Anatomy Morphology

Anatomy
or morphology
Descriptions of external form and internal organization are among the earliest
records available regarding the systematic study of animals. Aristotle was
an indefatigable collector and dissector of animals. He found differing degrees
of structural complexity, which he described with regard to ways of living,
habits, and body parts. Although Aristotle had no formal
system of classification, it is apparent that he viewed animals as arranged
from the simplest to the most complex in an ascending series. Since man was
even more complex than animals and, moreover, possessed a rational faculty,
he therefore occupied the highest position and a special category. This
hierarchical perception of the animate world proved to be useful in every
century to the present, except that in the modern view there is no such “scale
of nature,” and there is change in time by evolution from the simple to the
complex.
After the time of Aristotle, Mediterranean science was centred at Alexandria,

where the study of anatomy, particularly the central nervous system,
flourished and, in fact, first became recognized as a discipline. Galen studied
anatomy at Alexandria in the 2nd century and later dissected many animals.
Much later, the contributions of the Renaissance anatomist Andreas Vesalius,
though made in the context of medicine, as were those of Galen, stimulated to
a great extent the rise of comparative anatomy. During the latter part of the
15th century and throughout the 16th century, there was a strong tradition in
anatomy; important similarities were observed in the anatomy of different
animals, and many illustrated books were published to record these
observations.
But anatomy remained a purely descriptive science until the advent

of functional considerations in which the correlation between structure and
function was consciously investigated; as by French biologists Buffon
and Cuvier. Cuvier cogently argued that a trained naturalist could deduce
from one suitably chosen part of an animal’s body the complete set
of adaptations that characterized the organism. Because it was obvious that
organisms with similar parts pursue similar habits, they were placed together
in a system of classification. Cuvier pursued this viewpoint, which he called
the theory of correlations, in a somewhat dogmatic manner and placed
himself in opposition to the romantic natural philosophers, such as the
German intellectual Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, who saw a tendency to
ideal types in animal form. The tension between these schools of thought—
adaptation as the consequence of necessary bodily functions and adaptation as
an expression of a perfecting principle in nature—runs as a leitmotiv through
much of biology, with overtones extending into the early 20th century.
The twin concepts of homology (similarity of origin) and analogy (similarity of

appearance), in relation to structure, are the creation of the 19th-century
British anatomist Richard Owen. Although they antedate the Darwinian view
of evolution, the anatomical data on which they were based became, largely as
a result of the work of the German comparative anatomist Carl Gegenbaur,
important evidence in favour of evolutionary change, despite Owen’s steady
unwillingness to accept the view of diversification of life from a common
origin.
In summary, anatomy moved from a purely descriptive phase as an adjunct to

classificatory studies, into a partnership with studies of function and became,
in the 19th century, a major contributor to the concept of evolution.
Taxonomy or systematics
Not until the work of Carolus Linnaeus did the variety of life receive a widely
accepted systematic treatment. Linnaeus strove for a “natural method of
arrangement,” one that is now recognizable as an intuitive grasp of
homologous relationships, reflecting evolutionary descent from a common
ancestor; however, the natural method of arrangement sought
by Linnaeus was more akin to the tenets of idealized morphology because he
wanted to define a “type” form as epitomizing a species.
Carolus Linnaeus: Systema Naturae

It was in the nomenclatorial aspect of classification that Linnaeus created a
revolutionary advance with the introduction of a Latin binomial system: each
species received a Latin name, which was not influenced by local names and
which invoked the authority of Latin as a language common to the learned
people of that day. The Latin name has two parts. The first word in the Latin
name for the common chimpanzee, Pan troglodytes, for example, indicates
the larger category, or genus, to which chimpanzees belong; the second word
is the name of the species within the genus. In addition to species and genera,
Linnaeus also recognized other classificatory groups, or taxa (singular taxon),
which are still used; namely, order, class, and kingdom, to which have been
added family (between genus and order) and phylum (between class and
kingdom). Each of these can be divided further by the appropriate prefix of
sub- or super-, as in subfamily or superclass. Linnaeus’ great work,
the Systema naturae, went through 12 editions during his lifetime; the 13th,
and final, edition appeared posthumously. Although his treatment of
the diversity of living things has been expanded in detail, revised in terms of
taxonomic categories, and corrected in the light of continuing work—for
example, Linnaeus treated whales as fish—it still sets the style and method,
even to the use of Latin names, for contemporary nomenclatorial work.
Linnaeus sought a natural method of arrangement, but he actually defined

types of species on the basis of idealized morphology. The greatest change
from Linnaeus’ outlook is reflected in the phrase “the new systematics,” which
was introduced in the 20th century and through which an explicit effort is
made to have taxonomic schemes reflect evolutionary history. The basic unit
of classification, the species, is also the basic unit of evolution—
i.e., a population of actually or potentially interbreeding individuals. Such a
population shares, through interbreeding, its genetic resources. In so doing, it
creates the gene pool—its total genetic material—that determines the
biological resources of the species and on which natural selection continuously
acts. This approach has guided work on classifying animals away from
somewhat arbitrary categorization of new species to that of recreating
evolutionary history (phylogeny) and incorporating it in the system of
classification. Modern taxonomists or systematists, therefore, are among the
foremost students of evolution.

Anatomy Morphology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anatomy Morphology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anatomy Morphology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anatomy

After the time of Aristotle, Mediterranean science was centred at Alexandria,

But anatomy remained a purely descriptive science until the advent

The twin concepts of homology (similarity of origin) and analogy (similarity of

In summary, anatomy moved from a purely descriptive phase as an adjunct to

Carolus Linnaeus: Systema Naturae

Linnaeus sought a natural method of arrangement, but he actually defined

You might also like