Re this 1896 article in “Science” magazine by Henry Osborn “Ontogenic and Phylogenic Variation " Darwin’s work " On the Origin of Species” published in 1859 is not even mentioned or referenced. Why?
Even if he did not agree with Darwin you’d think he would at least reference his ideas to argue against.
Curious as to how you came to read this … but that asked -
That article was written in 1896. Darwin had died in 1882. In 1896 it was Alfred Russel Wallace who was the active face and voice of that collaborative effort of Wallace and Darwin, that Wallace himself had popularized as “Darwinism.” Indeed the article is explicitly arguing (dismissively) against “the hypothesis of evolution purely by the selection of fortuitous variations” claiming that Wallace was virtually the only hold out against “definite or determinate variation” i.e. movement of evolution towards some predestined goal over generations, aka as orthogenesis. In that article Osborn was assuming the reader was aware of the natural selection theory that he was arguing against and that Wallace represented, as he presented some … ideas … for evolution by way of varying ontogeny.
Henry Osborn was a promotor of eugenics for racist goals. He had lots of support.
To no small degree Osborn’s views of evolution were more popular at that time. The resurgence of the ideas that Wallace and Darwin formulated, and that Wallace continued to argue for after Darwin’s death, occurred in the '30s and '40s and it was from then on that Darwin became the name and face of the concept with Wallace being oft-forgotten.
Thank you for context.
This dope article re "What is the largest piece of forged metal in the world? Largest single manufactured piece ever? "
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19881377&postcount=17
There were a lot of hacks publishing pseudo-scientific writings in those days, with virtually no peer review or critical editing.
Most likely because the article was about ontogeny & phylogeny, and there was little, if any, mention of ontogeny in Origin . So why should it be cited?
Excellent username/post combo!
I remember when I was at uni, one of our lecturers had just appeared in some list of the most cited papers. He explained that it was not really a great honour as the really good papers rarely get cited at all. He said that the relativity papers by Einstein barely get cited directly, as anyone reading about relativity should be familiar with them. They’re literally taken ‘as read’. Could this be the same?
Although Darwin had popularized the basic concept of evolution few scientists at the time considered his explanation of how it worked to be adequate. It wasn’t until the advent of 20th century developments in the field of genetics that Darwinism was wholeheartedly accepted.
Finch, Swan, what’s the difference?
Considering that Henry Osborn was a Professor of Zoology at Columbia, senior paleontologist of the US Geological Survey, President of the American Museum of Natural History and President of the New York Zoological Society, I doubt he qualified as a ‘hack.’
To big a difference to be caused by microevolution: where is the missing link? 
Well, 20th century redevelopments, since Mendel had already figured it out but nobody noticed.