↓ Skip to main content

Functional Morphology in Paleobiology: Origins of the Method of ‘Paradigms’

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Functional Morphology in Paleobiology: Origins of the Method of ‘Paradigms’
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10739-017-9478-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin J. S. Rudwick

Abstract

From the early nineteenth century, the successful use of fossils in stratigraphy oriented paleontology (and particularly the study of fossil invertebrates) towards geology. The consequent marginalising of biological objectives was countered in the twentieth century by the rise of 'Paläobiologie', first in the German cultural area and only later, as 'paleobiology', in the anglophone world. Several kinds of paleobiological research flourished internationally after the Second World War, among them the novel field of 'paleoecology'. Within this field there were attempts to apply functional morphology to the problematical cases of fossil organisms, for which functions cannot be observed directly. This article describes the origins of the kind of functional inference for fossils that I proposed in 1961 as the method of 'paradigms' (a year before Thomas Kuhn made that word more widely familiar with a quite different meaning). Here I summarize some of my 'worked exemplars', which were intended to show the paradigm method in action. These case-studies were all taken from the paleontologically important phylum of the Brachiopoda, but the method was claimed to have much wider implications for the interpretation of the fossil record in terms of adaptive evolution. This article takes the history of the paradigm method as far as the late 1960s. I hope to trace, in a sequel, its ambivalent fate during the 1970s and beyond, when for example Gould's critique of 'the adaptationist programme' and the rise of computer-based quantitative methods for the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record led to the relative eclipse of functional morphology in paleontology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Other 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Earth and Planetary Sciences 8 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 20%
Environmental Science 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Philosophy 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 8 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 May 2022.
All research outputs
#14,061,899
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#385
of 484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,499
of 310,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 310,587 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.