Your nominations? Mine below....
Charles Darwin
R.A. Fisher
Sewall Wright
J.B.S. Haldane
Motoo Kimura
Ernst Mayr
Richard Lewontin
J. M. Smith
W.D. Hamilton
Theodosius Dobzhansky
I chose based on subjective criteria, and the individuals above differ a great deal. Lewontin has done good work, but mostly I put him on the list because I think the paper co-authored with Hubby in the 1960s was an inflection point which signalled the end a long period of torpidity. I don't think much of Mayr's theoretical projects (see the problems with his "genetic revolutions" or "founder flush" verbal models, though later workers have done the mathematical heavy lifting to salvage them, for example, see Alan Templeton's work with "translience"). But, he was a cog who was at the center of different movements, a synthesizer who shaped how the Modern Synthesis was channeled via journals like Evolution. His mediation of Sewall Wright's ideas in regard to population substructure is also significant. Of course, Darwin, Fisher and Wright are cases where I don't think any apologia is necessary.
Off the list, but I considered:
James Crow
Karl Pearson
E.B. Ford
George C. Williams
T. H. Huxley
There is a method to the madness, I'm thinking about writing a small script to generate "Which evolutionary biologist are you?" Think it might be fun.
- Log in to post comments
Additions:
E. Ray Lankester
I. I. Schmalhausen
Willi Hennig
Alfred Russel Wallace
E. B. Poulton
Conrad Hal Waddington
Nico Tinbergen
Konrad Lorenz [despite being a Nazi]
[And it's J. Maynard Smith]
we overlap on a few: Darwin, Fisher, Wright, Hamilton, Dobzhansky, Maynard Smith (might want to write his name out that way or people might get confused, as I did for a second)
But I'd throw in Trivers without a doubt. And I think E.O. Wilson should be up there as well, not necessarily because of anything he's done personally but for his work in advancing sociobiology. I'm a fan of GG Simpson in some ways as well.
I think Garret Hardin could very well be on that list in 50 years when the import of what he tried to do is better understood, though.
Argh I can't think of a single person from bioanth who should be nominated. Upsetting.
I. I. Schmalhausen
yes. i considered this, and since you seconded my thought, i should add him to my list. as for the others, there are reasons why i disagree and don't think they are in contention (e.g. wallace's views are a subset of darwin's, not a complement, from what i can gather).
But I'd throw in Trivers without a doubt. And I think E.O. Wilson should be up there as well
i considered trivers, but i place reciprocal altruism a notch below inclusive fitness. perhaps i'll more of him after reading genetics of selfish elements :) as for wilson, i view him as mayr-lite, great things in a narrow field (ants), but more of a connector and synthesizer without. also, i grather from a friend at harvard that in regards to a lot of the theory in regards to evolutionary biology he doesn't really know what he's talking about most of the time, but he's a good and confident bluffer :)
Argh I can't think of a single person from bioanth who should be nominated
my impression is that biological anthropology's 20th century heyday occurred before the Modern Synthesis hit traction. no other way that c.s. coon's haeckelian diagrams and ideas could hang around into the 1960s. by the time the MS was a background condition which could percolate into the transbiological sciences bio anthro was being beatan back by the sons of the frankfurt school.
Conrad Hal Waddington
if sean carroll is really, really right, well, he might make a list pretty easily in 20 years.
Willi Hennig
made systematics into a deductive science. also spawned a cult. basically, willi hennig = ayn rand + substance :) (e.g., have you seen the 'willi hennig superstar' t-shirst?)
Konrad Lorenz well, haldane was a communist (smith in his youth). oh, wait, lewontin is a marxist. my list is rather red...though fisher was a tory eugenicist, and hamilton was one too.
I hate to say it since they weren't evolutionary biologists -- but Crick and/or Mendel probably deserves a spot on that list...
I think you probably need three separate categories - 'ancient', 'medieval' and 'modern'! Ancient being the age of Darwin, Wallace et al. (which should include Weismann and Galton); medieval would be from about 1900 to 1960, including Fisher, Wright, Haldane, Mayr; and modern would be 1960 to the present, with Hamilton, Williams, Maynard Smith, E.O. Wilson, et al. The difficulty in comparing evolutionists from different eras is that they were working with such different levels of generality and background knowledge, especially of genetics.
God, what a tough task. There have been so many. Not that I mind that of course. I'd just like to point out how it stands in stark contrast to the answer to the question "Who are the top 10 IDers/creationists of all time?"
but anyway, here goes:
Darwin (of course)
Dobzhansky, Mahr, Haldane (of course)
Thomas Huxley (see comments below)
Fisher (are you kidding me?)
Williams, Dawkins, Gould
Trivers, Wilson
OK, Ok, I know, that's 11. But hey, you can call this the "Nigel Tufnel top-10" list if you like
Most here haven't said Dawkins, so let me justify this choice:
for better or worse, Dawkins is the current front man for radical Darwinism, and is an unshrinking opponent of teleologists of all stripes. This is an extremely important message. In a way, Dawkins has assumed the Huxley role of being Darwin's principle champion to the public.
So, by including him and Huxley, both of who's main effects were through the public debate, I'm saying that the role of public communicator is important enough to make one a candidate for the title of "great evolutionist"
Of course, working theorists such as Mahr, Gould, and Wilson also did a lot of work in that area, and Dawkins also has done important empirical and theoretical work, but his career has morphed to where mostly he's a communicator.
So nyah to you naysayers!
You won't believe this, but after careful consideration, I agree with your list 100%.
I know we would diverge radically for the next 10 and next 10, but these first 10 are the essential list.
Of course, we both put some of these people on the list for some very different reasons, i.e., for different aspects of their work ;-)
Suggestions:
Nei or Fitch (molecular phylogenetics)
Ohno (gene duplication)
Ohta (nearly neutral theory - I think it's more important than the neutral theory)
I don't know who I would leave off of your list to make room for them. I just wanted to add more molecular people to the also rans.
Not knowing a lot about the field, I'd still replace Mayr w/ Trivers.
rpm, i thought of those ppl (the japs). wouldn't you say neutral is a precondition for nearly neutral though?
bohra, convergent evolution? it happens. remember, haldane the communist had fisher the tory's back. science and politics aren't always faithful :)
Mayr w/ Trivers
to a great extent mayr created trivers. see the latter's autobiography writing.
Dawkins strikes me as a moron with a superficial understanding of biology.
Gould's much better on the theory front, but at tiems he seems/seemed more obsessed with creating controversy than actually elucidating anything.
Eldridge on the other hand I've been very impressed with some of his non-research work. Especially Rethinking Darwin, which i thought was a great critique of the Modern Synthesis and some of the things it fails to take into account.
Sean Carroll could be up there as well, but after reading endless forms, it's clear that he's one of hte guys who's involved, but whether he's the evo-devo guy I just couldn't say.
Dawkins strikes me as a moron with a superficial understanding of biology.
very wrong here. he isn't an originator, but he is a good expositor (and to some extent extender) of the school of british adaptationist biologists which starts off with r.a. fisher and proceeds to hamilton and j.m. smith. from what i can gather hamilton's papers in 1964 on inclusive fitness published in the journal of theoretical biology (amongst the most cited in all of evolutionary science) shaped much of dawkins' thinking and helped propel him toward writing the selfish gene (dawkins' professional mentor was niko tinbergen, an ethologist). the contrast with gould in particular is totally unfounded, he works outside the mainstream of evolutionary biology while dawkins is closer to the center. as for "theory," gould presents some verbal models and rough heuristics, but he enters a field that is highly formalized so i don't know if he added much value.
Thomas Hunt Morgan.
If I recall correctly the set of portraits set one above another on the wall of Lewontin's office, the academic genealogy runs Lewontin-> Th. Dobzhansky->Thomas Hunt Morgan->Darwin->a chimp.
i left morgan (and bateson) off the list because i conceive of them as geneticists who were not working within a convential evolutionary (darwinian) paradigm for much of their careers. dobzhansky was a fly person who took darwin's evolutionary theory seriously, and by his time macromutationism that was in vogue among geneticsts was not longer a nusciance.
I'd definitely agree with your list, but I think there are some additions that are needed.
Huxley - both TH and J
Francisco Ayala
Linus Pauling & Emil Zuckerkandl
GG Simpson (you're a bit short on paleontologists)
There are a couple of others I'd like to see make it, but they are long shots:
Joseph Hooker and Asa Grey - two of the first botanists to get involved in evolutionary biology
GG Simpson (you're a bit short on paleontologists)
yes, but who do i eject? simpson would be the bones & stones guy if i was going to add one.
these are the "dispensables" IMO:
Motoo Kimura
Ernst Mayr
Richard Lewontin
J. M. Smith
W.D. Hamilton
perhaps mayr could be removed since to some extent he and dobzhansky are overlapping (mayr was more the naturalist i guess). smith & hamilton overlap as well.