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     

Meeting Report: GBIF hackathon-workshop on Darwin Core and sample data (22-24 May 2013)

The workshop-hackathon was convened by the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) at its secretariat in Copenhagen over 22-24 May 2013 with additional support from several projects (RCN4GSC, EAGER, VertNet, BiSciCol, GGBN, and Micro B3). It assembled a team of experts to address the challenge of adapting the Darwin Core standard for a wide variety of sample data. Topics addressed in the workshop included 1) a review of outstanding issues in the Darwin Core standard, 2) issues relating to publishing of biodiversity data through Darwin Core Archives, 3) use of Darwin Core Archives for publishing sample and monitoring data, 4) the case for modifying the Darwin Core Text Guide specification to support many-to-many relations, and 5) the generalization of the Darwin Core Archive to a “Biodiversity Data Archive”. A wide variety of use cases were assembled and discussed in order to inform further developments.     

The Gentleman and the Rogue: The Collaboration Between Charles Darwin and Carl Vogt

This paper investigates the relationship between the eminent 19th-century naturalists Charles Darwin and Carl Vogt. On two separate occasions, Vogt asked Darwin for permission to translate some of the latter’s books into German, and in both cases Darwin refused. It has generally been assumed that Darwin turned down Vogt as a translator because of the latter’s reputation as a radical libertine who was extremely outspoken in his defence of scientific materialism and atheism. However, this explanation does not fit the facts, since, on closer investigation, Darwin not only gave serious consideration to engaging Vogt as the German translator of two of his books, albeit ultimately rejecting him, but he also collaborated with Vogt on the French editions of his works. In this paper we argue that this was not because Darwin was unaware of Vogt’s personality and blunt writing style; rather, Darwin seems to have decided that the benefits he would gain from their association would clearly outweigh the risk of offending some of his readers: in working with Vogt, who was not only a knowledgeable scientist but also an avowed adherent of Darwinism, Darwin could be assured of the scientific quality of the translation and of an edition that would not distort his central concepts – both of which were by no means matters of course in 19th-century translations of scientific works.     

Darwin the geologist: Between Lyell and von Buch

Upon returning from his voyage on the Beagle, Darwin prepared reports of his geological observations. Together, these reveal Darwin's approach to reasoning about geology. Darwin argued that successive terraces prove a very gradual elevation of the coast that lagoon islands show a reciprocal sinking of the oceanic floor. Hence, Darwin reinforced Lyell's uniformitarian, or steady state theory. Unlike lagoon islands, the movement of erratic boulders onto the plains is evidence of forces, which do not now exist. Darwin and Lyell attributed this movement to floating icebergs. However, mountain formation remained difficult for them to explain with reference to contemporary causes. Lyell discovered uplifts in Scandinavia, which resulted from epirogenesis, whereas mountain formation is an orogenesis, which involves both folding and uplift. Darwin was more impressed by uplift than by folds. However, when in Cordillera he saw strata overturned by masses of injected rock, proving successive periods of violence, Darwin took a position, which was closer to the plutonic theories of von Buch and Humboldt than it was to Lyell's uniformitarian views.     

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.     

The Galton–Darwin–Wedgwood Pedigree of H. H. Laughlin

A pedigree of the Galton–Darwin–Wedgwood families that was exhibited as a poster at the Third International Congress of Eugenics in 1932 at the American Museum of Natural History has been located in the archives of Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri. This pedigree was prepared by Harry Hamilton Laughlin, Director of the Eugenics Record Office of the Carnegie Institute. The pedigree shows consanguineous marriages within the three families. A special collection of rare Darwin family photographs assembled by Leonard Darwin has also been found in the Truman State University archives. These photographs were exhibited as a poster alongside the pedigree at the 1932 Eugenics Congress. The poster of the Galton–Darwin–Wedgwood pedigree is published here, together with a tabular version providing ready access to the information contained in the pedigree. Also included are the Darwin family photographs and a biographical sketch of Laughlin. © 2010 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2010, 101 , 228–241.     

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.     

Was Darwin a creationist?

Throughout the Origin of Species, Darwin contrasts his theory of natural selection with the theory that God independently created each species. This makes it seem as though the Origin offers a scientific alternative to a theological worldview. A few months after the Origin appeared, however, the eminent anatomist Richard Owen published a review that pointed out the theological assumptions of Darwin's theory. Owen worked in the tradition of rational morphology, within which one might suggest that evolution occurs by processes that are continuous with those by which life arises from matter; in contrast, Darwin rested his account of life's origins on the notion that God created one or a few life forms upon which natural selection could act. Owen argued that Darwin's reliance on God to explain the origins of life makes his version of evolution no less supernatural than the special creationist that Darwin criticizes: although Darwin limits God to one or a few acts of creation, he still relies upon God to explain life's existence.     

Celebrate Darwin Day, An Event for Education and Outreach in Evolutionary Biology

Darwin Day is an international celebration of Charles Darwin’s birthday, February 12, and is used as an occasion for education and outreach in evolutionary biology. I describe the history and structure of Darwin Day at the University of Tennessee, one of the oldest Darwin Day organizations in the world. I detail past events including speakers, themes, and advertising ideas that have worked for us and suggestions for getting a Darwin Day started. I encourage interested groups especially those at schools, museums, libraries, nature centers, and other institutions to adapt ideas from our organization to fit their own circumstances and to start planning their own Darwin Days for the celebration of Darwin’s 200th birthday in 2009.     

Why was Darwin’s view of species rejected by twentieth century biologists?

Historians and philosophers of science agree that Darwin had an understanding of species which led to a workable theory of their origins. To Darwin species did not differ essentially from ‘varieties’ within species, but were distinguishable in that they had developed gaps in formerly continuous morphological variation. Similar ideas can be defended today after updating them with modern population genetics. Why then, in the 1930s and 1940s, did Dobzhansky, Mayr and others argue that Darwin failed to understand species and speciation? Mayr and Dobzhansky argued that reproductively isolated species were more distinct and ‘real’ than Darwin had proposed. Believing species to be inherently cohesive, Mayr inferred that speciation normally required geographic isolation, an argument that he believed, incorrectly, Darwin had failed to appreciate. Also, before the sociobiology revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, biologists often argued that traits beneficial to whole populations would spread. Reproductive isolation was thus seen as an adaptive trait to prevent disintegration of species. Finally, molecular genetic markers did not exist, and so a presumed biological function of species, reproductive isolation, seemed to delimit cryptic species better than character-based criteria like Darwin’s. Today, abundant genetic markers are available and widely used to delimit species, for example using assignment tests: genetics has replaced a Darwinian reliance on morphology for detecting gaps between species. In the 150th anniversary of The Origin of Species, we appear to be returning to more Darwinian views on species, and to a fuller appreciation of what Darwin meant.     

Methods of ethics and the descent of man: Darwin and Sidgwick on ethics and evolution

Darwin’s treatment of morality in The Descent of Man has generated a wide variety of responses among moral philosophers. Among these is the dismissal of evolution as irrelevant to ethics by Darwin’s contemporary Henry Sidgwick; the last, and arguably the greatest, of the Nineteenth Century British Utilitarians. This paper offers a re-examination of Sidgwick’s response to evolutionary considerations as irrelevant to ethics and the absence of any engagement with Darwin’s work in Sidgwick’s main ethical treatise, The Methods of Ethics. This assessment of Sidgwick’s response to Darwin’s work is shown to have significance for a number of ongoing controversies in contemporary metaethics.     

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.     

Under the influence of Malthus's law of population growth: Darwin eschews the statistical techniques of Aldolphe Quetelet

Charles Darwin, James Clerk Maxwell, and Francis Galton were all aware, by various means, of Aldolphe Quetelet’s pioneering work in statistics. Darwin, Maxwell, and Galton all had reason to be interested in Quetelet’s work: they were all working on some instance of how large-scale regularities emerge from individual events that vary from one another; all were rejecting the divine interventionistic theories of their contemporaries; and Quetelet’s techniques provided them with a way forward. Maxwell and Galton all explicitly endorse Quetelet’s techniques in their work; Darwin does not incorporate any of the statistical ideas of Quetelet, although natural selection post-twentieth century synthesis has. Why not Darwin? My answer is that by the time Darwin encountered Malthus’s law of excess reproduction he had all he needed to answer about large scale regularities in extinctions, speciation, and adaptation. He didn’t need Quetelet.     

Charles Robert Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace: their dispute over the units of selection

Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace independently discovered the mechanism of natural selection for evolutionary change. However, they viewed the working of selection differently. For Darwin, selection was always focused on the benefit for the individual. For Wallace, selection was as much something of benefit for the group as for the individual. This difference is traced to their different background political–economic views, with Darwin in favor of Adam Smith's view of society and Wallace following Robert Owen in being a socialist.     

Monkeys into Men and Men into Monkeys: Chance and Contingency in the Evolution of Man, Mind and Morals in Charles Kingsley’s Water Babies

The nineteenth century theologian, author and poet Charles Kingsley was a notable populariser of Darwinian evolution. He championed Darwin’s cause and that of honesty in science for more than a decade from 1859 to 1871. Kingsley’s interpretation of evolution shaped his theology, his politics and his views on race. The relationship between men and apes set the context for Kingsley’s consideration of these issues. Having defended Darwin for a decade in 1871 Kingsley was dismayed to read Darwin’s account of the evolution of morals in Descent of Man. He subsequently distanced himself from Darwin’s conclusions even though he remained an ardent evolutionist until his death in 1875.     

Darwin Day in deep time: promoting evolutionary science through paleontology

Charles Darwin’s birthday, February 12th, is an international celebration coined Darwin Day. During the week of his birthday, universities, museums, and science-oriented organizations worldwide host events that celebrate Darwin’s scientific achievements in evolutionary biology. The University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UT) has one of the longest running celebrations in the nation, with 2016 marking the 19th year. For 2016, the theme for our weeklong series of events was paleontology, chosen to celebrate new research in the field and to highlight the specific misconceptions of evolution within the context of geologic time. We provide insight into the workings of one of our largest and most successful Darwin Day celebration to date, so that other institutions might also be able to host their own rewarding Darwin Day events in the future.     

Charles Darwin's views of classification in theory and practice

It has long been argued that Charles Darwin was the founder of the school of "evolutionary taxonomy" of the Modern Synthesis and, accordingly, that he recognized genealogy and similarity as dual, synergistic criteria for classification. This view is based on three questionable interpretations: first, of isolated passages in the 13th chapter of the Origin of Species; second, of one phrase in a letter that Darwin wrote about the work of an author he had partly misunderstood; and third, of his taxonomic practice in the barnacle monographs, which only implicitly embody his philosophy of classification, if at all. These works, seen in fuller context and with the perspective of extensive correspondence, are consistent with the view that Darwin advocated only genealogy as the basis of classification, and that similarity was merely a tool for discovering evolutionary relationships. Darwin was neither a Mayrian taxonomist nor a cladist, and he did not approach systematic issues in the same terms that we do in the late 20th century.     

Book Reviews

Book reviewed in this article:
GENERAL: The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin: Including an Autobiographical Chapter. Francis Darwin
GENERAL: The Autobiography of Charles Darwin and Selected Letters. Francis Darwin
GENERAL: Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. Gertrude Himmelfarb     

Metaorganismusforschung trifft Schule

The Darwin Day: modern science meets school During the Darwin Day at the University of Kiel high school students are introduced to recent research fields in modern biology. In 2018 the holistic view of a metaorganism offered the students new scientific ways of thinking and working, which are important for a profound understanding of biological interrelations as well as current clinical disorders. In order to bring new insights from biological research and modern science to school, different formats of science communication can be used. One possibility is the visit of extracurricular learning opportunities such as the Darwin Day at the University of Kiel. By linking current biological research with an out-of-school learning place, the importance of science communication can be illustrated. For this purpose, the Darwin Day and an accompanying teaching unit are presented in this article. Furthermore, insights into the evaluation of this outreach format are given.     

How Fast Does Darwin’s Elephant Population Grow?

In “The Origin of Species,” Darwin describes a hypothetical example illustrating that large, slowly reproducing mammals such as the elephant can reach very large numbers if population growth is not affected by regulating factors. The elephant example has since been cited in various forms in a wide variety of books, ranging from educational material to encyclopedias. However, Darwin’s text was changed over the six editions of the book, although some errors in the mathematics persisted throughout. In addition, full details of the problem remained hidden in his correspondence with readers of the Origin. As a result, Darwin’s example is very often misinterpreted, misunderstood or presented as if it were a fact. We show that the population growth of Darwin’s elephant population can be modeled by the Leslie matrix method, which we generalize here to males as well. Darwin’s most often cited figure, about 19 million elephants after 750 years is not a typical outcome, actually a very unlikely result under more realistic, although still hypothetical situations. We provide a recursion formula suggesting that Darwin’s original model corresponds to a tribonacci series, a proof showing that sex ratio is constant over all age classes, and a derivation of a generating function of the sequence.