Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Paleontology and philosophy: A critique

  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Among those few were Louis Dollo, T. H. Huxley, Vladimir Kovalevskii, and in invertebrate paleontology Melchior Neumayr. William Diller Matthew's support for Darwinism was not evident until the early twentieth century.

  2. For a recent assessment of those theories see Peter J. Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983). Older studies include: Yves Delage and Marie Goldsmith, The Theories of Evolution (New York: Huebsch, 1912); Phillip G. Fothergill, Historical Aspects of Organic Evolution (London: Hollis and Carter, 1952); and Vernon L. Kellogg, Darwinism Today: A Discussion of Present-Day Scientific Criticism of the Darwinian Selection Theories, Together with a Brief Account of the Principal Other Proposed Auxiliary and Alternative Theories of Species Formation (New York: Henry Holt, 1908).

    Google Scholar 

  3. p. 146.

    Google Scholar 

  4. George Gaylord Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), pp. 266–270.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism.

  6. Adrian Desmond, Archetypes and Ancestors: Palaeontology in Victorian London, 1850–1875 (London: Blond and Briggs, 1982). Among Gould's papers that advance this interpretation see particularly Stephen Jay Gould, “Eternal Metaphors of Palaeontology,” in Patterns of Evolution as Illustrated by the Fossil Record, ed. A. Hallam (New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 1977), pp. 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  7. The most complete statements of Cope's views are found in Edward Drinker Cope, The Origin of the Fittest: Essays in Evolution (New York: Macmillan Co., 1887), and The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution (Chicago: Open Court Publishing Co., 1896).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Among Osborn's early papers on the subject see Henry Fairfield Osborn, “The Hereditary Mechanism and the Search for the Unknown Factors in Evolution,” Biol. Lect., Marine Biol. Lab., 6 (1894), 418–439, and “Rise of the Mammalia in North America,” Proc. Amer. Assoc. Adv. Sci., 42 (1894), 189–227. For Scott see William Berryman Scott, “On the Osteology of Mesohippus and Leptomeryx, with Observations on the Modes and Factors of Evolution in the Mammalia,” J. Morph., 5 (1891), 301–406.

    Google Scholar 

  9. On Gaudry's background see Franck Bourdier, “Albert Gaudry,” Dict. Sci. Biog., 5, 295–297. On Marsh see Charles Schuchert and Clara Mae Levene, O. C. Marsh: Pioneer in Paleontology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1940). On Matthew the best biographical source is Henry Fairfield Osborn, “Memorial of William Diller Matthew,” Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 42 (1931), 55–95.

  10. Among Matthew's most noteworthy contributions to paleontology was his separation of the Puerco and Torrejon fauna of the Eocene epoch on the basis of precise stratigraphical analysis. See William Diller Matthew, “A Revision of the Puerco Fauna,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 9 (1897), 259–323.

    Google Scholar 

  11. , pp. 147–148.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Henry Fairfield Osborn, Cope: Master Naturalist. The Life and Letters of Edward Drinker Cope, with a Bibliography of his Writings Classified by Subject (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1931). The descriptive, taxonimic emphasis in Leidy's work is evident in his major studies: Joseph Leidy, The Extinct Mammalian Fauna of Dakota and Nebraska. Including an Account of some Allied Forms from other Localities, together with a Synopsis of the Mammalian Remains of North America (New York: Arno Press, 1974); and “Contributions to the Extinct Vertebrate Fauna of the Western Territories,” Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories, vol. 1 (1873).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Among the important new interpretations of Huxley's work are Desmond, Archetypes and Ancestors, pp. 84–112; and Mario A. De Gregorio, “The Dinosaur Connection: A Reinterpretation of T. H. Huxley's Evolutionary View,” J. Hist. Biol., 15 (1982), 397–418. Osborn's student notebooks are housed in the library of the American Museum of Natural History, New York. See Ronald Rainger, “The Henry Fairfield Osborn Papers at the American Museum of Natural History,” Mendel Newsletter, 18 (1980), 8–13.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gould, “Eternal Metaphors of Palaeontology,” p. 13. See also Alfred S. Romer, “Darwin and the Fossil Record,” in A Century of Darwin, ed. S. Barnett (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1958), pp. 130–152; and George Gaylord Simpson, “Principles of Classification and a Classification of the Mammals,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 85 (1945), 4–5.

    Google Scholar 

  15. , p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  16. By the end of the century those two institutions had by far the largest collections of fossil vertebrates in America, the American Museum having purchased the Cope collection in 1897 and the United States National Museum having received much of the Marsh collection by the end of 1899. Although each institution had well over ten thousand specimens in its collections, the number of actual species and genera, and certainly the number of type species and genera, was far fewer. Statistics on the size of the collection in the department of vertebrate paleontology in the American Museum are provided on a yearly basis in the department's reports in the Annual Report of the American Museum of Natural History (1894–1900). Descriptions of the holdings in the United States National Museum are given in the following: “Catalogue of the Types, Cotypes, and Figured Specimens of Fossil Vertebrates in the Department of Geology, United States National Museum,” Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus., 53, pt. 2 (1907), 5–81; and Charles W. Gilmore, “A History of the Division of Vertebrate Paleontology in the United States National Museum,” Proe. U.S. Nat. Mus., 90 (1941), 305–377.

  17. O. C. Marsh, “The Value of Type Specimens and Importance of their Preservation,” Amer. J. Sci., 4th ser., 6 (1898), 401–405.

    Google Scholar 

  18. O. C. Marsh, Dinocerata: A Monograph on an Extinct Order of Gigantic Mammals (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1886), p. 200; Leidy, Extinct Mammalian Fauna, pp. 172–173.

    Google Scholar 

  19. O. C. Marsh, Odontornithes: A Monograph on the Extinct Toothed Birds of North America (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1880); idem, Dinocerata.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ludwig Rütimeyer, “Beiträge zur Kenntniss der fossilen Pferd und zur vergleichenden Odontographie der Hufthiere uberhaupt,” Verhandl. Natur. Ges. Basel, 3 (1863), 558–696.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See E. D. Cope, “The Vertebrata of the Cretaceous Formations of the West,” in Report of the United States Geological Survey of the Territories. F. V. Hayden, United States Geologist in Charge, vol. 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1875), pp. 42–244; and “The Vertebrata of the Tertiary Formations of the West. Book I,” ibid., vol. 3 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1884), pp. 49–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Among Osborn's many descriptive and taxonomic papers see Henry Fairfield Osborn, “On the Structure and Classification of the Mesozoic Mammalia,” J. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia, ser. 2, 9 (1888), 186–265; “The Ancylopoda, Chalicotherium and Artionyx,” Amer. Nat., 27 (1893), 118–133; “Aceratherium tridactylum from the Lower Miocene of Dakota,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 5 (1893), 85–86; and “Fossil Mammals of the Uinta Basin. expedition of 1894,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 7 (1895), 71–105. Osborn also produced a number of more extensive paleontological studies with other authors, including: Henry Fairfield Osborn and William Berryman Scott, “Preliminary Account of the Fossil Mammals from the White River and Loup Fork Formations, contained in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Part II,” Bull. M.C.Z., 20 (1890), 65–100; idem, “The Mammalia of the Uinta Formation,” Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., n.s., 16 (1890), 461–572; Henry Fairfield Osborn and Jacob L. Wortman, “Fossil Mammals of the Wahsatch and Wind River Beds, Collection of 1891,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 4 (1892), 81–147; idem, “Fossil Mammals of the Lower Miocene White River Beds. Collection of 1892,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 6 (1894), 199–228; idem, “Perissodactyls of the Lower Miocene White River Beds,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 7 (1895), 343–375; and Henry Fairfield Osborn and Charles Earle, “Fossil Mammals of the Puerco Beds. Collection of 1892,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 7 (1895), 1–70.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Vladimir Kovalevskii, “Sur l'Anchitherium aurelianense Cuv. et sur l'histoire paléontologique des chevaux,” Mem. Acad. Imp. Sci. St. Petersbourg, ser. 7, 20 (1873), 1–73; “On the Osteology of the Hyopotamidae,” Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, 163 (1873), 19–94; and “Osteology des Genus Entelodon Aym,” Palaeontographica, 7 (1876), 415–450.

    Google Scholar 

  24. David M. Raup and Steven M. Stanley, Principles of Paleontology (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1971), pp. 106, 117.

    Google Scholar 

  25. O. C. Marsh, “The Dinosaurs of North America,” Ann. Rep. U.S. Geol. Survey, 16 (1894–1895), 237.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Leidy, Extinct Mammalian Fauna, pp. 48–52, 54–63, 266–275.

  27. , pp. 156–157, 161–167.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Louis Dollo, “Première note sur les dinosauriens de Bernissart,” in Louis Dollo's Papers on Paleontology and Evolution, ed. Stephen Jay Gould (New York: Arno Press, 1980), pp. 161–162.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Marsh, Dinocerata, p. 19.

  30. Ibid., pp. 12, 72–73.

  31. For an analysis of Dollo's work and his support of Darwin's evolution theory see. Stephen Jay Gould, “Dollo on Dollo's Law: Irreversibility and the Status of Evolutionary Laws,’ J. Hist. Biol., 3 (1970), 189–212.

    Google Scholar 

  32. , p. 165.

    Google Scholar 

  33. , pp. 172–178.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Louis Dollo, “Deuxième note sur les dinosauriens de Bernissart,” in Gould, Louis Dollo's Papers, pp. 205–211; Dollo “Quartrième note sur les dinosauriens de Bernissart,” ibid., pp. 223–248; and Dollo, “Cinquième note sur les dinosauriens de Bernissart,” ibid., pp. 129–146.

  35. , p. 162.

    Google Scholar 

  36. , pp. 173–178.

    Google Scholar 

  37. , pp. 186–187.

    Google Scholar 

  38. For examples see Leidy's description of Procamelus gracilus in Leidy, Extinct Mammalian Fauna, pp. 155–157; Cope's description of the mammal Periptychus rhabdodon in Cope, “The Vertebrata of the Teritary Formations of the West,” pp. 391–402; and Osborn's description of Aceratherium mite and Aceratherium occidentals in Osborn and Wortman, “Fossil Mammals of the Lower Miocene White River Beds,” pp. 203–205.

  39. Daniel Todes, “V. O. Kovalevskii: The Genesis, Content, and Reception of His Paleontological Work,” Stud. Hist. Biol., 2 (1978), 102–109.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kovalevskii, “Osteology of the Hyopotamidae,” pp. 27–30.

  41. Ibid., pp. 41–89.

  42. Ibid., p. 19.

  43. Ibid., pp. 27–28. The fact that Kovalevskii was working with multiple specimens of different species is indicated in such tables as the one on the dimensions of the ulna (thirty six specimens), of the semilunar bone (forty eight specimens), and of the navicular bone of the tarsus (sixty specimens).

  44. Ibid., pp. 55–56.

  45. Ibid.

  46. This is noted in Ronald Rainger, “The Continuation of the Morphological Tradition: American Paleontology, 1880–1910,” J. Hist. Biol., 14 (1981), 129–158. The proliferation of phylogenies in other areas of late-nineteenth-century biology is noted in Garland Allen, Life Science in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), pp. 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See D. R. Oldroyd, “Historicism and the Rise of Historical Geology, Parts 1 and 2,” Hist. Sci., 17 (1979), 191–207, 227–247.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rainger, “The Continuation of the Morphological Tradition.” See also William Coleman, “Morphology between Type Concept and Descent Theory,” J. Hist. Med. Allied Sci., 31 (1976), 149–175.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Martin J. S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils: Episodes in the History of Palaeontology, 2nd ed. (New York: Science History Publications, 1976), pp. 245–249. See also Albert Gaudry, Animaux fossiles et géologie de l'Attique d'après les recherches faites en 1855–1856 et en 1860 sous les auspices de l'Acadèmie des Sciences (Paris: F. Savy, 1862–67).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Louis Dollo, “Sur la phylogénie des dipneustes,” in Gould, Louis Dollo's Papers, pp. 79–115; Vladimir Kovalevskii, “Monographie der Gattung Anthracotherium Cuv. und Versuch einer natürlichen Classification der fossilen Hufthiere,” Palaeontographica, 3 (1873), 131–210; 4 (1874), 211–290; 5 (1874), 291–346; Rütimeyer, “Beiträge zur Kenntniss der fossilen Pferd.”

  51. , pp. 185–189.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Cope, “Vertebrata of the Tertiary Formations of the West.”

  53. Edward Drinker Cope, “The Classification and Phylogeny of the Artiodactyla,” Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 24 (1887), 381–400.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ibid., p. 378.

  55. . p. 146.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Among Marsh's many comments to this effect see Marsh, “The Dinosaurs of North America,” pp. 143, 227. On Rütimeyer see “Beiträge zur Kenntniss der fossilen Pferd,” pp. 637–642.

  57. Cope, “Classification and Phylogeny of the Artiodactyla,” p. 378; Dollo, “Sur la phylogénie des dipneustes,” pp. 88–89; W. D. Matthew, “New Canidae from the Miocene of Colorado,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 16 (1902), 287.

  58. , pp. 121–133, 160–176; Gould, “Eternal Metaphors of Palaeontology,” pp. 14–15.

    Google Scholar 

  59. O. C. Marsh, “Fossil Horses in America,” Amer. Nat., 8 (1874), 294.

    Google Scholar 

  60. , pp. 291–292.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See for example, Osborn, “Rise of the Mammalia in North America,” p. 191; and idem, “The Evolution of the Horse in America,” Century Mag., 69 (1904), 3–4. Kovalevskii's linear phylogeny is presented in “Monographie der Gattung Anthracotherium,” in the diagram between pp. 152 and 153.

  62. See the phylogenies illustrated by Cope in his “Classification and Phylogeny of the Artiodactyla,” pp. 384, 385, 387, 390, 397, 399; idem, “On the Genera of the Creodonta,” Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 19 (1880), 81; idem, “The Systematic Arrangement of the Order Perissodactyla,” ibid., 19 (1881), 380, 394; and idem, “The Classification of the Ungulate Mammalia,” ibid., 20 (1882), 447. See also idem, The Primary Factors of Organic Evolution, pp. 106, 115, 143.

  63. Henry Fairfield Osborn to William Henry Osborn, 27 February 1891, Archives of the American Museum of Natural History. On the influence of James McCosh on Osborn and Scott, see Henry Fairfield Osborn, Impressions of Great Naturalists (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1924), pp. xv-xvi; idem, Fifty Two Years of Research, Observation and Publication, 1877–1929 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1930), pp. 55, 153; and William Berryman Scott, Some Memories of a Palaeontologist (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1939).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Osborn, “Structure and Classification of the Mesozoic Mammalia,” p. 287.

  65. Glenn L. Jepsen, “Phylogenetic Trees,” Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci., ser. 2, 6 (1944), 83. For examples of Osborn's early commitment to extreme parallelism and bush-like phylogenies see Osborn, “The Evolution of the Horse in America,” pp. 3–17; idem, “Phylogeny of the Rhinoceroses of Europe,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 13 (1900), 229–276; and idem, “The Four Phyla of Oligocene Titanotheres,” ibid., 16 (1902), 91–109.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Scott, “On the Osteology of Mesohippus and Leptomeryx,” pp. 363–371.

  67. Waagen's views were set forth in Wilhelm Waagen, “Die Formenreihe des Ammonites subradiatus. Versuch einer paläontologische Monographie,” Benecke Geog. Paläontol. Beiträge, ser. 2, 2 (1869), 185–187. Scott's adoption of Waagen's views is evident in William Berryman Scott, “On Variations and Mutations,” Amer. J. Sci., ser. 3, (1894), 355–374. Osborn's adoption of Waagen's views occurred somewhat later, and he embraced Waagen's “mutations” in his own concept of rectigradations. See Henry Fairfield Osborn, “The Ideas and Terms of Modern Philosophical Anatomy,” Science, n.s., 21 (1905), 959–961; and idem, “Evolution as it Appears to the Paleontologist,” Science, n.s., 26 (1907), 744–749.

    Google Scholar 

  68. See Osborn's response to a review by the British paleontologist Richard Lydekker that was critical of his commitment to extreme parallelism: Henry Fairfield Osborn, “A Review of Mr. Lydekker's Arrangement of the Mesozoic Mammalia,” Amer. Nat., 22 (1888), 232–236. See also the critical comments by W. D. Matthew, “Additional Observations on the Creodonta,” Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 14 (1901), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  69. The only other vertebrate paleontologist of the period who addressed Waagen's views was Osborn's assistant, William King Gregory. He did so in a translation, with comments, of Waagen's paper, which is housed in the Osborn Papers, Library, American Museum of Natural History.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History, Texas Tech University, 79409, Lubbock, Texas, USA

    Ronald Rainger

Authors
  1. Ronald Rainger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rainger, R. Paleontology and philosophy: A critique. J Hist Biol 18, 267–287 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00120112

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00120112

Search

Navigation