↓ Skip to main content

Before hierarchy: the rise and fall of Stephen Jay Gould’s first macroevolutionary synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Before hierarchy: the rise and fall of Stephen Jay Gould’s first macroevolutionary synthesis
Published in
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40656-017-0133-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Max W. Dresow

Abstract

Few of Stephen Jay Gould's accomplishments in evolutionary biology have received more attention than his hierarchical theory of evolution, which postulates a causal discontinuity between micro- and macroevolutionary events. But Gould's hierarchical theory was his second attempt to supply a theoretical framework for macroevolutionary studies-and one he did not inaugurate until the mid-1970s. In this paper, I examine Gould's first attempt: a proposed fusion of theoretical morphology, multivariate biometry and the experimental study of adaptation in fossils. This early "macroevolutionary synthesis" was predicated on the notion that parallelism and convergence dominate the history of higher taxa, and moreover, that they can be explained in terms of adaptation leading to mechanical improvement. In this paper, I explore the origins and contents of Gould's first macroevolutionary synthesis, as well as the reasons for its downfall. In addition, I consider how various developments during the mid-1970s led Gould to identify hierarchy and constraint as the leading themes of macroevolutionary studies-and adaptation as a macroevolutionary red herring.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Professor 2 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 10%
Philosophy 1 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2017.
All research outputs
#7,765,693
of 25,079,481 outputs
Outputs from History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
#176
of 490 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,094
of 314,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
#2
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,079,481 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 490 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.