Abstract
This paper analyses the forgotten concept of “sperm-force” proposed by George Newport (1803–1854). Newport is known for his comprehensive microscopic examinations of sperm and egg interaction in amphibian fertilization between 1850 and 1854. My work with archival sources reveals that Newport believed fertilization was caused by sperm-force, which the Royal Society refused to publish. My reconstruction chronologically traces the philosophical and experimental origins of sperm-force to Newport’s 1830s entomological work. Sperm-force is a remnant of Newport’s speculations on the creation of the active individual. I argue that sperm-force was rooted in British interpretations of German Naturphilosophie, which demonstrates Continental influences on mid-Victorian embryology, particularly the role of male generative power. This context provides further evidence that British versions of Romantic science fostered sophisticated experimental work. The refusal by Paleyite stalwarts of natural theology to publish Newport’s ideas illustrates the institutional resistance to German pantheistic and vitalistic influences. This reconstruction of sperm-force’s philosophical foundation and its reception offers new understandings of mid-Victorian attitudes toward the inheritance of mind and body. It situates Newport’s work within the nineteenth century’s scientific project to assign stereotypical genders to the gametes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Some accounts say either “spermatozoon” or simply “sperm” penetrate, which to a reader in the twenty-first century means a single sperm. Several historians discussed Newport’s fertilization work: Morgan (1897), Cole (1930), Meyer (1939), Singer (1951), Hughes (1959), Clarke (1974), Moore (1987), Schloegel (2002), Waller (2003), and Valier (2004).
In a letter to the author February 28, 2001, Newport’s descendant Stanley Newport reported the dates for his ancestor’s apprenticeship and freedom, citing Corpe and Oakley (1990). Coggon (2004) reported June 15, 1818 instead of June 5 and made slightly different calculations. For a discussion of Newport’s birthdate, see note 109, below.
“Address. Written on the occasion of Laying the Foundation of the Canterbury Philosophical and Literary Institution, 28th June 1825.” MS/236, no. 76, LSLA.
For Godwin, see Ruston (2013). CPLI’s extensive collection of journals included works by Coleridge and reviews of German literature (1827–1832). The Monthly Magazine was known for its Romantic style and “popularizations of post-Kantian philosophy” (Capper 1992, p. 332). See James (2006), Houghton (1972), Shepherd (1900, pp. 15–16). For Coleridge’s access to German texts, see Levere (1981, p. 13). For Romanticism, see Hamm (2000).
Full citation: CPLI October 4th, 1831, Annual General Meeting 1830–1831, “Report of the Directors and Curators of the Museum,” p. 13. Stephens accepted Macleay’s arrangement that “returned to itself,” but not necessarily the quinary system (Stephens 1828, pp. 2, 5, 88).
Schelling regarded light as a synthesis of magnetism, electricity, and chemistry and thus the highest stage of the inorganic realm. According to Beiser, Schelling’s equivalence of light and thought justified his deduction of mind from natural processes in his Naturphilosophie (2009, pp. 537–538; cf. Steigerwald 2015). See also note 37, below.
See Dusek (1999), Caneva (1997), Hunt (2010, pp. 28–29), Smith (1998, pp. 10, 176–177). Whiteley argues that Schelling “seized” on Faraday’s ideas to justify his own (2018, pp. 207–208). See Cantor (1991, pp. 185–190) for Faraday’s conflation of “correlation,” “conversion,” and “conservation” of forces.
“Six I.O.U.s signed by G. N. et al.,” MS/236, no. 73, LSLA. Alan Rosevear kindly estimated that the stage coach trip to London at 8 to 9 mph would take a full day. Rosevear et al. (2019) and Pigot (1824). Newport’s last CPLI lecture was November 29, 1831. He began courses at UCL on January 16, 1832 (CPLI 1829–1832; [Sharpey] (1854, p. 280).
Knox was “fanatical” about the “unity of structure” emphasized in Geoffroy’s transcendental anatomy (Desmond 1984, p. 197).
Newport (1836a, p. 551, 1837, p. 259), Newport, Hall, and Grant (1837–1846), Newport and Hall (1837–1838), Anonymous (1838a, b), [Wakley], Roget, and Newport (1846), Manuel (1996, pp. 177, 197–201). Newport and Roget refuted the rumor that Newport received the medal for correcting Roget’s proofs (Desmond 1989, p. 232).
Since Newport owned few books, in 1849 he would have searched for sources in scientific societies and at CPLI. Besides borrowing from colleagues’ private libraries, naturalists could subscribe to lending libraries (such as those advertised in the Athenæum) that specialized in foreign books, including works by German Idealists. See Newport (1844b, c, p. 395), Westwood (1835), Royal Society of London (1839), Linnean Society of London (1845, 1851, 1855), Entomological Society of London (1836–1861, particularly vol. 3, pp. 3, 174, 200, 246), Houghton (1972, p. 130), Browne (2002, p. 89), Mudie’s Select Library (1857, 1858), Secord (2000), Knight (1986), MS/236, nos. 48 and 64, LSLA.
Dr. Friedrich Will to Newport, Feb 19, 1845, MS/236, no. 65, LSLA. See letters to Newport from Hermann Burmeister, Werner Hoffmeister, and Carl Theodor Ernst von Siebold. Newport was a member of the Philomathic Society of Paris. Newport’s reply to Grant shows his facility with French; see Newport , Hall, and Grant 1837–1846, at 1837–1838 2 [764], pp. 118–120
Goethe and Oken argued for priority in proposing the vertebral skull theory (Ecker 1883).
Sloan documents that Carus’s 1837 essay inspired Darwin (2001, p, 262).
Carpenter won Grant’s Certificate of Merit in 1835 (Desmond 1989, p. 213). Newport won the silver medal and second certificate for comparative anatomy (Quarterly Journal of Education 1833 6:193; silver medal 1832–33, Linnean Society of London artefact collection).
Taylor warned his Anglo readers of “the speculative parts of this memoir,” particularly Carus’s “somewhat peculiar” use of “abstract terms [used] as if they were real essences” (Carus 1837, p. 254). Carpenter compared Carus’s view to “[t]he absurd speculations of Robinet” (1839b, p. 11), and preferred Owen’s concept of the vertebra to that of Carus and Geoffroy (1847b, p. 473).
After meeting Lawrence in 1844, Carus remarked that Lawrence had been cowed by the backlash against him (1846, p. 88).
Steigerwald (2014) tracks the changing concept of Lebenskraft in Biologie. In vol. 1 (1802), Lebenskraft “polices the boundary of life” against its harsh surroundings, or what J. Thomson called “the direct hammering action of the environment” (1887, p. 466). In vols. 1 and 2 (1803), Treviranus held that life forms are continually destroyed and recreated from organic “viable matter” or “lebensfähige Materie” joined with the Lebenskraft. In vol. 3 (1805), Treviranus proposed that the Lebenskraft continually alters inorganic constituents to allow simple organisms to arise from nonlife. See Steigerwald (2014, pp. 113, 122; 2017, pp. 274–276; 2019), DeJager (1991, pp. 261–267). See also Lenoir (1981), Gambarotto (2014, 2018), and Thomson (1887). See note 58, below.
Carpenter (1850) describes a variant, that a dormant vital force in organic elements (such as H, O, N, and C) awakens when absorbed and organized in the germ cell (p. 751).
For (2), Steigerwald argues that Schelling proposed epistemic principles, not forces. (3) will be discussed presently. For (4), Newport and Carpenter resemble Lenoir’s “vital materialists” (1982, p. 9).
“On the Natural History, Development and Anatomy of the Oil Beetle, Meloë, more especially of Meloë cicatricosus. Leach. First Memoir: The Natural History of Meloë,” by George Newport, SP/873, Society Papers, LSLA; hereafter: “SP/873-Newport.” The published version Newport (1847a) omits a key section (see note 36). The current spelling is “Meloe,” but I will follow the Victorian spelling “Meloë.” Additional sources on Grove are Cantor (1975) and Morus (1991).
Carpenter cited Treviranus’s belief that light emission in glow-worms and fireflies depends on respiration. He also cited Newport on the temperature of insects and Matteucci on electricity in animals (1839b, p. 365 point 475, 371, 373–375, 383).
SP/873-Newport (see note 31). Since much of my paper’s content derives from archival sources, after a key archival source has been fully cited in a footnote, I will cite an abbreviated form in the text, with letter codes such as AP, MC, PT, RR, and SP. Please see Table 1 to track their chronology. In 1829, Grant noticed infusoria always cling to the light exposed side of a glass, which may have alerted Newport to light and behavior (Quick 2011, pp. 67–68).
The manuscript ends at p. 26 and resumes repaginated at p. 28; see also Newport (1847a, pp. 313–314). In the published version, Newport substitutes “newly-born young” for “embryo” (p. 313). In contrast to Newport's conflation of volition and instinct, Carpenter defined volition as a “strictly mental act,” while “automatic or strictly involuntary motions” are instinctual (Carpenter 1837a, pp. 28–29). See also Newport (1836b).
This quote must have originated on the missing p. 27 of SP/873-Newport. Newport removed it on the advice of the reviewer William Saunders (Saunders, “Re Newport, nos. 999 and 1016,” April 19, 1847, SP/873, Society Papers, LSLA; hereafter: “SP/873-Saunders”).
Robert Grosseteste (1168–1253) proposed that light summoned life, as did Geoffroy in his private correspondence (Humphries 2007, p. 137). Roget waxed poetic on the spiritual value of light for “sentient beings” (Hall 1978, p. 202). Steigerwald (2015, 2019) argues that for Schelling, light and its opposite gravity are boundary concepts that indicate the underlying interaction of positive and negative principles (see also note 8).
The Royal Society also held the Treviranus brothers’ journal Zeitschrift für Physiologie, which they established with Tiedemann in 1824. William Baly, Newport’s friend since medical school, translated Johannes Müller’s Elements of Physiology (1843) into English, which cited Oken and repeatedly cited Treviranus’s Biologie (William Baly to Newport July 6, 1847, MS/236, no. 3, LSLA; van Heteren 1995, pp. 313, 319). Scientific journals such as Edinburgh Philosophical Journal and Annals and Magazine of Natural History frequently cited Treviranus, and the brothers donated books to the Linnean Society library. At some point G. R. Treviranus met with Coleridge and attended the 1834 BAAS meeting in Edinburgh (Sloan 1986; Levere 1981, p. 5; Linnean Society of London 1855, vol. 21). In 1893, John Burdon-Sanderson discussed Treviranus’s Biologie at length (Basalla et al. 1970).
Carpenter was critical of Whewell’s treatment of physiology in The History of the Inductive Sciences. Carpenter argued that investigations of physical forces and concepts like polarization had applications for physiology (1838a). See also Rupke (1994, pp. 173–174). The last lecture by Carpenter’s idealist friend Edward Forbes before his death discussed polarity in the fossil record (Forbes 1854). Thus, Newport’s network was saturated in this talk.
Carpenter followed Coleridge’s work and the personal misfortunes of his son Hartley, which justifies my inference that he wrote the review (1889). My thanks to Andrew Cooper for sharing his “Coleridge and the Science of Life” from a forthcoming chapter in Peter Cheyne, ed., Living Ideas: Coleridge and Other Dynamic Idealists on Life and Matter. See also Rajan (2019). For Schelling’s individuation, see Steigerwald (2019), Hui (2016), and Whistler (2016).
According to Whiteley, Coleridge reinterpreted Schelling’s Polarität as a Divine act to refute its inherent pantheism (2018, pp. 213–216).
Owen and Newport belonged to the Philosophical Club, the Ray Society, and the Entomological Society (ES), which discussed German naturalists like Treviranus and Carus (ES Transactions 1841–1843; Bonney 1919, pp. 23, 259). Owen helped Newport obtain a Civil List Pension (Owen to Newport, Oct. 25, 1844, MS/236, no. 44, LSLA). For Owen’s views on Oken and Naturphilosophie, see Richards (1994) and Rupke (1994, pp. 172–175, 192–193).
Newport subscribed to the Ray Society and audited their financial statement when Owen and Carpenter sat on its Council. He was appointed to Council for 1849–1850 and was a subscriber in 1851. My thanks to Rosemary Clarkson (Darwin Correspondence Project), who found Newport’s auditing and Council duties listed in Ray Society (1849). Public genealogical resources suggest that Alfred Tulk was the son of Henry Tulk, Charles’s brother. My thanks to Gordon McOuat for comparing notes with me.
A Member (1840) lambasted Green for his incoherence and indifference to the plight of the average medical man. Simon stated that all the “educated and influential” Londoners packed Green’s two Hunterian Orations, including the beleaguered Marshall Hall (Green and Simon 1865, vol. 1, pp. xxiii–xxiv; Royal College of Surgeons of England RCSE RCS-SCH/19/1, “Lectures 1810-1818; Hunterian Orations 1814-1842”). See also Desmond (1989, pp. 264, 267–268). Green taught anatomy to artists and wrote eloquently on aesthetics, “the science of interpreting human expression and appreciating human beauty” (Green and Simon 1865, vol. 1, p. xvii).
The German zoologist Ernst Haeckel credited Oken for laying the groundwork of Darwin’s theory: “Although many arbitrary perversities and extravagant fancies may be found in Oken’s philosophy of nature, they must not prevent us paying our just admiration to these grand ideas, which were so far in advance of their age” (Haeckel 1876, pp. 98–99).
Newport’s 1830s and 1840s papers cite German primary sources. Newport (1847c), for example, cites German papers by Johann Leonhard Frisch, Johann Christoph Friedrich Klug, and Siebold, and further referenced German entomologists Carl Heinrich Georg Van Heyden and Friedrich August von Gebler. On p. 333 he mentions the 1835 Bonn meeting of German naturalists (Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte) that Oken founded in 1822, which Newport would have read about in the Entomological Society of London. 1836–1861 1 (1836), p. lxxi.
In 1850, Newport found an even smaller parasite that he called “the most microscopic atom of organized life” (Newport 1853c, p. 102). He inferred that families with corresponding structures also exhibit corresponding instincts, such as parasitism (Newport 1847c, pp. 349–350, 355). For details of Stylops, see Kathirithamby et al. (2015).
For SP/873-Saunders, see note 36. In 1846, the Entomological Society’s founder William Spence rejected Newport’s “dark wax hypothesis,” as being “too hypothetical to be admitted into the Linnean Transactions.” Review of Newport’s manuscript, “On the Aqueous Vapour Expelled from Bee-hives,” by William Spence, Oct. 31, 1846, SP/874, Society Papers, LSLA. Five years later, however, the Linnean Society published it.
As Newport later noted: “This enunciation of view respecting the relations of the vital, instinctive and physical forces, the Council of the Linnean Society did not permit me to retain in my paper printed in their ‘Transactions,’ so that only the first two sentences I have quoted are there published, and I was compelled, but not without reluctance and remonstrance, to submit to the omission of the remainder. But a portion of the omitted paragraph, sufficient perhaps to establish the fact of the view having been announced, had already been published in the Report of the Proceedings of the Society, first in the Gardeners’ Chronicle for November 22nd, and, more explicitly, in the Athenæum for December 6, 1845, in the following words…” (Newport 1850b, p. 372, 1850a, p. 133).
Owen refuted the existence of a fertilizing “aura” and the view that spermatozoa were independent animals. Spermatozoa were the “essential principle” for the “character of the species,” while the ovum was a receptacle (Owen 1840, Lecture 19, p. 671; Lecture 18, p. 572). For the context of aphid reproduction in this period, see Owen (1840 Lecture 9, pp. 477–478) and Farley (1982, pp. 100–104). For the eighteenth century, see Davis (2012, pp. 451–453), Leeuwenhoek (1700), and Dolnick (2017, pp. 175–178). For a list of Owen’s Hunterian lectures, see Rupke (1985, pp. 241, 243); and Thackray (1992, pp. 143–144). On the background to fertilization, see Farley (1982, chap. 2) and Newport (1851a, pp. 171, 183–184).
Steigerwald observes that Oken’s emphasis on the organism’s interaction with its environment resembled the views of Treviranus (Steigerwald 2019, p. 366).
Vienne (2014, p. 54) and Reill (2014, p. 74) point out that Oken in Die Zeugung associated infusoria with the male principle. Steigerwald notes that Oken’s infusoria echoes Treviranus’s viable matter, yet Treviranus proposed that spontaneous generation never ceases (2017, pp. 281–286, 2019, p. 348).
Historians have noted that in Die Zeugung (1805), Oken denied that the egg provided the embryonic material. He claimed that the male contributed the generative matter and polarity to create the embryo that the female principle then molded in the womb or vesicle. See Steigerwald (2019, pp. 348–349, 2017, pp. 283), Vienne (2014, p. 52 nn. 45–49), Reill (2005, pp. 231–232, 2014, p. 76). Four decades later, Oken claimed the male contributes some matter for the nervous system but chiefly transmits the “tension” in its semen to the female “as by a process of contagion or fermentation,” which anticipated Bischoff’s fermentation theory of seminal action (Oken 1847, p. 274). The female contributes “all the Material” (p. 274) or “mass” (p. 482) and the chemical processes of impregnation and embryonic development (Oken 1847, pp. 273–275, 482).
Carus similarly diminished the female in his popular gynecological textbook (Reill 2014).
See note 28.
Owen’s terms “fissiparous and assimilative forces”, “fecundative and organizing forces”, or “developmental force” later became “plastic force” (Owen 1843, pp. 233–235, 248; 1849b, pp. 25. 28, 68); see Rupke (1993, pp. 242–251). For a history of plastic power or force, see Hunter (1950), Hirai (2007), and Cheung (2008, pp. 500–503).
Newport (1844a, p. 9) promoted Carpenter’s 1843 “Animal Physiology,” which discusses reproductive processes in its final chapter. For a discussion of ovum vs. bud, see Churchill (1979, p. 151) and Elwick (2007a, b). Elwick argues that Newport followed the “analysis:synthesis” model of growth and a centripetal direction of development, where simpler parts coalesced to create the nervous system and other organs. This opposed centrifugal development, which Carpenter converted to in the 1840s, where tissues differentiated through time from a homogenous center (2007a, b, pp. 3, 109, 116–121). Newport’s use of centripetal development in his amphibian research is beyond the bounds of this paper.
“Letter from Newport to President and Council of the Royal Society, concerning a grant from the Donation Fund, Jan. 17, 1850,” MC/4/315, Royal Society of London Archives [RSLA]; hereafter: MC/4/315. Newport’s impoverished working conditions appalled Anders Retzius, the period during which Newport survived as an apothecary-surgeon on £30 per year from one family (Retzius to John Forbes, Aug. 4, 1846, MS/236, no. 48, LSLA; [Sharpey] 1854). Charles Darwin cited Newport’s insect research as evidence for the origin of species and his pangenesis theory; he also borrowed Newport’s dissecting scissors. See Darwin to Newport, July and August 1851, MS/236, nos. 13 and 14, LSLA; also Darwin Correspondence Project, To George Newport, 24 July [1851], DCP-LETT-1445, and 12 August [1851], DCP-LETT-1450. and emed linkhttps://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-1445.xml See also Darwin (1868), Hughes (1959), Di Gregorio and Gill (1990, pp. 160, 579–580, 621, 660).
According to the Hunterian lecture schedule, Owen’s parthenogenesis lectures (I and II) occurred on Tuesday, March 13, and Thursday, March 15, 1849 (Rupke 1985, p. 240; Owen 1849a). Newport planned to ask Richard Kippist, botanist and Linnean Society librarian, whether fern sperm touched or entered the egg (see the letter envelope, Thomas Wilkinson to Newport, August 21, 1849, MS/236, no. 64, LSLA).
Caneva (1990) and Gambarotto (2018) reject Lenoir’s categories. Rothschuh (2008) claims Bischoff outgrew the influence of Naturphilosophie by 1830. Liebig called Naturphilosophie the “black death of our century” and rejected Berzelius’s notion of “catalytic force,” yet still deferred to vital force (Burns 2004; Levere 1981; Liebig 1842; Hall 1980; Lipman 1966, 1967; Rosenfeld 2003, p. 1705; Goodfield 1975; Lenoir 1982). Bischoff (1844) and Barry (1844) argued about whether sperm penetrate the egg. By 1847, Bischoff conceded sperm may penetrate the egg to impart molecular motion but not matter (Farley 1982, pp. 58–61).
George Newport, “On the Impregnation of the Ovum in the Amphibia (second series) and on the Nature of the Impregnating Influence,” AP/33/20, RSLA, 1851, p. 49; hereafter: AP/33/20.
The published version of Newport’s first fertilization paper (Newport 1851a) is so similar to its manuscript (PT/40/9, RSLA) that I will cite only the former.
Newport (1851a, pp. 176, 203, 214–215, 222); as he noted, “there is no evidence whatever of the existence of a fissure or orifice, in the envelopes of the egg of the Amphibia, at the time of, or before impregnation, capable of admitting the spermatozoon to the interior of the yelk-membrane or its contents” (p. 240).
He claimed he was unaware of filtration experiments by the Genevans and Spallanzani, which he said gave his results more credibility (Newport 1851a, pp. 191, 210–211; also Martins and Prestes 2018, p. 64). Before 1849, Newport had borrowed a book by Spallanzani from CPLI, but when he asked to borrow it again, it was missing (Thomas Wilkinson to Newport, August 21, 1849, MS/236, no. 64, LSLA). Regarding the claims of Prevost and Dumas, see Newport (1851a, pp. 219, 223). For the context of the work of Prevost and Dumas, see Castellani (1980) and Gasking (1967, pp. 137–147).
Newport listed researchers’ observations of segmentation (1851a, pp. 183–184). Also see Russell (1982, pp. 186–188), Cole (1930, pp. 195–196), Farley (1982, p. 62), and Owen (1840, Lecture 20). The next year, Newport concluded the dye anomaly in the newt egg was due to accidental injury of the vitelline membrane (AP/33/20; [Newport] 1851c).
Neither the liquor seminis nor “simple contact” by spermatozoa were enough to convey the “structural peculiarities of the male parent to the offspring” or “more or less of the material structural characters of the male parent to the offspring” (Newport 1851a, pp. 211, 242).
On the Bildungstrieb, see Lenoir (1982, pp. 20–24, 37).
Carpenter refined James Paget’s definition of germ-force to mean “a comprehensive expression of all the individual forces which are separately concerned in the evolution, maintenance, and reparation of a living being” (1850, p. 733). Carpenter inferred from Barry’s observations that the spermatozoon exhibits motion like cilia, yet it is analogous to pollen and enters the ovum like a pollen tube (1841, p. 656). See also Carpenter (1851a, pp. 907–911).
Referee report by Allen Thomson, “Remarks on a Memoir ‘On the Impregnation of the Ovum in the Amphibia’ by George Newport,” [n.d.], RR/2/166, RSLA.
Newport sometimes refers to “the spermatozoon” in the abstract, while his observations describe spermatozoa or spermatic fluid, for example Newport (1853d, p. 241). Also reported in [Newport] 1851c, p. 83. In the published version (1853d), he omitted marginal sketches of shriveled eggs yolks (AP/33/20, pp. 32–33, 40, 42–43); see Fig. 7a, b.
“Researches on the Impregnation of the Ovum in the Amphibia, and on the Early Stages of Development of the Embryo (third series) by the late George Newport,—selected and arranged from the author’s MSS by George Viner Ellis, Professor of Anatomy in University College, London. Communicated by Sir John Forbes, M.D. Received 6th June 1854,” PT/49/2, p. 2, RSLA; hereafter: PT/49/2.
George Newport: “On the Impregnation of the Ovum in the Amphibia (Second Series, revised) and on the direct Agency of the Spermatozoon,” received May 10, 1852, read June 17, 1852, PT/46/7, RSLA; hereafter: PT/46/7. Note that PT/46/7 is Newport’s revision of his original version AP/33/20, which was published as Newport (1853d). I will cite the revised manuscript PT/46/7 when Newport repeats content from AP/33/20. Tables 1 and 2 track his revisions.
In AP/33/20, he inserted with a caret, “or pollen-force” (p. 62, underlined in original). He noted that none of the research on pollen motion linked it to fertilization (AP/33/20, p. 48; PT/46/7, p. 45; Newport 1853d, pp. 259–260).
Richard Owen testimonial for Newport, Oct. 25, 1844 MS/236, no. 44, LSLA.
The argument section “Nature of the Impregnating Influence” (AP/33/20, pp. 61–76) repeats in the revised version (PT/46/7, pp. 97–109) but was omitted from the published revised version (PT/46/7, p. 97 top margin, dated April 19, 1853). The Royal Society abstract mentioned Newport’s “view” of “sperm-force” ([Newport] 1851c, pp. 83–84).
In the revised manuscript, Newport marked his section that rejected Bischoff’s catalysis “omit as before GN” from the published version (PT/46/7, p. 46; content which he copied from AP/33/20, pp. 48–49; Newport 1853d, p. 260).
Also see Oken (1847, pp. 29–30, 181, 187).
Newport altered the wording in this quote slightly in PT/46/7, p. 105, for example “some vitalizing force” and “from the body of the spermatozoon.”.
Register of Papers 1850–1854 MISC MSS XIV, RSLA; CMB/90/3/224-229, RSLA. François Lallemand agreed with Dumas (Farley 1982, pp. 125–126).
Caneva (2021, pp. 290, 584, 651) confirmed my long-standing suspicion that Carpenter was the author.
Thomas Henry Huxley narrowly lost to Newport (Huxley 1900, pp. 76, 99). In 1847, Carpenter advised Newport to console himself with the monetary contents of his “breeches pocket” against The Lancet’s “thundering” opposition to his civil list pension (Carpenter to Newport, July 1, 1847, MS/236, no. 12, LSLA).
Register of Papers 1850–1854 MISC MSS XIV, RSLA; Referee’s report by George Newport, on a paper “The Reproduction of the Ascaris mystax” by Henry Nelson, February 11, 1852, RR/2/171, RSLA; hereafter: RR/2/171. The second assigned reviewer was Sharpey, but I have not found his report.
Richard Owen, “Report on Dr. Nelson’s Paper on the Reproduction of the Ascaris Mystax,” February 21, 1852, RR/2/172, RSLA. Newport had thought Nelson mistook a handling error for penetration.
Referee’s report by William Bowman, on a paper, “The reproduction of the Ascaris mystax” by Henry Nelson, April 22, 1852, RR/2/174, RSLA. Bowman was assigned to Nelson’s paper March 19, 1852. William Clark’s name was crossed out on the reviewer registry dated April 22, 1852, and his report is not in the archives (MISC MSS XIV 1850–1854, RSLA). That same day, the Committee of Papers approved Nelson’s paper and withdrew Newport’s paper that he submitted the previous June. (“Minutes of a meeting of the Committee of Papers,” CMB/90/3/230, RSLA).
“Mr. Newport withdrawing his report on Dr. Nelson’s paper, April 21, 1852,” RR/2/173, RSLA.
CMB/90/3/224-229, RSLA.
At another point, he reiterates: “the application of definite quantities of the fecundatory agent to the egg, as affecting the development of the embryo, and possibly also as influencing both the evolution of its physical structure and psychical condition” (Newport 1853d, p. 257, italics in original, and PT/46/7, p. 40, underlined in original).
For publication, Newport omitted his explicit references to the results of Barry and Nelson. He also omitted his proposal to test “how far this hypothesis is worthy of being entertained” (PT/46/7, p. 96).
PT/46/7, p. 74 and Newport (1853d, p. 279). We can see his changing views of egg envelope function by comparing his first two fertilization papers to his revised second paper (Newport 1851a, Section 2 “Changes after Spawning and Impregnation,” and Section 3 “Susceptibility of the Ovum”; AP/33/20, pp. 31–34; Newport PT/46/7, pp. 46, 60; Newport 1853d, Section 3 “Of the Ovum,” Section 4 “Endosmosis of the Egg in Relation to its Vitality,” and pp. 233–234, 270–271, 279, 281–284). He also reinterpreted his caustic potash experiments to support penetration (Newport PT/46/7, pp. 76–77; Newport 1853d, pp. 280–281).
His statement about embryonic axis ended the abstract for AP/33/20 ([Newport] 1851c, p. 84). He waited to report definitive results using the tube-cell until his 1854 paper (p. 241).
Referee report by Sharpey, Feb. 17, 1853, RR/2/167, RSLA; Referee report by Busk, March 15, 1853, RR/2/168, RSLA; Taylor (1971, pp. 144, 149–150).
Newport’s annotation for his last section “The Spermatozoon viewed as the Organ of a Special condition of Force” reads: “This section to be omitted in compliance with the urgent recommendations of the referees. GN April 19, 1853” (PT/46/7, p. 97). Newport rejected Barry’s submissions on spirals and sperm penetration. See Newport’s referee reports 1850–1855: “Report of ‘On the Penetration of the Spermatozoa into the Interior of the Ovum; a note showing this to have been recorded as an established fact in the Philosophical Transactions for 1843’ by Martin Barry,” April 27, 1853, RR/2/16, RSLA; “Report of ‘On Animal and Vegetable Fibre as Originally Composed of Twin Spiral Filaments in which every other structure has its origin: a note showing the confirmation by Agardh, in 1852, of observations recorded in the Philosophical Transactions for 1842,’ by Martin Barry.” April 28, 1853, RR/2/17, RSLA. See also Jacyna (2003, p. 80). Newport warned entomologists not to “make pseudo-discoveries which the vividness of his fancy can multiply to any extent” (Newport 1844a, p. 15).
Joseph Lister wrote that Sharpey was a witness in mid-March 1852 and decided that sperm do not penetrate. By November 12, 1852, he told Lister that he concurred with Newport that sperm do penetrate (Taylor 1971, p. 144).
Newport reported the observation in a long footnote dated April 18, 1853 to his revised second frog paper. He quoted Wagner and Leuckart (1849, p. 507) that fertilization is a “‘sacred mystery.’ It would be different if we could prove that the spermatozoa really yielded the material foundation for the body of the embryo; that they penetrated into the ovum, and were developed into the animal (which was the assumption of Leeuwenhœk, Andry, Guatier [sic]), or else, that they became metamorphosed into the central parts of the nervous system” (Newport 1853d, p. 271, italics in the original). For discussion of the relationship of spermatozoa to the offspring’s organ parts, especially the nervous system, see Dumas (1827, pp. 448–454), Farley (1982, pp. 41–42, 47), Gasking (1967, pp. 145–147), and Castellani (1980, p. 264).
Reflecting on his predecessor’s forgotten experiments, Roux concluded, “These and some other important observations of Newport seem to have met with no understanding among his contemporaries and therefore were entirely lost from memory…. Thus it came about that they remained infertile for science and were re-discovered only when adequate research was inaugurated methodically, establishing the facts anew: regrettably the usual fate of solitary achievements that exceed contemporary imagination” (English translation in Sander 1991, p. 119). Roux planned to write on Newport’s work (Roux 1887, pp. 210–211, 1895, pp. 416–418). See also Morgan (1897, pp. 42, 86).
Bischoff’s retraction came out “this spring 1854” (Newport 1854, p. 229). Carpenter said it was “almost contemporaneous” with the death of his “lamented friend” (Carpenter 1854, p. x). Claparède stated that Bestätigung appeared “a few months afterwards” (Claparède 1856, p. 299). Vogt dates it as March 25, 1854 (Vogt 1854, p. 225). Bischoff retained his view of catalysis despite his concession to Newport (Farley 1982, p. 63). Of the three recorded dates for Newport’s birth (February 4, 14, and July 4, 1803), most obituaries state he was 51 when he died. Newport claimed February 4 as his birthday, and descendant Stanley Newport determined his baptismal certificate was dated Feb. 27, 1803 (Coggon 2004). His colleagues made the donation “to commemorate their regret for the loss of a much esteemed colleague, and to testify their sense of the great services rendered by him to science” (Anon. 1854b, 1855). Newport’s sisters declined Sir John Forbes’s offer to sell their late brother’s gold Royal Medals for their inheritance (Forbes to Mrs. James Wilson and Mrs. George Turmaine, April and May 1854, in MS/236, nos. 23, 24, and 25, LSLA).
Newport conjectured that the mysterious “spherical bodies” (likely polar bodies) floating in the first cleft helped with head formation but not with the first cleft formation, which Bischoff had supposed. Newport states that Carus was the first to document spherical bodies in 1824 (Newport PT/49/2, pp. 11–16; Newport 1854, pp. 234–239).
Busk 1856–1859, “Lectures on Reproduction” I, pp. 7, 9–15; VIII, pp. 18–19; IX, pp. 1–2, Busk papers MS0293/1/2, 275.b.5, RCSE.
See Vienne (2009, 2014, 2018). Caneva (2021) has shown that Carpenter participated in the ongoing priority controversies about vital and physical force conversion well into the 1870s. For discussions on British reactions to transcendental tenets, see Jacyna (1981), Delorme (2016), and Richmond (2000). Newport’s career was entangled with institutional reform, from the bitter conflict over his first Royal Medal to his complaint in 1849 to the Royal Society Council about his exclusion from the Physiological Committee (“Mr. Newport Feb. 14. 1849 concerning the Physiological Committee,” MC/4/276, RSLA). Grant’s name was crossed out from the list of members and Newport’s written in after Grant refused Bell’s invitation (CMB/289, RSLA; [Wakley], Bell and Grant 1850; Manuel 1996, pp. 173–182, 197–201; Desmond 1989; Elwick 2007b).
Historians note that Naturphilosophie embedded sexual dichotomy in organic nature as an expression of fundamental polarities, and that Oken and Carus created a hierarchy that subordinated females to males. There is debate about whether, or the extent to which, Schelling privileged male over female qualities (Steigerwald 2019, pp. 291; Engelstein 2020; Lettow 2013, 2021; Stone 2006, 2014, 2020; Reill 2005, 2014).
Egg endosmosis facilitated or impeded the efficacy of sperm-force.
Archival Sources
RSLA: Royal Society of London archives, London, U. K.: Archived Papers [AP], Referee Reviews [RR], Miscellaneous Correspondence [MC], Philosophical Transactions manuscripts [PT], Committee Minute Books of the Royal Society [CMB]
LSLA: Linnean Society of London archives, London, U. K: Correspondence of George Newport MS/236; Society Papers [SP]
RCSE: Royal College of Surgeons of England, London, U. K: “Lectures 1810–1818; Hunterian Orations 1814–1842.” RCS-SCH/19/1. Busk 1856–1859, “Lectures on Reproduction,” Busk papers MS0293/1/2, 275.b.5.
References
A Member of the British Medical Association. 1840. Mr. Green and the Hunterian Oration. The Lancet 1839–1840 1 (861) [February 29]: 849–851.
Amundson, Ron. 2007. Richard Owen and Animal Form. In On the Nature of Limbs: A Discourse, ed. Ron Amundson, XV-LI. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anonymous. 1835. The Biology of Treviranus, [Review of] Die Erscheinungen und Gesetze des organischen Lebens (The Phenomena and Laws of Organic Life) by Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus, 2 vols. The Lancet 1 1835–1836 (642) [December 19, 1835]: 453–457.
Anonymous. 1838a. Rival Discoverers. London Medical Gazette 1837–1838a (March 3, 1838): 903–906.
Anonymous. 1838b. Controversy Between Drs. Grant and Hall, and Mr. Newport Respecting the Discoveries in the Nervous System of Insects, and The Rival Discoverers. British and Foreign Medical Review 5: 620–622.
Anonymous. 1838c. Westminster Medical Society, Dr. Hall on the Excito-Motory System. The Lancet 1838c-1839 1 (800) [December 29, 1838]: 532–533.
Anonymous. 1840. Mr. Green on Vital Dynamics. British and Foreign Medical Review 10: 545–547.
Anonymous. 1846. Review of a New Memoir on the Nervous System by Marshall Hall. The Lancet 2 (1197, 1198, 1200): 154–57; 186–89; 244–247; 250.
Anonymous. 1854a. Mr. G. Newport. Literary Gazette and Journal of Science and Art 1943 (April 15): 350.
Anonymous. 1854b. George Newport. Gentlemen’s Magazine 41 (195) [June]: 660–661.
Anonymous. 1855. The Late Mr. Newport. The Lancet 2 (1684) [December 8]: 554.
Anonymous. 1869. The Doctrine of the Correlation of the Vital and Physical Forces. British Medical Journal 1 (420) [Sat. January 16]: 50–51.
Anonymous. 1879. William Wilson Saunders. Nature 20 (Oct. 2): 536–537.
Appel, Toby A. 1987. The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate: French Biology in the Decades before Darwin. New York: Oxford University Press.
Asherson, Geoffrey L. 2004. Barry, Martin (1802–1855), Microscopist and Embryologist. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Barry, Martin. 1839. Researches in Embryology Second Series. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 129: 307–380.
Barry, Martin. 1844. Remarks on a work by Prof. Bischoff of Heidelberg entitled ‘Entwickelungsgeschichte des Kaninchen-Eies…’ (History of the Development of the Ovum of the Rabbit), 1842. London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 24 (156): 42–49.
Basalla, George, William Coleman, and Robert H. Kargon. 1970. Introduction to “Force and Energy in an Industrial Society by W. R. Grove, Nottingham 1866.” In Victorian Science: A Self-portrait from the Presidential Addresses of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, ed. George Basalla, W. R. Coleman, Robert H. Kargon, 87–97. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Beiser, Frederick C. 1987. The Fate of Reason: German Philosophy from Kant to Fichte. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Beiser, Frederick C. 2009. German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781–1801. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bell, Thomas. 1854. Anniversary Meeting. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 2 (1848–1855): 297–299; 309–312.
Bischoff, Theodor L. von. 1844. Professor Th. Bischoff's Reply to Dr. Martin Barry's “Remarks” on his “Entwickelungsgeschichte des Kaninchen-Eies.” London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 24 (159): 281–285.
Bischoff, Theodor L. von. 1847. Theorie der Befruchtung und über die Rolle, welche die Spermatozoïden dabei spielen. Müller Archiv für Anatomie, Physiologie und wissenschaftliche Medicin: 422–442.
Bischoff, Theodor L. von. 1854a. Widerlegung des von Dr. Keber bei den Najaden und Dr. Nelson bei den Ascariden behaupteten Eindringens der Spermatozoiden in das Ei. Giessen: J. Ricker’sche Buchhandlung.
Bischoff, Theodor L. von. 1854b. Bestätigung des von Dr. Newport bei den Batrachiern und Dr. Barry bei den Kaninchen behaupteten Eindringens der Spermatozoiden in das Ei. Mit einem Zusatz von Professor Dr. Rud. Leuckart. Geissen: J. Ricker’sche Buchhandlung.
Blesson, Ludwig. 1832. Observations on the Ignis Fatuus, or Will-with-the-Wisp, Falling Stars, and Thunder Storms. The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 14: 90–94.
Bodemer, Charles W. 1973. The Microscope in Early Embryological Investigation. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation 4 (3–4): 188–209.
Bonney, Thomas George. 1919. Annals of the Philosophical Club of the Royal Society Written from its Minute Books. London: MacMillan and Company Ltd.
Bowie, Andrew. 1993. Schelling and Modern European Philosophy: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
Bowie, Andrew. 1994. Translator's Introduction: Reassessing Schelling. In Schelling, F. W. J. von, On the History of Modern Philosophy, ed. Andrew Bowie, 1–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bowie, Andrew. 2020. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E. N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/schelling/.
Breidbach, Olaf, and Michael T. Ghiselin. 2002. Lorenz Oken and Naturphilosophie in Jena, Paris, and London. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 24 (2): 219–247.
Browne, Janet. 2002. Charles Darwin. Vol. 2, The Power of Place. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Burns, William. 2004. Science in Germany. In Encyclopedia of the Romantic Era 1760–1850, ed. Christopher John Murray. New York: Fitzroy Dearborn.
Caneva, Kenneth L. 1990. Essay Review: Teleology with Regrets. [Review of Timothy Lenoir, Strategy of Life]. Annals of Science 47 (3): 291–300.
Caneva, Kenneth L. 1997. Physics and Naturphilosophie: A Reconnaissance. History of Science. 35 (1): 35–106.
Caneva, Kenneth L. 2021. Helmholtz and the Conservation of Energy: Contexts of Creation and Reception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Canterbury Philosophical and Literary Institution (CPLI). 1827–1832. Annual Reports of the Canterbury Philosophical and Literary Institution, Presented at the Annual General Meetings 1827 to 1832. Canterbury: Mawer Cowtan, King's Arms Library and Elizabeth Wood.
Cantor, Geoffrey N. 1975. William Robert Grove, the Correlation of Forces, and the Conservation of Energy. Centaurus 19 (4): 273–290.
Cantor, Geoffrey N. 1991. Michael Faraday: Sandemanian and Scientist: A Study of Science and Religion in the Nineteenth Century. New York: MacMillan.
Capper, Charles. 1992. Margaret Fuller: An American Romantic Life, vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1837a. On the Voluntary and Instinctive Actions of Living Beings. Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal 48 (132): 22–44.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1837b. Lindley, Henslow, De Candolle, Treviranus, Raspail on Vegetable Physiology. British and Foreign Medical Review 4 (7, July): 1–30.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1838a. Review of “A History of the Inductive Sciences,” by Rev. W. Whewell. British and Foreign Medical Review 5 (10): 317–342.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1838b. On the Differences of the Laws Regulating Vital and Physical Phenomena. Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal 24: 327–353.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1839a. Prize Thesis. Inaugural Dissertation on the Physiological Inferences to be deduced from the Structure of the Nervous System in the Invertebrated Classes of Animals. Edinburgh: John Carfrae, South Bridge.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1839b. Principles of General and Comparative Physiology, Intended as an Introduction to the Study of Human Physiology, and as a Guide to the Philosophical Pursuit of Natural History. London: John Churchill.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1841. Outline of a Philosophical History of the Reproductive Function in Plants and Animals. Edinburgh Monthly Journal of Medical Science 1 (September): 655–657.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1843. Animal Physiology. London: William S. Orr.
[Carpenter, William Benjamin]. 1844. Hall and Newport on the Reflex Function of Animals. British and Foreign Medical Review 17 (Jan.-April): 171–188.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1845. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. British and Foreign Medical Review 19 (37): 155–181.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1847a. Professor Matteucci on the Physical Phenomena of Living Beings. British and Foreign Medical Review 23 (46): 377–409.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1847b. Professor Owen on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Vertebrate Animals. British and Foreign Medical Review 23 (46): 472–492.
[Carpenter, William Benjamin]. 1848a. Dalyell, Sars, Dujardin, and Van Beneden on the Development and Metamorphoses of Zoophytes. British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review 1: 183–214.
[Carpenter, William Benjamin]. 1848b. Dr. Pereira’s Edition of Matteucci’s Lectures. British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review 1: 228–235.
[Carpenter, William Benjamin?]. 1849a. Coleridge and Freke on Life. British and Foreign Medical Review 3 (January): 194–198.
[Carpenter, William Benjamin]. 1849b. Owen and Paget on Reproduction and Repair. British and Foreign Medical Review 4 (October): 409–449.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1850. On the Mutual Relations of the Vital and Physical Forces. Received and Read June 20, 1850. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 140: 727–757.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1851a. Principles of Physiology, General and Comparative, 3rd ed. London: John Churchill.
[Carpenter, William Benjamin]. 1851b. Grove, Carpenter, & c., on the Correlation of Forces, Physical and Vital. [Review of William Grove, William Carpenter, J. R. Mayer, C. B. Radcliffe, and C. M. Burnett]. British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review 8: 206–237.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1852. On the Relations of Mind and Matter. British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review 10 (October): 385–394.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1854. Principles of Comparative Physiology, 4th ed. London: John Churchill. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.50385.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1855. Principles of Human Physiology, 5th ed. London: John Churchill.
Carpenter, William Benjamin. 1857. The Microscope and its Revelations, 2nd ed. London: John Churchill. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.155665.
Carpenter, William Benjamin, and J. Estlin Carpenter. 1889. Nature and Man: Essays Scientific and Philosophical. New York: D. Appleton.
Carpenter, William Benjamin, and Marshall Hall. 1839. Excito-Motory System. Dr. Marshall Hall and Mr. Carpenter. The Lancet 1838–1839 1 (802) [January 12]: 581–584.
Carus, Carl Gustav. 1827. An Introduction to the Comparative Anatomy of Animals: Compiled with Constant Reference to Physiology, and Elucidated by Twenty Copper-plates. Translated from German by R. T. Gore. 2 vols. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green. https://wellcomecollection.org/works/f4x42dg9.
Carus, Carl Gustav. 1837. The Kingdoms of Nature, their Life and Affinity. Translated from Zeitschrift für Natur und Heilkunde, Band 1. Hefte 1. Dresden, 1819. In Scientific Memoirs, Selected from the Transactions of Foreign Academies of Science and Learned Societies, and from Foreign Journals, ed. Richard Taylor, 1: 223–254. London: Richard and John E. Taylor.
Carus, Carl Gustav. 1846. The King of Saxony's Journey through England and Scotland in the Year 1844. Translated by S. C. Davison. London: Chapman and Hall.
Castellani, Carlo. 1980. Fra preformismo e epigenesi: Le teorie di Prévost e Dumas. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 2 (2): 253–268.
Chambers, Robert. 1844. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. London: John Churchill. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.166214.
Cheung, Tobias. 2008. Regulating Agents, Functional Interactions, and Stimulus-Reaction-Schemes: The Concept of “Organism” in the Organic System Theories of Stahl, Bordeu, and Barthez. Science in Context 21 (4): 495–519.
Choi, Tina Young. 2007. Forms of Closure: The First Law of Thermodynamics and Victorian Narrative. ELH 74 (2): 301–322.
Churchill, Frederick. 1979. Sex and the Single Organism: Biological Theories of Sexuality in Mid-Nineteenth Century. In Studies in the History of Biology 3, ed. William Coleman and Camille Limoges, 139–177. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Churchill, Frederick. 1994. The Rise of Classical Descriptive Embryology. In A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology, ed. Scott F. Gilbert, 1–29. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ciardi, Marco. 2000. Falling Stars, Instruments and Myths: Volta and the Birth of Modern Meteorology. In Nuova Voltiana. Vol. 3, ed. Fabio Bevilacqua and Lucio Fregonese, 41–51. Milano: Hoepli.
Claparède, Édouard. 1856. The Theory of Fecundation of the Ovum. Translated by W. S. Dallas. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 2nd ser., 17 (100) [April]: 289–311.
Clarke, Edwin. 1974. Newport, George. In Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. Charles Coulston Gillispie. 10: 39–40. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Coggon, Jennifer. 2004. Newport, George (1803–1854), Entomologist. In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/20034.
Cole, F.J. 1930. Early Theories of Sexual Generation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Coleman, William. 1965. Cell, Nucleus, and Inheritance: An Historical Study. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 109 (3): 124–158.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. 1817. Biographia Literaria: or, Biographical Sketches of My Literary Life and Opinions. 2 vols. London: Rest Fenner. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uc2.ark:/13960/t6g160n2w.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. 1848. Hints Towards the Formation of a More Comprehensive Theory of Life. London: John Churchill. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.29000.
Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, Kathleen Coburn, and Merton Christensen. 1990. The Notebooks of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Vol. 4, 1819–1826 Notes. London: Routledge and K. Paul.
Corpe, Stella, and Anne M. Oakley. 1990. The Freemen of Canterbury: 1800–1835. Canterbury: Kent Record Collection.
Corsi, Pietro. 1988. The Age of Lamarck: Evolutionary Theories in France, 1790–1830. Translated by Jonathan Mandelbaum. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cranefield, Paul F. 1957. The Organic Physics of 1847 and the Biophysics of Today. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 12 (10): 407–423.
Cranefield, Paul F. 1966. The Philosophical and Cultural Interests of the Biophysics Movement of 1847. Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 21 (1): 1–7.
Culotta, Charles A. 1974. German Biophysics, Objective Knowledge, and Romanticism. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 4: 3–38.
Curle, Richard. 1954. The Ray Society: A Bibliographical History. London: Printed for the Ray Society.
Daston, Lorraine. 1982. The Theory of Will versus the Science of Mind. In The Problematic Science. Psychology in Nineteenth-Century Thought, ed. William Woodward and Mitchell Ash, 88–115. New York: Praeger.
Darwin, Charles. 1868. The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. 2. London: John Murray.
Davis, Gregory K. 2012. Cyclical Parthenogenesis and Viviparity in Aphids as Evolutionary Novelties. Journal of Experimental Zoology 318B: 448–459.
Dear, Peter. 2015. Romanticism and Victorian Scientific Naturalism. European Romantic Review 26 (3): 329–340.
DeJager, Timothy F. 1991. G. R. Treviranus (1776–1837) and the Biology of a World in Transition. PhD diss., University of Toronto.
Delorme, Shannon. 2014. Physiology or Psychic Powers? William Carpenter and the Debate over Spiritualism in Victorian Britain. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 48 (Part A): 57–66.
Delorme, Shannon D. 2016. The Unitarian Physiologist: Science and Religion in the Life and Work of William Benjamin Carpenter (1813-1885). PhD diss., University of Oxford.
Desmond, Adrian. 1984. Robert E. Grant: The Social Predicament of a Pre-Darwinian Transmutationist. Journal of the History of Biology 17 (2): 189–223.
Desmond, Adrian. 1989. The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Desmond, Adrian. 2004. Grant, Robert Edmond (1793–1874), Comparative Anatomist and Transmutationist. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/11286.
Di Gregorio, Mario, and N. W. Gill. 1990. Charles Darwin’s Marginalia, vol. 1. New York: Garland Publishing.
Dolnick, Edward. 2017. Seeds of Life: From Aristotle to Da Vinci, from Shark’s Teeth to Frogs’ Pants, the Long and Strange Quest to Discover Where Babies Come From. New York: Basic Books.
Dumas, Jean-Baptiste. 1827. Note de M. Dumas sur la théorie de la génération. Annales Des Sciences Naturelles 12: 443–454.
Dusek, Val. 1999. The Holistic Inspirations of Physics: The Underground History of Electromagnetic Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Dutrochet, René-Joachim-Henri. 1839. Endosmosis. In Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology, ed. Robert B. Todd. London: Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper.
Ecker, Joseph Alexander. 1883. Lorenz Oken, a Biographical Sketch, or, in Memoriam of the Centenary of His Birth. Translated by Alfred Tulk. London: Kegan Paul, Trench.
Edwards, Howell G. M. 2014. Will-o’-the-Wisp: An Ancient Mystery with Extremophile Origins? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 372: 20140206. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2014.0206.
Elinson, Richard. 1975. Site of Sperm Entry and a Cortical Contraction Associated with Egg Activation in the Frog Rana pipiens. Developmental Biology 47 (2): 257–268.
Elinson, Richard. 1977. Fertilization of Immature Frog Eggs: Cleavage and Development Following Subsequent Activation. Journal of Embryology and Experimental Morphology 37 (1977): 187–201.
Elinson, Richard. 1986. Fertilization in Amphibians: The Ancestry of the Block to Polyspermy. International Review of Cytology 101: 59–100.
Elinson, Richard. 1997. Amphibians. In Embryology: Constructing the Organism, ed. Scott Gilbert and Anne M. Raunio, 409–436. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
Elinson, Richard, and Mario E. Manes. 1978. Morphology of the Site of Sperm Entry on the Frog Egg. Developmental Biology 63 (1): 67–75.
Elwick, James. 2007a. Styles of Reasoning in Early to Mid-Victorian Life Research: Analysis: Synthesis and Palaetiology. Journal of the History of Biology 40 (1): 35–69.
Elwick, James. 2007b. Styles of Reasoning in the British Life Sciences: Shared Assumptions, 1820–1858. London: Pickering and Chatto.
Engelstein, Stefani. 2020. Sexual Division and the New Mythology: Goethe and Schelling. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 42: 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-020-00331-0.
Entomological Society of London. 1836–1861. “Catalogue of the Library,” “Additions to the Library,” “Catalogue of Books in the Library.” Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 1 (1836); 2 (1837–1840); 3 (1841–43); 4 (1845–1847); 5 (1847–49); n.s., 5 (1858–1861).
Farley, John. 1982. Gametes and Spores: Ideas about Sexual Reproduction 1750–1914. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fischer, Jean-Louis. 1994. Laurent Chabry and the Beginnings of Experimental Embryology in France. Translated by M. Krausz and Scott F. Gilbert. In A Conceptual History of Modern Embryology, ed. Scott F. Gilbert, 31–41. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Foote, George A. 1951. The Place of Science in the British Reform Movement 1830–50. Isis 42 (3): 192–208.
Foote, Yolanda. 2004. Saunders, William Wilson (1809–1879). In Dictionary of National Biography. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Forbes, Edward. 1854. On the Manifestation of Polarity in the Distribution of Organized Beings in Time. Notices of the Proceedings of the Meetings of the Members of the Royal Institution 1 [April 28]: 428–433.
Fowler, Richard. 1793. Experiments and Observations Relative to the Influence Lately Discovered by M. Galvani, and commonly called Animal Electricity. Edinburgh: T. Duncan, P. Hill, Robertson & Berry, and G. Mudie; London: J. Johnson.
Fowler, Richard. 1849. If Vitality be a Force having Correlations with the Forces, Chemical Affinities, Motion, Heat, Light, Electricity, Magnetism, Gravity, so Ably Shown by Professor Grove to be Modifications of One and the Same Force? Report of the Nineteenth Meeting for the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Birmingham in September 1849: 77–78.
French, Richard. 1971. Some Problems and Sources in the Foundations of Modern Physiology in Great Britain. History of Science 10: 28–55.
Friedman, Michael. 2007. Kant—Naturphilosophie—Electromagnetism. In Hans Christian Ørsted and the Romantic Legacy in Science: Ideas, Disciplines, Practices, ed. Robert M. Brain, Robert S. Cohen and Ole Knudsen, 135–158. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 241. Dordrecht: Springer.
Frison, Ed. 1961. The Belated Construction of Water Immersion Objectives in Britain. Journal of the Quekett Microscopical Club 4th ser. 5 (13): 349–357.
Gambarotto, Andrea. 2014. Teleology Beyond Regrets: On the Role of Schelling’s Organicism in Treviranus’ Biology. Verifiche 43 (1–4): 137–153.
Gambarotto, Andrea. 2017. Lorenz Oken (1779–1851): Naturphilosophie and the Reform of Natural History. British Journal for the History of Science 50 (2): 329–340.
Gambarotto, Andrea. 2018. Vital Forces, Teleology and Organization: Philosophy of Nature and the Rise of Biology in Germany, 1st ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Gasking, Elizabeth B. 1967. Investigations into Generation, 1651–1828. London: Hutchinson.
Geison, Gerald L. 1972. Social and Institutional Factors in the Stagnancy of English Physiology, 1840–1870. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 46 (1): 30–58.
Goodfield, June. 1975. The Growth of Scientific Physiology: Physiological Method and the Mechanist-Vitalist Controversy, Illustrated by the Problems of Respiration and Animal Heat. New York: Arno Press.
Gotesky, Rubin. [1967] 2006. Carus, Carl Gustav (1789–1869). In Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Donald M. Borchert, 2nd ed., 63–64. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA.
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1977. Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Grant, Iain Hamilton. 2008. Being and Slime: The Mathematics of Protoplasm in Lorenz Oken’s “Physio-Philosophy”. Collapse 4: 287–321.
Grant, Robert Edmond. 1833. Lectures on Comparative Anatomy and Animal Physiology, Delivered during the Session 1833–4. Lecture I. On the History and Present State of the Science. The Lancet 1833–1834 1 (528) [October 12, 1833]: 89–99.
Green, Joseph Henry. 1840. Vital Dynamics: The Hunterian Oration before the Royal College of Surgeons in London, 14th February 1840. London: William Pickering.
Green, Joseph Henry, and J. Simon 1865. Spiritual Philosophy: Founded on the Teaching of the Late Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Edited, with a Memoir of the Author’s Life, by John Simon, F.R.S. Vols. I and II. London and Cambridge: MacMillan and Co.
Grey, Robert D., Peter K. Working, and Jerry L. Hedrick. 1977. Alteration of Structure and Penetrability of the Vitelline Envelope after Passage of Eggs from Coelom to Oviduct in Xenopus Laevis. Journal of Experimental Zoology 201 (1 July): 73–83.
Grove, William Robert. 1846. On the Correlation of Physical Forces: Being the Substance of a Course of Lectures Delivered in the London Institution in the Year 1843. London: Charles Skipper and East.
Haeckel, Ernst. 1876. History of Creation, or, the Development of the Earth and Its Inhabitants by the Action of Natural Causes: Doctrine of Evolution in General, and of That of Darwin, Goethe, and Lamarck in Particular, from the German of Ernst Haeckel. Translation revised by E. Ray Lankester. Vol. 1. London: Henry S. King.
Hall, Marshall. 1837. Memoirs on the Nervous System. London: Sherwood, Gilbert, & Piper.
Hall, Thomas Steele. 1969. Ideas of Life and Matter: From the Enlightenment to the End of the Nineteenth Century. Vol. 2, Ideas of Life and Matter: Studies in the History of General Physiology, 600 B.C.-1900 A.D. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Hall, Vance. 1978. Some Contributions of Medical Theory to the Discovery of the Conservation of Energy Principle during the Late 18th and Early 19th Centuries. Ph. D. diss., Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, University of London.
Hall, Vance. 1979. The Contribution of the Physiologist William Carpenter (1813–1885) to the Development of the Principles of the Correlation of Forces and the Conservation of Energy. Medical History 23 (2): 129–155.
Hall, Vance. 1980. The Role of Force or Power in Liebig’s Physiological Chemistry. Medical History 24 (1): 20–59.
Hamm, Ernst P. 2000. Romanticism. In Reader’s Guide to the History of Science, ed. Arne Hessenbruck, 656–658. London: Fitzroy.
Hedrick, Jerry L., and Tatsuro Nishihara. 1991. Structure and Function of the Extracellular Matrix of Anuran Eggs. Journal of Electron Microscopy Techniques 17 (3): 319–335.
Hirai, Hiro. 2007. The Invisible Hand of God in Seeds: Jacob Schegk’s Theory of Plastic Faculty. Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007): 377–404.
Houghton, Walter E., ed. 1972. The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals 1824–1900. Volume II Tables of Contents and Identification of Contributors with Bibliographies of Their Articles and Stories and an Index of Initials and Pseudonyms. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Hughes, Arthur. 1955. Studies in the History of Microscopy 1. The Influence of Achromaticism. Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society 75 (1): 1–22.
Hughes, Arthur. 1956. Studies in the History of Microscopy. 2. The Later History of the Achromatic Microscope. Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society 76 (1–2): 47–60.
Hughes, Arthur. 1959. A History of Cytology. London and New York: Abelard-Schuman.
Hui, Yuk. 2016. The Parallax of Individuation. Angelaki 21 (4): 77–89.
Humphries, Paul. 2007. Blind Ambition: Geoffroy St-Hilaire’s Theory of Everything. Endeavour 31 (4): 134–139.
Hunt, Bruce J. 2010. Pursuing Power and Light : Technology and Physics from James Watt to Albert Einstein. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hunter, William B. 1950. The Seventeenth Century Doctrine of Plastic Nature. The Harvard Theological Review 43 (3): 197–213.
Huxley, Leonard, ed. 1900. Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley., vol. 1. New York: D. Appleton.
Huxley, Thomas H. 1858. On the Agamic Reproduction and Morphology of Aphis, Part I. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 22 (3): 193–219.
Jackson, Samuel. 1856. Introductory Essay on the Human Organism and its Forces with Remarks on Dr. Lehmann’s Doctrine of Vital Forces. In C. G. Lehmann, Manual of Chemical Physiology. Translated and edited by J. Cheston Morris, 19–47. Philadelphia, PA: Blanchard and Lea.
Jacyna, L. Stephen. 1981. The Physiology of Mind, the Unity of Nature, and the Moral Order in Victorian Thought. The British Journal for the History of Science 14 (2): 109–132.
Jacyna, L. Stephen. 1983. Immanence or Transcendence: Theories of Life and Organization in Britain, 1790–1835. Isis 74 (3): 311–329.
Jacyna, L. Stephen. 1984a. Principles of General Physiology: The Comparative Dimension to British Neuroscience in the 1830s and 1840s. Studies in History of Biology 7: 47–92.
Jacyna, L. Stephen. 1984b. The Romantic Programme and the Reception of the Cell Theory in Britain. Journal of the History of Biology 17 (1): 13–48.
Jacyna, L. Stephen. 1989. A Tale of Three Cities: The Correspondence of William Sharpey and Allen Thomson. Supplement 9, Medical History. London: Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine.
Jacyna, L. Stephen. 1990. Romantic Thought and the Origins of Cell Theory. In Romanticism and the Sciences, ed. Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas Jardine, 161–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jacyna, L. Stephen. 2003. Moral Fibre: The Negotiation of Microscopic Facts in Victorian Britain. Journal of the History of Biology 36: 39–85.
James, Felicity. 2006. Writing in Dissent: Coleridge and the Poetry of the Monthly Magazine. 19: Interdisciplinary Studies in the Long Nineteenth Century. https://doi.org/10.16995/ntn.448.
Kathirithamby, Jeyaraney, Michael Hrabar, Juan A. Delgado, Francisco Collantes, Stefan Dötterl, Donald Windsor, and Gerhard Gries. 2015. We Do Not Select, Nor Are We Choosy: Reproductive Biology of Strepsiptera (Insecta). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 116 (1): 221–238.
Keber, Gotthard August Ferdinand. 1853. De spermatozoorum Introitu in ovula. Königsberg: Gebruder Bornträger.
Knight, David M. 1986. The Age of Science: The Scientific World-view in the Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Knight, David M. 1990. Romanticism and the Sciences. In Romanticism and the Sciences, ed. Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas Jardine, 13–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Knox, Robert. 1852. Great Artists and Great Anatomists: A Biographical and Philosophical Study. London: John Van Voorst.
Knox, Robert. 1856. On Organic Harmonies: Anatomical Co-relations, and Methods of Zoology and Paleontology. Chapter 1. The Lancet 2 (1722) [August 30]: 245–247.
Kruta, Vladislav. 2008. Dutrochet, René-Joachim-Henri. In Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. Charles Coulston Gillispie, Frederic Lawrence Holmes, and Noretta Koertge. 4: 263–265. Detroit, MI: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1959. Energy Conservation as an Example of Simultaneous Discovery. In Critical Problems in the History of Science, ed. Marshall Clagett, 321–356. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Laqueur, Thomas Walter. 1990. Making Sex: Body and Gender From the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Larson, James L. 1979. Vital Forces: Regulative Principles or Constitutive Agents? A Strategy in German Physiology, 1786–1802. Isis 70 (2): 235–249.
Leeuwenhoek, Antonie van. 1700. A Letter from Mr. Anthony van Leuwenhoek. Concerning Some Insects Observed by Him on Fruit Trees (dated 26 October 1700). Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 22: 659–672.
Lenoir, Timothy. 1981. The Göttingen School and the Development of Transcendental Naturphilosophie in the Romantic Era. Studies in History of Biology 5: 111–205.
Lenoir, Timothy. 1982. The Strategy of Life: Teleology and Mechanics in Nineteenth Century German Biology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Lettow, Susanne. 2013. Modes of Naturalization. Sex, Race and Biology in Kant, Schelling, and Hegel. Philosophy and Social Criticism 39 (2): 117–131.
Lettow, Susanne. 2014. Introduction. In Reproduction, Race, and Gender in Philosophy and the Early Life Sciences, ed. S. Lettow, 1–17. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Lettow, Susanne. 2021. Conceiving Reproduction in German Naturphilosophie. Introduction. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 43 (2): 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-021-00399-2.
Levere, Trevor H. 1981. Poetry Realized in Nature: Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Early Nineteenth-century Science. Cambridge University Press.
Leys, Ruth. 1990. From Sympathy to Reflex: Marshall Hall and his Opponents. Harvard Dissertations in the History of Science, ed. Owen Gingerich. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Liebig, Justus, Freiherr von. 1842. Animal Chemistry, or, Organic Chemistry in its Applications to Physiology and Pathology, ed. William Gregory. London: Taylor and Walton.
Linnean Society of London. 1845, 1851, 1855. Catalogue of the Library of the Linnean Society. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 19: 505–527; 20: 483–498; 21: 317–345.
Lipman, Timothy O. 1966. The Response to Liebig’s Vitalism. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 40 (6): 511–524.
Lipman, Timothy O. 1967. Vitalism and Reductionism in Liebig’s Physiological Thought. Isis 58 (2): 167–185.
Manuel, Diana E. 1980. Marshall Hall, F.R.S. (1790–1857). A Conspectus of his Life and Work. Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science 35: 135–166.
Manuel, Diana E. 1996. Marshall Hall (1790–1857): Science and Medicine in Early Victorian Society. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Martins, Natália Abdalla. and Maria Elice Brzezinski. Prestes. 2018. A contribuição de George Newport (1803–1854) para a elucidação do papel dos componentes do sêmen masculino na reprodução animal. Khronos, Revista De História Da Ciência 5: 58–72.
Martins, Roberto De Andrade. 2007. Ørsted, Ritter and Magnetochemistry. [Ørsted, Ritter e a magnetoquímica]. In Hans Christian Ørsted and the Romantic Legacy in Science: Ideas, Disciplines, Practices, ed. Robert M. Brain, Robert S. Cohen, and Ole Knudsen, 339–385. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 241). New York: Springer.
Matteucci, Carlo. 1850a. Electro-Physiological Researches.—Eighth Series. Communicated by W. R. Grove, Esq., F.R.S. Received September 10, 1849,—Read January 10, 1850. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 140: 287–296.
Matteucci, Carlo. 1850b. Electro-Physiological Researches.—Ninth Series. Communicated by W. R. Grove, Esq., F.R.S. Received May 13, 1850,—Read June 20, 1850. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 140: 645–649.
Mayr, Ernst. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University.
McKendrick, John Gray. 1884. Obituary for Allen Thomson. Proceedings of the Philosophical Society of Glasgow 1883–1884 (15): 102–117.
McOuat, Gordon. 2017. “These Can Not All Have an Interest for England”: Symmetry, Beauty and the Trouble with Romanticism in Britain. In The Romance of Science: Essays in Honour of Trevor H. Levere, ed. J. Buchwald and L. Stewart, 163–180. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Meigs, James Aitken. 1868. Correlation of the Physical and Vital Forces: An Inaugural Address Introductory to the Course on Institutes of Medicine in the Jefferson Medical College, delivered October 12, 1868. Jefferson Medical College. Philadelphia, PA: Office of the Medical and Surgical Reporter.
Meyer, Arthur William. 1939. The Rise of Embryology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
[Mill, John Stewart]. 1840. [Review of the works of Samuel Taylor Coleridge]. London and Westminster Review 33 (65) [March]: 139–163. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015005912319.
Mitchell, Robert. 2013. Experimental Life: Vitalism in Romantic Science and Literature. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Moore, John A. 1987. Science as a Way of Knowing: Developmental Biology. American Zoologist 27 (2): 415–573.
Morgan, Thomas Hunt. 1897. The Development of the Frog’s Egg: An Introduction to Experimental Embryology. New York: MacMillan.
Morrell, Jack, and Arnold Thackray. 1981. Gentlemen of Science: Early Years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Morus, Iwan Rhys. 1991. Correlation and Control: William Robert Grove and the Construction of a New Philosophy of Scientific Reform. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 22 (4): 589–621.
Moruzzi, Guiseppe. 1974. Matteucci, Carlo. In Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. Charles Coulston Gillispie. 9–10: 176–177. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Mudie’s Select Library, London. 1857, 1858. Catalogue of New and Standard Works in Circulation at Mudie's Select Library. London: [no publisher].
Müller, Johannes. 1843. Elements of Physiology. Arranged by John Bell. Translated by William Baly. Philadelphia, PA: Lea and Blanchard.
Nelson, Henry. 1851a. On the Reproduction of the Ascaris mystax. Philosophical Magazine 4th ser., 2: 157–158.
Nelson, Henry. 1851b. On the Reproduction of the Ascaris mystax, read before the Royal Society on June 5, 1851. Abstracts of the Papers Communicated to the Royal Society of London 6 (1850–1854): 86–87.
Nelson, Henry. 1852. On the Reproduction of the Ascaris mystax. Communicated by Allen Thomson. Received May 22.—Read June 5, 1851. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 142: 563–594.
Newman, Edward. 1847. Preface. Zoologist: A Popular Miscellany of Natural History. 5: v-xii.
Newport, George. 1832. On the Nervous System of the Sphinx ligustri, Linn., and on the Changes Which It Undergoes during a Part of the Metamorphoses of the Insect. Read June 7, 1832. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 122: 383–398 with plates.
Newport, George. 1834. On the Nervous System of the Sphinx ligustri, Linn., (Part II.) during the Latter Stages of Its Pupa and Its Imago State; And on the Means by Which Its Development is Effected. Received March 6,—Read June 19, 1834. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 124: 389–423.
Newport, George. 1836a. On the Respiration of Insects. Read June 16, 1836. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 126: 529–566.
Newport, George. 1836b. On the Predaceous Habits of the Common Wasp, Vespa vulgaris, Linn. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London 1: 228–229.
Newport, George. 1837. On the Temperature of Insects, and its Connexion with the Functions of Respiration and Circulation in this Class of Invertebrated Animals. Received June 5, Read June 15, 1837. Communicated by P. M. Roget. M.D. Sec. R. S. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 127: 259–338.
Newport, George. 1839. Insecta. London: Marchant Printer Ingram-Court. [Offprint of Insecta entry in Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology, ed. R. B. Todd, 2: 853–994. London: Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper.] https://hdl.handle.net/2027/osu.32435009156605.
Newport, George. 1841. The Bakerian Lecture.—On the Organs of Reproduction, and the Development of the Myriapoda.—First Series. Received and Read June 17, 1841. Communicated by Peter Mark Roget. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 131: 99–130.
Newport, George. 1843. On the Structure, Relations and Developement of the Nervous and Circulatory Systems, and on the Existence of a Complete Circulation of the Blood in Vessels, in Myriapoda and Macrourous Arachnida.—First series. Communicated by P. M. Roget. Received and Read April 6, 1843. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 133: 243–302 plus plates.
Newport, George. 1844a. An Address delivered at the Anniversary Meeting of the Entomological Society of London on the 22nd January, 1844a by George Newport, President. London: Richard and John E. Taylor: Entomological Society of London.
Newport, George. 1844b. A List of the Species of Myriapoda, Order Chilopoda, Contained in the Cabinets of the British Museum, with Synoptic Descriptions of Forty-seven New Species. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History; Zoology, Botany, and Geology 13 (82) [February]: 94–105.
Newport, George 1844c. Monograph of the Class Myriapoda, Order Chilopoda; with Observations on the General Arrangement of the Articulata. Read March 19, April 2, and April 16, 1844. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 19 (3) [November 1844]: 265–302 and (4) [November 1845]: 349–439.
Newport, George. 1845. An Address delivered at the Adjourned Anniversary Meeting of the Entomological Society of London on the 10th of February 1845, by George Newport, President. London: Richard and John E. Taylor and the Entomological Society of London.
Newport, George. 1847a. On the Natural History, Anatomy and Development of the Oil Beetle, Meloë, more especially of Meloë cicatricosus, Leach. First Memoir: Natural History of Meloë. Read November 18, 1845. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 20 (2) [December 1847a]: 297–320.
Newport, George. 1847b. Note on the Generation of Aphides. Read April 7, 1846. Communicated by the Secretary. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 20 (2) [December 1847b]: 281–283.
Newport, George. 1847c. The Natural History, Anatomy, and Development of Meloë (continued). Second Memoir: The History and General Anatomy of Meloë, and its Affinities, compared with those of the Strepsiptera and Anoplura, with Reference to the Connexion which exists between Structure, Function, and Instinct. Read Jan. 19, 1847c. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 20 (2) [December 1847]: 321–357 with plate.
Newport, George. 1850a. On the Reciprocal Relation of the Vital and Physical Forces. Report of the Twentieth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science; Held at Edinburgh in July and August 1850a. 1850: 133–134.
Newport, George. 1850b. On the Reciprocal Relation of the Vital and Physical Forces. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2nd ser., 6 (35): 370–376.
Newport, George. 1851a. On the Impregnation of the Ovum in the Amphibia. (First series). Received and Read June 20, 1850. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 141: 169–242.
Newport, George. 1851b. On the Anatomy and Affinities of Pteronarcys regalis, Newm.: with a Postscript, containing Descriptions of some American Perlidæ, together with Notes on their Habits. Read May 2, and June 20, 1848. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 20 (3) [May 1851b]: 425–452 plus plate.
[Newport, George]. 1851c. On the Impregnation of the Ovum in the Amphibia (Second Series), and on the Nature of the Impregnating Influence. Received June 19, 1851. Abstracts of the Papers Communicated to the Royal Society of London 6 (1850–1854): 82–84.
Newport, George. 1852. ‘Notes on the Impregnation of the Ovum in the Amphibia:’ in a letter to Thomas Bell, Sec. R.S. Received April 27 and Read April 29, 1852. Abstracts of the Papers Communicated to the Royal Society of London 6 (1850–54): 171–172.
Newport, George. 1853a. The Natural History, Anatomy and Development of Meloë (continued). Third Memoir: The External Anatomy of the Larva of Meloë in its Relation to the Laws of Development. Read Nov. 2, 1847. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 21 (Part II 1853a): 167–183, 184 (plate).
Newport, George. 1853b. Anatomy and Development of Certain Chalcididæ and Ichneumonidæ compared with their Special Œconomy and Instincts; with Descriptions of a new Genus and Species of Bee-Parasites. Read March 20, 1849 and June 5, 1849. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 21 (Part I 1852): 61–77; (Part II 1853b): 85–93 plus plates.
Newport, George. 1853c. Further Observations on the Habits of Monodontomerus; with some Account of a new Acarus (Heteropus ventricosus), a Parasite in the Nests of Anthophora retusa. Read March 5, 1850. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 21 (Part II June 1853c): 95–102.
Newport, George. 1853d. On the Impregnation of the Ovum in the Amphibia. (Second Series, Revised) And on the Direct Agency of the Spermatozoon. Received May 10,—Read June 17, 1852. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 143: 233–290.
Newport, George. 1854. Researches on the Impregnation of the Ovum in the Amphibia; and on the Early Stages of Development of the Embryo (Third Series) by the late George Newport. Selected and Arranged from the Author’s MSS by George Viner Ellis, Professor of Anatomy in University College, London. Communicated by Sir John Forbes. Received June 6th—Read June 15, 1854. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 144: 229–244.
Newport, George. 1855. On the Natural History of the Glowworm (Lampyris noctiluca). Prepared from the Author’s MS by George Viner Ellis, Esq. Professor of Anatomy in University College, London. Communicated by the Secretary. Read Dec. 18, 1855. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London Zoology 1 (1857): 40–71.
Newport, George, Marshall Hall, and Robert Grant. 1837–1838. Letters to the Editor and Editorials. The Lancet 1846 1[1183] pp. 59–510) 1836–1837 1 (699–702): 624, 656, 715–716, 799–800. 1837–1838 1 (754–760): 715, 746–749, 812–817, 859–860, 897–900, 950–952; 2 (761–764): 17–18, 118–120. 1846 1 (1179–1189): 391–393, 418–420; 445–446; 469–474, 482–484, 499–501, 509–510, 529–530, 556–557, 559–560, 583–585; 608–610, 634–637, 661–662; 2 (1208–1214): 460–461, 568, 621.
Newport, Hall, and Grant. 1837–1846. Letters to the Editor. London Medical Gazette 1837–1838, 21 (537): 930–932, 970–973, 985–986, 1846 1 [1183], pp. 509–510)
Nyhart, Lynn K. 1995. Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800–1900. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Oken, Lorenz. 1847. Elements of Physiophilosophy. Translation of Lehrbuch der Naturphilosophie by Alfred Tulk. London: Printed for the Ray Society.
Owen, Richard. 1840. Lectures on the Organs of Reproduction in the Animal Kingdom Delivered in the Royal College of Surgeons, London. Lectures 1–23. The Lancet 1839–1840 2 (871–888); 1840–1841 1 (891–916).
Owen, Richard. 1843. Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Invertebrate Animals Delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons in 1843 By Richard Owen F.R.S., Hunterian Professor to the College, From Notes Taken by William White Cooper, M.R.C.S. and revised by Professor Owen. London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans.
Owen, Richard. 1847. Report on the Archetype and Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton. From the Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science for 1846. London: Richard and John E. Taylor.
Owen, Richard. 1848. On the Archetype and Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton. London: Richard and John E. Taylor.
Owen, Richard. 1849a. Hunterian Lectures on the Generation and Development of the Invertebrated Animals. Medical Times 19–21.
Owen, Richard. 1849b. On Parthenogenesis, or the Successive Production of Procreating Individuals from a Single Ovum. A Discourse Introductory to the Hunterian Lectures on Generation and Development, for the Year 1849b, Delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons of England. London: John Van Voorst.
Owen, Richard. 1992. The Hunterian Lectures in Comparative Anatomy, May and June 1837. Edited with an Introductory Essay and Commentary by Phillip Reid Sloan. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Parsons, William (Earl of Rosse). 1851. At the Anniversary Meeting, December 1, 1851. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 6: 114–115.
Pearce, Trevor. 2010. From ‘Circumstances’ to ‘Environment’: Herbert Spencer and the Origins of the Idea of Organism-Environment Interaction. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part c: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 41 (3): 241–252.
Pigot, J., and Company. 1824. [Pigot's directory of Kent, 1824]. In Pigot and Co's London and Provincial New Commercial Directory for 1823–4: 376–420. London: J. Pigot.
Prevost, Jean-Louis, and Jean-Baptiste Dumas. 1824. Deuxième Mémoire sur la Génération. Rapport de l’œuf avec la liqueur fécondante. Phénomènes appréciables, résultant de leur action mutuelle. Dévelopment de l’œuf des Batraciens. Annales des sciences naturelles 2: 100–121; 129–149.
Purvis, Zachary. 2015. Quiet War in Germany: Friedrich Schelling and Friedrich Schleiermacher. Journal of the History of Ideas 76 (3): 369–391.
Quekett, John. 1852. A Practical Treatise on the Use of the Microscope, including the Different Methods of Preparing and Examining Animal, Vegetable, and Mineral Structures, 2nd ed. London: H. Bailliere.
Quick, Tom. 2011. Techniques of Life: Zoology, Psychology, and Technical Subjectivity (c.1820–1890). PhD diss., University College London.
Rajan, Tilottama. 2018. The Asystasy of the Life Sciences: Schelling, Hunter and British Idealism. Kabiri: The Official Journal of the North American Schelling Society 1: 47–68.
Rajan, Tilottama. 2019. Immunitary Foreclosures: Schelling and British Idealism. International Journal of Philosophy and Theology 80 (1–2): 39–56.
Ransom, William Henry. 1854. On the Impregnation of the Ovum in the Stickleback. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 7 (1854–1855): 168–172.
Ransom, William Henry. 1867. Observations on the Ovum of Osseous Fishes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 157: 431–501.
Ray Society. 1847a. “The Laws of the Ray Society,” “Regulations for the Delivery of Books,” and “Report of the Ray Society for the Year Ending June 19, 1847a,” which are subsections of Report of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Ray Society; Held at Oxford, June 26, 1847. In Reports on Zoology for 1843, 1844. Translated from the German by George Busk, Alfred Tulk, and Alexander H. Haliday, 7–8. London: Printed for the Ray Society.
Ray Society. 1847b. List of Officers, Local Secretaries, and Subscribers. In Reports on Zoology for 1843, 1844. Translated from the German by George Busk, Alfred Tulk, and Alexander H. Haliday. London: Printed for the Ray Society.
Ray Society. 1849. Report of the Council of the Ray Society, Read at the Sixth Anniversary, Held at Birmingham, Sept. 17, 1849. In Ray Society Reports and Papers on Botany. London: Printed for the Ray Society.
Ray Society. 1851. List of Subscribers. In Leighton, Rev. W. L. 1851. The British Species of Angiocarpous Lichens Elucidated by their Sporidia. London: Ray Society.
Rehbock, Philip F. 1983. The Philosophical Naturalists: Themes in Early Nineteenth-Century British Biology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Reill, Peter Hanns. 2005. Vitalizing Nature in the Enlightenment. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Reill, Peter Hanns. 2014. The Scientific Construction of Gender and Generation in the German Late Enlightenment and in German Romantic Naturphilosophie. In Reproduction, Race, and Gender in Philosophy and the Early Life Sciences, ed. S. Lettow, 65–82. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Richards, Evelleen. 1987. A Question of Property Rights: Richard Owen’s Evolutionism Reassessed. The British Journal for the History of Science 20 (2): 129–171.
Richards, Evelleen. 1989. The “Moral Anatomy” of Robert Knox: The Interplay between Biological and Social Thought in Victorian Scientific Naturalism. Journal of the History of Biology 22 (3): 373–436.
Richards, Evelleen. 1994. A Political Anatomy of Monsters, Hopeful and Otherwise: Teratogeny, Transcendentalism, and Evolutionary Theorizing. Isis 85 (3): 377–411.
Richards, Robert J. 2000. Kant and Blumenbach on the Bildungstrieb: A Historical Misunderstanding. Studies in the Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences 31 (1): 11–32.
Richards, Robert J. 2002. The Romantic Conception of Life: Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Richards, Robert J. 2020. Romantic Biology: Carl Gustav Carus at the Edge of the Modern. In The Palgrave Handbook of German Romantic Philosophy, ed. E. Millán Brusslan, 347–374. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richmond, Marsha L. 2000. T. H. Huxley's Criticism of German Cell Theory: An Epigenetic and Physiological Interpretation of Cell Structure. Journal of the History of Biology 33 (2): 247–289.
Roget, Peter Mark. 1832. Treatises on Electricity, Galvanism, Magnetism, and Electro-magnetism. Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. London: Baldwin and Cradock.
Roget, Peter Mark. 1834. Animal and Vegetable Physiology, Considered with Reference to Natural Theology. 2 vols. London: William Pickering.
[Roget, Peter Mark]. 1836. November 30, 1836. At the Anniversary Meeting of the Royal Society. Abstracts of the Papers Printed in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 3 (1830–1837): 444–446.
Roget, Peter Mark. 1846. Dr. Roget’s Bridgewater Treatise. (Dr. Roget’s Reply to Professor Grant.) The Lancet 1 (1182) [April 25]: 482–483.
Rosenfeld, Louis. 2003. Justus Liebig and Animal Chemistry. Clinical Chemistry 49 (10): 1696–1707.
Rosevear, Alan, Dan Bogart, and Leigh Shaw-Taylor. 2019. The Spatial Patterns of Coaching in England and Wales from 1681 to 1836: A Geographic Information Systems Approach. Journal of Transport History 40 (3): 418–444.
Rothschuh, Karl Eduard. 2008. Bischoff, Theodor Ludwig Wilhelm. In Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. Charles Coulston Gillispie, Frederic Lawrence Holmes, and Noretta Koertge, 2: 160–162. Detroit, MI: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Roux, Wilhelm. 1887. Beiträge zur Entwickelungsmechanik des Embryo, Nr. 4. Die Richtungsbestimmung der Medianebene des Froschembryo durch die Copulationsrichtung des Eikernes und des Spermakernes. Archiv für Mikroskopische Anatomie 29: 157–212.
Roux, Wilhelm. 1895. Gesammelte Abhandlungen über Entwickelungsmechanik der Organismen. Zweiter Band. Abhandlung XIII-XXXIII, über Entwickelungsmechanik des Embryo. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
Royal Society of London. 1839. Catalogue of the Scientific Books in the Library of the Royal Society. London: R. and J. E. Taylor.
Rupke, Nicolaas A. 1985. Richard Owen’s Hunterian Lectures on Comparative Anatomy and Physiology, 1837–55. Medical History 29: 237–258.
Rupke, Nicolaas A. 1993. Richard Owen’s Vertebrate Archetype. Isis 84 (2): 231–251.
Rupke, Nicolaas A. 1994. Richard Owen: Victorian Naturalist. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Rupke, Nicolaas A. 2009. Richard Owen: Biology without Darwin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Russell, Edward Stuart. 1982. Form and Function: A Contribution to the History of Animal Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ruston, Sharon. 2013. Creating Romanticism: Case Studies in the Literature, Science and Medicine of the 1790s. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Sabra, Abdelhamid. 1987. The Appropriation and Subsequent Naturalization of Greek Science in Medieval Islam: A Preliminary Statement. History of Science 25 (3): 223–243.
Sander, Klaus. 1991. Wilhelm Roux on Embryonic Axes, Sperm Entry and the Grey Crescent. Landmarks in Developmental Biology 200 (3): 117–119.
Sanford, Fernando. 1919. Ignis Fatuus. The Scientific Monthly 9 (4): 358–365.
Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von and Robert Stern. (1797) 1988. Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature as Introduction to the Study of this Science. Translated from the 1803 2nd edition by Errol E. Harris and Peter Heath. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schloegel, Judy Johns. 2002. Developmental Biology: Pre-Seventeenth Century to Nineteenth Century. In History of Modern Science and Mathematics, vol. 2, ed. Brian Baigrie, 237–272. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Secord, Anne. 1994. Corresponding Interests: Artisans and Gentlemen in Nineteenth-Century Natural History. British Journal for the History of Science 27 (4): 383–408.
Secord, James A. 1989. Extraordinary Experiment: Electricity and the Creation of Life in Victorian England. In The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, ed. David Gooding, Trevor Pinch, and Simon Schaffer, 337–383. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Secord, James A. 2000. Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sedgwick, Adam. 1850. A Discourse on the Studies of the University of Cambridge with Additions and a Preliminary Dissertation. 5th ed. Cambridge: John Deighton; London: John W. Parker.
Sharpey, William. 1831. Remarks on a Supposed Spontaneous Motion of the Blood. (In a Letter to the Editor.) Dated January 18, 1831. Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographical Science n.s. 3 [February]: 117–119. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/2499452.
Sharpey, William. 1836. Cilia. In Cyclopedia of Anatomy and Physiology, ed. Robert Todd, 1: 606–638. London: Sherwood, Gilbert and Piper.
[Sharpey, William.] 1854. Obituary Notices of Some of the Deceased Fellows. [Citation for George Newport.] Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 7 (1854–1855): 278–285.
Shepherd, Richard Herne. 1900. The Bibliography of Coleridge: A Bibliographical List Arranged in Chronological Order of the Published and Privately-Printed Writings in Verse and Prose of Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Including His Contributions to Annuals, Magazines, and Periodical Publications; Posthumous Works, Memoirs, Editions, Etc. Revised, Corrected and Enlarged by Colonel W. F. Prideaux, C.S.I. London: Frank Hollings.
Siebold, Carl Theodor Ernst von. 1857. On a True Parthenogenesis in Moths and Bees; a Contribution to the History of Reproduction in Animals. English translation of Wahre Parthenogenesis bei Schmetterlingen und Bienen by William S. Dallas. London: J. Van Voorst. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.31177.
Singer, Charles. 1951. A History of Biology. Revised. New York: Henry Schuman.
Sloan, Phillip R. 1985. Darwin’s Invertebrate Program, 1826–1836: Preconditions for Transformism. In The Darwinian Heritage, ed. D. Kohn, 71–120. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sloan, Phillip R. 1986. Darwin, Vital Matter, and the Transformism of Species. Journal of the History of Biology 19 (3): 369–445.
Sloan, Phillip R. ed. 1992. Introductory Essay: On the Edge of Evolution. In The Hunterian Lectures in Comparative Anatomy, May and June 1837. Edited with an Introductory Essay and Commentary by Phillip Reid Sloan, 1-72. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sloan, Phillip. R. 2001. “The Sense of Sublimity”: Darwin on Nature and Divinity. Osiris 16: 251–269.
Sloan, Phillip. R. 2003. Whewell’s Philosophy of Discovery and the Archetype of the Vertebrate Skeleton: The Role of German Philosophy of Science in Richard Owen’s Biology. Annals of Science 60 (1): 39–61.
Sloan, Phillip R. 2007. Kant and British Bioscience. In Understanding Purpose: Kant and the Philosophy of Biology, ed. P. Huneman, 149–171. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press and Boydell and Brewer.
Smit, P. 1976. Treviranus, Gottfried Reinhold. In Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. Charles Coulston Gillespie, 13: 460–462. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Smith, Crosbie. 1998. The Science of Energy: A Cultural History of Energy Physics in Victorian Britain. London: Althone Press.
Smith, Roger. 1973. The Background of Physiological Psychology in Natural Philosophy. History of Science 11: 75–123.
Smith, Roger. 1977. The Human Significance of Biology: Carpenter, Darwin and the vera causa. In Nature and the Victorian Imagination, ed. U.C. Knoepflmacher and G.B. Tennyson, 216–230. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Smith, Roger. 2004. Carpenter, William Benjamin (1813–1885) Biologist and University Administrator. In New Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Snelders, H.A.M. 1990. Oersted’s Discovery of Electromagnetism. In Romanticism and the Sciences, ed. Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas Jardine, 228–240. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sobel, Barry J. 2013–2017. Liveboxes: A Brief Review of the Main Types of Livebox and How They Work. Antique Microscopes and Other Antique Scientific Instruments. http://www.microscope-antiques.com/liveboxes.html.
Steigerwald, Joan. 2002. Epistemologies of Rupture: The Problem of Nature in Schelling’s Philosophy. Studies in Romanticism 41 (4): 545–584.
Steigerwald, Joan. 2007. Figuring Nature: Ritter’s Galvanic Inscriptions. European Romantic Review 18 (2): 255–263.
Steigerwald, Joan. 2013. Rethinking Organic Vitality in Germany at the Turn of the Nineteenth Century. In Vitalism and the Scientific Image in Post-Enlightenment Life Science, 1800–2010, ed. Sebastian Normandin and Charles T. Wolfe, 51–75. Dordrecht: Springer.
Steigerwald, Joan. 2014. Treviranus’ Biology: Generation, Degeneration, and the Boundaries of Life. In Reproduction, Race, and Gender in Philosophy and the Early Life Sciences, ed. S. Lettow, 105–127. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Steigerwald, Joan. 2015. Ground and Grounding: The Nature of Things in Schelling’s Philosophy. Symposium 19 (1): 176–197.
Steigerwald, Joan. 2017. Degeneration: Inversions of Teleology. In Marking Time: Romanticism and Evolution, ed. Joel Faflak, 270–299. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Steigerwald, Joan. 2019. Experimenting at the Boundaries of Life: Organic Vitality in Germany around 1800. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Stephens, James Francis. 1828. Illustrations of British Entomology; or, A synopsis of Indigenous Insects: Containing their Generic and Specific Distinctions. Volume I: Haustellata. London: Baldwin and Cradock.
Stephens, James Francis. 1829. A Systematic Catalogue of British Insects: Being an Attempt to Arrange all the hitherto Discovered Indigenous Insects in accordance with their Natural Affinities. London: Baldwin and Cradock.
Stone, Alison. 2006. Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stone, Alison. 2014. Sexual Polarity in Schelling and Hegel. In Reproduction, Race, and Gender in Philosophy and the Early Life Sciences, ed. S. Lettow, 259–281. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Stone, Alison. 2018. Nature, Ethics, and Gender in German Romanticism and Idealism. London: Rowman and Littlefield.
Stone, Alison. 2020. Nature, Freedom, and Gender in Schelling. In Schelling's Philosophy: Freedom, Nature, and Systematicity, ed. G. Anthony Bruno, 168–184. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Taylor, D.W. 1971. The Life and Teaching of William Sharpey (1802–1880), “Father of Modern Physiology” in Britain. Medical History 15 :126–153, 241–259.
Temkin, Owsei. 1946. Materialism in French and German Physiology of the Early Nineteenth Century. Bulletin of the History of Medicine 20: 322–327.
Thackray, John C. 1992. A Catalogue of the Correspondence, Manuscripts, and Drawings of Richard Owen, William Clift, and Sir Everard Home contained within the Owen Collection at The Natural History Museum. In Richard Owen Commemoration: Three Studies, ed. Jacob W. Gruber and John C. Thackray, 95–180. London: Natural History Museum Publications. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.87002.
Thomson, Allen. 1856. Ovum. London: no publisher identified. [From an offprint of his entry in Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology, ed. Robert E. Todd. London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans and Roberts]. https://wellcomecollection.org/works/zjtm6bjr.
Thomson, J. Arthur. 1887. Synthetic Summary of the Influence of the Environment upon the Organism. Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh 9 (1885–1888): 446–499.
Treviranus, Gottfried Reinhold. 1835. Ueber die organischen Körper des thierischen Saamens und deren Analogie mit dem Pollen der Pflanzen. Zeitschrift fūr Physiologie 5 (2): 136–153.
Twyman, Alan. 1988. In Search of the Mysterious Doctor Weekes: A Fragment of Sandwich History. Dover, England: A. R. Adams and Sons.
Valier, H. K. 2004. Newport, George (1803–1854). Dictionary of Nineteenth-Century British Scientists 3, ed. Bernard Lightman. Bristol, England: Thoemmes Continuum.
van Heteren, Godelieve. 1995. Students Facing Boundaries: The Shift of Nineteenth-Century British Student Travel to German Universities and the Flexible Boundaries of a Medical Educational System. In The History of Medical Education in Britain, ed. Vivian Nutton and Roy Porter, 280–340. Leiden: Brill.
Vienne, Florence. 2009. Vom Samentier zur Samenzelle: Die Neudeutung der Zeugung im 19. Jahrhundert. Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 32 (3): 215–229.
Vienne, Florence. 2014. Organic Molecules, Parasites, Urthiere: The Controversial Nature of Spermatic Animals, 1749–1841. Translated by Kate Sturge. In Reproduction, Race and Gender in Philosophy and the Early Life Sciences, ed. S. Lettow, 45–63. New York: SUNY Press.
Vienne, Florence. 2015. Seeking the Constant in What Is Transient: Karl Ernst von Baer’s Vision of Organic Formation. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 37 (1): 34–49.
Vienne, Florence. 2018. Eggs and Sperm as Germ Cells. In Reproduction: Antiquity to the Present Day, ed. N. Hopwood, R. Flemming, and L. Kassell, 413–426. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vogt, Carl. 1854. Sur la pénétration de l’œuf par les Zoospermes. Bulletin de l'Institut national genevois, Section des sciences naturelles et mathématique 4 (Juillet): 223–225.
Wagner, Rudolph, and Rudolf Leuckart. 1849. Semen. In The Cyclopaedia of Anatomy and Physiology, ed. Robert Bentley Todd, 472–508. 4 pt. 1 (1847–1849). London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, & Roberts. [First issued as a supplement pt. 34, January 1849.]
[Wakley, Thomas], Peter Mark Roget, and George Newport. 1846. Editorials and Letters to the Editor. The Lancet 1 (1179): 391–393; (1180): 418–420; (1181): 445–446; (1182): 469–474, 482–484; (1183): 499–501, 509–510; (1184): 529–530; (1185) 556–557, 559–560; (1186): 583–585; (1187): 608–610; (1188): 634–637; (1189): 661–662; 2 (1208): 460–461; (1212): 568; (1214): 621.
[Wakley, Thomas], Thomas Bell, and Robert Grant. 1850. Editorial and Letters. The Lancet 1 (1377) [January 19]: 88–89.
Waller, John C. 2003. Parents and Children: Ideas of Heredity in the 19th Century. Endeavour 27 (2): 51–56.
Werner, Petra. 2001. Humboldt als Vermittler: Schleiden und Mohl contra Liebig. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 23 (2): 213–257.
Westwood, John Obadiah. 1835. Address on the Recent Progress and Present State of Entomology, Read at the Anniversary Meeting of the Entomological Society, on the 21st January 1835. The Transactions of the Entomological Society of London 3 (1841–1843): 1–23.
Whewell, William. 1840. The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded Upon Their History. Vol. 1. Cambridge: J. and J. J. Deighton; London: J. W. Parker.
Whewell, William. 1849. On the Idea of Polarity [Address to the Royal Institution]. Athenaeum 1110: 119–120.
Whistler, Daniel. 2016. Schelling on Individuation. Comparative and Continental Philosophy 8 (3): 329–344.
White, P.J. 1971. Materialism and the Concept of Motion in Locke’s Theory of Sense-Idea Causation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A 2 (2): 97–134.
Whiteley, Giles. 2018. Schelling’s Reception in Nineteenth-Century British Literature. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95906-1.
Zammito, John H. 2018. The Gestation of German Biology: Philosophy and Physiology from Stahl to Schelling. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Acknowledgements
For my U. K. research I am deeply indebted to Gina Douglas and Andrea Deneau at the Linnean Society of London; Mary Sampson, Ellen Embleton, Rupert Baker, and Virginia Mills at the Royal Society of London; Berit Pedersen at the Royal Entomological Society; John Thackray at the Natural History Museum; Claire Jackson at the Royal College of Surgeons of England; Susan Stead at University College London; and John and Christine Muggleton for their warm hospitality. My heartfelt thanks to Stanley Newport, Tina Machado, and Alan Twyman for a deeper understanding of Newport’s Canterbury life. R. Jordan Kreindler offered me his expertise on Victorian microscopes. Alan Rosevear calculated stage coach speed and Jeyaraney Kathirithamby guided my understanding of Stylops anatomy. Rick Elinson introduced me to frog egg fertilization techniques and Newport’s embryological legacy. Special thanks to Bert Hall, Janis Langins, and Chen-Pang Yeang at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology. Neil Egsgard, Katharina Heinz, and Simone Klutzny translated German primary sources for me. John Shoesmith at the Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library, University of Toronto supplied Fig. 8b. Christian Nelson helped me adapt Newport’s illustrations. Readers of earlier versions offered me invaluable advice: Frederick Churchill, James Elwick, John Farley, Michelle Fost, Hormoz Khakpour, Trevor Levere, Jane Maienschein, Pauline Mazumdar, Nellie Perret, Christopher Satoor, Joan Steigerwald, Brian Thomas, Marga Vicedo, and friends who encouraged me. I am indebted to the four anonymous reviewers and the editors of the JHB for their magnificent support in the revision process. My ultimate gratitude belongs to my steadfast supervisor Mary P. Winsor. The University of Toronto community supported my U. K. travel expenses: Admissions and Awards; Rick Elinson, Department of Zoology; the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology; and Woodsworth College.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
I do not have any conflict of interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Coggon, J. Sperm-Force: Naturphilosophie and George Newport’s Quest to Discover the Secret of Fertilization. J Hist Biol 55, 615–687 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-022-09696-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-022-09696-3