Editing Embryo drawing (section)

==Opposition to Haeckel==
Haeckel encountered numerous oppositions to his artistic depictions of embryonic development during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Haeckel's opponents believe that he de-emphasizes the differences between early embryonic stages in order to make the similarities between embryos of different species more pronounced.<ref name="Hopwood p. 282">Hopwood, "Pictures of Evolution and Charges of Fraud", p. 282</ref>

===Early opponents: Ludwig Rutimeyer, Theodor Bischoff and Rudolf Virchow===
The first suggestion of fakery against Haeckel was made in late 1868 by Ludwig Rutimeyer in the ''Archiv für Anthropogenie''.<ref name="Hopwood p. 282"/> Rutimeyer was a professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at the [[University of Basel]], who rejected natural selection as simply mechanistic and proposed an anti-materialist view of nature.  Rutimeyer claimed that Haeckel "had taken to kinds of liberty with established truth".<ref>Hopwood, "Pictures of Evolution and Charges of Fraud", p. 283</ref> Rutimeyer claimed that Haeckel presented the same image three consecutive times as the embryo of the dog, the chicken, and the turtle.<ref>Hopwood, "Pictures of Evolution and Charges of Fraud", p. 275</ref>

[[Theodor Ludwig Wilhelm Bischoff|Theodor Bischoff]] (1807–1882), was a strong opponent of [[Darwinism]].{{Citation needed|date=March 2008}}  As a pioneer in mammalian embryology, he was one of Haeckel's strongest critics.{{Citation needed|date=March 2008}}  Although Bischoff's 1840 surveys depict how similar the early embryos of man are to other vertebrates, he later demanded that such [[hasty generalization]] was inconsistent with his recent findings regarding the dissimilarity between hamster embryos and those of rabbits and dogs.{{Citation needed|date=March 2008}}  Nevertheless, Bischoff's main argument was in reference to Haeckel's drawings of human embryos, for Haeckel is later accused of miscopying the dog embryo from him.<ref name="Hopwood p. 282"/> Throughout Haeckel's time, criticism of his embryo drawings was often due in part to his critics' belief in his representations of embryological development as "crude schemata".<ref>Hopwood, "Pictures of Evolution and Charges of Fraud", p. 273</ref>

===Contemporary criticism of Haeckel: Michael Richardson and Stephen Jay Gould===
Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of ''Anatomy and Embryology'',<ref>Richardson, M.K., Hanken, J., Gooneratne, M.L., Pieau, C., Raynaud. A., [[Lynne Selwood|Selwood, L.]] and Wright, G.M. (1997): There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development. Anatomy and Embryology 196(2): 91–106.</ref> demonstrated that Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage.
In a March 2000 issue of ''[[Natural History (magazine)|Natural History]]'', Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel "exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions." As well, Gould argued that Haeckel's drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified.<ref>
{{cite journal
|title=Abscheulich! – Atrocious! – the precursor to the theory of natural selection
|author=Stephen Jay Gould
|date=March 2000
|journal=[[Natural History (magazine)|Natural History]]
}}</ref> On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel's drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that "Haeckel's much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution".<ref>{{cite journal | author = Richardson Michael K., Keuck Gerhard | year = 2002 | title = Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development | journal = Biol. Rev. | volume = 77 | issue = 4| pages = 495–528 | doi = 10.1017/s1464793102005948 | pmid = 12475051 | s2cid = 23494485 }}</ref>
But even Richardson admitted in ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."<ref>{{cite journal|author=Pennisi, Elizabeth|author-link=Elizabeth Pennisi|title=Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered|year=1997|journal=Science|doi=10.1126/science.277.5331.1435a|volume=277|issue=5331|page=1435|pmid=9304211|s2cid=36959449 }}</ref>

Some version of Haeckel's drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid.<ref>Futuyma, Douglas, "Evolutionary Biology," pp. 652–653</ref>