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 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”.     

Sexual selection: Another Darwinian process

Why was sexual selection so important to Darwin? And why was it de-emphasized by almost all of Darwin's followers until the second half of the 20th century? These two questions shed light on the complexity of the scientific tradition named “Darwinism”. Darwin's interest in sexual selection was almost as old as his discovery of the principle of natural selection. From the beginning, sexual selection was just another “natural means of selection”, although different from standard “natural selection” in its mechanism. But it took Darwin 30 years to fully develop his theory, from the early notebooks to the 1871 book The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Although there is a remarkable continuity in his basic ideas about sexual selection, he emphasized increasingly the idea that sexual selection could oppose the action of natural selection and be non adaptive. In time, he also gave more weight to mate choice (especially female choice), giving explicit arguments in favor of psychological notions such as “choice” and “aesthetic sense”. But he also argued that there was no strict demarcation line between natural and sexual selection, a major difficulty of the theory from the beginning. Female choice was the main reason why Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of the principle of natural selection, engaged in a major controversy with Darwin about sexual selection. Wallace was suspicious about sexual selection in general, trying to minimize it by all sorts of arguments. And he denied entirely the existence of female choice, because he thought that it was both unnecessary and an anthropomorphic notion. This had something to do with his spiritualist convictions, but also with his conception of natural selection as a sufficient principle for the evolutionary explanation of all biological phenomena (except for the origin of mind). This is why Wallace proposed to redefine Darwinism in a way that excluded Darwin's principle of sexual selection. The main result of the Darwin–Wallace controversy was that most Darwinian biologists avoided the subject of sexual selection until at least the 1950 s, Ronald Fisher being a major exception. This controversy still deserves attention from modern evolutionary biologists, because the modern approach inherits from both Darwin and Wallace. The modern approach tends to present sexual selection as a special aspect of the theory of natural selection, although it also recognizes the big difficulties resulting from the inevitable interaction between these two natural processes of selection. And contra Wallace, it considers mate choice as a major process that deserves a proper evolutionary treatment. The paper's conclusion explains why sexual selection can be taken as a test case for a proper assessment of “Darwinism” as a scientific tradition. Darwin's and Wallace's attitudes towards sexual selection reveal two different interpretations of the principle of natural selection: Wallace's had an environmentalist conception of natural selection, whereas Darwin was primarily sensitive to the element of competition involved in the intimate mechanism of any natural process of selection. Sexual selection, which can lack adaptive significance, reveals this exemplarily.     

A comparative analysis of the Darwin-Wallace papers and the development of the concept of natural selection

The classical theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection had no mother, but did have two English fathers, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913). In 1858,the Linnean Society of London published two contributions of these naturalists and acknowledged both authors as the proponents of a novel hypothesis on the driving force of organismic evolution. In the present report the most important sections of the Darwin-Wallace papers are summarized. This close reading of both publications reveals six striking differences in emphasis: Darwin and Wallace did not propose identical ideas. The species definitions of both authors are described and the further development of the concept of natural selection in wild populations is reviewed. It is shown that the contributions of A.R. Wallace, who died 90 years ago, are more significant than usually acknowledged. I conclude that natural selection's lesser known co-discoverer should be regarded as one of the most important pioneers of evolutionary biology, whose original contributions are underestimated by most contemporary scientists.     

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.     

Broad‐scale variation in sexual dichromatism in songbirds is not explained by sex differences in exposure to predators during incubation

The evolution of sexual dichromatism provoked one of the greatest disagreements between Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. According to Darwin the main driving force is sexual selection, whereby choosy females prefer showy males, leading to the evolution of conspicuous male plumage. On the other hand, Wallace suggested that dichromatism may arise because nest predation favors more cryptic females. To test the role of natural selection in the evolution of dichromatism we combined quantitative data on differences in parental share in nest attentiveness (representing the strength of natural selection on males vs females) with spectrophotometric measurements of dichromatism in 412 species of songbirds from 69 families. We expected to find stronger dichromatism in open‐nesting species with more divergent parental roles and in body parts exposed during incubation. Dichromatism was not related to the differences in parental share during incubation, but it was most pronounced in lekking species, migrants, and small species. Our results thus suggest that Wallace's hypothesis is not able to explain broad‐scale variation in the dichromatism of songbirds, but point to a role for sexual selection, mutual mate choice, and migration strategy in shaping the extraordinary variation in dichromatism exhibited by songbirds.     

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.     

A Delicate Adjustment: Wallace and Bates on the Amazon and “The Problem of the Origin of Species”

For over a century it has been believed that Alfred Russel Wallace and Henry Walter Bates set out for the Amazon in 1848 with the aim of “solving the problem of the origin of species”. Yet this enticing story is based on only one sentence. Bates claimed in the preface to his 1863 book that Wallace stated this was the aim of their expedition in an 1847 letter. Bates gave a quotation from the letter. But Wallace himself never endorsed or repeated this story. Many writers have acknowledged that this letter still survives. Yet the wording is different from that quoted by Bates and the letter says nothing of an expedition. It is argued that the sentence given by Bates is not a genuine quotation from this or any other Wallace letter but was modified by Bates to promote his own reputation. More significantly, this leads to the conclusion that there was a very sudden and dramatic shift in the way species were thought of and discussed after Darwin’s Origin of species appeared. Something called “the problem of the origin of species” (and similar variants) never occurred before Darwin’s book but exploded in frequency immediately after it. A profound change in how species origins were discussed happened which no one seemed to notice.     

Evolution of sexual dichromatism in relation to nesting habits in European passerines: a test of Wallace's hypothesis

Wallace proposed in 1868 that natural rather than sexual selection could explain the striking differences in avian plumage dichromatism. Thus, he predicted that nesting habits, through their association with nest predation, could drive changes in sexual dichromatism by enabling females in cavity nesters to become as conspicuous as males, whereas Darwin (1871, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, John Murray, London) argued that sexual selection was the sole explanation for dichromatism. Sexual dichromatism is currently used as indicating the strength of sexual selection, and therefore testing Wallace's claim with modern phylogentically controlled methodologies is of prime interest for comparing the roles of natural and sexual selection in affecting the evolution of avian coloration. Here, we have related information on nest attendance, sexual dichromatism and nesting habits (open and cavity nesting) to male and female plumage conspicuousness in European passerines. Nest incubation attendance does not explain male or female plumage conspicuousness but nest type does. Moreover, although females of monochromatic and cavity nesting species are more conspicuous than females of other species, males of monochromatic and open nesting species are those with more cryptic plumage. Finally, analyses of character evolution suggest that changes in nesting habits influence the probability of changes in both dichromatism and plumage conspicuousness of males but do not significantly affect those in females. These results strongly suggest a role of nesting habits in the evolution of plumage conspicuousness of males, and a role for sexual selection also in females, both factors affecting the evolution of sexual dichromatism. We discuss our findings in relation to the debate that Darwin and Wallace maintained more than one century ago on the importance of natural and sexual selection in driving the evolution of plumage conspicuousness and sexual dichromatism in birds, and conclude that our results partly support the evolutionary scenarios envisaged by both extraordinary scientists.     

Aesthetic evolution by mate choice: Darwin's really dangerous idea

Darwin proposed an explicitly aesthetic theory of sexual selection in which he described mate preferences as a 'taste for the beautiful', an 'aesthetic capacity', etc. These statements were not merely colourful Victorian mannerisms, but explicit expressions of Darwin's hypothesis that mate preferences can evolve for arbitrarily attractive traits that do not provide any additional benefits to mate choice. In his critique of Darwin, A. R. Wallace proposed an entirely modern mechanism of mate preference evolution through the correlation of display traits with male vigour or viability, but he called this mechanism natural selection. Wallace's honest advertisement proposal was stridently anti-Darwinian and anti-aesthetic. Most modern sexual selection research relies on essentially the same Neo-Wallacean theory renamed as sexual selection. I define the process of aesthetic evolution as the evolution of a communication signal through sensory/cognitive evaluation, which is most elaborated through coevolution of the signal and its evaluation. Sensory evaluation includes the possibility that display traits do not encode information that is being assessed, but are merely preferred. A genuinely Darwinian, aesthetic theory of sexual selection requires the incorporation of the Lande-Kirkpatrick null model into sexual selection research, but also encompasses the possibility of sensory bias, good genes and direct benefits mechanisms.     

1 July 1858: what Wallace knew; what Lyell thought he knew; what both he and Hooker took on trust; and what Charles Darwin never told them

At the Linnean Society on 1 July 1858, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, using only an extract from Charles Darwin's unpublished essay of 1844, and a copy of a recent letter to Asa Gray in Boston, argued successfully that Darwin understood how species originate long before a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace outlining his own version of the theory of evolution arrived at Darwin's home. That letter from Ternate in the Malay Archipelago, however, was not the first letter Darwin received from Wallace. This article will contend that two of the three letters Wallace sent Darwin between 10 October 1856 and 9 March 1858 arrived much earlier than Darwin recorded, thereby allowing him time to assess Wallace's ideas and claim an independent understanding of how the operation of divergence and extinction in the natural world leads strongly marked varieties to be identified as new species. By the time of the Linnean meeting Darwin's new ideas had filtered into his letters and ‘big’ species book, despite the absence of any independent evidence from the natural world to justify his constant insistence to have been guided only by inductive reasoning. © 2013 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2013, 109 , 725–736.     

A further look at the 1858 Wallace–Darwin mail delivery question

Recent investigations have led to a conclusion that Alfred Russel Wallace probably mailed his ‘Ternate’ paper on natural selection to Darwin 1 month later than some have assumed, thus freeing Darwin from possible accusations of plagiarism. Further examination of the question suggests that this conclusion is premature because the evidence in favour of the later mailing date appears to be weaker than first considered. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, ●● , ●●–●●.     

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.     

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.     

Frequency-dependent selection and competition: empirical approaches

When Darwin and Wallace first formulated the theory of evolution by natural selection, they were greatly influenced by the idea that populations tend to increase geometrically and rapidly outgrow the resources available to them. They argued that the ensuing competition among individuals would be a major agent of natural selection. Since their day, competition has become almost synonymous with the idea of natural selection or survival of the fittest. In this paper we examine the relation between competition and selection by using simple competition models, consider the interaction of density and frequency in determining competitive outcome, and review the literature on frequency-dependent competitive interactions among genotypes within populations.     

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913): the forgotten co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution

The British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913), who had to leave school aged 14 and never attended university, did extensive fieldwork, first in the Amazon River basin (1848–1852) and then in Southeast Asia (1854–1862). Based on this experience, and after reading the corresponding scientific literature, Wallace postulated that species were not created, but are modified descendants of pre-existing varieties (Sarawak Law paper, 1855). Evolution is brought about by a struggle for existence via natural selection, which results in the adaptation of those individuals in variable populations who survive and reproduce (Ternate essay, 1858). In his monograph Darwinism (1889), and in subsequent publications, Wallace extended the contents of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) into the Neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution, with reference to the work of August Weismann (1834–1914). Wallace also became the (co)-founder of biogeography, biodiversity research, astrobiology and evolutionary anthropology. Moreover, he envisioned what was later called the anthropocene (i.e., the age of human environmental destructiveness). However, since Wallace believed in atheistic spiritualism and mixed up scientific facts and supernatural speculations in some of his writings, he remains a controversial figure in the history of biology.     

On the origins of sexual dimorphism in butterflies

The processes governing the evolution of sexual dimorphism provided a foundation for sexual selection theory. Two alternative processes, originally proposed by Darwin and Wallace, differ primarily in the timing of events creating the dimorphism. In the process advocated by Darwin, a novel ornament arises in a single sex, with no temporal separation in the origin and sex-limitation of the novel trait. By contrast, Wallace proposed a process where novel ornaments appear simultaneously in both sexes, but are then converted into sex-limited expression by natural selection acting against showy coloration in one sex. Here, we investigate these alternative modes of sexual dimorphism evolution in a phylogenetic framework and demonstrate that both processes contribute to dimorphic wing patterns in the butterfly genera Bicyclus and Junonia. In some lineages, eyespots and bands arise in a single sex, whereas in other lineages they appear in both sexes but are then lost in one of the sexes. In addition, lineages displaying sexual dimorphism were more likely to become sexually monomorphic than they were to remain dimorphic. This derived monomorphism was either owing to a loss of the ornament ('drab monomorphism') or owing to a gain of the same ornament by the opposite sex ('mutual ornamentation'). Our results demonstrate the necessity of a plurality in theories explaining the evolution of sexual dimorphism within and across taxa. The origins and evolutionary fate of sexual dimorphism are probably influenced by underlying genetic architecture responsible for sex-limited expression and the degree of intralocus sexual conflict. Future comparative and developmental work on sexual dimorphism within and among taxa will provide a better understanding of the biases and constraints governing the evolution of animal sexual dimorphism.