Lamarck: The Birth of Biology Author(s): Frans A. Stafleu Reviewed work(s): Source: Taxon, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Aug., 1971), pp. 397-442 Published by: International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1218244 . Accessed: 24/12/2012 16:29 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]. International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Taxon. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:29:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions TAXON 20(4): 397-442. AUGUST 1971 LAMARCK:THE BIRTH OF BIOLOGY Frans A. Stafleu "A long blind patience, such was his genius of the Universe" (Sainte Beuve) Summary A review of the development of Lamarck'sideas on biological systematibswith special reference to the origin and development of his concept of organic evolution. Lamarck's development towards biological systematics is traced through his early botanical and geological writings and related to the gradual change in his scientific outlook from a static and essentialist view of nature towards a dynamic and positivist concept of the life sciences as a special discipline. This development is seen against the background of the general cultural developments during the course of his life. From classic to romantic . 397 Life and works . 399 Early botanical work (1779-1800) . 404 From gradation to descent (1800-1803) . .. .. 416 Biological philosophy and classification (1803-1809) . 420 Lamarckiansystematics in the Philosophie zoologique (1809) . 423 Last years: an aftermath too long (1809-1829) . 434 The conspiracy of silence . 436 Appendix . 439 From 'classic' to 'romantic' Of the three leaders of the botany of the Enlightenment,all three stimulated by the exuberant flight of Buffon's scientific fancy, Adanson, Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu and Lamarck, it was undoubtedly the third who made the deepest im- pression on biology in general. Lamarck, more than any other French biologist, exemplified what Lovejoy (1936) has called "the temporalizing of the, great chain of being." Before Lamarck botanical and zoological thought was domi- nated by a platonic tradition with an ambivalent approach towards nature: 'nature is everywhere the same;' but also: 'nature's diversity aims at a maxi- mum.' This paradox rests on the Platonic contingency of the two gods: the immutable, self-sufficient god or demiurg of self-contained perfection versus the dynamic and creative demiurg which manifests itself in time. A similar contingency, not fully covering this fundamental paradox of the demiurges, is the conflict in natural history between an a priori static concept of nature and a dynamic view based on experience and observation, ready to admit change and development. Another way to formulate this fundamental split is to contrast the classical attitude of the mind with the romantic: univer- sality and continuity on the one hand, diversity and development on the other. In the course of the eighteenth century such biologists as Buffon, Haller, Erasmus, Darwin and Bonnet - partly influenced by and partly causing, them- selves, a shift in society from classical 'right' to romantic 'left' - set in motion the development towards a dynamic and 'romantic' science. The cosmic order, especially its biological part, was no longer considered to be essentially static, with all recognized change being part of an essentially permanent pattern. AUGUST1971 397 This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:29:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions This old pattern was one of an infinitely static diversity - the chain of being - alien to time. The new view stressed increasing diversification, development in time, creativity rather than creation. Man's task was to imitate god, therefore he should be creative, not only in art but also in science; he had to develop his individual character rather than make it conform to general standards. This emphasis on creativity, individualism and diversity is the essence of the romantic movement in science and art. In science it is unusual to employ this term 'romantic' for the breakthrough towards empiricism and positivism: the word may well serve, however, to indicate the intimate link between science, art and society. In society we see a breakthrough towards 'progress,' thanks first to the Enlightenment and later to actual revolution; in the arts romanticism develops through the change from 'form' to 'contents;' in philosophy the emphasis shifts from mind to life, from noumenal ego (Kant) to temporal ego; science pro- gresses from essentialism via temporalizing nominalism to pure empiricism: briefly, a shift from uniformitarianism to diversitarianism. Buffon introduced the time element in biology and drew attention to biological change and varia- tion, even though his mind stayed in many other respects with the processes of simplification and standardization which were so characteristic of the early Enlightenment. Adanson introduced a strong impetus of empiricism and induc- tive research into an essentially still static concept of the order of life, but he also failed to dissociate himself fully from the uniformitarian concept of nature: he tried to establish 'the' rather than 'a' natural system. A.L. Jussieu, even more than Adanson, refined empirical research, but he framed the results within an essentially static concept of life. For Jussieu the time element was irrelevant where botany was concerned: all temporal processes were ultimately cyclical. Buffon alone had daringly suggested the possibility of an open-end concept of life in opposition to that of a closed circuit. Lamarck was perhaps the most involved personality among these four French biologists. Only he had a really 'cosmic' approach, because he gave equal attention to physics, chemistry, the earth sciences, and biology. The development of his thinking involved a more fundamental change with respect to the age-old principle of plenitude than was the case with the others. In various respects Lamarck's world of thought remained part of the past; in several fundamental issues, however, his thoughts were spearheads toward the future. Even though elements of truly evolutionary thinking can be found in the writings of some of his predecessors and contemporaries (e.g. Buffon and Erasmus Darwin) Lamarck was the first to formulate a full-fledged transformist theory. He did this on the basis of a division in principle between the world of living beings and that of 'mineralogy.' This division was based, as we shall see below, on an essentially erroneous chemical theory, but his main general conclusions have proved to be correct, although perhaps not for the reasons he gave. His theory of organic evolution was based on assumptions which have not been proven: even so, the principle of an open-ended development of life, now called evolution, is generally accepted. Lamarck started out with an essentially static taxonomic theory based on the scala naturae, but was the first to state explicitly that it could - in amended form - be taken as the mirror of evolutionary development. Lamarck's own contributions toward taxonomy remained traditional to a great extent; the advanced elements of his cosmology, on the contrary, cleared the way towards evolutionary thinking. He was not to witness the final victory of evolu- tionary thought; for this he was born half a century too early. 398 TAXONVOLUME 20 This content downloaded on Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:29:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Life and works Buffon's life is well known and richly documented, although the definitive biographer has not yet presented himself; Adanson's place in the history of science has been the subject of a small number of fairly recent publications (see e.g. Nicolas 1963, Stafleu 1963, 1967); Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu has been relatively modestly treated by the historians of biology. For Lamarck, however, there is no lack of documentation and comment. The virtual - if not actual - founder of transformism has received ample and diversified bio- graphical attention in print e.g. by Packard (1901), Landrieu (1909), Kuehner (1913), and Tschulok (1937) and more recently for instance Gillispie (1956), to mention only a few. A brief biographical sketch may therefore suffice here. Jean Baptiste Antoine Pierre Monnet de Lamarck was born on 1 August 1744 at Bazentin-le-Petit, a small village in Picardy in what is now the Depart- ment of the Somme. Lamarck's father was listed in the register of birth at Bazentin as "Jacque[s] Philippe de Monet, chevalier, seigneur des Bazentin grand et petit." De Monet was the patronym; his domanial name was de Lamarck or Lamark. The five main periods of Lamarck'slife are (Tschulok 1937): 1. 1744-1761, childhood at home and education at the Jesuit college of Amiens, 2. 1761--1768, army career, 3. 1768-1778, bank employee in Paris until the publication of the Flcre francoise, 4. 1778-1793, botanist at the Jardin des plantes, 5. 1793-1829, professor of zoology at the Museum d'histoire naturelle. Lamarck, the youngest of eleven children, was originally meant to follow an ecclesiastical career. At the age of seventeen, however, he joined the army and took part in one of the seven year's war's battles in Germany (near Lipp- stadt); then he spent seven years in garrison at Toulon and Monaco. He was pensioned off because of a minor physical disability and settled at Paris in the course of 1768.