Joseph Hooker Takes a “Fixed Post”: Transmutation and the “Present Unsatisfactory State of Systematic Botany”, 1844–1860

Joseph Hooker first learned that Charles Darwin believed in the transmutation of species in 1844. For the next 14 years, Hooker remained a “nonconsenter” to Darwin’s views, resolving to keep the question of species origin “subservient to Botany instead of Botany to it, as must be the true relation”. Hooker placed particular emphasis on the need for any theory of species origin to support the broad taxonomic delimitation of species, a highly contentious issue. His always provisional support for special creation waned during the 1850s as he lost faith in its expediency for coordinating the study of plant geography, systematics and physiology. In 1858, Hooker embraced Darwin’s “considerable revolution in natural history,” but only after Darwin had carefully molded his transmutationism to meet Hooker’s exacting specifications.     

The Role of Microbes in Agriculture: Sergei Vinogradskii’s Discovery and Investigation of Chemosynthesis, 1880–1910

In 1890, Sergei Nikolaevich Vinogradskii (Winogradsky) proposed a novel life process called chemosynthesis. His discovery that some microbes could live solely on inorganic matter emerged during his physiological research in 1880s in Strassburg and Zurich on sulfur, iron, and nitrogen bacteria. In his nitrification research, Vinogradskii first embraced the idea that microbiology could have great bearing on agricultural problems. His critique of agricultural chemists and Kochian-style bacteriologists brought this message to the broader agricultural community, resulting in an heightened interest in biological, rather than chemical methods to investigate soil processes. From 1891 to 1910, he directed the microbiological laboratory at the Imperial Institute of Experimental Medicine in St. Petersburg, Russia, where he expanded his chemosynthesis research to a broad investigation of the manifold significance of autotrophic organisms in soil processes. This work and that of his students attracted the serious attention of agricultural chemists and soil scientists in Russia and abroad, changing essentially the way they understood and investigated the role of microbes in the soil. His student, Vasilii Omelianskii, effectively integrated Vinogradskii’s approach into Russian and Soviet, and international agricultural microbiology. Vinogradskii’s activities in the late 19th century reflect the changes occurring more broadly in science. At that time, microbiologists such as Louis Pasteur, Eugenius Warming, and Martianus Beijerinck were contributing new laboratory methods and theoretical perspectives to incipient disciplines closely related to agriculture: ecology, soil science, and soil microbiology.     

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.     

Wallace’s Other Line: Human Biogeography and Field Practice in the Eastern Colonial Tropics

This paper examines how the 19th-century British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace used biogeographical mapping practices to draw a boundary line between Malay and Papuan groups in the colonial East Indies in the 1850s. Instead of looking for a continuous gradient of variation between Malays and Papuans, Wallace chose to look for a sharp discontinuity between them. While Wallace’s “human biogeography” paralleled his similar project to map plant and animal distributions in the same region, he invoked distinctive “mental and moral” features as more decisive than physical ones. By following Wallace in the field, we can see his field mapping practices in action – how he conquered the problem of local particularity in the case of human variation. His experiences on the periphery of expanding European empires, far from metropolitan centers, shaped Wallace’s observations in the field. Taking his cues from colonial racial categories and his experiences collaborating with local people in the field, Wallace constructed the boundary line between the Malay and Papuan races during several years of work in the field criss-crossing the archipelago as a scientific collector. This effort to map a boundary line in the field was a bold example of using the practices of survey science to raise the status of field work by combining fact gathering with higher-level generalizing, although the response back in the metropole was less than enthusiastic. Upon his return to Britain in the 1860s, Wallace found that appreciation for observational facts he had gathered in the field was not accompanied by agreement with his theoretical interpretations and methods for doing human biogeography.     

Hooker and islands1

Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817–1911), friend and scientific confidant of Charles Darwin, lectured in 1866 on ‘Insular floras’ at the Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. His interest and knowledge of islands had been aroused when he travelled to the Antarctic aboard the Erebus under Sir James Clark Ross from 1839–43. On his return, Darwin passed on to Hooker the botanical collections he had made on the Beagle voyage, including those from the Galapagos. Hooker's conclusions from these and from his own material and experiences were important to Darwin as he developed the ideas that culminated in the publication of the Origin of Species. The 1866 lecture provided a focus for subsequent and informative studies on evolution, and islands continue to provide invaluable natural laboratories for evolutionary biology and genetics. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 96 , 462–481.     

The costs of being a restless intellect: Julian Huxley’s popular and scientific career in the 1920s

Julian Huxley’s (1887–1975) contribution to twentieth-century biology and science popularisation is well documented. What has not been appreciated so far is that despite Huxley’s eminence as a public scientific figure and the part that he played in the rise of experimental zoology in Britain in the 1920s, his own research was often heavily criticised in this period by his colleagues. This resulted in numerous difficulties in getting his scientific research published in the early 1920s. At this time, Huxley started his popular science career. Huxley’s friends criticised him for engaging in this actively and attributed the publication difficulties to the time that he allocated to popular science. The cause might also have its roots in his self-professed inability to delve deeply into the particularities of research. This affected Huxley’s standing in the scientific community and seems to have contributed to the fact that Huxley failed twice in the late 1920s to be elected to the Royal Society. This picture undermines to some extent Peter J. Bowler’s recent portrayal of Huxley as a science populariser.     

Darwin,Wallace, and Huxley,and Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation

Conclusion Publication of the Vestiges and the rather primitive theory of evolution it expounded thus played a significant role in the careers of Darwin and Wallace. In addition, in spite of his poor opinion of the Vestiges, it presented Huxley with a convenient topic for critical discussion and the opportunity to focus more attention on the subject of evolution. The dynamic interactions among these leading figures of nineteenth-century natural science helped spur the development of more sophisticated models of evolution.Darwin had a proper appreciation of Chambers's contribution to evolutionary thought, although he fully recognized the shortcomings of this work. He understood the importance of allowing fresh ideas about organic change to be ventilated. However, he was primarily concerned with his own theory and viewed all developments in evolutionary biology from this perspective. If he did not give full consideration to Chambers and his book early on, it was due mainly to his feeling that the concepts in the Vestiges were very different from his own; he was therefore reluctant to embrace them as the forerunners of his own theory. As a scholar, he was also troubled by the scientific errors in the book. However, the record demonstrates that he attempted to make amends for any oversight on his part. His generous letter to Chambers's daughter, and his gracious treatment of Chambers during the brief time the latter lived in London, are ample proof of that.The attacks of Huxley, Sedgwick, and other prominent natural historians and geologists at the time, the problems inherent in Chambers's evolutionary theory, and the publication of the Origin, are the major reasons why the Vestiges became a neglected work. Nevertheless, Chambers's contribution will always stand out because, together with those of other late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century predecessors of Darwin, it laid the foundations of modern evolutionary thought and, more importantly, helped prepare the scientific community for the more fully developed ideas of Darwin and Wallace.     

Darwin's principles of divergence and natural selection: Why Fodor was almost right

Darwin maintained that the principles of natural selection and divergence were the “keystones” of his theory. He introduced the principle of divergence to explain a fundamental feature of living nature: that organisms cluster into hierarchical groups, so as to be classifiable in the Linnaean taxonomic categories of variety, species, genus, and so on. Darwin’s formulation of the principle of divergence, however, induces many perplexities. In his Autobiography, he claimed that he had neglected the problem of divergence in his Essay of 1844 and only solved it in a flash during a carriage ride in the 1850s; yet he does seem to have stated the problem in the Essay and provided the solution. This initial conundrum sets three questions I wish to pursue in this essay: (1) What is the relationship of the principle of divergence to that of natural selection? Is it independent of selection, derivative of selection, or a type of selection, perhaps comparable to sexual selection? (2) What is the advantage of divergence that the principle implies—that is, why is increased divergence beneficial in the struggle for life? And (3) What led Darwin to believe he had discovered the principle only in the 1850s? The resolution of these questions has implications for Darwin’s other principle, natural selection, and permits us to readjust the common judgment made about Jerry Fodor’s screed against that latter principle.     

Martin Gibbs (1922–2006): Pioneer of 14C research, sugar metabolism & photosynthesis; vigilant Editor-in-Chief of Plant Physiology; sage Educator; and humanistic Mentor

The very personal touch of Professor Martin Gibbs as a worldwide advocate for photosynthesis and plant physiology was lost with his death in July 2006. Widely known for his engaging humorous personality and his humanitarian lifestyle, Martin Gibbs excelled as a strong international science diplomat; like a personal science family patriarch encouraging science and plant scientists around the world. Immediately after World War II he was a pioneer at the Brookhaven National Laboratory in the use of ¹⁴C to elucidate carbon flow in metabolism and particularly carbon pathways in photosynthesis. His leadership on carbon metabolism and photosynthesis extended for four decades of working in collaboration with a host of students and colleagues. In 1962, he was selected as the Editor-in-Chief of Plant Physiology. That appointment initiated 3 decades of strong directional influences by Gibbs on plant research and photosynthesis. Plant Physiology became and remains a premier source of new knowledge about the vital and primary roles of plants in earth’s environmental history and the energetics of our green-blue planet. His leadership and charismatic humanitarian character became the quintessence of excellence worldwide. Martin Gibbs was in every sense the personification of a model mentor not only for scientists but also shown in devotion to family. Here we pay tribute and honor to an exemplary humanistic mentor, Martin Gibbs.     

Experimentation, communication and patronage: a perspective on René-Antoine Ferchault de Réaumur (1683-1757)

Historians of science have neglected the French Academician Réaumur, whose work is emblematic of a modern conception of science that joins together technology, science, and society. Réaumur practised rigorous experimentation on organisms, and uncovered industrial and utilitarian secrets which he communicated to the public. His patronage was essential in boosting the generation of young naturalists of the 1740s who advanced further the experimental approach to the study of nature. For Réaumur, his work was not separate from his mission to disclose and communicate previously restricted knowledge for the benefits of science and society.     

On whose shoulders we stand - the pioneering entomological discoveries of Károly Sajó

The excellence of Károly Sajó as a researcher into Hungary’s natural history has been undeservedly neglected. Yet he did lasting work, especially in entomology, and a number of his discoveries and initiatives were before their time.Born in 1851 in Győr, he received his secondary education there and went to Pest University. He taught in a grammar school in 1877–88 before spending seven years as an entomologist at the National Phylloxera Experimental Station, later the Royal Hungarian State Entomological Station. Pensioned off at his own request in 1895, he moved to Őrszentmiklós, where he continued making entomological observations on his own farm and wrote the bulk of his published materials: almost 500 longer or shorter notes, articles and books, mainly on entomological subjects.Sajó was among the first in the world to publish in 1896 a study of how the weather affects living organisms, entitled Living Barometers. His Sleep in Insects, which appeared in the same year, described his discovery, from 1895 observations of the red turnip beetle, Entomoscelis adonidis (Pallas, 1771), of aestivation in insects – in present-day terms diapause.It was a great loss to universal entomology when Sajó ceased publishing about 25 years before his death. His unpublished notes, with his library and correspondence, were destroyed in the World War II. His surviving insect collection is now kept in the Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest.     

HOMEOPATHY AND EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS – A RESPONSE TO SMITH'S UTILITARIAN ARGUMENT

Kevin Smith's utilitarian argument against homeopathy 1 is flawed because he did not review and refute the relevant basic science literature on ultra‐high dilutions. He also failed to appreciate that allopathic medicine is based on a deductive‐nomothetic method and that homeopathic medicine is based on an inductive‐idiographic method, and thus that the implications for clinical research are very different. His misunderstanding of provings and of the holism of homeopathic medicine also demonstrated his failure to understand the history, philosophy and method of homeopathy. Finally, I questioned the value of introducing ethical judgment into an ongoing scientific debate.     

Philip R. White (1901–1968)—a tribute

The groundbreaking research carried out by Philip R. White in the 1930s and 1940s played a critical early role in the development of modern plant biotechnology and the production of biotech crops. He gained instant fame and became a historical figure early in his career by becoming the first person to attain unlimited growth of cultured plant tissues. White was one of the best known and most influential figures of his generation in plant cell culture research. His tireless and lifelong efforts to promote the use of plant cell culture systems inspired a generation of scientists and stimulated much scientific activity. White was not only a brilliant and visionary scientist but also a highly principled man who spoke courageously about the great moral and political issues of his day. He was admired as much for his science as for his humanity. His belief that plant cell culture research was not well represented at national and international meetings, and his deeply held conviction that science had to be international and without borders in order to be of service to humankind led to the founding of the International Association for Plant Biotechnology in 1963, currently the largest forum for the international plant biotechnology community. This tribute honors and celebrates Philip R. White for his inspiring science, for his kind and generous mentoring of young scientists, for his advocacy of plant cell culture research and its applications, for his promotion of international scientific exchange and cooperation, and for his leadership in the founding of the International Association for Plant Biotechnology.     

A tribute to Thomas Roosevelt Punnett, Jr. (1926-2008)

We honor here Thomas (Tom) Roosevelt Punnett, Jr. (May 25, 1926–July 4, 2008), who was a pioneer of Biology, particularly of biochemistry of plants and algae, having specialized in photosynthesis under Robert Emerson of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He did exciting work on regulation and control of various metabolic reactions. He was an innovator and raconteur par excellence, and he prized critical thinking. His enthusiasm for basic science questions was matched by his grasp of their “real-world” implications. His last project was a patent for anaerobic sewage treatment that he hoped would lead to solution of waste disposal and energy creation world wide, including the clean-up of Lake Erie, where he had sailed as a boy. On the personal side, he had a strong sense of morality and a great wit and humor.     

Tschermak: a non-discoverer of mendelism. II. A critique

An examination of Tschermak's two papers of 1900 not only reinforces our conclusion cited in our first paper on Tschermak that he was not a rediscoverer of Mendelism, but also he did not understand Mendel when he had read it. His concept of dominance differed from that of Mendel, and his use of his own concept is inconsistent and contradictory. His discussion of his backcross data indicated that he had no idea of the nature of Mendelian ratios. Nowhere did he develop the ideas of segregation and independent assortment.     

Paul Ehrlich--in search of the magic bullet

In 2004, we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the birth of Paul Ehrlich, considered the founder of immunology. His life and work can be divided into three creative periods: first, he developed histological staining, then he accomplished his ground-breaking work on immunology, and eventually invented chemotherapy. Paul Ehrlich can be perceived as a man whose success was not the consequence of a will to power, but of his substantial interest in science.     

The Anthropologist as Geologist: Howitt in Colonial Gippsland

The paper discusses A.W. Howitt's position as an amateur of science in colonial Gippsland, and explores connections between his geological and anthropological endeavours. Two contexts contributed to the kind of anthropology he did. and the kinds of works he wrote. One is the point on the trajectory of the colonial history of Victoria when Howitt joined it and began his researches. The other is the moment in the development of anthropology when he and his sister Anna Mary Howitt began to read and correspond about the discipline, and he began to correspond with other practitioners. Geology was linked to Howitt's anthropology in two ways: through his working life in Gippsland, and in models that informed the evolutionary paradigm within which his anthropological research and writing were situated.     

How serendipity shaped a life; an interview with John W. Saunders,Jr. by John F. Fallon

John W. Saunders Jr. is an outstanding contributor to the field of Developmental Biology. His analyses of the apical ectodermal ridge, discovery and study of the zone of polarizing activity, insights into cell death in development, and analytical studies of feather patterns are part of a legacy to developmental biology. The body of his published work remains central to the understanding of limb development and is a major reason for the premiere place that the developmental biology of limbs holds in our research and teaching today. Beyond these things known to nearly everyone, there is John's role as teacher that is equally impressive. His one-on-one style, in small groups or from the podium is engaging, encompassing, and above all else, enthusiastic about the study of the development of living things. His love of developmental biology comes through to students of all ages and is inspirational. And, of course, inimitable charm accompanies the substance of any interaction with John. He still teaches in the Embryology Course at MBL Woods Hole. Recent students say that hearing his lectures and his involvement in the laboratory are highlights of the course. His continued knowledge of science and delight in new advances is a model for students to follow and they recognize it. John Saunders is a scientist and educator par excellence. His contributions have stood the test of time. His personal interactions with colleagues and students have enriched their lives in innumerable ways, large and small. His is a lifetime of outstanding achievements. In this interview, he reflects on his six--going on seven--decades in science and his personal enjoyment of recent advances in Developmental Biology.     

Challenges and opportunities for biogeography—What can we still learn from von Humboldt?

Alexander von Humboldt was arguably the most influential scientist of his day. Although his fame has since lessened relative to some of his contemporaries, we argue that his influence remains strong—mainly because his approach to science inspired others and was instrumental in furthering other scientific disciplines (such as evolution, through Darwin, and conservation science, through Muir)—and that he changed the way that large areas of science are done and communicated. Indeed, he has been called the father of a range of fields, including environmental science, earth system science, plant geography, ecology and conservation. His approach was characterized by making connections between non‐living and living nature (including humans), based on interdisciplinary thinking and informed by large amounts of data from systematic, accurate measurements in a geographical framework. Although his approach largely lacked an evolutionary perspective, he was fundamental to creating the circumstances for Darwin and Wallace to advance evolutionary science. He devoted considerable effort illustrating, communicating and popularizing science, centred on the excitement of pure science. In biogeography, his influence remains strong, including in relating climate to species distributions (e.g. biomes and latitudinal and elevational gradients) and in the use of remote sensing and species distribution modelling in macroecology. However, some key aspects of his approach have faded, particularly as science fragmented into specific disciplines and became more reductionist. We argue that asking questions in a more Humboldtian way is important for addressing current global challenges. This is well‐exemplified by researching links between geodiversity and biodiversity. Progress on this can be made by (a) systematic data collection to improve our knowledge of biodiversity and geodiversity around the world; (b) improving our understanding of the linkages between biodiversity and geodiversity; and (c) developing our understanding of the interactions of geological, biological, ecological, environmental and evolutionary processes in biogeography.