1010 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
at higher levels—the 'classic' macroevolutionary trend—is a consequence of
punctuation in the evolution of species. It does not deny that allopatric speciation
occurs gradually in ecological time (though it might not—see Carson, 1975), but only
asserts that this scale is a geological microsecond."
We have never changed this conviction, and we have always tried to correct any
confusion of scaling between saltation and punctuation, even in papers written during
the supposed apogee of our revolutionary ardor, during illusory stage 2 of the urban
legend. For example, under the heading of "The relationship of punctuated
equilibrium to macromutation," I wrote in 1982c (p. 88): "Punctuated equilibrium is
not a theory of macromutation ... it is not a theory of any genetic process ... It is a
theory about larger-scale patterns—the geometry of speciation in geological time. As
with ecologically rapid modes of speciation, punctuated equilibrium welcomes
macromutation as a source for the initiation of species: the faster the better. But
punctuated equilibrium clearly does not require or imply macromutation, since it was
formulated as the expected geological consequence of Mayrian allopatry."
An interlude on sources of error
With such limited skills in sociology and psychology, and from too close a personal
and partisan standpoint, I cannot claim much insight into the general sources of
persistent nonscientific errors among professional colleagues. But I wish to offer a
few thoughts, at least to separate what Eldredge and I must own from the truly unfair,
and often intemperate, charges so often made against us.
Any complex situation arises from multiple causes, with inevitable shortcomings
on both sides of any basically dichotomous issue. But when I list our own faults and
failures, I find nothing of great depth, and no indication of any sustained stupidity,
carelessness, lack of clarity, or malfeasance. Thus, I continue to feel far more
aggrieved than intemperate—although I wouldn't give up this lifetime's intellectual
adventure for any alternative construction of a scientific career.
For our part, I think that critics can identify three sources of potential confusion
that might legitimately be laid at our doorstep, and might have been prevented had
our crystal ball been clearer.
- In our original paper (Eldredge and Gould, 1972), but not subsequently, we
failed to explain, in a sufficiently didactic and explicit manner, that when
paleontologists use such terms as "rapid," "sudden," or "instantaneous," they refer to
expressions of events at geological scales, and not to rates of change in
microevolutionary time. But we cannot be blamed for anything more than a failure to
anticipate the range of interest that our paper would generate. After all, we wrote this
paper for paleontologists, and never expected a wider audience. We used the standard
terminology of our profession, well known and understood by all members of the
clan. Indeed, few non-paleontologists ever read this original article, published in an
obscure symposium volume with a small press run. From 1977 on, in all papers
widely read