Alfred Russel Wallace, past and future

The naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) has for many years been standing in the shadow of his more famed co‐discoverer of the principle of natural selection, Charles Darwin. Despite outward similarities between the two men's formulation of the principle, Wallace had fit his appreciation of natural selection into views on evolution that were quite different from Darwin's. A closer examination of what Wallace had in mind suggests a model of process in which natural selection per se acts as the negative feedback mechanism (actually, a ‘state‐space’) in the relation between population and environment, and environmental engagement as made possible by the resulting selection of traits acts as the positive feedback part of the cycle. Thus, it may be better to contextualize adaptive structures as entropy‐relaying biogeochemical facilitators that only ‘generate a potential for evolution’ than to portray them as the end results of evolution. This systems point of view better lends itself to appreciations of the biogeographical context of evolution than does the tree‐thinking of a more conventional style of speciation‐focused Darwinism, which sometimes confuses process with result.     

At home among strangers: Alfred Russel Wallace in Russia

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) was an influential figure within Russian pre-Synthetic evolutionary biology, i.e. the time period before the Synthetic Theory of Evolution was established (ca. 1880–1930s). His major works were translated into Russian and his general ideas were read and discussed by both insiders and outsiders of scientific evolutionism. At the same time, Wallace played a controversial role in the growth of Darwinism in Russia, and Charles Robert Darwin (1809–1882) has eclipsed Wallace in his influence on Russian evolutionary thinking. In this paper we briefly outline Wallace’s impact on Russian pre-Synthetic scientific evolutionism and its general intellectual climate. We demonstrate that both Russian pro-Darwinian evolutionists and anti-Darwinians (scientific anti-Darwinians as well as creationists) were fully aware of Wallace’s contributions to the development of evolutionary theory. Yet, Wallace’s radical selectionism, as well as his controversial arguments for “design in nature”, predetermined his special place within the Russian intellectual landscape.     

The prominent absence of Alfred Russel Wallace at the Darwin anniversaries in Germany in 1909, 1959 and 2009

It is well known that the contribution of Alfred Russell Wallace (1823–1913) to the development of the “Darwinian” principle of natural selection has often been neglected. Here we focus on how the three anniversaries to celebrate the origin of the Darwin–Wallace theory in Germany in 1909, in 1959 in the divided country, as well as in 2009, have represented Charles Robert Darwin’s and Alfred Russell Wallace’s contributions. We have analyzed books and proceedings volumes related to these anniversaries, and the main result is that Wallace was almost always ignored, or only mentioned in passing. In 1909, Ernst Haeckel gave a talk in Jena, later published under the title The worldview of Darwin and Lamarck (Das Weltbild von Darwin und Lamarck), but not as the Darwin–Wallace concept. Haeckel mentions Wallace only once. In two important proceedings volumes from the 1959 anniversaries, Wallace was ignored. The only fair treatment of Wallace is given in another book, a collection of documents edited by Gerhard Heberer, for which the author selected nine key documents and reprinted excerpts (1959). Three of them were articles by Wallace, including the Sarawak- and Ternate-papers of 1855 and 1858, respectively. An analysis of the dominant themes during the celebrations of 2009 shows that none of the six topics had much to do with Wallace and his work. Thus, the tendency to exclude Alfred Russell Wallace is an international phenomenon, and largely attributable to the “Darwin industry”.     

Alfred Russel Wallace and the destruction of island life: the Iguana tragedy

The Galápagos Islands (Ecuador) are usually associated with the explorations and theoretical deductions of Charles Robert Darwin (1809–1882), but Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) also investigated these islands and published several reports on the living world of this unique archipelago. In contrast to Darwin, Wallace described the destruction of natural ecosystems by humans and foresaw the resulting extinction of species. Here, we outline two case studies pertinent to Wallace’s prediction. First, we summarize the behavior of the predator-naive marine iguanas (Amblyrhynchus cristatus) on the Galápagos Islands, which are threatened by feral dogs and cats imported by humans. We also describe the unique life cycle of the spiny-tailed iguana (Ctenosaura bakeri) from the island of Utila (Honduras), a rare species whose populations are declining because of habitat destructions. In contrast to these threatened, endemic island species, the Green iguana (Iguana iguana) is still widely distributed, although, as a result of de-forestation, in some areas of South America local populations have disappeared. We conclude that Wallace was correct in his prediction that, because of human activities, numerous species of animals and plants will be driven to extinction, notably on islands.     

Resister's logic: the anti-vaccination arguments of Alfred Russel Wallace and their role in the debates over compulsory vaccination in England, 1870-1907

In the 1880s, Alfred Russel Wallace, the celebrated co-discoverer of natural selection, launched himself into the centre of a politicised and polarised debate over the unpopular compulsory vaccination laws in England. Wallace never wavered in his belief that smallpox vaccination was useless and likely dangerous. Six years before his death, the anti-vaccinationists successfully secured a conscience clause that effectively dismantled the compulsory vaccination laws. Several other important Victorian scientists joined Wallace in the fight to repeal compulsory vaccination arguing that widely held views on the effectiveness of vaccination and evidence for immunity were inconclusive in the light of (then) contemporary standards of evidence. This article situates Wallace's anti-vaccination logic within the broader matrix of sociopolitical and cultural reform movements of the late Victorian era. Additionally it provides the first detailed analysis of his critique of vaccination science, in particular the role statistics played in his arguments. In this period, both pro-vaccinationists and anti-vaccinationists invested great efforts in collating and analysing statistical data sets that either supported or refuted the claims of vaccination's effectiveness. While each side presented 'controlled' case studies to support their assertions, without an unambiguous test to measure or demonstrate vaccination's effectiveness, the anti-vaccinationists continued to mount credible statistical critiques of vaccination science.     

The ornithologist Alfred Russel Wallace and the controversy surrounding the dinosaurian origin of birds

Over many years of his life, the British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) explored the tropical forests of Malaysia, collecting numerous specimens, including hundreds of birds, many of them new to science. Subsequently, Wallace published a series of papers on systematic ornithology, and discovered a new species on top of a volcano on Ternate, where he wrote, in 1858, his famous essay on natural selection. Based on this hands-on experience, and an analysis of an Archaeopteryx fossil, Wallace suggested that birds may have descended from dinosaurian ancestors. Here, we describe the “dinosaur-bird hypothesis” that originated with the work of Thomas H. Huxley (1825–1895). We present the strong evidence linking theropod dinosaurs to birds, and briefly outline the long and ongoing controversy around this concept. Dinosaurs preserving plumage, nesting sites and trace fossils provide overwhelming evidence for the dinosaurian origin of birds. Based on these recent findings of paleontological research, we conclude that extant birds indeed descended, with some modifications, from small, Mesozoic theropod dinosaurs. In the light of Wallace’s view of bird origins, we critically evaluate recent opposing views to this idea, including Ernst Mayr’s (1904–2005) arguments against the “dinosaur-bird hypothesis”, and document that this famous ornithologist was not correct in his assessment of this important aspect of vertebrate evolution.     

Darwin and divergence: The Wallace connection

Concluding statement Wallace's contributions to biological thought tend to be overlooked or overly praised, neither of which produces a satisfactory assessment. Examples of the latter tendency are the recent expositions by Brackman and Brooks; although both books contain much worthwhile material, both are flawed. At critical points their theories fail to measure up, Brackman's because of his misinterpretations of events in the month of June 1858, and Brooks's Darwin's September 5 letter to Gray could, and probably did, represent an ordering of his ideas in response to a felt challenge.A fruitful way to characterize the relationship between Darwin and Wallace may be found in terms of game theory. Most scholars look upon the relationship as a zero-sum game, with a winner and a loser, the matter of priority being considered as a single event. Another approach would be to look upon it as a non-zero-sum game with each man influencing the other. In this case, the productivity of one is stimulated by the contributions of the other, resulting in a net gain in knowledge overall, and both men become winners, or codiscoverers. This approach is possible if Wallace's contributions to the theory of evolution by means of natural selection are recognized.     

Charles Darwin and the mutation theory

Ohne Zusammenfassung

---

Charles Darwin and the mutation theory

     

Charles Darwin: Interviews and Recollections.

Charles Darwin: Interviews and Recollections. Harold Orel. ed. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000. 233 pp.     

Charles Darwin and the Origin of Life

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life. However, analysis of some other texts written by Darwin, and of the correspondence he exchanged with friends and colleagues demonstrates that he took for granted the possibility of a natural emergence of the first life forms. As shown by notes from the pages he excised from his private notebooks, as early as 1837 Darwin was convinced that “the intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, & the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable”. Like many of his contemporaries, Darwin rejected the idea that putrefaction of preexisting organic compounds could lead to the appearance of organisms. Although he favored the possibility that life could appear by natural processes from simple inorganic compounds, his reluctance to discuss the issue resulted from his recognition that at the time it was possible to undertake the experimental study of the emergence of life.