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At the Linnean Society on 1 July 1858, Charles Lyell and Joseph Hooker, using only an extract from Charles Darwin's unpublished essay of 1844, and a copy of a recent letter to Asa Gray in Boston, argued successfully that Darwin understood how species originate long before a letter from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.     

How Charles Darwin received Wallace's Ternate paper 15 days earlier than he claimed: a comment on van Wyhe and Rookmaaker (2012)

Van Wyhe and Rookmaaker (2012) postulate a set of events to support their claim that Wallace's ‘evolution’ letter, posted at Ternate in the Moluccas in the spring of 1858, arrived at Darwin's home on 18 June 1858. If their claim were to be proven, then evidence that Darwin probably received Wallace's letter 2 weeks earlier than he ever admitted would clearly be erroneous, and any charges that he plagiarized the ideas of Wallace from that letter would be shown to be wrong. Here, evidence against this interpretation is presented and it is argued that the letter did indeed arrive in the port of Southampton on 2 June 1858 and would have been at Darwin's home near London the following day. If this were true, then the 66 new pages of material on aspects of Divergence that Darwin entered into his ‘big’ species book in the weeks before admitting he had received the letter could be interpreted as an attempt to present Wallace's ideas as his own. © 2012 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2012, 105 , 472–477.     

Did Wallace's Ternate essay and letter on natural selection come as a reply to Darwin's letter of 22 December 1857? A brief review

Charles Darwin's possible misappropriation of content from Alfred Russel Wallace's ‘Ternate essay’ of 1858 remains a topic of discussion, despite a lack of solid evidence proving misadventure. In this note new observations help clarify one critical element of the story: whether Wallace's materials represented in part a reply to the Darwin letter dated 22 December 1857. The conclusion is that they very likely did not, and in turn probably were sent in March, not April, 1858.     

Darwin and barnacles

In this essay, I discuss the origin of Charles Darwin's interest in cirripedes (barnacles). Indeed, he worked intensively on cirripedes during the years in which he was developing the theory that eventually led to the publication of The Origin of Species. In the light of our present knowledge, I present Darwin's achievements in the morphology, systematics and biology of these small marine invertebrates, and also his mistakes. I suggest that the word that sheds the most light here is homology, and that his mistakes were due to following Richard Owen's method of determining homologies by reference to an ideal archetype. I discuss the ways in which his studies on cirripedes influenced the writing of The Origin.     

Patrick Matthew's law of natural selection

Patrick Matthew is the little‐known first originator of macroevolution by natural selection. I review his ideas, and introduce some previously unnoticed writings (catalogued at a new website: http://smarturl.it/patrickmatthew ) that clarify how they differ from Darwin's and Wallace's. Matthew's formulation emphasized natural selection as an axiomatic ‘law’ rather than a ‘theory’, a distinction that could still be of use to us today. © 2015 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2015, ●● , ●●–●●.     

Haeckel und das Schöne in der Natur

The influential evolutionary biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), well‐known as a highly disputatious defender of Darwin's work, sought to unite science, philosophy, ethics and art in an all‐embracing world view that he called ?monism“. In this essay his ideas and reflections on aesthetics in nature and their application are reviewed. According to Haeckel, art should be based on motifs that are to be found in the diversity of life forms, which represent, in his opinion, the highest imagineable specification in aesthetics. Beauty in nature should open men's way to nature, and man must not place himself in opposition to nature. Haeckel himself, who was also a gifted artist, helped find the way to such an attitude by publishing thousands of drawings of organisms, mostly microscopically small marine species. His illustrations made organismic structures accessible that a broader public was previously almost unaware of. With these representations he was most influential in almost all areas of art around the turn of the century, including architecture, interior design, painting, glass art and furniture design.     

Cross- and self-fertilization of plants

This essay considers Charles Darwin's late work, Cross- and Self-Fertilization of Plants, locating it in the overall context of Darwin's thought and ideas. It is shown how it is part of a long-term interest in the purpose of sexuality, and how it complements Darwin's earlier book on the fertilization of orchids. It is concluded, however, that Darwin had no full solution to his problem.     

“Plants that Remind Me of Home”: Collecting,Plant Geography,and a Forgotten Expedition in the Darwinian Revolution

In 1859, Harvard botanist Asa Gray (1810–1888) published an essay of what he called “the abstract of Japan botany.” In it, he applied Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory to explain why strong similarities could be found between the flora of Japan and that of eastern North America, which provoked his famous debate with Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) and initiated Gray’s efforts to secure a place for Darwinian biology in the American sciences. Notably, although the Gray–Agassiz debate has become one of the most thoroughly studied scientific debates, historians of science remain unable to answer one critical question: How was Gray able to acquire specimens from Japan? Making use of previously unknown archival materials, this article scrutinizes the institutional, instrumental, financial, and military settings that enabled Gray’s collector, Charles Wright (1811–1885), to travel to Japan, as well as examine Wright’s collecting practices in Japan. I argue that it is necessary to examine Gray’s diagnosis of Japan’s flora and the subsequent debate about it from the viewpoint of field sciences. The field-centered approach not only unveils an array of historical significances that have been overshadowed by the analytical framework of the Darwinian revolution and the reception of Darwinism, but also places a seemingly domestic incident in a transnational context.     

The Texture of Events and the Stuff of Dreams: Jean Rouch at the Heart of Film and Anthropology

Too little known in the English‐speaking world, Jean Rouch died in 2004, leaving a prolific body of work. Influenced by the surrealists, by dance, cinema and music, his ‘shared anthropology’ and filmmaking began when he was an engineer in colonial West Africa during World War II—through friendship with African public works employees and revolt over the working and living conditions of the people forced to labour. Rouch saw his engineering, anthropology and filmmaking as creating with the concrete, ‘building bridges’. He did not renounce the ‘rational’, but wanted to supplement and broaden it with other ways of searching and knowing, always concerned with the relationship of the concrete material to the spiritual, dream and fantasy—working in the imaginative place where art meets science. This article discusses Rouch's ciné‐ethnography, focusing on a few of the many films he made.     

Darwin’s two theories, 1844 and 1859

Darwin’s first two, relatively complete, explicit articulations of his theorizing on evolution were his Essay of 1844 and On the Origin of Species published in 1859. A comparative analysis concludes that they espoused radically different theories despite exhibiting a continuity of strategy, much common structure and the same key idea. Both were theories of evolution by means of natural selection. In 1844, organic adaptation was confined to occasional intervals initiated and controlled by de-stabilization events. The modified descendants rebalanced the particular “plant and animal forms … unsettled by some alteration in their circumstances.” But by 1859, organic adaptation occurred continuously, potentially modifying the descendants of all organisms. Even natural selection, the persistent core of Darwin’s theorizing, does not prove to be a significant basis for theory similarity. Consequently, Darwin’s Origin theory cannot reasonably be considered as a mature version of the Essay. It is not a modification based on adjustments, further justifications and the integration of a Principle of Divergence. The Origin announced a new “scientific paradigm” while the Essay did little more than seemingly misconfigure the operation of a novel mechanism to extend varieties beyond their accepted bounds, and into the realm of possible new species. Two other collections of Darwin’s theorizing are briefly considered: his extensive notes of the late 1830s and his contributions to the famous meeting of 1 July 1858. For very different reasons, neither constitutes a challenge to the basis for this comparative study. It is concluded that, in addition to the much-debated social pressures, an unacknowledged further reason why Darwin did not publish his theorizing until 1859, could have been down to his perceptive technical judgement: wisely, he held back from rushing to publish demonstrably flawed theorizing.     

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.     

Re‐contemplate an entangled bank: The Power of Movement in Plants revisited

We review the ways in which two of Charles Darwin's lesser known works, The Movement and Habit of Twining Plants and The Power of Movement in Plants, stimulated 20th and 21st century research findings and philosophies. The legacy of Darwin's work permeates research on plant movement. For example, Darwin's demonstration that coleoptiles and roots fail to bend in response to light or gravity if their tips are removed helped researchers work toward the discovery of auxin and other plant hormones. Darwin's methodical observations on vine twining directions and circumnutation foreshadowed the recent discovery that 92% of vines twine in right‐handed helices, regardless of their location on the planet. Finally, Darwin's observation of the similarity between plant responses to stimuli and the responses of lower animals foreshadowed the current debate over whether plants have ‘behaviour’. Thus, even Darwin's lesser‐known works continue to influence research in the present day. © 2009 The Linnean Society of London, Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 2009, 160 , 111–118.     

Editorial policy and Notes for authors

Modern accounts of evolutionary mechanism pay little attention to the pattern and logic of Darwin's explanation, but recognition of the logic of Darwin's explanation has significance for our understanding of evolution and for our appreciation of the extent to which Darwin's concept of evolutionary mechanism accords with modern evolutionary thought. Also, Darwin's explanation exemplifies the concept of a scientific ‘law’ and thus is of considerable value in helping learners to understand the nature of scientific explanation.     

Albert Gaudry et l'émergence de la paléontologie darwinienne au xixe siècle

In this paper, paleontologists who, after the publication of “On the Origin of Species”, applied Darwin's research program on genealogy, are labeled Darwinians, not only evolutionists. A special attention is given to two paleontologists, Albert Gaudry and Gaston de Saporta. New data included in this article are Gaudry's notes written on his copy of “De l'origine des espèces” published in French in 1862. If one tries to grasp the impact of Darwin's work in the XIXth century, contrary to the common attitude, the defense of natural selection as the driven concept of evolution is not considered to be crucial. Later, Charles Depéret synthesized the growing knowledge of the second part of the XIX^th century but did not appear to be more Darwinian than his forerunners. From Darwin's writings it is concluded that the reference to biological progress inherent to Gaudry's and Saporta's works does not radically exclude these authors from the Darwinian realm.     

Marginality,ethnicity and penality: a response to Loïc Wacquant

This article responds to Loïc Wacquant's elaboration of his overarching theoretical framework in his stimulating article ‘Marginality, Ethnicity and Penality in the Neo-liberal City: An Analytic Cartography’. I raise some issues that he might reflect on in his rejoinder to the comments on his essay. These include: (1) the need for greater specification and clarification of explanatory and conceptual variables in the elaboration of his theoretical framework, especially theoretical mechanisms and two key concepts, ‘precariat’ and ‘neo-liberal policy’; and (2) addressing a major study offering empirically based arguments that indirectly challenge assertions in his theoretical framework.     

Darwin and palaeontology: a re-evaluation of his interpretation of the fossil record

Charles Darwin's empirical research in palaeontology, especially on fossil invertebrates, has been relatively neglected as a source of insight into his thinking, other than to note that he viewed the fossil record as very incomplete. During the Beagle voyage, Darwin gained extensive experience with a wide diversity of fossil taxa, and he thought deeply about the nature of the fossil record. That record was, for him, a major source of evidence for large-scale transmutation, but much less so for natural selection or single lineages. Darwin's interpretation of the fossil record has been criticised for its focus on incompleteness, but the record as he knew it was extremely incomplete. He was compelled to address this in arguing for descent with modification, which was likely his primary goal. Darwin's gradualism has been both misrepresented and exaggerated, and has distracted us from the importance of the fossil record in his thinking, which should be viewed in the context of the multiple, sometimes competing demands of the multifaceted argument he presented in the Origin of Species.     

A dubious defense of ‘after‐birth abortion’: A reply to Räsänen

Scholars have offered various critiques of Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva's controversial article, ‘After‐birth abortion: Why should the baby live?’ My book The Ethics of Abortion: Women's Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice presents four such critiques. First, Giubilini and Minerva argue from the deeply controversial to the even more controversial. Second, they presuppose a false view of personal identity called body‐self dualism. Third, their view cannot secure human equality. And fourth, their account of harm cannot account for harm found in some cases of murder. In the article, ‘Pro‐life arguments against infanticide and why they are not convincing’, J. Räsänen examines and finds wanting these four critiques. This essay responds to Räsänen's defense of infanticide and argues that his responses to the four objections fail.     

The Darwin of pangenesis

The Darwin of pangenesis is very much another Darwin. Pangenesis is Darwin's comprehensive theory of generation, his theory about all sexual and asexual modes of reproduction and growth. He never explicitly integrated pangenesis with his theory of natural selection. He first formulated pangenesis in the 1840s and integrated it with the physiology, including the cytology, of that era. It was, therefore, not consilient with the newer cytology of the 1860s when he published it in 1868. By reflecting on the role of pangenesis in Darwin's life and work, we can learn to take a wider view of his most general theorising about animal and plant life.