In 1977 Steven Jay Gould published his "Ontogeny and Phylogeny", where he summarized the prehistory and history of the interplay between developmental and evolutionary biology, and also sketched a research program for the (re-)unification of these - at the time - largely independent research areas. The book became a milestone in the history of the life sciences. Now, forty years after Gould's seminal publication there is an urgent need to rethink some crucial aspects of the story. A new integrative science, evolutionary developmental biology, often shortened to EvoDevo has been established. EvoDevo combines embryology, molecular biology, paleontology, and evolutionary biology along with its own methodological reflections and is about to revolutionise evolutionary theory. In 2000 Wolf-Ernst Reif and co-authors published an important paper claiming that "One of the most deplorable gaps in our knowledge of the history of the Synthetic Theory is its international character". Our own research has contributed to filling this gap by exploring the role of Russian scientists in the growth of the Evolutionary Synthesis and in preparing the way for what is currently known as EvoDevo. In a series of papers, we have reconstructed the theoretical systems of Alexei Sewertzoff, Ivan Schmalhausen, and Nikolay Timofeef-Ressovsky. All three Russian scientists contributed to the development of a tradition of (what we would nowadays call) EvoDevo that has been important both in Russia and internationally, but where little has been written in languages other than Russian on the intellectual history. Based on these case studies, we also outlined the specificity of the Russian tradition in evolutionary biology (in contrast to the German-speaking and English-speaking countries). We demonstrated, among others, that there was a bias (gaining strength over time) in the Russian-speaking tradition in developmental biology to connect developmental processes with environmental regulation. Another general objective underlying our comparative studies of various traditions in evolutionary and developmental biology was (and is) the investigation of the significance of the philosophical backgrounds of the presented theories in the various periods of the growing pre-Darwinian and post-Darwinian research programs. We proceeded from the assumption that the evolution of evolutionary science - and especially the central question of the relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny - was paralleled by changes of what was seen as scientific and rational. Besides, national intellectual traditions certainly influenced the types of rationality within which scientific questions were asked. For instance, the attempt of Bernhard Rensch to combine naturphilosophical monism and neo-Spinozism with the Modern Synthesis, as a most radical and empirically based form of Darwinian selectionism, should be analyzed within the context of the monist tradition. This notwithstanding, some problems (as exemplified by the evolutionary plasticity of ontogeny) of course permeates the entire history of evolutionary biology.