In the received view of the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, paleontology was given a prominent role in evolutionary biology thanks to the significant influence of paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson on both the institutional and conceptual development of the Synthesis. Simpson's 1944 Tempo and Mode in Evolution is considered a classic of Synthesis-era biology, and Simpson often remarked on the influence of other major Synthesis figures–such as Ernst Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky–on his developing thought. Why, then, did paleontologists of the 1970s and 1980s–Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, David M. Raup, Steven Stanley, and others–so frequently complain that paleontology remained marginalized within evolutionary biology? This essay considers three linked questions: first, were paleontologists genuinely welcomed into the Synthetic project during its initial stages? Second, was the initial promise of the role for paleontology realized during the decades between 1950 and 1980, when the Synthesis supposedly “hardened” to an “orthodoxy”? And third, did the period of organized dissent and opposition to this orthodoxy by paleontologists during the 1970s and 1980s bring about a long-delayed completion to the Modern Synthesis, or rather does it highlight the wider failure of any such unified Darwinian evolutionary consensus?

中文翻译：

---

未完成的综合？：20 世纪的古生物学和进化生物学

在现代进化综合史的公认观点中，由于古生物学家乔治·盖洛德·辛普森对《综合》的制度和概念发展的重大影响，古生物学在进化生物学中占有突出地位。辛普森 1944 年的《进化中的节奏和模式》被认为是综合时代生物学的经典之作，辛普森经常评论其他主要综合人物——如恩斯特·迈尔和狄奥多西·多布詹斯基——对他的发展思想的影响。那么，为什么 1970 年代和 1980 年代的古生物学家——Stephen Jay Gould、Niles Eldredge、David M. Raup、Steven Stanley 和其他人经常抱怨古生物学在进化生物学中仍然被边缘化？本文考虑了三个相互关联的问题：第一，在 Synthetic 项目的最初阶段，古生物学家真的受到欢迎吗？其次，在 1950 年到 1980 年之间的几十年间，当综合据说“硬化”为“正统”时，古生物学作用的最初承诺是否实现了？第三，1970 年代和 1980 年代古生物学家有组织的异议和反对这一正统观念的时期是否导致了现代综合论的长期延迟完成，或者更确切地说，它是否突出了任何这种统一的达尔文进化论共识的更广泛的失败？