William Keith Brooks (1848-1908) : a Case Study in Morphology and the Development of American Biology
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Keith Rodney Benson for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in General Science (Biological Science) presented onApril 26, 1979 Title: WILLIAM KEITH BROOKS (1848-1908): A CASE STUDY IN MORPHOLOGY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN BIOLOGY Redacted for Privacy Abstract approved: Paul Lawrence Farber The major historical studies that haveexamined American biology have emphasized the development ofexperimental biology at the end of the nineteenth century. In this characterization, the descriptive branch of biology has often beentreated as less than important and, in several cases, as ahindrance in the application of experimentalism to biology. As a result, one is often left with the impression that morphology andexperimental biology represented two conflicting aims in biologicalinvestigation. A more balanced appraisal of thedevelopment of American biology can be obtained by examiningthe biological community in the last half of the nineteenth century. William Keith Brooks (1848- 1908) was selected as a case study. Brooks was America's major the twin goals morphologist. As such, his scientific work mirrored of morphology; to describe the form andstructure of organisms and In to elucidate any possibleancestral relations of the organisms. the last half of the century,embryological investigations or life histories were considered to yield the most information on the organism's ancestry. This followed from the widespread acceptance of the biogenetic law (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny) and the acceptance of evolution theory. Brooks's own work fits into this characterization of morphological investigation. His studies were primarily upon the life histories of molluscs, hydromedusae, tunicates, brachiopods and crustaceans. In addition to carrying out an active research program, Brooks also dealt with several of the major problems facing morphology. The most critical problems were (1) developing an exact criterion for homology, the basic tool for phylogenetic reconstructions and (2) accounting for the facts of heredity and variation, upon which the theory of descent was based. Brooks's treatment of both of these problems provides an indication of his central position in American morphology. Brooks's position in the development of biology in the United States becomes even more central with an examination of his professional position. As a member of the original Biology Department faculty at Johns Hopkins University, the first graduate program in biology in America, Brooks trained a whole generation of American biologists. While several of these scientists remained morphologists, several others were important in the new application of experimental techniques to biology. The study of Brooks, his scientific work, his role as a morphologist, his position at Johns Hopkins and his response vis-a-vis the rise of experimentalism in biology reveals that the standard interpretation of late nineteenth-century biology is largely inaccurate. It is much more instructive to understand the role of descriptive biology and experimental biology in the develop- ment of American biology as being complementary. © Copyright 1979 Keith Rodney Benson William Keith Brooks (1848-1908): A Case Study in Morphology and the Development of American Biology by Keith Rodney Benson A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Completed 26 April 1979 Commencement June 1979 APPROVED: Redacted for Privacy Associate Professor of History of Science in charge of major Redacted for Privacy o Chairman of D artment of/eneral Science Redacted for Privacy Dean of Graduate School Date thesis is presented 26 April 1979 Typed by Leona Nicholson for Keith Rodney Benson ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Perhaps because this study wasoriginally started in 1976 there are many people who havebecome involved with it. To them I would like to express mygratitude in more than a perfunctory have been of a most manner. Indeed, many of their contributions significant nature. Charlie Miller of the School ofOceanography at Oregon that I State deserves special mention. It was at his suggestion gained my first exposure to W.K. Brooks. Charlie's subsequent of interest in the project, hiscriticisms of the initial stages example of fine the study and continuedencouragement through his scholarship, have all been importantto my work. During a research trip tothe East Coast in 1977 I libraries. benefited from the kind attentionI received at several the I would like to express mythanks to M. C. Beecheno in Hopkins Manuscripts Department of theEisenhower Library at Johns University, Ann Farr of theFirestone Library at Princeton Society University, Murphy Smith ofthe American Philosophical Zoology Library and Jane Baldwinof the Museum of Comparative Julia Morgan in theFerdinand Archives. Special thanks are due to for her Hamburger, Jr. Archives ofJohns Hopkins University concerning the interest in this studyand her many suggestions I would also like to existence of materialpertaining to the work. Kerr Library at Oregon express my thanks toRobert Donnell of the State for his assistance. To Jane Maienschein, Ron Rainger and Scott Gilbert, I extend my appreciation for their attention to the work, for the stimulation I have received from their own studies and for the many helpful comments and criticisms we have shared. I shall always be grateful for the kind support I have received at Oregon State University. Dr. David Willis has been most generous in terms of material support and encouragement. For intellectual stimulation, I have benefited from my association with the members of the "Institute," Brookes Spencer, Jim Morris, Dan Jones and Paul Farber. The Wednesday evening "Dinner-and- Reading Club" consisting of Joel Hagen, Marshall Allen, David Chapin and Paul Farber has been an important center for discussion and criticism, as well as most enjoyable company. To the many graduate students who contributed to a sense of empathetic comaraderie, I extend my special thanks. My debt to Paul Farber is of a special nature. From a long and satisfying association with him, I realize that my intellectual development has been the result of his efforts. His example of dedication and commitment to scholastic work has been a constant source of emulation. His encouragement always has been a stimulating factor. His suggestions, criticisms and optimism concerning my work have often given me the necessaryinspiration to continue the work even when the study appeared mostdifficult. And, the warm relationship that I have developedwith him has been a steady source of comfortand aid. In short, it is with a deep sense of appreciation and gratitudethat I recognize Paul's contributions to this study. Vreneli Farber has also contributed importantly by supplying the most wonderful meals that have often spawned an evening of fruitful discussion. Finally, I should make mention of some very special people. Several of Brooks's relations, especially Amasa B. Ford, have shown an interest in the study and have contributed to my under- standing of Brooks's personality through personal reminiscences and family manuscript materials. Laurie Benson has been a most understanding person throughout this study and has endured my company even during the most difficult of times. Leona Nicholson has generously offered her services as a typist, but has also made valuable contributions as a critic. Her support through our years of association has been of an invaluable nature. Finally, a special thanks to Babs O'Connell for providing me with the necessary sense of confidence to undertake a venture of such a magnitude. I only hope someday to be able to reciprocate. To all those mentioned above and others who I may have forgotten, my deepest appreciation is extended. My only hope is that the quality of this dissertation will reflect the quality of their contributions. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page INTRODUCTION 1 NOTES 10 1 State of Morphology in the United States circa 1875 12 NOTES 51 2 Biographical Sketch of the Personal and Professional Life of William Keith Brooks 58 NOTES 106 3 Brooks as a Nineteenth-Century Research Scientist 118 1. Molluscan research 120 2. Brachiopod research 129 3. Tunicate research 133 4. Arthropoda research 143 5. Coelenterate research 154 6. Methods of research 159 7. Brooks as a nineteenth-century scientist 166 NOTES 176 4 Brooks and Nineteenth Century Morphology 191 1. Brooks and morphology 191 2. Brooks as a defender of Darwin 234 3. Evaluation: Brooks as a nineteenth-century morphologist 259 NOTES 268 5 Morphology and the Emergence of Experimental Biology in America 280 NOTES 324 EPILOGUE 333 NOTES 340 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 341 WILLIAM KEITH BROOKS (1848-1908): A CASE STUDY IN MORPHOLOGY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF AMERICAN BIOLOGY INTRODUCTION Traditionally, the primary focus of historical studies concerning nineteenth-century biology has been directed toward developments in Europe. In the recent past, however, several historians have turned their attention to the United States. The result has been a marked increase of interest in the development of American biology in the nineteenth century and a related increase in the number of historical studies on this topic. In the main, these studies reveal a distinct bias by historians of biology for stressing only a few themes.1 A dominant area of interest has been studies of the impact of Darwinism on many phases of American culture. This area of investigation has become so popular that the title