> Can Neal list any significant part of the pattern of PE that
> Darwin did not mention in his first edition of Origin of Species?
I just happen to be reading something relevant to this. The better
question is: "Is PE something Darwin antipated, or is it
revolutionary for Darwinism?"
"But, despite the rhetoric, the theory [PE] was revolutionary for two
reasons. First, it took the fossil record at face value for the
first time since Darwin, who had invoked gaps in the record to
explain away the absence of intermediate forms in evolutionary
lineages. Large gaps certainly exist but can commonly be overcome by
replicate sampling in different places. Second, morphological stasis
was unexpected, despite revisionism to the contrary."
Jackson, J.B.C. and Cheetham, A.H. 1999. Tempo and mode of
speciation in the sea. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 14(2), 72-77.
For the record, this is a quote that I agree with.
Best wishes,
David J. Tyler.