1006 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
most fossil species) that its results should generally lie on a bedding plane, not
through the thick sedimentary sequence of a long hillslope ... It [gradualism]
represents, first of all, an incorrect translation of conventional allopatry.
Allopatric speciation seems so slow and gradual in ecological time that most
paleontologists never recognized it as a challenge to the style of gradualism—
steady change over millions of years—promulgated by custom as a model for
the history of life (p. 125).Finally, I stressed that the radical implications of punctuated equilibrium lay in
proposed explanations for such macroevolutionary phenomena as cladal trends, not in
any proposal for altered mechanisms of microevolution: "Evolutionary trends
therefore represent a third level superposed upon speciation and change within demes
... Since trends 'use' species as their raw material, they represent a process at a
higher level than speciation itself. They reflect a sorting out of speciation events...
What we call 'anagenesis,' and often attempt to delineate as a separate phyletic
process leading to 'progress,' is just accumulated cladogenesis filtered through the
directing force of species selection."
IN TRES PARTES DIVISA EST: THE 'URBAN LEGEND' OF PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM'S
THREEFOLD HISTORY. The opponents of punctuated equilibrium have constructed a
fictional history of the theory, primarily (I suppose) as a largely unconscious
expression of their hope for its minor importance, and their jealousy towards its
authors. This history even features a definite sequence of stages, constructed to match
a classic theme of Western sagas: the growth, exposure and mortification of hubris
(try Macbeth as a prototype, but he dies before reaching the final stage of penance; so
try Faust instead, who lusts for the world and ends up finding satisfaction in draining
a swamp). This supposed threefold history of punctuated equilibrium also ranks about
as close to pure fiction as any recent commentary by scientists has ever generated.
In stage one, the story goes, we were properly modest, obedient to the
theoretical hegemony of the Modern Synthesis, and merely trying to bring paleon-
tology into the fold. But the prospect of worldly fame beguiled us, so we broke our
ties of fealty and tried, in stage two, to usurp power by painting punctuated
equilibrium as a revolutionary doctrine that would dethrone the Synthesis, resurrect
the memory of the exiled martyr (Richard Goldschmidt), and reign over a
reconstructed realm of theory. But we were too big for our breeches, and the old
guard still retained some life. They fought back mightily and effectively, exposing
our bombast and emptiness. We began to hedge, retreat, and apologize, and have
been doing so ever since in an effort to regain grace and, chastened in stage three, to
sit again, in heaven or Valhalla, with the evolutionary elite.
Such farfetched fiction suffers most of all from an internal construction that
precludes exposure and falsification among true believers, whatever the evidence.
Purveyors of this myth even name the three stages, thus solidifying the false
taxonomy. Dawkins (1986), for example, speaks of the "grandiloquent