Abstract
This chapter explores Darwin’s inclusion of the “Historical Sketch” in the third edition of On the Origin of Species, addressing criticisms from his contemporaneous readers regarding his book’s absence of historical context. The Sketch, however, poses challenges for today’s readers due to its lengthy list of mostly unfamiliar authors. Additionally, the chronological presentation fails to effectively highlight the similarities and differences between these authors’ ideas and Darwin’s own. A research-based teaching exercise is included in this chapter, with insights from Sketch and excerpts from his Notebooks, to clarify Darwin’s line guide and motivate the reading. The activity revealed his perception that, while some naturalists believed in species modification, none simultaneously proposed the two fundamental principles of his (and Wallace’s) theory: common descent and natural selection. Additionally, it rectified historical errors and reassessed the crucial difference Darwin considered when comparing his to Lamarck’s theories, that is, the commitment with necessary progression and the lack of a unified origin for all living beings in the French naturalist theory. Viewing Sketch as a meta-scientific discourse encourages readers to explore the Nature of Science aspects in Darwin’s work.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A fascinating comparison of editions in the Online Variorum of Darwin is available for free at: http://darwin-online.org.uk/Variorum/1861/1861-xiii-c-1872.html
- 2.
Freely available at: http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F401&pageseq=1
- 3.
Darwin describes an example in which Aristotle refers to adaptation in the formation of teeth. However, it is worth calling attention that, the search for transformist ideas in Aristotle was pointless, since such an idea was incompatible with the Greek notion of a perfect, eternal cosmos, that is, with no end, and no origin at all.
- 4.
- 5.
The terms “predecessor” and “antecedent” are mentioned only five times in the entire book (6th ed., 1876), specifically in reference to earlier geological periods or species and not in relation to authors or individuals. In the Historical Sketch, it seems that Darwin clearly avoided using similar expressions. For example, he states that Mr. Matthew recognized “the full force of the principle of natural selection” (Darwin, 1876, p. xvi). The closer notion of anticipation is mentioned next in a passage where Darwin claims to have sent a letter to Mr. Matthew, “fully acknowledging” that “he had anticipated” his ideas (Darwin, 1861, p. xv), but it was removed from subsequent editions of Origin.
- 6.
Georges Canguilhem discussed the concept of the “precursor virus” in a conference held at the Société Canadienne d’histoire et de philosophie des Sciences, in Montreal on October 28, 1966. The text was later prepared for publication in the book Études d’ histoire et de philosophie des sciences in 1968. Canguilhem had explored the theme in seminars at the Institute of the History of Science and Technology at the University of Paris in the academic years 1964–1965 and 1965–1966, as mentioned in a footnote (Canguilhem, 1970, p. 9). Toward the end of the text (p. 22), he references Alexandre Koyré’s The Astronomical Revolution (1961), which had already highlighted the potential harm caused by the notion of the precursor to the historian of science. Canguilhem’s attention to specifying the “here and there” in which he exposed his arguments underscores the impact of this criticism on the historiography of science during the 1960s.
- 7.
According to Canguilhem (1970, p. 20), the term “the precursor virus” was coined by J. T. Clark, who argued for its elimination from historical analysis in the chapter “The Philosophy of Science and History of Science” he authored for the canonical book Critical problems in History of Science, edited by Marshall Clagett in 1962. The historian Quentin Skinner also criticized the notion of the precursor as a historical absurdity, a tendency to seek ideal-type approximations that “produces a form of non-history that is almost entirely devoted to pointing out earlier ‘anticipations’ of later doctrines and crediting each writer in terms of that foresight” (Skinner, 1969, p. 11).
- 8.
Several historians of science have made significant contributions to the understanding of Darwin’s predecessors. A few notable examples shedding light on this topic are, on Lamarck, Martins (1993, 1997, 2007, 2015a, b), in European Natural History, Corsi (2005, and this volume), and, in general, Hodge (2013) and Sloan (2019).
- 9.
The pedagogical exercise described in this chapter was implemented in three instances of the course “The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin,” offered to undergraduate biology students and graduate science education students at the University of São Paulo in 2018, 2019, and 2021. It was developed in the “teaching with research” model, using a qualitative approach. Data were collected on multiple occasions, including pre- and post-tests, providing empirical evidence that served to the analysis presented in this study.
- 10.
Which is easily accomplished by the free online availability of the text modality of the work, at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F401&pageseq=1
- 11.
Investigating the reasons by which Darwin states the differences between Matthew’s view and his own “are not of much importance” reveals significant social aspects of the nature of science. The priority dispute between Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin is a curious aspect of their relationship and is specifically addressed by Johnson (2020, pp. 110–125). Additionally, Dagg (2018) offers a comprehensive comparison of the thoughts of Matthew, Darwin, and Wallace.
- 12.
In “Lamarck Revisited,” Ernst Mayr showed that the understanding of the actual or suspected continuity between higher taxa, which Lamarck grappled with and revised throughout his work, could only begin to be clarified much later in the twentieth century. It was during this time that the distinction between “well-defined and sharply delimited” zoological groups like birds, bats, or beetles, and the artificial and somewhat subjective taxonomic categories (e.g., family, order, class) became clearer in terminology (Mayr, 1972, pp. 83–84).
- 13.
The difficulties in understanding natural selection and evolution are indeed well-documented in pedagogical research. Theoretical and empirical work on this topic provides valuable insights into the conceptual obstacles that learners face and help inform effective teaching strategies: Gregory, 2009; Kampourakis, 2013; Deniz & Borgerding, 2018; Harms & Reiss, 2019.
- 14.
Pietro Corsi’s work (e.g., Corsi, 2005), including the chapter in this volume, provides a sample of the numerous, and still very little explored authors who, before Darwin, were supporters of the idea that species change and produce new species.
References
Bardin, L. (1977/1995). Análise de Conteúdo (p. 70). Edições.
Brooke, J. H. (2009). "Laws impressed on matter by the creator"? The origin and the question of religion. In M. Ruse & R. J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to the “origin of species” (pp. 256–274). Cambridge University Press.
Browne, J. (1983). The secular ark: Studies in the history of biogeography. Yale University Press.
Browne, J. (2002). Charles Darwin: The power of place. Princeton University Press.
Browne, J. (2006). Darwin’s origin of species: A biography. Grove.
Canguilhem, G. (1970). Introduction. L’Objet de l’Histoire des Sciences. In Études d’Histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 9–23). Vrin.
Corsi, P. (2005). Before Darwin: Transformist concepts in European natural history. Journal of the History of Biology, 38(1), 67–83.
Dagg, J. L. (2018). Comparing the respective transmutation mechanisms of Patrick Matthew, Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 123, 864–878.
Darwin, C. R. (1837–1838). Notebook B: [Transmutation of species]. CUL-DAR121. Edited by John van Wyhe (Darwin Online, http://darwin-online.org.uk/).
Darwin, C. R. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (1st ed.). John Murray.
Darwin, C. R. (1861). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (3rd ed.). John Murray.
Darwin, C. R. (1866). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (4th ed.). John Murray.
Darwin, C. R. (1872). The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life (6th ed.). John Murray.
Darwin, C. R. (1876). The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. 6th edition, with additions and corrections. [First issue of final definitive text]. John Murray.
Darwin, C. R. (1882). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex (2nd ed.). John Murray. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F955&viewtype=text&pageseq=1.
Darwin, F. (Ed.) (1909). The foundations of The origin of species, a sketch written in 1842. University Press. http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1555&viewtype=text&pageseq=1.
Deniz, H., & Borgerding, L. A. (2018). Evolution education around the globe. Springer.
Depew, D. J. (2009). The rhetoric of the origin of species. In M. Ruse & R. J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to the “origin of species” (pp. 237–254). Cambridge University Press.
Gregory, T. R. (2009). Understanding natural selection: Essential concepts and common misconceptions. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2, 156–175.
Harms, U., & Reiss, M. (Eds.). (2019). Evolution education re-considered: Understanding what works. Springer.
Herbert, S. (2005). Charles Darwin: Geologist. Cornell University Press.
Hodge, J. (2013). Darwin’s book: On the origin of species. Science & Education, 22, 2267–2294.
Johnson, C. N. (2020). Darwin’s “historical sketch”: An examination of the “preface” to the origin of species. Oxford University Press.
Kampourakis, K. (Ed.). (2013). The philosophy of biology: A companion for educators. Springer.
Lamarck, J. B. P. A. (1835). Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertebres (2nd ed.). Baillière.
Lennox, J. (2001). Aristotle’s philosophy of biology: Studies in the origins of life sciences. Cambridge University Press.
Lennox, J. (2021). Aristotle’s biology. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/aristotle-biology/.
Martins, L. A.-C. P. (1993). A teoria da progressão dos animais de Lamarck. Campinas (Mestrado em Genética) – Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
Martins, L. A.-C. P. (1997). Lamarck e as quatro leis da variação das espécies. Epistéme. Filosofia e História da Ciência em Revista, 2(3), 33–54.
Martins, L. A.-C. P. (2007). A teoria da progressão dos animais, de Lamarck. Booklink.
Martins, L. A.-C. P. (2015a). A herança de caracteres adquiridos nas teorias “evolutivas” do século XIX, duas possibilidades: Lamarck e Darwin. Filosofia e História da Biologia, 10(1), 67–84.
Martins, R. A. (2015b). Aristóteles e o estudo dos seres vivos. Lulu Press.
Mayr, E. (1972). Lamarck revisited. Journal of the History of Biology, 5(1), 55–94.
Richards, R. J., & Ruse, M. (2016). Debating Darwin. The University of Chicago Press.
Silva, T. T. (2013). Darwin na sala de aula: Replicação de experimentos históricos para auxiliar a compreensão da teoria evolutiva. Dissertação (Mestrado em Ensino de Ciências – Universidade de São Paulo.
Skinner, Q. (1969). Meaning and understanding in the history of ideas. History and Theory, 8(1), 3–53.
Sloan, P. (2019). Evolutionary Thought Before Darwin. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/evolution-before-darwin/.
Smocovitis, V. B. (1996). Unifying biology: The evolutionary synthesis and evolutionary biology. Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Elice Brzezinski Prestes, M. (2023). There Have Been Few Such Naturalists Before, but Still…: Darwin’s Public Account of Predecessors. In: Elice Brzezinski Prestes, M. (eds) Understanding Evolution in Darwin's "Origin". History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences, vol 34. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40165-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40165-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-40164-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-40165-7
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)