Familiarity with Charles Darwin's treatise on evolution is essential to every well-educated individual. One of the most important books ever published--and a continuing source of controversy, a century and a half later--this classic of science is reproduced in a facsimile of the critically acclaimed first edition.

The publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859 ignited a public storm he neither wanted nor enjoyed. Having offered his book as a contribution to science, Darwin discovered to his dismay that it was received as an affront by many scientists and as a sacrilege by clergy and Christian citizens. To answer the criticism that his theory was a theory only, and a wild one at that, he published two volumes in 1868 to demonstrate that evolution was (...) obvious to anyone who cared to look at a bull in a pasture or a dog on a hearth. In response to those who insisted that species were distinct since creation, Darwin pointed to breeders of pigs and pigeons. In reply to those who protested that human intervention is one thing and natural selection another, he argued, "If organic beings had not possessed an inherent tendency to vary, man could have done nothing." To counter those who scorned his descriptions of species in exotic places, he submitted local evidence of cabbages and cauliflower. Based on a wide array of sources, from ancient pictographs to Polish roosters, from skins and from skeletons, from scientific journals and breeding manuals, Darwin assembled a mass of proof--and a hypothesis about species reversion that risked his reputation anew. The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication is a two-volume compilation of his thorough and intensive research and the revolutionary conclusions that resulted. The first portion of his work is dedicated to a meticulous analysis of various aspects of plant and animal life, including an inventory of varieties and their physical and behavioral characteristics, investigation of the impact of a species' surrounding environment and the role that both natural and forced changes in this environment have had. Darwin then turns to a richly detailed discussion of the roles of inheritance and crossing in the development of species. A wealth of illustrations further support and enhance his findings. This fascinating, invaluable, and courageous undertaking eventually formed the foundation for our current understanding of evolution. "In science as in politics the victors tend to write the history books. As a result, the record of the past is edited, intentionally or unintentionally, so that it focuses mainly on the precursors of contemporary orthodoxy. Such a focus may accurately represent the genealogy of modern ideas, but it almost inevitably misrepresents the historical experience of their progenitors... Even the powerful, persuasive, and ultimately triumphant theory of evolution by natural selection required not only defense, but repeated buttressing and revision. Variation showed Darwin hard at work on this rearguard action, using the materials he had at hand... His information was gleaned from the observations of fanciers, breeders, and amateur naturalists, as well as from the treatises of those on the cutting edge of zoology and botany. As hindsight narrows the historical spotlight, it imposes its own sense of hierarchy on the preoccupations of the past. But Darwin was interested in all of these topics, valued all of these sources, and belonged, to a greater or lesser extent, to all of these communities."--from the Introduction. (shrink)

Darwin's ideas on variation, heredity, and development differ significantly from twentieth-century views. First, Darwin held that environmental changes, acting either on the reproductive organs or the body, were necessary to generate variation. Second, heredity was a developmental, not a transmissional, process; variation was a change in the developmental process of change. An analysis of Darwin's elaboration and modification of these two positions from his early notebooks (1836-1844) to the last edition of the /Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication/ (1875) (...) complements previous Darwin scholarship on these issues. Included in this analysis is a description of the way Darwin employed the distinction between transmission and development, as well as the conceptual relationship he saw between heredity and variation. This paper is part of a larger project comparing commitments regarding variation during the latter half of the nineteenth century. (shrink)

Thomas Kuhn had little to say about scientific change in biological science, and biologists are ambivalent about how applicable his framework is for their disciplines. We apply Kuhn’s account of paradigm change to evolutionary microbiology, where key Darwinian tenets are being challenged by two decades of findings from molecular phylogenetics. The chief culprit is lateral gene transfer, which undermines the role of vertical descent and the representation of evolutionary history as a tree of life. To assess Kuhn’s relevance to this (...) controversy, we add a social analysis of the scientists involved to the historical and philosophical debates. We conclude that while Kuhn’s account may capture aspects of the pattern of an episode of scientific change, he has little to say about how the process of generating new understandings is occurring in evolutionary microbiology. Once Kuhn’s application is limited to that of an initial investigative probe into how scientific problem-solving occurs, his disciplinary scope becomes broader. (shrink)

Department of Philosophy and School of Environment McGill University 855 Sherbrooke Street West Montréal, Québec H3A 2T7 Canada E-mail: [email protected].

In 1890, Sergei Nikolaevich Vinogradskii (Winogradsky) proposed a novel life process called chemosynthesis. His discovery that some microbes could live solely on inorganic matter emerged during his physiological research in 1880s in Strassburg and Zurich on sulfur, iron, and nitrogen bacteria. In his nitrification research, Vinogradskii first embraced the idea that microbiology could have great bearing on agricultural problems. His critique of agricultural chemists and Kochian-style bacteriologists brought this message to the broader agricultural community, resulting in an heightened interest in (...) biological, rather than chemical methods to investigate soil processes. From 1891 to 1910, he directed the microbiological laboratory at the Imperial Institute of Experimental Medicine in St. Petersburg, Russia, where he expanded his chemosynthesis research to a broad investigation of the manifold significance of autotrophic organisms in soil processes. This work and that of his students attracted the serious attention of agricultural chemists and soil scientists in Russia and abroad, changing essentially the way they understood and investigated the role of microbes in the soil. His student, Vasilii Omelianskii, effectively integrated Vinogradskii’s approach into Russian and Soviet, and international agricultural microbiology. Vinogradskii’s activities in the late 19th century reflect the changes occurring more broadly in science. At that time, microbiologists such as Louis Pasteur, Eugenius Warming, and Martianus Beijerinck were contributing new laboratory methods and theoretical perspectives to incipient disciplines closely related to agriculture: ecology, soil science, and soil microbiology. (shrink)

Geographic coincidence of animal and plant distributions to form recognizable patterns suggests that the separate components of the patterns are historically connected with each other and with geographic history. To seek evidence of these historical connections, cladograms of geographic areas, representing sequences of disruptive geologic, climatic, or geographic events, may be compared with biological cladograms, representing sequences of allopatric speciation events in relation to those geographic areas. Such comparisons, when they meet the minimum requirements of being among dichotomized threetaxon cladograms, (...) can resolve similar or dissimilar historical factors; two-taxon statements do not distinguish between groups with different histories. Congruence of biological and geological area-cladograms at a high confidence level (such as congruence of a five-taxon cladogram or four three-taxon cladograms with a geological cladogram, where the confidence level can be shown in cladistic theory to be 99%) means that specified events of paleogeography can be adopted as an explanation of the biological patterns. In such a cause and effect relationship, where the earth and its life are assumed to have evolved together, paleogeography is taken by logical necessity to be the independent variable and biological history, the dependent variable. Drawing a mathematical simile, the biological cladogram y (dependent variable), is a function of the geological cladogram x (independent variable), as in a simple regression of effect y on cause x where we are given no free choice as to which is the independent variable. Such a view implies that any specified sequence in earth history must coincide with some discoverable biological patterns; it does not imply a necessary converse that each biological pattern must coincide with some discoverable paleogeographic pattern, because some biological distributions might have resulted from stochastic processes (chance dispersal). Determining that all discoverable biological patterns conflict with a given corroborated or observed sequence of geologic, climatic, or geographic change (i.e., that y is not a function of x), in theory, therefore should falsify vicariance biogeography. Because dispersal biogeography presupposes stochastic processes, and any failure to meet the expectation of a postulated dispersal is explained by an additional dispersal, dispersal biogeography is immune to falsification. Without resort to paleontology or earth history, whether a given historical relationship implied by congruence of biological area-cladograms is the result of dispersal or vicariance can also be thought of in terms which minimize the number of necessary assumptions: did the sedentary organisms disperse with the vagile ones or did the vagile organisms vicariate with the sedentary ones? Cladistic congruence of a group of sedentary organisms with a group of vagile ones rejects dispersal for both. Hence, distributions of sedentary organisms have the potential to falsify dispersal theories as applied to vagile organisms, but distributions of vagile organisms cannot falsify vicariance theories as applied to sedentary ones. The problems that arise in various kinds of historical explanation are exemplified by several specific distributions of fishes and other organisms in North and Middle America and in the larger context of Pangaean history, and are discussed in relation to current species concepts. (shrink)