Darwin's Correspondence Research Articles

Special Section: The Correspondence of G. H. Lewes and Charles Darwin

When G. H. Lewes published a review of Charles Darwin’s The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication in 1868, the two began a correspondence that lasted from 2 March–18 November 1868 (with a final surviving note of 18 April 1877). We think now is a good time to shine a light on that correspondence for what it shows us about Lewes as a man of science and his relationship to Darwin and Darwin’s theories. Below we have reprinted the correspondence, which is introduced by George Levine.The following excerpts from The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, edited by Frederick Burkhardt et al. 29 volumes to date (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985–) are reprinted here with kind permission from Cambridge University Press and reproduced with permission of the Licensor through PLSclear.Thanks to the Darwin Correspondence Project (James A. Secord, director) and to William H. Darwin for permission to publish CD to G. H. Lewes, 7 August [1868] DCP-LETT-6308 with its enclosure.We especially wish to thank James Secord and Rosemary Clarkson for their assistance in the reproduction of this correspondence.

Charles and Emma Darwin: Under the 'influence' of chloroform anaesthesia.

A number of Charles Darwin's biographies record the administration of chloroform by Darwin to his wife Emma, during her labour and delivery of her eighth child, Leonard. This occurred on 15 January 1850, a little over two years after James Young Simpson in Edinburgh described the analgesic action of inhaled chloroform. An online search of more than 9000 items of Darwin's correspondence at Cambridge University and other sources revealed that he was an active proponent and user of chloroform in midwifery, for euthanising animals he studied, as well as in botanical studies of carnivorous plants. He also discovered that the concurrent inhalation of chloroform, during its administration to his wife, alleviated his distressing anxiety which he suffered when present at her earlier confinements.

The Counter-Roll in Science

A controlled experiment, everyone learns early in school, is the hallmark of good science. But what, exactly, is the hallmark of a controlled experiment? For many people, a controlled experiment is, straightforwardly, one “controlled” by the scientist. If you can “control” the variables and produce a predicted result (based on your hypothesis), then you seem to have proved cause and effect. Scientific credibility seems to emerge from the power of demonstration and technology. However, this widespread view of the core meaning of control in science – this month's Sacred Bovine – is mistaken (Boring, 1954, 1969). It thus fosters a misleading impression of what makes scientific claims reliable. Here, I journey through the history of the term control and show how the concept contributes to the distinctive nature of scientific reasoning. The origin of the modern term control may seem surprising. Yet it is also informative. It comes from the French contre-rolle , translated as “counter-roll.” No one uses counter-rolls today. But historically (beginning at least by the 12th century), royal household expenditures were documented on paper rolls. Later, rolls recorded other business, trade, and tax accounts (Figure 1). In some cases, the transactions were recorded on two rolls simultaneously. The duplicate roll – the counter -roll – was kept independently by a trusted officer. The copy could later be consulted when auditing the accounts, allowing one to detect any illicit tampering with the original records. Basically, the counter-roll was a parallel reference copy for comparison, a method to identify and thereby limit errors. The method helped to guarantee reliability in accounting (see Hoskin & Macve, 1994, p. 76). Eventually, the person who managed the counter-roll became known as the comptroller – a term still used today for someone who manages and monitors the finances of a business …

LITERARY HISTORIES OF THE NATURAL HISTORICAL BOOK

Inspired in part by thecoincident bicentenary of Darwin's birth and the sesquicentennial ofThe Origin of Speciesin 2009, scholars have been hard at work these last ten years writing substantial histories of nineteenth-century natural history and geology. These histories include exceptional books by scholars trained primarily in literary studies: Cannon Schmitt'sDarwin and the Memory of the Human(2009); Daniel Brown'sThe Poetry of Victorian Scientists(2013); and Gowan Dawson'sDarwin, Literature and Victorian Respectability(2007). With a few notable exceptions, however, the books I was invited to review here are written mostly by historians of science. And yet they are no less literary for that. All are marked by a tacit, pragmatic adoption of actor-network theory; by the extraordinary resources of the Darwin Correspondence Project and online databases of British periodicals; and often, too, by glossy illustrations. Further, nearly all of these histories share a methodological investment in what we call the history of the book, including all the economics of publishing (formats, sizes, fonts, prices, print runs, reviews, sales, generic conventions) and a political and heuristic stake in popularization and the general reading public. While Darwin (and Lyell, Herschel, Hooker, Huxley, and Spencer) remain at the center of the discussion, the empirically-minded history-of-the-book approach and investment in everyday readers reconstructs and legitimates a robust popular science that was engaged with, but not subordinate to, and often more liberal than the elite science of the X Club, the Royal Society, and other exclusive institutions. With the help of museums, lectures, tour guides, and other natural scientific literature, everyday readers produced their own knowledge of evolution, stratigraphy, speciation, animal emotion, and the sex life of plants.

Popper and the Omics.

Popper and the Omics.

Notes on Contributors

Notes on Contributors

Charles Darwin and the asylum letters.

With his decades of notes to pull together, the period of writing On the Origin of Species (published in 1859) was a hectic time in Charles Darwin’s life. Yet meanwhile he also remained active in gatheringnewdatathatmighthelp him to refine his themes. As part of this ongoing data collection, over 1857– 1858 he corresponded with a Mr. Henry Coe (the Coe/ Darwin letters can be seen in the Darwin Correspondence Project: http://www. darwinproject.ac.uk/).Mr.Coe had unexpectedly produced new varieties of dwarf kidney and runner beans, when existing black,white, brown, and scarlet varieties were planted in his gardens. In previous years these varieties had remained true, but in 1857 someof themdidnot, instead producing new varieties that Coe had never seen before. Darwin had previously noted that pollination by bees appeared to be vital to the fertilization of beans, related to their always entering bean flowers on the left side. Then, through “a very curious adaptation between the structure of the flower and the manner in which bees suck the nectar“ (1), they almost always triggered a self-fertilization mechanism using the flowers’ownpollen, thusmaintaining the variety as true.Hewas therefore curious as to howCoe’s new varieties could have been produced.He askedCoe to send him some of themixed-colored beans from these varieties, and he planted them in his own garden. The result was, he wrote, “the most heterogeneous mixture which can be conceived” (2). He speculated that self-fertilization in true varieties at somepointmightproducesterilepollen,aspartofanevolutionary need to periodically cross-pollinate, and that some of Coe’s beans Image provided by the Royal Horticultural Society.

The teacher taught? What Charles Darwin owed to John Lubbock

You have accessMoreSectionsView PDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail Cite this article Pearn Alison 2014The teacher taught? What Charles Darwin owed to John LubbockNotes Rec.68199http://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2014.0014SectionYou have accessCorrectionsThe teacher taught? What Charles Darwin owed to John Lubbock Alison Pearn Alison Pearn Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Alison Pearn Alison Pearn Google Scholar Find this author on PubMed Search for more papers by this author Published:02 April 2014https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2014.0014Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: January 1, 2014: Previous Version 1 This article corrects the followingResearch ArticleThe teacher taught? What Charles Darwin owed to John Lubbockhttps://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2013.0052 Alison Pearn volume 68issue 1Notes and Records: the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science11 December 2013Notes Rec.68, 7–19 (20 March 2014; Published online 11 December 2013) (doi:10.1098/rsnr.2013.0052)The following section was omitted from the published paper.AcknowledgementsThis work was made possible by funding to the Darwin Correspondence Project from the Arts and Humanities Research Council through an international collaborative research grant with the National Science Foundation (NSF award no. SES-0957520). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The author is grateful to Graham Richards for copies of two unpublished papers, and to Cambridge University Library and the Darwin family for access to the letters of Charles Darwin, his wife and children.Footnotes© 2014 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. Previous Article VIEW FULL TEXT DOWNLOAD PDF FiguresRelatedReferencesDetailsRelated articlesThe teacher taught? What Charles Darwin owed to John Lubbock11 December 2013Notes and Records: the Royal Society Journal of the History of Science This Issue20 June 2014Volume 68Issue 2 Article InformationDOI:https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2014.0014Published by:Royal SocietyOnline ISSN:1743-0178History: Published online02/04/2014Published in print20/06/2014 License:© 2014 The Author(s) Published by the Royal Society. Citations and impact

Darwin, Darwinism, and Uncertainty by Charles M. Woolf

NEWMAN STUDIES JOURNAL 96 book reViews Darwin, Darwinism, and Uncertainty. By Charles M.Woolf. Chino Valley,AZ: One World Press,2012.Pages viii +168.Paper:ISBN–13:978–1–938043–02–4.$11.95. This book is a brief introduction to a larger philosophical and theological issue surrounding Darwinian theory—the role of chance in evolution and how this bears on a theistic view of the human person. The first portion of the book (94 pages) is a summary of Darwin’s biography,discussing his scientific achievements from his early work aboard the HMS Beagle to his final work on earthworms and orchids. Effort is made to relate this work to his changing views on science and religion and to some of the controversy surrounding his views on theism and naturalism. For those aware of the voluminous literature on these matters, there is little to note here. The author has taken account of the recent masterful biography by Janet Browne,1 but has not attempted to delve more deeply into the Darwin revealed by the massive Darwin Correspondence project.2 As a result, reliance is placed on the now badly obsolete Life and Letters, edited by Francis Darwin in 1887.3 The biographical sketch forms the backdrop to the two succeeding sections of the book, with Part II giving a brief sketch of scientific theories of the origins of the universe,running from the Big Bang,through the early“RNAWorld,”the origins of life, and the subsequent development of living beings up to the mass extinctions of the Cambrian and Cretaceous periods. The third portion of the book—“A Probabilistic Model for the Origin of Life Forms on Earth”—is the intended culmination of the argument.The author here plays on a theme made familiar by Richard Dawkins in his The Blind Watchmaker4 — human beings are the product of “the blind action and non-directionality of natural selection” (153). This is assumed to create considerable problems for all theistic religions, especially the Abrahamic traditions. John Henry Newman himself had seen the weakness of this way of posing questions even before Darwin, writing in his lecture“Christianity and Physical Science”in 1858 that “PhysicalTheology...is pretty much what it was two thousand years ago. . . .; it has been taken out of its place, has been put too prominently forward, and thereby has almost been used as an instrument against Christianity. . . .”5 In an overly brief concluding discussion, the author develops a probabilistic model of creation which “allows Darwinism to be made compatible with various different religions throughout the world whose 1 E. Janet Browne, Charles Darwin, Volume I, Voyaging (London: Jonathan Cape, 1995),Volume II, The Power of Place (London: Jonathan Cape, 2002). 2 Available at: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/. 3 The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 3 volumes, edited by his son, Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, 1887), available at: http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/published/1887_Letters_F1452/ 1887_Letters_F1452.1.html. 4 Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker:Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York:W.W. Norton, 1986). 5 JHN,Idea of a University,450–451,available at:www.newmanreader.org/works/idea/article7.html. I am indebted to the excellent article by Ryan Vilbig,“John Henry Newman’s View of the ‘Darwin Theory’,” (Newman Studies Journal 8 (2011); 52–61) for leading me to this quotation and other comments by Newman on Darwin cited in this article. 97 doctrines and practices are not driven by creation myths and the primitive science of ancient times” (159, italics in original). There is little in this book to recommend to the readership of this journal. Like so many commentators whose perspective has been formed from a combination of Darwinian polemics against the flat-footed natural theology of Victorian England and an unreflective elevation of the concept of “chance” in relation to evolution, the whole issue of “creation” as understood in the central Judeo-Christian tradition is misconceived.“Evolution” and “creation” are presented as opposing explanations at the same level, and we simply replay a tedious story of oppositions that runs back to the conflicts of Stoics and Epicureans in Antiquity.6 Newman with rare perception, had...

The Darwin–Gray Exchange

After the publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, the controversy over the issues of design, teleology and divine intervention in nature were renewed. This paper looks at Darwin's correspondence with Harvard botanist Asa Gray from 1860–1863 and investigates how Darwin rejected notions of design due to his immersion in William Paley's categories. Gray, in contrast, was able to move past Paley's influence and find consistency in affirming both evolutionary theory and natural theology.

In Retrospect: Charles Darwin and his Dublin critics: Samuel Haughton and William Henry Harvey

InRetrospect Charles DarwinandhisDublincritics: Samuel Haughton andWilliam Henry Harvey PeterJ.Bowler* SchoolofHistory andAnthropology, Queen'sUniversity Belfast This yearmarkstwo important anniversaries linkedto thelifeand workof Charles RobertDarwin (PL I). He was bornon 12 February1809, and his mostinfluential work,On theoriginofspecies, was publishedlate in 1859. Darwin was electedan HonoraryMember of the Royal IrishAcademy (RIA) at a statedmeetingon 16 March 1866.1By thistimethecontroversy sparkedby his book had begun to die down. The general idea of evolutionwas gainingwide acceptance, althoughfew scientists as yetregardedDarwin's theory ofnaturalselectionas thebestexplanation ofhow theprocessworked. Darwincertainly had supporters in theRIA, includingthegeologistJoseph Beete Jukes and the naturalistRobert McDonnell, both of whom were on the CommitteeofScience intheyearhe was elected. ButtwomembersoftheAcademy had been prominentcriticsof Darwin's theoryduringthe early 1860s: Samuel Haughton(PL II) and William HenryHarvey,professorsof geology and botany respectively at Trinity College Dublin. Both were deeplyreligiousmen (Haughton was ordaineda ChurchofIrelandpriestin 1847) andtheirsuspicionofnaturalselectiontypified thepositionofmanycriticswho foundithardtoacceptthetheory'stendencyto undermine theChristianview oftheworldas a productofDivine wisdom. Of thetwo,Haughtonwas themostvociferousin his oppositionand- in Darwin's eyes- themostunfair. His training inthephysicalsciences made itdifficult forhim to come to gripswiththesortof evidence thatDarwin deployed.Harveywas more sympathetic, and engaged in a lengthycorrespondencewith Darwin in which he triedto definetheconditionsunderwhichhe mightaccept a limitedformof evolution .Theirpositionsthushelp us to understand thescale of criticalopinionranged againstDarwin and thetacticsthathe adoptedto blunttheforceof thisopposition. This shortretrospect will exploretheinteractions betweenthem,focusingespecially on thereactionsto be foundin Darwin's correspondence. To puttheopinionsofHaughtonand Harveyintocontext, we need toappreciate thattherewere two pointson which Darwin's theorychallenged traditional Author's e-mail:p.bowler@qub.ac.uk doi: 10.3318/PRIAC.2009. 109.409 This retrospective piece relatesto correspondence betweentwo Royal IrishAcademy Members, SamuelHaughton andWilliam Henry Harvey, andCharlesDarwin, Hon.MRIA. 1 SeeProceedings ofthe Royal Irish Academy 9( 1864-6),389.Twoother Honorary Members wereelected atthesametime, Rudolph ClausiusandMichelChasles. ProceedingsoftheRoyalIrishAcademyVol. 109C, 409-^20 © 2009 Royal IrishAcademy PeterBowler Pl. I- PhotographofCharlesDarwin,c. 1880. beliefs.AlthoughtheOriginofspecies scarcelymentionedthequestionof human origins,everyoneknewthatthetheory would implyhumandescentfroman animal ancestryand hence challenge the unique spiritualstatusaccorded to humankind. More directly relevantto thebook's topicwas thequestionofdesign.Traditionally it was arguedthatthecomplex structures of livingthings,and theiradaptationto the organisms'lifestyles, were an indicationof Divine wisdom and benevolence. Naturalselectionexplainedadaptationas theresultofa processthatwas littlemore thantrialand error. Populationsexhibiteda rangeofapparently undirected variation; thosevariantswhichhappenedtohave some adaptiveadvantagesurvivedand bred, 410 CharlesDarwinandhisDublincritics: SamuelHaughton and William Henry Harvey Pl. II- Portrait ofReverend SamuelHaughton painted bySarahHenrietta Purser. Haughton waspresident oftheRoyalIrish Academy between 1886and1891.© RoyalIrish Academy. thosewhichwereharmful werekilledoffinthe'struggleforexistence'whichwas an inevitableconsequence ofthepressureofpopulationon limitedresources. For criticssteeped in the logic of the 'argumentfromdesign' it was hard to see how such a haphazardprocess could mimicthe effectsof Divine wisdom. Haughtonrepresents a conservativeposition,initiallyrejectingany formof evolutionas incompatiblewithdesign.But in thecase of Harveywe see a scientist who could appreciatetheevidencefavouring some formofevolutionand grappling with theproblemofhow to retaina roleforDivine purposewithinsucha system.Many latenineteenth-century thinkers - includingscientists - accepted evolutiononlyon 411 PeterBowler SamuelHaughton theunderstanding thatsomething morepurposeful thannatural selection was the maindriving force.2 Some,liketheAmerican botanist Asa Gray, modified theselectiontheory bysupposing that God hadsomehow programmed thelawsgoverning variation togenerate more adaptive than maladaptive characters. Harvey's arguments suggest that hetoowouldbe morewilling toacceptthetheory ifsomeelement of design couldbe retained. In 1851SamuelHaughton (1821-97) wasappointed professor ofgeology atTrinity CollegeDublinbuthe also hadmuchwiderscientific interests. He hada passion forcalculation, which heappliedtoestimations oftheage oftheearth, supporting, butlater opposing, thevery limited timescale suggested byWilliam Thomson, Lord Kelvin.3 Atthetime hewascoming togrips with Darwinism, hewasworking toward a medicaldegree(he qualified in 1862)to acquireskillinanatomy. He servedas registrar oftheDublinMedicalSchoolandpublished on medicaltopicsincluding theeffect ofpoisons.Usinghistraining inanatomy, hestudied themechanical principlesunderlying thefunctioning ofanimalbodies.WhenDarwinwas electedan Honorary Member oftheRIA in 1866,Haughton wasreading a seriesofpaperson thistopictotheAcademy, latercollected inhisPrinciples ofanimalmechanics of 1873.As an ordained clergyman he wouldnaturally havehadconcerns aboutthe implications ofDarwin's theory for both human origins andtheargument for design. In thelatter areahe clearly feltthat hisbiologicalinterests madehimqualified to comment onthescientific adequacyofDarwin'sexplanation ofhowadaptive structures wereformed. Haughton hasthedubioushonour ofbeingthefirst person tocomment on Darwin'stheory whenthejointpapersofDarwinandAlfred RüsselWallacewere readtotheLinnaean Society ofLondonin1858.Theywerepresented byDarwin's close allies,thegeologist CharlesLyelland thebotanist JosephDaltonHooker. Haughton presumably sawtheprinted version ofthepapersandattacked thetheory briefly inremarks madetotheGeologicalSocietyofDublinon 9 February 1859. Thesewerereported inthesociety's journal, anda clipping ofthisfound itswayinto Darwin's possession. Haughton wrote: Thisspeculation ofMess.DarwinandWallacewouldnotbeworthy ofnote wereitnotfor theweight ofauthority ofthenamesunder whoseauspicesit 2 Forgeneral accounts ofthereaction toDarwin'stheory seePeter J.Bowler, Theeclipseof Darwinism: anti-Darwinian evolution theories inthe decadesaround 1900(Baltimore, 1983) andThenon-Darwinian revolution: reinterpreting a historical myth (Baltimore, 1988).More generally Peter J.Bowler, Evolution: thehistory ofan idea(3rdedn.,Berkeley, 2003).Greta Jones discussesHaughton andHarvey briefly inher...

In Retrospect: Charles Darwin and his Dublin critics: Samuel Haughton and William Henry Harvey

InRetrospect Charles DarwinandhisDublincritics: Samuel Haughton andWilliam Henry Harvey PeterJ.Bowler* SchoolofHistory andAnthropology, Queen'sUniversity Belfast This yearmarkstwo important anniversaries linkedto thelifeand workof Charles RobertDarwin (PL I). He was bornon 12 February1809, and his mostinfluential work,On theoriginofspecies, was publishedlate in 1859. Darwin was electedan HonoraryMember of the Royal IrishAcademy (RIA) at a statedmeetingon 16 March 1866.1By thistimethecontroversy sparkedby his book had begun to die down. The general idea of evolutionwas gainingwide acceptance, althoughfew scientists as yetregardedDarwin's theory ofnaturalselectionas thebestexplanation ofhow theprocessworked. Darwincertainly had supporters in theRIA, includingthegeologistJoseph Beete Jukes and the naturalistRobert McDonnell, both of whom were on the CommitteeofScience intheyearhe was elected. ButtwomembersoftheAcademy had been prominentcriticsof Darwin's theoryduringthe early 1860s: Samuel Haughton(PL II) and William HenryHarvey,professorsof geology and botany respectively at Trinity College Dublin. Both were deeplyreligiousmen (Haughton was ordaineda ChurchofIrelandpriestin 1847) andtheirsuspicionofnaturalselectiontypified thepositionofmanycriticswho foundithardtoacceptthetheory'stendencyto undermine theChristianview oftheworldas a productofDivine wisdom. Of thetwo,Haughtonwas themostvociferousin his oppositionand- in Darwin's eyes- themostunfair. His training inthephysicalsciences made itdifficult forhim to come to gripswiththesortof evidence thatDarwin deployed.Harveywas more sympathetic, and engaged in a lengthycorrespondencewith Darwin in which he triedto definetheconditionsunderwhichhe mightaccept a limitedformof evolution .Theirpositionsthushelp us to understand thescale of criticalopinionranged againstDarwin and thetacticsthathe adoptedto blunttheforceof thisopposition. This shortretrospect will exploretheinteractions betweenthem,focusingespecially on thereactionsto be foundin Darwin's correspondence. To puttheopinionsofHaughtonand Harveyintocontext, we need toappreciate thattherewere two pointson which Darwin's theorychallenged traditional Author's e-mail:p.bowler@qub.ac.uk doi: 10.3318/PRIAC.2009. 109.409 This retrospective piece relatesto correspondence betweentwo Royal IrishAcademy Members, SamuelHaughton andWilliam Henry Harvey, andCharlesDarwin, Hon.MRIA. 1 SeeProceedings ofthe Royal Irish Academy 9( 1864-6),389.Twoother Honorary Members wereelected atthesametime, Rudolph ClausiusandMichelChasles. ProceedingsoftheRoyalIrishAcademyVol. 109C, 409-^20 © 2009 Royal IrishAcademy PeterBowler Pl. I- PhotographofCharlesDarwin,c. 1880. beliefs.AlthoughtheOriginofspecies scarcelymentionedthequestionof human origins,everyoneknewthatthetheory would implyhumandescentfroman animal ancestryand hence challenge the unique spiritualstatusaccorded to humankind. More directly relevantto thebook's topicwas thequestionofdesign.Traditionally it was arguedthatthecomplex structures of livingthings,and theiradaptationto the organisms'lifestyles, were an indicationof Divine wisdom and benevolence. Naturalselectionexplainedadaptationas theresultofa processthatwas littlemore thantrialand error. Populationsexhibiteda rangeofapparently undirected variation; thosevariantswhichhappenedtohave some adaptiveadvantagesurvivedand bred, 410 CharlesDarwinandhisDublincritics: SamuelHaughton and William Henry Harvey Pl. II- Portrait ofReverend SamuelHaughton painted bySarahHenrietta Purser. Haughton waspresident oftheRoyalIrish Academy between 1886and1891.© RoyalIrish Academy. thosewhichwereharmful werekilledoffinthe'struggleforexistence'whichwas an inevitableconsequence ofthepressureofpopulationon limitedresources. For criticssteeped in the logic of the 'argumentfromdesign' it was hard to see how such a haphazardprocess could mimicthe effectsof Divine wisdom. Haughtonrepresents a conservativeposition,initiallyrejectingany formof evolutionas incompatiblewithdesign.But in thecase of Harveywe see a scientist who could appreciatetheevidencefavouring some formofevolutionand grappling with theproblemofhow to retaina roleforDivine purposewithinsucha system.Many latenineteenth-century thinkers - includingscientists - accepted evolutiononlyon 411 PeterBowler SamuelHaughton theunderstanding thatsomething morepurposeful thannatural selection was the maindriving force.2 Some,liketheAmerican botanist Asa Gray, modified theselectiontheory bysupposing that God hadsomehow programmed thelawsgoverning variation togenerate more adaptive than maladaptive characters. Harvey's arguments suggest that hetoowouldbe morewilling toacceptthetheory ifsomeelement of design couldbe retained. In 1851SamuelHaughton (1821-97) wasappointed professor ofgeology atTrinity CollegeDublinbuthe also hadmuchwiderscientific interests. He hada passion forcalculation, which heappliedtoestimations oftheage oftheearth, supporting, butlater opposing, thevery limited timescale suggested byWilliam Thomson, Lord Kelvin.3 Atthetime hewascoming togrips with Darwinism, hewasworking toward a medicaldegree(he qualified in 1862)to acquireskillinanatomy. He servedas registrar oftheDublinMedicalSchoolandpublished on medicaltopicsincluding theeffect ofpoisons.Usinghistraining inanatomy, hestudied themechanical principlesunderlying thefunctioning ofanimalbodies.WhenDarwinwas electedan Honorary Member oftheRIA in 1866,Haughton wasreading a seriesofpaperson thistopictotheAcademy, latercollected inhisPrinciples ofanimalmechanics of 1873.As an ordained clergyman he wouldnaturally havehadconcerns aboutthe implications ofDarwin's theory for both human origins andtheargument for design. In thelatter areahe clearly feltthat hisbiologicalinterests madehimqualified to comment onthescientific adequacyofDarwin'sexplanation ofhowadaptive structures wereformed. Haughton hasthedubioushonour ofbeingthefirst person tocomment on Darwin'stheory whenthejointpapersofDarwinandAlfred RüsselWallacewere readtotheLinnaean Society ofLondonin1858.Theywerepresented byDarwin's close allies,thegeologist CharlesLyelland thebotanist JosephDaltonHooker. Haughton presumably sawtheprinted version ofthepapersandattacked thetheory briefly inremarks madetotheGeologicalSocietyofDublinon 9 February 1859. Thesewerereported inthesociety's journal, anda clipping ofthisfound itswayinto Darwin's possession. Haughton wrote: Thisspeculation ofMess.DarwinandWallacewouldnotbeworthy ofnote wereitnotfor theweight ofauthority ofthenamesunder whoseauspicesit 2 Forgeneral accounts ofthereaction toDarwin'stheory seePeter J.Bowler, Theeclipseof Darwinism: anti-Darwinian evolution theories inthe decadesaround 1900(Baltimore, 1983) andThenon-Darwinian revolution: reinterpreting a historical myth (Baltimore, 1988).More generally Peter J.Bowler, Evolution: thehistory ofan idea(3rdedn.,Berkeley, 2003).Greta Jones discussesHaughton andHarvey briefly inher...

Darwin Correspondence Project (review)

Reviewed by: Darwin Correspondence Project Jim Endersby Darwin Correspondence Project: http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk The Darwin Correspondence Project has already spent over thirty years tracking down and publishing every known letter to or from Charles Darwin. Although a hefty new volume of letters currently appears every year, only half of the anticipated volumes have been published. And given their prohibitive cost (currently £75/$135 each), the recent news that more than five thousand of the letters are freely available via the Project's Web site has created considerable interest. [End Page 426] However, the experience of actually trying to use the Web site is likely to be a little frustrating to the casual visitor. The daily quote from a random Darwin letter is a nice touch, but in general the home page is confusing, with too many choices (such as "click here to read the Re:Design script") whose significance is not obvious. The main content of the site falls into two parts. There is a searchable database that includes (among other things) the full, annotated text of all the surviving letters from the Beagle voyage and those from the years surrounding the Origin's publication. In addition, there is a short summary of each of the thousands of letters that are not yet online, as well as brief biographical details of every Darwin correspondent. These resources can be searched but are not easy to browse, so if you want to know what Darwin was thinking in, say, the summer of 1859 you first need to search for the relevant range of dates. This requires typing in text-based commands, and although these are clearly explained, a more intuitive search page might be useful. Suppose, for example, you want to read the response to the famous letter in which Darwin compared admitting his belief in transmutation to "confessing a murder" but can remember neither who it was written to nor when. A search on "murder" gives twenty-nine hits, in chronological order: you now know that the letter was written to Joseph Hooker in 1844, but there is no link from this specific letter to its response. To find Hooker's reply you need to type the command "date:1844* AND author:Hooker" into the "advanced search" page (unfortunately the simple "search" box that appears on every page is too small for the longer search commands). This search brings up the ten letters that Hooker wrote Darwin in that year, which you can then browse through. However, as the site develops, it might be useful either to link letters and their replies, or allow users to move more easily from finding a specific letter to browsing the letters that follow or precede it. There are already complete chronological lists available for each of the published volumes (though not for unpublished letters), but they can be found only by clicking on the "About the Project" link and then choosing "Publications" and then the year you're interested in. Hopefully, this unintuitive arrangement will be improved as the site grows. The other major content on the site is a series of sections that explore Darwin's significance in relation to various historical topics. The first of these is about "Darwin & religion" and is, as the site clearly explains, a work in progress. There is already some valuable material here, but its target audience is unclear. The historical essay on "Design in Nature," for example, is ideal for an undergraduate audience but perhaps a bit too straightforward for more senior academics and too complex for the completely uninitiated. It might be worth developing specific sections targeted at school students, for example. The Darwin Project's Web site is still developing; several of the problems I found when I first reviewed it have already been fixed. The resources it offers are already excellent (and have saved me many hours of searching in the course of my own research), but the interface limits their usefulness, instead of enhancing [End Page 427] it. Like most academic sites, this one needs to be tested more thoroughly by actual users. However, once a new visitor has spent about half an hour using the site, they will find...

Entomological Reactions to Darwin's Theory in the Nineteenth Century

Charles Darwin first became interested in entomology during his childhood, and this interest grew into a beetle-collecting obsession during his college days. Following the voyage of the Beagle, his focus on insects shifted from collecting specimens to searching for insect observations that supported his theory of natural selection as proposed in On the Origin of Species. Initially, Darwin believed that entomologists were opposed to his views. Using Darwin's correspondence, I show that his perception was based, in part, on three reviews, including one that he erroneously attributed to an entomological critic, and that not all entomologists were opposed to his ideas. Henry Walter Bates, discoverer of Batesian mimicry, voiced his support of Darwin in his papers and during meetings of the (now Royal) Entomological Society. In America, entomologist Benjamin D. Walsh wrote to Darwin in 1864, expressing his support and promising to counter any anti-Darwinian attack, and by 1868, Darwin was enjoying significant entomological support on both sides of the Atlantic. After his death in 1882, Darwin's supporters gained influence in Britain and the United States, completing entomology's shift to a Darwinian perspective.

Biological Anthropology Section

•Darwin Correspondence Project •"The Dangers of Creationism in Education" •SSHB 50th Anniversary •Where Is the Nest SARS? •Build Vocabulary and Karma

Leaf Beetle References in Charles Darwin's Correspondence

The impact of entomology on some of Charles Darwin's thought processes are demonstrated via direct quotations concerning leaf beetles (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) made by Darwin in his well documented correspondence from 1821 to 1967. Some aspects of chrysomelid natural history, especially the use of genitalia to separate species, contributed to his theories on speciation, sexual selection, and biogeography.

What the Victorians Learned: Perspectives on Nineteenth-Century Schoolbooks: Introduction

What the Victorians Learned: Perspectives on Nineteenth-Century Schoolbooks Leslie Howsam (bio), Christopher Stray (bio), Alice Jenkins (bio), James A. Secord (bio), and Anna Vaninskaya (bio) Introduction Leslie Howsam (bio) Leslie Howsam Leslie Howsam is University Professor in the Department of History at University of Windsor (Canada); she was Lyell Reader in Bibliography at the University of Oxford for 2005–6; her most recent book is Old Books and New Histories (University of Toronto Press, 2006). Classics Christopher Stray (bio) Christopher Stray University of Wales, Swansea Christopher Stray Christopher Stray is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Classics at the University of Wales, Swansea. He is the author of Classics Transformed: Schools, Universities and Society in England, 1830– 1960 (OUP, 1998) and co-founder of the Textbook Colloquium. Geometry Alice Jenkins (bio) Alice Jenkins University of Glasgow Alice Jenkins Alice Jenkins is a senior lecturer in the Department of English Literature at the University of Glasgow and chair of the British Society for Literature and Science. Her most recent book is Space and the 'March of Mind': Literature and the Physical Sciences in Britain, 1815–1850 (OUP, 2007). Science James A. Secord (bio) James A. Secord University of Cambridge James A. Secord Jim Secord teaches in the Department of History and Philosophy of Science at Cambridge University and is director of the Darwin Correspondence Project. His edition of Darwin's evolutionary writings and autobiography is scheduled for publication by Oxford World's Classics in autumn 2008. English Literature Anna Vaninskaya (bio) Anna Vaninskaya University of Cambridge Anna Vaninskaya Anna Vaninskaya is a Postdoctoral Fellow with the Cambridge Victorian Studies Group Leverhulme Trust Project 'Past vs. Present in Victorian Britain' and a Junior Research Fellow in English at King's College, Cambridge. She is working on a book on the Idea of Community in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. Conclusion Leslie Howsam (bio) Leslie Howsam University of Windsor Leslie Howsam Leslie Howsam is University Professor in the Department of History at University of Windsor (Canada); she was Lyell Reader in Bibliography at the University of Oxford for 2005–6; her most recent book is Old Books and New Histories (University of Toronto Press, 2006). Endnotes 1. Paradigm and the Textbook Colloquium http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/westbury/ TextCol/index.html [consulted June 29 2007]. Valerie Chancellor, History for their Masters: Opinion in the English History Textbook: 1800–1914 (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1970); Stephen Heathorn, For Home, Country, and Race: Constructing Gender, Class, and Englishness in the Elementary School, 1880–1914 (Toronto: Toronto University Press, 2000); Alexis Weedon, Victorian Publishing: The Economics of Book Production for a Mass Market 1836–1916 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), Chapter 5. See also John Issitt, 'Reflections on the Study of Textbooks', History of Education 33.6 (November 2004), 683–96. 2. For history see Leslie Howsam, 'Academic Discipline or Literary Genre?: The Establishment of Boundaries in Historical Writing', Victorian Literature and Culture (2004), 413–33 and 'Imperial Publishers and the Idea of Colonial History, 1870–1916', [End Page 282] History of Intellectual Culture 5.2 (2005), http://www.ucalgary.ca/hic [consulted June 29 2007]. See also Susan Walton, 'Charlotte M. Yonge and the "Historic Harem" of Edward Augustus Freeman', Journal of Victorian Culture 11.2 (2006), 226–55. 3. C.A. Stray and G. Sutherland, 'Mass Markets: Education', in Cambridge History of the Book in England: Vol. 6, 1830–1914, D.J. McKitterick (ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming). 4. S. Eliot, Some Patterns and Trends in British Publishing, 1800–1919 (London: The Bibliographical Society, 1994). 5. C.A. Stray, 'Paper Wraps Stone: The Beginnings of Educational Lithography', Journal of the Printing Historical Society n.s. 9 (2006), 13–29. 6. See A. Warwick, Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the Rise of Mathematical Physics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 144. 7. On this topic, and on classical education in Victorian England in general, see C.A. Stray, Classics Transformed: Schools, Universities, and Society in England 1830–1960 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). 8. Classical Books: Scholarship and Publishing in England since 1800, C.A. Stray (ed.) (London 2007). 9. The careers and productions of the scholars mentioned above can be...

Exploring Darwin's correspondence: some important but lesser known correspondents and projects

This paper explores Darwin's 14,000 plus letters and suggests that in spite of the enormous amount of published material on Darwin and his work, there remains much untapped information in his correspondence. A quantitative analysis of his correspondence reveals that many of Darwin's most important sources and projects have not been researched. I provide examples in two of his correspondents, William B. Tegetmeier and John Scott, who were extremely important to Darwin's work in domestic animal breeding and plant hybrid studies, respectively. In addition, Darwin's work on seed viability and distribution are discussed to illustrate both the extent of his correspondence network and the complexity of his many sub-projects. The appendices suggest avenues for the further research of Darwin's correspondence by correlating the amount of correspondence with the amount of published material on the correspondents.

The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection: A Complete Variorum Edition

The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection A Complete Variorum Edition Ronald Aylmer Fisher (Edited by Henry Bennett) Oxford University Press, 1999 318pp; $45.00 One of the more influential monographs in the history of evolutionary biology is available in a newly revised edition four decades after its last printing. Earlier this year Oxford University Press published the definitive version of Sir Ronald Fisher's The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. As 'a complete variorum edition', the text of this monumental classic in population genetics incorporates changes and corrections from Fisher's amended personal copy of the first edition. It also contains a new forward by Henry Bennett, Professor of Genetics at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, and editor of Fisher's collected papers. In three appendices, Bennett lists the changes in the 1958 edition, includes a selection of editorial notes from exchanges in correspondence between Fisher and distinguished scholars that highlight points of agreement and dissent over particular points in the text, and presents an annotated list of related papers published by Fisher. Originally published in 1930, Fisher's landmark monograph put forth a major theoretical interpretation of how natural selection via heredity affects variation. In the new forward, Bennett describes Fisher's book in the historical context of early 20" century scholarship on Darwinian evolutionary studies. The genetical theory of natural selection is celebrated as the first major work to provide a synthesis of Darwinian selection and Mendelian genetics. Its publication in 1930 marked a turning point in the development of evolutionary thought, contributing fundamentally to the renaissance of Darwinism following a long period of neglect. It is a work remarkable for what it reveals of Fisher's creative genius and his insight into many of the problems facing evolutionary biologists today. Bennett recounts a fascinating revelation that Joan Fisher Box (Fisher's daughter) describes in her 1978 biography R A. Fisher: The Life of a Scientist. Fisher dictated the original manuscript to his wife over a nine-month period, between October 1928 and June 1929 and, except for two mathematical sections in different chapters, the text appeared as initially dictated with little if any changes to the hand-written draft of the original manuscript. Bennett reminds the reader of Fisher's genius most of this dictation exemplifies the level of Fisher's ability to formulate such a detailed quantitative analysis from memory. Most of the text was composed during evenings given Fisher's daytime supervisory work in the Statistics Department at Rothamsted Experimental Station. Fisher sent the completed text, chapter by chapter, to his good friend Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin and, like Fisher, an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics. Bennett, who edited a collection of Fisher and Darwin's correspondence from this period in an earlier monograph, notes that Fisher dedicated the book to Major Leonard Darwin. This dedication is "in gratitude for the encouragement, given to the author, during the last fifteen years, by discussing many of the problems dealt with in this book". The variorum edition reprints the complete text of the first edition, published by Oxford University's Clarendon Press in 1930. One third of the 1500 copies printed were sold within the first year of its publication and sales of the book tapered off until the last copies were sold in 1947. In the mid-1950s, Dover publications approached Fisher about reprinting his book and in fact published what Dover promoted as an `unabridged, second revised edition'. As Bennett explains, the 1958 Dover edition contains some corrections that Fisher recorded over the years in his own copy of the original edition. Portions of the original text were omitted in this revision, namely two detailed sections from different chapters, and the second edition failed to include several paragraphs that Fisher submitted for Dover's 'revised' version. …

On evolution: the development of the theory of natural selection

Designed for use in a broad range of courses in the humanities, Darwin's theory is laid out in a concise general Introduction and followed up in short chapter introductions. Each chapter concludes with an excerpt from Darwin's correspondence, commenting on the work in question, and its significance, impact, and reception. Two short appendixes are included--the first three chapters from Malthus, On Population, which gave Darwin the idea for natural selection and the paper by Wallace that motivated Darwin to abandon the Big Species Book and write Origin of Species.