Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 461–494 | Cite as

More than a Mentor: Leonard Darwin’s Contribution to the Assimilation of Mendelism into Eugenics and Darwinism

  • Norberto SerpenteEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article discusses the contribution to evolutionary theory of Leonard Darwin (1850–1943), the eighth child of Charles Darwin. By analysing the correspondence Leonard Darwin maintained with Ronald Aylmer Fisher in conjunction with an assessment of his books and other written works between the 1910s and 1930s, this article argues for a more prominent role played by him than the previously recognised in the literature as an informal mentor of Fisher. The paper discusses Leonard’s efforts to amalgamate Mendelism with both Eugenics and Darwinism in order for the first to base their policies on new scientific developments and to help the second in finding a target for natural selection. Without a formal qualification in biological sciences and as such mistrusted by some “formal” scientists, Leonard Darwin engaged with key themes of Darwinism such as mimicry, the role of mutations on speciation and the process of genetic variability, arriving at important conclusions concerning the usefulness of Mendelian genetics for his father’s theory.

Keywords

Evolutionary theory Eugenics Genetics Biometrics Mendelism Mutationism Hugo De-Vries Karl Pearson Ronald Aylmer Fisher Leonard Darwin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, Garland E. 1969. “Hugo De Vries and the reception of the “Mutation Theory.” Journal of the History of Biology 2: 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, Garland E. 1979. Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and his Science. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, Garland E. 2011. “Eugenics and Modern Biology: Critiques of Eugenics, 1910–1945.” Annals of human genetics 75: 314–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. A.M.C.S, Review of Leonard Darwin’s Organic Evolution (1921), 1921–1922, The Eugenics Review XIII: 540–543.Google Scholar
  5. Bateson, William. 1913. Mendel’s Principles of Heredity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berg, Leo. S. 1926 (Original Russian version, 1922). Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law. London. Constable & Co Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Bennett, John H. 1983. Natural Selection Heredity and Eugenics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berra, Tim M. 2013. Darwin & His Children: His Other Legacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bowler, Peter J. 1978. “Hugo De Vries and Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Mutation Theory and the Spirit of Darwinism.” Annals of Science 35: 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bowler, Peter J. 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bowler, Peter J. 1989a. The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bowler, Peter J. 1989b. The Invention of Progress: The Victorians and the Past. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Bowler, Peter J. 2003. Evolution: The History of an Idea. Los Angeles: University of California.Google Scholar
  14. Burbridge, David. 1992. “Lacking a Solution?” Nature 335: 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carlson, Elof A. 1981. Genes Radiation and Society: The Life and Work of H. J. Muller. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Carlson, Elof A. 2011. Mutation: The History of an Idea from Darwin to Genomics. New York and Cold Spring Harbour: Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
  17. Castle, W. E. 1905. “The Mutation Theory of Organic Evolution, from the Standpoint of Animal Breeding.” Science 536: 521–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chamberlain, Edward J. and Gilman, Sander L. (eds.). 1985. Degeneration the Dark Side of Progress. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Chambers, Robert. 1844. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. London: John Churchill.Google Scholar
  20. Comfort, Nathaniel. 2012. The Science of Human Perfection: How Genes Became the Hearth of American Medicine. New Heaven and London: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Corcos, Alan F. and Monaghan, Floyd V. 1985. “Role of de Vries in the Recovery of Mendel’s Work. Was de Vries Really an Independent Discoverer of Mendel?” Journal of Heredity 76: 187–190.Google Scholar
  22. Crow, James F. 1988. “Eighty Years Ago: The Beginning of Population Genetics.” Genetics 119: 473–476.Google Scholar
  23. Crow, James F. 1990. “R. A. Fischer a Centennial View.” Genetics 124: 207–211.Google Scholar
  24. Darwin, Charles. 1859. The Origins of Species by Means of Natural Selection: Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  25. Darwin, Charles. 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Darwin, Charles. 1872. The Expressions of Emotions in Man and Animals. London: John Murray.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Darwin, Leonard. 1897. Bimetallism: A Summary and Examination of the Arguments for and Against a Bimetallic System of Currency. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  28. Darwin, Leonard. 1912. “The First International Eugenics Congress.” Nature 89: 558–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Darwin, Leonard. 1913. “Heredity and Environment.” The Eugenics Review V: 152–153.Google Scholar
  30. Darwin, Leonard. 1917–1918. The Study of Heredity (Preface). The Eugenics Review VIII: 137.Google Scholar
  31. Darwin, Leonard. 1918. “Environment as a Factor in Evolution.” The Eugenics Review X: 63–70.Google Scholar
  32. Darwin, Leonard. 1921. Organic Evolution: Outstanding Difficulties and Possible Explanations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Darwin, Leonard. 1922–1923. Observations on Fecundity. The Eugenics Review XIV: 266–269.Google Scholar
  34. Darwin, Leonard. 1924 (Reissued 1968). The Future of our Race Heredity and Social Progress. The Eugenics Review 60: 99–108.Google Scholar
  35. Darwin, Leonard. 1926. The Need for Eugenic Reform. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  36. Darwin, Leonard. 1926–1927. Natural Selection. The Eugenics Review XVIII: 285–293.Google Scholar
  37. Darwin, Leonard. 1928. Natural Selection – A correction. The Eugenics Review XX: 142–143.Google Scholar
  38. Darwin, Leonard. 1929–1930. The Society’s Coming of Age: The Growth of the Eugenic Movement. The Eugenics Review XXI: 9–20.Google Scholar
  39. Darwin, Leonard. 1930. “Evolution and Evidence.” Nature 25: 126–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Darwin, Leonard. 1931–1932. Biology and Eugenics: Being a Request to Certain Professional Biologists. The Eugenics Review XXIII: 21–23.Google Scholar
  41. Darwin, Leonard, Shuster, A., and Maunder, Walter E. 1889. “On the Total Solar Eclipse of August 29, 1886.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 180: 291–350.Google Scholar
  42. Desmond, Adrian and Moore, James. 1992. Darwin. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  43. De Vries, Hugo. 1901–1903. Die Mutationstheorie. Versuche und Beobachtungen uber die Entstehung von Arten im Planzenreich [hereafter Mutationtheorie], 2 Vols. Leipzig: Veit. English Translation: 1909–1910. The Mutation Theory: Experiments and Observations on the Origins of Species in the Vegetable Kingdom. Chicago. Chicago Open Court.Google Scholar
  44. Dobzhansky, Theodosious. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Dobzhansky, Theodosious. 1973. “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” American Biology Teacher 35: 125–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Dronamraju, Krishna. 2011. Haldane, Mayr and Beanbag Genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. E.W.M. 1926. “Review of ‘The Need for Eugenic Reform’, by Leonard Darwin.” Nature 2958: 39–42.Google Scholar
  48. Fisher Box, Joan. 1978. R.A. Fisher: The Life of a Scientist. New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. Fisher, Ronald A. 1918. “The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance.” Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52: 399–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Fisher, Ronald A. 1930 (Reissued in 1999). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, A Complete Variorum Edition. J.H. Bennett (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Horder, 1943. The Eugenics Review XXXIV, Leonard Darwin 1850–1943 (Obituary), p. 111.Google Scholar
  52. Huxley, Julian S. 1942/1963 (2nd edn.). Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  53. Johannsen, Wilhelm. 1915. “Experimentelle Grundlagen der deszendenzlehere: Variabilitat, Vervelung, Kreuzung, Mutation.” C. Chun and W. Johannsen (eds.), Die Kultur der Gegenvart. III. 4. Liepzig and Berlin: B. G. Teubener, pp. 597–660.Google Scholar
  54. Keith, Arthur. 1943. “Major Leonard Darwin (obituary).” Nature 151: 442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kevles, Daniel. 1995 (2nd edn.). In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Use of Human Heredity. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Largent, Mark A. 2009. “The So-called eclipse of Darwinism.” Joe Cain and Michael Ruse (eds.), Descent from Darwin: Insights into the History of Evolutionary Studies, 19001970, vol. 99, part I. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, pp. 3–21.Google Scholar
  57. MacBride, Ernest W. 1916–1917. “The Study of Heredity.” The Eugenics Review VIII: 218–262.Google Scholar
  58. MacBride, Ernest W. 1929–1930. “Major Leonard Darwin: His Contribution to Eugenics and the Society.” The Eugenics Review XXI, vol. 2 new series.Google Scholar
  59. MacKenzie, Donald. 1976. “Eugenics in Britain.” Social Studies of Science 6: 499–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Magnus, David. 2000. “Down the Primrose Path: Competing Epistemologies in Early Twentieth Century Biology.” Richard Creath, Jane Mainschein (eds.), Biology and Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–121.Google Scholar
  61. Mayr, Ernst. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Mayr, Ernst. 1992. One Long Argument. Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought. London: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  63. Mayr, Ernst. 2001. What Evolution is. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  64. Mayr, Ernst and Provine, William B. 1980. The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives in the Unification of Biology. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Mazumdar, Pauline MH. 1992. Eugenics, Human Genetics and Human Failings: The Eugenics Society, Its Sources and Its Critics in Britain. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  66. Monagham, Floyd, Corcos, Alain F. 1990. “The Real Objective of Mendel’s Paper.” Biology & Philosophy 5: 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Morgan, Thomas H. 1932. The Scientific Basis of Evolution. New York: WH Norton.Google Scholar
  68. Norton, Bernard J. 1973. “The Biometric Defence of Darwinism.” Journal of the History of Biology 6: 283–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Olby, Robert C. 1988. “The Dimensions of the Scientific Controversy: The Biometric-Mendelian Debate.” British Journal for the History of Science 22: 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Olby, Robert C. 1992. “Huxley’s Place in Twentieth Century Biology.” Kenneth C Waters and Albert Van Helden (eds.), Julian Huxley, Biologist and Statesman of Science. Proceedings of a conference held at Rice University 2527 September 1987. Houston, TX: Rice University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Ortmann, AE. 1907. “Facts and Interpretations in the Mutation Theory.” Science 25: 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Pearl, Raymond. 1912. “The First International Eugenics Congress.” Science 36: 395–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Pearson, Karl. 1914. “On Certain Errors with Regard to Multiple Correlation Occasionally Made by Those who had not Adequately Studied This Subject.” Biometrika 10: 181–187.Google Scholar
  74. Porter, Theodore M. 2004. Karl Pearson: The Scientific Life in a Statistical Age. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Punnett, Reginald C. 1915. Mimicry in Butterflies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Richmond, Marshald L. 2006. “The 1909 Darwin Celebration: Reexamining Evolution in the Light of Mendel, Mutation and Meiosis.” Isis 97: 447–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Searle, Geoffrey R. 1976. Eugenics and Politics in Britain 1900–1914. Leiden: Noordohoff International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Secord, James A. 2000. Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication Reception and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  79. Simpson, George G. 1950. The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of Its Significance for Man. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Smocovities, Vassiliki Betty. 1996. Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Stepan, Nancy. 1982. The Idea of Race in Science: Great Britain 1800–1960. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  82. Stepan, Nancy. 1991. The Hour of Eugenics: Race, Gender and Nation in Latin America. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  83. The British Medical Journal 1912. First International Eugenics Congress 31: 253–255.Google Scholar
  84. The Eugenics Review (1912–1913) vol. IV: 217.Google Scholar
  85. The Eugenics Review. 1943. Leonard Darwin, 1850–1943 (Obituary), XXXIV: 109–116.Google Scholar
  86. The Times. 1912. 25th and 26th July. “The First International Congress of Eugenics.”Google Scholar
  87. Theunissen, Bert. 1994. “Closing the Door on Hugo de Vries’ Mendelism.” Annals of Science 51: 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Yu, Chong Ho. 2004. History of Science and Statistical Education: Examples from Fisherian and Pearsonian Schools. Found at: http://www.creative-wisdom.com/pub/ 2004ASA.pdf. Consulted February, 2015.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science and Technology StudiesUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations