The Watson–Forbes Biogeographical Controversy Untangled 170 Years Later

Abstract

Hewett Cottrell Watson and Edward Forbes were two naturalists of the Victorian age. They were protagonists on a dispute that generated comment and serves as an illuminating case study of misunderstanding in priority issues. Watson accused Forbes of having plagiarized his original classification of the British plants into groups on the basis of their geographical distribution. This controversy originated mostly from a so-far-ignored basic difference in Watson’s and Forbes’ ideas about biogeographical regionalization. Watson’s classification of the British flora into groups of species with similar distribution was probably the first application of the concept of “regional chorotype.” By contrast, the biogeographical classification of the British flora proposed by Forbes belongs to the concept of “element,” because it was based on assumed species history (i.e. colonization routes). The two approaches may produce similar outcomes, but remain conceptually different. Although personal reasons may have contributed to exacerbate the Watson–Forbes controversy, failure in recognizing this distinction by its actors and their contemporaries, such as Hooker and Darwin, was the most important cause.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Anonymus. 1846. “Notice of the ‘Annals and Magazine of Natural History’, No. 101 to 111, July 1845, to March, 1846.” Phytologist 2: 483–484.

  2. Báez, J. C., Real, R., Vargas, J. M. and Flores-Moya, A. 2005. “Chorotypes of Seaweeds from the Western Mediterranean Sea and the Adriatic Sea: An Analysis Based on the Genera Audouinella (Rhodophyta), Cystoseira (Phaeophyceae) and Cladophora (Chlorophyta).” Phycological Research 53: 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baroni Urbani, C., Ruffo, S. and Vigna Taglianti, A. 1978. “Materiali per una biogeografia italiana fondata su alcuni generi di Coleotteri Cicindelidi, Carabidi e Crisomelidi.” Memorie della Società Entomologica Italiana 56: 35–92.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Boulger, G. S. 1883. “Watson, Hewett Cottrell (1804–1881).” L. Stephen (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography, vol. 60. London: Smith, Elder & Co, pp. 7–9.

  5. British Bryological Society. 2016. Vice-County Map of Britain and Ireland. http://rbg-web2.rbge.org.uk/bbs/Recording/vcmappage.htm.

  6. Browne, J. 1983. The Secular Ark. Studies in the History of Biogeography, New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press.

  7. Browne, J. 1992. “A Science of Empire : British Biogeography Before Darwin.” Revue d’histoire des sciences 45: 453–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Egerton, F. N. 1972. “Edward Forbes, Jr. (1815–1854), Biogeography, Invertebrate Zoology, Invertebrate Paleontology.” C. C. Gillispie (ed.), Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. 5. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, pp. 66–68.

  9. Egerton, F. N. 1976. “Hewett Cottrell Watson (1804–1881), Phytogeography, Evolution.” Dictionary of Scientific Biography 14: 189–191.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Egerton, F. N. 1979. “Hewett C. Watson, Great Britain’s First Phytogeographer.” Huntia 3: 87–102.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Egerton, F. 2003. Hewett Cottrell Watson: Victorian Plant Ecologist and Evolutionist. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Egerton, F. N. 2004. “Hewett Cottrell Watson (1804–1881), Botanist and Phrenologist.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 57: 617–619.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Egerton, F. N. 2010a. “History of Ecological Sciences, Part 35: Beginnings of British Marine Biology: Edward Forbes and Philip Gosse.” Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 91: 176–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Egerton, F. N. 2010b. “History of the Ecological Sciences, Part 36: Hewett Watson, Plant Geographer and Evolutionist.” Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 91: 294–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Egerton, F. N. 2012. Roots of Ecology: Antiquity to Haeckel. Berkeley:University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Endersby, J. 2003. “Escaping Darwin’s Shadow.” Journal of the History of Biology 36: 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fattorini, S. 2015. “On the Concept of Chorotype.” Journal of Biogeography 42: 2246–2251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ferrer-Castan, D. and Vetaas, O. R. 2003. “Floristic Variation, Chorological Types and Diversity: Do They Correspond at Broad and Local Scales?’ Diversity and Distribution 9: 221–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Forbes, E. 1846. “On the Connexion Between the Distribution of the Existing Fauna and Flora of the British Isles, and the Geological Changes Which Have Affected Their Area, Especially During the Epoch of the Northern Drift.” Memoirs of the Geological Survey of Great Britain 1: 336–432.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gómez-González, S., Cavieres, L. A., Teneb, E. A. and Arroyo, J. 2004. “Biogeographical Analysis of Species of the Tribe Cytiseae (Fabaceae) in the Iberian Peninsula and Balearic Islands.” Journal of Biogeography 31: 1659–1671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hausdorf, B. and Hennig, C. 2003. “Biotic Element Analysis in Biogeography.” Systematic Biology 52: 717–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jenkins, B. 2015. “Neptunism and Transformism: Robert Jameson and Other Evolutionary Theorists in Early Nineteenth-Century Scotland.” Journal of the History of Biology. doi:10.1007/s10739-015-9425-4.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Lomolino, M. V., Riddle, B. R., Whittaker, R. J. and Brown, J. H. 2010. Biogeography, 4th ed. Sunderland:Sinauer Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lyell, C. 1830–1833. Principles of Geology: Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface, by Reference to Causes Now in Operation. London: John Murray.

  25. Marquez, A. L., Real, R., Vargas, J. M. and Salvo, A. E. 1997. “On Identifying Common Distribution Patterns and Their Causal Factors: A Probabilistic Method Applied to Pteridophytes in the Iberian Peninsula.” Journal of Biogeography 24: 613–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Merritt, R., Moore, N. W. and Eversham, B. C. 1996, Atlas of the DRAGONFLIES of Britain and Ireland. ITE Research Publication No. 9. London: HMSO.

  27. Merton, R. K. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Mills, E. L. 1978. “Edward Forbes, John Gwyn Jefferies, and British Dredging Before the Challenger Expedition.” Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 8: 507–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mills, E. L. 1984. “A view of Edward Forbes, Naturalist.” Archives of Natural History 11: 365–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mills, E. L. 2004. “Edward Forbes (1825–1854), Natural Historian.” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 20: 273–275.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Olivero, J., Real, R. and Marquez, A. L. 2001. “Fuzzy Chorotypes as a Conceptual Tool to Improve Insight into Biogeographic Patterns.” Systematic Biology 60: 645–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Passalacqua, N. 2015. “On the Definition of Element, Chorotype and Component in Biogeography.” Journal of Biogeography 42: 611–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Real, R., Márquez, A. L., Estrada, A., Muñoz, A. R. and Vargas, J. M. 2008. “Modelling Chorotypes of Invasive Vertebrates in Mainland Spain.” Diversity and Distributions 14: 364–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rehbock, P. F. 1983. The Philosophical Naturalists: Themes in Early Nineteenth-Century British Biology. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sans-Fuentes, M. A. and Ventura, J. 2000. “Distribution Patterns of the Small Mammals (Insectivora and Rodentia) in a Transitional Zone Between the Eurosiberian and the Mediterranean Regions.” Journal of Biogeography 27: 755–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Seddon, B. 1971. Introduction to biogeography. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Stace, C. A., Ellis, R. G., Kent, D. H. and McCosh, D. J. 2003. Vice-County Census Catalogue of the Vascular Plants of Great Britain. London: Botanical Society of the British Isles.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Strevens, M. 2003. “The role of the Priority Rule in Science.” Journal of Philosophy 100: 55–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Vergas, J. M., Real, R. and Palomo, L. J. 1997. “On Identifying Significant Co-occurrence of Species in Space and Time.” Miscellania Zoologica 20: 49–58.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Vincent, P. 1990. The Biogeography of the British Isles. An Introduction. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Watson, H. C. 1832. Outline of the Geographical Distribution of British plants. Edinburgh.

  42. Watson, H. C. 1835. Remarks on the Geographical Distribution of British Plants. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Watson, H. C. 1847–1859. Cybele Britannica: or British Plants, and Their Geographical Relations. London: Longman.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Fattorini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fattorini, S. The Watson–Forbes Biogeographical Controversy Untangled 170 Years Later. J Hist Biol 50, 473–496 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-016-9454-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Charles Darwin
  • Hewett Cottrell Watson
  • Edward Forbes
  • Joseph Dalton Hooker
  • Biogeography
  • Botany