Editing On Growth and Form (section)

=== Contemporary <!--this means "in Thompson's time"--> ===

"J. P. McM[urrich]", reviewing the book in ''[[Science (magazine)|Science]]'' in 1917, wrote that "the book is one of the strongest documents in support of the mechanistic view of life that has yet been put forth", contrasting this with "vitalism". The reviewer was interested in the "discussion of the physical factors determining the size of organisms, especially interesting being the consideration of the conditions which may determine the minimum size".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=McM___ |first1=J. P. |author-link=J. P. McMurrich |title=Book Review: On Growth and Form |journal=Science |date=23 November 1917 |pages=513–514 |doi=10.1126/science.46.1195.513 |volume=46|issue=1195 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1448201 }}</ref>

J. W. Buchanan, reviewing the second edition in ''Physiological Zoology'' in 1943, described it as "an imposing extension of his earlier attempt to formulate a geometry of Growth and Form" and "beautifully written", but warned that "the reading will not be easy" and that "A vast store of literature has here been assembled and assimilated". Buchanan summarizes the book, and notes that Chapter 17 "seems to the reviewer to contain the essence of the long and more or less leisurely thesis... The chapter is devoted to comparison of related forms, largely by the method of co-ordinates. Fundamental differences in these forms are thus revealed", and Buchanan concludes that the large "gaps" indicate that Darwin's endless series of continuous variations is not substantiated. But he does have some criticisms: Thompson should have referenced the effects of hormones on growth; and the relation of molecular configuration and form; [[genetics]] is barely mentioned, and experimental [[embryology]] and regeneration [despite Thompson's analysis of the latter] are overlooked. The mathematics used consists of [[statistics]] and [[geometry]], while [[thermodynamics]] is "largely absent".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Buchanan |first1=J. W. |title=On Growth and Form by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson |journal=Physiological Zoology |date=January 1943 |volume=16 |issue=1 |pages=135–137 |jstor=30151680|doi=10.1086/physzool.16.1.30151680 }}</ref>

Edmund Mayer, reviewing the second edition in ''The Anatomical Record'' in 1943, noted that the "scope of the book and the general approach to the problems dealt with have remained unchanged, but considerable additions have been made and large parts have been recast". He was impressed at the extent to which Thompson had kept up with developments in many sciences, though he thought the mentions of quantum theory and Heisenberg uncertainty unwise.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mayer|first1=Edmund |title=On growth and form. By D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson |journal=The Anatomical Record |date=January 1943 |volume=85 |issue=1 |pages=111–116 |doi=10.1002/ar.1090850108 }}</ref>

[[George C. Williams (biologist)|George C. Williams]], reviewing the 1942 edition and Bonner's abridged edition for the ''Quarterly Review of Biology'' (of which he was the editor), writes that the book is "a work widely praised, but seldom used. It contains neither original insights
that have formed a basis for later advances nor instructive fallacies that have stimulated fruitful attack. This seeming paradox is brilliantly discussed by P. B. Medawar [in] ''Pluto's Republic''."<ref name=Williams/><ref name=Medawar>{{cite book |last1=Medawar |first1=Peter |author-link=Peter Medawar |title=Pluto's Republic |url=https://archive.org/details/plutosrepublic00meda |url-access=registration |date=1982 |publisher=Oxford University Press |pages=[https://archive.org/details/plutosrepublic00meda/page/228 228]–241|isbn=978-0-19-217726-1 }}</ref> Williams then attempts a "gross simplification" of Medawar's evaluation:

{{quote|It was a compelling demonstration of how readily one can use physical and geometric principles in trying to understand biology. This was a major contribution in 1917 when vitalism was still being defended by prominent biologists. The battle was as won as it is ever likely to be by the time of the 1942 edition. The book was deficient because of Thompson's lack of understanding of evolution and antipathy for any concepts of historical causation."<ref name=Williams>{{cite journal |last1=Williams |first1=George C. |title=On Growth and Form by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson; On Growth and Form by D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson; John Tyler Bonner |journal=The Quarterly Review of Biology |date=June 1993 |volume=68 |issue=2 |pages=267–268 |doi=10.1086/418080 |jstor=2830008}}</ref>}}