sense,
while
must
acquired
first case, variants occur Darwinian
be
there
(or "variants" as he eventually pass to
the
distinguished
characteristics.
as somatic in
to
called "the origin of variants
ontogeny",
inheritance
of the
may dedifferentiate
stem cells and eventually become germ is the
whole life
mutations
second
in
variants
from In the
the Neoappear as
heritable ontogenetic adaptations. After this, Buss proposes his theory that evolutionary
organisms arose as variants Chimeric
(chapter 2). He argues
innovations in the development of the first
individuals
would
(mutations) produced have
appeared,
in ontogeny.
in which a given
325
(somatic)
cell
be normal, variant
lineage has mutated.
and
cell
the
other
line would
the next generation, would
be
organism, would
lineages
individuals
where
all
to
Buss,
between
normal
and
in
order
to
faster
the organism,
of reaching
the germline
a competition
between
sense.
between
different and
consisting
to
chimeric cell
lines
The cell
occupy more
to produce variants also,
of
where
normals.
for
their
It
would
cells
own
not be
has a higher
would
Only the variant
both their own replication
work at
and the second,
the organism
variant
in the Neo-
would
germline,
organisms.
the
In addition,
of the competition
variants
to the
sufficient
than
able
selection
cellular
of the selection
better
the
would also exist,
the first,
consisting
replicate
in
variant
descendants.
natural
the access
chance of survival;
The
and in
cells are variant
the individual. be
and having
organisms
levels:
the
would
mutant).
and would have a higher probability
Therefore,
two different
replication
occupy
(or
to the germ line,
According
replicating
favouring
variant
produced.
of
Darwinian
part,
have access
a competition
occur,
regions
Part of the organism would
and that of
have to
cell
lines
the organism
would be selected. From
my
r~plication
perspective, between
variant
convincing.
It
superior
normals
to
reasons.
Let
somatic
variation.
is
us
line
not in
On the
ment
to
matters in
for
their
a
a
factor
when
moment
the
variant
is
an
cells
replication,
but
of
by Buss)
produce
If
is the it is
than normals.
superior
too late
in their
in develop-
to the germline.
point),
is not to be superior to
in the
in the organism
slower
contribution important
to be
phylogenetic
appears.
be variants
significant
is not
cells
that mutations
of variants
but arising
lines
for
for the following
source
variant
numbers
cells,
(and this
cell variant
(not discussed
there may
to normal
make
Furthermore
for
even if they replicate
other hand,
replication
for
the relative
will be elevated,
normal
important
important
early enough,
and
of the competition
their replication,
an
period of development
concept
necessary
grant
were
An
the
enough
what
really
than normals gametes
to
326 guarantee
the
chimeric
individual
descendants, selection
and at
evolutionary In the about na.
reproduction
the mutants
the
level
advantage
Although
theoretical
in
different tion
cell
(i.e.,
occurs
of
arising
having
3, Buss
speculates
embryological hypotheses fit
they
problem
"variant"
phenomeare
in
very
the above
appears
here.
denotes
mutant
examples,
If in
embryological
differentia-
etc.).
The c o m p e t i t i o n
cell
within
the organism,
For example,
of the
inducing
inducing
embryonic
tissue
induction
tissue.
is favoured
now that
that results
of the induced tissue
cell
this word denotes
ectoderm,
identical.
of the
by natural
types.
how
types
A
normal
thereby
proposes
during
in the p r o l i f e r a t i o n
replication
be favoured
organism,
in chapter
given
different
seen as a strategy decrease
than
of many
the word
endoderm,
are g e n e t i c a l l y
mutant
the normal
clear
the
types
between
less
An a d d i t i o n a l
scheme
many
organisms.
still
2 and
the
not
scheme.
the t h e o r e t i c a l lines,
of
is
mutant
the
origins
some it
may
of
over
the e v o l u t i o n a r y
enough
produce
rest of chapter
interesting,
the
may
of
in
is
in a
Thus,
the
relation
to
induced. We
have
variants, cell
then
and
This
that
replication.
cell
the r e p l i c a t i o n
it occurs
to
variants
of a cell
the tissue
is b e c a u s e
with
access
will
be p h e n o t y p i c a l l y
tissue; of
be enough
that
some growth
that
and
some
factor
(3)
is (I)
it
(2)
not
favour
and this
to a t t r i b u t e
in any
of the cell the
the
need
the
favoured
cell
type
type
that
future
genera-
itself to
replication
increased
for the
may
own
for the o r g a n i s m
localize
their
the
their
in its replication.
in
not
does
cells
specific
favoured may occur
will
identical
to others,
of survival
regardless
enhancing
other
a mutation
in relation
affected;
mutation
the cells
increase
context,
between
even more muddy
to
it is a mistake
to the germline,
phenotype
genetically
makes
tend
type
the m u t a t i o n
genetic
particular
between
chances
However,
This
the
of the c o m p e t i t i o n
interpretation
in increased
or its descendants.
tions,
form
In a N e o - D a r w i n i a n
may result
mutation
second
is that
types.
concept
a
in any
change
the
- it would
production cells.
of
In other
327
words,
although
change
there
the relative
mutations
occur
may
numbers
in the
different
advantageous
of cell
genetic
and not in a particular how the
be
cell
in
that
the organisms,
system of the whole organism,
line.
cell types
types
mutations
Therefore,
it is
not clear
in the organism may favour their
own replication. In
the
fourth
description -
and
of changes
last
chapter,
of units of selection
origin of eukaryotes,
of societies,
effort
in
the theoretical
processes.
fundamental
problem.
that he proposes, such
as
the
interesting. particular
In
consider
being
However,
Buss
the
Also,
some
phenomena,
origin
Weissman's
of
the
of
subject,
of developa
solution the book are
very
presented
about
as well.
anyone
serious
recognizing
doctrine,
hypotheses
developmental
it as an obligatory
is
Some parts of
of
are attractive the
the first
type of general
does not satisfy me.
be the only book on evolutionary
sense,
his
to other contexts
study of the evolution
this
critique
generalizes
etc.
This book has the merit of possibly
mental
Buss
Since this may
interested
processes
in the
will have to
reading.
Francisco
Aboitiz
Neuroscience 73-346
Center
University
for the Health
of California, California
Office
Sciences
Los Angeles
90024,
U.S.A.