REVIEWS EDITED BY WILLIAM E. SOUTHERN Thefollowing reviews express the opinions of theindividual reviewers regarding the strengths, weaknesses, and valueof thebooks they review. As such, they are subjective evaluations and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editorsor any officialpolicy of theA.O.U.--Eds. The growth of biological thought. Diversity, evo- tually lighter numbers of Nebelspalter!I then decided lution, and inheritance.--Ernst Mayr. 1982. Cam- that I must use "prime time," for me, 5-9 AM. This bridge, Massachusetts,Belknap Press of Harvard I did at first with reluctance,knowing that it would University Press. ix + 974 pp. $30.00.--Although slow the productivity of my laboratoryin the cur- contemporarybiologists accept, at least pro forrna, rencyof the contemporaryrealm of biosciences--the "organicevolution" as the majorunifying concept of (usuallyshort) research paper--and possibly thereby our science,surprisingly few can articulate the five constrict its cash flow. However, the more I read, the theoriesof CharlesDarwin (pp. 505-510);even fewer easier I found it to rationalize away these ominous can readily musterthe supportingevidence for and thoughts.Only time will tell if my rationalization the fallibilities of each,real or alleged.Few of us have was a grave overshoot. I doubt that it was! a clearperception of the scientific,philosophic, and This historic book can be characterizedin many socialmilieus of the mid-nineteenthcentury when ways. Depending on aspect,it is compendious,an- the historic pronouncementsof A. R. Wallace and alytical, and synthetic.The reader will soon recog- Darwin severely rattled the intellectual scaffold of nize that it is in placesselective, pontifical, and opin- Westernculture. Only somewhatbetter appreciated ionated. But to avoid these characteristics of is the enormouspost-Darwinian schism that emerged decisiveness, for which the author is well known, with the rediscoveryof Mendel'slaws. This schism, would require three times as many pages.The text fosteredby seeminglyirreconcilable philosophic and is alsorepetitious. But the historyof biologyis one methodologicdifferences and unnecessarilyand of historiesof many inter-relatedideas which have fecklesslyvituperative communications,persisted for been temporally asynchronousand intermittent, almosta half century.The eliminationof this schism often, for various reasons,evolving in mutual iso- by eclecticsynthesis, in which ErnstMayr playeda lation. Thus, in a treatise of this magnitude repeti- majorrole, hasresulted in a unity of biologythat has tion becomes both essential and inevitable. not heretoforeexisted. This participationin the clo- Mayr expressesrepeatedly the historicallydelete- sure of the schism and his almost incredible knowl- rious influenceof physicssensu lato (i.e. physical edgeof the entire historyof Westernbiology and the sciences)on the developmentof biology,sensu stricto ever-shifting intellectualmilieus in which it evolved that of the naturalistsor, more recently,the evolu- placesMayr in a unique position to produce "the tionarybiologists. It is true that physicistslong as- growth of biologicalthought." A synthetictreatise sumed that natural scienceis physicsand that other of this magnitudecould be undertakenonly by a "natural-science"disciplines are "acceptable"in the courageousgenius or a fool. The authoris clearlynot order of adherenceto the philosophyand method- a fool! ologies of physicists.This stems in part from the Deviating from conventionalityin reviews, a word simplistic belief that life should somehow be ex- of explanationis in order concerningits preparation plainablein terms of conventionallaws of physics by a "non"-evolutionarybiologist sensu stricto. When and a failureto contendwith the "programmed"his- I departed from the University last summer for a tory of both phylogenyand the developmentof the 5-week visit in the USSR, I askedmy former secre- individual. On the other hand, the conflict has been tary to respondto incomingpost, either transmitting unwittingly abetted, first by naturalistsand later by requestedinformation in consultationwith persons evolutionarybiologists (but not by molecularbiolo- in my laboratoryor by simpleacknowledgments say- gists, physiologists,and many ecologists),by a fail- ing that I would respondin September.By accepting ure to recognizethat organismsare not exemptions the invitation for me to review this book she unwit- to the laws of physics.Nevertheless, in principle, I tingly, but hopefully,may have provided a smallbit agreewith Mayr that "... the lasttwenty-five years of cementfor the contemporaryunity of biologypro- have alsoseen the final emancipationof biologyfrom claimedwithin its pages.I firstresorted to an attempt the physicalsciences," and with his assertionof the to read this book as a spare-time effort. It was inef- centralityof biology among the natural sciences.Un- fective. I even attemptedto read it during a sojourn fortunately,these conclusions have yet to be recog- in hospitalbut its physicalweight proved to be in- nized by either university administrations in allo- compatiblewith my intravenousglucose-saline drip cation of resourcesor by the federalbureaucracy in tube! I switchedto reading physicallyand intellec- the selectionof scientificadvisory bodies! 507 508 Reviews [Auk, Vol. 100 From time to time Mayr discussesan isolatinggap, spring and early summer. For those in which the first between "the herbalist-naturalists" and "phy- annualcycle in daylengthfunctions as a Zeitgeberfor sician-physiologists"of the sixteenthcentury, then an endogenouscircannual rhythm, there is also no betweenthe "naturalists"and "physiologists"of the evidencethat decreasingdaylength induces the au- nineteenth century, and then later between "evolu- tumnal eventsof the annual cycle.Although I respect tionary biology" and "functionalbiology." Clearly the intuition of the author, a much sounder example this gap or, more properly, series of gaps, persists could have been selected. today. It is my assessment,however, that Mayr has It is, in a sense, cruel harassment to fret about bothoverly simplified and indeedcaricaturized these omissions in an otherwise masterful compendium. gaps. To characterizefunctional biologistsas con- Nevertheless, unfortunate is the omission of the cernedonly with proximatefactors blurs the picture. emergenceof the conceptof the temporal organiza- An examinationof the pages of Zeitschriftfar ver- tion of life, including endogenousrhythms entrain- gleichendePhysiologie, Journal of ExperimentalBiology, able by temporalcycles in the physicalenvironment. PhysicalZoology, and, morerecently, of the American The inception of this important development is at Journalof Physiology,Journal far Ornithologie,Zool- leastas earlyas the pioneerexperiment of de Mairan ogicheskiiZhurnal, Auk, Condor,and many otherpe- early in the eighteenthcentury. Circadianrhythms, riodicals, revealsa significantnumber of contribu- characteristicof most eukaryotesand entrained by tions that overtly take into account and provide the physical24-h cycleof day and night, provide a information that contributesto an understanding of basis for chronometryand prediction of a type not ultimate factors;in many more the contributionsare included in the multiple aspectsof the term dis- implicit. Comparativerenal studiesof vertebrates, cussedby the author(pp. 56-57). It is indeedunfor- which have their roots in the nineteenth century, tunate that the author fails to include the contribu- have made significant contributions to an under- tions of chronobiologyto the unity of contemporary standing of both proximate and ultimate factors. I biology that he so eloquentlyproclaims. would suggestrather sharplythat, ratherthan a gap, These are times in which the fairness of honest, the difference between evolutionary biology and well-meaning, but modestly informed laymen are functionalbiology has been one of a unidirectional exploitedby insidiousbut cunninglyfabricated pleas valve! It is true that, in contrast with most evolu- of "creation scientists"for "equal time" with biol- tionary biologists,functional biologists are generally ogistsin instructionon the origin and diversity of reductioniststo varying extents.But, unlessit is the life on this planet. Despite recentdecisions in lower overriding goal, as is sometimesthe case,reduction courts, the zeal and adroitness of "creation scien- contributesto the unifying conceptof evolution by tists" will sustain the enthusiasmof some religious- revelation of commonness in structural and func- ly-oriented groups that will recruit the support of tional elementsand of the machineryof inheritance, fair-minded but uninformed laymen. This perilous including the mechanismsof expressionof inherited influence could outlive the youngest readers of the information. What would be the contemporarystatus readersof this review. An especiallydevastating cor- of our knowledgeof evolutionwithout the resultsof ollary of disbelief in evolutionis the increasinglyef- the reductionistefforts of cytogenetics,electron mi- fective effort to suppressthe use of certain species croscopyof chromosomes,and molecularbiology? of animals (but curiously, or perhaps strategically, Becauseof Mayr's expressionof contemporaryunity not yet plants, "lower animals," protistans,and mo- in biology, this paragraphis in no sensea criticism nerans) as experimental subjects.It behooves biol- of his perception of biology as it is today. Rather it ogists,especially those who teachin the schools,col-