The NCSE Review of Wells on Haeckel's Embryos.
For any textbook to show Haeckel's drawings themselves as unqualified statements of developmental anatomy or to advocate "recapitulation" in a Haeckelian sense would be inexcusable, but none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells appear to do so. Wells gleefully excoriates Futuyma for using Haeckel's drawings, but apparently in his fit of righteous indignation, he forgot to read the text, in which the drawings are discussed in a historical context -- stating why Haeckel is wrong -- and Futuyma has an entire chapter devoted to development and evolution.I suggest clicking the link on "Figure 10" at the above source. It shows that Wells has gone into a tizzy at any comparative depiction of embryos at all, including photographs, not just redrawings from Haeckel. It's as if he really wishes to suppress the truth about embryos under the guise of eliminating Haeckel's misdrawings.
I believe we've been over this before, but here you are back with the same old crap.