1004 THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and
that transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the
events that take place within populations and species."
Second, I talked about the theory being dead "as a general proposition," not dead
period. In the full context of my commentary on Mayr's definition, and my
qualification about death as a full generality, what is wrong with my statement? I did
not proclaim the death of Darwinism, or even of the strictest form of the Modern
Synthesis. I stated, for an audience interested in macro-evolutionary theory, that
Mayr's definition (not the extreme statement of a marginal figure, but an explicit
characterization by the world's greatest expert in his most famous book)—with its
two restrictive claims for (1) "all evolution" due to natural selection of small genetic
changes, and (2) transspecific evolution as "nothing but" the extrapolation of
microevolutionary events— must be firmly rejected if macroevolutionary theory
merits any independent status, or features any phenomenology requiring causal
explanation in its own domain. If we embrace Mayr's definition, then the synthesis is
"effectively dead" "as a general proposition"—that is, as a theory capable of
providing a full and exclusive explanation of macroevolutionary phenomena.
Wouldn't most evolutionary biologists agree with my statement today?
Nonetheless, I was reviled in many quarters, and in prose far more intemperate
and personal than anything I ever wrote, for proclaiming the death of Darwinism, and
the forthcoming enshrinement of my own theory as a replacement (see, for example,
A. Huxley, 1982; Thompson, 1983; Cain, 1988; Vogel, 1983; Ayala, 1982; Stebbins
and Ayala, 1981a and b; Mayr, 1982a; and Grant, 1983, under the title: "The
synthetic theory strikes back").
Many reasons underlie this error, and I do accept some responsibility for my
flavorful prose (but not for any lack of clarity in intended meaning, or for any
statement stronger than Mayr's dismissive words about my own profession of
macroevolution). One common reason, perhaps the most prominent of all, arises from
careless scholarship and cannot be laid at my doorstep. I provided the full quotation
that offended so many colleagues, along with Mayr's accompanying words, so
necessary to grasp the definition that I used. But my statement is usually quoted in
deceptively abridged form, leading to a false reading clearly opposite to what I
intended. I usually find my words cited in the following abridgment: "The synthetic
theory ... is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." Much
commentary has been based upon this truncated and distorted version, not on my
actual words. Fill in those three dots before you fire.
HOMO UNIUS LIBRI. An old and anonymous Latin proverb states: cave ab homine
unius libri—beware the man of one book. I do appreciate the attention that
punctuated equilibrium has received, and, as a fallible mortal, I am not adverse to the
recognition that this debate has brought me. But as a curious and general
consequence of extensive publicity for a single achievement, the totality of one's
work then tends to be read as a long and unitary commentary upon this singular idea
or accomplishment. The Latin motto should therefore be read from both ends: we
should be wary of a person who