|
Showing 1 - 3 of
3 matches in All Departments
As such things happen, several manuscripts in the present volume
were under review prior to the ones that appeared in Volume I of
the Annals. A major difficulty encountered in the preparation of
these volumes apart from working up to three years in advance of
publication-is elic iting appropriate commentary. If this format is
to succeed, the com mentary must be both engaging to the reader and
satisfying to the author. It is not yet clear how successful we
have been in this regard and, indeed, we do not feel bound to
publish commentary with each manuscript that is accepted for
publication. Nevertheless, we do invite readers' commentaries on
published materials. The contributions by Jan Smedslund and
Benjamin Wolman in this volume have been through an inordinately
long publication lag. We have been in receipt of both manuscripts
since early in 1981 and Dr. Smedslund, especially, has since
clarified and advanced his views else where in print. K. B. Madsen
and Joseph Rychlak submitted their man uscripts in the fall of 1981
while Michael Hyland and J. Philippe Rushton had first drafts of
their manuscripts accepted for publication in the fall of 1982. We
are grateful to our contributors for their expressed com mitment to
the Annals and assure potential contributors that the delay in
publication is a mere matter of getting the series off the ground."
As such things happen, several manuscripts in the present volume
were under review prior to the ones that appeared in Volume I of
the Annals. A major difficulty encountered in the preparation of
these volumes apart from working up to three years in advance of
publication-is elic iting appropriate commentary. If this format is
to succeed, the com mentary must be both engaging to the reader and
satisfying to the author. It is not yet clear how successful we
have been in this regard and, indeed, we do not feel bound to
publish commentary with each manuscript that is accepted for
publication. Nevertheless, we do invite readers' commentaries on
published materials. The contributions by Jan Smedslund and
Benjamin Wolman in this volume have been through an inordinately
long publication lag. We have been in receipt of both manuscripts
since early in 1981 and Dr. Smedslund, especially, has since
clarified and advanced his views else where in print. K. B. Madsen
and Joseph Rychlak submitted their man uscripts in the fall of 1981
while Michael Hyland and J. Philippe Rushton had first drafts of
their manuscripts accepted for publication in the fall of 1982. We
are grateful to our contributors for their expressed com mitment to
the Annals and assure potential contributors that the delay in
publication is a mere matter of getting the series off the ground.
The intention of this paper is to review the evidence support ing
the major thesis that a knowledge of genetic architecture within a
species gives clues to the evolution of behavior. To this end, a
study of some of the origins of this idea, both within genetics and
psychology, will be embarked upon, together with a review of the
experimental evidence supportive of it. This review will
concentrate on behavioral phenotypes, though not to the exclusion
of other, usually morphological, character on which the original
enunciation of the proposition was based. Essentially, the
rationale is disarmingly simple. The study of the gene action
governing a behavioral or other characteristic, by revealing the
genetic architecture of the organism or species, indicates the
forces of natural selection which have moulded the genetic
architecture in the way that it is observed today. Thus natural
selection leaves its imprint on the genome and it is argued that a
sophisticated analysis of that genome in turn allows an inferential
statement about the nature of those forces. It will be at once
apparent that the substructure for this type of argument is that of
Darwinian evolutionary theory, which is so widely and so
pervasively accepted in contemporary biology that it seems hardly
necessary to argue its case."
|
|