DOCSLIB.ORG

80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery 80 years of watching the evolutionary scenery ERNST MAYR Having reached the rare age of 100 years, I find myself in There are a multitude of reasons why so many controver- a unique position: I’m the last survivor of the golden age sies about evolution emerged during that period. For in- of the Evolutionary Synthesis. That status encourages me stance, the philosophy of science at that time was totally to present a personal account of what I experienced in the dominated by physics and by typology (essentialism). years (1920s to the 1950s) that were so crucial in the history This philosophy was appropriate for the physical sciences of evolutionary biology. but entirely unsuitable as a foundation for theories dealing Evolutionary biology in its first 90 years (1859 to the with biological populations (see below). Perhaps more 1940s) consisted of two widely divergent fields: evolu- important was the fact that the paradigm of Darwinian tionary change in populations and biodiversity, the domains evolution was not a single theory, as Darwin always insis- of geneticists and naturalists (systematicists), respec- ted, but was actually composed of five quite independent tively. Histories covering this period were usually written theories.* Two of these were readily accepted by the by geneticists, who often neglected the evolution of bio- Darwinians: the simple fact of evolution (the “non-cons- diversity. As I am a naturalist, I consider this neglect to tancy of species” as Darwin called it) and the branching be a grave deficiency of most historical treatments. theory of common descent. The other three—gradual evolu- Curiously, I cannot pinpoint the age at which I became tion, the multiplication of species, and natural selection— an evolutionist. I received all of my education in Germany, were accepted by only a minority of Darwin’s followers. where evolution was not really controversial. In the gymna- Indeed, these three theories were not universally accepted sium (equivalent to a U.S. high school), my biology until the so-called Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1940s. teacher took evolution for granted. So, I am quite certain, Superimposed on these conceptual differences were others did my parents—who, to interest their three teenage sons, that arose because of the preferences of evolutionists in subscribed to a popular natural history journal that ac- different countries. The evolutionary theories considered cepted evolution as a fact. Indeed, in Germany at that time there was no Protestant fundamentalism. And after I had entered university, no one raised any questions about evolution, either in my medical curriculum or in my pre- parations for the Ph.D. Those who were unable to adopt creation as a plausible solution for biological diversity concluded that evolution was the only rational explanation for the living world. Even though creationism was not a major issue, evolu- tionary biology was nonetheless badly split by controversies. The disagreements concerned the causation of evolutionary change and the validity of various theories of evolution. I was a beneficiary of the furor, a bystander during the numerous clashes between supporters of the oppos- ing theories favored during the first decades of the 20th cen- tury. Ernst Mayr passed away on 3 February 2005. From Mayr, Science 305, 46–47 (2004); reprinted with permission from AAAS. Ernst Mayr CREDIT: ERNST MAYR LIBRARY/MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY Journal of Genetics, Vol. 84, No. 1, April 2005 91 Ernst Mayr valid in England or in France were rejected in Germany theories of the saltational Mendelians, and established the or the United States. One powerful author in a particular basis for the origin of a rigorous school of mathematical country often could determine the thinking of all his fellow population genetics, culminating in the work of R. A. Fisher, scientists. Finally, different evolutionary theories were J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright. Most important, this often favored by scholars in different branches of biol- new school of population geneticists fully accepted natural ogy—say, genetics, or developmental biology, or natural selection—and that permitted a synthesis. history. To understand what happened during the Evolu- Several historians have mistakenly thought that this tionary Synthesis, one must be aware of the sources of synthesis within genetics had solved all the problems of disagreement during that earlier period. It was my good Darwinism. That assumption, however, failed to take account fortune that I became acquainted with most of the major of an important gap. One of the two major branches of schools of evolutionary thought of the first third of the 20th evolutionary biology, the study of the origin of biodiversity, century and was therefore able to compare their claims. had been left out of the major treatises of Fisher, Haldane, In 1925–26, I prepared for my Ph.D. at the Natural History and Wright. Actually, unknown to these geneticists, the Museum of Berlin. Even though it was part of Berlin’s problems of the origin of biodiversity had already been Humboldt University, this museum had its own faculty solved in the 1920s by several European naturalists, most and student body. This separation resulted in the develop- important among them, Moritz Wagner,* Karl Jordan,* ment of two branches of evolutionary biology. The labora- Edward Poulton,* Chetverikov and Erwin Stresemann. tory (experimental) geneticists in the University studied Thus, evolutionary biology around 1930 found itself in the processes taking place in a single population—in a a curious position. It faced two major seemingly unsolved single gene pool. Their emphasis was on gradual evolu- problems: the adaptive changes of populations and the tionary change in a phyletic sequence of populations. The origin of biodiversity. Two large and very active groups of museum naturalists, including myself, were much more evolutionists worked on these problems. One of these interested in a different aspect of evolution, the origin of groups consisted of the population geneticists. As summa- biodiversity, and particularly the origin of new species rized in the works of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright, this and higher taxa. We studied the process of speciation and group had solved the problem of gradual evolution of the transition from species level evolution to macroevolu- populations through natural selection. But they had not tion—in other words, the origin of new types of organisms made any contribution to the problem of how species arise and the evolution of higher taxa. (speciation)—that is, to the problem of the origin of bio- We naturalists thought that evolution was indeed a gra- diversity. The other group of evolutionists consisted of dual process, as Darwin had always insisted. Our material the naturalists (taxonomists). Although unaware of the provided hundreds of illustrations of widespread species solution to the problem of gradual adaptive evolution, that gradually changed throughout their geographic range. they had solved the open problems of the evolution of By contrast, most early Mendelians, impressed by the biodiversity through the contributions of the European natura- discontinuous nature of genetic changes (“mutations”), lists Wagner, Jordan, Poulton, Stresemann and Chetverikov. thought that these mutations provided evidence for a salta- Thus, by 1930, the two great problems of evolutionary tional origin of new species. biology had been solved, but by different groups whose When Mendel’s laws were rediscovered in 1900, there accomplishments were unknown to one another. was widespread hope that they would lead to a unifica- As a student in Germany in the 1920s, I belonged to a tion of the conflicting theories on speciation. Unfortu- German school of evolutionary taxonomists that was un- nately, it turned out that the three geneticists most interes- represented in the United States. Our tradition placed ted in evolution—Bateson, DeVries, and Johannsen— great stress on geographic variation within species, and were typologists and opted for a mutational origin (by particularly on the importance of geographic isolation and saltation) of new species. Worse, they rejected gradual its role in leading to the origin of new species. It accepted evolution through the natural selection of small variants. a Lamarckian inheritance of newly acquired characters but For their part, the naturalists erroneously thought that the simultaneously accepted natural selection as facilitating geneticists had achieved a consensus based on saltational gradual evolution. We decisively rejected any saltational speciation, and this led to a longlasting controversy bet- origin of new species, as had been postulated by DeVries. ween the naturalists and the early Mendelians. Fortunately, there was one evolutionist who had the The naturalists were unaware that there were other background to be able to resolve the conflict between the geneticists—like East, Castle, Baur, and Chetverikov— geneticists and the naturalists. It was Theodosius Dobzha- who may have been a majority. Their interpretation of nsky.* He had grown up in Russia as a naturalist and beetle small mutations and gradual evolution was completely taxonomist, but, in 1927, he joined Morgan’s laboratory compatible with the theories of the naturalists. Beginning in America where he became thoroughly familiar with in 1910, the work of the Columbia University group in population genetics. He was ideally suited to show that New York under T. H. Morgan led to a refutation of the the findings of the population geneticists and those of the 92 Journal of Genetics, Vol. 84, No. 1, April 2005 Ernst Mayr European naturalists were fully compatible and that a have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First synthesis of the theories of the two groups would provide came Avery’s demonstration that nucleic acids and not a modern Darwinian paradigm, subsequently referred to proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the dis- as the “Evolutionary Synthesis”. covery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased What is particularly remarkable about this new para- the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an digm is its stability.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • R-ES-ONAN--CE-!-JU-Ly--2-0-0-5
    Not every scientist is fortunate enough to live up to a ripe age ofa hundred years and get an opportunity to reflect on eighty years ofa wonderfully productive scientific career. Ernst Mayr, who was one of the main architects of the evolutionary synthesis of the past century, is one of the few who attained this rare distinction. What follows is an extraordinary personal account of the history of 20th century evolution­ ary biology, straight from the horse's mouth. Especially for students of biology, the insight he provides on the controversies and intellectual conflicts in biology, they may never find in any text book. S Mahadevan 80 Years of Watching the Evolutionary Scenery Ernst Mayr Having reached the rare age of 100 years, I find myselfin a unique position: I'm the last survivor of the golden age of the Evolutionary Synthesis. That status encourages me to present a personal account of what I experienced in the years (1920s to the 1950s) that were so crucial in the history of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology in its first 90 years (1859 to the 1940s) consisted of two widely divergent fields: evolutionary change in populations and biodiversity, the domains of geneticists and naturalists (systematicists), respectively. Histories covering this period were usually written by geneticists, who often neglected the evolution ofbio-diversity. As I am a naturalist, I consider this neglect to be a grave deficiency of most historical treatments. Curiously, I cannot pinpoint the age at which I became an evolutionist. I received all of my education in Germany, where evolution was not really controversial.
    [Show full text]
  • Trémaux on Species 1 Nelson and Wilkins
    Trémaux on species 1 Nelson and Wilkins Trémaux on species: A theory of allopatric speciation (and punctuated equilibrium) before Wagner John S. Wilkinsi and Gareth J. Nelsonii Abstract Pierre Trémaux’s 1865 ideas on speciation have been unjustly derided following his acceptance by Marx and rejection by Engels, and almost nobody has read his ideas in a charitable light. Here we offer an interpretation based on translating the term sol as “habitat”, in order to show that Trémaux proposed a theory of allopatric speciation before Wagner and a punctuated equilibrium theory before Gould and Eldredge, and translate the relevant discussion from the French. We believe he may have influenced Darwin’s revision to the third edition of the Origin on rates of evolution, and suggest that Gould’s dismissal of Trémaux is motivated by concern that others might think punctuated equilibrium theory was tainted by a connection with Trémaux. Introduction Pierre Trémaux (1818–1895) is not well known. Although he holds a place in the history of photography for his photographs taken during a trip down the Nile to the Sudan in 1847iii and he later published one of the first illustrated geographical books, his anthropological and biological work would have received little notice except for the fact that Karl Marx praised him over Darwin. As one of us wrote back in 1989: Trémaux’s writings were never well known. Perhaps they deserve the oblivion into which they have fallen, but their general theme of earth and life evolving together accords well with the spirit of our modern concerns i Department of Philosophy, University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia ii School of Botany, University of Melbourne, Melbourne 3010, Australia iii Trémaux was well regarded for a series of anthropological articles based on his journey to the Sudan (Trémaux 1849, 1850, 1855, 1856, 1862a, 1862b).
    [Show full text]
  • The Changeful Fate of a Groundbreaking Insight: the Darwinian Fit- Ness Principle Caught in Different Webs of Belief
    The changeful fate of a groundbreaking insight: the Darwinian fit- ness principle caught in different webs of belief Ulrich Krohs Abstract Darwin’s explanation of biological speciation in terms of variation and natural selection has revolutionised biological thought. However, while his principle of natural selection, the fit- ness principle, has shaped biology until the present, its interpretation changed more than once during the almost 150 years of its history. The most striking change of the status of the principle is that, in the middle of the 20th century, it transmutated from an often disputed, groundbreaking insight into a tautology. Moreover, not only the interpretation of the fitness principle, but the whole body of biological knowledge was subjected to significant modifi- cations. In this paper, I relate modifications of the fitness principle to those of the respective body of biological knowledge. This body of knowledge is conceived as a Quinean web of belief. After an exposition of Darwin’s conception of the principle, which equated fitness with adaptedness to the environment, several of its changes are analysed with respect to dif- ferent webs of biological knowledge. It is concluded that the different interpretations and the reshaping of the fitness principle are rational responses to the modified systems of back- ground knowledge, which saved the coherence of the web of biological knowledge in each single case. Introduction The evolutionary theories of Darwin and Wallace were the naturalists’ answer to the question of the origin of species that was, until the 19th century, a domain for religious ideas and myths. The idea of a phylogenetic evolution was already around when these theories were developed, with, e.
    [Show full text]
  • Bonn Zoological Bulletin - Früher Bonner Zoologische Beiträge
    ZOBODAT - www.zobodat.at Zoologisch-Botanische Datenbank/Zoological-Botanical Database Digitale Literatur/Digital Literature Zeitschrift/Journal: Bonn zoological Bulletin - früher Bonner Zoologische Beiträge. Jahr/Year: 2012 Band/Volume: 61 Autor(en)/Author(s): Wagner Philipp, Bauer Aaron M., Böhme Wolfgang Artikel/Article: Amphibians and reptiles collected by Moritz Wagner, with a focus on the ZFMK collection 216-240 © Biodiversity Heritage Library, http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/; www.zoologicalbulletin.de; www.biologiezentrum.at Bonn zoological Bulletin 61 (2): 216-240 December 2012 Amphibians and reptiles collected by Moritz Wagner, with a focus on the ZFMK collection ^ Philipp Wagner , Aaron M. Bauer' & Wolfgang Bohme^ Department ofBiology, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster Avenue, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085, USA. Zoologisches Forschungsmiiseum A. Koenig, Adenaiierallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany. 'Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]. Abstract. Moritz Wagner (1813-1887) is one of the least poorly-known German explorers, geographers and biologists of the 19"' century. Between 1836 and 1860, expeditions led him to Algeria, the Caucasus Region, as well as to North-, Central- and South-America. Beside his important scientific contributions to biology, geography and ethnogra- phy he also collected large numbers of plant and animal specimens. The collected material is scattered among several European museums and university collections because Wagner only obtained a permanent position after his last voyage. Prior to this he donated his material to experts, flinding societies or the institutions where he was a student or in whose collections he worked. The present article is a first contribution towards a review of the herpetological collections made by Moritz Wagner, which includes type material of several amphibians and reptiles.
    [Show full text]
  • Fully Accepted Wagner's (1868) Concept of Geographical Speciation
    IOSR Journal Of Pharmacy And Biological Sciences (IOSR-JPBS) e-ISSN:2278-3008, p-ISSN:2319-7676. Volume 16, Issue 2 Ser. IV (Mar. – Apr. 2021), PP 01-12 www.Iosrjournals.Org On The Topic of Species and Speciation in Biology Dumitru Murariu Institute of Biology of the Romanian Academy. Spl. Independentei 296, Sector 6, Bucharest, Romania. Abstract: After a long period of static species concept, followed modern times with new technologies of investigations and wider vision of most systematists who accepted the dynamic species outlook. Adopting population thinking, it was also accepted importance of intra- and interpopulation variation due to geographical and other forms of isolation. The key words - reproductive isolation are referring to the way of a community or part of a population are becoming genetically very different from other populations; it is so called genetic incompatibility of interbreeding. Thus, appeared the meaning of biological species concept (BSC). Because deep differences arise in a long time and in a certain area, the scientists are underlining the historical, geographical, natural and objective character of the biological species. In details there are many types of speciation, but finally the species is considered as the main unit of evolution. In case of allopatric speciation, the size of population, the spread and colonization of new areas as well as potential effect of genetic drift are very important. Underground habitats, the unique ecological conditions of ocean depth, orogenetic movements (e.g. mountain rising) and glaciations, were additional factors that determined speciation and endemism phenomenon. Mutual relations or co-speciation also play an important role in opening new evolutionary lines.
    [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]
  • Why Was Darwin's View of Species Rejected by Twentieth Century
    Biol Philos (2010) 25:497–527 DOI 10.1007/s10539-010-9213-7 Why was Darwin’s view of species rejected by twentieth century biologists? James Mallet Published online: 1 May 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Abstract Historians and philosophers of science agree that Darwin had an understanding of species which led to a workable theory of their origins. To Darwin species did not differ essentially from ‘varieties’ within species, but were distin- guishable in that they had developed gaps in formerly continuous morphological variation. Similar ideas can be defended today after updating them with modern population genetics. Why then, in the 1930s and 1940s, did Dobzhansky, Mayr and others argue that Darwin failed to understand species and speciation? Mayr and Dobzhansky argued that reproductively isolated species were more distinct and ‘real’ than Darwin had proposed. Believing species to be inherently cohesive, Mayr inferred that speciation normally required geographic isolation, an argument that he believed, incorrectly, Darwin had failed to appreciate. Also, before the sociobiology revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, biologists often argued that traits beneficial to whole populations would spread. Reproductive isolation was thus seen as an adaptive trait to prevent disintegration of species. Finally, molecular genetic markers did not exist, and so a presumed biological function of species, repro- ductive isolation, seemed to delimit cryptic species better than character-based criteria like Darwin’s. Today, abundant genetic markers are available and widely used to delimit species, for example using assignment tests: genetics has replaced a Darwinian reliance on morphology for detecting gaps between species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dimensions, Modes and Definitions of Species and Speciation
    Biology and Philosophy (2007) 22:247–266 Ó Springer 2007 DOI 10.1007/s10539-006-9043-9 The dimensions, modes and definitions of species and speciation JOHN WILKINS Biohumanities Project, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Qld, Australia (e-mail: [email protected]; phone: +47-55236370; fax: +47-55236379) Received 6 March 2006; accepted in revised form 11 August 2006 Key words: Species, Speciation, Adaptive landscape, Gavrilets Abstract. Speciation is an aspect of evolutionary biology that has received little philosophical attention apart from articles mainly by biologists such as Mayr (1988). The role of speciation as a terminus a quo for the individuality of species or in the context of punctuated equilibrium theory has been discussed, but not the nature of speciation events themselves. It is the task of this paper to attempt to bring speciation events into some kind of general scheme, based primarily upon the work of Sergey Gavrilets on adaptive landscapes, using migration rate, or gene flow, as the primary scale, and concluding that adaptive and drift explanations are complementary rather than competing. I propose a distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic selection, and the notion of reproductive reach and argue that speciation modes should be discriminated in terms of gene flow, the nature of selection maintaining reproductive reach, and whether the predominant cause is selective or stochastic. I also suggest that the notion of an adaptive ‘‘quasispecies’’ for asexual species is the primitive notion of species, and that members of reproductively coherent sexual species are additionally coadapted to their mating partners. ... evolution is a process of change or movement.
    [Show full text]
  • 444 | Wafer, Lionel Wafer, Lionel (?1660–1705) J.W. Kelly, 'Wafer, Lionel (D.1705)', ODNB, Accessed 11-02-2013 J.K. La
    Wafer stoutly maintained he had been a trader in the West Indies for the past seven years, and signed W himself in his depositions ‘Delawafer’. His case was made weaker by the fact that among his effects were found 37 silver plates, some silver lace and three bags of Spanish money marked with his initials. But he was nevertheless released in September 1689 and permit- ted to return to England. In 1692 it was agreed that Wafer, Lionel (?1660–1705) his property should be restored to him, but part of the J.W. Kelly, ‘Wafer, Lionel (d.1705)’, ODNB, accessed money was forfeited by Royal Order. 11-02-2013 ■ J.K. Laughton, ‘Wafer, Lionel (1660?– Ever after Wafer was looked upon as an expert on the 1705?), Dictionary of National Biography (1885–1900), Isthmus of Darien. The account he wrote about his Vol.58. stay there, A new voyage and description of the Isthmus of America (1699) retains an interest for modern anthro- The British surgeon and buccaneer Lionel Wafer was pologists because of its detailed descriptions of the probably born in or a little before 1660 and spent Cuna and Darien Indians. Wafer died in London in his boyhood in Scotland and Ireland. He described 1705. himself as ‘very young’ when he embarked on an Below we list the separate editions of Wafer’s narra- East India Company vessel as an assistant surgeon tive; many other editions are incorporated in the var- in 1677. He visited Sumatra and Borneo and returned ious editions of William Dampier’s Works, for these, to England in 1679, but soon left again for Jamaica see under Dampier.
    [Show full text]
  • Environment, Development, and Evolution Toward a New Evolutionary Synthesis
    11 Environment, Development, and Evolution Toward a New Evolutionary Synthesis In my opinion, the greatest error which I have committed, has not been allowing sufficient weight to the direct action of the environment, i.e. food, climate, etc., independently of natural selection. Charles Darwin to Moritz Wagner, 1876 May your symbionts be with you. Angela Douglas, 2010 To develop is to interact with the environment. To evolve is to alter these interactions in a heritable manner. Armin Moczek, 2015 he importance of development for evolutionary biology is not limited to the role of developmental regulatory genes discussed in Chapter T10. The studies of developmental plasticity and developmental sym- biosis point to something quite unexpected in evolutionary theory: that the environment not only selects variation, it helps construct and shape varia- tion. This integration of ecological developmental biology into evolutionary biology has sometimes been referred to as ecological evolutionary devel- opmental biology, or “eco-evo-devo.” Eco-evo-devo has several research projects, but its main goal, as recently stated (Abouheif et al. 2014) is to “uncover the rules that underlie the interactions between an organism’s environment, genes, and development and to incorporate these rules into evolutionary theory.” ©2015 Sinauer Associates, Inc. This material cannot be copied, reproduced, manufactured or disseminated in any form without express written permission from the publisher. 436 Chapter 11 With the application of knowledge gained from the studies now being done in ecological developmental biology, a new and more inclusive evo- lutionary theory is being forged. So far, eco-devo has contributed at least three components to this nascent evolutionary synthesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Moritz Wagner, Philipp Franz Von Siebold and the Institutionalisation of Ethnology in Munich1
    Panel 3: Siebold’s “Japan Museum” Plan and its “Presenting” Japan Moritz Wagner, Philipp Franz von Siebold and the Institutionalisation of Ethnology in Munich1 Bruno J. RICHTSFELD (Translated by Klaus Peter STEFFEN) On 23rd April 1862 the Bavarian King Maximilian II Joseph (1811-1864, gov. 1848-1864) appointed traveller and natural scientist Moritz Wagner to be the first conservator of the ethnographic collection in Munich. This royal enactment is considered as the birth of the National Ethnology Museum Munich. For many years Moritz Wagner remained almost forgotten as a man of museum. A few knew him as a geographer and a biologist. Only individual research works in recent years have made Moritz Wagner better known as a man of the museum. With him, the history of ethnology institutionalised as a museum began in Munich. With advocacy and assistance from him and others the Franz von Siebolds collection came to Munich in 1866 and was finally acquired for the museum in 1874. 1. Moritz Wagner as travel writer and journalist Moritz Wagner was born in Bayreuth on 3rd October 1813. His father Lorenz Heinrich Wagner was a grammar school teacher, a highly educated man who occasionally had problems because of his liberal political orientation and was transferred to Augsburg in 1820 as a result. His mother Julie Christina Wagner is characterized as an energetic and active woman. The family lived in poor financial circumstances. In his early youth Moritz Wagner acquired knowledge on zoology and botany, established collections and observed animals and plants. He also showed a certain literary talent early.
    [Show full text]
  • MAYR Museum of Comparative Zoology Harvard University
    Lamarck Revisited ERNST MAYR Museum of Comparative Zoology Harvard University As long as the battle between Darwinism and Lamarckism was raging, it was quite impossible to undertake an unbiased evalua- tion of Lamarck. For this we are now ready, after it has been demonstrated conclusively that the various causal explanations of evolution, usually designated as Lamarckism, are not valid. Not that it really needed this final proof, but the recognition that DNA does not directly participate in the making of the phenotype and that the phenotype, in turn, does not control the composition of the DNA, represents the ultimate invalidation of all theories involving the inheritance of acquired characters. This definitive refutation of Lamar&s theory of evolutionary causation clears the air. We can now study him without bias and emotion and give him the attention which this major figure in the history of biology clearly deserves. The past study of Lamarck (1744-1829) has tended to suffer from one-sided approaches. Sometimes he was discussed under the heading, “Lamarck and Darwin”: Did he anticipate Darwin? Did Darwin build on a foundation laid by Lamarck? Did Darwin fail to give him sufficient credit? It would be futile to try to reach a well-balanced evaluation of Lamarck through answering such one-sided questions. Other authors have limited their study to a comparison of Lamar&s ideas with those of such eighteenth- century philosophers as had an interest in evolution, like Diderot, Maupertuis, or Robinet. This approach utterly fails to consider the contributions made by Lamar&s professional interests. After all, he was not primarily a philosopher, but made his living as a naturalist who studied plants and animals for more than fifty years, from 1770 (when he was twenty-six) to the 1820’s (when he was in his eighties).
    [Show full text]