The 1909 Darwin celebration: Reexamining evolution in the light of Mendel, mutation, and meiosis

ISIS

Volumn 97, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 447-484

  Richmond, Marsha L ^a  

^a WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; GENETICS; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HISTORY; HUMAN; HYBRIDIZATION; INHERITANCE; PUBLIC FIGURE; PUBLIC RELATIONS; UNITED STATES;

ANNIVERSARIES AND SPECIAL EVENTS; FAMOUS PERSONS; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENETICS; HISTORY, 19TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; HYBRIDIZATION, GENETIC; INHERITANCE PATTERNS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; NATURAL HISTORY; SOCIETIES, SCIENTIFIC; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33750276208     PISSN: 00211753     EISSN: 15456994     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/508076     Document Type: Article

References (282)

1. "The Darwin Centenary: Commemorations at Cambridge: Brilliant Scenes and Remarkable Speeches," Cambridge Chronicle and University Journal, Isle of Ely Herald, and Huntingdonshire Gazette, 25 June 1909.
2. See also Roland Quinault, "The Cult of the Centenary, c. 1784-1914," Historical Research, 1998, 71:303-323.
3. For the different character of the celebrations honoring James Watt and Michael Faraday see Christine MacLeod and Jennifer Tann, "From Engineer to Scientist: Re-inventing Invention in the Watt and Faraday Centenaries, 1919-1931," British Journal for the History of Science, 2007, forthcoming (I thank MacLeod for sending me a copy of this essay).
4. [A. C. Seward,] "The Darwin Centenary at Cambridge," Science, 1909, 30:52-53, on p. 52;
5. Times, 22 June 1909, p. 9;
6. and Janet Browne, "Presidential Address: Commemorating Darwin," Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 2005, 38:251-274, on p. 251. As Browne notes, "The moment is ripe to take up a post-postmodern position that reinvestigates the category of scientific hero and engages with Darwin's life after death - the management and use of the intellectual legacy, the commemorations, the mythologizing, the biographical traditions and wider problems of reputation in science that interweave in interesting ways with major conceptual shifts in evolutionary biology and the public status of the biological sciences through the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries" (p. 252).
7. David Hull, Darwin and His Critics: The Reception of Darwin's Theory of Evolution by the Scientific Community (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1974);
8. and Ernst Mayr, One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1991).
9. Hugo De Vries, Die Mutationstheorie: Versuche und Beobachtungen über die Entstehung von Arten im Pflanzenreich, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Veit, 1901-1903);
10. Victor McKusick, "Walter S. Sutton and the Physical Basis of Mendelism," Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1960, 34:487-497;
11. and Lilian Al-Chueyr Pereira Martins, "Did Sutton and Boveri Propose the So-Called Sutton-Boveri Chromosome Hypothesis?" Genetics and Molecular Biology, 1999, 22:261-271.
12. T.H. Morgan, A.H. Sturtevant, H.J. Muller, and C.B. Bridges, The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity (New York: Holt, 1915).
13. On Morgan's work see Garland E. Allen, Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and His Science (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1978);
14. and Robert E. Kohler, Lords of the Fly: Drosophila Genetics and the Experimental Life (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1994).
15. On the modern synthesis see William B. Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics (Chicago History of Science and Medicine) (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1971);
16. Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1996);
17. and Jean Gayon, Darwinism's Struggle for Survival: Heredity and the Hypothesis of Natural Selection (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998) (hereafter cited as Gayon, Darwinism's Struggle for Survival).
18. Raphael Meldola, "Evolution: Old and New," Nature, 1909, 80:481-485, on p. 481.
19. At least one contemporary biologist, however, suggested that the task of estimating "the influence of Darwin's theories on his time and on the future" might be "better accomplished on the 200th than on the 100th anniversary of his birth": August Weismann, "Charles Darwin," Contemporary Review, 1909, 96:1-22, on p. 19. Indeed, the celebrations now being planned for the approaching Darwin bicentennial year will put this belief to the test!
20. Pnina G. Abir-Am, "Introduction," in Commemorative Practices in Science: Historical Perspectives on the Politics of Collective Memory, ed. Abir-Am and Clark A. Elliott, Osiris, 2nd Ser., 1999, 14:1-33;
21. Quinault, "Cult of the Centenary" (cit. n. 1), p. 322;
22. and Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, "The 1959 Darwin Centennial Celebration in America," Osiris, 2nd Ser., 1999, 14:274-323, on p. 278.
23. See also the contributions to William Ashworth, Jon Agar, and Jeff Hughes, eds., On Time: History, Science, and Commemoration, Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 2000, 33, esp.
24. Ludmilla Jordanova, "Presidential Address: Remembrance of Science Past" (pp. 387-406),
25. and Patricia Fara, "Isaac Newton Lived Here: Sites of Memory and Scientific Heritage" (pp. 407-426).
26. Pnina G. Abir-Am, "A Historical Ethnography of a Scientific Anniversary in Molecular Biology: The First Protein X-Ray Photograph (1984, 1934)," Social Epistemology, 1992, 7:321-354.
27. See also Abir-Am, "How Scientists View Their Heroes: Some Remarks on the Mechanism of Myth Construction" [essay review], Journal of the History of Biology, 1982, 15:281-315.
28. "It was in this period, immediately prior to the war, that the legend of the death of Darwinism acquired currency. The facts of Mendelism appeared to contradict the facts of paleontology, the theories of the mutationists would not square with the Weismannian views of adaptation, the discoveries of experimental embryology seemed to contradict the classical recapitulatory theories of development. Zoologists who clung to Darwinian views were looked down on by the devotees of the newer disciplines, whether cytology or genetics, Entwicklungsmechanik or comparative physiology, as old-fashioned theorizers; and the theological and philosophical antipathy to Darwin's great mechanistic generalization could once more raise its head without fearing too violent a knock": Julian Huxley, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (London: Allen & Unwin, 1942), pp. 24-25.
29. Peter J. Bowler, The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900 (Baltimore/London: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1983), pp. 5, 14.
30. See also Provine, Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics (cit. n. 5);
31. and Gayon, Darwinism's Struggle for Survival.
32. Garland Allen has expressed a similar view of the dissatisfaction with the old evolution at the time: "There was a widespread belief that evolutionary theory, and the morphological research program associated with it, especially identified with the avid pursuit of phylogenies, was at best only guesswork. While granting that Darwin's theory was synthetic, critics claimed it was non-experimental, nontestable, and ultimately, speculative. Numerous phylogenies could all account for the same evidence, and with no way to distinguish between them, younger critics sought to move away from what they saw as the overriding concern with evolutionary and morphologically based questions." See Garland Allen, "The Reception of Mendelism in the United States, 1900-1930," Comptes Rendu de l'Académie des Sciences, 2000, 323:1081-1088, on p. 1082.
33. London Illustrated News, 30 Jan 1909, p. 160;
34. and Times, 22 June 1909, p. 9.
35. There was even a call in the United States to proclaim, jointly with England, 12 February a holiday to "celebrate together Lincoln, the embodiment of Anglo-Saxon devotion to Justice, and Darwin, the reincarnation of Anglo-Saxon devotion to Truth": William Roscoe Thayer, "The Centennial of Lincoln and Darwin," North American Review, 1908, 188:21-24, on p. 24.
36. T.C. Chamberlain, "Introduction," in American Association for the Advancement of Science, Fifty Years of Darwinism: Modern Aspects of Evolution (centennial addresses in honor of Charles Darwin before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Baltimore, Friday, 1 Jan. 1909) (New York: Holt, 1909) (hereafter cited as AAAS, Fifty Years of Darwinism), p. 4.
37. The Cambridge celebration was not the only event organized in Britain to honor Darwin. In 1908 the Linnean Society marked the demicentenary of the first public announcement of natural selection by Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, on 1 July 1858, with a "Darwin/Wallace Celebration" attended by 350 scientific delegates from around the world. Oxford held its own commemoration of Darwin's one-hundredth birthday on 12 February 1909, with a gathering attended by over 600 guests. In Cambridge, the day was celebrated with invited guests dining in Darwin's old rooms in Christ's College. See "Darwin at Cambridge," Times, 12 Feb. 1909, p. 10;
38. and "University Intelligence: Oxford: Professor Poulton on 'Darwinism,'" ibid., 13 Feb. 1909, p. 8.
39. Günter Altner, ed., Der Darwinismus: Die Geschichte einer Theorie (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1981), p. 441 (here and throughout the essay, all translations are mine unless otherwise indicated).
40. See also Eve-Marie Engels, ed., Die Rezeption von Evolutionstheorien im 19. Jahrhundert (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1995). In the United States, the American Association for the Advancement of Science held a special session on Darwin at its January meeting, inviting E. B. Poulton, the leading "pure Darwinian," to be the keynote speaker.
41. See AAAS, Fifty Years of Darwinism. In February the New York Academy of Sciences held a commemoration, followed by a nine-week course of lectures on "Charles Darwin and His Influence on Science."
42. See "Darwin Celebrations in the United States," Nature, 1909, 80:72-73;
43. and the special section in Popular Science Monthly, Apr. 1909, 74:315-415.
44. For a recent examination of the multiplicity of meanings of Darwinism in popular culture see the essays in Ronald L. Numbers and John Stenhouse, eds., Disseminating Darwinism: The Role of Place, Race, Religion, and Gender (Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999).
45. As one anonymous author noted, the meaning of the celebration was complex: "That explanation is to be found, not alone in Darwin's personality and achievements, not alone in his positive contributions to scientific thought and knowledge, but in the vast and almost immeasurable influence of the ideas associated with his name on the mental outlook - the Weltanschauung, as the Germans call it - of mankind. There is no man living and thinking to-day who does not regard the universe, its structure, and its history from a standpoint altogether different from that from which the vast majority of mankind regarded it in the days that preceded the appearance of 'The Origin of Species.'" See "The Darwin Celebrations," no. 78, MS 54.2: Arthur Everett Shipley (Master of Christ's College in 1909), Scrapbook of Darwin 1909 Celebration, Christ's College, Cambridge, Old Library (hereafter cited as Shipley Scrapbook).
46. Most of the newspaper and magazine clippings included in Shipley's scrapbook are not attributed; while I have been able to identify the provenance of many of the reports, several have eluded me. For a comparative analysis of the portrayals of Darwin during the 1959 celebrations see Antonello La Vergata, "Images of Darwin: A Historiographic Overview," in The Darwinian Heritage, ed. David Kohn (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1985), pp. 901-972, esp. pp. 914-916.
47. Weismann claimed that Darwin's theory of evolution marked the beginning of biology: "But was there a biology then? Strictly speaking, there was not; there was zoology, botany, and even anthropology. Each of these sciences consisted of a very large and well-arranged mass of facts, but with no intrinsic coherence among them. This was supplied by the theory of evolution": Weismann, "Charles Darwin" (cit. n. 6), p. 20.
48. Several speakers at the Cambridge festivities explicitly compared Darwin to Newton. The American zoologist Henry Fairfield Osborn commented that "if Newton opened up a new heaven, Darwin opened up a new earth," while Arthur James Balfour, former prime minister and leader of the opposition party, indeed ranked Darwin above Newton: "After all, the branch of research which he had initiated was surely the most difficult of all. Measuring the heavens and weighing the suns were tasks surely incomparably easy compared with the problems which affected the physiologist and morphologist in dealing with the living cell, be it or plant or animal or man." See Times, 24 June 1909, p. 10.
49. Balfour may have been responding to a highly critical assessment of Darwin that ran in the Times in February, which argued that since Darwin did not solve problem of the origin of life, his theory was inadequate: "The Centenary of Darwin," Times, 12 Feb. 1909. (I thank an anonymous referee for pointing out that Darwin himself began this comparison by alluding to Newton in the final sentence of the Origin of Species.)
50. Cambridge Chronicle, 25 June 1909;
51. and Shipley Scrapbook, MS 54.2, p. 92. Only members of the British press were invited to attend the banquet. See Minutes of the Darwin Centenary Committee, 1907-1909, Min.VII.6, Cambridge University Archives, Manuscripts Room, Cambridge University Library (hereafter cited as Darwin Centenary Committee Minutes).
52. See, e.g., E. B. Wilson, "The Darwin Centenary Celebrations at Cambridge," Columbia University Quarterly, 1909-1910, 12:54-58;
53. H. F. Osborn, "The Darwin Centenary: Address in Reply to the Reception of Delegates," Science, N.S., 1909, 30:199-200;
54. Hermann Diehls, "Die Darwinfeier in Cambridge 22-24. Juni 1909," Internationale Wochenschrift für Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technik, 1909, 3:892-893, 933-938;
55. Karl Breul, "Die Darwinfeier der Universität Cambridge," Monatsblatt: Wissenschaftliche Wochenbeilage der Magdeburgischen Zeitung, 1909 [offprint];
56. Elie Metchnikoff, "La fête au l'honneur de Darwin, Cambridge," Revue Scientifique, 1909, 18:545-548;
57. and Charles Bouglé, "Darwiniens à Cambridge," Revue de Paris, 1 Sept. 1909, no. 17, pp. 107-120.
58. "The Darwin Celebrations," Times, 23 June 1909, p. 12.
59. According to another account, "The priceless treasures of the galleries were for once forgotten, or almost forgotten, in the moving picture of life and colour that presented itself": "The Darwin Centenary: Commemorations at Cambridge: Brilliant Scenes and Remarkable Speeches," Cambridge Chronicle and University Journal, Isle of Ely Herald, and Huntingdonshire Gazette, 25 June 1909. "Fairy lamps," patented by Samuel Clarke of London in 1885, were originally candle-based lamps covered by a dome that was often colored. Clarke's fairy lamps became so popular that all small candle lamps, such as modern-day Christmas lights, continue to be known in Britain as "fairy lights."
60. "Darwin Commemoration at Cambridge: Official Reception," Daily Telegraph, 23 June 1909, p. 13.
61. "Women are among the invited guests, some as wives or daughters of distinguished men, others as having won laurels in the arena of academic strife": "Darwin Centenary: World's Scientists at Cambridge: Notable Assembly," Standard, 23 June 1909.
62. Among the academic women present, as described in Breul, "Die Darwinfeier der Universität Cambridge" (cit. n. 17), p. 10, were "the two sisters Mrs. Lewis and Mrs. Bibson, who have been awarded honorary doctorates by several German and British universities for their outstanding scientific accomplishments in the area of theology and oriental philology."
63. "The importance they attached to the occasion was shown by the elaborate form of the addresses. Even the least pretentious were enclosed in scroll cases of artistic pattern, but some of them, enclosed in finely mounted cases, were exceedingly handsome, and will form valuable mementoes of the occasion." See "The Darwin Centenary: Commemorations at Cambridge: Brilliant Scenes and Remarkable Speeches," Cambridge Chronicle and University Journal, Isle of Ely Herald, and Huntingdonshire Gazette, 25 June 1909. The 255 addresses are in the Cambridge University Archives (steel cupboard no. 6), Manuscripts Room, Cambridge University Library. Many are extraordinarily beautiful and express covert meaning through the choice of topics portrayed. The address presented by the Museum of Natural History, Paris, e.g., recognized both the centenary of Darwin's birth and the publication of Jean Baptiste Lamarck's Philosophie zoologique (1809) - hence suggesting the latter's priority in introducing the concept of species change. That presented by the German Botanical Society, Berlin, consists of a three-page summary of Darwin's importance for botany illustrated by hand-done paintings of plants he studied, including Drosera, dimorphic flowers, and climbing plants. The address presented by the University of Würzburg has beautiful calligraphy with gilt letters and hand-painted Coleoptera, a reference to Darwin's love of beetles. The address presented by the Swedish Royal Academy of Science is a watercolor of an island, showing a coral atoll in the distance, while the Natural History Museum of Vienna gave a lovely classic allegorical painting, portraying Darwin wrapped in a red robe. The Imperial University of Tokyo sent a hand-painted scroll, adorned with a landscape and enclosed in a special lacquer box, that describes (in Japanese with an English translation) Darwin's influence on Japanese science. I thank the former University Archivist, Elisabeth Leedham-Greene, for helping me locate these addresses.
64. Daily Mail, 24 June 1909, p. 3;
65. Standard, 23 June 1909;
66. and Bouglé, "Darwiniens à Cambridge" (cit. n. 17).
67. "Inside the Senate House the scene was of an unforgettable brilliancy. Rows upon rows of gorgeously garbed representatives of science from all over the world made the usually sombre hall glow with colour. Scarlet was the prevailing note, but a Portuguese delegate wore a costume of sky-blue with a curious hat resembling a tasselled lamp-shade. A German professor excited envy by his gown and cape of rich red velvet trimmed with broad ermine fur": Daily Mail, 23 June 1909, p. 5.
68. Lord Rayleigh reminisced: "I esteem myself fortunate that a visit nearly 40 years ago, a visit which I owe to my friend, now Sir George Darwin, enables me to picture the scene. I was struck as were others with his wonderful modesty. In my propounding some difficulty in connection with colour vision, and the theory which attributes the colours of flowers to the preference of insects, I remember that he asked time for refection [sic] before making a reply." "Brilliant Scenes in the Senate House: Tributes by Distinguished Speakers," Cambridge Chronicle and University Journal, Isle of Ely Herald, and Huntingdonshire Gazette, 25 June 1909.
69. See Oscar Hertwig, "Darwins Einfluß auf die deutsche Biologie," Int. Wochenschr. Wiss. Kunst Tech., 31 July 1909, 3:954-958.
70. As Paul Weindling has noted, there was a certain irony in Hertwig's invitation to speak, since his attacks on Ernst Haeckel's theory of recapitulation marked him as "one of the leading German critics of Darwinism." See Paul Weindling, Darwinism and Social Darwinism in Imperial Germany: The Contribution of the Cell Biologist Oscar Hertwig (1849-1922) (Stuttgart: Fischer, 1991), p. 165.
71. For a list of German publications arising from the "Darwin Jubilee" see Walther May, "Die Darwin-Jubiläums-Literatur 1908-1910," in Der Darwinismus, ed. Altner (cit. n. 13), pp. 454-471.
72. Metchnikoff's handwritten speech (in large letters to make the English easily legible) is included in the Shipley Scrapbook. His formal speech contrasts greatly with his description of the Cambridge event for a Russian audience. The historian A. E. Gaissinovitch has described this report: "Giving an account of the speeches made at the anniversary celebrations held in Cambridge in 1909 to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species, Metchnikov pointed to the disagreements between the 'orthodox' Darwinists and the 'neo-Darwinists' in the treatment of this problem. Thus, he said, Ray Lankester, the venerable representative of the first, 'has quite definitely opposed the theory of sudden mutations, elaborated by de Vries, as well as the results of the investigations into heredity, conducted by Bateson and resting on Mendel's discovery, much spoken about during the last few years.' Then Metchnikov concentrated on the problem of the role of 'sudden changes' in the process of evolution. He was far from being a supporter of the 'orthodox' Darwinists in this question. He wrote: 'orthodox Darwinists have supported the thesis advanced by Darwin that species can emerge only as a result of vague individual changes as asserted by Darwin.' Then he continued: 'according to the orthodox adherents, science has not progressed at all since Darwin's works. But it is an incontrovertible fact that organisms [which are] subject to considerable variations, confirm to a considerable extent changes that occurred suddenly without intermediate stages. Neo-Darwinists resolutely insist on the thesis that it is the sudden changes which provide the greatest opportunities for natural selection and consequently that 'mutations' have greatly contributed to the origin of species. Then Metchnikov gave examples of the adaptive coloration of insects and flowers, showing that slight differences in coloration were not noticed by insect-eating birds and pollinating insects. Metchnikov concluded: 'We can give many other examples illustrating that sudden changes have much more chance to be fixed by natural selection than vague individual changes.'" A. E. Gaissinovitch, "Problems of Variation and Heredity in Russian Biology in the Late Nineteenth Century," J. Hist. Biol., 1973, 6:97-123, esp. pp. 107-108;
73. he is describing and quoting from I. I. Metchnikov, "Celebration in Darwin's Honor in Cambridge (1909)" [in Russian], in Akademicheskoe sobranie sochinenii [Collected Works] (Moscow: Gos. Izd. Med. Lit., 1955), Vol. 3, pp. 398-400.
74. "Throughout the winter, Huxley was delivering his remarkable lectures, suggestive and with occasional flashes of humour, still strong and full of fire, but beginning to show the effect of years of over-work, of public service and research. About once a week he came among his students. One day an unusual stir or thrill passed along the tables as with him entered Darwin, his first and only visit to a modern biological laboratory. Darwin paused for a few moments conversation, and one received the strong impression of a ruddy face, benevolent blue eyes, very deep set beneath the massive overhanging brow - a wonderful effect of kindliness and of the far-off world survey of a great naturalist.... If he were living in these days of Waagen, of Weismann, of Mendel and of De Vries, he would be in the front line of inquiry, armed with inventive genius, with matchless assemblage of fact, with experiment and verification, and not least with incomparable candour and good will": "Brilliant Scenes in the Senate House: Tributes by Distinguished Speakers," Cambridge Chronicle and University Journal, Isle of Ely Herald, and Huntingdonshire Gazette, 25 June 1909.
75. Osborn gave another account of this meeting in the New York Evening Post, 12 Feb. 1909.
76. On behalf of the thirty-member American contingent who, along with the institutions they represented, had subscribed to raise the funds, Osborn also announced the presentation to Christ's College of a bronze replica of the bust of Darwin by the noted American sculptor William Couper (1853-1942) (the original was one of fourteen busts of scientists presented by the New York Academy of Sciences to the American Museum of Natural History). The bust is now mounted in the garden of Christ's College. See "The Darwin Centenary," Times, 27 May 1909, p. 5.
77. Lankester was asked to replace Lord Avebury, John Lubbock, who was unable to attend owing to the death of his son Rolfe: Conf.1.5, Manuscripts Room, Cambridge University Library. The German delegate Walther May noted the contentious nature of Lankester's speech: "The last speaker took somewhat controversial ground, maintaining the validity of the theory of the natural selection of minute and ubiquitous variations, and stating that certain views advanced by modern naturalists had been duly considered by Darwin, and for sufficient reasons set on one side. It could not be doubted, he said, that Darwin would have been deeply interested in Mendel's results, but these, although throwing light on the mechanisms concerned in hereditary transmission, were not in any way opposed to Darwin's great theoretical structure." May, "Die Darwin-Jubiläums-Literatur 1908-1910" (cit. n. 23), p. 461.
78. See also T. D. A. Cockerell, "The Darwin Celebration at Cambridge," Pop. Sci. Month., Jan. 1910, 76:23-31.
79. Lankester's arguments were similar to those expressed in his presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1906, in reviewing "Darwinism": E. Ray Lankester, "President's Address," in Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1906 (London: Murray, 1907), pp. 3-42, esp. pp. 27-32.
80. See the description in the Times, 12 June 1909, p. 12.
81. As Joseph Dalton Hooker told John Lubbock, "To me the most interesting thing of all is the Exhibition of Portraits, Books, Letters and Instruments, and other objects in connection with the Darwin and Wedgwood families": Horace G. Hutchinson, ed., Life of Sir John Lubbock, Lord Avebury, 2 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1914), Vol. 2, p. 269.
82. The artwork on display included "W. B. Richmond's painting of Darwin in his LL.D. robe, lent by the Philosophical Society and hanging in their library; John Collier's portrait of Darwin in a long black cloak, holding his hat in his hand, lent by the Linnean Society; C. Fairfax Murray's two portraits of Mrs. Charles Darwin; and W. W. Ouless's well-known profile, a replica of which hangs in Christ's College Hall, lent by W. E. Darwin." The catalogue of the exhibit, "The Portraits, Prints, and Writings of Charles Robert Darwin," is in Cam.c.909.4, Rare Books Room, Cambridge University Library. Later in the summer, most of the materials were transferred to the British Museum of Natural History in South Kensington. As the Times reported, "The primary object of the exhibition is to illustrate the main arguments of 'The Origin of Species,' and much of the material which actually passed through Darwin's hands and the various species which he had in view when he wrote are for the first time, brought together for the inspection of the public": "A Darwin Exhibition," Times, 17 Aug. 1909, p. 9.
83. For a detailed list of items on display at the British Museum of Natural History see Facsimile of "Memorials of Charles Darwin": A Collection of Manuscripts, Portraits, Medals, Books, and Natural History Specimens to Commemorate the Centenary of His Birth and the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Publication of "The Origin of Species," with an introduction by Sydney Smith (London: British Museum [Natural History], 1988) [Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series, 1988, 14(3):235-298].
84. Leonard Huxley, ed., The Life and Letters of Joseph Dalton Hooker, 2 vols. (London: Murray, 1918), Vol. 2, pp. 467-468.
85. For a delightful description of this event written by Margaret Darwin Keynes, George's daughter, who "was among the female Darwins who were admitted to the balcony of the Examination Hall to hear the speeches that evening," see Margaret Keynes, A House by the River: Newnham Grange to Darwin College (Cambridge: Privately printed, 1984), pp. 175-176.
86. Ethel Sidgwick, Mrs. Henry Sidgwick: A Memoir by Her Niece (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1938), pp. 66, 71-73;
87. and Helen Fowler, "Eleanor Mildred Sidgwick, 1845-1936," in Cambridge Women: Twelve Portraits, ed. Edward Shils and Carmen Blacker (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996), pp. 7-28.
88. Sidgwick was coauthor with Lord Rayleigh (her brother-in-law) of two scientific papers on standards for electrical units. See also Donald Opitz, "Aristocrats and Professionals: Country-House Science in Late-Victorian Britain" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. Minnesota, 2004).
89. The recipients were Edouard van Beneden, Prince Roland Bonaparte, Otto Bütschli, Robert Chodat, Francis Darwin (whose award was exceptional, since Cambridge does not customarily confer honorary degrees on its own graduates), Karl von Goebel, Ludwig von Graff, Richard Hertwig, Harald Höffding, Jacques Loeb, Edmond Perrier, Gustav Schwalbe, Hermann Graf zu Solms-Laubach, Clement Timiriazeff, Frantisek Vejdovsky, Max Verworn, Hermann Vöchting, Hugo de Vries, Charles Doolittle Walcott, Edmund Beecher Wilson, and Charles Rene Zeiller.
90. CUR 133: Miscellaneous collection (by J. W. Clark?), Manuscripts Room, Cambridge University Library. In addition to Saunders, other members of Bateson's school of genetics who were present included Nora Darwin (Darwin's granddaughter), Florence Margaret Durham (Bateson's sister-in-law), Hilda Nanette Blanche Praeger Killby, Dorothea Charlotte Edith Marryat, Igerna Brünhild Johnson (Hilda) Sollas, and Muriel Wheldale, all of whom lectured on biology at the Balfour Biological Laboratory for Women. See "Centenary of the Birth of Charles Darwin and the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Publication of the Origin of Species: List of Delegates and other Guests invited by the University," in J. W. Clark Scrapbook, Cam.b.909.1, Rare Books Room, Cambridge University Library (hereafter cited as Clark Scrapbook).
91. See also Marsha Richmond, "'A Lab of One's Own': The Balfour Biological Laboratory for Women at Cambridge University, 1884-1914," Isis, 1997, 88:422-455;
92. and Richmond, "Women in the Early History of Genetics: William Bateson and the Newnham College Mendelians, 1900-1910," ibid., 2001, 92:55-90.
93. The Darwin Centenary Committee decided that "no tickets should be given to Ladies on either day for the floor of the Senate House": Darwin Centenary Committee Minutes, 13 Mar. 1909. T. D. A. Cockerell noted the exception: "On this occasion a venerable lady was observed occupying a chair, contrary to all custom, on the floor of the senate house. It was Mrs. Huxley; to whom else could the unique distinction have been offered?" Cockerell, "Darwin Celebration at Cambridge (cit. n. 26), pp. 29-30.
94. Cockerell, "Darwin Celebration at Cambridge," p. 31. Cockerell also described meeting Hooker at the Darwin exhibit at Christ's College, noting: "As we were looking at these things, Dr. Francis Darwin came in, leading an old man. My heart stood still for a moment to realize that this was Sir Joseph Hooker, the great botanist who was Darwin's friend and adviser more than fifty years ago. I had never expected to look upon his face, but there he was, ninety-two years old, yet quite able to enjoy the proceedings and converse with those who were presented to him. In the few words I had with him, he recalled with pleasure his botanical trip to Colorado with Asa Gray" (pp. 24-25).
95. The committee to consider how to celebrate the centenary was formed at the 2 Dec. 1907 meeting of the Council of the Senate. On 13 Feb. 1908 it was decided to hold a Darwin celebration, and in March the committee was augmented. It was chaired by the vice chancellor (Ernest Stewart Roberts in 1907, and later Arthur James Mason), with two honorary secretaries, the professor of botany Albert Charles Seward and John Willis Clark, university registrary and secretary of the Museums and Lecture Rooms Syndicate (which administered the life science disciplines), and included several science dons: the zoologists Arthur Shipley, William Bateson, and Adam Sedgwick; the physiologists Walter Gaskell and John Newport Langley; the professor of chemistry George Downing Living; Woodwardian professor of geology Thomas McKinney Hughes; and Rede lecturer Thomas George Bonney; along with three demonstrators: Arthur Hutchinson, mineralogy; Walter Morley Fletcher, physiology; and Reginald Crundall Punnett, animal morphology. Seward and Clark headed the eight-member Executive Committee, along with Arthur James Mason, master of Pembroke College; John Edward Marr, lecturer in geology; Shipley; Fletcher; Punnett; and a Mr. Dumford. See Darwin Centenary Committee Minutes and CUR 133, Manuscripts Room, Cambridge University Library; and Cam.b.909.1 and Cam.b.909.2, Rare Books Room, Cambridge University Library.
96. "It was initially proposed to invite one representative, selected from the point of view of the eminence of the individual, of the United States of America, one representative of France and one of Germany to deliver a short speech in the Senate House on June 23": Darwin Centenary Committee Minutes. The foreign speakers were ostensibly chosen by Seward and Clark, in consultation with vice chancellor Arthur James Mason. Subsequently the committee decided that it was also necessary to include a British representative. On Loeb's selection see Philip J. Pauly, Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb and the Engineering Ideal in Biology (New York/Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1987), p. 115. The other American was E. B. Wilson.
97. See esp. Michael Ruse, "Darwinism," in Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, ed. Evelyn Fox Keller and Elisabeth A. Lloyd (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1992), pp. 74-80;
98. Jean Gayon, "What Does 'Darwinism' Mean?" Ludus Vitalis, 1994, 2:105-118;
99. and Gayon, "Neo-Darwinism," in Concepts, Theories, and Rationality in the Biological Sciences: The Second Pittsburgh-Konstanz Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, ed. G. Wolters, J. G. Lennox, and P. McLaughlin (Pittsburgh, Pa.: Univ. Pittsburgh Press/ Universitätsverlag Konstanz, 1994), pp. 1-25.
100. The literature on the varieties of Darwinism is vast. Two contemporary works that identifted the different schools are George John Romanes, Darwin and after Darwin: An Exposition of the Darwinian Theory and a Discussion of Post-Darwinian Questions, ed. C. Lloyd Morgan (Chicago: Open Court, 1892-1897), Vol. 2: Post-Darwinian Questions: Heredity and Utility;
101. and Vernon L. Kellogg, Darwinism To-Day (New York: Holt, 1907).
102. More recent detailed analysis was initiated by Morse Peckham, "Darwin and Darwinisticism," Victorian Studies, 1959, 3:19-40.
103. See also Ernst Mayr, The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, Belknap, 1982), pp. 505-510;
104. Thomas Junket, Darwinismus und Botanik: Rezeption, Kritik and theoretische Alternativen im Deutschland des 19. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart; Deutscher Apotheker Verlag, 1989);
105. and Bowler, Eclipse of Darwinism (cit. n. 9), which divides Darwinism into five analytical categories: natural selection, theistic evolution, Lamarckism, orthogenesis, and mutation theory.
106. See the coverage of Darwin's hundredth birthday, "The Centenary of Darwin," Times, 12 Feb. 1909: "If Darwin's small variations are inherited they are not new, and involve no alteration in the species,
107. For an example of contemporary anti-Darwinian literature see Eberhard Dennert, At the Deathbed of Darwinism, trans. E. V. O'Harra and John H. Peschges (Burlington, Iowa: German Literary Board, 1904).
108. "The Darwin Centenary: Commemorations at Cambridge: Brilliant Scenes and Remarkable Speeches," Cambridge Chronicle and University Journal, Isle of Ely Herald, and Huntingdonshire Gazette, 25 June 1909 (reporting Lord Rayleigh's remarks);
109. and Vernon L. Kellogg, "Celebrating Darwin's Greatness and Darwinism's Weakness," American Naturalist, 1910, 44:382-384, on p. 384.
110. Kellogg was among the invited delegates representing the United States but apparently did not attend, since his name is not on the "Final Lists"; see Clark Scrapbook. He based this statement on publications that arose from the Darwin celebrations in New York and Cambridge. Hence, he presumed that August Weismann, "the greatest Neo-Darwinian," and Ernst Haeckel, "the most advanced monist," were present, which was not the case. He may have had Osborn in mind as being "one of the greatest Neo-Lamarckians," Jacques Loeb as "the most radical mechanicalist," Bateson as the "most ardent Mendelian," de Vries as "the founder of the mutations theory," and Harald Höffding, professor of philosophy at Copenhagen, as the influential modern philosopher. Höffding was the author of the article "The Influence of the Conception of Evolution on Modern Philosophy," in Darwin and Modern Science: Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary ofthe Birth of Charles Darwin and of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Publication of The Origin of Species, ed. Albert Charles Seward (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1909) (hereafter cited as Darwin and Modern Science, ed. Seward), pp. 446-464.
111. Bowler, Eclipse of Darwinism (cit. n. 9), p. 10. The Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature of 1908 and 1909 lists scores of articles on the Darwin/Wallace celebration of 1908, the U.S. celebration and the Cambridge centenary celebration of 1909, reviews of Darwin and Modern Science, recollections of and articles on Darwin, and assessments of the current status of evolution theory.
112. A. C. Seward, "Preface, in Darwin and Modern Science, ed. Seward, pp. v-viii, on p. v.
113. The editorial committee included members of the Cambridge Philosophical Society and the Cambridge University Press Syndicate, among them, in addition to Seward, Hugh Kerr Anderson, William Bateson, Francis Darwin, Ernest William Hobson, John Edward Mart, Adam Sedgwick, David Sharp, Arthur Everett Shipley, and William Ritchie Sorley: "Darwin Centenary Publications," Times, 5 June 1909, p. 6.
114. Kellogg, "Celebrating Darwin's Greatness and Darwinism's Weakness" (cit. n. 37), p. 383;
115. and Meldola, "Evolution" (cit. n. 6), p. 484.
116. Kellogg, "Celebrating Darwin's Greatness and Darwinism's Weakness," p. 383.
117. On Kellogg's views of Darwinism see Mark A. Largent, "Bionomics: Vernon Lyman Kellogg and the Defense of Darwinism," J. Hist. Biol., 1999, 32:465-488.
118. J. Arthur Thomson, "Darwin's Predecessors";
119. August Weismann, "The Selection Theory";
120. Hugo de Vries, "Variation";
121. William Bateson, "Heredity and Variation in Modern Lights";
122. Eduard Strasburger, "The Minute Structure of Cells in Relation to Heredity";
123. Gustav Schwalbe, "The Descent of Man";
124. Ernst Haeckel, "Charles Darwin as an Anthropologist";
125. J. G. Frazer, "Some Primitive Theories of the Origin of Man";
126. Adam Sedgwick, "The Influence of Darwin on the Study of Animal Embryology";
127. W. B. Scott, "The Palaeontological Record, I: Animals";
128. D. H. Scott, "The Palaeontological Record, II: Plants";
129. Georg Klebs, "The Influence of the Environment on the Forms of Plants";
130. Jacques Loeb, "Experimental Study of the Influence of Environment on Animals";
131. E. B. Poulton, "The Value of Colour in the Struggle for Life";
132. William Thiselton-Dyer, "Geographical Distribution of Plants";
133. Hans Gadow, "Geographical Distribution of Animals";
134. J. W. Judd, "Darwin and Geology";
135. Francis Darwin, "Darwin's Work on the Movements of Plants";
136. Karl Goebel, "The Biology of Flowers";
137. C. Lloyd Morgan, "Mental Factors in Evolution";
138. Hermann Höffding, "The Influence of the Conception of Evolution on Modern Philosophy";
139. Charles Bouglé, "Darwinism and Sociology";
140. P. N. Waggett, "The Influence of Darwin upon Religious Thought";
141. Jane Ellen Harrison, "The Influence of Darwinism on the Study of Religions";
142. Peter Giles, "Evolution and the Science of Language";
143. John Bagnell Bury, "Darwinism and History";
144. George Darwin, "The Genesis of Double Stars";
145. and William Cecil Dampier Whetham, "The Evolution of Matter."
146. Others considered included Alfred Russel Wallace, William Thiselton-Dyer, William Bateson, Hugo de Vries, and Archdale Reid: Albert Charles Seward, Copybook from Darwin and Modern Science, Add. 7733, Maunscript Room, Cambridge University Library (hereafter cited as Seward Copybook).
147. As Gayon noted, Weismann was known "as the founder of 'neo-Darwinism,' or, as it tended to be called at the turn of the century, 'ultra-Darwinism."' These terms were associated "with two radical and closely linked theses: an intransigent rejection of the inheritance of acquired characters and the idea that the 'all-sufficiency of natural selection' was an explanatory principle of evolution": Gayon, Darwinism's Struggle for Survival, p. 148.
148. Weismann's essay was overly long, and, owing to his poor health, E. B. Poulton agreed to shorten it for the volume. See Seward Copybook, Add. 7733;
149. and Frederick B. Churchill and Helmut Risler, eds., August Weismann: Selected Letters and Documents, 2 vols. (Freiburg: Freiburg Univ. Press, 2000), Vol. 1, pp. 484, 490-495.
150. August Weismann, "The Selection Theory," in Darwin and Modern Science, ed. Seward, pp. 18-65, on pp. 33, 23, 24, 61.
151. See also Frederick B. Churchill, "The Weismann - Spencer Controversy over the Inheritance of Acquired Characters," in Human Implications of Scientific Advance, ed. E. G. Forbes (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1978), pp. 451-468;
152. and Rasmus G. Winther, "August Weismann on Germ-Plasm Variation," J. Hist. Biol., 2001, 34:517-555.
153. Ernst Haeckel, "Charles Darwin as an Anthropologist," in Darwin and Modern Science, ed. Seward, pp. 137-151, on pp. 139, 140, 141, 142.
154. Haeckel certainly regarded natural selection as "distinctive of 'Darwinism"' (p. 137). He was originally asked to write on the "descent of man" but was requested to refocus after Gustav Schwalbe of Straßburg agreed to address this topic: Seward Copybook. An article published in an American newspaper claimed that Haeckel had been shunned by the Cambridge celebration organizing committee owing to "clerical prejudice," prompting Seward to write a letter to the editor of Science stating that Haeckel was originally appointed by the University of Jena as its delegate, only later to have to withdraw owing to ill health. "I need hardly add that if Professor Haeckel had not been appointed a delegate he would certainly have been invited as a private guest": A. C. Seward, "The Darwin Celebration at Cambridge," Science, N.S., 1909, 30:25.
155. On Haeckel and the inheritance of acquired characters see L. I. Blacher, The Problem of the Inheritance of Acquired Characters: A History of a Priori and Empirical Methods Used to Find a Solution, ed. and trans. Frederick B. Churchill (1971; Washington, D.C./New Delhi: Smithsonian Institution Libraries and the National Science Foundation, in association with Amerind Publishing, 1982), Ch. 5.
156. Georg Klebs, "The Influence of the Environment on the Forms of Plants," in Darwin and Modern Science, ed. Seward, pp. 223-246, on pp. 240-241.
157. See also Peter J. Bowler, "Foreword," in William Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation Treated with Especial Regard to Discontinuity in the Origin of Species (1894; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1992), pp. xvii-xxvii.
158. William Bateson, "Heredity and Variation in Modern Lights," in Darwin and Modern Science, ed. Seward, pp. 85-101, on pp. 85, 96.
159. Bateson had long maintained this position. See Bateson, Materials for the Study of Variation, p. 5;
160. and, more recently, Bateson, "President's Address, Section D. - Zoology," in Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1904 (London: Murray, 1905), pp. 574-589, on p. 579.
161. Bateson, "Heredity and Variation in Modern Lights," pp. 91, 97.
162. The most complete expression of Bateson's understanding of the cytological basis of segregation is Bateson, "President's Address." The classic work on this topic remains William Coleman, "Bateson and Chromosomes: Conservative Thought in Science," Centaurus, 1970, 15:228-314.
163. Bateson, "Heredity and Variation in Modern Lights," pp. 92-93, 99.
164. As he had noted in Materials for the Study of Variation (cit. n. 47),
165. "Variation, in fact, is Evolution" (p. 6).
166. Bateson built on this theme in his presidential address to the 1914 meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science: William Bateson, "President's Address," in Report of the 84th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Australia, August 1914) (London: Murray, 1915), pp. 338.
167. See also H. Allen Orr, "Dobzhansky, Bateson, and the Genetics of Speciation," Genetics, 1996, 144:1331-1335.
168. De Vries was originally considered for the articles on natural selection and the origin of species, then placed among those who were to write the three (later extended to four) essays on "Variation and Heredity." Others considered included Bateson, Francis Galton, Karl Pearson, G. U. Yule, and Wilhelm Johannsen: Seward Copybook.
169. Hugo de Vries, "Variation," in Darwin and Modern Science, ed. Seward, pp. 66-84, on p. 71.
170. Taking issue with de Vries's assertion, Seward inserted an "editorial footnote" (the only one in the volume) disputing this statement: "I think it right to point out that the interpretation of this passage from the Origin by Professor de Vries is not accepted as correct either by Mr Francis Darwin or by myself." See A. C. Seward to Hugo de Vries, 11 Dec. 1908, and de Vries to Seward, 19 Dec. 1908, Seward Copybook.
171. De Vries, "Variation," pp. 75, 77.
172. It is important to note, however, that Bateson and de Vries were estranged by 1909, with Bateson increasingly dissatisfied with de Vries's abandonment of Mendelian views. Moreover, their personal relations were also strained. While his wife and daughter stayed with the Batesons during the Darwin celebration (women were not permitted to stay in college), de Vries himself chose to stay in town, which Bateson took as a snub. See Beatrice Bateson's annotations to William Bateson's letter to C. C. Hurst, 25 June 1909, in which she stated: "Madame de Vries & daughter stayed with us, but the Professor stayed in a hotel in Cambridge and turned his back on Will at the Conversazione in the Fitzwilliam": William Bateson Correspondence, Add. MS 8634, Manuscripts Room, Cambridge University Library.
173. As Charles Lenay notes, "For his theoretical work, De Vries claims to lean essentially on the works of Darwin," although he drew different conclusions from Darwin's data: Charles Lenay, "Hugo De Vries: From the Theory of Intracellular Pangenesis to the Rediscovery of Mendel," Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci., 2000, 323:1053-1060, on p. 1055.
174. Phillip R. Sloan, "Mach's Phenomenalism and the British Reception of Mendelism," Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci., 2000, 323:1069-1079, on pp. 1070, 1071.
175. For Darwin see Peter Vorzimmer, Charles Darwin: The Years of Controversy, 1859-1882 (Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press, 1970), p. 300.
176. See, e.g., Bateson, "Heredity and Variation in Modern Lights" (cit. n. 48), p. 96.
177. One reviewer of the volume echoed this view: "Some authors have tried to show that the theory of mutation is opposed to Darwin's views. But this is erroneous. On the contrary, it is in the fullest harmony with the great principle laid down by Darwin. In order to be acted upon by that great complex of environmental forces, which Darwin has called natural selection, the changes must obviously first be there." "Estimates of Darwin: Review of 'Darwin and Modern Science,"' Standard, 25 June 1909.
178. See also Charles B. Davenport, "Mutation," in AAAS, Fifty Years of Darwinism, pp. 160-181. Davenport also suggested that the mutation theory agreed with Darwin's views.
179. "Natural Selection Stock-Taking" [review of Darwin and Modern Science and The Making of Species, by Douglas Dewar and Frank Finn], unattributed newspaper clipping, Shipley Scrapbook.
180. Bateson complained to Hurst that "from the Mendelian's standpoint the gathering was rather tantalising, as so many of us were assembled, but the programme gave practically no opportunity of shewing anything, or of comfortable discussion": Bateson to Hurst, 25 June 1909, William Bateson Correspondence, Add. MS 8634, Manuscripts Room, Cambridge University Library.
181. Arthur Everett Shipley, "President's Address, Section D. - Zoology," in Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1909 (London: Murray, 1910), pp. 484-502, esp. pp. 488-489.
182. Shipley refers to Reginald Crundall Punnett, Mendelism (London: Macmillan, 1905), a revised edition of which appeared in 1907. He also illustrated his last point by referring to Wilhelm Johannsen's experiments on pure lines in beans.
183. On de Vries's preparation for new understandings that would later become important in Mendelian genetics see Gayon, Darwinism's Struggle for Survival, pp. 258-259.
184. Thomas Hunt Morgan, "Sex Limited Inheritance in Drosophila," Science, 1910, 32:120-122, on p. 122.
185. See also Gayon, Darwinism's Struggle for Survival, pp. 303 -305.
186. On de Vries's mutation theory see Garland E. Allen, "Hugo de Vries and the Reception of the'Mutation Theory,"' J. Hist. Biol., 1969,2:55-87.
187. On Morgan's acceptance of the "idea of discontinuous variation as proposed by Bateson and the mutation theory proposed by de Vries" see Allen, Thomas Hunt Morgan (cit. n. 5), p. 110;
188. and Allen, "Thomas Hunt Morgan and the Problem of Natural Selection," J. Hist. Biol., 1968, 1:113 -139.
189. On the general opinion of de Vries's mutation theory in the United States see Kellogg, Darwinism To-Day (cit. n. 35), p. 362 n 22;
190. Provine, Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics (cit. n. 5), pp. 64-70;
191. and Sharon E. Kingsland, "The Battling Botanist: Daniel Trembly MacDougal, Mutation Theory, and the Rise of Experimental Evolutionary Biology in America, 1900-1912," Isis, 1991, 82:479-509.
192. For an analysis of changing views of mutation see Robert Olby, "Huxley's Place in Twentieth-Century Biology," in Julian Huxley: Biologist and Statesman of Science, ed. C. Kenneth Waters and Albert Van Helden (Houston: Rice Univ. Press, 1992), pp. 53-75, esp. pp. 60-64.
193. Meldola, "Evolution" (cit. n. 6), p. 485;
194. "Darwin Centenary: Commemorations at Cambridge: Brilliant Scenes and Remarkable Speeches," Cambridge Chronicle and University Journal, Isle of Ely Herald, and Huntingdonshire Gazette, 25 June 1909 (Wilson's presentation announcement);
195. and Eduard Strasburger, "The Minute Structure of Cells in Relation to Heredity," in Darwin and Modern Science, ed. Seward, pp. 102-111, on p. 102. The organizers had originally wanted Theodor Boveri to write the piece. Not surprisingly, Bateson was not well pleased by Strasburger's article, calling it a "sad production" that was "so dull as to be almost unreadable, and I think very misleading.... I think it an article we may be heartily ashamed of, in both matter, form, and style": Bateson to Seward, 20 Oct. 1908, Seward Copybook.
196. Strasburger, "Minute Structure of Cells in Relation to Heredity," p. 111;
197. Edmund B. Wilson, "The Cell in Relation to Heredity and Evolution," in AAAS, Fifty Years of Darwinism, pp. 92-113, on p. 100;
198. and Albert F. Blakeslee, "Twenty-five Years of Genetics (1910-1935)," Brooklyn Botanic Garden Memoirs, 1936, 4:29-40, on p. 34. I have not been able to identify the session of the BAAS meeting at York at which this may have occurred.
199. Carl H. Eigenmann, "Adaptation," in AAAS, Fifty Years of Darwinism, pp. 182-208, on p. 191.
200. E. B. Poulton, "Fifty Years of Darwinism," in AAAS, Fifty Years of Darwinism, pp. 8-56, on p. 39.
201. See also Poulton, "The Centenary of Darwin: Darwin and His Modern Critics," Quarterly Review, 1909, 211:1-38.
202. Poulton was referring to the views expressed by Francis Darwin in his presidential address at the 1908 Dublin meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He continued his concerted attack on Mendelians and mutationists in Poulton, Charles Darwin and the Origin of Species: Addresses, etc., in America and England in the Year of the Two Anniversaries (New York/London: Longmans, Green, 1909).
203. On Poulton's adaptationist views see William C. Kimler, "Advantage, Adaptiveness, and Evolutionary Ecology," J. Hist. Biol., 1986, 19:215-233.
204. Henry Fairfield Osborn, "Darwin and Paleontology," in AAAS, Fifty Years of Darwinism, pp. 209-250, on p. 217;
205. and Gayon, Darwinism's Struggle for Survival, p. 289.
206. The omission was noted by reviewers. Raphael Meldola, e.g., mentioned Pearson as one whose name "we should have liked to see on the list of contributors": Meldola, "Evolution" (cit. n. 6), p. 482.
207. : Seward Copybook. Pearson does not appear to have been nominated as a delegate to the Cambridge celebration or to have attended as a guest; see "List of Delegates and other Guests Invited by the University," Clark Scrapbook.
208. See, e.g., "Programme," p. 9, in Order of the Proceedings at the Darwin Celebration Held at Cambridge, June 22-June 24, 1909 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1909), Cam.b.909.2, Rare Books Room, Cambridge University Library. (Donated by J. W. Clark, the inside front cover reads: "This programme was in the main the work of Fra. Darwin. JWC.")
209. For a new perspective on the beneficial aspects of the conflict between biometricians and Mendelians see Sloan, "Mach's Phenomenalism and the British Reception of Mendelism" (cit. n. 56).
210. Jacques Loeb, "Experimental Study of the Influence of Environment on Animals," in Darwin and Modern Science, ed. Seward, pp. 247-270, on pp. 247, 269;
211. and Wilson, "Cell in Relation to Heredity and Evolution" (cit. n. 62), p. 109.
212. For the views of a detractor who disparaged the connection between Mendelism, cytology, and evolution see O. F. Cook, "Evolution, Cytology, and Mendel's Laws," Pop. Sci. Month., 1903, 63:219-228.
213. Kellogg, Darwinism To-Day (cit. n. 35), pp. 1-2.
214. Betty Smocovitis credits Kellogg with helping to introduce experimental methodology into evolution studies: Smocovitis, Unifying Biology (cit. n. 5), pp. 117-118, 119 n 64.
215. For a summary of methodological objections to natural selection see Mayr, Growth of Biological Thought (cit. n. 35), pp. 520-522.
216. Kellogg, Darwinism To-Day, pp. 19, 377, 378-379.
217. William B. Provine, "Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life," in Julian Huxley, ed. Waters and Van Helden (cit. n. 60), pp. 165-180, on p. 16 On the modern synthesis see William B. Provine, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics (Chicago History of Science and Medicine) (Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1971); 76; v
218. and Yves Delage and Marie Goldsmith, The Theories of Evolution, trans. Andre Tridon (New York: Huebsch, 1913).
219. Bateson, "President's Address" (1914) (cit. n. 51), p. and, more recently, v
220. On Bateson's sense of present needs see Marsha L. Richmond, "The 'Domestication' of Heredity: The Familial Organization of Geneticists at Cambridge University, 1895-1910," J. Hist. Biol. (forthcoming).
221. On the decline of the recapitulationist program see Adam Sedgwick, "The Influence of Darwin on the Study of Animal Embryology," in Darwin and Modern Science, ed. Seward, pp. 171-184;
222. Georg Uschmann, Geschichte der Zoologie und der Zoologische Anstalten in Jena 1779-1919 (Jena: Fischer, 1959);
223. and Gerald Geison, Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1978).
224. Roswell H. Johnson, "Biological Experiment Station for Studying Evolution," Carnegie Institution of Washington Year Book, 1902, 1:274-279, on p. 274.
225. On Bateson's failed application see Beatrice Bateson, ed., William Bateson, F.R. S., Naturalist: His Essays and Addresses, Together with a Short Account of His Life (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1928), p. 77.
226. See also http://www.esp.org/foundations/genetics/classical/holdings/b/ wb02g.pdf.
227. C. B. Davenport to the Trustees of the Carnegie Institution, 5 Mar. 1903, Davenport Papers, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.
228. See also Pamela E. Mack, "The Early Years of the Cold Spring Harbor Station for Experimental Evolution" (typescript), American Philosophical Society, B: M19. Introducing de Vries at the opening of the Station for Experimental Evolution in Cold Spring Harbor, Davenport referred to his Die Mutationstheorie as "the most important work on evolution since Darwin's 'Origin of Species,' a work destined to be the foundation stone of the rising science of experimental evolution."
229. See "Addresses at Opening of the Station for Experimental Evolution, June 11, 1904," Carnegie Inst. Washington Year Book, 1904, 3:33-49, on p. 39.
230. C. B. Davenport, "Station for Experimental Evolution at Cold Spring Harbor, New York," Carnegie Inst. Washington Year Book, 1905, 4:87-96, on p. 94;
231. Kingsland, "Battling Botanist" (cit. n. 60);
232. and Garland E. Allen, "Heredity, Development, and Evolution at the Carnegie Institution of Washington," in Centennial History of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Vol. 5: The Department of Embryology, ed. Jane Maienschein, Marie Glitz, and Allen (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2004), pp. 145-171.
233. William Bateson, "The Progress of Genetic Research," in Report of the Third International Conference 1906 on Genetics (London: Spottiswoode, 1907), pp. 90-97, on p. 97.
234. University and Educational Intelligence," Nature, 5 Mar. 1908, 77:428-429.
235. The same report was carried in the Cambridge University Reporter, 3 Mar. 1908, p. 632;
236. it was reprinted in B. Bateson, ed., William Bateson, F.R.S., Naturalist (cit. n. 73), p. 112.
237. William Bateson, The Methods and Scope of Genetics (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1908), p. [i].
238. "Darwin Centenary: World-Wide Testimony," Daily Telegraph, 24 June 1909, p. 13.
239. On Bateson's concerns regarding the new professorship see B. Bateson, ed., William Bateson, F.R.S., Naturalist (cit. n. 73), pp. 121-122.
240. B. Bateson, ed., William Bateson, F.R.S., Naturalist, pp. 121-122 (Bateson's move to the Innes institute);
241. and Jenny Marie, "The Situation in Genetics, II: Dunn's 1927 European Tour," Mendel Newsletter, N.S., Mar. 2004, no. 13, pp. 2-8.
242. For details on the founding of the Cambridge chair of genetics see Opitz, "Aristocrats and Professionals" (cit. n. 29).
243. For Bateson see William Bateson, "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts," Science, 1922, 55:55-61.
244. On Fisher's reform of Cambridge genetics see Joan Fisher Box, R. A. Fisher: The Life of a Scientist (New York: Wiley, 1978).
245. Julian Sorrell Huxley, Memories (London: Allen & Unwin, 1970), p. 73;
246. and Frederick B. Churchill, "The Elements of Experimental Embryology: A Synthesis for Animal Development," in Julian Huxley, ed. Waters and Van Helden (cit. n. 60), pp. 107-126, on pp. 112-113.
247. Huxley's focus on evolution is evident in his review of the revised edition of T. H. Morgan, A. H. Sturtevant, H. J. Muller, and C. B. Bridges, The Mechanism of Mendelian Heredity (New York: Holt; London: Constable, 1923), which he concluded by stating: "Although several points still remain obscure, yet, apart from this problem of the precise method of origin of variations, the body of facts gathered in the last twenty years, concerning segregation, linkage, multiple factors, multiple allelomorphs, and modifiers, not only gives the hypothetical germ-plasm a definite body and home, but is almost precisely what was required to provide a tangible working mechanism for the bulk of Darwin's own ideas; and it is a matter of constant surprise why many who profess themselves Darwinian of the Darwinians should not only not avail themselves of the new tool, but also evince positive hostility to it. The new principles are, indeed, the only tool we at present possess which is capable of putting evolutionary theories to experimental test. Yet, with a few honourable exceptions, most taxonomists and 'evolutionists' prefer to stick to speculative methods - speculative because incapable of being tested either by experiment or by calculation - and make no attempt to use the new principles in experimental attack - or, for that matter, even in interpretation."
248. J. S. Huxley, "Mendelism in Evolution," Nature, 1924, 113:518-520, on p. 520.
249. Mary M. Bartley, "Conflicts in Human Progress: Sexual Selection and the Fisherian 'Runaway,'" Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 1994, 27:177-197, on p. 180.
250. R. A. Fisher, "The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance," Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1918, 52:399-433;
251. Provine, "Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life" (cit. n. 71), pp. 176-177;
252. and Fisher, The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (Oxford: Clarendon, 1930).
253. On Fisher's role in the evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s see Smocovitis, Unifying Biology (cit. n. 5), pp. 119-120;
254. Provine, Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics (cit. n. 5);
255. and Gayon, Darwinism's Struggle for Survival.
256. Richard Goldschmidt, "Die Artbildung im Licht der neueren Erblichkeitslehre," in Die Abstammungslehre: Zwölf gemeinverständliche Vorträge über die Deszendenztheorie im Licht der neueren Forschung, ed. O. Abel (Jena: Fischer, 1911), pp. 22-60.
257. On Goldschmidt see Marsha L. Richmond, "Richard Goldschmidt and Sex Determination: The Growth of German Genetics, 1900-1935" (Ph.D. diss., Indiana Univ., 1986);
258. and Richmond, "The Making of a Heretic: Richard Goldschmidt and Physiological Genetics" (in preparation).
259. Gayon includes Goldschmidt among "the pioneers of Mendelism," along with A. D. Darbishire, R. H. Lock, R. C. Punnett, W. Johannsen, L. Cuénot, W. Castle, and T. H. Morgan: Gayon, Darwinism's Struggle for Survival, p. 259.
260. Goldschmidt, "Die Artbildung im Licht der neueren Erblichkeitslehre," pp. 46, 55, 58, 60.
261. As Olby has noted, "Johannsen challenged biometricians, Darwinians, and the followers of August Weismann with his penetrating redefinition of heredity, spiced with some scorn. The hallmark of Johannsen's contribution was the introduction of new terms with the deliberate aim of banishing what he regarded as the many erroneous associations which old terms carried. Thus the term germplasm had a Weismannian context, and that was a 'purely speculative morphological view of heredity without any suggestive value.' The whole 'transmission conception' of heredity, too, had to be discarded for he warned that no profound insight into the biological problem of heredity would be gained this way. Just as the conception of phlogiston was diametrically opposed to the chemical reality, so was the transmission conception to the biological reality." Robert C. Olby, "Mendel, Mendelism, and Genetics," MendelWeb, 1997, http://www.mendelweb.org/ MWolby.intro.html.
262. Richard Goldschmidt, "A Preliminary Report on Some Genetic Experiments Concerning Evolution," Amer. Natur., 1918, 52:36-40;
263. and Goldschmidt, Die quantitative Grundlage von Vererbung und Artbildung: Vorträge und Aufsätze über Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen (Berlin: Springer, 1920), pp. 102, 153.
264. R. A. Fisher, "Natural Selection from the Genetical Standpoint," Australian Journal of Science, 1959, 22:16-17, on p. 16.
265. As Orr notes, "a surprisingly large number of biologists held that, while Mendelism might explain the trivial and uninteresting differences seen within species, Morganist genes could never explain species differences": Orr, "Dobzhansky, Bateson, and the Genetics of Speciation" (cit. n. 51), p. 1332.
266. Gayon, Darwinism's Struggle for Survival, Ch. 8;
267. and Ernst Mayr, "Where Are We? Genetics and Twentieth Century Darwinism," in Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Vol. 24 (Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, 1959), pp. 1-14.
268. See also Michel Veuille, "Genetics and the Evolutionary Process," Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci., 2000, 323:1155-1165.
269. Browne, "Presidential Address: Commemorating Darwin" (cit. n. 2);
270. Francis Darwin, ed., The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Including an Autobiographical Chapter (New York: Appleton, 1903);
271. F. Darwin and A. C. Seward, eds., More Letters of Charles Darwin: A Record of His Work in a Series of Hitherto Unpublished Letters (New York: Appleton, 1903);
272. and F. Darwin, ed., The Foundations of "The Origin of Species," Two Sketches Written in 1842 and 1844 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1909) (delegates were given an earlier, unpublished edition, The Foundations of "The Origin of Species," A Sketch Written in 1842).
273. The 1842 manuscript was discovered in a staircase cupboard at Down House after the death of Emma Darwin in 1896: R. B. Freeman, Charles Darwin: A Companion (Folkestone, Kent/Hamden, Conn.: Dawson/Archon, 1978), pp. 258-259.
274. "A Darwin Exhibition," Times, 17 Aug. 1909, p. 9.
275. The exhibit opened in July 1909; a second edition of the guidebook was called for in February 1910. See Sydney F. Harmer's preface and Sydney Smith's introduction to Facsimile of "Memorials of Charles Darwin" (cit. n. 27).
276. Other centennial celebrations honoring British scientists and engineers after 1909 were more in the vein of "civic celebrations" than "academic scientific centenaries." See MacLeod and Tann, "From Engineer to Scientist" (cit. n. 1);
277. and Anthony S. Travis, "Decadence, Decline, and Celebration: Raphael Meldola and the Mauve Jubilee of 1906," History and Technology, 2006, 22:131-152.
278. Cambridge was also the site for the G. G. Stokes Jubilee (1899) and the Clark Maxwell Centenary (1931). As Abir-Am noted, most recent events can be viewed as "disciplinary" commemorations: Abir-Am, "Introduction," in Commemorative Practices in Science (cit. n. 7), p. 27.
279. "The Darwin Centenary at Cambridge," Times, 22 June 1909, p. 9.
280. Kellogg, "Celebrating Darwin's Greatness and Darwinism's Weakness" (cit. n. 37), p. 384.
281. Fisher, "Natural Selection from the Genetical Standpoint" (cit. n. 88), p. 17.
282. As Bowler noted, "Thus it was that Darwinism eventually emerged from its eclipse once it could be shown that a more sophisticated interpretation of the new genetics would provide a firmer foundation for selection": Bowler, Eclipse of Darwinism (cit. n. 9), p. 14.