"It is Haeckel's questionable drawings which have survived in textbooks and popular publications, whereas the evidence casting doubt on his 'biogenetic law' lives in the primary literature, largely neglected."
I don't know where you get your information from, but it isn't from the primary literature, that's for sure. At least, you haven't quoted from any. Besides, Art states the exact opposite you do, even though supposedly you and he have seen the same information. You can't both be right, though you can both be wrong.
It's also difficult to evaluate quotations taken out of context and I can't research all your citations in only a few days, so with the exception of some basic comments, I will concentrate on modern working developmental biologists have to say about Haeckel and the biogenetic law in my main response to your comments.
"In fact, the biogenetic law was collapsing under (a) the weight of contrary evidence and (b) its impracticality as a research tool, even before the rise of the neo-Darwinian synthesis (Rasmussen 1991)."
Rasmussen is wrong (no surprise, since he is an historian, not a biologist). Strict recapitulation (as Haeckel envisioned it) was never refuted, it was abandoned when Mendelian genetics was rediscovered, because that offered a clearer picture of the mechanism of ontogeny and its true relationship to phylogeny. Yet because embryologists knew that the basic form of the biogenetic law was right (they could see it for themselves), they combined it with von Baer's laws and eliminated all of Haeckel's philosophical claptrap. They later combined it with Mendelian genetics to create an amazingly versatile research tool that has helped to unlock the secrets of ontogeny and has shown how evolution is linked to ontological development.
"In light of this, I would be interested in knowing from Kevin O'Brien about 'the developmental biologists who know that [Haeckel's] biogenetic law is the basis of modern developmental biology.'"
Oh, don't worry, they will provide the bulk of my response, once I dispose of a little rhetorical and historical nonsense.
"The biogenetic law is false, and has been known to be so for well over a century."
Have you ever compared embryos through a microscope? I have, when I worked for a developmental biologists. I saw exactly what Haeckel saw. Have you ever compared Haeckel's drawings with real embryos? I have; Haeckel's drawings are surprisingly accurate considering their simplicity. Have you ever done research in developmental biology in which you used the modern version of the biogenetic law as a guide to your work? I have. If you answered no to these questions, I would say then that between the two of us, I am the authority in this manner, since I have tested Haeckel's basic claims and found them true-to-life. The question is, will you accept the word of a working scientist and other developmental biologists, or will you continue to believe your secondary and tertiary sources (probably creationist), because they allow you to deny a fundamental basis of modern evolutionary theory?
Kevin L. O'Brien