However these critics did not give persuasive evidence in support of their arguments. Certain technical embryologists have brought most severe accusations against me on this account, and have advised me to substitute a larger number of the elaborated figures, as accurate as possible. I, however, consider that diagrams are much more instructive than such figures, especially in popular scientific works. For each simple diagrammatic figure gives only those essential form-features which it is intended to explain, and omits all those unessential details which in finished, exact figures, generally rather disturbed and confuse than instruct and explain. The more complex are the form-features, the more do simple diagrams help to make them intelligible.
All diagrammatic figures are inaccurate.
Though Haeckel defended the relative accuracy of his figures he nevertheless modified them in later editions of his book to make them more technically accurate, a fact even noted by Haeckel's modern critic Michael Richardson. While it might be true that in hindsight both Haeckel and His's figures were not always entirely accurate, none of the minor errors they may contain once corrected change the status of the evidence they illustrate for evolution. This is a common creationist claim against Haeckel for which there seems to be no historical evidence. Unfortunately this apparent myth has taken such a hold on discussions of Haeckel that even some mainstream scholars have been taken in by it. This seems to still be true today, as is evidence from recent claims in the British press that Haeckel had been convicted by his university of alleged fraud.