scholarly journals “I would sooner die than give up”: Huxley and Darwin's deep disagreement

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary P. Winsor
Keyword(s):  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Natural System ◽  
Origin Of Species ◽  
Thomas Henry Huxley ◽  
Biological Classification ◽  
Deep Disagreement ◽  
Richard Owen ◽  
The Difference ◽  
William Sharp Macleay

AbstractThomas Henry Huxley and Charles Darwin discovered in 1857 that they had a fundamental disagreement about biological classification. Darwin believed that the natural system should express genealogy while Huxley insisted that classification must stand on its own basis, independent of evolution. Darwin used human races as a model for his view. This private and long-forgotten dispute exposes important divisions within Victorian biology. Huxley, trained in physiology and anatomy, was a professional biologist while Darwin was a gentleman naturalist. Huxley agreed with John Stuart Mill's rejection of William Whewell's sympathy for Linnaeus. The naturalists William Sharp Macleay, Hugh Strickland, and George Waterhouse worked to distinguish two kinds of relationship, affinity and analogy. Darwin believed that his theory could explain the difference. Richard Owen introduced the distinction between homology and analogy to anatomists, but the word homology did not enter Darwin's vocabulary until 1848, when he used the morphological concept of archetype in his work on Cirripedia. Huxley dropped the word archetype when Richard Owen linked it to Plato's ideal forms, replacing it with common plan. When Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species that the word plan gives no explanation, he may have had Huxley in mind. Darwin's preposterous story in the Origin about a bear giving birth to a kangaroo, which he dropped in the second edition, was in fact aimed at Huxley.

Essay reviews: Cataloguing for Empire

1994 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-311
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Comparative Anatomy ◽  
Active Role ◽  
Natural History Museum ◽  
Fossil Species ◽  
History Museum ◽  
Thomas Henry Huxley ◽  
Richard Owen ◽  
The Many

Richard Owen, The Hunterian Lectures in Comparative Anatomy. May and June 1837 . Edited with an Introduction by Phillip Reid Sloan. Natural History Museum Publications, 1992. Pp. xii + 340, £37.50 hardback, £15.95 paper. ISBN 0-565-011065, 0-565-011448 Jacob W. Gruber and John C. Thackray, Richard Owen Commemoration: Three Studies . Historical Studies in the Life and Earth Sciences No. 1. Natural History Museum Publications, 1992. Pp. x + 181, £29.95. ISBN 0-565-01109 Over the last 10 to 15 years it has become increasingly clear that an astonishing proportion of Victorian natural history and comparative anatomy revolved around the enigmatic figure of Richard Owen - so much so that when the centenary of his death came around in 1992, the commemorations willingly spread themselves over several days and a great diversity of scientific themes. Owen’s life and work thoroughly embraced the industrious spirit of the nineteenth century. In his time he was renowned as Britain’s most gifted anatomist, as a public lecturer, a palaeontologist, taxonomist and philosopher on natural history topics, and, in another more concrete sense, as the man who brought the Natural History Museum in South Kensington into existence. He catalogued John Hunter’s collection while curator at the Royal College of Surgeons, dissected rare animals from the zoo, invented dinosaurs, classified a succession of gigantic fossil species from the outposts of empire, wrote memoirs on the pearly Nautilus, Australian marsupials, the Archaeopteryx , the aborigines of the Andaman Islands, the gorilla and the dodo, took an active role in London’s scientific society, received a shower of medals, including the Royal Medal in 1846 and the Copley in 1851, went to the opera, played chess with Edwin Landseer, visited the Queen at Osborne, and ended up with a knighthood and an attractive grace-and-favour residence in Richmond, known as Sheen Lodge. Yet in spite of being such a man of parts, Owen was not liked. Thomas Henry Huxley hated him and never ignored an opportunity to fight. Charles Darwin lost his temper over a review of the Origin of Species and never talked to him again. Antonio Panizzi did his best to prevent him splitting up the British Museum’s collections. It is one of the many achievements of these two books, published to coincide with the centenary, that Owen’s pugnacious, self-aggrandizing character and famous slipperiness under pressure emerge, not quite sanitized, but as the kind of ambitious qualities that were needed to get things done.

Darwin's two competing phylogenetic trees: marsupials as ancestors or sister taxa?

2012 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. David Archibald
Keyword(s):  
Fossil Record ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Phylogenetic Trees ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
The Other ◽  
Charles Lyell ◽  
Single Origin ◽  
Molecular Studies ◽  
Richard Owen ◽  
First Time

Studies of the origin and diversification of major groups of plants and animals are contentious topics in current evolutionary biology. This includes the study of the timing and relationships of the two major clades of extant mammals – marsupials and placentals. Molecular studies concerned with marsupial and placental origin and diversification can be at odds with the fossil record. Such studies are, however, not a recent phenomenon. Over 150 years ago Charles Darwin weighed two alternative views on the origin of marsupials and placentals. Less than a year after the publication of On the origin of species, Darwin outlined these in a letter to Charles Lyell dated 23 September 1860. The letter concluded with two competing phylogenetic diagrams. One showed marsupials as ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals, whereas the other showed a non-marsupial, non-placental as being ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals. These two diagrams are published here for the first time. These are the only such competing phylogenetic diagrams that Darwin is known to have produced. In addition to examining the question of mammalian origins in this letter and in other manuscript notes discussed here, Darwin confronted the broader issue as to whether major groups of animals had a single origin (monophyly) or were the result of “continuous creation” as advocated for some groups by Richard Owen. Charles Lyell had held similar views to those of Owen, but it is clear from correspondence with Darwin that he was beginning to accept the idea of monophyly of major groups.

William Yarrell (1784–1856), friend and adviser to Charles Darwin

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-114
Author(s):  
Christine E. Jackson
Keyword(s):  
Small Group ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Origin Of Species ◽  
Beagle Voyage

For 25 years, from 1831 into 1856, the English zoologist William Yarrell was both a friend and adviser to Charles Darwin. He was regarded by Darwin as a wise and eminent naturalist of the older generation. Yarrell was part of a small group of naturalists, including Leonard Jenyns and John Stevens Henslow, whose interests in ornithology, entomology and geology expanded over the years. Their knowledge helped to support publication of the results of the HMS Beagle voyage and to inform Darwin while he was developing his hypotheses on evolution before the publication of On the Origin of Species, first published in 1859.

‘Short-Spanned Living Creatures’: Evolutionary Perspectives in Rhoda Broughton’s Not Wisely, but Too Well (1867)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Aaron Green
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Simple Structure ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Origin Of Species ◽  
Charles Lyell ◽  
Crystal Palace ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Evolutionary Perspectives

Abstract In Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (1863), Charles Lyell appraised the distinct contribution made by his protégé, Charles Darwin (On the Origin of Species (1859)), to evolutionary theory: ‘Progression … is not a necessary accompaniment of variation and natural selection [… Darwin’s theory accounts] equally well for what is called degradation, or a retrogressive movement towards a simple structure’. In Rhoda Broughton’s first novel, Not Wisely, but Too Well (1867), written contemporaneously with Lyell’s book, the Crystal Palace at Sydenham prompts precisely this sort of Darwinian ambivalence to progress; but whether British civilization ‘advance[s] or retreat[s]’, her narrator adds that this prophesized state ‘will not be in our days’ – its realization exceeds the single lifespan. This article argues that Not Wisely, but Too Well is attentive to the irreconcilability of Darwinism to the Victorian ‘idea of progress’: Broughton’s novel, distinctly from its peers, raises the retrogressive and nihilistic potentials of Darwin’s theory and purposes them to reflect on the status of the individual in mid-century Britain.

Prologue

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Ashton
Keyword(s):  
Charles Dickens ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Benjamin Disraeli ◽  
Origin Of Species ◽  
Aged Forty

This prologue describes events that occurred in the lives of Charles Dickens, Charles Darwin, and Benjamin Disraeli in the summer of 1858. The publication in November 1859 of Darwin's groundbreaking Origin of Species, had its catalyst in June 1858. That was when Darwin, fearing that he might lose precedence by continuing to delay publication of his painstaking researches, was galvanised into writing up his findings quickly and having them published in one readable volume. For Dickens, the summer of 1858 was one of horror. Aged forty-six and already the famous author of several successful novels, he lost his head and publicly advertised his separation from Catherine, his wife of twenty-two years, while disclaiming rumours of a relationship with either his sister-in-law or an actress aged nineteen. He acted impulsively and brutally, losing friends, dismissing his publishers, causing anguish to his wife and children. As for Disraeli, he became chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Derby's reforming Tory government.

scholarly journals ¿Viaje desde el encantamiento hasta el desencantamiento? Un estudio sobre las descripciones de la naturaleza de Darwin desde el Journal hasta el Origin

Daímon ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 71-87
Author(s):  
Bárbara Jiménez Pazos
Keyword(s):  
Software Package ◽  
Semantic Analysis ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Modern Science ◽  
Origin Of Species ◽  
The World

Teniendo en cuenta la cuestión en disputa sobre el encantamiento o el desencantamiento del mundo causado por la ciencia moderna, este artículo examina comparativamente la semántica del léxico en Journal of Researches y The Origin of Species de Charles Darwin utilizando estrategias de minería de textos. El objetivo es mostrar que existe un camino semántico directo, comenzando en Journal y culminando en Origin, que confirma una tendencia hacia un tipo de lenguaje desencantado empleado por Darwin en sus descripciones de la naturaleza. Esto queda demostrado por el análisis léxico y semántico de ambos textos. Taking into accountthe disputed question about enchantment or disenchantment of the world caused by modern science, this paper comparatively examines the semantics of the lexicon of Charles Darwin’s Journal of Researches and The Origin of Species using the software package Wordsmith Tools. Its aim is to show that there is a direct semantic path, starting with the Journaland culminating in the Origin, which confirms a tendency towards a gradually disenchanting, in a non-pejorative sense, type of language used by Darwin in his descriptions of nature. This is demonstrated by the lexical and semantic analysis of the texts.

scholarly journals Primera aproximación estructuralista a la teoría del origen en común

1970 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Blanco
Keyword(s):  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Origin Of Species

Este trabajo constituye una primera aproximación (desde la perspectiva ofrecida por la concepción estructuralista de las teorías científicas) a la teoría del origen en común (TOC) tal como aparece en On the Origin of Species, de Charles Darwin. Luego de exponer las diferencias entre esta teoría y la teoría de la selección natural y la teoría de la evolución, se presentan algunos debates en torno a la determinación de homologías (el explanandum de la teoría), el vocabulario de la teoría y su ley fundamental. Finalmente, se discute la TOC-teoricidad de los términos involucrados y los candidatos a especializaciones de TOC (apelando a nuevos elementos teóricos incorporados con posterioridad a 1859).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document