Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up....

of course it seems that most if not all of the examples you gave are discussing the Haeckel figure in historical context, and/or point out specifically where it is flawed.

Use them for what?

Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable
inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures. These
drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review
articles, and continue to exert a significant influence
on the development of ideas in this field (Wolpert 1991;
Alberts et al. 1994; Duboule 1994).

Uh, wrong. I have given absolutely no examples of evos using Haeckel's drawings strictly in a historical context

except mentioning robinrohan's citation of Mayr which you seem to challenge.

Was he right or not?Please answer. A simple yes or no answer will do.

Please provide a link to the Richardson work,

Another point to emerge from this study is the considerable
inaccuracy of Haeckel’s famous figures.

These drawings are still widely reproduced in textbooks and review
articles,

and continue to exert a significant influence
on the development of ideas in this field (Wolpert 1991;
Alberts et al. 1994; Duboule 1994).

Do you agree with Richardson's statement or not?

Richardson clearly states that evos relied on Haeckel's claims of a phylotypic stage without further citations, and states that evos publicized widely Haeckel's drawings to validate that concept well into the 1990s.

Why don't you read the quote and the link in the OP?

This is taken from a 1997 peer-review study by an evo.

Do you agree with Richardson's statement or not?

It's just an isolated line in his discussion, with no elaboration or details.

Some authors have suggested that members of most or all vertebrate clades pass through a virtually identical, conserved stage. This idea was promoted by Haeckel, and has recently been revived in the context of claims regarding the universality of developmental mechanisms. Thus embryonic resemblance at the tailbud stage has been linked with a conserved pattern of developmental gene expression - the zootype. However, their accuracy has been questioned and only a narrow range of species was illustrated. In view of thecurrent widespread interest in evolutionary developmental here the first review of the external morphology of tailbud embryos, illustrated with original specimens
from a wide range of vertebrate groups. We find .... Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when
they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel’s drawings, which depict not a conserved stage for vertebrates,but a stylised amniote embryo.

Haeckel’s drawings of the external morphology of various vertebrates remain the most comprehensive comparative data purporting to show a conserved stage.

Our aim in this paper is to examine the idea that embryos
from all or most vertebrate clades pass through a
highly conserved stage; and that at this stage their external
form is virtually identical. Haeckel’s drawings of embryos
at tailbud stages are widely used in support of this
hypothesis.

The idea of a phylogenetically conserved stage has regained
popularity in recent years. It has been claimed
that all vertebrate embryos pass through a conserved
stage when they are the same size (Collins 1995).

One puzzling feature of the debate in this field is that
while many authors have written of a conserved embryonic
stage, no one has cited any comparative data in support
of the idea. It is almost as though the phylotypic
stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no
proof is needed.

Richardson stated in 1997 that evos still used Haeckel's set of drawings and his claim widely at that time, not for historical analysis but as factual claims. He says that evos relied on Haeckel's claims of a phylotypic stage without further substantation, and that evos habitually published Haeckel's drawings in textbooks to validate those claims.

One puzzling feature of the debate in this field is that
while many authors have written of a conserved embryonic
stage, no one has cited any comparative data in support
of the idea. It is almost as though the phylotypic
stage is regarded as a biological concept for which no
proof is needed.