DOCSLIB.ORG

Download Chapter (PDF)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Download Chapter (PDF) ILLUSTRATIONS Charles Darwin. Watercolor by George Richmond, courtesy of Down House and the Royal College of Surgeons of England Frontispiece The development of the ant. From Jan Swammerdam, Historia insectorurn generalis 6 Albrecht von Haller. Line engraving by P. F. Tardieu from portrait by E. J. Handmann, courtesy of the Wellcome Institute Library, London 9 Charles Bonnet. Engraving by J. Caldwall after J. Juel for Thornton’s Sexual System of Linnaeus, courtesy of the Wcllcome Institute Library, London 11 Goethe’s illustration of the ape intermaxillary bone, from Goethe, Die Schriften zur Naturwissenscbaft:Morpbologiscbe Hefte 32 Goethe’s illustration of the human intermaxillary bone, from Goethe, Die Scbrgten zur Natumuhenscbaft: Morphologiscbe Hefte 33 Lorenz Oken. Etching by M. Steinla after a portrait by J. Koux, courtesy of the Wellcome Institute Library, London 41 Friedrich Tiedemann. Engraving by F. Rosmaesler after a portrait by J. Koux, courtesy of the Wellcome Institute Library, London 44 Johann Friedrich Meckel. Line engraving by Y Schleuen after a portrait by Graf, courtesy of the Wellcome Institute Library, London 51 9 Georges Cuvier. Stipple engraving after a portrait by J. Thomson, courtesy of the Wellcome Institute Library, London 53 10 Karl Ernst von Baer. Engraving courtesy of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University 58 11 Jean-Raptiste de Lamarck. Stipple engraving by Ambroise Tardieu after a portrait by Roilly, courtesy of the Wellcome Institute Library, London 66 12 Charles Lyell. Lithograph by T H. Maguire, courtesy of the Wellcome Institute Librav, London 68 13 Robert Edmond Grant. Lithograph by T. H. Maguire, courtesy of the Wellcome Institute Library London 71 14 Joseph Henry Green. Lithograph by J. H. Lynch after a sketch by G. F. Teniswood, courtesy of the Wellcome Institute Library London 76 15 Charles Darwin. Photograph courtesy of Down House and the Royal College of Surgeons of England 88 16 Erasmus Darwin. Portrait by Joseph Wright, courtesy of‘ the National Portrait Gallery London 93 17 Richard Owen. Engraving after a daguerreotype, courtesy of the Wellcome Institute Library, London 100 18 Tree of Animal Development, from Martin Barry in Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 109 19 Darwin’s sketch of a descent tree, courtesy of Cambridge University Library 110 20 Illustrations of homocercal and heterocercal fish tails, from Darwin’s copy of William Carpenter, Principles of Comparative ILZustrations xi Physiolom courtesy of Cambridge University Library 117 21 Salmon embryo, from Louis Agassiz and Carl Vogt, Histoire naturelle des poisons d’eau douce 118 22 Fossil fish, from Louis Agassiz, Monographie des poisonsfossiles du view gris rouge, ou systthe Devonim 119 23 Louis Agassiz. Photograph courtesy of the Library, Woods Hole Research Institute 122 24 Richard Owen. Mezzotint by €1, J. Thaddeus, courtesy of the Wellcome Institute Library, London 128 25 Owen’s vertebrate archetype, from William Carpenter, Principles of Comparative Physiology 130 26 Illustrations of crustacean and barnacle, from Charles Darwin, A Monograph of the Sub-class Cirripedia: 7he Lepadidae 138 27 Illustrations of adult barnacles, after Darwin, from William Carpenter, Principles of Comparative Physiology 139 28 Sketch of von Baer’s theory of development, from Darwin’s notes, courtesy of Cambridge University Library 141 29 Thomas Henry Huxley Portrait by John Collier, courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, London 147 30 Illustrations of human and dog embryos, from Charles Darwin, Descent of Man 162 31 Ernst Haeckel. Photograph courtesy of Haeckel- Haus, Jena 173 32 Charles Darwin. Portrait by John Collier, courtesy of the National Portrait Gallery, London 178 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Echinoderms, Göttingen, Germany, 2–9 October 2010
    Zoosymposia 7: vii–ix (2012) ISSN 1178-9905 (print edition) www.mapress.com/zoosymposia/ ZOOSYMPOSIA Copyright © 2012 · Magnolia Press ISSN 1178-9913 (online edition) Preface—7th European Conference on Echinoderms MIKE REICH1,2 & JOACHIM REITNER1,2,3 1 Georg-August University of Göttingen, Geoscience Museum & Geopark, Göttingen, Germany; E-mail: [email protected] 2 Georg-August University of Göttingen, Geoscience Centre, Department of Geobiology, Göttingen, Germany 3 Georg-August University of Göttingen, Courant Research Centre Geobiology, Göttingen, Germany *In: Kroh, A. & Reich, M. (Eds.) Echinoderm Research 2010: Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Echinoderms, Göttingen, Germany, 2–9 October 2010. Zoosymposia, 7, xii + 316 pp. Since the pioneering meeting in 1979 in Brussels, the European echinoderm community has cele- brated advances in echinoderm science, biology and palaeontology in what has now become a regular conference series (see Ziegler & Kroh 2012, p. 1–24 of this volume). This reflects the interest of the scientific community in the multidisciplinary field of echinoderm research between biology, palae- ontology, physiology, fisheries, aquaculture, medicine and others. The 7th European Conference on Echinoderms (ECE) was held on October 2–9, 2010 (Fig. 1) in Germany, and was hosted by the Georg-August University of Göttingen. The Göttingen University has a long tradition in echinoderm research. A vast number of naturalists, zoologists, palaeontologists, and collectors, like Pehr Forsskål (1732–1769), Peter Simon
    [Show full text]
  • Download (580Kb)
    Manuscript version: Author’s Accepted Manuscript The version presented in WRAP is the author’s accepted manuscript and may differ from the published version or Version of Record. Persistent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/113725 How to cite: Please refer to published version for the most recent bibliographic citation information. If a published version is known of, the repository item page linked to above, will contain details on accessing it. Copyright and reuse: The Warwick Research Archive Portal (WRAP) makes this work by researchers of the University of Warwick available open access under the following conditions. Copyright © and all moral rights to the version of the paper presented here belong to the individual author(s) and/or other copyright owners. To the extent reasonable and practicable the material made available in WRAP has been checked for eligibility before being made available. Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Publisher’s statement: Please refer to the repository item page, publisher’s statement section, for further information. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected]. warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications Systematicity in Kant’s third Critique Andrew Cooper – [email protected] Penultimate draft – please refer to published version: https://www.pdcnet.org/idstudies/content/idstudies_2019_0999_1_14_83 Idealistic Studies 47(3), 2019 Abstract: Kant’s Critique of the Power of Judgment is often interpreted in light of its initial reception.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    5 Introduction Although the first finds of fossil hominids date back to 1891, thinking about evolution of Man started at least as early as 1844 when Robert Chambers anonymously published his book ‘Vestiges of Natural History of Creation’, in which he presented a development theory. Chambers did not stress the point, but his development hypothesis clearly made Man an immediate descendant of the apes. The anatomist Richard Owen used his expertise to disprove the theory of evolution at its most controversial point –man’s link with the apes by pointing at the heavy eye-brows of the great apes, which were missing in modern Man. As the eyebrows are independently developed, nor influenced by inner or outer factors, Man must have, if Man was descendent from the great apes, heavy eyebrows; and that, he pointed out is not the case. However, a decade later in the Neanderthal near Düsseldorf a skull was found with heavy eyebrows. The fossil came into the hands of Hermann Schaaffhausen, professor of anatomy at the University of Bonn, who was convinced that the remains were very old and hominid. Their strange morphology was caused by deformation, but the oligocephalic form of the skull was, according to Schaaffhausen, not comparable to any modern race, not even with the most ‘barbarian’ races. The heavy eyebrows, characteristic for great apes, were according to Schaaffhausen typical for the Neanderthal. The skull therefore must have belonged to an ‘original wild race of North-western Europe’. Some even considered it as the skull of an idiot, an ‘old Dutchman’ or a Cossack.
    [Show full text]
  • The Correspondence of Julius Haast and Joseph Dalton Hooker, 1861-1886
    The Correspondence of Julius Haast and Joseph Dalton Hooker, 1861-1886 Sascha Nolden, Simon Nathan & Esme Mildenhall Geoscience Society of New Zealand miscellaneous publication 133H November 2013 Published by the Geoscience Society of New Zealand Inc, 2013 Information on the Society and its publications is given at www.gsnz.org.nz © Copyright Simon Nathan & Sascha Nolden, 2013 Geoscience Society of New Zealand miscellaneous publication 133H ISBN 978-1-877480-29-4 ISSN 2230-4495 (Online) ISSN 2230-4487 (Print) We gratefully acknowledge financial assistance from the Brian Mason Scientific and Technical Trust which has provided financial support for this project. This document is available as a PDF file that can be downloaded from the Geoscience Society website at: http://www.gsnz.org.nz/information/misc-series-i-49.html Bibliographic Reference Nolden, S.; Nathan, S.; Mildenhall, E. 2013: The Correspondence of Julius Haast and Joseph Dalton Hooker, 1861-1886. Geoscience Society of New Zealand miscellaneous publication 133H. 219 pages. The Correspondence of Julius Haast and Joseph Dalton Hooker, 1861-1886 CONTENTS Introduction 3 The Sumner Cave controversy Sources of the Haast-Hooker correspondence Transcription and presentation of the letters Acknowledgements References Calendar of Letters 8 Transcriptions of the Haast-Hooker letters 12 Appendix 1: Undated letter (fragment), ca 1867 208 Appendix 2: Obituary for Sir Julius von Haast 209 Appendix 3: Biographical register of names mentioned in the correspondence 213 Figures Figure 1: Photographs
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10, the Mistaken Extinction, by Lowell Dingus and Timothy Rowe, New York, W
    Chapter 10, The Mistaken Extinction, by Lowell Dingus and Timothy Rowe, New York, W. H. Freeman, 1998. CHAPTER 10 Dinosaurs Challenge Evolution Enter Sir Richard Owen More than 150 years ago, the great British naturalist Richard Owen (fig. 10.01) ignited the controversy that Deinonychus would eventually inflame. The word "dinosaur" was first uttered by Owen in a lecture delivered at Plymouth, England in July of 1841. He had coined the name in a report on giant fossil reptiles that were discovered in England earlier in the century. The root, Deinos, is usually translated as "terrible" but in his report, published in 1842, Owen chose the words "fearfully great"1. To Owen, dinosaurs were the fearfully great saurian reptiles, known only from fossil skeletons of huge extinct animals, unlike anything alive today. Fig. 10.01 Richard Owen as, A) a young man at about the time he named Dinosauria, B) in middle age, near the time he described Archaeopteryx, and C) in old age. Dinosaur bones were discovered long before Owen first spoke their name, but no one understood what they represented. The first scientific report on a dinosaur bone belonging was printed in 1677 by Rev. Robert Plot in his work, The Natural History of Oxfordshire. This broken end of a thigh bone, came to Plot's attention during his research. It was nearly 60 cm in circumference--greater than the same bone in an elephant (fig.10.02). We now suspect that it belonged to Megalosaurus bucklandii, a carnivorous dinosaur now known from Oxfordshire. But Plot concluded that it "must have been a real Bone, now petrified" and that it resembled "exactly the figure of the 1 Chapter 10, The Mistaken Extinction, by Lowell Dingus and Timothy Rowe, New York, W.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Print and Its Problems During the Late Nineteenth Century
    Hist. Sci., xlviii (2010) SERIALITY AND THE SEARCH FOR ORDER: SCIENTIFIC PRINT AND ITS PROBLEMS DURING THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY Alex Csiszar Harvard University “I have been hunting every where in vain for Godron”, reported Joseph Dalton Hooker to Charles Darwin in March 1855, “I shall not rest till I have ferretted it out”. Hooker was referring not to a person, nor to a plant specimen that might have been in the Herbarium at Kew Gardens, but to a mislaid text.1 Darwin had sought Hooker’s guidance after stumbling on a footnote in a collection of botanical memoirs; it referred to a work called “De l’espèce et des races” by someone named Godron. Such a title alone might have been enough to attract his attention, but the footnote also implied that this work reported on several instances of variations in pear seeds derived from a single parent. Darwin had become intrigued; having worked out a great deal of his theory of natural selection by 1855, he was keen not only to gather more evidence, but also to gauge the progress of scientific opinion on the variation of species in general, especially as he looked forward to begin drafting his “species book”. Darwin jotted down the title in his “Books to be Read” notebook. But before he could read it, Darwin would need to findit. 2 The techniques and tools scientists have used to seek out and sort scientific informa- tion in print comprise a significant, though largely unexplored, domain of practice for historians of modern science. The methods used by Darwin and his contemporaries for locating relevant print sources were — as they would continue to be — varied, complex, and often serendipitous; they might sometimes involve consulting indexes and catalogues, but they also included trawling the contents of serials and titles of monographs on the shelves of personal and institutional libraries, following the trail of footnotes and lists of references, and (perhaps most importantly) corresponding with colleagues, booksellers, and friends for guidance, new leads, and off-the-cuff reviews.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    Chapter 1 History Systematics has its origins in two threads of biological science: classification and evolution. The organization of natural variation into sets, groups, and hierarchies traces its roots to Aristotle and evolution to Darwin. Put simply, systematization of nature can and has progressed in absence of causative theories relying on ideas of “plan of nature,” divine or otherwise. Evolutionists (Darwin, Wallace, and others) proposed a rationale for these patterns. This mixture is the foundation of modern systematics. Originally, systematics was natural history. Today we think of systematics as being a more inclusive term, encompassing field collection, empirical compar- ative biology, and theory. To begin with, however, taxonomy, now known as the process of naming species and higher taxa in a coherent, hypothesis-based, and regular way, and systematics were equivalent. Roman bust of Aristotle (384–322 BCE) 1.1 Aristotle Systematics as classification (or taxonomy) draws its Western origins from Aris- totle1. A student of Plato at the Academy and reputed teacher of Alexander the Great, Aristotle founded the Lyceum in Athens, writing on a broad variety of topics including what we now call biology. To Aristotle, living things (species) came from nature as did other physical classes (e.g. gold or lead). Today, we refer to his classification of living things (Aristotle, 350 BCE) that show simi- larities with the sorts of classifications we create now. In short, there are three featuresCOPYRIGHTED of his methodology that weMATERIAL recognize immediately: it was functional, binary, and empirical. Aristotle’s classification divided animals (his work on plants is lost) using Ibn Rushd (Averroes) functional features as opposed to those of habitat or anatomical differences: “Of (1126–1198) land animals some are furnished with wings, such as birds and bees.” Although he recognized these features as different in aspect, they are identical in use.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing the Dinosaur: Richard Owen's Response to Robert Edmond Grant Author(S): Adrian J
    Designing the Dinosaur: Richard Owen's Response to Robert Edmond Grant Author(s): Adrian J. Desmond Source: Isis, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Jun., 1979), pp. 224-234 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/230789 . Accessed: 16/10/2013 13:00 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Isis. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 150.135.115.18 on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:00:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Designing the Dinosaur: Richard Owen's Response to Robert Edmond Grant By Adrian J. Desmond* I N THEIR PAPER on "The Earliest Discoveries of Dinosaurs" Justin Delair and William Sarjeant permit Richard Owen to step in at the last moment and cap two decades of frenzied fossil collecting with the word "dinosaur."' This approach, I believe, denies Owen's real achievement while leaving a less than fair impression of the creative aspect of science.
    [Show full text]
  • Marsupials As Ancestors Or Sister Taxa?
    Archives of natural history 39.2 (2012): 217–233 Edinburgh University Press DOI: 10.3366/anh.2012.0091 # The Society for the History of Natural History www.eupjournals.com/anh Darwin’s two competing phylogenetic trees: marsupials as ancestors or sister taxa? J. DAVID ARCHIBALD Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182–4614, USA (e-mail: [email protected]). ABSTRACT: Studies of the origin and diversification of major groups of plants and animals are contentious topics in current evolutionary biology. This includes the study of the timing and relationships of the two major clades of extant mammals – marsupials and placentals. Molecular studies concerned with marsupial and placental origin and diversification can be at odds with the fossil record. Such studies are, however, not a recent phenomenon. Over 150 years ago Charles Darwin weighed two alternative views on the origin of marsupials and placentals. Less than a year after the publication of On the origin of species, Darwin outlined these in a letter to Charles Lyell dated 23 September 1860. The letter concluded with two competing phylogenetic diagrams. One showed marsupials as ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals, whereas the other showed a non-marsupial, non-placental as being ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals. These two diagrams are published here for the first time. These are the only such competing phylogenetic diagrams that Darwin is known to have produced. In addition to examining the question of mammalian origins in this letter and in other manuscript notes discussed here, Darwin confronted the broader issue as to whether major groups of animals had a single origin (monophyly) or were the result of “continuous creation” as advocated for some groups by Richard Owen.
    [Show full text]
  • Ernst Haeckel's Embryological Illustrations
    Pictures of Evolution and Charges of Fraud Ernst Haeckel’s Embryological Illustrations By Nick Hopwood* ABSTRACT Comparative illustrations of vertebrate embryos by the leading nineteenth-century Dar- winist Ernst Haeckel have been both highly contested and canonical. Though the target of repeated fraud charges since 1868, the pictures were widely reproduced in textbooks through the twentieth century. Concentrating on their first ten years, this essay uses the accusations to shed light on the novelty of Haeckel’s visual argumentation and to explore how images come to count as proper representations or illegitimate schematics as they cross between the esoteric and exoteric circles of science. It exploits previously unused manuscripts to reconstruct the drawing, printing, and publishing of the illustrations that attracted the first and most influential attack, compares these procedures to standard prac- tice, and highlights their originality. It then explains why, though Haeckel was soon ac- cused, controversy ignited only seven years later, after he aligned a disciplinary struggle over embryology with a major confrontation between liberal nationalism and Catholicism—and why the contested pictures nevertheless survived. INETEENTH-CENTURY IMAGES OF EVOLUTION powerfully and controversially N shape our view of the world. In 1997 a British developmental biologist accused the * Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, Cambridge CB2 3RH, United Kingdom. Research for this essay was supported by the Wellcome Trust and partly carried out in the departments of Lorraine Daston and Hans-Jo¨rg Rheinberger at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science. My greatest debt is to the archivists of the Ernst-Haeckel-Haus, Jena: the late Erika Krauße gave generous help and invaluable advice over many years, and Thomas Bach, her successor as Kustos, provided much assistance with this project.
    [Show full text]
  • BAER & MODERN BIOLOGY Ж VOR BAER and MODERN BIOLOGY University of Tartu Institute of Zoology and Botany Estonian Naturalists' Society University of Tartu
    BAER & MODERN BIOLOGY Ж VOR BAER AND MODERN BIOLOGY University of Tartu Institute of Zoology and Botany Estonian Naturalists' Society University of Tartu Baer and Modern Biology Abstracts of the International Conference held in Tartu, 28.2-2.3 1992 Tartu 1992 Editor: K.Kull Editorial board: T.Sutt (head), V.Kaavere Technical assistance: M.Roos, M.Sarv BAER..& MODERN BIOLOGY. Täitu Ülikool. EV, 202 400. Tartu, Ülikooli, 18. 6,72. 6,5. Т. 40. 600. TÜ trükikoda. EV, 202 400 Tartu, Tiigi t. 78. ® University of Tartu CONTENTS Contributors 9 Introduction K.Kuli Baer and theoretical biology in Estonia 13 BAER AND HISTORY OF SCIENCE L. Kongo K.E. von Baer as the science promoter 15 J. M. Oppenheimer К. E. von Baer and anthropology 16 V. Babkoff The concept of metabiosis 17 I. Jahn Über Beziehungen Karl Ernst von Baers zu berliner Zoologen während seines Wirkens in Königsberg 19 I. Käbin K.E.von Baer's expedition to Novaya Zemlya 19 P. Müürsepp Das Baer-Babinetsche Gesetz 21 V. Kaavere Über die Genealogie der Familie von Baer 22 V. Masing Der Paradigmenwechsel in einiger Naturwissenschaften 24 THEORETICAL BIOLOGY S. Komarek Karl Ernst von Baer und der Darwinismus 25 S. A. Orlov & E. I. Kolchinsky K.E. von Baer and the 19th century neocatastrophism 26 2 6 E. Parmaste Taxonomy at the crossroads 27 A Lima-de-Faria The same molecular machinery is used in evolution and development 29 H. Kallak On some specific features of ontogeny and phylogeny in plants 30 V. Jaaska Isoenzyme variation in the Triticeae grasses: some evolutionary implications 32 .K.
    [Show full text]
  • BIOL 1406 Darwin's Dangerous Idea
    BIOL 1406 Darwin’s Dangerous Idea - Video Exam I Essay Question: (Matching Format) Describe the history of the scientific theory, biological evolution by means of natural selection: and focus on the life of Charles Darwin as portrayed in the PBS production, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Be sure to describe the roles of the following: "Raz", Robert FitzRoy, Emma Darwin, Annie Darwin, Richard Owen, Charles Lyell, Thomas Malthus, Samuel Wilberforce, and Thomas Huxley.) 1.Describe Captain Fitzroy’s perspective when it comes to “free-thinking” 2. What does Fitzroy allow Darwin to borrow? 3. Who was “Raz”? 4. Who was Richard Owen? 5. What was Owen’s view on “free-thinking” with regard to human ancestory? 6. What was Owen so afraid of? 7. Who was Emma (Wedgewood) Darwin? How did she influence Charles Darwin with regard to his scientific inquiry ? 8. What type of disease do we now speculate that Darwin may have suffered from? How did he get the disease? 9. Who was Annie Darwin? 10. When Annie left, what affect did this have on Darwin? 11. Who was Charles Lyell? What role did he play in influencing Darwin? 12. Who was Thomas Malthus? What did he do to influence Darwin? 13. What did Richard Owen do that was scientifically unethical? Why did he do this? 14. Who was Samuel Wilberforce? 15. Who was Thomas Henry Huxley? What did he do to influence Darwin? 16. Who was Alfred Russel Wallace? What did he do to influence Darwin? 17. What motivated Darwin to study so many different organisms; i.e.
    [Show full text]