Darwin on island plants

Islands played a key role in Charles Darwin's observations and experiments on plant dispersal. By means of these experiments, he expunged the old idea that a given species could originate at multiple times and in multiple places. More importantly, by seeing the capabilities for dispersal of plant seeds, fruits and branches, he was able to develop ideas of how plants reach islands and thus he is one of the founders of plant biogeography. For facts regarding floristic distribution of plants, Darwin relied on other workers, most notably Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker. Among his insights were the differences between oceanic and continental islands on a floristic basis, ideas on how age of island and distance from mainland areas influenced composition of island floras, the nature of endemism on islands and the role islands and archipelagos served as stepping stones in dispersal. Ingenious at proposing hypotheses, but always respectful of facts, Darwin sought explanations for plant adaptations on islands at a time when knowledge of island botany was little more than floristic in nature. These explanations are compared with selected recent works in island botany. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 161 , 20–25.     

1 July 1858: what Wallace knew; what Lyell thought he knew; what both he and Hooker took on trust; and what Charles Darwin never told them

At the Linnean Society on 1 July 1858, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, using only an extract from Charles Darwin's unpublished essay of 1844, and a copy of a recent letter to Asa Gray in Boston, argued successfully that Darwin understood how species originate long before a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace outlining his own version of the theory of evolution arrived at Darwin's home. That letter from Ternate in the Malay Archipelago, however, was not the first letter Darwin received from Wallace. This article will contend that two of the three letters Wallace sent Darwin between 10 October 1856 and 9 March 1858 arrived much earlier than Darwin recorded, thereby allowing him time to assess Wallace's ideas and claim an independent understanding of how the operation of divergence and extinction in the natural world leads strongly marked varieties to be identified as new species. By the time of the Linnean meeting Darwin's new ideas had filtered into his letters and ‘big’ species book, despite the absence of any independent evidence from the natural world to justify his constant insistence to have been guided only by inductive reasoning. © 2013 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2013, 109 , 725–736.     

Engaging with Lyell: Alfred Russel Wallace’s Sarawak Law and Ternate papers as reactions to Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) and Charles Darwin (1809–1882) are honored as the founders of modern evolutionary biology. Accordingly, much attention has focused on their relationship, from their independent development of the principle of natural selection to the receipt by Darwin of Wallace’s essay from Ternate in the spring of 1858, and the subsequent reading of the Wallace and Darwin papers at the Linnean Society on 1 July 1858. In the events of 1858 Wallace and Darwin are typically seen as central players, with Darwin’s friends Charles Lyell (1797–1875) and Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817–1911) playing supporting roles. This narrative has resulted in an under-appreciation of a more central role for Charles Lyell as both Wallace’s inspiration and foil. The extensive anti-transmutation arguments in Lyell’s landmark Principles of Geology were taken as the definitive statement on the subject. Wallace, in his quest to solve the mystery of species origins, engaged with Lyell’s arguments in his private field notebooks in a way that is concordant with his engagement with Lyell in the 1855 and 1858 papers. I show that Lyell was the object of Wallace’s Sarawak Law and Ternate papers through a consideration of the circumstances that led Wallace to send his Ternate paper to Darwin, together with an analysis of the material that Wallace drew upon from the Principles. In this view Darwin was, ironically, intended for a supporting role in mediating Wallace’s attempted dialog with Lyell.     

JOSEPH D. HOOKER'S 1839 CABO VERDE COLLECTIONS

Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817–1911) was 22 years old when he undertook his first natural history journey abroad. He was appointed ‘Assistant Surgeon’, under the command of James Clark Ross in the Antarctic Expedition 1838–1845, also known as the South Pole Magnetic Expedition. The two HMS ships The Terror and The Erebus made brief stops in the Macaronesian islands of Madeira, Tenerife (the Canaries), and Santiago (Cabo Verde) where Hooker took the opportunity to observe and collect animals, plants and minerals, so these were the first three collecting sites documented in his Antarctic Journal.     

Darwin’s Galapagos gourd: providing new insights 175 years after his visit

The year 2010 marks the 175th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s visit to the Galapagos Islands. A recent paper by J. C. Briggs, ‘Darwin’s biogeography’ (Journal of Biogeography, 2009, 36 , 1011–1017), summarizes Darwin’s contributions to the field of biogeography, stressing the importance of his natural history specimens. Here, we illustrate how a plant collected by Darwin during his visit to Floreana and not collected since can provide insights into dispersal to oceanic islands as well as extinction of island plants, based on ancient DNA from Darwin’s herbarium specimen.     

How Charles Darwin received Wallace's Ternate paper 15 days earlier than he claimed: a comment on van Wyhe and Rookmaaker (2012)

Van Wyhe and Rookmaaker (2012) postulate a set of events to support their claim that Wallace's ‘evolution’ letter, posted at Ternate in the Moluccas in the spring of 1858, arrived at Darwin's home on 18 June 1858. If their claim were to be proven, then evidence that Darwin probably received Wallace's letter 2 weeks earlier than he ever admitted would clearly be erroneous, and any charges that he plagiarized the ideas of Wallace from that letter would be shown to be wrong. Here, evidence against this interpretation is presented and it is argued that the letter did indeed arrive in the port of Southampton on 2 June 1858 and would have been at Darwin's home near London the following day. If this were true, then the 66 new pages of material on aspects of Divergence that Darwin entered into his ‘big’ species book in the weeks before admitting he had received the letter could be interpreted as an attempt to present Wallace's ideas as his own. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, 105 , 472–477.     

Haeckel,un darwinien allemand ?

German biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) is often considered the most renowned Darwinian in his country since, as early as 1862, he declared that he accepted the conclusions Darwin had reached three years before in On the Origin of Species, and afterwards, he continuously proclaimed himself a supporter of the English naturalist and championed the evolutionary theory. Nevertheless, if we examine carefully his books, in particular his General Morphology (1866), we can see that he carries on a tradition very far from Darwin's thoughts. In spite of his acceptance of the idea of natural selection, that he establishes as an argument for materialism, he adopts, indeed, a conception of evolution that is, in some respects, rather close to Lamarck's views. He is, thus, a good example of the ambiguities of the reception of Darwinism in Germany in the second part of the 19th century. To cite this article: S. Schmitt, C. R. Biologies 332 (2009).     

A further look at the 1858 Wallace–Darwin mail delivery question

Recent investigations have led to a conclusion that Alfred Russel Wallace probably mailed his ‘Ternate’ paper on natural selection to Darwin 1 month later than some have assumed, thus freeing Darwin from possible accusations of plagiarism. Further examination of the question suggests that this conclusion is premature because the evidence in favour of the later mailing date appears to be weaker than first considered. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, ●● , ●●–●●.     

Joseph Hooker Takes a “Fixed Post”: Transmutation and the “Present Unsatisfactory State of Systematic Botany”, 1844–1860

Joseph Hooker first learned that Charles Darwin believed in the transmutation of species in 1844. For the next 14 years, Hooker remained a “nonconsenter” to Darwin’s views, resolving to keep the question of species origin “subservient to Botany instead of Botany to it, as must be the true relation”. Hooker placed particular emphasis on the need for any theory of species origin to support the broad taxonomic delimitation of species, a highly contentious issue. His always provisional support for special creation waned during the 1850s as he lost faith in its expediency for coordinating the study of plant geography, systematics and physiology. In 1858, Hooker embraced Darwin’s “considerable revolution in natural history,” but only after Darwin had carefully molded his transmutationism to meet Hooker’s exacting specifications.     

Humboldt,Darwin, and population

Conclusions I have attempted to clarify some of the pathways in the development of Darwin's thinking. The foregoing examples of influence by no means include all that can be found by comparing Darwin's writings with Humboldt's. However, the above examples seem adequate to show the nature and extent of this influence. It now seems clear that Humboldt not only, as had been previously known, inspired Darwin to make a voyage of exploration, but also provided him with his basic orientation concerning how and what to observe and how to write about it. An important part of what Darwin assimilated from Humboldt was an appreciation of population analysis as a tool for assessing the state of societies and of the benefits and hardships which these societies can expect to receive from the living world around them.Darwin exhibited in his Journal of Researches a casual interest in the economic and political conditions of the countries he visited, but these considerations were much less important to him than to Humboldt. Instead, Darwin, with the assistance of Lyell's Principles of Geology, shifted from Humboldt's largely economic framework to a biological one built around the species question. This shift led Darwin away from a consideration of how the population biology of animals was related to man's economy to focus instead upon how population biology fitted into the economy of nature.Humboldt's Personal Narrative served very well as a model for Darwin's Journal of Researches, thereby helping Darwin gain scientific eminence. The Journal of Researches, like virtually all of Humboldt's writings, was a contribution to scientific orthodoxy. But Darwin had, along the way, acquired an urge to do more than just add his building blocks to the orthodox scientific edifice. He decided to rearrange those blocks of knowledge into a different structure, and for that task neither Humboldt's Personal Narrative nor any other of his works could serve as a model. Humboldt had lacked the confidence which Darwin needed that biogeography and the origin of species could be understood. Humboldt had not explored very far the possible connections between biology and geology. Nor had he provided a general synthetic account of population biology. Had he done so, he might have been more explicit about the extent of his endorsement of Malthus. But even if he had, Humboldt's strong orientation toward cooperation would probably have inhibited his recognition of the importance of competition in nature.Lyell, who had also benefited from reading Humboldt, gave Darwin insights that were lacking in Humboldt's Personal Narrative. Lyell admirably demonstrated how stratigraphy, paleontology, biogeography, and population biology could be interrelated, and his reasons for doing so were essentially the same as Darwin's. Lyell's understanding of biogeography and ecology came from the writings of Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle as much as from Humboldt's, and from the former Lyell derived an appreciation for the importance of competition and also a confidence that the mysteries of biogeography could be explained.¹¹⁷ Furthermore, Lyell's discussion of all these subjects and also of evolution in his Principles of Geology is a good synthetic argument that was the ideal model for Darwin's greatest book.Darwin, having become convinced that species change through time, was able to synthesize in his mind the contributions which he had derived from the writings of Humboldt and Lyell as they applied to the species question. When Darwin wrote his Journal of Researches there were two large gaps in his thinking about evolution that bothered him—the mechanism of evolution and the causes of extinction. It was only after reading Malthus in 1838 that he realized, as Lyell had more or less pointed out, how important was competition in nature. He now had the general outlines for his theory, and in the 1845 abridged edition of his Journal, now retitled The Voyage of the Beagle, he inserted a fuller discussion of competition in nature which showed his awareness of its importance as an ecological factor.¹¹⁸ An abridged version of this paper was presented at the meeting of the History of Science Society in Washington, D.C., on 29 December 1969.     

SIR JOSEPH DALTON HOOKER IN THE KEW ARCHIVE

Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker was born in Halesworth, Suffolk in 1917. The second son of Sir William Jackson Hooker, Joseph Hooker would, throughout the course of his life, become one of the most famous and lauded scientists of his day. At its pinnacle, Joseph Hooker's career would see him hold the post of Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew for 20 years (1865–1885), and be the first botanist after Joseph Banks to be elected President of the Royal Society between 1873 and 1878. His archives and letters, which are described here, are held in the Library, Art and Archives at Kew.     

Alfred Russel Wallace deserves better

During 2009, while we were celebrating Charles Darwin and his The origin of species, sadly, little was said about the critical contribution of Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) to the development of the theory of evolution. Like Darwin, he was a truly remarkable nineteenth century intellect and polymath and, according to a recent book by Roy Davies (The Darwin conspiracy: origins of a scientific crime), he has a stronger claim to the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection than has Darwin. Here we present a critical comparison between the contributions of the two scientists. Sometimes referred to as ‘The other beetle-hunter’ and largely neglected for many decades, Wallace had a far greater experience of collecting and investigating animals and plants from their native habitats than had Darwin. He was furthermore much more than a pioneer biogeographer and evolutionary theorist, and also made contributions to anthropology, ethnography, geology, land reform and social issues. However, being a more modest, self-deprecating man than Darwin, and lacking the latter’s establishment connections, Wallace’s contribution to the theory of evolution was not given the recognition it deserved and he was undoubtedly shabbily treated at the time. It is time that Wallace’s relationship with Darwin is reconsidered in preparation for 2013, the centenary of Wallace’s death, and he should be recognized as at least an equal in the Wallace-Darwin theory of evolution.     

Evolution of cave living in Hawaiian Schrankia (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with description of a remarkable new cave species

Although temperate cave‐adapted fauna may evolve as a result of climatic change, tropical cave dwellers probably colonize caves through adaptive shifts to exploit new resources. The founding populations may have traits that make colonization of underground spaces even more likely. To investigate the process of cave adaptation and the number of times that flightlessness has evolved in a group of reportedly flightless Hawaiian cave moths, we tested the flight ability of 54 Schrankia individuals from seven caves on two islands. Several caves on one island were sampled because separate caves could have been colonized by underground connections after flightlessness had already evolved. A phylogeny based on approximately 1500 bp of mtDNA and nDNA showed that Schrankia howarthi sp. nov. invaded caves on two islands, Maui and Hawaii. Cave‐adapted adults are not consistently flightless but instead are polymorphic for flight ability. Although the new species appears well suited to underground living, some individuals were found living above ground as well. These individuals, which are capable of flight, suggest that this normally cave‐limited species is able to colonize other, geographically separated caves via above‐ground dispersal. This is the first example of an apparently cave‐adapted species that occurs in caves on two separate Hawaiian islands. A revision of the other Hawaiian Schrankia is presented, revealing that Schrankia simplex, Schrankia oxygramma, Schrankia sarothrura, and Schrankia arrhecta are all junior synonyms of Schrankia altivolans. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 156 , 114–139.     

Charles Darwin's debt to malthus and Edward Blyth

Conclusion It is not justifiable to accuse Darwin of conscious or unconscious plagiarism. This charge is contrary to the historical evidence and to the extensive information that we have about his character. When Darwin listed the writers on the origin of species by natural selection before himself, he did not mention Blyth, and this omission did not disturb the cordial relations between Darwin and Blyth. Blyth continued to supply Darwin with information which Darwin used in his later publications with due acknowledgment to Blyth. For example, in The Descent of Man, Darwin cited Blyth: Mr. Blyth, as he informs me, saw Indian crows feeding two or three of their companions which were blind.⁶³ Blyth felt no resentment. If he did, he would have so informed Darwin. Blyth did not regard himself as in any sense a predecessor of Darwin and he certainly did not resent Darwin as a plagiarizer of himself. Moreover, Darwin went to a great deal of trouble to find his own predecessors and to give them proper credit.⁶⁴ After Darwin had completed his work on natural selection, he wrote a letter to the Reverend Baden Powell in which he clearly showed recognition of the contribution of others to his own work:No educated person, not even the most ignorant, could suppose I mean to arrogate to myself the origination of the doctrine that species had not been independently created. The only novelty in my work is the attempt to explain how species became modified, and to a certain extent how the theory of descent explains certain large classes of facts; and in these respects I received no assistance from my predecessors.⁶⁵ *** DIRECT SUPPORT *** A8402011 00002     

Darwin was right: inbreeding depression on male fertility in the Darwin family

Charles Darwin, who was married to his first cousin Emma Wedgwood, was the first experimentalist to demonstrate the adverse effects of inbreeding. He documented the deleterious consequences of self‐fertilization on progeny in numerous plant species, and this research led him to suspect that the health problems of his 10 children, who were very often ill, might have been a consequence of his marriage to his first cousin. Because Darwin's concerns regarding the consequences of cousin marriage on his children even nowadays are considered controversial, we analyzed the potential effects of inbreeding on fertility in 30 marriages of the Darwin–Wedgwood dynasty, including the marriages of Darwin's children, which correspond to the offspring of four cousin marriages and three marriages between unrelated individuals. Analysis of the number of children per woman through zero‐inflated regression models showed a significantly adverse effect of the husband inbreeding coefficient on family size. Furthermore, a statistically significant adverse effect of the husband inbreeding coefficient on reproductive period duration was also detected. To our knowledge, this is the first time that inbreeding depression on male fertility has been detected in humans. Because Darwin's sons had fewer children in comparison to non‐inbred men of the dynasty, our findings give empirical support to Darwin's concerns on the consequences of consanguineous marriage in his own progeny. © 2014 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, 114 , 474–483.     

Darwin,Wallace, and Huxley,and Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation

Conclusion Publication of the Vestiges and the rather primitive theory of evolution it expounded thus played a significant role in the careers of Darwin and Wallace. In addition, in spite of his poor opinion of the Vestiges, it presented Huxley with a convenient topic for critical discussion and the opportunity to focus more attention on the subject of evolution. The dynamic interactions among these leading figures of nineteenth-century natural science helped spur the development of more sophisticated models of evolution.Darwin had a proper appreciation of Chambers's contribution to evolutionary thought, although he fully recognized the shortcomings of this work. He understood the importance of allowing fresh ideas about organic change to be ventilated. However, he was primarily concerned with his own theory and viewed all developments in evolutionary biology from this perspective. If he did not give full consideration to Chambers and his book early on, it was due mainly to his feeling that the concepts in the Vestiges were very different from his own; he was therefore reluctant to embrace them as the forerunners of his own theory. As a scholar, he was also troubled by the scientific errors in the book. However, the record demonstrates that he attempted to make amends for any oversight on his part. His generous letter to Chambers's daughter, and his gracious treatment of Chambers during the brief time the latter lived in London, are ample proof of that.The attacks of Huxley, Sedgwick, and other prominent natural historians and geologists at the time, the problems inherent in Chambers's evolutionary theory, and the publication of the Origin, are the major reasons why the Vestiges became a neglected work. Nevertheless, Chambers's contribution will always stand out because, together with those of other late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century predecessors of Darwin, it laid the foundations of modern evolutionary thought and, more importantly, helped prepare the scientific community for the more fully developed ideas of Darwin and Wallace.     

The Preface to Darwin’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Origin of Species</Emphasis>: The Curious History of the “Historical Sketch” *

Almost any modern reader’s first encounter with Darwin’s writing is likely to be the “Historical Sketch,” inserted by Darwin as a preface to an early edition of the Origin of Species, and having since then appeared as the preface to every edition after the second English edition. The Sketch was intended by him to serve as a short “history of opinion” on the species question before he presented his own theory in the Origin proper. But the provenance of the “Historical Sketch” is somewhat obscure. Some things are known about its production, such as when it first appeared and what changes were made to it between its first appearance in 1860 and its final form, for the fourth English edition, in 1866. But how it evolved in Darwin’s mind, why he wrote it at all, and what he thought he was accomplishing by prefacing it to the Origin remain questions that have not been carefully addressed in the scholarly literature on Darwin. I attempt to show that Darwin’s various statements about the “Historical Sketch,” made primarily to several of his correspondents between 1856 and 1860, are somewhat in conflict with one another, thus making problematic a satisfactory interpretation of how, when, and why the Sketch came to be. I also suggest some probable resolutions to the several difficulties. How Darwin came to settle on the title “Historical Sketch” for the Preface to the Origin is not certain, but a guess may be ventured. When he first submitted the text to Asa Gray in February 1860 he called it simply “Preface Contributed by the Author to this American Edition” (Burkhardt et al., eds., vol. 8, 1993, p. 572; the collected correspondence is hereafter cited as CCD). In fact he had thought of it as being properly called a Preface much earlier, perhaps as early as 1856, as will be seen in what follows. It came to be called “An Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species” only in the third English edition, April 1861. This is the title it retained thereafter, with the exception of an addition to the title in the sixth English edition, “Previously to the Publication of the First Edition of this Work” (Peckham, 1959, pp. 20, 59). The word “sketch,” on the other hand was one of two words Darwin commonly used in private correspondence to refer to the book that would later become the Origin, the other word being “Abstract,” and both signifying that Darwin thought of the work as being a resume rather than a full-fledged study (e.g., letter to J.D. Hooker, May 9 1856, CCD vol. 6 p. 106; letter to Baden Powell January 18 1860, CCD vol. 8 p. 41; letter to Lyell 25 June 1858, CCD v. 7, 1991, pp. 117–8; letter to Lyell May 1856, CCD, v. 6 p. 100). The most likely source of the title “Historical Sketch” for Darwin’s Preface is Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology in which, beginning with the third edition (1834), Lyell added titles to his chapters, calling chapters 2–4 “Historical Sketch of the Progress of Geology” (Secord, in Lyell [1997], p. xlvii; for other uses by Lyell of this expression, cf. Porter, 1976, p. 95; idem 1982, p. 38; and Lyell, 1830 [1990], p. 30). Further parallels between Lyell’s Introduction and Darwin’s “Historical Sketch” in terms of content and strategy are suggested below.