帕特里克·马修对灾变论和变革论的综合

J. Dagg, J. Derry
{"title":"帕特里克·马修对灾变论和变革论的综合","authors":"J. Dagg, J. Derry","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2022.0019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Patrick Matthew (1790–1874) regarded natural selection as a force of conformity. Competition between species kept them from dysmorphic chaos. Catastrophes exterminated many species that would otherwise compete. The absence of this competitive natural selection allowed the remnants to ramify (their lineages to split). Matthew thus united elements of catastrophism and transformism in a way opposite to Lyell combining uniformitarianism with species fixity. Matthew's mechanism of lineage splitting differed from Darwin's or Wallace's. Wallace's lineages split in the presence of competing species. Darwin saw competition within species as the disruptive force splitting lineages. How, then, did the majority come to regard Matthew's and Darwin's mechanism as equal, a view shared by the mainstream and the fringe? The roots of this misconception lie in publications by Thomas Huxley, Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin, each of whom had fragmentary knowledge of the others' ideas. Later writers elaborated the divergent presentism rolling from split narratives.","PeriodicalId":82881,"journal":{"name":"Tanzania notes and records","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patrick Matthew's synthesis of catastrophism and transformism\",\"authors\":\"J. Dagg, J. Derry\",\"doi\":\"10.1098/rsnr.2022.0019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Patrick Matthew (1790–1874) regarded natural selection as a force of conformity. Competition between species kept them from dysmorphic chaos. Catastrophes exterminated many species that would otherwise compete. The absence of this competitive natural selection allowed the remnants to ramify (their lineages to split). Matthew thus united elements of catastrophism and transformism in a way opposite to Lyell combining uniformitarianism with species fixity. Matthew's mechanism of lineage splitting differed from Darwin's or Wallace's. Wallace's lineages split in the presence of competing species. Darwin saw competition within species as the disruptive force splitting lineages. How, then, did the majority come to regard Matthew's and Darwin's mechanism as equal, a view shared by the mainstream and the fringe? The roots of this misconception lie in publications by Thomas Huxley, Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin, each of whom had fragmentary knowledge of the others' ideas. Later writers elaborated the divergent presentism rolling from split narratives.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82881,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tanzania notes and records\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tanzania notes and records\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2022.0019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tanzania notes and records","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2022.0019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

帕特里克·马修(Patrick Matthew, 1790-1874)认为自然选择是一种顺从的力量。物种之间的竞争使它们免于畸形混乱。灾难灭绝了许多本来会竞争的物种。这种竞争性自然选择的缺失使残存的物种得以分化(它们的谱系分裂)。因此,马修以一种与莱尔将均变论与物种固定性相结合的方式将灾变论和转化论结合起来。马修的谱系分裂机制与达尔文或华莱士的不同。华莱士的谱系在竞争物种的存在下分裂了。达尔文认为物种内部的竞争是分裂谱系的破坏性力量。那么,大多数人是如何认为马修和达尔文的机制是平等的,主流和边缘的观点是一致的呢?这种误解的根源在于托马斯·赫胥黎(Thomas Huxley)、帕特里克·马修(Patrick Matthew)和查尔斯·达尔文(Charles Darwin)的著作,他们每个人都对其他人的思想有一些零碎的了解。后来的作家从分裂的叙述中阐发了分歧的存在主义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Patrick Matthew's synthesis of catastrophism and transformism
Patrick Matthew (1790–1874) regarded natural selection as a force of conformity. Competition between species kept them from dysmorphic chaos. Catastrophes exterminated many species that would otherwise compete. The absence of this competitive natural selection allowed the remnants to ramify (their lineages to split). Matthew thus united elements of catastrophism and transformism in a way opposite to Lyell combining uniformitarianism with species fixity. Matthew's mechanism of lineage splitting differed from Darwin's or Wallace's. Wallace's lineages split in the presence of competing species. Darwin saw competition within species as the disruptive force splitting lineages. How, then, did the majority come to regard Matthew's and Darwin's mechanism as equal, a view shared by the mainstream and the fringe? The roots of this misconception lie in publications by Thomas Huxley, Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin, each of whom had fragmentary knowledge of the others' ideas. Later writers elaborated the divergent presentism rolling from split narratives.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The ‘seductive scientist’: the emergence of a new persona centred on virility and joy in twentieth-century scientific memoirs The making of a naturalist in Manchuria: Arthur de Carle Sowerby, 1885–1922 Making science for the Portuguese Empire: The Royal Maritime, Military and Geographic Society (1798–1809) Redhead, Paroissien, Parish & Co.: British Field Science in early Independent Río de la Plata Sympathetic Organizations: body, mind, and society in Robert Whytt and David Hume
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1