Ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny is one of those mistaken ideas like that went out like Lamarkism.
Strange comment.
The Nature article has very little about the "evo" part of the "evo-devo" study.
I noticed that, too. This is one of those things that people like to toss off as conversational "snow."
Kind of odd to see it in this context...
Any idea of strict, predictable recapitulation is gone, yes. Still, Evo-Devo lives in the parallelisms of ontogeny and phylogeny.
Amphibians are thought to have arisen come from fish. (In fact, there's a lot of fossil evidence for this.) Baby frogs look like little fish.
Arthropods are thought to have arisen from worms. (There's some scattered fossil evidence for this.) There are many cases of hatchling arthropods (most insects, for instance) resembling worms.
Hatchling horsehoe crabs look like trilobites. Hatchling lampreys look like primitive cephalochordates. Mammalian embryos start out with what looks like a four-part jawbone, but three bones migrate to the ear. That looks an awful lot like a recapitulation of a funny thing in the fossil record where reptilian cynodont therapsid jaws developed a double-joint and the function of the bones beyond the first part seem to have been increasingly coopted for hearing rather than jaw operation. Perhaps you recall that from an earlier thread.
Strange comment.
Agreed. I don't know the proper terminology, but I suppose the (more correct) relevant principle would be that the order of events in developmental pathways tends to be conserved.