Darwinism and the Origin of Life: The Role of H.C. Bastian in the British Spontaneous Generation Debates, 1868--1873

Henry Charlton Bastian's support for spontaneous generation is shown to have developed from his commitment to the new evolutionary science of Darwin, Spencer, Huxley and Tyndall. Tracing Bastian's early career development shows that he was one of the most talented rising young stars among the Darwinians in the 1860s. His argument for a logically necessary link between evolution and spontaneous generation was widely believed among those sympathetic to Darwin's ideas. Spontaneous generation implied materialism to many, however, and it had associations in Britain with radical politics and amateur science. Huxley and the X Club were trying to create a public posture of Darwinism that kept it at arm's length from those negative associations. Thus, the conflict that developed when Huxley and the X Club opposed Bastian was at least as much about factional in-fighting among the Darwinians as it was about the experiments under dispute. Huxley's strategy to defeat Bastian and define his position as “non-Darwinian” contributed significantly to the shaping of Huxley's famous address “Biogenesis and Abiogenesis.” Rhetorically separating Darwinism from Bastian was thus responsible for Huxley's first clear public statement that a naturalistic origin of life was compatible with Darwin's ideas, but only in the earth's distant past. The final separation of the discourse on the meaning of Brownian movement and “active molecules” from any possible link with spontaneous generation also grew out of Huxley's strategy to defeat Bastian. Clashes between Bastian and the X Club are described at the BAAS, the Royal Society, and in the pages of Nature and other journals. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Freud’s Lamarckism’ and the Politics of Racial Science

This article re-contextualizes Sigmund Freud’s interest in the idea of the inheritance of acquired characteristics in terms of the socio-political connotations of Lamarckism and Darwinism in the 1930s and 1950s. Many scholars have speculated as to why Freud continued to insist on a supposedly outmoded theory of evolution in the 1930s even as he was aware that it was no longer tenable. While Freud’s initial interest in the inheritance of phylogenetic memory was not necessarily politically motivated, his refusal to abandon this theory in the 1930s must be understood in terms of wider debates, especially regarding the position of the Jewish people in Germany and Austria. Freud became uneasy about the inheritance of memory not because it was scientifically disproven, but because it had become politically charged and suspiciously regarded by the Nazis as Bolshevik and Jewish. Where Freud seemed to use the idea of inherited memory as a way of universalizing his theory beyond the individual cultural milieu of his mostly Jewish patients, such a notion of universal science itself became politically charged and identified as particularly Jewish. The vexed and speculative interpretations of Freud’s Lamarckism are situated as part of a larger post-War cultural reaction against Communism on the one hand (particularly in the 1950s when Lamarckism was associated with the failures of Lysenko), and on the other hand, against any scientific concepts of race in the wake of World War II.     

Overheated Rats,Race, and the Double Gland: Paul Kammerer,Endocrinology and the Problem of Somatic Induction

In 1920, Eugen Steinach and Paul Kammerer reported experiments showing that exposure to high temperatures altered the structure of the gonad and produced hyper-sexuality in “heat rats,” presumably as a result of the increased production of sex hormones. Using Steinach’s evidence that the gonad is a double gland with distinct sexual and generative functions, they used their findings to explain “racial” differences in the sexuality of indigenous tropical peoples and Europeans. The authors also reported that heat induced anatomical changes in the interstitial cells of the gonad were inherited by the heat rats’ descendants. Kammerer used this finding to link endocrinology to his long-standing interest in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The heat rats supported his hypothesis that the interstitial cells of the double gland were the mechanism of somatic induction in the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The Steinach–Kammerer collaboration, Kammerer’s use of Steinach’s “puberty gland” to explain somatic induction, and his endocrine analysis of symbiosis reveal Paul Kammerer’s late career attempt to integrate endocrinology and genetics with the political ideals of Austrian socialism. With them he developed a bioethics that challenged the growing reliance on race in eugenics and instead promoted cooperation over competition in evolution. I relate his attempt to the controversies surrounding the interstitial cells, to the status of extra-nuclear theories of heredity, and to Kammerer’s commitment to Austromarxist social reforms during the interwar period. I am very grateful for the help of several archivists, including Valerie-Ann Lutz, Roy Goodman and Robert Cox at the American Philosophical Society Library, Arlene Shaner at the New York Academy of Medicine, Shawn Wilson at the Kinsey Institute Library, the staff at the Archives of the University of Vienna, and Yukiko Sakabe at the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Thanks are also due to Andreas Lixl, who gave very helpful advice on German language and to many colleagues, including three anonymous reviewers, Paul Silvia, Alyce Miller, and the late Gilbert Gottlieb, who provided valuable comments as readers of earlier drafts. My discussions with Veronika Hofer have been especially rewarding. The research was funded by National Science Foundation grant #0240151.     

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).     

On Darwin's palaeontology in The Origin of Species

I investigate the role of palaeontology within Darwin's works through an analysis of the two chapters of The Origin of Species most especially devoted to this science. Palaeontology may occupy several places within the structure of the argumentative logic of Darwinism, but these places have remained to some extent ancillary. Indeed, palaeontology could well document evolutionary patterns, showing the actual occurrence of evolution as a general “historical fact”, but it was poorly adapted to demonstrate the main point of Darwinism: the actual evolutionary process: natural selection acting among individuals. I also show, in agreement with Gould, that Darwin had great confidence in the ultimate ability of palaeontology to support his theory, and that in interpreting palaeontological evidence, he expressed a vision of natural selection much wider and more eclectic than that which has generally been ascribed to him.     

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.     

Flora was His Interest and Prime Course of Study: A Botanical Career for W.E. Ricker Disappears

Synopsis Bill Ricker’s career went through many twists in his academic years. He had taken botany in his senior matriculation year at high school and he had collected over 100 species of flora before commencement of university life. At the conclusion of his first university year, he set out over the summer to collect a much larger sample of species, primarily from the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence ecoregion, to fulfil a requirement for a second year botany course (spermatophytes). He identified about 390 species, and some 254 were collected and pooled with those from previous years to make a final submission of 354 spermatophyte species. Field plant identification continued in each academic year thereafter, in concert with collections and identifications of aquatic invertebrates in his summer projects while under the employment of the Ontario Fisheries Research Laboratory. At the conclusion of his undergraduate years, Bill had taken more courses in botany than in zoology, and it was the summer employment that had really prepared him for postgraduate work in fisheries biology, which was ecologically oriented. When Bill left Ontario in the autumn of 1931 he had identified over 600 species of plants, excluding lower cryptogams, but including many aquatic species of higher plants. In western North America Bill’s botanical career began at Cultus Lake in 1931. He again studied all aspects of the basin while employed with the federal government, and from the work he assembled a Ph.D. thesis. At the time of thesis completion he had identified over 300 species of flora, including alpine plants at timberline, 1500 – 1800 m above lake level, and planktonic algae in its water column. In 1939, after more field fisheries work in the Fraser River basin of British Columbia, Bill accepted a position with the biological staff at Indiana University. In this period which concluded in 1950 he identified another 50 – 110 species of flora, all in the Carolinian ecoregion, and hitherto not seen by him. Considering all floral classes, Bill’s eastern North American repertoire had by then added up to 791 species, representative of more than 112 families of plants. Returning west for the remainder of his life, new identifications elsewhere added to his Cultus Lake list which slowly added up to about 1000 species for the west coastal region of North America. Flora was also identified elsewhere in the mid-continental region of North America, in Eurasia where the Abisko region of Lappland was a highlight, and in South America and New Zealand. Records of his botanical prowess, were kept primarily in his diaries, which began in 1923 and were maintained consistently to the end of 1934, and thereafter intermittently to 1949. The diaries reveal that his career as a budding botanist was subtly hijacked by a wily Professor W.H.K. Harkness in the rival Biology Department who out-manoeuvred Drs. R.B. Thompson and R.A. Sifton in the Botany Department. The former always managed to employ Bill in summer and keep him occupied in the department’s labs during the autumn and winter and spring, tying up any free time when the botanist had approached him on lab work. Certainly, the botany courses taken and which he excelled at were more appropriate for his aquatic ecological pursuits. Salesmanship won the day for the zoologists, but Bill was a life-long botanist regardless of whatever else he studied or managed throughout his professional career. The last days of his life had a botanical conclusion.     

Scientific research at the Laboratoire Arago (Banyuls, France) in the twentieth Century: Edouard Chatton, the "master", and André Lwoff, the "pupil"

Edouard Chatton (1883–1947) began his scientific career in the Pasteur Institute, where he made several important discoveries regarding pathogenic protists (trypanosomids, Plasmodium, toxoplasms, Leishmania). In 1908 he married a "Banyulencque", Marie Herre; from 1920, he focused his research on marine protists. He finished his career as Professor at the Sorbonne (Paris) and director of the Laboratoire Arago in Banyuls-sur-mer, where he died in 1947. André Lwoff (1902–1994) lived several scientific lives in addition to his artistic and family life. But it is the study of protists that filled his first life after he encountered the exceptional Master who was Chatton. Lwoff's father was a psychiatrist and his mother an artist sculptor. He became a Doctor of Medicine in 1927 and then a Doctor of Sciences in 1932, his thesis dealing with biochemical aspects of protozoa nutrition. He met Chatton in 1921 and – until Chatton's death – their meetings, first in Roscoff and then in Banyuls-sur-mer, were numerous and their collaboration very close. Their monograph on apostome ciliates was one of the peaks of this collaboration. In 1938, Lwoff was made director of the Microbial Physiology Department at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, where he began a new life devoted to bacteria, and then to viruses, before pursuing his career as director of the Cancer Research Institute in Villejuif (France). Lwoff was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965. He died in Banyuls in 1994. "Master" and "pupil" had in common perseverance in their scientific work, conception and observation, a critical sense and rigor but also a great artistic sensibility that painting and drawing in the exceptional surroundings of Banyuls-sur-mer had fulfilled. Electronic Publication     

Can epigenetics solve the case of the midwife toad?--a comment on Vargas

In a recent article in this journal, A. O. Vargas (2009. J Exp Zool B (Mol Dev Evol) 312:667-678) suggests to interpret the controversial midwife toad experiments of the early 20th century zoologist Paul Kammerer in the context of epigenetic inheritance. For information on Kammerer's work he resorts to a popular science book (Kammerer, '24. The Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics). However, the study of Kammerer's original publications reveals that there are substantial misunderstandings in Vargas' treatment of the subject. While Vargas' general idea-invoking epigenetic effects as an explanation of Kammerer's findings-remains attractive, at least two key aspects of his model need to be revised. Clarification of these issues is an important prerequisite for any experimental design with the aim to (dis)prove Kammerer and to establish a (potential) epigenetic basis of his observations about the mating behavior in midwife toads.     

Rupert Riedl and the re-synthesis of evolutionary and developmental biology: body plans and evolvability

This paper reviews the scientific career of Rupert Riedl and his contributions to evolutionary biology. Rupert Riedl, a native of Vienna, Austria, began his career as a marine biologist who made important contributions to the systematics and anatomy of major invertebrate groups, as well as to marine ecology. When he assumed a professorship at the University of North Carolina in 1968, the predominant thinking in evolutionary biology focused on population genetics, to the virtual exclusion of most of the rest of biology. In this atmosphere Riedl developed his "systems theory" of evolution, which emphasizes the role of functional and developmental integration in limiting and enabling adaptive evolution by natural selection. The main objective of this theory is to account for the observed patterns of morphological evolution, such as the conservation of body plans. In contrast to other "alternative" theories of evolution, Riedl never denied the importance of natural selection as the driving force of evolution, but thought it necessary to contextualize natural selection with the organismal boundary conditions of adaptation. In Riedl's view development is the most important factor besides natural selection in shaping the pattern and processes of morphological evolution.     

T. R. R. Stebbing:A bibliography with biographic notes

T. R. R. Stebbing (1835–1926), a specialist on the systematics of amphipod Crustacea, was raised in London in a literary family and studied classics, law and history at Oxford. After his ordination as a priest in 1859 he was a schoolmaster, then, after he married, a private tutor at Torquay. About 1863 he read Darwin's Origin of species and was convinced by it; by 1868 he had become a naturalist and systematist. In 1877 he moved to Tunbridge Wells where he spent the rest of his life studying Crustacea, active in scientific societies, and writing essays and reviews.
Stebbing's Darwinism was not particularly original, though he marshalled some good examples from the invertebrates to indicate the importance of variation within and between species. He regarded natural selection as a directing force by which God's plan for organisms was being worked out, and credited it with the origin of language, morality and religion. In taxonomic practice, Stebbing advocated priority of names, simple rules of transliteration and gender, and publication of new names only in a few easily-accessible journals. After the publication of the Regies internationales de la nomenclature zoologique in 1905 his writings on taxonomic practice were confined to minor issues.
A bibliography of Stebbing's 242 publications concerned with carcinology, Darwinism, nomenclature and miscellaneous subjects has been compiled.     

Darwin's "beloved barnacles": tough lessons in variation

In 1846, burdened by insecurity and self-doubt, and having been convinced that he needed to study some group of organisms closely, Darwin embarked on an eight-year odyssey in the protean and perplexing world of barnacles. At the time, he was searching for evidence in support of his theory of evolution by natural selection. In the course of his long study of barnacles, however, he was not just validating his preexisting theoretical system, but was also modifying his views on such fundamental aspects as the universality of individual variation, which is the focus of this paper. According to this notion, the members of any population of living things are expected to exhibit sufficient differences from one another for natural selection to operate. By emphasizing the theoretical value of the barnacle project, my analysis contributes to the historiographic tradition which highlights the significance of the period between the first comprehensive formulation of the theory of evolution by natural selection in 1844 and its urgent publication in the late 1850s. In the course of these years, Darwin's theory was not just accumulating empirical laurels, but was also expected to adapt to a changing conceptual landscape.     

Lacepède’s Syncretic Contribution to the Debates on Natural History in France Around 1800

Lacepède was a key figure in the French intellectual world from the Old Regime to the Restoration, sinc e he was not only a scientist, but also a musician, a writer, and a politician. His brilliant career is a good example of the progress of the social status of scientists in France around 1800. In the life sciences, he was considered the heir to Buffon and continued the latter’s Histoire naturelle, but he also borrowed ideas from anti-Buffonian (e.g. Linnaean) scientists. He broached many important subjects such as the nature of man, the classification of animals, the concept of species, and the history of the Earth. All these topics led to tensions in the French sciences, but Lacepède dealt with them in a consensual, indeed even ambiguous way. For example, he held transformist views, but his concept of evolution was far less precise and daring than Lamarck’s contemporaneous attempts. His somewhat confused eclecticism allowed him to be accepted by opposing camps of the French scientific community at that time and makes his case interesting for historians, since the opinions of such an opportunistic figure can illuminate the figure of the French intellectual better than more original works could do. In turn, Lacepède’s important social and scientific position gave his views a significant visibility. In this sense, his contributions probably exerted an influence, in particular with regard to the emergence of transformist theories.     

<Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Regeneration</Emphasis>: Thomas Hunt Morgan’s Window into Development

Early in his career Thomas Hunt Morgan was interested in embryology and dedicated his research to studying organisms that could regenerate. Widely regarded as a regeneration expert, Morgan was invited to deliver a series of lectures on the topic that he developed into a book, Regeneration (1901). In addition to presenting experimental work that he had conducted and supervised, Morgan also synthesized and critiqued a great deal of work by his peers and predecessors. This essay probes into the history of regeneration studies by looking in depth at Regeneration and evaluating Morgan’s contribution. Although famous for his work with fruit fly genetics, studying Regeneration illuminates Morgan’s earlier scientific approach which emphasized the importance of studying a diversity of organisms. Surveying a broad range of regenerative phenomena allowed Morgan to institute a standard scientific terminology that continues to inform regeneration studies today. Most importantly, Morgan argued that regeneration was a fundamental aspect of the growth process and therefore should be accounted for within developmental theory. Establishing important similarities between regeneration and development allowed Morgan to make the case that regeneration could act as a model of development. The nature of the relationship between embryogenesis and regeneration remains an active area of research.     

Problem-solving exercises and evolution teaching

It has been suggested that the work of Kammerer provides suitable material, in the form of case studies, on which to base discussions of Lamarckism versus Darwinism. A set of structured problems is described as an example of possible problem-solving exercises, and further experiments to extend Kammerer's work are outlined.     

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 Case of Heinrich Wilhelm Poll (1877–1939): A German-Jewish Geneticist, Eugenicist, Twin Researcher, and Victim of the Nazis

This paper uses a reconstruction of the life and career of Heinrich Poll as a window into developments and professional relationships in the biological sciences in Germany in the period from the beginning of the twentieth century to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933. Poll’s intellectual work involved an early transition from morphometric physical anthropology to comparative evolutionary studies, and also found expression in twin research – a field in which he was an acknowledged early pioneer. His advocacy of eugenics led to participation in state-sponsored committees convened to advise on social policy, one of which debated sterilisation and made recommendations that led eventually to the establishment of the notorious Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. However, his status as a prominent geneticist and, in particular, as a eugenicist had an ironic and ultimately tragic dimension. Heinrich Poll was of Jewish birth, and this resulted in his career being destroyed by an application of the population policies he had helped put in place.     

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.     

H. G. Bronn and the History of Nature

The German paleontologist H. G. Bronn is best remembered for his 1860 translation and critique of Darwin’s Origin of Species, and for supposedly twisting Darwinian evolution into conformity with German idealistic morphology. This analysis of Bronn’s writings shows, however, that far from being mired in an outmoded idealism that confined organic change to predetermined developmental pathways, Bronn had worked throughout the 1840s and 1850s on a new, historical approach to life. He had been moving from the study of plant and animal forms in the abstract towards placing them into geological and biogeographical context, analyzing patterns of progress and adaptation, explaining species diversity and individual variation, and applying biological insights to practical problems such as artificial breeding. Even though Bronn never fully accepted the idea of species transformation, he saw Darwin’s theory as a bold new move toward his own goal of establishing a comprehensive, historical science of life, and he presented it as such in his translation and commentary. Thus Darwin’s ideas gained a quick and generally favorable hearing in Germany not because of their easy assimilability into an older tradition, but because of their appeal to the innovative Bronn.     

Mendel's experiments: A reinterpretation

Conclusion My conclusion is that Mendel deliberately, though without any real falsification, tried to suggest to his audience and readers an unlikely and substantially wrong reconstruction of the first and most important phase of his research. In my book I offer many reasons for this strange and surprising behavior,⁵³ but the main argument rests on the fact of linkage. Mendelian genetics cannot account for linkage because it was based on the idea of applying probability theory to the problem of species evolution. Central to the theory is the law of probability according to which the chance occurrence of a combination of independent events is the product of their separate probabilities. This is the common basis of Mendel's first and second laws, but this is why Mendel's second law on independent assortment is enunciated in too general a way. From Morgan's work we now know that characters may not always be independent if their genes are located very close one to the other on the same chromosome. And this was also the basis of Mendel's personal drama: he surely observed the effects of linkage, but he had no theoretical tools with which to explain it. So he presented his results in a logical structure consistent with the central idea of his theory. Had he described the real course of his experiments he would have had to admit that his law worked for only a few of the hundreds of Pisum characters — and it would thus have been considered more of an exception than a rule. This is why he insisted on the necessity of testing the law on other plants, and this is why in his second letter to Carl Nägeli he admits that the publication of his data was untimely and dangerous.⁵⁴.We can argue that already in 1866 Mendel was less confident that his so-called second law had the same general validity as the first — and that later he lost his confidence altogether. Contemporary testimony indicates that in the end he became as skeptical as all his contemporaries as to the scientific relevance of his theory.⁵⁵ But he was wrong. His research is in no way the fruit of methodological mistakes or forgery, and it remains a landmark in the history of science. He was only the victim of a strange destiny in which the use of probability theory was responsible, at the same time, for the strength and for the weakness of his theory. We must still consider him the father and founder of genetics.