Haeckel in Biology Textbooks

I do not believe Haeckel did this, in his own words:

quote:

---

Many naturalists have especially blamed the diagrammatic figures given in Anthropogeny. Certain technical embryologists have brought most severe accusations against me on this account, and have advised me to substitute a large number of elaborated figures, as accurate as possible. I, however, consider that diagrams are much instructive than such figures, especially in popular scientific works. For each simple diagrammatic figure gives only those essential form-features which it is intended to explain, and omits all those unessential details which in finished, exact figures, generally rather disturb and confuse then instruct and explain. The more complex are the form-features, the do simple diagrams help to make them intelligible. For this reason, the few diagrammatic figures, simple and rough as they were, with which Baer half a century ago accompanied his well-known "History of the Evolution of Animals," have been more serviceable in rendering the matter intelligible than all the numerous and very careful figures, elaborated with the aid of camera lucida, which now adorn the splendid and costly atlases of His, Goette and others. If it is said that my diagrammatic figures are "inaccurate", and a charge of "falsifying science" is brought against me, this is equally true of all the very numerous diagrams which are daily used in teaching. All diagrammatic figures are "inaccurate".
  —Earnst Haeckel

---

(From the preface to the third edition of The Evolution of Man, vol. 1)To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single feature in Haeckel's drawings that is not present in the real embryos. Haeckel's purpose in "fudging" the drawings was, it seems in the context of his work, not to misleadingly emphasise his case but to show the features clearly to those not familiar with looking at biological organisms.And, frankly, I don't find this unreasonable. It's pretty much standard practice when explaining anything to use diagrams that omit extraneous detail to the point you're making, no-one is going to look a this diagram and complain it's "fudged": yet it is further from reality than Haeckel's drawings.

That's because - gasp - they are.Really, if you're going to criticise science textbooks you should bother to learn some science first.

Am I to understand, then, that you have no actual answer to his reasoning?

We should be cautious about overstating the similarity of early embryonic stages; while there are significant similarities in embryonic development both at the macroscopic and biochemical levels; the phylotypic stage as presented by Haeckel (and others) is a simplification.ref: Richardson, M.K., Hanken, J., Gooneratne, M.L., Pieau, C., Raynaud. A., Selwood, L. and Wright, G.M. (1997): There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anatomy and Embryology 196(2): 91-106

Can you identify a single labelled feature in Haeckel's drawings that is not present in the real embryos?You throw around terms like 'lie' and 'fraud' with casual abandon, yet the central point that there is not a single feature in Haeckel's drawings not present in real embryos remains.

I repeat my request of Message 33, please identify a single feature present in Haeckel's drawings that is not present in the real embryos?(edit)You can find photos (not drawings) of the Carnegie Stages of human embryos here, and of photos of Mice, Chicken, Fish, Amphibians and Sea Urchin embryos in various stages hereEdited by Mr Jack, : Provided linksEdited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

It's exactly the point; the features described by Haeckel do exist, and are most similar in more closely related species. You keep claiming fraud; when there is none. Haeckel's embryos are no more fraudulent than any other diagram. Haeckel isn't trying to convince; he's trying to explain. Just as modern textbooks are.The difference being of course, that Haeckel's theory was wrong.

As they are in the drawings.Of course the features are clearer in the drawings; that's because - gasp - they're drawings. In the photos you have the embryos in different positions and poses, with different stains and in different lighting, you have the differences inherent between any two biological specimens and you have the difficulty of the untrained eye identifying the important features of a real specimen.To be fraudulent, the drawings would have to show features that aren't there - they don't. And this remains the key point.

If you follow my original link you'll see they're examples from a lesson on teaching people how to extract and prepare embryos for study.It was chosen simply as the best examples I could quickly find on the web of actual embryo photos.

You've already posted an image clearly showing pharangeal arches (aka gill slits) in humans. Labelled 2 & 3. If you'd gone on to the next carnegie stage you can see the 4th arch.