DOCSLIB.ORG

Charles Darwin and Blending Inheritance Author(S): Peter Vorzimmer Source: Isis, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Charles Darwin and Blending Inheritance Author(S): Peter Vorzimmer Source: Isis, Vol The History of Science Society Charles Darwin and Blending Inheritance Author(s): Peter Vorzimmer Source: Isis, Vol. 54, No. 3 (Sep., 1963), pp. 371-390 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/228805 Accessed: 11/10/2009 01:15 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. 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 Charles Darwin and Blending Inheritance By Peter Vorzimmer * I. INTRODUCTION THE evolutionary writings of Charles Darwin (d. 1882), in the latter part of his life, when contrasted with the Origin of Species of 1859, indicate a considerable change in his evolutionary thought over the inter- vening years. Unfortunately, despite a large amount of Darwiniana pub- lished during the centennial years, there has been a noticeable lack of information on Darwin's post-Origin development. Since the over-all change effected appears great and the resultant view nearly antithetical to that of the first edition of the Origin, it has been felt that such a radical change could not be looked upon merely as a modification of an earlier view, but as an adoption of a distinctly new one. It is on this assumption that recent writers, in glancing over the post-Origin period, have attempted to ascertain when and why Darwin made such a significant change. A number of these authors 1 in searching for a turning point in Darwin's evolutionary thought - a point at which he was forced to revert to once- rejected Lamarckian mechanisms - have fastened upon the attack made by Fleeming Jenkin in 1867. In fact, it may be said that this represents a con- sensus of opinion among those writers to date who have discussed this ques- tion. One reason for this appears to lie in the fact that Jenkin's name alone stands out in the available published material as a critic employing against natural selection the swamping effect of blending inheritance. Furthermore, the appearance of Jenkin's review 2 immediately before Darwin undertook the great revisions appearing in the fifth Origin 3 also suggested some causal connection. These facts seemed to be corroborated by evidence from Darwin himself that " Fleeming Jenkins [sic] has given me much trouble . Fleem- ing Jenkin's arguments have convinced me " 4 and together they presented a * Cambridge University. 3 60% of all of Darwin's revisions on the Note: In the citations coming from the Dar- Origin occurred in the last two editions, 21% win Reprint Collection at the Botany School in the fifth alone. From Morse Peckham, The Library, Cambridge, all quotations are passages Origin of Species: A Variorum Text, 1959, marked by Darwin unless otherwise noted. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania 1 G. Hardin, Nature and Man's Fate, 1959, Press). (New York: Reinhart); L. Eiseley, Darwin's 4 (Ed.) Francis Darwin, More Letters of Century, 1959, (London: Gollancz); P. Fother- Charles Darwin, 1903, (2 vols., New York: gill, Historical Aspects of Organic Evolution, Appleton) Vol. II, p. 379; (Ed.) Francis Dar- 1952, (London: Hollis and Carter). win, Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1898, 2 Fleeming Jenkin, " The Origin of Species " (2 vols., New York: Appleton) Vol. II, p. 288 in The North British Review, Vol. 46, June, (Hereafter More Letters and Life and Letters). 1867. 371 ISIS, 1963, VOL. 54, PART3, No. 177. 372 PETER VORZIMMER convincing case for establishing Jenkin as the major cause for the change that followed. In arriving at this conclusion in the absence of sufficient research, these writers have by implication asserted a great deal of misin- formation regarding both genetic and evolutionary thought at this time. Contained in their case are the following assumptions: 1. That, while not the first writer to note the swamping implications of blending inheritance, Fleeming Jenkin was the first to bring this to bear against natural selection. 2. That Jenkin's essay was the first employing this criticism to be acknowledged by Darwin and which he (Darwin) felt posed some serious problems. 3. That the effect on Darwin of Jenkin's review was to bring about a great reassessment in his thought, the result of which was a staggering reduction of the power of natural selection. 4. That the impact of Jenkin's criticism was due to the fact that Darwin had previously overlooked the problem of blending. 5. That the criticism forced Darwin to create a Lamarckian theory of inheritance - his " Pangenesis " of 1868. It is on the basis of these assumptions that, for these writers, the story of Charles Darwin and his struggle with the implications of blending in- heritance begins and ends with Fleeming Jenkin. They have been led to look upon Jenkin's criticism as being of such originality and validity (ex- aggerated by Darwin's supposed oversights), that they have felt in it an exigency which Darwin never did nor could have. In the light of recent research into the whole of the post-Origin period (1859-1882),5 these assumptions can be seen to be incorrect. All these historical deductions hinge upon a mistaken impression as to the nature of Darwin's post-Origin change. There is no turning point in Darwin's evolu- tionary thought. What unrolls before us in the twenty-three years after the Origin is a gradual but progressive modification.6 As for Jenkin and the place of his swamping criticism, it is hoped that this article will indicate their true position while describing ab initio the place of the concept of blending inheritance in the development of Darwin's thought. II. BLENDING INHERITANCE The term blending inheritance refers to the hereditary mixing of both paternal and maternal elements in the offspring in such a way as to give the outward appearance that both have blended into an inseparable mixture and present, in the offspring, a feature which appears to be mid-way between the two. Such a view is merely a description of what can be observed in most crosses on a purely superficial level. It is so common as to be considered 5 See P. J. Vorzimmer, The Development of 6 Darwin started to modify the Origin be- Darwin's Evolutionary Thought after 1859, un- fore the first edition had gone on sale. The published doctoral dissertation, Cambridge roots of nearly all the significant changes can University, 1963. be seen in the first edition. CHARLES DARWIN AND BLENDING INHERITANCE 373 universal. In fact it was, to many nineteenth-century naturalists, the rule - with a few less noticeable exceptions. The " swamping effect " occurs under blending inheritance if one or a few aberrant organisms arise within the normal population. Since these rare variant forms must breed back into the general population, the new and " unusual characters will be " swamped by being absorbed into and blended with a vast pool of normal characters. The concept of blending inheritance as a natural process, together with all its implications, has also been called "The Paint-Pot Theory of He- 7 redity." The analogy is that the normal population is likened to a bucket of white paint and the variant forms to a few drops of black. The effect of mixing the two paints is analogous to the effect of free intercrossing in Nature. Additionally, the impossibility of separating two once-distinct fluids after mixing is carried over as the impossibility of natural selection accumu- lating small changes under blending inheritance. III. BLENDING INHERITANCE BEFORE JENKIN (1867) A. General Remarks As has already been pointed out, blending inheritance is not so much an hypothesis as an empirical generalization. A blending of two distinct kinds is readily observed throughout organic nature (in the process of sexual reproduction). The first is that the offspring appears to consist of a con- " glomerate mixture of features from both parents.8 The second or true blending" occurs when the offspring can be seen to represent, in terms of a single feature, an equal blend of the two distinct parental characteristics for that feature. The latter of these two kinds of mixing forms the basis for the " swamping effect." Both of these types of hereditary mixing had been observed for centuries before the time of Darwin and Jenkin. By the time the study of hereditary 9 phenomena became a scientific discipline in the last quarter of the eight- eenth century, blending in inheritance had become accepted as axiomatic. Yet at about this time, two related phenomena were also recognized, and both were obvious exceptions to blending as an all-inclusive or even pre- dominant process.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Theodosius Dobzhansky: a Man for All Seasons
    GENERAL ARTICLE Theodosius Dobzhansky: A Man For All Seasons Francisco J Ayala In 1972, Theodosius Dobzhansky addressed the convention of Francisco J Ayala the National Association of Biology Teachers on the theme obtained his Ph D with Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolu­ in the 1960s and is tion". The title of that address (published in The American presently the Donald Bren Biology Teacher, Vol. 35, pp. 125-129) might serve as an epigram Professor of Biological of Dobzhansky's worldview and life, although it is limited in Sciences at the University of California, Irvine and a scope, for Dobzhansky believed and propounded that the impli­ member of President cations of biological evolution reach much beyond biology into Clinton's Committee of philosophy, sociology, and even socio-political issues. The Advisors on Science and place of biological evolution in human thought was, according Technology. He is a member of the U S to Dobzhansky, best expressed in a passage that he often quoted National Academy of from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: "(Evolution) is a general Sciences and has been postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must President and Chairman hence forward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be of the Board of the American Association for thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all the Advancement of facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow - this is Science. He has worked what evolution is". extensively on the population ecology and The Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory evolutionary genetics of Drosophila species.
    [Show full text]
  • From So Simple a Beginning... the Expansion of Evolutionary Thought
    From So Simple A Beginning... The Expansion Of Evolutionary Thought #1 #2 From So Simple A Beginning... The Expansion Of Evolutionary Thought Compiled and Edited by T N C Vidya #3 All rights reserved. No parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the publisher. c Indian Academy of Sciences 2019 Reproduced from Resonance–journal of science education Published by Indian Academy of Sciences Production Team: Geetha Sugumaran, Pushpavathi R and Srimathi M Reformatted by : Sriranga Digital Software Technologies Private Limited, Srirangapatna. Printed at: Lotus Printers Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru #4 Foreword The Masterclass series of eBooks brings together pedagogical articles on single broad top- ics taken from Resonance, the Journal of Science Education, that has been published monthly by the Indian Academy of Sciences since January 1996. Primarily directed at students and teachers at the undergraduate level, the journal has brought out a wide spectrum of articles in a range of scientific disciplines. Articles in the journal are written in a style that makes them accessible to readers from diverse backgrounds, and in addition, they provide a useful source of instruction that is not always available in textbooks. The sixth book in the series, ‘From So Simple A Beginning... The Expansion Of Evolu- tionary Thought’, is a collection of Resonance articles about scientists who made major con- tributions to the development of evolutionary biology, starting with Charles Darwin himself, collated and edited by Prof. T. N. C.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Big Problem and Mendelian Genetics
    Introduction to Biological Anthropology: Notes 7 Darwin’s big problem and Mendelian genetics Copyright Bruce Owen 2011 − Darwin’s big problem − We have seen that natural selection works by favoring the most successful variants among the individuals in a population − it only works if individuals vary in ways that affect their survival and reproduction − offspring must be similar to their parents, but not exactly the same − if offspring were identical to their parents, they would be identical to each other, and there would be no “more successful” and “less successful” individuals for natural selection to pick from − so there could be no change in the next generation: no evolution − Darwin had no good explanation for why offspring resemble parents, but also vary − he knew that this was a big gap in his theory − The prevalent idea of inheritance in Darwin’s time was blending inheritance − blending inheritance holds that the characteristics of offspring are mixtures of the characteristics of their parents − the idea was that the material from the two parents that controlled inherited characteristics blended like two colors of paint − this is a reasonable approximation, based on everyday experience − so, every mating should produce offspring that are intermediate between the parents − for example, if a six-foot man mates with a five-foot woman… − then the offspring should all be between five and six feet tall − no offspring are expected to be more extreme than either parent − there are two huge problems with the blending model of inheritance − First, it obviously isn't true − lots of parents have children who are taller, or shorter, than both of the parents − many kids have traits like hair color, eye color, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • On Darwin's and Mendel's Concepts and Methods in Heredity
    J Gen Philos Sci (2010) 41:31–58 DOI 10.1007/s10838-010-9122-0 ARTICLE Gemmules and Elements: On Darwin’s and Mendel’s Concepts and Methods in Heredity Ute Deichmann Published online: 10 June 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Abstract Inheritance and variation were a major focus of Charles Darwin’s studies. Small inherited variations were at the core of his theory of organic evolution by means of natural selection. He put forward a developmental theory of heredity (pangenesis) based on the assumption of the existence of material hereditary particles. However, unlike his proposition of natural selection as a new mechanism for evolutionary change, Darwin’s highly speculative and contradictory hypotheses on heredity were unfruitful for further research. They attempted to explain many complex biological phenomena at the same time, disregarded the then modern developments in cell theory, and were, moreover, faithful to the widespread conceptions of blending and so-called Lamarckian inheritance. In contrast, Mendel’s approaches, despite the fact that features of his ideas were later not found to be tenable, proved successful as the basis for the development of modern genetics. Mendel took the study of the transmission of traits and its causes (genetics) out of natural history; by reducing complexity to simple particulate models, he transformed it into a scientific field of research. His scientific approach and concept of discrete elements (which later gave rise to the notion of discrete genes) also contributed crucially to the explanation of the existence of stable variations as the basis for natural selection. Keywords Variations Á Discreteness Á Gradualism Á Statistical laws Á Chance Á Blending inheritance Á Soft inheritance Á Pangenesis Á Mendel Á Darwin 1 Introduction The emergence of the science of genetics began as a result of the fruitful application of both the research methods and the concept of discrete ‘‘elements’’ (which later gave rise to the concept of discrete genes) developed by Mendel around 150 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of Inheritance
    I THE NATURE OF INHERITANCE The consequences of the blending theory, as drawn by Darwin. Difficulties felt by Darwin. Particulate inheritance. Conservation of the variance. Theories of evolution worked by mutations. Is all inheritance particulate ? Nature and frequency of observed mutations. But at present, after drawing up a rough copy on this subject, my conclusion is that external conditions do extremely little, except in causing mere variability. This mere variability (causing the child not closely to resemble its parent) I look at as very different from the formation of a marked variety or new species. DARWIN, 1856. (Life and Letters, ii, 87.) As Samuel Butler so truly said: 'To me it seems that the "Origin of " Variation ", whatever it is, is the only true Origin of Species 'V w. BATESON, 1909. The consequences of the blending theory THAT Charles Darwin accepted the fusion or blending theory of inheritance, just as all men accept many of the undisputed beliefs of their time, is universally admitted. That his acceptance of this theory had an important influence on his views respecting variation, and consequently on the views developed by himself and others on the possible causes of organic evolution, was not, I think, apparent to himself, nor is it sufficiently appreciated in our own times. In the course of the present chapter I hope to make clear the logical con- sequences of the blending theory, and to show their influence, not only on the development of Darwin's views, but on the change of attitude towards these, and other suppositions, necessitated by the acceptance of the opposite theory of particulate inheritance.
    [Show full text]
  • Goings on in Mendel's Garden
    40 Evolutionary Anthropology CROTCHETS & QUIDDITIES Goings on in Mendel’s Garden KENNETH WEISS The honorable monk probably didn’t cheat. But he led us astray in other ways. Gregor Mendel gave us the tools by discussed. But this may have inadver- which to do modern genetics, and we tently led us astray, in ways for which have a century of progress to show for we are paying a price today. The arti- it. We properly credit Mendel and his ficial nature of his experiments lured peas for showing us the particulate us into confusing the inheritance of nature of inheritance, but his work traits with the inheritance of genes. both enabled and disabled evolution- And this in turn has led to an unwar- ary thinking for several decades after ranted phenogenetic (see Note 1) de- its rediscovery. Since the factors he terminism that impairs our under- studied didn’t change over genera- standing of biology. tions, Mendel’s discoveries solved the problem that perplexed Darwin, that BLENDING IN blending inheritance would swamp variation and prevent evolution from Mendel wasn’t trying to explain evo- happening. Yet, for the same reason, lution. He knew of traits that varied Mendel’s work impeded evolutionary continuously in his experimental pea thought because evolution requires species, Pisum sativum, and appeared Figure 1. Mendel. change, and discrete variation was to blend in darwinian fashion from also incompatible with darwinian one generation to the next. But he gradualism. Eventually things were wanted to breed agriculturally valu- worked out, we got our unified theory able strains, so he avoided such traits used pea strains that differed only by (the neodarwinian Synthesis), and it and instead selected strains of pea the single traits he reported for each rested on Mendel’s discoveries.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 1 Revised2009
    BIOL2007 MENDELIAN GENETICS AND EVOLUTION Part 1 = review historical background/milestones of evolutionary biology. Part 2 = examine a simple model as an illustrative example. Evolutionary biology aims to understand the factors that shape the diversity of life. Evolutionary processes occurring rapidly within populations are called microevolution. Processes occurring on a longer timescale to generate diversity in the fossil record and in the relationships of living species are called macroevolution. Note three striking aspects of evolution: 1) Focus of selection is not survival but reproductive success (see e.g. of sexual cannibalism). 2) Strong selection may produce rapid evolution in large populations (e.g. guppies) 3) Organisms are mosaics of parts with different ages. - for points 1) to 3), see further details/text/pictures on supporting handout - Darwin’s theory of natural selection Observations 1) Variation, in the form of individual differences, exists in every species, 2) All organisms produce more offspring than survive to reproductive age. Conclusions 1) A competition for survival causes the elimination of many individuals, 2) The characteristics of the surviving individuals are passed onto future generations. Darwin’s ‘The Origin of Species’ was a triumph, but it was not without problems. In general, biologists accepted the concept of evolution: species were not fixed in form and were not separately created. However, Darwin lacked a satisfactory explanation of the scientific basis of the concepts of variation and inheritance. In Darwin’s theory, the evolution of characters takes place gradually and each successive stage has to be advantageous for it to be favoured by natural selection. Many biologists argued that this was difficult to imagine for the evolution of an organ such as the wing of a bird.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspectives
    Copyright Ó 2009 by the Genetics Society of America DOI: 10.1534/genetics.109.109991 Perspectives Anecdotal, Historical and Critical Commentaries on Genetics Darwin and Genetics Brian Charlesworth1 and Deborah Charlesworth Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh EH9 3JT, United Kingdom ABSTRACT Darwin’s theory of natural selection lacked an adequate account of inheritance, making it logically incomplete. We review the interaction between evolution and genetics, showing how, unlike Mendel, Darwin’s lack of a model of the mechanism of inheritance left him unable to interpret his own data that showed Mendelian ratios, even though he shared with Mendel a more mathematical and probabilistic outlook than most biologists of his time. Darwin’s own ‘‘pangenesis’’ model provided a mechanism for generating ample variability on which selection could act. It involved, however, the inheritance of characters acquired during an organism’s life, which Darwin himself knew could not explain some evolutionary situations. Once the particulate basis of genetics was understood, it was seen to allow variation to be passed intact to new generations, and evolution could then be understood as a process of changes in the frequencies of stable variants. Evolutionary genetics subsequently developed as a central part of biology. Darwinian principles now play a greater role in biology than ever before, which we illustrate with some examples of studies of natural selection that use DNA sequence data and with some recent advances in answering questions first asked by Darwin. The power of Selection, whether exercised by man or brought into play under nature through the struggle for existence and the The key is man’s power of cumulative selection: nature consequent survival of the fittest, absolutely depends on the gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain variability of organic beings.
    [Show full text]
  • Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin
    Mendel's Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin B. E. Bishop Although the past decade or so has seen a resurgence of interest in Mendel's role in the origin of genetic theory, only one writer, L. A. Callender (1988), has concluded that Mendel was opposed to evolution. Yet careful scrutiny of Mendel's Pisum pa- per, published in 1866, and of the time and circumstances in which it appeared suggests not only that It Is antievolutlonary In content, but also that it was specif- ically written in contradiction of Darwin's book The Origin of Species, published in 1859, and that Mendel's and Darwin's theories, the two theories which were united in the 1940s to form the modern synthesis, are completely antithetical. Mendel does not mention Darwin in his Pi- [Mendel] in so far as they bore on his anal- sum paper (although he does in his letters ysis of the evolutionary role of hybrids." to Nlgeli, the famous Swiss botanist with Olby's (1979) article, entitled "Mendel whom he initiated a correspondence, and No Mendelian?," led to a number of revi- in his Hieracium paper, published In 1870), sionist views of Mendel's work and his in- but he states unambiguously in his intro- tentions, although no agreement has been duction that his objective is to contribute reached. For instance, some writers, un- to the evolution controversy raging at the like de Beer, Olby, and Callender, overlook time: "It requires a good deal of courage or minimize the evolutionary significance indeed to undertake such a far-reaching of Mendel's paper, while others maintain task; however, this seems to be the one that Mendel had little or no interest in he- correct way of finally reaching the solu- redity, an interpretation that has been op- tion to a question whose significance for posed by Hartl and Orel (1992): "We con- the evolutionary history of organic forms clude that Mendel understood very clearly must not be underestimated" (Mendel what his experiments meant for heredity." 1866).
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material
    1 Darwinism The Rise of a Scientific Theory Why are things the way they are? How did they come to be this way? And what – if anything – might this tell us about the meaning of life? These questions have played a decisive role in shaping western thinking about the world. From the beginning of human civilization, people have wondered what explanation might be offered for the structures of the world – such as the haunting and solemn silence of the stars in the night sky, the beauty of a rainbow, and the mysterious behavior of living beings. Not only do these evoke a sense of awe; they call out for an explanation. The earliest Greek philosophers – the pre-Socratics – argued endlessly about the nature of the world, and how it came to be as it is. They insisted that the universe was rationally constructed, and that it could therefore be understood through the right use of human reason and argument. Human beings had the ability to make sense of the universe. Socrates took this line of thought further, identifying a link between the way the universe was constructed and the best way for human beings to live. To reflect on the nature of the universe was to gain insights into the nature of the “good life” – the best and most authentic way of living. Reflecting on the clues provided in the structuring of the world thus led to an understanding of our identity and destiny. For many, the answer lay in the divine origins of the world – the idea that, in some way, the world has been ordered or constructed.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Genetics Chapter 1 Pre-Mendelian Concepts of Heredity Dr
    Fundamentals of Genetics Chapter 1 Pre-Mendelian Concepts of Heredity Dr. Pratibha Bisen Assistant Professor College of Agriculture, Balaghat Genetics is concerned with the transmission, expression and evolution of genes, the molecules that control the function, development and ultimate appearance of individuals. A number of viewpoints were put forward prior to Mendel to explain the transmission of characters from parents to offspring. They are often called theories of blending inheritance as they believed that parents blended or got mixed during their transmission to the offspring. 1. Moist Vapour Theory Pythagoras (580-500 B.C.) believed that each organ of the body male produced moist vapours during coitus which formed the body parts of the embryo. 2. Fluid Theory Empedocles (504-433 B.C.), the pro-pounder of four humour theory, proposed that each body part produced a fluid. The fluid of different body parts of the two parents mixes up and is used in the formation of embryo. Any defect in the descent and mixing up of the fluids results in missing of characters of one parent or both the parents. 3. Reproductive Blood Theory Aristotle (384-322) thought that the males produce highly purified reproductive blood containing the nutrients from all body parts. Females also produce reproductive blood but this is impure. The two reproductive bloods coagulate in the body of the female and form the embryo. Due to purity of reproductive blood, the contri•bution of characters by the male is more than the female. 4. Preformation Theory The theory of preformation believes that the organism is already present, i.e., preformed in the sperm or egg in a miniature form called homunculus.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin. a Reader's Guide
    OCCASIONAL PAPERS OF THE CALIFORNIA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES No. 155 February 12, 2009 DARWIN A READER’S GUIDE Michael T. Ghiselin DARWIN: A READER’S GUIDE Michael T. Ghiselin California Academy of Sciences California Academy of Sciences San Francisco, California, USA 2009 SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS Alan E. Leviton, Ph.D., Editor Hallie Brignall, M.A., Managing Editor Gary C. Williams, Ph.D., Associate Editor Michael T. Ghiselin, Ph.D., Associate Editor Michele L. Aldrich, Ph.D., Consulting Editor Copyright © 2009 by the California Academy of Sciences, 55 Music Concourse Drive, San Francisco, California 94118 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. ISSN 0068-5461 Printed in the United States of America Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas 66044 Table of Contents Preface and acknowledgments . .5 Introduction . .7 Darwin’s Life and Works . .9 Journal of Researches (1839) . .11 Geological Observations on South America (1846) . .13 The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs (1842) . .14 Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands…. (1844) . .14 A Monograph on the Sub-Class Cirripedia, With Figures of All the Species…. (1852-1855) . .15 On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859) . .16 On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects, and on the Good Effects of Intercrossing (1863) . .23 The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species (1877) .
    [Show full text]