Etymonline has this to say:
-ics
in the names of sciences or disciplines (acoustics, aerobics, economics, etc.) it represents a 16c. revival of the classical custom of using the neuter plural of adjectives with -ikos (see -ic) to mean "matters relevant to" and also as the titles of treatises about them. Subject matters that acquired their names in English before c.1500, however, tend to remain in singular (e.g. arithmetic, logic).
So yes, at some point in history, there were such things as physic (meaning "natural science"), mathematic (meaning "mathematical science"), etc. that were later turned into plural forms but kept being treated as singular.
Edit: having looked in a few more places, it appears that in contemporary English, it still makes some sense to have both the suffix -ic and its plural form -ics. According to the Collins English Dictionary, the former has kind of specialized in forming adjectives, while the latter is happily forming nouns:
-ic
suffix forming adjectives
- of, relating to, or resembling: allergic, Germanic, periodic. See also -ical.
[...]
[from Latin -icus or Greek -ikos; -ic also occurs in nouns that represent a substantive use of adjectives (magic) and in nouns borrowed directly from Latin or Greek (critic, music)]
[...]
-ics
suffix forming nouns (functioning as singular)
- indicating a science, art, or matters relating to a particular subject: aeronautics, politics
- indicating certain activities or practices: acrobatics
[plural of -ic, representing Latin -ica, from Greek -ika, as in mathēmatika mathematics]
The key here is that they are not just two unrelated suffixes. Much rather, one is etymologically a plural form of the other. As the American Heritage Dictionary succinctly puts it, -ics is "-ic + -s".
I don't think there's anything grammatically wrong with the phrasing, but it does seem rather clumsy to me. I'd probably have written (history and development of words).
Using "development" in the singular is simply because the alternative is even more clumsy, but syntactically both are acceptable (see this question on difference between "on their back/backs").
Best Answer
Modus operandi is singular in both Latin and English. The plural is modi operandi, and, judging from this Ngram, I would advise against modus operandis.
Since there seems to be some confusion over why only modus changes form in the plural, but never operandi, I'll explain that too.
Modus is the most important word here, quite clearly meaning mode. It's a noun and nouns are simple. The plural is modi.
Operandi is rather more complex. We may translate it as of operation, but that's not very precise: mode of operation would be modus operationis. More exactly, operandi means of operating. It's a gerund, which can't be pluralized either in Latin or in English. However many times you've gone fishing, you'll still say that you like fishing, never that you like fishings. It's the same in Latin.
The confusion arises because the Latin gerund shares its singular forms with the gerundive, which can be pluralized. We know that modus operandi does not use the gerundive because then it would mean mode of something to be performed, which is rather nonsensical. So, I'd strongly advise against using modi operandorum, since I presume you don't mean modes of things to be performed - nor am I particularly sure what anyone might mean by it.
You might say that, if people used modus operandorum often enough, then using it would be fair game. You'd be right. Luckily for us, however, Ngrams doesn't have a single instance of it.