Jung's ideas on archetypes may be misunderstood. It depends in part upon how literally one takes him (and which essay one refers to!). My sole meeting with Jung was spent largely comparing his ideas to ethological concepts of "instinct" (Tinbergen, Lorenz, etc.). He thought there might be some ties, but cautioned that comparative studies with humans are limited since we cannot find more "symbolic" creatures than we are. This was a period where social scientists continued to believe that humans are "blank slates" upon which any message can be written at whim. Dumb idea.
Then Chomsky came along with his "innate language" ideas, which, to my thinking, are not that different in kind from some of Jung's writings. Much in evolutionary psychology seems similar in emphasis as well. I personally think Jung got a bad wrap from the empiricists. Its interesting to note that molecular types (including people like Francis Crick; pers. comm.) are actually quite sympathetic to what Jung sought to do.
It would be interesting indeed to see people's views on how to link Jung's thoughts on archetypes with some of the current views in behavioral biology, evolutionary psychology, etc. Glad he got his space on your site.
Keep up the good thoughts. John