Experimenting with Transmutation: Darwin, the Beagle, and Evolution

Detailed analysis of Darwin’s scientific notes and other writings from the Beagle voyage reveals a focus on endemism and replacement of allied taxa in time and in space that began early in the journey. Though it is impossible to determine exactly when Darwin became a transmutationist, the evidence suggests that he was conversant with the transmutational ideas of Lamarck and others and testing (“experimenting” with) them—before he received a copy of Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. 2, in November 1832, in which Lyell describes and disputes Lamarck’s theory. To the two rhea species of Patagonia and the four mockingbird species of the Galapagos, we can now add the living Patagonian cavy (rodent) species, and its extinct putatively related species that Darwin collected at Monte Hermoso (Bahia Blanca) in the Fall of 1832, as a replacement pattern absolutely critical to the development of Darwin’s transmutational thinking. Darwin developed his first transmutational theory by adopting “Brocchi’s analogy” (Rudwick 2008)—i.e. that births and deaths of species are analogous to the births and deaths of individuals. Births and deaths of species, as of individuals, are thus explicable in terms of natural causes. Darwin explored these themes and the replacement of the extinct cavy by the modern species explicitly in his February 1835 essay (Darwin 1835a).

Brocchi’s Subapennine Fossil Conchology

The Italian geologist Giambattista Brocchi (1771–1826) is presented as a key figure in the historical period preceding young Charles Darwin’s first work on transmutational theory while on the Beagle. The brief biographical account focuses on Brocchi’s writings related to his analogy that species have births and deaths like individuals, and culminates in his most important work, Subapennine Fossil Conchology of 1814. Brocchi’s analogy as an original and fertile way to approach the fossil record was to influence Darwin’s first evolutionary thinking. Relevant passages of the book are presented for the first time in an English translation.     

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.     

“A Great Complication of Circumstances” – Darwin and the Economy of Nature

In 1749, Linnaeus presided over the dissertation “Oeconomia Naturae,” which argued that each creature plays an important and particular role in nature’s economy. This phrase should be familiar to readers of Darwin, for he claims in the Origin that “all organic beings are striving, it may be said, to seize on each place in the economy of nature.” Many scholars have discussed the influence of political economy on Darwin’s ideas. In this paper, I take a different tack, showing that Darwin’s idea of an economy of nature stemmed from the views of earlier naturalists like Linnaeus and Lyell. I argue, in the first section of the paper, that Linnaeus’ idea of oeconomia naturae is derived from the idea of the animal economy, and that his idea of politia naturae is an extension of the idea of a politia civitatis. In the second part, I explore the use of the concept of stations in the work of De Candolle and Lyell – the precursor to Darwin’s concept of places. I show in the third part of the paper that the idea of places in an economy of nature is employed by Darwin at many key points in his thinking: his discussion of the Galapagos birds, his reading of Malthus, etc. Finally, in the last section, I demonstrate that the idea of a place in nature’s economy is essential to Darwin’s account of divergence. To tell his famous story of divergence and adaptation, Darwin needed the economy of nature.     

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.     

Separated at Birth: The Interlinked Origins of Darwin’s Unconscious Selection Concept and the Application of Sexual Selection to Race

This essay traces the interlinked origins of two concepts found in Charles Darwin’s writings: “unconscious selection,” and sexual selection as applied to humanity’s anatomical race distinctions. Unconscious selection constituted a significant elaboration of Darwin’s artificial selection analogy. As originally conceived in his theoretical notebooks, that analogy had focused exclusively on what Darwin later would call “methodical selection,” the calculated production of desired changes in domestic breeds. By contrast, unconscious selection produced its results unintentionally and at a much slower pace. Inspiration for this concept likely came from Darwin’s early reading of works on both animal breeding and physical ethnology. Texts in these fields described the slow and unplanned divergence of anatomical types, whether animal or human, under the guidance of contrasting ideals of physical perfection. These readings, it is argued, also led Darwin to his theory of sexual selection as applied to race, a theme he discussed mainly in his book The Descent of Man (1871). There Darwin described how the racial version of sexual selection operated on the same principle as unconscious selection. He thereby effectively reunited these kindred concepts.     

R. J. Gordon’s Discovery of the Spotted Hyena’s Extraordinary Genitalia in 1777

In the history of zoology the English anatomist Morrison Watson (1845–1885) is considered to be the discoverer of the masculinized sexual organs of the spotted hyena. Beginning in 1877, Watson had published a series of anatomical studies on the spotted hyena (Watson, 1877, 1878, 1881, Watson and Young, 1879), in which he, in which he for the first time made public the anatomical peculiarities of the female spotted hyena’s genitalia. This scientific achievement is well documented. But now we can also state that a hundred years before Watson the Dutch amateur zoologist Robert Jacob Gordon (1743–1795), while serving in the Scots Brigades at the Cape of Good Hope, had already made the same discovery and merely unfortunate personal circumstances prevented publication. During his stay at the Cape, Gordon had studied spotted hyenas intensively and recorded his observations in accurate drawings and comments. These drawings have been preserved as part of a large collection of animal drawings entitled Gordon Atlas. With his discovery, Gordon actually was the first to provide empirical evidence of a “curious and inexplicable case of dimorphism” (Darwin on a beetle) in mammalians, long before étienne Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire (Cours de l’histoire naturelle des mammifères, 1829) started examining masculinized sexual organs in the mole or Darwin recognized the importance of sexual dimorphism (Descent of Man, 1871). In this paper we reproduce for the first time all hyena drawings from the Gordon Atlas, including Gordon’s handwritten notes in the margins in the original Dutch and in translation. Additionally, we briefly delineate the knowledge about the South African spotted hyena in Gordon’s time and indicate that we doubt Watson’s explanation for the age-old confusion about the hyena.     

Traveller or tourist? Jack Kerouac and the commodification of culture

Jack Kerouac, the author of On The Road, was a central figure of the Beat Generation, a generation which rebelled against middle-class conformity in post–World War II America. Kerouac described himself as “a religious wanderer” (Kerouac 2006: 2), but an examination of his texts and life suggest his travels may also be understood as tourism. Viewed through the prism of tourism, this study will argue, for example, that MacCannell’s notion of the tourist’s quest for reality and authenticity (MacCannell 1989: 3) provides some insight into why Kerouac wrote that just south of Macon, Georgia, he and his travelling companion Neal Cassady stopped and got out of the car, “and suddenly both of us were stoned with joy to realize that in the darkness all around us was fragrant green grass and the smell of fresh manure and warm waters” (Kerouac 1957: 115). As Kerouac rebelled against being, as one of his protagonists in The Dharma Bums put it, “imprisoned in a system of work, produce, consume, work, produce, consume” (Kerouac 2006: 73) he travelled across America on a rapidly improving network of highways, turning “mobility into a retreat” (Holladay and Holton 2009: 42). Kerouac alternately identified himself as a hobo (Kerouac 1973: 181) and “not a real hobo” (Kerouac 1973: 173), but this article asks whether Kerouac’s travels were those of the last in a line of wanderers rebelling against conformity and modernization or a precursor of mobile mass tourism in America.     

Darwin and His Pigeons. The Analogy Between Artificial and Natural Selection Revisited

The analogy between artificial selection of domestic varieties and natural selection in nature was a vital element of Darwin’s argument in his Origin of Species. Ever since, the image of breeders creating new varieties by artificial selection has served as a convincing illustration of how the theory works. In this paper I argue that we need to reconsider our understanding of Darwin’s analogy. Contrary to what is often assumed, nineteenth-century animal breeding practices constituted a highly controversial field that was fraught with difficulties. It was only with considerable effort that Darwin forged his analogy, and he only succeeded by downplaying the importance of two other breeding techniques – crossing of varieties and inbreeding – that many breeders deemed essential to obtain new varieties. Part of the explanation for Darwin’s gloss on breeding practices, I shall argue, was that the methods of his main informants, the breeders of fancy pigeons, were not representative of what went on in the breeding world at large. Darwin seems to have been eager to take the pigeon fanciers at their word, however, as it was only their methods that provided him with the perfect analogy with natural selection. Thus while his studies of domestic varieties were important for the development of the concept of natural selection, the reverse was also true: Darwin’s comprehension of breeding practices was moulded by his understanding of the working of natural selection in nature. Historical studies of domestic breeding practices in the eighteenth and nineteenth century confirm that, besides selection, the techniques of inbreeding and crossing were much more important than Darwin’s interpretation allowed for. And they still are today. This calls for a reconsideration of the pedagogic use of Darwin’s analogy too.     

Cast in Plastic: Semiotic Plasticity and the Pragmatic Reading of Darwin

As Darwin portended but failed to develop, and of which Gould made much, the forensic evidence of evolution points toward Punctuated Equilibrium rather than Phyletic Gradualism; however Gould’s empirical postulation has long suffered from its lack of a testable theoretical basis. This is rectified by the work of Jaroslav Flegr and the Frozen Plasticity Theory, a hypothesis with striking application within semiotic theory and hence to questions of epistemology and ontology. The consequences of applying FPT within Biosemiotics is this: when any particular sign carries a great range of interpretation (semiotic polymorphism) combined with a high degree of mutually supportive referencing (semiotic pleiotropy), that sign is less likely to exhibit plasticity—less able to find new expressions capable of taking on a life of their own (as it were), but more likely to exhibit elasticity, and the flexibility necessary to survive a wide variety of niches. By contrast, much Darwinian and most Neo-Darwinian thought presumes that plasticity is equally and necessarily present in all living things, and that all populations thus slowly evolve. This devalues the point of interplay of such processes, which is the instigation of a specific instance of relating both delineated by and delineating its own unique heritage, and a phenomenon of signage. The presumption that these moments of transaction are all of a singular type has generated certain failures in extrapolating from evolutionary theory to understanding the experience of life. However Darwin was read differently by Darwin’s philosophical champion and Peirce’s “boxing master” Chauncey Wright. Using the historical encounter of the early Pragmatists with Origin, the hypothesis that Peirce’s Pragmatism and Semiotics originated within a study of the ontology implicit within Darwin’s one long argument, and also an evocative import from Sir Edward Strachey, this essay approaches Frozen Plasticity as a theoretical semiosis, so as to clarify the functioning of signage in evolution and cognition.     

Empathy’s purity,sympathy’s complexities; De Waal,Darwin and Adam Smith

Frans de Waal’s view that empathy is at the basis of morality directly seems to build on Darwin, who considered sympathy as the crucial instinct. Yet when we look closer, their understanding of the central social instinct differs considerably. De Waal sees our deeply ingrained tendency to sympathize (or rather: empathize) with others as the good side of our morally dualistic nature. For Darwin, sympathizing was not the whole story of the “workings of sympathy”; the (selfish) need to receive sympathy played just as central a role in the complex roads from sympathy to morality. Darwin’s understanding of sympathy stems from Adam Smith, who argued that the presence of morally impure motives should not be a reason for cynicism about morality. I suggest that De Waal’s approach could benefit from a more thorough alignment with the analysis of the workings of sympathy in the work of Darwin and Adam Smith.     

Why Darwin rejected intelligent design

As a Cambridge University undergraduate Charles Darwin was fascinated and convinced by the argument for intelligent design, as set forth in William Paley’s 1802 classic, Natural Theology. Subsequently, during his five-year voyage on HMS Beagle (1831–1836), Darwin interpreted his biological findings through a creationist lens, including the thought-provoking evidence he encountered during his historic visit to the Galápagos Islands in September and October 1835. After his return to England in 1836 and his subsequent conversion to the idea of organic evolution in March 1837, Darwin searched for a theory that would explain both the fact of evolution and the widespread appearance of intelligent design. His insight into the process of natural selection, which occurred in September 1838, provided this alternative explanation. Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) exemplifies his skillful deployment of the hypothetico-deductive method in testing and refuting the arguments for intelligent design that he had once so ardently admired.     

Darwin and Inheritance: The Influence of Prosper Lucas

An important historical relation that has hardly been addressed is the influence of Prosper Lucas’s Treatise on Natural Inheritance on the development of Charles Darwin’s concepts related to inheritance. In this article we trace this historical connection. Darwin read Lucas’s Treatise in 1856. His reading coincided with many changes concerning his prior ideas on the transmission and expression of characters. We consider that this reading led him to propose a group of principles regarding prepotency, hereditary diseases, morbid tendencies and atavism; following Lucas, he called these principles: laws of inheritance.     

The Charms of Nature: Darwin on Meaning and Value

I review George Levine’s provocative and highly original book Darwin Loves You. Levine, whose “home discipline” is English Literature, offers a compelling interpretation of Darwin’s works, evaluating their content and Darwin’s prose style to identify a distinctly Darwinian attitude toward nature as a source of meaning and value. Levine believes that Darwin exemplifies the capacity to feel “enchantment” about the natural world, suggesting that, if Darwin’s example were followed, a “Darwinian re-enchantment of the world” would be brought about. This would offer a secular, non-supernatural basis for purpose, meaning, and value. I conclude with a few critical remarks about the scope and cogency of Levine’s proposal.     

Heritage of the Romantic Philosophy in Post-Linnaean Botany Reichenbach’s Reception of Goethe’s Metamorphosis of Plants as a Methodological and Philosophical Framework

This paper demonstrates the importance of the reception and development of Goethe’s metamorphosis of plants as a methodological and philosophical framework in the history of botanical theories. It proposes a focus on the textbooks written by the German botanist Ludwig Reichenbach and his first attempt to use Goethe’s idea of metamorphosis of plants as fundamental to his natural system of plants published under the title ‘Botany for Women’, in German Botanik für Damen (1828). In this book, Reichenbach paid particular attention to Goethe’s sensitive views on the essence of nature; he regarded Goethe’s idea of metamorphosis in the plant kingdom as an ideal model to interpret connections of natural phenomena, in particular as a conceptual frame for a natural system. Furthermore, he aimed to develop the philosophical statement of the metamorphosis, in which he called for nature-philosophical conceptions in order to materialize his representation of plant “affinities,” and of a kind of “ontogeny” of the whole plant kingdom. This paper demonstrates that, between speculative views and empirical attempts, the extent to which Reichenbach actually belonged to a new “school” of thought, which left its mark on the history and philosophy of botany.     

Discrimination of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Oribotritia</Emphasis> species by oil gland chemistry (Acari,Oribatida)

The chemical composition of secretions from opisthonotal (oil) glands in four species of the oribatid mite genus Oribotritia (Mixonomata, Euphthiracaroidea, Oribotritiidae) was compared by means of gas chromatography—mass spectrometry. The secretions of all, O. banksi (from North America) and three Austrian oribotritiids (O. berlesei, O. hermanni, O. storkani), are shown to be based on certain unusual compounds, the iridoid monoterpenes chrysomelidial and epi-chrysomelidial and the diterpene β-springene. These components probably represent general chemical characteristics of oribotriid oil glands. Their relative abundance in the secretions along with further components (mainly saturated and unsaturated C₁₃-, C₁₅-, C₁₇-hydrocarbons, and the tentatively identified octadecadienal) led to well-distinguishable, species-specific oil gland secretions profiles. In addition a reduced set of “Astigmata compounds” (sensu Sakata and Norton in Int J Acarol 27:281–291, 2001)—namely the two monoterpenes neral and geranial—could be detected in extracts of O. banksi nevertheless indicating the classification of euphthiracaroids within the (monophyletic) group of “Astigmata compounds-bearing”-Oribatida. These compounds are considered to be apomorphically reduced in all Austrian species. Our findings emphasize the potential of chemosystematics using oil gland secretion profiles in the discrimination of morphologically very similar, syntopically living or even cryptic oribatid species.     

Extending Darwin’s analogy: Bridging differences in concepts of selection between farmers, biologists, and plant breeders

Darwin developed his theory of evolution based on an analogy between artificial selection by breeders of his day and “natural selection.” For Darwin, selection included what biologists came to see as being composed of (1) phenotypic selection of individuals based on phenotypic differences, and, when these are based on heritable genotypic differences, (2) genetic response between generations, which can result in (3) evolution (cumulative directional genetic response over generations). The use of the term “selection” in biology and plant breeding today reflects Darwin’s assumption—phenotypic selection is only biologically significant when it results in evolution. In contrast, research shows that small-scale, traditionally-based farmers select seed as part of an integrated production and consumption system in which selection is often not part of an evolutionary process, but is still useful to farmers. Extending Darwin’s analogy to farmers can facilitate communication between farmers, biologists, and plant breeders to improve selection and crop genetic resource conservation.