Cited by 3,255Evolution and Genetic DynamicsPhilosophy and History of ScienceLanguage and cultural evolution

CANALIZATION OF DEVELOPMENT AND THE INHERITANCE OF ACQUIRED CHARACTERS

WADDINGTON, C. H.·1942·Nature

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/150563a0

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Robustness, meaning compatibility with a larger set of environmental conditions, can be a target of evolution.

    “This robustness (compatibility with a larger set of environmental conditions) can be a target of evolution, as argued by Waddington and others [36–38].”

    From Fundamental constraints to the logic of living systems (2024) · cites this paper as [36]

  • Natural selection on developmental programmes in humans has led to robustness in a range of genetic or environmental perturbations, so typical development occurs along a track.

    “We frame this issue using the concept of developmental canalization88, whereby natural selection on developmental programmes in humans has led to robustness in a range of genetic or environmental perturbations89,90: typical development occurs along a ‘track’ (FIG. 1c).”
  • Most studies recruit survivors of the original birth cohorts, so all participants must have survived to observe the outcome; selection on surviving genetic make-up and the outcome or a competing risk effectively applies covariable adjustment on survival into the estimates.

    “In addition, most studies recruit survivors of the original birth cohorts. This means all participants must have survived in order to observe whether they get the outcome of interest. Selection of participants on surviving their genetic make-up and the outcome of interest or a competing risk of the outcome effectively applies covariable adjustment on survival into the estimates.173–175”

    From Mendelian randomization (2022) · cites this paper as [175]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
WADDINGTON, C. H.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
WADDINGTON, C. H.
Venue
Nature
Published
1942-11
Volume
150
Issue
3811
Pages
563-565
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2094902224
Cited by
3,255
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 111 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 122 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 162 · 2021: 140 · 2020: 168 · 2019: 162 · 2018: 168 · 2017: 145 · 2016: 149 · 2015: 192 · 2014: 150 · 2013: 172 · 2012: 127
FWCI
1.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Nature (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Language and cultural evolution
Keywords
inheritance of acquired characteristics, Lamarckism, use and disuse, natural selection, random mutation, gene-environment interaction, adaptive evolution, heritable variation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review