Embryology References

Mark D. Garfinkel mg16 at kimbark.uchicago.edu
Sun Dec 25 09:46:03 EST 1994


In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.941224150113.27999D-100000 at toliman.cc.umanitoba.ca> gordonr at cc.UManitoba.CA (Richard Gordon) writes:
>The basics of embryology are either: 1) well understood; or 2) in total 
>disarray, depending on who you read. Viewpoint 2 has not made it into 
>textbooks yet. As an outsider, the problem is to distinguish observations 
>from their interpretation according to popular models. I always start 
>students off with:
>
>Twitty, V.C. (1966). Of Scientists and Salamanders. San Francisco: W.H. 
>Freeman and Co. 

	Lewis Wolpert wrote a slim science-for-laymen volume called "The
Triumph of the Embryo" back in 1991. I caught a couple of minor errors,
but he seemed to do a very good job of describing the fundamental problems
and experimental results in developmental biology, providing a very
contemporary look at the subject.

	Now Dr. Gordon's comment about "total disarray" is quite mysterious
to me. You seem to imply that, to you as an "outsider", the developmental
biology field appears to have generally confused hypothesis with experiment,
in order to promote certain popular models. Would you please elaborate?

Mark
-- 
Mark D. Garfinkel (e-mail: garfinkl at iitmax.acc.iit.edu)
My views are my own, which is why they're copyright 1994 (c)
I post from here only because of miscellaneous news problems there.



More information about the Mol-evol mailing list