4.2 Article

Organic form and evolution: the morphological problem in twentieth-century italian biology

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s40656-022-00534-7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Projekt DEAL

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines the efforts in evolution research to understand form's structure in Italy during the first half of the twentieth century. It analyzes how the organic approach in biology and the study of organic form merged in the research agendas of Colosi and Levi. The paper provides a nuanced understanding of the organicism movement by highlighting the significance of morphology in Italian-speaking biology.
This paper examines the efforts in evolution research to understand form's structure that developed in Italy during the first half of the twentieth century. In particular, it analyzes how the organic approach in biology and the study of organic form merged in the morphological research agendas of Giuseppe Colosi (1892-1975) and Giuseppe Levi (1872-1965). These biologists sought to understand form's inner composition and structure. First, I will briefly outline the morphological practices and frameworks used to study form changes and structures in the early twentieth century. Second, I will discuss what the Italian biologist Antonio Pensa (1874-1970) called the morphological problem. Third, I will examine Colosi's response to the morphological problem. Fourth, I will analyze Levi's morphological research program. As a result, this paper paves the way for a more nuanced and varied picture of the so-called organicism movement in the first half of the twentieth century by calling attention to morphology as practiced in Italian-speaking biology. In fact, alongside dialectical materialism and holistic biology, two of the main strands within organicism, the architectural approach to evolution as practiced in Italy and elsewhere had a profound impact on twentieth- and twenty-first-century organicism specifically and on evolutionary biology generally.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据