The integration of Darwinism and evolutionary morphology: Alexej Nikolajevich Sewertzoff (1866-1936) and the developmental basis of evolutionary change

The growth of evolutionary morphology in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was inspired by the work of Carl Gegenbaur (1826-1903) and his protégé and friend Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919). However, neither of them succeeded in creating and applying a strictly Darwinian (selectionist) methodology. This task was left to the next generation of evolutionary morphologists. In this paper we present a relatively unknown researcher, Alexej Nikolajevich Sewertzoff (1866-1936) who made important contributions towards a synthesis of Darwinism and evolutionary morphology.     

The Case of Paul Kammerer: Evolution and Experimentation in the Early 20th Century

To some, a misguided Lamarckian and a fraud, to others a martyr in the fight against Darwinism, the Viennese zoologist Paul Kammerer (1880–1926) remains one of the most controversial scientists of the early 20th century. Here his work is reconsidered in light of turn-of-the-century problems in evolutionary theory and experimental methodology, as seen from Kammerer’s perspective in Vienna. Kammerer emerges not as an opponent of Darwinism, but as one would-be modernizer of the 19th-century theory, which had included a role for the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Kammerer attempted a synthesis of Darwinism with genetics and the chromosome theory, while retaining the modifying effects of the environment as the main source of favorable variation, and he developed his program of experimentation to support it. Kammerer never had a regular university position, but worked at a private experimental laboratory, with sidelines as a teacher and a popular writer and lecturer. On the lecture circuit he held forth on the significance of his science for understanding and furthering cultural evolution and he satisfied his passion for the arts and performance. In his dual career as researcher and popularizer, he did not always follow academic convention. In the contentious and rapidly changing fields of heredity and evolution, some of his stances and practices, as well as his outsider status and part-Jewish background, aroused suspicion and set the stage for the scandal that ended his career and prompted his suicide.     

生物进化研究的回顾与展望

生物进化是自然科学的永恒之迷。随着历史的发展和科学的进步,生物进化思想从早期的萌芽,到自然选择学说、新达尔文主义,从现代综合理论,到分子进化的中性学说。再到新灾变论和点断平衡论等。当前,由于生物学各分支学科的飞速发展．它们就各自的研究对象在宏观和微观上不断地拓展和深入,并在不同的层次上形成了广泛的交叉、渗透和融合,现代的进化生物学研究从宏观的表型到微观的分子,从群体遗传改变的微进化到成种事件以及地史上生物类群谱系演化的宏进化,从直接的化石证据到基于形态性状、分子证据和环境变迁的综合推理,从基于遗传基础的比较基因组学到演化机理的进化发育生物学等。可以预见,在新的世纪里,在哲学和具体方法论(如系统论、控制论和信息论)的指导下,在生命科学、其他自然科学乃至社会科学工作者的通力合作下,综合遗传、发育和进化等研究领域的各种理论成果,生物进化理论即将出现也一定会出现的一个新的大综合和新的大统一。     

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 Man of His Time: Thorstein Veblen and the University of Chicago Darwinists

The Darwinian economic theory that Thorstein Veblen proposed and refined while he served as a professor of Political Economy at the University of Chicago from 1891 to 1906 should be assessed in the context of the community of Darwinian scientists and social scientists with whom Veblen worked and lived at Chicago. It is important to identify Veblen as a member of this broad community of Darwinian-inclined philosophers, physiologists, geologists, astronomers, and biologists at Chicago because Veblen’s involvement with this circle suggests that the possible sources of his engagement with Darwinism extend beyond the pragmatists and Continental socialists to whom scholars have typically ascribed Veblen’s Darwinian roots. Additionally, that an extensive community continued to use Darwinian evolutionary theory to construct new models of scientific and social scientific analysis at the turn of the twentieth century, a period during which Darwinism was purportedly in decline, suggests that the “eclipse of Darwinism” narrative has been overstated in literature about Darwinism’s intellectual arc.     

Built for speed,not for comfort. Darwinian theory and human culture

Darwin believed that his theory of evolution would stand or fall on its ability to account for human behavior. No species could be an exception to his theory without imperiling the whole edifice. The ideas in the Descent of Man were widely discussed by his contemporaries although they were far from being the only evolutionary theories current in the late nineteenth century. Darwin's specific evolutionary ideas and those of his main followers had very little impact on the social sciences as they emerged as separate disciplines in the early Twentieth Century. Not until the late twentieth century were concerted, sophisticated efforts made to apply Darwinian theory to human behavior. Why such a long delay? We argue that Darwin's theory was rather modern in respects that conflicted with Victorian sensibilities and that he and his few close followers failed to influence any of the social sciences. The late Twentieth Century work takes up almost exactly where James Baldwin left off at the turn of the century.     

The sight of the peacock’s tail makes me sick: The early arguments on sexual selection

Why does a peacock have a beautiful train, while a peahen is sober without such flamboyance? Darwin proposed the theory of sexual selection to explain the differences between the sexes of the same species. Recently the study of sexual selection has been one of the most flourishing areas in evolutionary biology. However, the theory met with great resistance from biologists since the publication of the idea and the history of the theory included a lot of misunderstanding and confusion. There are several reasons for this. First, classical Darwinism failed to recognize social competition as an important selective force. Second, the good-for-the-species argument, which persisted in the days after Darwin, made the sexual selection argument more difficult to understand. Compared to the discussions on animals, Darwin’s argument on human sex differences is not satisfactory. The reason probably lies in the debate over human racial differences which prevailed in the 19th century.     

Karl Beurlen (1901–1985), Nature Mysticism, and Aryan Paleontology

The relatively late acceptance of Darwinism in German biology and paleontology is frequently attributed to a lingering of Lamarckism, a persisting influence of German idealistic Naturphilosophie and Goethean romanticism. These factors are largely held responsible for the vitalism underlying theories of saltational and orthogenetic evolutionary change that characterize the writings of many German paleontologists during the first half of the 20th century. A prominent exponent of that tradition was Karl Beurlen, who is credited with having been the first German paleontologist to present a full-fledged theory of saltational evolution and orthogenetic change. A review of Beurlen’s writings reveals motives and concerns far more complex, however, and firmly rooted in contemporary v?lkisch thought and Aryan Science. Beurlen’s mature theory of evolution can indeed be understood as his own contribution to Aryan Geology and Biology, tainted as it was with National-Socialist ideology. Evolutionary biologists of the time who opposed the theories of Beurlen and like-minded authors, i.e., idealistic morphology, typology, saltational change, orthogenesis and cyclism did so on Darwinian principles, which ultimately prevailed. But at the time when the battle was fought, their adherence to the principle of natural selection was likewise ideologically tainted, namely in terms of racial theory. National-Socialist ideology was unable to forge a unity of evolutionary theory in Germany even amongst those of its proponents who endorsed this ideology.     

150 Jahre “Biogenetisches Grundgesetz”

150 years “Biogenetic Law” The zoologist Ernst Haeckel is one of the most well‐known, but also one of the most controversial scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was one of the earliest Darwinists and a forceful advocate of evolutionary theory. Together with “Darwin's Bulldog” Thomas Henry Huxley, Haeckel was a central figure in the early history and popularization of Darwinism. But his name is not only a symbol for the disputes about the theory of evolution and its popularization, but also for a campaign for monism, a world‐view or philosophy created by Haeckel himself. Together with Fritz Müller, Ernst Haeckel was one of the first to formulate a “Biogenetic Law”. He also created several concepts and terms still in use in biology today, such as “ontogeny”, “phylogeny”, “ecology”, “cholorogy” and “phylum” in his first, and maybe most important book “General Morphology of Organism”, which was published in 1866, 150 years ago.     

The female orgasm and the homology concept in evolutionary biology

The definition of homology and its application to reproductive structures, external genitalia, and the physiology of sexual pleasure has a tortuous history. While nowadays there is a consensus on the developmental homology of genital and reproductive systems, there is no agreement on the physiological translation, or the evolutionary origination and roles, of these structural correspondences and their divergent histories. This paper analyzes the impact of evolutionary perspectives on the homology concept as applied to the female orgasm, and their consequences for the biological and social understanding of female sexuality and reproduction. After a survey of the history of pre-evolutionary biomedical views on sexual difference and sexual pleasure, we examine how the concept of sexual homology was shaped in the new phylogenetic framework of the late 19th century. We then analyse the debates on the anatomical locus of female pleasure at the crossroads of theories of sexual evolution and new scientific discourses in psychoanalysis and sex studies. Moving back to evolutionary biology, we explore the consequences of neglecting homology in adaptive explanations of the female orgasm. The last two sections investigate the role played by different articulations of the homology concept in evolutionary developmental explanations of the origin and evolution of the female orgasm. These include the role of sexual, developmental homology in the byproduct hypothesis, and a more recent hypothesis where a phylogenetic, physiological concept of homology is used to account for the origination of the female orgasm. We conclude with a brief discussion on the social implications for the understanding of female pleasure derived from these different homology frameworks.     

The Lamarckian Cradle of Scientific Ecology

Historians of science generally consider that Darwinism has played an important part in the birth of scientific ecology. Now most 19th century seminal works of the new discipline have been elaborated within a Lamarckian framework. The source of this paradox lies in the double-content of the adaptation concept, considered as a static phenomenon by the ecologists and as a dynamic process by the evolutionists. Although closely related nowadays, as shown by modern evolutionary ecology, the problematics of the fields of research at issue were initially separated. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Science as Ideology: The Rejection and Reception of Sociobiology in China

The spread of sociobiology in China is not simply an internal event in the development of science. From the day it was introduced to China, its destiny was closely bound up with the development and change of Chinese society. Although it did not create as great disturbance as in America, it did have a significant impact in academic circles. However, scholars have paid little attention to these historical events. Today, sociobiology seems outdated and Wilson's grand agenda seems to have faded with the passing of time, but the mark that he made on the history of science is still striking. A review of the process of reception of sociobiology in China is helpful for understanding this theory as well as the society of China.     

Superorganismality and caste differentiation as points of no return: how the major evolutionary transitions were lost in translation

More than a century ago, William Morton Wheeler proposed that social insect colonies can be regarded as superorganisms when they have morphologically differentiated reproductive and nursing castes that are analogous to the metazoan germ‐line and soma. Following the rise of sociobiology in the 1970s, Wheeler's insights were largely neglected, and we were left with multiple new superorganism concepts that are mutually inconsistent and uninformative on how superorganismality originated. These difficulties can be traced to the broadened sociobiological concept of eusociality, which denies that physical queen–worker caste differentiation is a universal hallmark of superorganismal colonies. Unlike early evolutionary naturalists and geneticists such as Weismann, Huxley, Fisher and Haldane, who set out to explain the acquisition of an unmated worker caste, the goal of sociobiology was to understand the evolution of eusociality, a broad‐brush convenience category that covers most forms of cooperative breeding. By lumping a diverse spectrum of social systems into a single category, and drawing attention away from the evolution of distinct quantifiable traits, the sociobiological tradition has impeded straightforward connections between inclusive fitness theory and the major evolutionary transitions paradigm for understanding irreversible shifts to higher organizational complexity. We evaluate the history by which these inconsistencies accumulated, develop a common‐cause approach for understanding the origins of all major transitions in eukaryote hierarchical complexity, and use Hamilton's rule to argue that they are directly comparable. We show that only Wheeler's original definition of superorganismality can be unambiguously linked to irreversible evolutionary transitions from context‐dependent reproductive altruism to unconditional differentiation of permanently unmated castes in the ants, corbiculate bees, vespine wasps and higher termites. We argue that strictly monogamous parents were a necessary, albeit not sufficient condition for all transitions to superorganismality, analogous to single‐zygote bottlenecking being a necessary but not sufficient condition for the convergent origins of complex soma across multicellular eukaryotes. We infer that conflict reduction was not a necessary condition for the origin of any of these major transitions, and conclude that controversies over the status of inclusive fitness theory primarily emanate from the arbitrarily defined sociobiological concepts of superorganismality and eusociality, not from the theory itself.     

Evolutionary ethics from Darwin to Moore

Evolutionary ethics has a long history, dating all the way back to Charles Darwin. Almost immediately after the publication of the Origin, an immense interest arose in the moral implications of Darwinism and whether the truth of Darwinism would undermine traditional ethics. Though the biological thesis was certainly exciting, nobody suspected that the impact of the Origin would be confined to the scientific arena. As one historian wrote, 'whether or not ancient populations of armadillos were transformed into the species that currently inhabit the new world was certainly a topic about which zoologists could disagree. But it was in discussing the broader implications of the theory...that tempers flared and statements were made which could transform what otherwise would have been a quiet scholarly meeting into a social scandal' (Farber 1994, 22). Some resistance to the biological thesis of Darwinism sprung from the thought that it was incompatible with traditional morality and, since one of them had to go, many thought that Darwinism should be rejected. However, some people did realize that a secular ethics was possible so, even if Darwinism did undermine traditional religious beliefs, it need not have any effects on moral thought. Before I begin my discussion of evolutionary ethics from Darwin to Moore, I would like to make some more general remarks about its development. There are three key events during this history of evolutionary ethics. First, Charles Darwin published On the Origin of the Species (Darwin 1859). Since one did not have a fully developed theory of evolution until 1859, there exists little work on evolutionary ethics until then. Shortly thereafter, Herbert Spencer (1898) penned the first systematic theory of evolutionary ethics, which was promptly attacked by T.H. Huxley (Huxley 1894). Second, at about the turn of the century, moral philosophers entered the fray and attempted to demonstrate logical errors in Spencer's work; such errors were alluded to but never fully brought to the fore by Huxley. These philosophers were the well known moralists from Cambridge: Henry Sidgwick (Sidgwick 1902, 1907) and G.E. Moore (Moore 1903), though their ideas hearkened back to David Hume (Hume 1960). These criticisms were so strong that the industry of evolutionary ethics was largely abandoned (though with some exceptions) for many years. Third, E.O. Wilson, a Harvard entomologist, published Sociobiology: The New Synthesis in 1975 (Wilson E.O. 1975), which sparked renewed interest in evolutionary ethics and offered new directions of investigation. These events suggest the following stages for the history of evolutionary ethics: development, criticism and abandonment, revival. In this paper, I shall focus on the first two stages, since those are the ones on which the philosophical merits have already been largely decided. The revival stage is still in progress and we shall eventually find out whether it was a success.     

Evolution of evolutionary physiology

In 19th century and at the beginning 20th century, reports appeared in the field of comparative and ontogenetic physiology and the value of these methods for understanding of evolution of functions. The term "evolutionary physiology" was suggested by A. N. Severtsov in 1914. In the beginning of 30s, in the USSR, laboratories for researches in problems of evolutionary physiology were created, the results of these researches having been published. In 1956 in Leningrad, the Institute of Evolutionary Physiology was founded by L. A. Orbeli. He formulates the goals and methods of evolutionary physiology. In the following half a century, the evolutionary physiology was actively developed. The evolutionary physiology solves problems of evolution of function of functions evolution, often involving methods of adjacent sciences, including biochemistry, morphology, molecular biology.     

The future of sociobiology: Counting babies or studying proximate mechanisms

Much of the debate over applying the theory of evolution to the study of human behaviour has died down because most critics now realize that the political ramifications of sociobiology are no more, or no less, than those of behaviourism, psychoanalysis or cognitive science. But controversy remains. It is scientific, and concerns the 'proper' way to do human sociobiology. I contrast the perspective of those sociobiologists who use the approach of behavioural ecology, and who have come to be known as 'darwinian anthropologists' or 'darwinian social scientists', with their critics, who refer to themselves as evolutionary or 'darwinian psychologists', describe the research methods that each uses, and ask if those issues must also be confronted by those studying animals.     

The sociobiology of sex: inclusive fitness consequences of inter-sexual interactions

The diversity of social interactions between sexual partners has long captivated biologists, and its evolution has been interpreted largely in terms of 'direct fitness' pay-offs to partners and their descendants. Inter-sexual interactions also have 'indirect effects' by affecting the fitness of relatives, with important consequences for inclusive fitness. However, inclusive fitness arguments have received limited consideration in this context, and definitions of 'direct' and 'indirect' fitness effects in this field are often inconsistent with those of inclusive fitness theory. Here, we use a sociobiology approach based on inclusive fitness theory to distinguish between direct and indirect fitness effects. We first consider direct effects: we review how competition leads to sexual conflict, and discuss the conditions under which repression of competition fosters sexual mutualism. We then clarify indirect effects, and show that greenbeard effects, kin recognition and population viscosity can all lead to episodes of indirect selection on sexual interactions creating potential for sexual altruism and spite. We argue that the integration of direct and indirect fitness effects within a sociobiology approach enables us to consider a more diverse spectrum of evolutionary outcomes of sexual interactions, and may help resolving current debates over sexual selection and sexual conflict.     

Deconstructing Darwin: Evolutionary theory in context

The topic of this paper is external versus internal explanations, first, of the genesis of evolutionary theory and, second, its reception. Victorian England was highly competitive and individualistic. So was the view of society promulgated by Malthus and the theory of evolution set out by Charles Darwin and A.R. Wallace. The fact that Darwin and Wallace independently produced a theory of evolution that was just as competitive and individualistic as the society in which they lived is taken as evidence for the impact that society has on science. The same conclusion is reached with respect to the reception of evolutionary theory. Because Darwins contemporaries lived in such a competitive and individualistic society, they were prone to accept a theory that exhibited these same characteristics. The trouble is that Darwin and Wallace did not live in anything like the same society and did not formulate the same theory. Although the character of Victorian society may have influenced the acceptance of evolutionary theory, it was not the competitive, individualistic theory that Darwin and Wallace set out but a warmer, more comforting theory.     

“Plants that Remind Me of Home”: Collecting,Plant Geography,and a Forgotten Expedition in the Darwinian Revolution

In 1859, Harvard botanist Asa Gray (1810–1888) published an essay of what he called “the abstract of Japan botany.” In it, he applied Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory to explain why strong similarities could be found between the flora of Japan and that of eastern North America, which provoked his famous debate with Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) and initiated Gray’s efforts to secure a place for Darwinian biology in the American sciences. Notably, although the Gray–Agassiz debate has become one of the most thoroughly studied scientific debates, historians of science remain unable to answer one critical question: How was Gray able to acquire specimens from Japan? Making use of previously unknown archival materials, this article scrutinizes the institutional, instrumental, financial, and military settings that enabled Gray’s collector, Charles Wright (1811–1885), to travel to Japan, as well as examine Wright’s collecting practices in Japan. I argue that it is necessary to examine Gray’s diagnosis of Japan’s flora and the subsequent debate about it from the viewpoint of field sciences. The field-centered approach not only unveils an array of historical significances that have been overshadowed by the analytical framework of the Darwinian revolution and the reception of Darwinism, but also places a seemingly domestic incident in a transnational context.     

DO WE NEED AN EXTENDED EVOLUTIONARY SYNTHESIS?

The Modern Synthesis (MS) is the current paradigm in evolutionary biology. It was actually built by expanding on the conceptual foundations laid out by its predecessors, Darwinism and neo-Darwinism. For sometime now there has been talk of a new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), and this article begins to outline why we may need such an extension, and how it may come about. As philosopher Karl Popper has noticed, the current evolutionary theory is a theory of genes, and we still lack a theory of forms. The field began, in fact, as a theory of forms in Darwin's days, and the major goal that an EES will aim for is a unification of our theories of genes and of forms. This may be achieved through an organic grafting of novel concepts onto the foundational structure of the MS, particularly evolvability, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetic inheritance, complexity theory, and the theory of evolution in highly dimensional adaptive landscapes.