The History and Reception of Charles Darwin’s Hypothesis of Pangenesis

This paper explores Charles Darwin’s hypothesis of pangenesis through a popular and professional reception history. First published in The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication (1868), pangenesis stated that inheritance can be explained by sub-cellular “gemmules” which aggregated in the sexual organs during intercourse. Pangenesis thereby accounted for the seemingly arbitrary absence and presence of traits in offspring while also clarifying some botanical and invertebrates’ limb regeneration abilities. I argue that critics largely interpreted Variation as an extension of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859), while pangenesis was an extension of natural selection. Contrary to claims that pangenesis was divorced from natural selection by its reliance on the inheritance of acquired characters, pangenesis’s mid nineteenth-century reception suggests that Darwin’s hypothesis responded directly to selection’s critics. Using Variation’s several editions, periodical reviews, and personal correspondence I assess pangenesis popularly, professionally, and biographically to better understand Variation’s impact on 1860s and 70s British evolutionism and inheritance.     

Darwin’s legacy to rove beetles (Coleoptera,Staphylinidae): A new genus and a new species,including materials collected on the Beagle’s voyage

A species of xanthopygine rove beetles is described and figured here as Darwinilus sedarisigen. n. and sp. n. The holotype was collected by Charles Darwin in Bahía Blanca, Argentina on the Beagle’s voyage. The contributions of Charles Darwin to rove beetle systematics are summarized briefly.     

The genera in the third catalogue (1836–1837) of?Dejean’s Coleoptera collection

All genus-group names first proposed or made available for the first time in the third edition of Dejean’s catalogue of his beetle collection are recorded. The following 18 names are made available for the first time in Dejean’s third catalogue: Batoscelis Dejean [Carabidae], Laphyra Dejean [Carabidae], Sauriodes Dejean [Staphylinidae], Abrobapta Dejean [Buprestidae], Selagis Dejean [Buprestidae], Eurhipis Dejean [Eucnemidae], Anaeretes Dejean [Scarabaeidae], Doryscelis Dejean [Scarabaeidae], Epilissus Dejean [Scarabaeidae], Hoploscelis Dejean [Scarabaeidae], Brachygenius Dejean [Tenebrionidae], Capnisa Dejean [Tenebrionidae], Heterocheira Dejean [Tenebrionidae], Selenomma Dejean [Tenebrionidae], Dactylocrepis Dejean [Curculionidae], Lophodes Dejean [Curculionidae], Heterarthron Dejean [Bostrichidae] and Homalopus Chevrolat [Chrysomelidae]. Eurhipis Dejean, 1836 is considered a junior synonym of Phyllocerus Lepeletier and Audinet-Serville, 1825 for the first time. Abrobapta Dejean, 1836 has precedence over Torresita Harold, 1869.     

Darwin’s “Mr. Arthrobalanus”: Sexual Differentiation,Evolutionary Destiny and the Expert Eye of the Beholder

Darwin’s Cirripedia project was an exacting exercise in systematics, as well as an encrypted study of evolution in action. Darwin had a long-standing interest and expertise in marine invertebrates and their sexual arrangements. The surprising and revealing sexual differentiation he would uncover amongst barnacles represented an important step in his understanding of the origins of sexual reproduction. But it would prove difficult to reconcile these findings with his later theorizing. Moreover, the road to discovery was hardly straightforward. Darwin was both helped and hindered by the tacit expectations generated by his transformist theorizing, and had to overcome culturally-embedded assumptions about gender and reproductive roles. Significant observational backtracking was required to correct several oversights and misapprehensions, none more so than those relating to the chronically misunderstood “Mr. Arthrobalanus.” With careful attention to chronology, this paper highlights some curious and overlooked aspects of Darwin’s epic project.     

The genera in the second catalogue (1833–1836) of?Dejean’s Coleoptera collection

All genus-group names listed in the second edition of the catalogue (1833-1836) of Dejean’s beetle collection are recorded. For each new genus-group name the originally included available species are listed and for generic names with at least one available species, the type species and the current status are given. Names available prior to the publication of Dejean’s second catalogue (1833-1836) are listed in an appendix.The following new synonymies are proposed: Cyclonotum Dejean, 1833 (= Dactylosternum Wollaston, 1854) [Hydrophilidae], Hyporhiza Dejean, 1833 (= Rhinaspis Perty, 1830) [Scarabaeidae], Aethales Dejean, 1834 (= Epitragus Latreille, 1802) [Tenebrionidae], Arctylus Dejean, 1834 (= Praocis Eschscholtz, 1829) [Tenebrionidae], Euphron Dejean, 1834 (= Derosphaerus Thomson, 1858) [Tenebrionidae], Hipomelus Dejean, 1834 (= Trachynotus Latreille, 1828) [Tenebrionidae], Pezodontus Dejean, 1834 (= Odontopezus Alluaud, 1889) [Tenebrionidae], Zygocera Dejean, 1835 (= Disternopsis Breuning, 1939) [Cerambycidae], and Physonota Chevrolat, 1836 (= Anacassis Spaeth, 1913) [Chrysomelidae]. Heterogaster pilicornis Dejean, 1835 [Cerambycidae] and Labidomera trimaculata Chevrolat, 1836 [Chrysomelidae] are placed for the first time in synonymy with Anisogaster flavicans Deyrolle, 1862 and Chrysomela clivicollis Kirby, 1837 respectively. Type species of the following genus-group taxa are proposed: Sphaeromorphus Dejean, 1833 (Sphaeromorphus humeralis Erichson, 1843) [Scarabaeidae], Adelphus Dejean, 1834 (Helops marginatus Fabricius, 1792) [Tenebrionidae], Cyrtoderes Dejean, 1834 (Tenebrio cristatus DeGeer, 1778) [Tenebrionidae], Selenepistoma Dejean, 1834 (Opatrum acutum Wiedemann, 1823) [Tenebrionidae], Charactus Dejean, 1833 (Lycus limbatus Fabricius, 1801) [Lycidae], Corynomalus Chevrolat, 1836 (Eumorphus limbatus Olivier, 1808) [Endomychidae], Hebecerus Dejean, 1835 (Acanthocinus marginicollis Boisduval, 1835) [Cerambycidae], Pterostenus Dejean, 1835 (Cerambyx abbreviatus Fabricius, 1801) [Cerambycidae], Psalicerus Dejean, 1833 (Lucanus femoratus Fabricius, 1775) [Lucanidae], and Pygolampis Dejean, 1833 (Lampyris glauca Olivier, 1790) [Lampyridae]. A new name, Neoeutrapela Bousquet and Bouchard [Tenebrionidae], is proposed for Eutrapela Dejean, 1834 (junior homonym of Eutrapela Hübner, 1809).The following generic names, made available in Dejean’s catalogue, were found to be older than currently accepted valid names: Catoxantha Dejean, 1833 over Catoxantha Solier, 1833 [Buprestidae], Pristiptera Dejean, 1833 over Pelecopselaphus Solier, 1833 [Buprestidae], Charactus Dejean, 1833 over Calopteron Laporte, 1836 [Lycidae], Cyclonotum Dejean, 1833 over Dactylosternum Wollaston, 1854 [Hydrophilidae], Ancylonycha Dejean, 1833 over Holotrichia Hope, 1837 [Scarabaeidae], Aulacium Dejean, 1833 over Mentophilus Laporte, 1840 [Scarabaeidae], Sciuropus Dejean, 1833 over Ancistrosoma Curtis, 1835 [Scarabaeidae], Sphaeromorphus Dejean, 1833 over Ceratocanthus White, 1842 [Scarabaeidae], Psalicerus Dejean, 1833 over Leptinopterus Hope, 1838 [Lucanidae], Adelphus Dejean, 1834 over Praeugena Laporte, 1840 [Tenebrionidae], Amatodes Dejean, 1834 over Oncosoma Westwood, 1843 [Tenebrionidae], Cyrtoderes Dejean, 1834 over Phligra Laporte, 1840 [Tenebrionidae], Euphron Dejean, 1834 over Derosphaerus Thomson, 1858 [Tenebrionidae], Pezodontus Dejean, 1834 over Odontopezus Alluaud, 1889 [Tenebrionidae], Anoplosthaeta Dejean, 1835 over Prosopocera Blanchard, 1845 [Cerambycidae], Closteromerus Dejean, 1835 over Hylomela Gahan, 1904 [Cerambycidae], Hebecerus Dejean, 1835 over Ancita Thomson, 1864 [Cerambycidae], Mastigocera Dejean, 1835over Mallonia Thomson, 1857 [Cerambycidae], Zygocera Dejean, 1835 over Disternopsis Breuning, 1939 [Cerambycidae], Australica Chevrolat, 1836 over Calomela Hope, 1840 [Chrysomelidae], Edusa Chevrolat, 1836 over Edusella Chapuis, 1874 [Chrysomelidae], Litosonycha Chevrolat, 1836 over Asphaera Duponchel and Chevrolat, 1842 [Chrysomelidae], and Pleuraulaca Chevrolat, 1836 over Iphimeis Baly, 1864 [Chrysomelidae]. In each of these cases, Reversal of Precedence (ICZN 1999: 23.9) or an applicationto the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be necessary to retain usage of the younger synonyms.     

Charles Davies Sherborn and the “Indexer’s Club”

The first few words of the title of this symposium are “Anchoring Biodiversity Information”. In order to properly anchor anything for a long-lasting future, a solid foundation needs to have been laid. For the zoological portion of biodiversity information, that firm foundation is best exemplified in the works of Charles Davies Sherborn. This man, like others of his ilk, was intimately focused on indexing names. This incredible focus was a life-long passion for him and culminated in his 9500-page Index Animalium of over 400,000 names of animals. This Index represents not only one of the most prodigious efforts in publication by a single man and the single most important reference to names in zoology, but a permanent legacy to the efforts of an indexer that proved to be an inspiration to many.     

“My appointment received the sanction of the Admiralty”: Why Charles Darwin really was the naturalist on HMS Beagle

For decades historians of science and science writers in general have maintained that Charles Darwin was not the ‘naturalist’ or ‘official naturalist’ during the 1831–1836 surveying voyage of HMS Beagle but instead Captain Robert FitzRoy’s ‘companion’, ‘gentleman companion’ or ‘dining companion’. That is, Darwin was primarily the captain’s social companion and only secondarily and unofficially naturalist. Instead, it is usually maintained, the ship’s surgeon Robert McCormick was the official naturalist because this was the default or official practice at the time. Although these views have been repeated in countless accounts of Darwin’s life, this essay aims to show that they are incorrect.     

“That land of flowers,swamps and alligators”: S. B. Buckley’s 1843 trip up the St. Johns River,Florida

In 1843 S. B. Buckley (1809–1884) traveled up the St. Johns River, Florida in search of plants, shells, and possibly other natural history objects. Buckley encountered many difficulties in interior Florida and his trip did not live up to his original expectations. It was unfortunate that the took years to distribute his plant specimens, since few botanists or naturalists had preceded him into that poorly explored region.