Journal of the History of Biology最新文献

This article explores the early biogeographical debates that shaped the beginning of limnology, focusing on the differences of opinion concerning the origins of pelagic fauna between two pioneering scientists: Pietro Pavesi and François-Alphonse Forel. The study examines how Pavesi's hypothesis of a marine origin for pelagic fauna contrasts with Forel's theory of passive distribution, situating their arguments within a broader Darwinian framework. The first part of the paper provides a historical overview of Italian limnology, highlighting Pavesi's contributions and interpreting Forel's writings to underscore the significance of discovering pelagic fauna in conceptualizing lakes as microcosms. The second part compares Pavesi's and Forel's hypotheses, emphasizing their impact on the scientific understanding of freshwater ecosystems. The importance of this discovery, in both historical and scientific contexts, lies in recognizing the presence of plankton in lakes as a crucial element for the mature formulation of ecological concepts, such as the ecosystem.

There's something strange about Freud's Civilization and its Discontents (1930). Biologically, Freud was a Neo-Lamarckian, who believed in both the modification of organisms through need and the inheritance of acquired characteristics. However, in Civilization, Freud argued that because human nature is immutable, society has dim odds of improving substantially. Lamarckians, of course, rejected that any species-nature is immutable, as species can always be transformed via the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In fact, many of Freud's Viennese contemporaries-such as Wilhelm Reich, Julius Tandler, and Paul Kammerer-took their Lamarckism to license precisely the sorts of radical social projects Freud deemed impossible. Thus the Freud of Civilization helped himself to a rigid view of human nature which, given his associated biological views, he seemingly ought to have rejected. In this paper, I explain this apparent inconsistency, and suggest Freud resolved it in the following way: Freud was not merely a Lamarckian, but also a strong and peculiar kind of recapitulationist, who believed stages of psychological development both recapitulate phylogeny, and "remain with us" throughout both individual lives and future species-history. I suggest Freud's recapitulationism supposed a certain inertia: what occurred in phylogenetic history cannot un-occur, and therefore there are aspects of our nature which we cannot un-acquire. In this way, Freud reached a rigid conception of human nature despite his Lamarckism.

Tree diagrams are the prevailing form of visualization in biological classification and phylogenetics. Already during the time of the so-called Systematist Wars from the mid-1960s until the 1980s most journal articles and textbooks published by systematists contained tree diagrams. Although this episode of systematics is well studied by historians and philosophers of biology, most analyses prioritize scientific theories over practices and tend to emphasize conflicting theoretical assumptions. In this article, I offer an alternative perspective by viewing the conflict through the lens of representational practices with a case study on tree diagrams that were used by numerical taxonomists (phenograms) and cladists (cladograms). I argue that the current state of molecular phylogenetics should not be interpreted as the result of a competition of views within systematics. Instead, molecular phylogenetics arose independently of systematics and elements of cladistics and phenetics were integrated into the framework of molecular phylogenetics, facilitated by the compatibility of phenetic and cladistic practices with the quantitative approach of molecular phylogenetics. My study suggests that this episode of scientific change is more complex than common narratives of battles and winners or conflicts and compromises. Today, cladograms are still used and interpreted as specific types of molecular phylogenetic trees. While phenograms and cladograms represented different forms of knowledge during the time of the Systematist Wars, today they are both used to represent evolutionary relationships. This indicates that diagrams are versatile elements of scientific practice that can change their meaning, depending on the context of use within theoretical frameworks.

This paper offers an historical introduction to Pere Alberch's evolutionary thought and his contributions to Evo-Devo, based on his unique approach to experimental teratology. We will take as our point of reference the teratogenic experiments developed by Alberch and Emily A. Gale during the 1980s, aimed at producing monstrous variants of frogs and salamanders. We will analyze his interpretation of the results of these experiments within the framework of the emergence of evolutionary developmental biology (or "Evo-Devo"). The aim is understand how Alberch interpreted teratological anomalies as highly revealing objects of study for understanding the development of organic form, not only in an ontogenetic sense-throughout embryonic development-but also phylogenetically-throughout the evolution of species. Alberch's interpretation of monsters reflects the influence of a long tradition of non-Darwinian evolutionary thought, which began in the nineteenth century and was continued in the twentieth century by people such as Richard Goldschmidt, Conrad H. Waddington, and Stephen Jay Gould. They all proposed various non-gradualist models of evolution, in which embryonic development played a central role. Following this tradition, Alberch argued that, in order to attain a correct understanding of the role of embryological development in evolution, it was necessary to renounce the gradualist paradigm associated with the Darwinian interpretation of evolution, which understood nature as a continuum. According to Alberch, the study of monstrous abnormalities was of great value in understanding how certain epigenetic restrictions in development could give rise to discontinuities and directionality in morphological transformations throughout evolution.

Interest in the study of domesticated plants increased near the end of the 18th century, mainly because of their economic potential. In the 19th century, there was a new focus on the historical understanding of species, their origin, changes in their distribution, and their evolutionary history. Charles Darwin developed an extended interpretation of species domestication, considering variations, reproduction, inheritance, and modification as standard processes between wild and domesticated organisms. In this context, one relatively neglected aspect was the geographical distribution of domesticated species. Alphonse de Candolle addressed and developed in detail the question of the geographical origin of cultivated plants. Since 1836 Alphonse de Candolle had been studying the topic and obtained evidence that contributed to understanding aspects such as the center of origin, dispersion, competition, selection, and time of domestication. Although Darwin himself admitted that Géographie botanique raisonnée (de Candolle, Alphonse,de. Géographie botanique raisonnée; ou, exposition des faits principaux et des lois concernant la distribution géographique des plantes de l'epoque actuelle, 2ème tome. Paris: Masson.) was of great help to him in the development of his evolutionary theory, the importance of de Candolle's contribution is seldom recognized. Our purpose is to detail the dialogue between Alphonse de Candolle and Darwin on the geography of domesticated plants, to understand some of the most critical discussions that contributed to the reinterpretation of domestication under the Darwinian proposal of modified descent.

This study investigates nineteenth century natural history practices through the lens of the Actor-Network Theory, which posits that scientific practice is shaped by an intricate network of interactions between human and non-human actors. At the core of this research is the analysis of correspondence between Charles Darwin and his collaborators during the Cirripedia Project, which unveils a complex landscape of negotiations with illustrators, funders, specimen owners, and translators, among other stakeholders and interested parties. The study goes beyond the final outcomes of scientific research, delving into behind-the-scenes interactions, and hidden constructions, shedding light on the complex dynamics and actors that conventional scientific narratives often overlook. In general, this approach provides a detailed and insightful view of the underlying processes of nineteenth-century scientific practice, underscoring the importance of epistolary correspondence as a central element in producing scientific knowledge at the time, and in particular it reveals to us how much Darwin was himself involved in the production of his famous work on barnacles. By emphasizing the intricacies of research, this study enriches our understanding of Darwin's work as well as natural history practices in the 19th century, highlighting the complexity and diversity of actors and agents involved in shaping scientific knowledge.

Ernst Brücke's 1861 essay Die Elementarorganismen has often been cited as a watershed in the history of physiology as well as in the history of cell theory. In its time it was widely read as a reform of animal cell theory, shifting the concept of the cell away from Schleiden and Schwann's original cell schema of a membranous vesicle with a nucleus, and towards the protoplasm theory that had developed in botany, centered on the cell's living contents. It was also notorious for its arguments against the necessity of both the nucleus and the cell membrane. An English translation of "The Elementary Organisms" is presented for the first time in this journal issue, with annotations and illustrations, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-024-09773-9 . Brücke's essay was not only an intervention into cell theory: historians can read it as a continuation of debates on the nature of the organism and theories of organization, and as an epistemological meditation on the microscope. In addition, although Brücke was known as a founder of the Berlin school of organic physics, "The Elementary Organisms" shows how he combined an avant-garde physicalist physiology with a much older tradition of comparative anatomy and physiology. The following introductory essay will provide a scientific biography of Ernst Brücke up to 1863, with background on debates on biological organization, cell theory, and muscle histology.

William Lawrence Tower's work on the evolution of the Colorado Potato Beetle (Leptinotarsa decemlineata), documenting the environmental induction of mutation and speciation, made him a leading figure in experimental genetics during the first decade of the 20th century. His research program served as a model for other experimental evolution studies seeking to demonstrate the environmental modification of inheritance. Tower enjoyed the support of influential figures in the field, despite well-known problems that plagued Tower's earlier academic career. The validity of his genetic work, and other findings reported by Tower, were later challenged. The Tower affair illustrates how questionable and possibly fraudulent scientific practices can be tolerated to explore certain experimental directions and theoretical frameworks, particularly at the frontier of expanding disciplines. When needed, those explorations can be forestalled or extinguished by exploiting conspicuous vulnerabilities of rogue practitioners. In Tower's case, both unrefuted allegations of scientific misconduct and personal problems dissolved his institutional support, leading to a swift ouster from academic science. Tower's downfall discredited soft inheritance and neo-Lamarckian conceptions in the field of experimental genetics, facilitating the discipline's embrace of a hard inheritance model that featured a hereditary material resistant to environmental modification.

In 1861 the physiologist Ernst Brücke (1819-1892) published "The Elementary Organisms," calling for a major reform of the definition of the animal cell. An English translation of Brücke's essay is presented here for the first time. In this translation the numbered footnotes 1-9 are Brücke's own; alphabetical endnotes A-HH are my own annotations, with additional references to works cited by Brücke. Figures referenced by Brücke but not included in his original essay are also provided. I have also presented an introductory essay to my translation that provides background on Brücke and his arguments: "The Schema and Organization of the Cell," https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-024-09774-8 , in this same issue of the Journal of the History of Biology.