Wallace, Darwin, and the Practice of Natural History Author(s): Melinda B. Fagan Source: Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 2007), pp. 601-635 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737514 . Accessed: 02/06/2013 13:59 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]. Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of Biology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Journal of the History of Biology (2007) 40:601-635 ? Springer 2007 DOI 10.1007/s 10739-007-9126-8 Wallace, Darwin, and the Practice of Natural History MELINDA B. FAGAN Department of History and Philosophy of Science Indiana University Goodbody Hall 130, 1011 East Third St Bloomington, IN 47405 USA E-mail: me fagan @ indiana, edu Abstract. There is a pervasive contrast in the early natural history writings of the co-discoverers of natural selection, Alfred R?ssel Wallace and Charles Darwin. In his writings from South America and the Malay Archipelago (1848-1852, 1854-1862), Wallace consistently emphasized species and genera, and separated these descriptions from his rarer and briefer discussions of individual organisms. In contrast, Darwin's writings during the Beagle voyage (1831-1836) emphasized individual organisms, and mingled descriptions of individuals and groups. The contrast is explained by the different practices of the two naturalists in the field. Wallace and Darwin went to the field with different educational experiences and social connections, constrained by different responsibilities and theoretical interests. These in turn resulted in different natural history practices; i.e., different habits and working routines in the field. Wallace's intense collecting activities aimed at a complete inventory of different species and their distributions at many localities. Darwin's less intense collecting practice focused on detailed observations of individual organisms. These different practices resulted in different material, textual and conceptual products. Placing natural history practices at the center of analysis reveals connections among these diverse products, and throws light on Wallace and Darwin's respective treatment of individuals and groups in natural history. In particular, this approach clarifies the relation between individuals and groups in Wallace's theory of natural selection, and provides an integrative starting point for further investigations of the broader social factors that shaped Victorian natural history practices and their scientific products. Keywords: Alfred R?ssel Wallace, Charles Darwin, natural history, scientific practice, natural selection, specimen collecting, Beagle voyage, Malay Archipelago Introduction Then a host of new species burst upon me, revealing the richness of the country, and its intimate connection with New Guinea. Paridisea apoda, L., Pregia, L., Microglossus aterrimus, Wagl., This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 602 MELINDA B. FAGAN Brachyurus Macklotti, Temm., B. novae guineas, Schlegel, Tany siptera, sp., Eurystomus gularis, Vieill., Carpophaga, n.s., with several small flycatchers, thrushes, and shrikes, and that most magnificent of the swallow-tribe, Macropteryx mystaceus, Less., were what I now obtained... The following families are abundant in species and in individuals. They are everywhere common birds" (italics in original)1 - I shot a condor, it measured from tip to tip of wing 8 & 1/2 feet; - from beak to tail 4 feet. They are magnificent birds; when seated on a pinnacle over some steep precipice, sultan-like they view the plains beneath them. I believe these birds are never found excepting where there are perpendicular cliffs: further up the river, where the lava is 8 & 900 feet above the bed of the river, I found a regular breeding place; it was a fine sight to see between ten & twenty of these Condors start heavily from their resting spot & then wheel away in majestic circles.*" These passages illustrate a pervasive contrast in the early writings of Alfred R?ssel Wallace and Charles Darwin. Both naturalists spent years in the field before independently developing their theories of natural selection.3 Wallace worked as a specimen collector in South America (1848-1852) and theMalay Archipelago (present-day Indonesia; 1854? 1862), while Darwin acquired his specimens during the Beagle voyage (1831-1836), primarily from South America. In his notes, essays and correspondence from the field, Wallace consistently emphasized species and genera, and separated these descriptions from his rarer and briefer discussions of individual organisms. The first passage above, from an 1857 article describing collecting in the Aru Islands, is typical: Wallace provides an enthusiastic litany of species, families and genera. It is easy to miss his distinction at the end of the passage, between families, species and individuals, in ternis of "abundance." Yet this too is 1 Wallace, 1857d, pp. 476, 479. 2 Keynes, 1988, p. 237. 3 Darwin and Wallace, 1858, Darwin, 1968 [1859]. McKinney (1972, pp. 97-155), Brackman (1980) and Brooks (1984, pp. 200-269) argue that Darwin drew on Wallace's 1858 essay for his own theory. Browne (1980), Beddall (1988), Kohn (1985, pp. 245 257), and Raby (2001, pp. 129-142) effectively criticize this 'conspiracy theory.' The current consensus is that the theories were conceived independently {cf. Browne 2003, pp. 14-45). This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions WALLACE, DARWIN, AND THE PRACTICE OF NATURAL HISTORY 603 characteristic of Wallace's writings from the field. At a given locality, families contain more or fewer species, and species contain more or fewer individual organisms. Wallace did not collapse or confuse these levels, but carefully distinguished between different sorts of abundance. In general, his natural history writing emphasized species, with clear distinctions between individual organisms and groups.4 By contrast, as illustrated by the second passage, Darwin's notes and correspondence during the Beagle voyage emphasized individual organisms and mingled descriptions of individuals and groups. The representative journal entry above, from April 1834, is laced with carefully observed details of individual birds: measurements of wing span, numbers at the breeding site. Though individual details are prominent, Darwin also discussed the "magnificent birds" as a group, shifting rapidly from the condor he shot, to condors in general, to particular views of condors. General observations are juxtaposed with anecdotes of particular events. These mingled modes of description make for a vivid and engaging style that is difficult to parse precisely. Emphasis on individual details and ambiguity as to level of description are characteristic of Darwin's writings from the field. The contrast in the two naturalists' writings from the field thus has two aspects. First, Wallace emphasized groups of organisms, while Darwin described many details of individual organisms. Second, Wal? lace clearly distinguished between groups and individuals, while Darwin was more ambiguous. Both aspects can be explained by differences in natural history practice. Wallace and Darwin's contrasting habits and working routines in the field were shaped in turn by their different circumstances and motivations. The two naturalists went to the field with different training and social connections, different finances and responsibilities, and different theoretical interests. These contrasts led Wallace and Darwin to practice natural history at different intensities, using different methods and standards. Wallace's intense collecting activities were aimed at obtaining a complete inventory of different species and their distributions at many localities. Darwin's less intense 4 I do not engage the metaphysical debate concerning biological groups and indi? viduals (see Hull, 1989; Ghiselin, 1997; Gould, 2002). I assume everyday notions of groups and individual organisms, the latter being simply animals and plants that live on the earth, and the former assemblages of these treated as entities in their own right. Populations, varieties, races, species, genera, and higher taxa are groups in this sense. My argument requires only that the distinction between individual organisms and groups is robustly drawn, whatever its metaphysical basis. This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 604 MELINDA B. FAGAN but meticulous collecting practices aimed at detailed observation of new and interesting individual organisms. A number of historians have recently examined the staggering scope of Wallace's collecting activities, as well as his pioneering role in bio geography.5 Darwin's Beagle voyage has been extensively studied; re? cent studies have highlighted its