Has the human 7-day week had any impact on the evolution of species?

Has the human 7-day week had any impact on the evolution of species?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Most (if not all) industrialized countries follow a 7-day work week now, such that we are bound to follow a certain weekly trend in matters such as pollution generation, where to go (e.g. stay in town during weekdays, more likely to go to parks during weekends), what to do (mow the lawn on weekends).

Is there any evidence of any species evolving to adapt to the pace of the human 7-day week lifestyle?

I have no clear evidence of a specific species, but two pieces of the puzzle:

  • species can adapt to living in cities: birds living in cities are bolder (i.e. allow humans to come closer before flying away), and apparently even some genetic changes can be detected.

  • it may be possible for species to evolve a circaseptan rhythm: beach beetles may have a seven-day rhythm to accommodate for different heights of the tides (spring/neap tide). (PubMed / PDF)

Has the human 7-day week had any impact on the evolution of species? - Biology

2. I have been on time and attended every class session.

3. I have read all of the books.

4. I watched all of the required films.

Question 1: I would feel different because I would feel like was just here to be here. I would not serve a purpose of being here except to satisfy myself I would not see the bigger picture, and I would just care about myself. If I was just three pounds of meat, then I would wonder what differentiates us from animals. Animals have yet to develop plumbing, farming, and so on. I just want to know why animals have not made advances like that yet. Maybe squirrels have elevators built inside of trees, and we have yet to discover them.

Question 2: The AT&T Building in Nashville is commonly referred to as the Batman Building, and my parents would always tell me that Batman lived there which I obviously believed. I was five years old whenever my mom told me that my two brothers and dad went to the Batman Building without me. I asked her why I didn’t get to go, and she said because my name didn’t have five letters like Isaac and Tyler. I told her that I could have gone by Sammy since it had five letters, so I could go. She told me no, and I was crushed because I always wanted to see Batman’s house. Whenever they came back to the house, they went along with the plan that it really existed which led to more spitefulness. I was in downtown Nashville one day with my dad when I was about eight and asked if we could stop by the Batman Building since we were already in the area. He told me that Batman didn’t really live there, and it was just a building with offices.

Another anecdote would be when I was in middle school and looked up to high school football players. I thought they were special watching them on Friday nights, but whenever I was a freshman in high school, I moved up from the freshmen team since our season had ended to varsity. I was nervous to practice with them because I thought they would be so much better than they actually turned out to be. They were good just not the invincible people I had imagined. , As I became a senior, I realized that the seniors that I revered were mediocre in actuality, and I was much better than them when I was a senior.

Question 1: I don’t think I would change much about my life because I’ve had so many experiences that wouldn’t have occurred if I chose a different route. I would alter how I cared about the opinions of people that I don’t even associate with anymore. Life is a journey, and I never thought I would have ended up in California for college. I’ve met so many great people over the past few years from transferring to a new high school before I was a senior then going to college in Mississippi for a year. I then ended up at Mt. SAC with my best friend from high school, and now I’ve been all over the country trying to find a university to attend. I love the life I have lived even with the trials and tribulations that I’ve experienced.

Question 2: I sometimes lack the discipline to begin on my work early and end up rushing the day before trying to make up for lost time. I don’t like most science with the exception of biology and similar subjects that pertain to animals. I like more of humanities classes because there is more quantitative data instead of qualitative data. I also prefer when ideas and concepts mesh well together instead of being non-related.

Question 3: I would say that I’m only addicted to my phone. I rarely watch television unless a sport is being televised. I used to watch Criminal Minds and Law and Order,but my schedule fluctuates too much to consistently watch a TV show every week. My friends are addicted to playing Xbox One and listening to a stereo. Video games are the source of many arguments. Taking a loss in a game can reveal how somebody is really feeling inside. Personal insults are rampant after losing from a buzzer beater in 2K. Music is constantly played throughout the house at any time of the day. Getting ready for school? Plug in the aux cord. Cleaning the house? Plug in the aux cord. Rewinding from a long day? Plug in the aux cord. Watching a movie? Plug in the aux cord. Who really needs to hear what is going on in the movie? In all seriousness, music can be relaxing at times, but it is acceptable to have peace and quiet every now and then. These devices allow you to escape, but they can become addicting. I spend too much time on social media some days which can also cause me to stay awake late into the night which in turn leads to a lack of sleep. I can be on one of my friend’s pages and end up seventy-three weeks on his girlfriend’s sorority sister’s cousin’s page. As long as I can control my usage, then I can still be productive. It is also a good tool to see how somebody has been living and connect with them.

Film Test 3: 22-2
Question 1: The multiverse is so vast compared to just Earth. As I kid, a three hour car ride seemed like an eternity, but knowing that stars are many light years away is humbling. I'm just a small part here in the United States but it pales in comparison to the multiverse that we are a part of. Being made of atoms and material stuff does not really affect me because I knew I had to be made from something. I'm still the same me when it comes down to it.

Question 2: As the legendary Bear Bryant once said, "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." I control most of what happens in my life, but chance plays a small part of it as well. If I went to the gas station and bought a lottery ticket and ended up winning, I was lucky to win, but I had to buy the ticket in the first place. I had to purchase the lottery ticket to win, so I had an impact on my luck of hitting the lottery in that scenario.

Question 3: I learned about centripetal force when I was younger watching a basketball game. A player shot a basketball late in the game, and the ball rolled around the rim until it finally went in as the buzzer sounded. Later on in life, I learned about centripetal force in science class, and that play suddenly came back to my memory and finally explained how the basketball went in. Cows also lay down before it rains, and I noticed this a long time ago when my mom pointed it out riding through the country on the way to school. She would always point it out, and she was correct for the most part. A University of Arizona explained this phenomenon by saying that cows stand up to lower their body core temperature. Cows lay down to conserve heat, so cows can in turn feel the low front coming in before it rains.

Film Test 4: 22-2
Question 1: I accept parts of evolution but not all of it. I can see how many species have evolved over time including humans. Humans have grown in size and stature as well as brain size. If evolution is responsible for consciousness, then another species should have developed human-like consciousness by now. Natural selection is responsible for selecting the traits that are best adapted for the environment at that time. Humans have stunted natural selection with medicine, transportation, farming, and other practices.
Question 2: Evolution still does not explain to me how humans developed from the same ancestors as gorillas and other primates. If one mutation was responsible for how the human species was created, then the same mutation would have had to occur in order to produce a species. The population was a lot lower back then, so the outcome of that mutation occurring at the same time is rare. The two would have had to reproduce with each other and have an offspring. The offspring would have had to also reproduce after that. The offspring would have to be fertile. A male donkey and a female horse create mules, but the mules are often sterile. In the rare occurrence that the mule is fertile, the mule has to reproduce with a purebred horse or donkey. If the human happened to reproduce, the species would have been outcast by rest of the species or killed because they were different. I don't think the species could have survived by itself without the help of the other species. Even if the humans started a new species, then a new species should have been created by now.
Question 3: Eliminative materialism is using science to explain how processes in the world occur. One example of eliminative materialism would be walking in a group and splitting the pole will give you bad luck. Another example would be when the right palm itches it is because the person will be poor, but if the left palm itches, then the person has money on the way. An additional example of eliminative materialism would be Poseidon controlling the sea. The Greeks thought he was responsible for the protection of the sea.

6. The Socratic Method keeps asking questions to see how much the person knows about the subject. After several questions, the person interrogated often will eventually not know the answer to the question and begin to have doubts. This method is effective because Socrates could demonstrate the knowledge of the person, and the person would eventually contradict what was earlier stated. The person will learn from this and come to conclusions and should gain more knowledge because of it. The method got Socrates into trouble because he would ask people about their ideas especially young men of wealthy families. Socrates would ask about the gods to them, and they would eventually lose faith in the gods. This did not sit well with the parents of the wealthy kids, so he was sent to trial and ultimately his death.

7. “The resistance we have to reductionists who say, we are “just matter” is because we tend to think of matter as flat.” We don’t want to believe it, and it dampens the mood, however, being made of light gives off a whole different outlook. The definition of matter is misleading, we don’t fully appreciate what matter is. Matter is much more complex, but we have yet to figure out what matter is ultimately. DNA is responsible for creating everything from bananas to humans, and DNA leaves me in sheer amazement because of this. Atoms of different elements also are responsible from everything to a marble to the Empire State Building.

8. Nils Bohr won the debate in my opinion. Bohr shows how you couldn’t measure the momentum even with a slit in the diaphragm. By causing a slit in the diaphragm, the experiment is skewed, so the location of the particle can’t be directly determined. The behavior of the second particle is not known either. If you measure the momentum of one of the particles, then the displacement is lost. The particle would be disturbed from its natural state with a slit in the diaphragm present.

9. “There isn’t a Japanese physics or a Tibetan physics or an American physics. There is just physics.” Physics is everywhere, so region does not matter to physics. There are different religions by regions of the world. You should first use physics to try to explain philosophy then proceed to mathematics followed by other subjects. If a question can’t be answered, then religion could be used to explain something. Physics should not be known as the study of the something, but rather something that should be studied in order to have subjects studied from it.

10. String theory states that atoms are made of smaller loops of matter that vibrate in different ways to produce different forms of matter. The strings are not even visible with the use of a microscope due to how miniscule they are. We only know four different dimensions, but there are speculation that eleven dimensions exist. Our universe could also be part of a multiverse due to the different vibrations that the strings give off. If scientists could prove string theory, then it could unlock bigger mysteries. If string theory was solved, it would help exponentially since other matter derives from it.

11. “Evolution encompasses all of biology.” Molecular biology uses evolution to explain how all animals have a set of similar DNA. The DNA is just read and expressed differently from species to species. Biology does not make sense without evolution tied into it. The environment determines who will reproduce in natural selection. If the species is not adapted to the environment well enough to reproduce, then those traits will occur less. Traits in species that live long enough to reproduce will be passed on to the next generation. Human behavior stems from earlier humans that were hunter-gatherers. They had to survive daily, and our sense of awareness comes from that. Our behavior is also from other humans that had to survive and that was passed along to us.

12. Humans have basic needs that need to be fulfilled to survive. “Consciousness is literally a virtual simulator,” and our minds play out scenarios that help us to survive. Questions are asked because scenarios are imagined, and strategies are created to determine the possible outcomes. Consciousness give the human a better chance to survive if it was faced with a scenario that had already been simulated. We ask why, so we can combat future problems and encounters that could be detrimental to the existence of the human.

13. Plato tells of how the prisoners can only the shadows that are being casted onto the wall from the light, but they can’t see the source of the light. When they finally break free from the shackles, they see the light that comes from outside of the cave. In science, we cannot determine what is happening in regards to an electron. If the position of the electron is found, then the momentum of the electron is lost. If the momentum of the electron is found, then the position of the electron is lost. We don’t understand what is happening simultaneously, so our understanding of science is very similar.

14. Eternal recurrence means the life you have lived will occur repeatedly throughout time. All the emotions will be the same and even the series of the events. The person might be induced to change one’s life in a positive way. The person will want to get the most out of life. Why wait to change your life in the future when it can be altered now? A person’s life could alter from the better all from Nietzsche’s myth of eternal recurrence.

15. The virtual simulator theory of consciousness is when your mind can play out scenarios in which the scenario with the best results will be chosen. Gerald Edelman proposed that there were two forms of awareness. The first order of consciousness is just being aware of the external environment, and even animals have this level of awareness. The second order of awareness is found in humans and allows us to reflect about the environment and simulate the environment. One example would be where one human hears noise in the field and starts to run away while the other human that did not have the same level of consciousness did not imagine the outcome of a predator from the field that ended the life of that human.

Another example that comes to mind would be during tornado season in Tennessee. A tornado warning would be announced on the television, and my dad would make us hide in the basement of the house until the warning was over. When I came back home for spring break while I was in college, there was a tornado warning at two in the morning, and everybody had evacuated the trailer that we lived in at that time except for me. My family all went to a neighbor’s house about five minutes away to get proper safety. I stayed at the trailer home after I had never been impacted by a tornado, so I did not have the same imagination as everybody else. A massive thunderstorm knocked down a power line, and the power ultimately went out however, a tornado did not hit. The outcome could have been much worse, but I luckily survived through the night. If I had a better simulator, I might have evacuated as well, but I guess a tornado touching down did not simulate in my head.

16. My favorite film was Quantum Thinking: Illuminated Ideas in 56 Seconds (sometimes). This film helped me learned about quantum physics. I had no idea what quantum physics was before I came into class, so it was fun to learn about a new concept. The film was explained easily, so I understood much better.

17. Is the Universe Really Made of Tiny Rubber Bands? was my favorite reading because it helped me understand string theory and quantum mechanics much better. I also thought it had a nice story to it because he had to do a project for the science fair. I remember those elementary days when I would wait until the last second to make a project. I never thought to make anything useful like that book that would actually help people.

7. Homo Heidelbergensis

Homo heidelbergensis lived on Earth between 700,000 and 200,000 years ago. They emerged from Africa. The Homo heidelbergensis male was about 5ft 9in (175cm) tall and weighed around 136lbs (62kg), whereas the female average height was 5ft 2in (157cm) and with a weight of 112lbs (51kg). They had a large brain case with a flatter face than today’s humans. They were the first human species to adapt to colder climates and to build their own shelters to live in. They were also widely known for their ability to hunt large animals, which had not been seen in human species before them.

The first Homo heidelbergensis fossil was discovered on October 21, 1907, by a worker in Germany. The workman handed it over to Professor Otto Schoetensack from the University of Heidelberg who later identified and named the fossil.


Darwin's theory of evolution is based on key facts and the inferences drawn from them, which biologist Ernst Mayr summarised as follows: [6]

  • Every species is fertile enough that if all offspring survived to reproduce, the population would grow (fact).
  • Despite periodic fluctuations, populations remain roughly the same size (fact).
  • Resources such as food are limited and are relatively stable over time (fact).
  • A struggle for survival ensues (inference).
  • Individuals in a population vary significantly from one another (fact).
  • Much of this variation is heritable (fact).
  • Individuals less suited to the environment are less likely to survive and less likely to reproduce individuals more suited to the environment are more likely to survive and more likely to reproduce and leave their heritable traits to future generations, which produces the process of natural selection (fact).
  • This slowly effected process results in populations changing to adapt to their environments, and ultimately, these variations accumulate over time to form new species (inference).

Developments before Darwin's theory Edit

In later editions of the book, Darwin traced evolutionary ideas as far back as Aristotle [7] the text he cites is a summary by Aristotle of the ideas of the earlier Greek philosopher Empedocles. [8] Early Christian Church Fathers and Medieval European scholars interpreted the Genesis creation narrative allegorically rather than as a literal historical account [9] organisms were described by their mythological and heraldic significance as well as by their physical form. Nature was widely believed to be unstable and capricious, with monstrous births from union between species, and spontaneous generation of life. [10]

The Protestant Reformation inspired a literal interpretation of the Bible, with concepts of creation that conflicted with the findings of an emerging science seeking explanations congruent with the mechanical philosophy of René Descartes and the empiricism of the Baconian method. After the turmoil of the English Civil War, the Royal Society wanted to show that science did not threaten religious and political stability. John Ray developed an influential natural theology of rational order in his taxonomy, species were static and fixed, their adaptation and complexity designed by God, and varieties showed minor differences caused by local conditions. In God's benevolent design, carnivores caused mercifully swift death, but the suffering caused by parasitism was a puzzling problem. The biological classification introduced by Carl Linnaeus in 1735 also viewed species as fixed according to the divine plan. In 1766, Georges Buffon suggested that some similar species, such as horses and asses, or lions, tigers, and leopards, might be varieties descended from a common ancestor. The Ussher chronology of the 1650s had calculated creation at 4004 BC, but by the 1780s geologists assumed a much older world. Wernerians thought strata were deposits from shrinking seas, but James Hutton proposed a self-maintaining infinite cycle, anticipating uniformitarianism. [11]

Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin outlined a hypothesis of transmutation of species in the 1790s, and French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck published a more developed theory in 1809. Both envisaged that spontaneous generation produced simple forms of life that progressively developed greater complexity, adapting to the environment by inheriting changes in adults caused by use or disuse. This process was later called Lamarckism. Lamarck thought there was an inherent progressive tendency driving organisms continuously towards greater complexity, in parallel but separate lineages with no extinction. [12] Geoffroy contended that embryonic development recapitulated transformations of organisms in past eras when the environment acted on embryos, and that animal structures were determined by a constant plan as demonstrated by homologies. Georges Cuvier strongly disputed such ideas, holding that unrelated, fixed species showed similarities that reflected a design for functional needs. [13] His palæontological work in the 1790s had established the reality of extinction, which he explained by local catastrophes, followed by repopulation of the affected areas by other species. [14]

In Britain, William Paley's Natural Theology saw adaptation as evidence of beneficial "design" by the Creator acting through natural laws. All naturalists in the two English universities (Oxford and Cambridge) were Church of England clergymen, and science became a search for these laws. [15] Geologists adapted catastrophism to show repeated worldwide annihilation and creation of new fixed species adapted to a changed environment, initially identifying the most recent catastrophe as the biblical flood. [16] Some anatomists such as Robert Grant were influenced by Lamarck and Geoffroy, but most naturalists regarded their ideas of transmutation as a threat to divinely appointed social order. [17]

Inception of Darwin's theory Edit

Darwin went to Edinburgh University in 1825 to study medicine. In his second year he neglected his medical studies for natural history and spent four months assisting Robert Grant's research into marine invertebrates. Grant revealed his enthusiasm for the transmutation of species, but Darwin rejected it. [18] Starting in 1827, at Cambridge University, Darwin learnt science as natural theology from botanist John Stevens Henslow, and read Paley, John Herschel and Alexander von Humboldt. Filled with zeal for science, he studied catastrophist geology with Adam Sedgwick. [19] [20]

In December 1831, he joined the Beagle expedition as a gentleman naturalist and geologist. He read Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology and from the first stop ashore, at St. Jago, found Lyell's uniformitarianism a key to the geological history of landscapes. Darwin discovered fossils resembling huge armadillos, and noted the geographical distribution of modern species in hope of finding their "centre of creation". [21] The three Fuegian missionaries the expedition returned to Tierra del Fuego were friendly and civilised, yet to Darwin their relatives on the island seemed "miserable, degraded savages", [22] and he no longer saw an unbridgeable gap between humans and animals. [23] As the Beagle neared England in 1836, he noted that species might not be fixed. [24] [25]

Richard Owen showed that fossils of extinct species Darwin found in South America were allied to living species on the same continent. In March 1837, ornithologist John Gould announced that Darwin's rhea was a separate species from the previously described rhea (though their territories overlapped), that mockingbirds collected on the Galápagos Islands represented three separate species each unique to a particular island, and that several distinct birds from those islands were all classified as finches. [26] Darwin began speculating, in a series of notebooks, on the possibility that "one species does change into another" to explain these findings, and around July sketched a genealogical branching of a single evolutionary tree, discarding Lamarck's independent lineages progressing to higher forms. [27] [28] [29] Unconventionally, Darwin asked questions of fancy pigeon and animal breeders as well as established scientists. At the zoo he had his first sight of an ape, and was profoundly impressed by how human the orangutan seemed. [30]

In late September 1838, he started reading Thomas Malthus's An Essay on the Principle of Population with its statistical argument that human populations, if unrestrained, breed beyond their means and struggle to survive. Darwin related this to the struggle for existence among wildlife and botanist de Candolle's "warring of the species" in plants he immediately envisioned "a force like a hundred thousand wedges" pushing well-adapted variations into "gaps in the economy of nature", so that the survivors would pass on their form and abilities, and unfavourable variations would be destroyed. [31] [32] [33] By December 1838, he had noted a similarity between the act of breeders selecting traits and a Malthusian Nature selecting among variants thrown up by "chance" so that "every part of newly acquired structure is fully practical and perfected". [34]

Darwin now had the basic framework of his theory of natural selection, but he was fully occupied with his career as a geologist and held back from compiling it until his book on The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs was completed. [35] [36] As he recalled in his autobiography, he had "at last got a theory by which to work", but it was only in June 1842 that he allowed himself "the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my theory in pencil". [37]

Further development Edit

Darwin continued to research and extensively revise his theory while focusing on his main work of publishing the scientific results of the Beagle voyage. [35] He tentatively wrote of his ideas to Lyell in January 1842 [38] then in June he roughed out a 35-page "Pencil Sketch" of his theory. [39] Darwin began correspondence about his theorising with the botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker in January 1844, and by July had rounded out his "sketch" into a 230-page "Essay", to be expanded with his research results and published if he died prematurely. [40]

In November 1844, the anonymously published popular science book Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, written by Scottish journalist Robert Chambers, widened public interest in the concept of transmutation of species. Vestiges used evidence from the fossil record and embryology to support the claim that living things had progressed from the simple to the more complex over time. But it proposed a linear progression rather than the branching common descent theory behind Darwin's work in progress, and it ignored adaptation. Darwin read it soon after publication, and scorned its amateurish geology and zoology, [41] but he carefully reviewed his own arguments after leading scientists, including Adam Sedgwick, attacked its morality and scientific errors. [42] Vestiges had significant influence on public opinion, and the intense debate helped to pave the way for the acceptance of the more scientifically sophisticated Origin by moving evolutionary speculation into the mainstream. While few naturalists were willing to consider transmutation, Herbert Spencer became an active proponent of Lamarckism and progressive development in the 1850s. [43]

Hooker was persuaded to take away a copy of the "Essay" in January 1847, and eventually sent a page of notes giving Darwin much-needed feedback. Reminded of his lack of expertise in taxonomy, Darwin began an eight-year study of barnacles, becoming the leading expert on their classification. Using his theory, he discovered homologies showing that slightly changed body parts served different functions to meet new conditions, and he found an intermediate stage in the evolution of distinct sexes. [44] [45]

Darwin's barnacle studies convinced him that variation arose constantly and not just in response to changed circumstances. In 1854, he completed the last part of his Beagle-related writing and began working full-time on evolution. He now realised that the branching pattern of evolutionary divergence was explained by natural selection working constantly to improve adaptation. His thinking changed from the view that species formed in isolated populations only, as on islands, to an emphasis on speciation without isolation that is, he saw increasing specialisation within large stable populations as continuously exploiting new ecological niches. He conducted empirical research focusing on difficulties with his theory. He studied the developmental and anatomical differences between different breeds of many domestic animals, became actively involved in fancy pigeon breeding, and experimented (with the help of his son Francis) on ways that plant seeds and animals might disperse across oceans to colonise distant islands. By 1856, his theory was much more sophisticated, with a mass of supporting evidence. [44] [46]

Time taken to publish Edit

In his autobiography, Darwin said he had "gained much by my delay in publishing from about 1839, when the theory was clearly conceived, to 1859 and I lost nothing by it". [47] On the first page of his 1859 book he noted that, having begun work on the topic in 1837, he had drawn up "some short notes" after five years, had enlarged these into a sketch in 1844, and "from that period to the present day I have steadily pursued the same object." [48] [49]

Various biographers have proposed that Darwin avoided or delayed making his ideas public for personal reasons. Reasons suggested have included fear of religious persecution or social disgrace if his views were revealed, and concern about upsetting his clergymen naturalist friends or his pious wife Emma. Charles Darwin's illness caused repeated delays. His paper on Glen Roy had proved embarrassingly wrong, and he may have wanted to be sure he was correct. David Quammen has suggested all these factors may have contributed, and notes Darwin's large output of books and busy family life during that time. [50]

A more recent study by science historian John van Wyhe has determined that the idea that Darwin delayed publication only dates back to the 1940s, and Darwin's contemporaries thought the time he took was reasonable. Darwin always finished one book before starting another. While he was researching, he told many people about his interest in transmutation without causing outrage. He firmly intended to publish, but it was not until September 1854 that he could work on it full-time. His 1846 estimate that writing his "big book" would take five years proved optimistic. [48]

Events leading to publication: "big book" manuscript Edit

An 1855 paper on the "introduction" of species, written by Alfred Russel Wallace, claimed that patterns in the geographical distribution of living and fossil species could be explained if every new species always came into existence near an already existing, closely related species. [51] Charles Lyell recognised the implications of Wallace's paper and its possible connection to Darwin's work, although Darwin did not, and in a letter written on 1–2 May 1856 Lyell urged Darwin to publish his theory to establish priority. Darwin was torn between the desire to set out a full and convincing account and the pressure to quickly produce a short paper. He met Lyell, and in correspondence with Joseph Dalton Hooker affirmed that he did not want to expose his ideas to review by an editor as would have been required to publish in an academic journal. He began a "sketch" account on 14 May 1856, and by July had decided to produce a full technical treatise on species as his "big book" on Natural Selection. His theory including the principle of divergence was complete by 5 September 1857 when he sent Asa Gray a brief but detailed abstract of his ideas. [52] [53]

Joint publication of papers by Wallace and Darwin Edit

Darwin was hard at work on the manuscript for his "big book" on Natural Selection, when on 18 June 1858 he received a parcel from Wallace, who stayed on the Maluku Islands (Ternate and Gilolo). It enclosed twenty pages describing an evolutionary mechanism, a response to Darwin's recent encouragement, with a request to send it on to Lyell if Darwin thought it worthwhile. The mechanism was similar to Darwin's own theory. [52] Darwin wrote to Lyell that "your words have come true with a vengeance, . forestalled" and he would "of course, at once write and offer to send [it] to any journal" that Wallace chose, adding that "all my originality, whatever it may amount to, will be smashed". [54] Lyell and Hooker agreed that a joint publication putting together Wallace's pages with extracts from Darwin's 1844 Essay and his 1857 letter to Gray should be presented at the Linnean Society, and on 1 July 1858, the papers entitled On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection, by Wallace and Darwin respectively, were read out but drew little reaction. While Darwin considered Wallace's idea to be identical to his concept of natural selection, historians have pointed out differences. Darwin described natural selection as being analogous to the artificial selection practised by animal breeders, and emphasised competition between individuals Wallace drew no comparison to selective breeding, and focused on ecological pressures that kept different varieties adapted to local conditions. [55] [56] [57] Some historians have suggested that Wallace was actually discussing group selection rather than selection acting on individual variation. [58]

Abstract of Species book Edit

Soon after the meeting, Darwin decided to write "an abstract of my whole work" in the form of one or more papers to be published by the Linnean Society, but was concerned about "how it can be made scientific for a Journal, without giving facts, which would be impossible." He asked Hooker how many pages would be available, but "If the Referees were to reject it as not strictly scientific I would, perhaps publish it as pamphlet." [59] [60] He began his "abstract of Species book" on 20 July 1858, while on holiday at Sandown, [61] and wrote parts of it from memory, while sending the manuscripts to his friends for checking. [62]

By early October, he began to "expect my abstract will run into a small volume, which will have to be published separately." [63] Over the same period, he continued to collect information and write large fully detailed sections of the manuscript for his "big book" on Species, Natural Selection. [59]

Murray as publisher choice of title Edit

By mid-March 1859 Darwin's abstract had reached the stage where he was thinking of early publication Lyell suggested the publisher John Murray, and met with him to find if he would be willing to publish. On 28 March Darwin wrote to Lyell asking about progress, and offering to give Murray assurances "that my Book is not more un-orthodox, than the subject makes inevitable." He enclosed a draft title sheet proposing An abstract of an Essay on the Origin of Species and Varieties Through natural selection, with the year shown as "1859". [64] [65]

Murray's response was favourable, and a very pleased Darwin told Lyell on 30 March that he would "send shortly a large bundle of M.S. but unfortunately I cannot for a week, as the three first chapters are in three copyists' hands". He bowed to Murray's objection to "abstract" in the title, though he felt it excused the lack of references, but wanted to keep "natural selection" which was "constantly used in all works on Breeding", and hoped "to retain it with Explanation, somewhat as thus",— Through Natural Selection or the preservation of favoured races. [65] [66] On 31 March Darwin wrote to Murray in confirmation, and listed headings of the 12 chapters in progress: he had drafted all except "XII. Recapitulation & Conclusion". [67] Murray responded immediately with an agreement to publish the book on the same terms as he published Lyell, without even seeing the manuscript: he offered Darwin ⅔ of the profits. [68] Darwin promptly accepted with pleasure, insisting that Murray would be free to withdraw the offer if, having read the chapter manuscripts, he felt the book would not sell well [69] (eventually Murray paid £180 to Darwin for the first edition and by Darwin's death in 1882 the book was in its sixth edition, earning Darwin nearly £3000 [70] ).

On 5 April, Darwin sent Murray the first three chapters, and a proposal for the book's title. [71] An early draft title page suggests On the Mutability of Species. [72] Murray cautiously asked Whitwell Elwin to review the chapters. [59] At Lyell's suggestion, Elwin recommended that, rather than "put forth the theory without the evidence", the book should focus on observations upon pigeons, briefly stating how these illustrated Darwin's general principles and preparing the way for the larger work expected shortly: "Every body is interested in pigeons." [73] Darwin responded that this was impractical: he had only the last chapter still to write. [74] In September the main title still included "An essay on the origin of species and varieties", but Darwin now proposed dropping "varieties". [75]

With Murray's persuasion, the title was eventually agreed as On the Origin of Species, with the title page adding by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [3] In this extended title (and elsewhere in the book) Darwin used the biological term "races" interchangeably with "varieties", meaning varieties within a species. [76] [77] He used the term broadly, [78] and as well as discussions of "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage" and "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants", [79] there are three instances in the book where the phrase "races of man" is used, referring to races of humans. [80]

Publication and subsequent editions Edit

On the Origin of Species was first published on Thursday 24 November 1859, priced at fifteen shillings with a first printing of 1250 copies. [81] The book had been offered to booksellers at Murray's autumn sale on Tuesday 22 November, and all available copies had been taken up immediately. In total, 1,250 copies were printed but after deducting presentation and review copies, and five for Stationers' Hall copyright, around 1,170 copies were available for sale. [2] Significantly, 500 were taken by Mudie's Library, ensuring that the book promptly reached a large number of subscribers to the library. [82] The second edition of 3,000 copies was quickly brought out on 7 January 1860, [83] and incorporated numerous corrections as well as a response to religious objections by the addition of a new epigraph on page ii, a quotation from Charles Kingsley, and the phrase "by the Creator" added to the closing sentence. [84] During Darwin's lifetime the book went through six editions, with cumulative changes and revisions to deal with counter-arguments raised. The third edition came out in 1861, with a number of sentences rewritten or added and an introductory appendix, An Historical Sketch of the Recent Progress of Opinion on the Origin of Species, [85] while the fourth in 1866 had further revisions. The fifth edition, published on 10 February 1869, incorporated more changes and for the first time included the phrase "survival of the fittest", which had been coined by the philosopher Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology (1864). [86]

In January 1871, George Jackson Mivart's On the Genesis of Species listed detailed arguments against natural selection, and claimed it included false metaphysics. [87] Darwin made extensive revisions to the sixth edition of the Origin (this was the first edition in which he used the word "evolution" which had commonly been associated with embryological development, though all editions concluded with the word "evolved" [88] [89] ), and added a new chapter VII, Miscellaneous objections, to address Mivart's arguments. [2] [90]

The sixth edition was published by Murray on 19 February 1872 as The Origin of Species, with "On" dropped from the title. Darwin had told Murray of working men in Lancashire clubbing together to buy the fifth edition at 15 shillings and wanted it made more widely available the price was halved to 7s 6d by printing in a smaller font. It includes a glossary compiled by W.S. Dallas. Book sales increased from 60 to 250 per month. [3] [90]

Publication outside Great Britain Edit

In the United States, botanist Asa Gray, an American colleague of Darwin, negotiated with a Boston publisher for publication of an authorised American version, but learnt that two New York publishing firms were already planning to exploit the absence of international copyright to print Origin. [91] Darwin was delighted by the popularity of the book, and asked Gray to keep any profits. [92] Gray managed to negotiate a 5% royalty with Appleton's of New York, [93] who got their edition out in mid-January 1860, and the other two withdrew. In a May letter, Darwin mentioned a print run of 2,500 copies, but it is not clear if this referred to the first printing only, as there were four that year. [2] [94]

The book was widely translated in Darwin's lifetime, but problems arose with translating concepts and metaphors, and some translations were biased by the translator's own agenda. [95] Darwin distributed presentation copies in France and Germany, hoping that suitable applicants would come forward, as translators were expected to make their own arrangements with a local publisher. He welcomed the distinguished elderly naturalist and geologist Heinrich Georg Bronn, but the German translation published in 1860 imposed Bronn's own ideas, adding controversial themes that Darwin had deliberately omitted. Bronn translated "favoured races" as "perfected races", and added essays on issues including the origin of life, as well as a final chapter on religious implications partly inspired by Bronn's adherence to Naturphilosophie. [96] In 1862, Bronn produced a second edition based on the third English edition and Darwin's suggested additions, but then died of a heart attack. [97] Darwin corresponded closely with Julius Victor Carus, who published an improved translation in 1867. [98] Darwin's attempts to find a translator in France fell through, and the translation by Clémence Royer published in 1862 added an introduction praising Darwin's ideas as an alternative to religious revelation and promoting ideas anticipating social Darwinism and eugenics, as well as numerous explanatory notes giving her own answers to doubts that Darwin expressed. Darwin corresponded with Royer about a second edition published in 1866 and a third in 1870, but he had difficulty getting her to remove her notes and was troubled by these editions. [97] [99] He remained unsatisfied until a translation by Edmond Barbier was published in 1876. [2] A Dutch translation by Tiberius Cornelis Winkler was published in 1860. [100] By 1864, additional translations had appeared in Italian and Russian. [95] In Darwin's lifetime, Origin was published in Swedish in 1871, [101] Danish in 1872, Polish in 1873, Hungarian in 1873–1874, Spanish in 1877 and Serbian in 1878. By 1977, Origin had appeared in an additional 18 languages, [102] including Chinese by Ma Chün-wu who added non-Darwinian ideas he published the preliminaries and chapters 1–5 in 1902–1904, and his complete translation in 1920. [103] [104]

Title pages and introduction Edit

Page ii contains quotations by William Whewell and Francis Bacon on the theology of natural laws, [105] harmonising science and religion in accordance with Isaac Newton's belief in a rational God who established a law-abiding cosmos. [106] In the second edition, Darwin added an epigraph from Joseph Butler affirming that God could work through scientific laws as much as through miracles, in a nod to the religious concerns of his oldest friends. [84] The Introduction establishes Darwin's credentials as a naturalist and author, [107] then refers to John Herschel's letter suggesting that the origin of species "would be found to be a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process": [108]

WHEN on board HMS Beagle, as naturalist, I was much struck with certain facts in the distribution of the inhabitants of South America, and in the geological relations of the present to the past inhabitants of that continent. These facts seemed to me to throw some light on the origin of species—that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our greatest philosophers. [109]

Darwin refers specifically to the distribution of the species rheas, and to that of the Galápagos tortoises and mockingbirds. He mentions his years of work on his theory, and the arrival of Wallace at the same conclusion, which led him to "publish this Abstract" of his incomplete work. He outlines his ideas, and sets out the essence of his theory:

As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive and as, consequently, there is a frequently recurring struggle for existence, it follows that any being, if it vary however slightly in any manner profitable to itself, under the complex and sometimes varying conditions of life, will have a better chance of surviving, and thus be naturally selected. From the strong principle of inheritance, any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form. [110]

Starting with the third edition, Darwin prefaced the introduction with a sketch of the historical development of evolutionary ideas. [111] In that sketch he acknowledged that Patrick Matthew had, unknown to Wallace or himself, anticipated the concept of natural selection in an appendix to a book published in 1831 [112] in the fourth edition he mentioned that William Charles Wells had done so as early as 1813. [113]

Variation under domestication and under nature Edit

Chapter I covers animal husbandry and plant breeding, going back to ancient Egypt. Darwin discusses contemporary opinions on the origins of different breeds under cultivation to argue that many have been produced from common ancestors by selective breeding. [114] As an illustration of artificial selection, he describes fancy pigeon breeding, [115] noting that "[t]he diversity of the breeds is something astonishing", yet all were descended from one species of rock pigeon. [116] Darwin saw two distinct kinds of variation: (1) rare abrupt changes he called "sports" or "monstrosities" (example: Ancon sheep with short legs), and (2) ubiquitous small differences (example: slightly shorter or longer bill of pigeons). [117] Both types of hereditary changes can be used by breeders. However, for Darwin the small changes were most important in evolution. In this chapter Darwin expresses his erroneous belief that environmental change is necessary to generate variation. [118]

In Chapter II, Darwin specifies that the distinction between species and varieties is arbitrary, with experts disagreeing and changing their decisions when new forms were found. He concludes that "a well-marked variety may be justly called an incipient species" and that "species are only strongly marked and permanent varieties". [119] He argues for the ubiquity of variation in nature. [120] Historians have noted that naturalists had long been aware that the individuals of a species differed from one another, but had generally considered such variations to be limited and unimportant deviations from the archetype of each species, that archetype being a fixed ideal in the mind of God. Darwin and Wallace made variation among individuals of the same species central to understanding the natural world. [115]

Struggle for existence, natural selection, and divergence Edit

In Chapter III, Darwin asks how varieties "which I have called incipient species" become distinct species, and in answer introduces the key concept he calls "natural selection" [121] in the fifth edition he adds, "But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient." [122]

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring . I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. [121]

He notes that both A. P. de Candolle and Charles Lyell had stated that all organisms are exposed to severe competition. Darwin emphasizes that he used the phrase "struggle for existence" in "a large and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another" he gives examples ranging from plants struggling against drought to plants competing for birds to eat their fruit and disseminate their seeds. He describes the struggle resulting from population growth: "It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms." He discusses checks to such increase including complex ecological interdependencies, and notes that competition is most severe between closely related forms "which fill nearly the same place in the economy of nature". [123]

Chapter IV details natural selection under the "infinitely complex and close-fitting . mutual relations of all organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life". [124] Darwin takes as an example a country where a change in conditions led to extinction of some species, immigration of others and, where suitable variations occurred, descendants of some species became adapted to new conditions. He remarks that the artificial selection practised by animal breeders frequently produced sharp divergence in character between breeds, and suggests that natural selection might do the same, saying:

But how, it may be asked, can any analogous principle apply in nature? I believe it can and does apply most efficiently, from the simple circumstance that the more diversified the descendants from any one species become in structure, constitution, and habits, by so much will they be better enabled to seize on many and widely diversified places in the polity of nature, and so be enabled to increase in numbers. [125]

Historians have remarked that here Darwin anticipated the modern concept of an ecological niche. [126] He did not suggest that every favourable variation must be selected, nor that the favoured animals were better or higher, but merely more adapted to their surroundings.

Darwin proposes sexual selection, driven by competition between males for mates, to explain sexually dimorphic features such as lion manes, deer antlers, peacock tails, bird songs, and the bright plumage of some male birds. [127] He analysed sexual selection more fully in The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871). Natural selection was expected to work very slowly in forming new species, but given the effectiveness of artificial selection, he could "see no limit to the amount of change, to the beauty and infinite complexity of the coadaptations between all organic beings, one with another and with their physical conditions of life, which may be effected in the long course of time by nature's power of selection". Using a tree diagram and calculations, he indicates the "divergence of character" from original species into new species and genera. He describes branches falling off as extinction occurred, while new branches formed in "the great Tree of life . with its ever branching and beautiful ramifications". [128]

Variation and heredity Edit

In Darwin's time there was no agreed-upon model of heredity [129] in Chapter I Darwin admitted, "The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown." [130] He accepted a version of the inheritance of acquired characteristics (which after Darwin's death came to be called Lamarckism), and Chapter V discusses what he called the effects of use and disuse he wrote that he thought "there can be little doubt that use in our domestic animals strengthens and enlarges certain parts, and disuse diminishes them and that such modifications are inherited", and that this also applied in nature. [131] Darwin stated that some changes that were commonly attributed to use and disuse, such as the loss of functional wings in some island-dwelling insects, might be produced by natural selection. In later editions of Origin, Darwin expanded the role attributed to the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Darwin also admitted ignorance of the source of inheritable variations, but speculated they might be produced by environmental factors. [132] [133] However, one thing was clear: whatever the exact nature and causes of new variations, Darwin knew from observation and experiment that breeders were able to select such variations and produce huge differences in many generations of selection. [117] The observation that selection works in domestic animals is not destroyed by lack of understanding of the underlying hereditary mechanism.

Breeding of animals and plants showed related varieties varying in similar ways, or tending to revert to an ancestral form, and similar patterns of variation in distinct species were explained by Darwin as demonstrating common descent. He recounted how Lord Morton's mare apparently demonstrated telegony, offspring inheriting characteristics of a previous mate of the female parent, and accepted this process as increasing the variation available for natural selection. [134] [135]

More detail was given in Darwin's 1868 book on The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, which tried to explain heredity through his hypothesis of pangenesis. Although Darwin had privately questioned blending inheritance, he struggled with the theoretical difficulty that novel individual variations would tend to blend into a population. However, inherited variation could be seen, [136] and Darwin's concept of selection working on a population with a range of small variations was workable. [137] It was not until the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s that a model of heredity became completely integrated with a model of variation. [138] This modern evolutionary synthesis had been dubbed Neo Darwinian Evolution because it encompasses Charles Darwin's theories of evolution with Gregor Mendel's theories of genetic inheritance. [139]

Difficulties for the theory Edit

Chapter VI begins by saying the next three chapters will address possible objections to the theory, the first being that often no intermediate forms between closely related species are found, though the theory implies such forms must have existed. As Darwin noted, "Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" [140] Darwin attributed this to the competition between different forms, combined with the small number of individuals of intermediate forms, often leading to extinction of such forms. [141] This difficulty can be referred to as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space.

Another difficulty, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin commented that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed," and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" [142] (For further discussion of these difficulties, see Speciation#Darwin's dilemma: Why do species exist? and Bernstein et al. [143] and Michod. [144] )

The chapter then deals with whether natural selection could produce complex specialised structures, and the behaviours to use them, when it would be difficult to imagine how intermediate forms could be functional. Darwin said:

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection? [145]

His answer was that in many cases animals exist with intermediate structures that are functional. He presented flying squirrels, and flying lemurs as examples of how bats might have evolved from non-flying ancestors. [146] He discussed various simple eyes found in invertebrates, starting with nothing more than an optic nerve coated with pigment, as examples of how the vertebrate eye could have evolved. Darwin concludes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case." [147]

In a section on "organs of little apparent importance", Darwin discusses the difficulty of explaining various seemingly trivial traits with no evident adaptive function, and outlines some possibilities such as correlation with useful features. He accepts that we "are profoundly ignorant of the causes producing slight and unimportant variations" which distinguish domesticated breeds of animals, [148] and human races. He suggests that sexual selection might explain these variations: [149] [150]

I might have adduced for this same purpose the differences between the races of man, which are so strongly marked I may add that some little light can apparently be thrown on the origin of these differences, chiefly through sexual selection of a particular kind, but without here entering on copious details my reasoning would appear frivolous. [151]

Chapter VII (of the first edition) addresses the evolution of instincts. His examples included two he had investigated experimentally: slave-making ants and the construction of hexagonal cells by honey bees. Darwin noted that some species of slave-making ants were more dependent on slaves than others, and he observed that many ant species will collect and store the pupae of other species as food. He thought it reasonable that species with an extreme dependency on slave workers had evolved in incremental steps. He suggested that bees that make hexagonal cells evolved in steps from bees that made round cells, under pressure from natural selection to economise wax. Darwin concluded:

Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, —ants making slaves, —the larvæ of ichneumonidæ feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, —not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die. [152]

Chapter VIII addresses the idea that species had special characteristics that prevented hybrids from being fertile in order to preserve separately created species. Darwin said that, far from being constant, the difficulty in producing hybrids of related species, and the viability and fertility of the hybrids, varied greatly, especially among plants. Sometimes what were widely considered to be separate species produced fertile hybrid offspring freely, and in other cases what were considered to be mere varieties of the same species could only be crossed with difficulty. Darwin concluded: "Finally, then, the facts briefly given in this chapter do not seem to me opposed to, but even rather to support the view, that there is no fundamental distinction between species and varieties." [153]

In the sixth edition Darwin inserted a new chapter VII (renumbering the subsequent chapters) to respond to criticisms of earlier editions, including the objection that many features of organisms were not adaptive and could not have been produced by natural selection. He said some such features could have been by-products of adaptive changes to other features, and that often features seemed non-adaptive because their function was unknown, as shown by his book on Fertilisation of Orchids that explained how their elaborate structures facilitated pollination by insects. Much of the chapter responds to George Jackson Mivart's criticisms, including his claim that features such as baleen filters in whales, flatfish with both eyes on one side and the camouflage of stick insects could not have evolved through natural selection because intermediate stages would not have been adaptive. Darwin proposed scenarios for the incremental evolution of each feature. [154]

Geological record Edit

Chapter IX deals with the fact that the geological record appears to show forms of life suddenly arising, without the innumerable transitional fossils expected from gradual changes. Darwin borrowed Charles Lyell's argument in Principles of Geology that the record is extremely imperfect as fossilisation is a very rare occurrence, spread over vast periods of time since few areas had been geologically explored, there could only be fragmentary knowledge of geological formations, and fossil collections were very poor. Evolved local varieties which migrated into a wider area would seem to be the sudden appearance of a new species. Darwin did not expect to be able to reconstruct evolutionary history, but continuing discoveries gave him well-founded hope that new finds would occasionally reveal transitional forms. [155] [156] To show that there had been enough time for natural selection to work slowly, he cited the example of The Weald as discussed in Principles of Geology together with other observations from Hugh Miller, James Smith of Jordanhill and Andrew Ramsay. Combining this with an estimate of recent rates of sedimentation and erosion, Darwin calculated that erosion of The Weald had taken around 300 million years. [157] The initial appearance of entire groups of well-developed organisms in the oldest fossil-bearing layers, now known as the Cambrian explosion, posed a problem. Darwin had no doubt that earlier seas had swarmed with living creatures, but stated that he had no satisfactory explanation for the lack of fossils. [158] Fossil evidence of pre-Cambrian life has since been found, extending the history of life back for billions of years. [159]

Chapter X examines whether patterns in the fossil record are better explained by common descent and branching evolution through natural selection, than by the individual creation of fixed species. Darwin expected species to change slowly, but not at the same rate – some organisms such as Lingula were unchanged since the earliest fossils. The pace of natural selection would depend on variability and change in the environment. [160] This distanced his theory from Lamarckian laws of inevitable progress. [155] It has been argued that this anticipated the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis, [156] [161] but other scholars have preferred to emphasise Darwin's commitment to gradualism. [162] He cited Richard Owen's findings that the earliest members of a class were a few simple and generalised species with characteristics intermediate between modern forms, and were followed by increasingly diverse and specialised forms, matching the branching of common descent from an ancestor. [155] Patterns of extinction matched his theory, with related groups of species having a continued existence until extinction, then not reappearing. Recently extinct species were more similar to living species than those from earlier eras, and as he had seen in South America, and William Clift had shown in Australia, fossils from recent geological periods resembled species still living in the same area. [160]

Geographic distribution Edit

Chapter XI deals with evidence from biogeography, starting with the observation that differences in flora and fauna from separate regions cannot be explained by environmental differences alone South America, Africa, and Australia all have regions with similar climates at similar latitudes, but those regions have very different plants and animals. The species found in one area of a continent are more closely allied with species found in other regions of that same continent than to species found on other continents. Darwin noted that barriers to migration played an important role in the differences between the species of different regions. The coastal sea life of the Atlantic and Pacific sides of Central America had almost no species in common even though the Isthmus of Panama was only a few miles wide. His explanation was a combination of migration and descent with modification. He went on to say: "On this principle of inheritance with modification, we can understand how it is that sections of genera, whole genera, and even families are confined to the same areas, as is so commonly and notoriously the case." [163] Darwin explained how a volcanic island formed a few hundred miles from a continent might be colonised by a few species from that continent. These species would become modified over time, but would still be related to species found on the continent, and Darwin observed that this was a common pattern. Darwin discussed ways that species could be dispersed across oceans to colonise islands, many of which he had investigated experimentally. [164]

Chapter XII continues the discussion of biogeography. After a brief discussion of freshwater species, it returns to oceanic islands and their peculiarities for example on some islands roles played by mammals on continents were played by other animals such as flightless birds or reptiles. The summary of both chapters says:

. I think all the grand leading facts of geographical distribution are explicable on the theory of migration (generally of the more dominant forms of life), together with subsequent modification and the multiplication of new forms. We can thus understand the high importance of barriers, whether of land or water, which separate our several zoological and botanical provinces. We can thus understand the localisation of sub-genera, genera, and families and how it is that under different latitudes, for instance in South America, the inhabitants of the plains and mountains, of the forests, marshes, and deserts, are in so mysterious a manner linked together by affinity, and are likewise linked to the extinct beings which formerly inhabited the same continent . On these same principles, we can understand, as I have endeavoured to show, why oceanic islands should have few inhabitants, but of these a great number should be endemic or peculiar . [165]

Classification, morphology, embryology, rudimentary organs Edit

Chapter XIII starts by observing that classification depends on species being grouped together in a Taxonomy, a multilevel system of groups and sub-groups based on varying degrees of resemblance. After discussing classification issues, Darwin concludes:

All the foregoing rules and aids and difficulties in classification are explained, if I do not greatly deceive myself, on the view that the natural system is founded on descent with modification that the characters which naturalists consider as showing true affinity between any two or more species, are those which have been inherited from a common parent, and, in so far, all true classification is genealogical that community of descent is the hidden bond which naturalists have been unconsciously seeking, . [166]

Darwin discusses morphology, including the importance of homologous structures. He says, "What can be more curious than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include the same bones, in the same relative positions?" This made no sense under doctrines of independent creation of species, as even Richard Owen had admitted, but the "explanation is manifest on the theory of the natural selection of successive slight modifications" showing common descent. [167] He notes that animals of the same class often have extremely similar embryos. Darwin discusses rudimentary organs, such as the wings of flightless birds and the rudiments of pelvis and leg bones found in some snakes. He remarks that some rudimentary organs, such as teeth in baleen whales, are found only in embryonic stages. [168] These factors also supported his theory of descent with modification. [31]

Concluding remarks Edit

The final chapter, "Recapitulation and Conclusion", reviews points from earlier chapters, and Darwin concludes by hoping that his theory might produce revolutionary changes in many fields of natural history. [169] He suggests that psychology will be put on a new foundation and implies the relevance of his theory to the first appearance of humanity with the sentence that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." [31] [170] Darwin ends with a passage that became well known and much quoted:

It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us . Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved. [171]

Darwin added the phrase "by the Creator" from the 1860 second edition onwards, so that the ultimate sentence begins "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one". [172]

Nature and structure of Darwin's argument Edit

Darwin's aims were twofold: to show that species had not been separately created, and to show that natural selection had been the chief agent of change. [173] He knew that his readers were already familiar with the concept of transmutation of species from Vestiges, and his introduction ridicules that work as failing to provide a viable mechanism. [174] Therefore, the first four chapters lay out his case that selection in nature, caused by the struggle for existence, is analogous to the selection of variations under domestication, and that the accumulation of adaptive variations provides a scientifically testable mechanism for evolutionary speciation. [175] [176]

Later chapters provide evidence that evolution has occurred, supporting the idea of branching, adaptive evolution without directly proving that selection is the mechanism. Darwin presents supporting facts drawn from many disciplines, showing that his theory could explain a myriad of observations from many fields of natural history that were inexplicable under the alternative concept that species had been individually created. [176] [177] [178] The structure of Darwin's argument showed the influence of John Herschel, whose philosophy of science maintained that a mechanism could be called a vera causa (true cause) if three things could be demonstrated: its existence in nature, its ability to produce the effects of interest, and its ability to explain a wide range of observations. [179]

Literary style Edit

The Examiner review of 3 December 1859 commented, "Much of Mr. Darwin's volume is what ordinary readers would call 'tough reading' that is, writing which to comprehend requires concentrated attention and some preparation for the task. All, however, is by no means of this description, and many parts of the book abound in information, easy to comprehend and both instructive and entertaining." [174] [180]

While the book was readable enough to sell, its dryness ensured that it was seen as aimed at specialist scientists and could not be dismissed as mere journalism or imaginative fiction. Unlike the still-popular Vestiges, it avoided the narrative style of the historical novel and cosmological speculation, though the closing sentence clearly hinted at cosmic progression. Darwin had long been immersed in the literary forms and practices of specialist science, and made effective use of his skills in structuring arguments. [174] David Quammen has described the book as written in everyday language for a wide audience, but noted that Darwin's literary style was uneven: in some places he used convoluted sentences that are difficult to read, while in other places his writing was beautiful. Quammen advised that later editions were weakened by Darwin making concessions and adding details to address his critics, and recommended the first edition. [181] James T. Costa said that because the book was an abstract produced in haste in response to Wallace's essay, it was more approachable than the big book on natural selection Darwin had been working on, which would have been encumbered by scholarly footnotes and much more technical detail. He added that some parts of Origin are dense, but other parts are almost lyrical, and the case studies and observations are presented in a narrative style unusual in serious scientific books, which broadened its audience. [182]

Human evolution Edit

From his early transmutation notebooks in the late 1830s onwards, Darwin considered human evolution as part of the natural processes he was investigating, [183] and rejected divine intervention. [184] In 1856, his "big book on species" titled Natural Selection was to include a "note on Man", but when Wallace enquired in December 1857, Darwin replied "You ask whether I shall discuss 'man'—I think I shall avoid whole subject, as so surrounded with prejudices, though I fully admit that it is the highest & most interesting problem for the naturalist." [185] [186] On 28 March 1859, with his manuscript for the book well under way, Darwin wrote to Lyell offering the suggested publisher John Murray assurances "That I do not discuss origin of man". [64] [65]

In the final chapter of On the Origin of Species, "Recapitulation and Conclusion", Darwin briefly highlights the human implications of his theory:

"In the distant future I see open fields for far more important researches. Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation. Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." [187]

Discussing this in January 1860, Darwin assured Lyell that "by the sentence [Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history] I show that I believe man is in same predicament with other animals. [188] Many modern writers have seen this sentence as Darwin’s only reference to humans in the book [183] Janet Browne describes it as his only discussion there of human origins, while noting that the book makes other references to humanity. [189]

Some other statements in the book are quietly effective at pointing out the implication that humans are simply another species, evolving through the same processes and principles affecting other organisms. For example, [183] in Chapter III: "Struggle for Existence" Darwin includes "slow-breeding man" among other examples of Malthusian population growth. [190] In his discussions on morphology, Darwin compares and comments on bone structures that are homologous between humans and other mammals. [191]

Darwin's early notebooks discussed how non-adaptive characteristics could be selected when animals or humans chose mates, [192] with races of humans differing over ideas of beauty. [193] In his 1856 notes responding to Robert Knox's The Races of Man: A Fragment, he called this effect sexual selection. [194] He added notes on sexual selection to his "big book on species", and in mid-1857 he added a section heading "Theory applied to Races of Man", but did not add text on this topic. [195]

In On the Origin of Species, Chapter VI: "Difficulties on Theory", Darwin mentions this in the context of "slight and unimportant variations": [196]

I might have adduced for this same purpose the differences between the races of man, which are so strongly marked I may add that some little light can apparently be thrown on the origin of these differences, chiefly through sexual selection of a particular kind, but without here entering on copious details my reasoning would appear frivolous." [196]

When Darwin published The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex twelve years later, he said that he had not gone into detail on human evolution in the Origin as he thought that would "only add to the prejudices against my views". He had not completely avoided the topic: [197]

It seemed to me sufficient to indicate, in the first edition of my 'Origin of Species,' that by this work 'light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history' and this implies that man must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth. [197] [198]

He also said that he had "merely alluded" in that book to sexual selection differentiating human races. [199]

The book aroused international interest [201] and a widespread debate, with no sharp line between scientific issues and ideological, social and religious implications. [202] Much of the initial reaction was hostile, in a large part because very few reviewers actually understood his theory, [203] but Darwin had to be taken seriously as a prominent and respected name in science. Samuel Wilberforce wrote a review in Quarterly Review in 1860 [204] where he disagreed with Darwin's 'argument'. There was much less controversy than had greeted the 1844 publication Vestiges of Creation, which had been rejected by scientists, [201] but had influenced a wide public readership into believing that nature and human society were governed by natural laws. [31] The Origin of Species as a book of wide general interest became associated with ideas of social reform. Its proponents made full use of a surge in the publication of review journals, and it was given more popular attention than almost any other scientific work, though it failed to match the continuing sales of Vestiges. [205] Darwin's book legitimised scientific discussion of evolutionary mechanisms, and the newly coined term Darwinism was used to cover the whole range of evolutionism, not just his own ideas. By the mid-1870s, evolutionism was triumphant. [202]

While Darwin had been somewhat coy about human origins, not identifying any explicit conclusion on the matter in his book, he had dropped enough hints about human's animal ancestry for the inference to be made, [206] [207] and the first review claimed it made a creed of the "men from monkeys" idea from Vestiges. [208] [209] Human evolution became central to the debate and was strongly argued by Huxley who featured it in his popular "working-men's lectures". Darwin did not publish his own views on this until 1871. [210] [211]

The naturalism of natural selection conflicted with presumptions of purpose in nature and while this could be reconciled by theistic evolution, other mechanisms implying more progress or purpose were more acceptable. Herbert Spencer had already incorporated Lamarckism into his popular philosophy of progressive free market human society. He popularised the terms evolution and survival of the fittest, and many thought Spencer was central to evolutionary thinking. [212]

Impact on the scientific community Edit

Scientific readers were already aware of arguments that species changed through processes that were subject to laws of nature, but the transmutational ideas of Lamarck and the vague "law of development" of Vestiges had not found scientific favour. Darwin presented natural selection as a scientifically testable mechanism while accepting that other mechanisms such as inheritance of acquired characters were possible. His strategy established that evolution through natural laws was worthy of scientific study, and by 1875, most scientists accepted that evolution occurred but few thought natural selection was significant. Darwin's scientific method was also disputed, with his proponents favouring the empiricism of John Stuart Mill's A System of Logic, while opponents held to the idealist school of William Whewell's Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, in which investigation could begin with the intuitive idea that species were fixed objects created by design. [213] Early support for Darwin's ideas came from the findings of field naturalists studying biogeography and ecology, including Joseph Dalton Hooker in 1860, and Asa Gray in 1862. Henry Walter Bates presented research in 1861 that explained insect mimicry using natural selection. Alfred Russel Wallace discussed evidence from his Malay archipelago research, including an 1864 paper with an evolutionary explanation for the Wallace line. [214]

Evolution had less obvious applications to anatomy and morphology, and at first had little impact on the research of the anatomist Thomas Henry Huxley. [216] Despite this, Huxley strongly supported Darwin on evolution though he called for experiments to show whether natural selection could form new species, and questioned if Darwin's gradualism was sufficient without sudden leaps to cause speciation. Huxley wanted science to be secular, without religious interference, and his article in the April 1860 Westminster Review promoted scientific naturalism over natural theology, [217] [218] praising Darwin for "extending the domination of Science over regions of thought into which she has, as yet, hardly penetrated" and coining the term "Darwinism" as part of his efforts to secularise and professionalise science. [219] Huxley gained influence, and initiated the X Club, which used the journal Nature to promote evolution and naturalism, shaping much of late-Victorian science. Later, the German morphologist Ernst Haeckel would convince Huxley that comparative anatomy and palaeontology could be used to reconstruct evolutionary genealogies. [216] [220]

The leading naturalist in Britain was the anatomist Richard Owen, an idealist who had shifted to the view in the 1850s that the history of life was the gradual unfolding of a divine plan. [221] Owen's review of the Origin in the April 1860 Edinburgh Review bitterly attacked Huxley, Hooker and Darwin, but also signalled acceptance of a kind of evolution as a teleological plan in a continuous "ordained becoming", with new species appearing by natural birth. Others that rejected natural selection, but supported "creation by birth", included the Duke of Argyll who explained beauty in plumage by design. [222] [223] Since 1858, Huxley had emphasised anatomical similarities between apes and humans, contesting Owen's view that humans were a separate sub-class. Their disagreement over human origins came to the fore at the British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting featuring the legendary 1860 Oxford evolution debate. [224] [225] In two years of acrimonious public dispute that Charles Kingsley satirised as the "Great Hippocampus Question" and parodied in The Water-Babies as the "great hippopotamus test", Huxley showed that Owen was incorrect in asserting that ape brains lacked a structure present in human brains. [226] Others, including Charles Lyell and Alfred Russel Wallace, thought that humans shared a common ancestor with apes, but higher mental faculties could not have evolved through a purely material process. Darwin published his own explanation in the Descent of Man (1871). [227]

Impact outside Great Britain Edit

Evolutionary ideas, although not natural selection, were accepted by German biologists accustomed to ideas of homology in morphology from Goethe's Metamorphosis of Plants and from their long tradition of comparative anatomy. Bronn's alterations in his German translation added to the misgivings of conservatives, but enthused political radicals. Ernst Haeckel was particularly ardent, aiming to synthesise Darwin's ideas with those of Lamarck and Goethe while still reflecting the spirit of Naturphilosophie. [96] [229] Their ambitious programme to reconstruct the evolutionary history of life was joined by Huxley and supported by discoveries in palaeontology. Haeckel used embryology extensively in his recapitulation theory, which embodied a progressive, almost linear model of evolution. Darwin was cautious about such histories, and had already noted that von Baer's laws of embryology supported his idea of complex branching. [228]

Asa Gray promoted and defended Origin against those American naturalists with an idealist approach, notably Louis Agassiz who viewed every species as a distinct fixed unit in the mind of the Creator, classifying as species what others considered merely varieties. [230] Edward Drinker Cope and Alpheus Hyatt reconciled this view with evolutionism in a form of neo-Lamarckism involving recapitulation theory. [229]

French-speaking naturalists in several countries showed appreciation of the much-modified French translation by Clémence Royer, but Darwin's ideas had little impact in France, where any scientists supporting evolutionary ideas opted for a form of Lamarckism. [99] The intelligentsia in Russia had accepted the general phenomenon of evolution for several years before Darwin had published his theory, and scientists were quick to take it into account, although the Malthusian aspects were felt to be relatively unimportant. The political economy of struggle was criticised as a British stereotype by Karl Marx and by Leo Tolstoy, who had the character Levin in his novel Anna Karenina voice sharp criticism of the morality of Darwin's views. [95]

Challenges to natural selection Edit

There were serious scientific objections to the process of natural selection as the key mechanism of evolution, including Karl von Nägeli's insistence that a trivial characteristic with no adaptive advantage could not be developed by selection. Darwin conceded that these could be linked to adaptive characteristics. His estimate that the age of the Earth allowed gradual evolution was disputed by William Thomson (later awarded the title Lord Kelvin), who calculated that it had cooled in less than 100 million years. Darwin accepted blending inheritance, but Fleeming Jenkin calculated that as it mixed traits, natural selection could not accumulate useful traits. Darwin tried to meet these objections in the fifth edition. Mivart supported directed evolution, and compiled scientific and religious objections to natural selection. In response, Darwin made considerable changes to the sixth edition. The problems of the age of the Earth and heredity were only resolved in the 20th century. [87] [231]

By the mid-1870s, most scientists accepted evolution, but relegated natural selection to a minor role as they believed evolution was purposeful and progressive. The range of evolutionary theories during "the eclipse of Darwinism" included forms of "saltationism" in which new species were thought to arise through "jumps" rather than gradual adaptation, forms of orthogenesis claiming that species had an inherent tendency to change in a particular direction, and forms of neo-Lamarckism in which inheritance of acquired characteristics led to progress. The minority view of August Weismann, that natural selection was the only mechanism, was called neo-Darwinism. It was thought that the rediscovery of Mendelian inheritance invalidated Darwin's views. [232] [233]

Impact on economic and political debates Edit

While some, like Spencer, used analogy from natural selection as an argument against government intervention in the economy to benefit the poor, others, including Alfred Russel Wallace, argued that action was needed to correct social and economic inequities to level the playing field before natural selection could improve humanity further. Some political commentaries, including Walter Bagehot's Physics and Politics (1872), attempted to extend the idea of natural selection to competition between nations and between human races. Such ideas were incorporated into what was already an ongoing effort by some working in anthropology to provide scientific evidence for the superiority of Caucasians over non-white races and justify European imperialism. Historians write that most such political and economic commentators had only a superficial understanding of Darwin's scientific theory, and were as strongly influenced by other concepts about social progress and evolution, such as the Lamarckian ideas of Spencer and Haeckel, as they were by Darwin's work. Darwin objected to his ideas being used to justify military aggression and unethical business practices as he believed morality was part of fitness in humans, and he opposed polygenism, the idea that human races were fundamentally distinct and did not share a recent common ancestry. [234]

Religious attitudes Edit

The book produced a wide range of religious responses at a time of changing ideas and increasing secularisation. The issues raised were complex and there was a large middle ground. Developments in geology meant that there was little opposition based on a literal reading of Genesis, [235] but defence of the argument from design and natural theology was central to debates over the book in the English-speaking world. [236] [237]

Natural theology was not a unified doctrine, and while some such as Louis Agassiz were strongly opposed to the ideas in the book, others sought a reconciliation in which evolution was seen as purposeful. [235] In the Church of England, some liberal clergymen interpreted natural selection as an instrument of God's design, with the cleric Charles Kingsley seeing it as "just as noble a conception of Deity". [239] [240] In the second edition of January 1860, Darwin quoted Kingsley as "a celebrated cleric", and added the phrase "by the Creator" to the closing sentence, which from then on read "life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one". [172] While some commentators have taken this as a concession to religion that Darwin later regretted, [84] Darwin's view at the time was of God creating life through the laws of nature, [241] [242] and even in the first edition there are several references to "creation". [243]

Baden Powell praised "Mr Darwin's masterly volume [supporting] the grand principle of the self-evolving powers of nature". [244] In America, Asa Gray argued that evolution is the secondary effect, or modus operandi, of the first cause, design, [245] and published a pamphlet defending the book in terms of theistic evolution, Natural Selection is not inconsistent with Natural Theology. [239] [246] [247] Theistic evolution became a popular compromise, and St. George Jackson Mivart was among those accepting evolution but attacking Darwin's naturalistic mechanism. Eventually it was realised that supernatural intervention could not be a scientific explanation, and naturalistic mechanisms such as neo-Lamarckism were favoured over natural selection as being more compatible with purpose. [235]

Even though the book did not explicitly spell out Darwin's beliefs about human origins, it had dropped a number of hints about human's animal ancestry [207] and quickly became central to the debate, as mental and moral qualities were seen as spiritual aspects of the immaterial soul, and it was believed that animals did not have spiritual qualities. This conflict could be reconciled by supposing there was some supernatural intervention on the path leading to humans, or viewing evolution as a purposeful and progressive ascent to mankind's position at the head of nature. [235] While many conservative theologians accepted evolution, Charles Hodge argued in his 1874 critique "What is Darwinism?" that "Darwinism", defined narrowly as including rejection of design, was atheism though he accepted that Asa Gray did not reject design. [248] [249] Asa Gray responded that this charge misrepresented Darwin's text. [250] By the early 20th century, four noted authors of The Fundamentals were explicitly open to the possibility that God created through evolution, [251] but fundamentalism inspired the American creation–evolution controversy that began in the 1920s. Some conservative Roman Catholic writers and influential Jesuits opposed evolution in the late 19th and early 20th century, but other Catholic writers, starting with Mivart, pointed out that early Church Fathers had not interpreted Genesis literally in this area. [252] The Vatican stated its official position in a 1950 papal encyclical, which held that evolution was not inconsistent with Catholic teaching. [253] [254]

Various alternative evolutionary mechanisms favoured during "the eclipse of Darwinism" became untenable as more was learned about inheritance and mutation. The full significance of natural selection was at last accepted in the 1930s and 1940s as part of the modern evolutionary synthesis. During that synthesis biologists and statisticians, including R. A. Fisher, Sewall Wright and J. B. S. Haldane, merged Darwinian selection with a statistical understanding of Mendelian genetics. [233]

Modern evolutionary theory continues to develop. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, with its tree-like model of branching common descent, has become the unifying theory of the life sciences. The theory explains the diversity of living organisms and their adaptation to the environment. It makes sense of the geological record, biogeography, parallels in embryonic development, biological homologies, vestigiality, cladistics, phylogenetics and other fields, with unrivalled explanatory power it has also become essential to applied sciences such as medicine and agriculture. [255] [256] Despite the scientific consensus, a religion-based political controversy has developed over how evolution is taught in schools, especially in the United States. [257]

Interest in Darwin's writings continues, and scholars have generated an extensive literature, the Darwin Industry, about his life and work. The text of Origin itself has been subject to much analysis including a variorum, detailing the changes made in every edition, first published in 1959, [258] and a concordance, an exhaustive external index published in 1981. [259] Worldwide commemorations of the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species and the bicentenary of Darwin's birth were scheduled for 2009. [260] They celebrated the ideas which "over the last 150 years have revolutionised our understanding of nature and our place within it". [261]

In a survey conducted by a group of academic booksellers, publishers and librarians in advance of Academic Book Week in the United Kingdom, On the Origin of Species was voted the most influential academic book ever written. [262] It was hailed as "the supreme demonstration of why academic books matter" and "a book which has changed the way we think about everything". [263]

    – full text at Wikisource of the first edition, 1859 – full text at Wikisource of the 6th edition, 1872
  • The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, published in 1871 his second major book on evolutionary theory.
  1. ^Darwin 1859, p. iii
  2. ^ abcdeFreeman 1977
  3. ^ abc The book's full original title was On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. In the 1872 sixth edition "On" was omitted, so the full title is The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. This edition is usually known as The Origin of Species. The 6th is Darwin's final edition there were minor modifications in the text of certain subsequent issues. See Freeman, R. B. "The works of Charles Darwin: an annotated bibliographical handlist." In Van Wyhe, John, ed. Darwin Online: On the Origin of Species, 2002.
  4. ^Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 477.
  5. ^"Darwin Manuscripts (Digitised notes on Origin)". Cambridge Digital Library . Retrieved 24 November 2014 .
  6. ^Mayr 1982, pp. 479–480
  7. ^Darwin 1872, p. xiii
  8. ^
  9. Aristotle, Physics, translated by Hardie, R. P. and Gayle, R. K. and hosted by MIT's Internet Classics Archive , retrieved 23 April 2009
  10. ^Forster & Marston 1999, pp. 26–27
  11. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 27, 43, 45
  12. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 27–36, 39–42, 57–62, 67, 70, 77–80
  13. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 84–90
  14. ^Desmond 1989, pp. 47–54
  15. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 111–114
  16. ^Browne 1995, pp. 91, 129
  17. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 115–117
  18. ^Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 34–35
  19. ^Browne 1995, pp. 80–88
  20. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 148–149
  21. ^Browne 1995, pp. 133–140
  22. ^Larson 2004, pp. 56–62
  23. ^Darwin 1845, pp. 205–208
  24. ^Browne 1995, pp. 244–250
  25. ^Keynes 2000, pp. xix–xx
  26. ^Eldredge 2006
  27. ^Quammen 2006, pp. 24–25
  28. ^Herbert 1980, pp. 7–10
  29. ^van Wyhe 2008, p. 44
  30. ^
  31. Darwin's Notebook B: Transmutation of species. pp. 1–13, 26, 36, 74 , retrieved 16 March 2009
  32. ^Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 240–244
  33. ^ abcdvan Wyhe 2009
  34. ^Larson 2004, pp. 66–70
  35. ^
  36. Darwin's Notebook D: Transmutation of species. pp. 134–135 , retrieved 8 April 2009
  37. ^
  38. Darwin's Notebook E: Transmutation of species. p. 75 , retrieved 14 March 2009
  39. ^ abvan Wyhe 2007, pp. 186–187
  40. ^Browne 1995, p. 436
  41. ^Darwin 1958, p. 120
  42. ^Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 292
  43. ^Browne 1995, pp. 436–437
  44. ^van Wyhe 2007, p. 188
  45. ^
  46. Darwin Correspondence Project – Letter 814—Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., (7 January 1845) , retrieved 24 November 2008
  47. ^Browne 1995, pp. 461–465
  48. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 135–140
  49. ^ abBowler 2003, pp. 169–173
  50. ^Darwin 1958, pp. 117–121
  51. ^Quammen 2006, pp. 138–142
  52. ^Darwin 1958, p. 124
  53. ^ abvan Wyhe 2007
  54. ^Darwin 1859, p. 1.
  55. ^Quammen 2006, pp. 84–92
  56. ^
  57. Wallace, Alfred R. (1855), "On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species", Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 16 (93): 184–196, doi:10.1080/037454809495509
  58. ^ abQuammen 2006, pp. 135–158
  59. ^
  60. "Darwin in letters, 1856–1857: the 'Big Book ' ". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 21 March 2016 .
  61. "Letter 1870 – Darwin, C. R., to Hooker, J.D., 9 May (1856)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 21 March 2016 .
  62. ^
  63. Darwin Correspondence Project – Letter 2285—Darwin to Lyell (June 1858), archived from the original on 28 August 2007 , retrieved 15 March 2008
  64. ^Larson 2004, pp. 74–75
  65. ^Quammen 2006, pp. 162–163
  66. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 175–176
  67. ^Bowler 2013, pp. 61–63
  68. ^ abc
  69. "Darwin in letters, 1858–1859: Origin". Darwin Correspondence Project. 2 June 2015 . Retrieved 17 January 2017 .
  70. ^
  71. "Letter 2303 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., 5 July (1858)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 7 September 2010 .
  72. ^Darwin 2006, pp. 36 verso
  73. ^
  74. "Letter 2432 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., 15 March (1859)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 7 September 2010 . It [geographical distribution] was nearly all written from memory
  75. ^
  76. "Letter 2339 — Darwin, C. R. to Hooker, J. D., 12 (October 1858)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 17 January 2017 . See letter to T. C. Eyton, 4 October (1858), in which CD first mentioned the possibility that his 'abstract' would form a small volume.
  77. ^ ab
  78. "Letter 2437 — Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles, 28 March (1859)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 16 January 2017 . Would you advise me to tell Murray that my Book is not more un-orthodox, than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss origin of man.— That I do not bring in any discussions about Genesis &c, & only give facts, & such conclusions from them, as seem to me fair.
    Darwin, C. R. proposed title page for Origin of species draft. (1859) APS-B-D25.L[.38] Transcribed by Kees Rookmaaker, edited by John van Wyhe
  79. ^ abcDesmond & Moore 2009, p. 306.
  80. ^
  81. "Letter 2439 — Darwin, C. R. to Lyell, Charles, 30 March (1859)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 16 January 2017 .
  82. ^
  83. "Letter 2441 — Darwin, C. R. to Murray, John (b), 31 March (1859)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 16 January 2017 .
  84. ^
  85. "Letter 2443 — Murray, John (b) to Darwin, C. R., 1 April 1859". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 16 January 2017 .
  86. ^
  87. "Letter 2445 — Darwin, C. R. to Murray, John (b), 2 April (1859)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 16 January 2017 .
  88. ^
  89. "Charles Darwin and his publisher". Darwin Correspondence Project. 2010. Archived from the original on 7 October 2010 . Retrieved 7 September 2010 .
  90. ^
  91. "Letter 2447 — Darwin, C. R. to Murray, John (b), 5 April (1859)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 16 January 2017 .
  92. ^ Darwin, C. R. [early draft title of Origin] On the mutability of species [& other notes] CUL-DAR205.1.70 Transcribed by Kees Rookmaaker, edited by John van Wyhe
  93. ^
  94. "Letter 2457A — Elwin, Whitwell, to Murray, John (b), 3 May 1859". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 16 January 2017 .
  95. ^
  96. "Letter 2459 — Darwin, C. R. to Murray, John (b), 6 May (1859)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 16 January 2017 .
  97. ^
  98. "Letter 2448 — Darwin, C. R. to Murray, John (b), 10 September (1859)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 16 January 2017 .
  99. ^
  100. "Defining Evolution". National Center for Science Education. 24 August 2000 . Retrieved 27 June 2016 .
  101. ^
  102. Robert Bernasconi Tommy Lee Lott (2000). The Idea of Race. Hackett Publishing. p. 54. ISBN0-87220-458-8 . The full title [of the book] employs the term 'race' only in the broad biological use of the word, which refers to varieties throughout organic life however, speculation about the implications of his views specifically for the question of the human races began almost as soon as the book was published.
  103. ^Sober 2011, p. 45, Quote: "There nonetheless are a few cases in which Darwin does discuss selection processes in which groups are the units, and these will be the focus of the present chapter. But even here it does not matter whether the groups are from different 'races' or from the same race. It is nests of honeybees that compete with each other, and human tribes that compete with other human tribes. For Darwin, the question of group selection had nothing special to do with 'race.' Still, writing in the heyday of empire, Darwin saw European nations outcompeting the nations, kingdoms, and tribes that occupy the rest of the globe. In this one very salient example, Darwin did see races struggling with each other. In any event, the word race in Darwin’s subtitle needs to be understood very broadly it encompasses competition among individuals, competition among groups in the same 'race,' and competition from groups from different 'races.' This is a much broader meaning than the word 'race' tends to have today."
  104. ^Darwin 1859, p. 15
  105. ^ the three instances of the phrase "races of man" are found on Darwin 1859, pp. 199, 382, 422
  106. ^
  107. Dupree, A. Hunter (1988). Asa Gray, American Botanist, Friend of Darwin. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 267. ISBN978-0-801-83741-8 .
  108. ^Browne 2002, p. 89
  109. ^Darwin 1958, p. 122
  110. ^ abcBrowne 2002, pp. 95–96
  111. ^Darwin 1861, p. xiii
  112. ^ "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." Spencer 1864, pp. 444–445
  113. ^ abMivart 1871
  114. ^Browne 2002, p. 59
  115. ^Freeman 1977, pp. 79–80. "Evolution" in the transformist sense had been used by Charles Lyell in 1832, Principles of Geology vol 2, p. 11 and was used by Darwin in The Descent of Man in 1871, p. 2 onwards.
  116. ^ abDesmond & Moore 1991, pp. 577, 582, 590, 592–593
  117. ^
  118. Darwin Correspondence Project – Letter 2592—Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 21 December (1859), archived from the original on 13 February 2009 , retrieved 6 December 2008
  119. ^
  120. Darwin Correspondence Project – Letter 2665—Darwin, C. R. to Gray, Asa, 28 January (1860), archived from the original on 13 February 2009 , retrieved 6 December 2008
  121. ^
  122. Darwin Correspondence Project – Letter 2706—Gray, Asa to Darwin, C. R., 20 February 1860, archived from the original on 13 February 2009 , retrieved 6 December 2008
  123. ^Desmond & Moore 1991, p. 492
  124. ^ abcBrowne 2002, pp. 256–259
  125. ^ abBrowne 2002, pp. 140–142
  126. ^ ab
  127. Darwin Correspondence Project – The correspondence of Charles Darwin, volume 10: 1862, archived from the original on 5 June 2010 , retrieved 6 March 2009
  128. ^
  129. Darwin Correspondence Project – The correspondence of Charles Darwin, volume 14: 1866 , retrieved 6 March 2009
  130. ^ abBrowne 2002, pp. 142–144
  131. ^ Ch. Darwin, Het ontstaan der soorten van dieren en planten door middel van de natuurkeus of het bewaard blijven van bevoorregte rassen in de strijd des levens, transl. by T.C. Winkler (Haarlem 1860) Source: Teyler, Winkler, DarwinArchived 2 December 2011 at the Wayback Machine Lecture by Marijn van Hoorn MA at the Congress of the European Botanical and Horticultural Libraries Group, Prague, 23 April 2009
  132. ^
  133. "Freeman Bibliographic Database".
  134. ^Freeman 1977, pp. 83, 100–111
  135. ^Freeman 1977, p. 100
  136. ^
  137. Jin, Xiaoxing (2018). "Translation and transmutation: the Origin of Species in China". The British Journal for the History of Science. 52 (1): 117–141. doi:10.1017/s0007087418000808. PMID30587253. S2CID58605626.
  138. ^Darwin 1859, p. ii
  139. ^Phipps 1983
  140. ^Secord 2000, p. 510
  141. ^van Wyhe 2007, p. 197
  142. ^Darwin 1859, p. 1
  143. ^Darwin 1859, p. 5
  144. ^Darwin & Costa 2009, p. 1
  145. ^Darwin 1861, p. xiii
  146. ^Darwin 1866, pp. xiv–xv
  147. ^Darwin & Costa 2009, p. 7
  148. ^ abQuammen 2006, pp. 184–186
  149. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 20–28
  150. ^ ab David Reznick (2009) The Origin Then and Now, Princeton University Press, p.49.
  151. ^ Winther, Rasmus G. (2000), "Darwin on Variation and heredity", Journal of the History of Biology" 33, pp. 425-455
  152. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 44–59 Chap. II
  153. ^Darwin & Costa 2009, p. 44
  154. ^ abDarwin 1859, pp. 60–61 Chap. III
  155. ^Darwin 1869, p. 72
  156. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 62–76
  157. ^Darwin 1859, p. 80
  158. ^Darwin 1859, p. 112
  159. ^Quammen 2006, p. 189
  160. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 87–101
  161. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 117–130
  162. ^Larson 2004, p. 85
  163. ^Darwin 1859, p. 13
  164. ^Darwin 1859, p. 134
  165. ^Larson 2004, pp. 86–87
  166. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 131–150
  167. ^Quammen 2006, pp. 159–167
  168. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 159–167
  169. ^
  170. Richard Dawkins (8 February 2003). "An early flowering of genetics, Books". The Guardian. UK . Retrieved 24 October 2010 .
  171. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 200–201
  172. ^Bowler 1989
  173. ^ McBride, P. D., Gillman, L. N., & Wright, S. D. (2009). Current debates on the origin of species. Journal of Biological Education, 43(3), 104–107.
  174. ^Darwin 1859, p. 171
  175. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 171–178
  176. ^Darwin 1859, p. 172
  177. ^
  178. Bernstein H. Byerly H.C. Hopf F.A. Michod R.E. (December 1985). "Sex and the emergence of species". J. Theor. Biol. 117 (4): 665–90. doi:10.1016/S0022-5193(85)80246-0. PMID4094459.
  179. ^
  180. Michod, Richard E. (1995). Eros and evolution: a natural philosophy of sex . Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. ISBN0-201-44232-9 .
  181. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 171–172
  182. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 180–181
  183. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 187–190
  184. ^Darwin & Costa 2009, pp. 194–199
    Darwin 1859, pp. 197–199, Quote: "We are profoundly ignorant of the causes producing slight and unimportant variations and we are immediately made conscious of this by reflecting on the differences in the breeds of our domesticated animals in different countries"
  185. ^Darwin & Costa 2009, p. 199
    Darwin 1874, p. vi, Quote: "… I gave, however, a tolerably clear sketch of this principle in the first edition of the 'Origin of Species,' and I there stated that it was applicable to man."
  186. ^Desmond & Moore 2009, p. 310.
  187. ^Darwin 1859, p. 199
  188. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 243–244
  189. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 245–278
  190. ^Darwin 1872, pp. 168–205
  191. ^ abcBowler 2003, p. 182
  192. ^ ab
  193. Wesley R. Elsberry (1996), Punctuated Equilibria , retrieved 30 April 2009
  194. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 282–287
  195. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 306–308
  196. ^Schopf 2000
  197. ^ abDarwin 1859, pp. 312–345
  198. ^Rhodes 1987
  199. ^Darwin & Costa 2009, p. 108
  200. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 350–351
  201. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 346–382
  202. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 408–409
  203. ^Darwin 1859, p. 420
  204. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 434–435
  205. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 450–451
  206. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 484–488, Quote: "When the views entertained in this volume on the origin of species, or when analogous views are generally admitted, we can dimly foresee that there will be a considerable revolution in natural history. . "
  207. ^Darwin 1859, p. 488
    Darwin 1871, p. 1, Quote: "… this implies that man must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth."
  208. ^Darwin 1859, pp. 489–490
  209. ^ abDarwin 1860, p. 490
  210. ^Darwin 1871, p. 152
  211. ^ abcSecord 2000, pp. 508–511
  212. ^Quammen 2006, pp. 183–188
  213. ^ abBowler 2003, pp. 180–181
  214. ^Quammen 2006, pp. 190, 200–201
  215. ^Larson 2004, pp. 88–89
  216. ^Darwin & Costa 2009, p. xvii
  217. ^Crawford 1859
  218. ^Quammen 2006, pp. 176–181
  219. ^Darwin & Costa 2009, p. ix
  220. ^ abc
  221. Carroll, Joseph (2003). On the Origin of Species / Charles Darwin. Broadview Press. pp. 51–52. ISBN1-55111-337-6 . Following Darwin's lead, most commentators cite this one passage as the only reference to man in the Origin, but they thus overlook, as did Darwin himself, two sentences that are, in their own quiet way, even more effective.
  222. ^Browne 2007, p. 42, quoting Darwin, C. R. Notebook C (February to July 1838) pp. 196–197 "Man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work worthy the interposition of a deity, more humble & I believe truer to consider him created from animals."
  223. ^Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 412–441, 457–458, 462–463
    Desmond & Moore 2009, pp. 283–284, 290–292, 295
  224. ^
  225. "Letter 2192 – Darwin, C. R. to Wallace, A. R., 22 December 1857". Darwin Correspondence Project.
  226. ^Darwin 1871, p. 488
  227. ^
  228. "Letter 2647 – Darwin, C. R. to Charles Lyell, 10 January (1860)". Darwin Correspondence Project . Retrieved 18 September 2017 .
  229. ^ For example, Browne 2002, p. 60, "In this book, he was completely silent on the subject of human origins, although he did refer in several places to mankind as an example of biological details. The only words he allowed himself—and these out of a sense of duty that he must somewhere refer to human beings–were gnomic in their brevity. 'Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history'."
  230. ^Darwin 1859, p. 64, Quote: "There is no exception to the rule that every organic being naturally increases at so high a rate, that if not destroyed, the earth would soon be covered by the progeny of a single pair. Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty-five years, and at this rate, in a few thousand years, there would literally not be standing room for his progeny."
  231. ^van Wyhe 2008
    Darwin 1859, p. 434, Quote: "What can be more curious than that the hand of a man, formed for grasping, that of a mole for digging, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise, and the wing of the bat, should all be constructed on the same pattern, and should include the same bones, in the same relative positions?"
    Darwin 1859, p. 479, Quote: "The framework of bones being the same in the hand of a man, wing of a bat, fin of the porpoise, and leg of the horse … at once explain themselves on the theory of descent with slow and slight successive modifications."
  232. ^ Darwin, C. R. Notebook C, CUL-DAR122.- Transcribed by Kees Rookmaaker. (Darwin Online), notes from de Beer, Gavin ed. 1960. Darwin's notebooks on transmutation of species. Part II. Second notebook [C] (February to July 1838). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History). Historical Series 2, No. 3 (May): pp. 79
  233. ^Desmond & Moore 2009, pp. 139–141, quotes "our acquiring the instinct one notion of beauty & negroes another" from Darwin, C. R. Notebook M : [Metaphysics on morals and speculations on expression (1838)]. CUL-DAR125.- Transcribed by Kees Rookmaaker, edited by Paul Barrett. (Darwin Online, p. 32
  234. ^Richards 2017, pp. 315, 323–324.
  235. ^Desmond & Moore 2009, pp. 290–291 Stauffer, R. C. ed. 1975. Charles Darwin's Natural Selection being the second part of his big species book written from 1856 to 1858. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 213 Chapter Vi On Natural Selection first draft, completed on 31 March 1857, [The outline of this original form of the chapter appears in the original table of contents] "63 [pencil addition] Theory applied to Races of Man."
  236. ^ abDarwin 1859, pp. 197–199
  237. ^ abDarwin 1871, p. 1, Quote: "During many years I collected notes on the origin or descent of man, without any intention of publishing on the subject, but rather with the determination not to publish, as I thought that I should thus only add to the prejudices against my views."
  238. ^ See also Darwin 1958, pp. 130–131, Quote: "My Descent of Man was published in Feb. 1871. As soon as I had become, in the year 1837 or 1838, convinced that species were mutable productions, I could not avoid the belief that man must come under the same law. Accordingly I collected notes on the subject for my own satisfaction, and not for a long time with any intention of publishing. Although in the Origin of Species, the derivation of any particular species is never discussed, yet I thought it best, in order that no honourable man should accuse me of concealing my views, to add that by the work in question 'light would be thrown on the origin of man and his history.' It would have been useless and injurious to the success of the book to have paraded without giving any evidence my conviction with respect to his origin."
  239. ^Darwin 1871, pp. 4–5, Quote: "During many years it has seemed to me highly probable that sexual selection has played an important part in differentiating the races of man but in my 'Origin of Species' (first edition, p. 199) I contented myself by merely alluding to this belief."
  240. ^Browne 2002, pp. 376–379
  241. ^ abvan Wyhe 2008, pp. 48–49
  242. ^ abBowler 2003, pp. 177–180
  243. ^Darwin in letters, 1860: Answering critics
  244. ^
  245. "review of] On the origin of species, by means of natural selection or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. By Charles Darwin, M. A., F.R.S. London, 1860. Quarterly Review 108: 225–264". . Retrieved 24 March 2019 .
  246. ^Browne 2002, pp. 102–103
  247. ^Darwin & Costa 2009, p. 488
  248. ^ abRadick 2013, pp. 174–175
    Huxley & Kettlewell 1965, p. 88
  249. ^Browne 2002, p. 87
  250. ^Leifchild 1859
  251. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 207–209
  252. ^Huxley 1863
  253. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 203–207, 220–222
  254. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 179–180, 197–198
  255. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 183–184, 189
  256. ^Bowler 2003, p. 208
  257. ^ abBowler 2003, pp. 184–185
  258. ^Browne 2002, pp. 105–106
  259. ^Huxley 1860
  260. ^Bowler 2003, p. 184
  261. ^Larson 2004, p. 108
  262. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 124–126
  263. ^Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 490–491, 545–547
  264. ^Secord 2000, p. 512
  265. ^Lucas 1979
  266. ^Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 464–465, 493–499
  267. ^Browne 2002, pp. 160–161
  268. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 208–211, 214–216
  269. ^ abBowler 2003, pp. 169–170, 190–192
  270. ^ abBowler 2003, pp. 186–187, 237, 241
  271. ^ Dupree, pp. 216–232
  272. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 198–200, 234–236
  273. ^Bowler 2003, p. 225
  274. ^ abQuammen 2006, pp. 205–234
  275. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 294–307
  276. ^ abcdBowler 2003, pp. 202–208
  277. ^Dewey 1994, p. 26
  278. ^Larson 2004, pp. 89–92
  279. ^Bowler 2003, p. 139
  280. ^ ab
  281. Darwin and design: historical essay, Darwin Correspondence Project, 2007, archived from the original on 21 October 2014 , retrieved 17 September 2008
  282. ^
  283. Darwin Correspondence Project – Letter 2534—Kingsley, Charles to Darwin, C. R., 18 November 1859, archived from the original on 29 June 2009 , retrieved 11 April 2009
  284. ^Quammen 2006, p. 119
  285. ^Moore 2006
  286. ^Barlow 1963, p. 207
  287. ^Desmond & Moore 1991, pp. 487–488, 500
  288. ^Dewey 1994, p. 27
  289. ^Miles 2001
  290. ^
  291. Gray, Asa (1860), "Natural Selection is not inconsistent with Natural Theology", Atlantic Monthly, Darwin Correspondence Project – Essay: Natural selection & natural theology, archived from the original on 20 February 2009 , retrieved 11 April 2009
  292. ^Forster & Marston 1999, pp. 37–40
  293. ^Hodge 1874, p. 177
  294. ^
  295. Gray, Asa (28 May 1874), "What is Darwinism?", The Nation, Darwin Correspondence Project, archived from the original on 26 February 2009 , retrieved 3 March 2009
  296. ^Forster & Marston 1999, pp. 41–43
  297. ^Bowler 2003, pp. 323–324
  298. ^
  299. Pius XII (1950), Humani generis, Vatican , retrieved 8 June 2009
  300. ^Kreeft 2001, p. 49
  301. ^
  302. Biography, The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online, 21 January 2009 , retrieved 23 April 2009
  303. ^Larson 2004, pp. 287–288, 295
  304. ^Darwin & Costa 2009, p. x
  305. ^Peckham 1959, recently reprinted.
  306. ^Quammen 2006, pp. 179, 271–283
  307. ^ The ISTC of On the Origin of Species is A02-2009-00000001-4. As a tribute to its influence, this work has been the first one to be registered by The International ISTC Agency.
  308. ^
  309. Darwin 200: Celebrating Charles Darwin's bicentenary – What is Darwin200?, The Natural History Museum, archived from the original on 28 February 2009 , retrieved 23 April 2009
  310. ^
  311. "Darwin's 'Origin of Species' Voted Most Influential Academic Book". Tia Ghose . Retrieved 2 February 2017 .
  312. ^
  313. "On the Origin of Species voted most influential academic book in history". Alison Flood . Retrieved 2 February 2017 .

Works cited Edit

  • Barlow, Nora, ed. (1963), "Darwin's Ornithological Notes", Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Historical Series, 2 (7), pp. 201–278 , retrieved 10 June 2009
  • Bowler, Peter J. (1989), "The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society", The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 63 (4): 335, ISBN0-485-11375-9 , PMC2589185
  • Bowler, Peter J (1996), Charles Darwin : the man and his influence, Cambridge University Press, ISBN0-521-56668-1
  • Bowler, Peter J. (2003), Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.), University of California Press, ISBN0-520-23693-9
  • Bowler, Peter J. (2013), Darwin Deleted: Imagining a World without Darwin, The University of Chicago Press, ISBN978-0-226-00984-1
  • Browne, E. Janet (1995), Charles Darwin: Vol. 1 Voyaging, London: Jonathan Cape, ISBN1-84413-314-1
  • Browne, E. Janet (2002), Charles Darwin: Vol. 2 The Power of Place, London: Jonathan Cape, ISBN0-7126-6837-3
  • Crawford, J. (1859), "(Review of) On the Origin of Species", Examiner: 722–723 . Published anonymously.
  • Darwin, Charles (1845), Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries Visited During the Voyage of HMS Beagle Round the World, Under the Command of Captain Fitz Roy, R.N. (2nd ed.), London: John Murray , retrieved 22 April 2009
  • Darwin, Charles (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Full image view 1st ed.), London: John Murray, p. 502 , retrieved 1 March 2011
  • Darwin, Charles (1860), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (2nd ed.), London: John Murray , retrieved 9 January 2009
  • Darwin, Charles (1861), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (3rd ed.), London: John Murray , retrieved 9 January 2009
  • Darwin, Charles (1866), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (4th ed.), London: John Murray , retrieved 22 February 2009
  • Darwin, Charles (1869), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (5th ed.), London: John Murray , retrieved 22 February 2009
  • Darwin, Charles (1871), The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1st ed.), London: John Murray , retrieved 29 April 2009
  • Darwin, Charles (1872), The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (6th ed.), London: John Murray , retrieved 9 January 2009
  • Darwin, Charles (1874), The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (2nd ed.), London: John Murray , retrieved 8 January 2017
  • Darwin, Charles (1958), Barlow, Nora (ed.), The Autobiography of Charles Darwin 1809–1882. With the Original Omissions Restored. Edited and with Appendix and Notes by his Granddaughter Nora Barlow, London: Collins , retrieved 9 January 2009
  • Darwin, Charles (2006), "Journal", in van Wyhe, John (ed.), Darwin's personal 'Journal' (1809–1881), Darwin Online, CUL-DAR158.1–76 , retrieved 7 September 2010
  • Darwin, Charles Costa, James T. (2009), The Annotated Origin: A Facsimile of the First Edition of On the Origin of Species Annotated by James T. Costa, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, ISBN978-0-674-03281-1
  • Desmond, Adrian (1989), The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London , Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN0-226-14374-0
  • Desmond, Adrian Moore, James (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN0-7181-3430-3
  • Desmond, Adrian Moore, James (2009), Darwin's sacred cause : race, slavery and the quest for human origins , London: Allen Lane, ISBN978-1-84614-035-8
  • Dewey, John (1994), "The Influence of Darwinism on Philosophy", in Martin Gardner (ed.), Great Essays in Science, Prometheus Books, ISBN0-87975-853-8
  • Eldredge, Niles (2006), "Confessions of a Darwinist", The Virginia Quarterly Review (Spring 2006), pp. 32–53 , retrieved 4 November 2008
  • Forster, Roger Marston, Dr Paul (1999), "Genesis Through History", Reason Science and Faith (Ivy Cottage: E-Books ed.), Chester, England: Monarch Books, ISBN1-85424-441-8
  • Freeman, Richard B. (1977), "On the Origin of Species", The Works of Charles Darwin: An Annotated Bibliographical Handlist (2nd ed.), Folkestone, England: Dawson, ISBN0-7129-0740-8
  • Herbert, Sandra, ed. (1980), "The Red Notebook of Charles Darwin", Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series, 7: 1–164 Also available here [1]
  • Hodge, Charles (1874), What is Darwinism?, Scribner Armstrong , retrieved 14 January 2007
  • Huxley, Julian Kettlewell, H.B.D. (1965). Charles Darwin and His World. New York: the Viking Press.
  • Huxley, Thomas Henry (1860), "Darwin on the Origin of Species", Westminster Review, 17 (April 1860): 541–570 . Published anonymously.
  • Huxley, Thomas (1863), Six Lectures to Working Men "On Our Knowledge of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature" (Republished in Volume II of his Collected Essays, Darwiniana) , retrieved 15 December 2006
  • Keynes, Richard, ed. (2000), Charles Darwin's Zoology Notes & Specimen Lists from HMS Beagle, Cambridge University Press, ISBN0-521-67350-X
  • Kreeft, Peter (2001), Catholic Christianity, San Francisco: Ignatius Press, ISBN0-89870-798-6
  • Larson, Edward J. (2004), Evolution: The Remarkable History of a Scientific Theory, New York: Modern Library, ISBN0-8129-6849-2
  • Leifchild (19 November 1859), "Review of 'Origin ' ", Athenaeum (1673) , retrieved 22 November 2008
  • Lucas, John R. (1979), "Wilberforce and Huxley: A Legendary Encounter", The Historical Journal, 22 (2), pp. 313–330, doi:10.1017/S0018246X00016848, PMID11617072 , retrieved 22 November 2008
  • Mayr, Ernst (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought, Harvard University Press, ISBN0-674-36446-5
  • Miles, Sara Joan (2001), "Charles Darwin and Asa Gray Discuss Teleology and Design", Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, 53, pp. 196–201 , retrieved 22 November 2008
  • Mivart, St. George Jackson (1871), On the Genesis of Species , New York: Appleton
  • Moore, James (2006), Evolution and Wonder – Understanding Charles Darwin, Speaking of Faith (Radio Program), American Public Media, archived from the original on 22 December 2008 , retrieved 22 November 2008
  • Phipps, William E. (1983), "Darwin, the Scientific Creationist", Christian Century (14–21 September 1983): 809–811, archived from the original on 8 January 2007 , retrieved 11 January 2007
  • Peckham, Morse, ed. (1959), The Origin of Species: a variorum text (2006 reprint ed.), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press., ISBN978-0-8122-1954-8
  • Quammen, David (2006), The Reluctant Mr. Darwin, New York: Atlas Books, ISBN0-393-05981-2
  • Radick, Gregory (2013). "Darwin and Humans". In Ruse, Michael (ed.). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Darwin and Evolutionary Thought. Cambridge University Press. pp. 173–181.
  • Rhodes, Frank H. T. (June 1987), "Darwinian Gradualism and Its Limits: The development of Darwin's Views on the Rate and Pattern of Evolutionary Change", Journal of the History of Biology, Humanities, Social Sciences and Law, Springer Netherlands (published 6 November 2004), 20 (2), pp. 139–157, doi:10.1007/BF00138435, S2CID84054280
  • Richards, Evelleen (2017), Darwin and the making of sexual selection, The University of Chicago Press, ISBN978-0-226-43706-4 , OCLC956947766
  • Schopf, J. William (2000), "Solution to Darwin's dilemma: Discovery of the missing Precambrian record of life", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 97 (13): 6947–6953, Bibcode:2000PNAS. 97.6947S, doi:10.1073/pnas.97.13.6947, PMC34368 , PMID10860955
  • Secord, James A. (2000), Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN0-226-74411-6
  • Sober, Elliott (2011), Did Darwin Write the Origin Backwards?: Philosophical Essays on Darwin's Theory, Amherst: Prometheus Books, ISBN978-1-61614-278-0
  • Spencer, Herbert (1864), The Principles of Biology, Vol. 1, London: Williams and Norgate
  • van Wyhe, John (2007), "Mind the gap: Did Darwin Avoid Publishing his Theory for Many Years?", Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 61 (2): 177–205, doi:10.1098/rsnr.2006.0171, S2CID202574857 , retrieved 5 January 2009
  • van Wyhe, John (2008), Darwin: The Story of the Man and His Theories of Evolution, London: Andre Deutsch, ISBN978-0-233-00251-4
  • van Wyhe, John (2009), Charles Darwin: Gentleman Naturalist: A Biographical Sketch, The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online , retrieved 6 June 2009
  • Browne, Janet (2007), Darwin's Origin of Species: A Biography, Grove Press, ISBN978-0-87113-953-5
  • Malthus, Thomas Robert (1826), An Essay on the Principle of Population: A View of its Past and Present Effects on Human Happiness with an Inquiry into Our Prospects Respecting the Future Removal or Mitigation of the Evils which It Occasions, 1 (6th ed.), London: John Murray , retrieved 13 November 2017 (Vol. 2)
  • Reznick, David N. (2009), The Origin Then and Now: An Interpretive Guide to the Origin of Species, Princeton University Press, ISBN978-0-691-12978-5
  • Schopf, J. William Scheibel, Arnold B. (1997), The Origin and Evolution of Intelligence, Boston: Jones and Bartlett, ISBN0-7637-0365-6
  • van Hoorn, Marijn (2009), Teyler, Winkler, Darwin (Lecture given at the Congress of the European Botanical and Horticultural Libraries Group, Prague, 23 April 2009) , Teyler Net (Weblog of the Teylers Museum, Haarlem), archived from the original on 2 December 2011 , retrieved 27 April 2010

Contemporary reviews Edit

  • Carpenter, William Benjamin (1859), "Darwin on the Origin of Species", National Review, vol. 10 no. December 1859, pp. 188–214 . Published anonymously.
  • Gray, Asa (1860), "(Review of) The Origin of Species", Athenaeum (1710: 4 August 1860): 161 . Extract from Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences4 (1860): 411–415.
  • Huxley, Thomas Henry (1859), "Time and Life: Mr Darwin's Origin of Species", Macmillan's Magazine, 1: 142–148 .
  • Huxley, Thomas Henry (1859), "Darwin on the Origin of Species", The Times (26 December 1859): 8–9 . Published anonymously.
  • Jenkin, Fleeming (1867), "(Review of) The Origin of Species", North British Review, 46 (June 1867): 277–318 . Published anonymously.
  • Murray, Andrew (1860), "On Mr Darwin's Theory of the Origin of Species", Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 4: 274–291, doi:10.1017/S0370164600034246 .
  • Owen, Richard (1860), "Review of Darwin's Origin of Species", Edinburgh Review, 3 (April 1860): 487–532 . Published anonymously.
  • Wilberforce, Samuel (1860), "(Review of) On the Origin of Species, by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", Quarterly Review, 108 (215: July 1860): 225–264 . Published anonymously.
  • For further reviews, see
  • Darwin Online: Reviews & Responses to Darwin, Darwin Online, 10 March 2009 , retrieved 18 June 2009
      , bibliography of On the Origin of Species – links to text and images of all six British editions of The Origin of Species, the 6th edition with additions and corrections (final text), the first American edition, and translations into Danish, Dutch, French, German, Polish, Russian and Spanish , showing every change between the six British editions

    200 ms 14.9% Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::callParserFunction 120 ms 9.0% Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::gsub 80 ms 6.0% Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::match 80 ms 6.0% Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::find 60 ms 4.5% 60 ms 4.5% type 40 ms 3.0% Scribunto_LuaSandboxCallback::getExpandedArgument 40 ms 3.0% 40 ms 3.0% [others] 280 ms 20.9% Number of Wikibase entities loaded: 1/400 -->

    Material and Methods

    For our experiments, we used a set of six protist species (Chilomonas sp., Colpidium sp., Euglena gracilis, Euplotes aediculatus, Paramecium bursaria, and Tetrahymena sp.) and one rotifer species (Cephalodella sp.), which colonized aquatic microcosms (Fig. 1). Species were cultured in protist medium, along with a set of common freshwater bacteria (Serratia fonticola, Brevibacillus brevis, and Bacillus subtilis) as a food source. Protist medium was made by adding 0.2 g/L protozoan pellet, supplied by Carolina Biological Supply, to tap water, autoclaving, and then cooling to room temperature before use. Chilomonas sp. and Tetrahymena sp. were supplied by Carolina Biological Supply, whereas all other species were originally isolated from a natural pond (McGrady-Steed et al. 1997 ) and have been used for other studies (Haddad et al. 2008 Altermatt et al. 2011b Carrara et al. 2012 ). All protist and the rotifer species are primarily bacterivores however, some species (e.g., Eup. aediculatus) may also prey on smaller protist species, such as Chilomonas sp. Furthermore, Eug. gracilis, Eup. aediculatus, and P. bursaria are capable of photosynthesis.

    Experimental setup

    We used two different types of networks, a linear channel (linear network, Fig. 2A) and a bifurcating dendritic network (Fig. 2B). Both network types were made of silicon tubing connected with T- and Y-connectors. The two network types had the same total length (245 cm) and total volume (125 mL). Seven T-shaped openings were evenly distributed across both network types to allow sampling, and the ends of the networks were secured to prevent leakage using metal clamps. Networks were assembled and autoclaved 1 day prior to experimental use. The environmental conditions throughout the experiment were the same for all microcosm units using a climate chamber (20°C and constant fluorescent lighting). The algebraic connectivity, which accounts for the centrality and eccentricity of a given network, was calculated using the second lowest eigenvalue of the Laplace matrix of the respective network (Chung 1997 ).

    Single-species colonization

    We set up an experiment to measure how individual species independently spread and colonize the two network types. Due to the large number of samples and processing time required, we used a block design (experimental units conducted at different time points) for the single-species colonization experiment. For each block, we had 14 networks (seven dendritic and seven linear). In total, we used four blocks. In each block, all species were included, such that each species spread in one dendritic and one linear network. One week prior to each block setup, we established fresh cultures for each of the protist and rotifer species. We added 25 mL of each species’ stock culture to 125 mL of fresh protist medium, in previously autoclaved Erlenmeyer flasks containing two wheat seeds, and allowed the species to grow to carrying capacity. The densities of the protist and rotifer species were checked for each inoculation to ensure subsequent densities were comparable and related to the species’ carrying capacity (Fig. 3). This method was preferred over using the same number of individuals for all species, as it reflects a more realistic interspecies comparison based on differences in growth rate and carrying capacities. Twelve hours prior to species inoculation, networks were filled with 125 mL of protist medium and inoculated with the above described set of freshwater bacteria.

    To measure colonization over time, we individually released the protist and rotifer species at the starting site of each network (Fig. 2). For each network, a clamp was placed 2 cm to the right of the starting site to prohibit initial protist movement beyond the first site during the setup procedure. We removed 1.5 mL of medium from the starting site and replaced it with 1.5 mL of a given species’ culture, which had grown to carrying capacity. Right thereafter, silicon stoppers were used to close all openings to prevent laminar flow, and the clamp removed to allow for active colonization. Silicon stoppers were then removed to allow air exchange with the medium throughout the experiment. All sites were routinely sampled by removing 0.5 mL medium from each network site, which was replaced with 0.5 mL of fresh, autoclaved, protist medium inoculated with bacteria. Sampling occurred every 24 h for 5 days and then every 48 h for an additional 10 days. To avoid laminar flow during sampling, we used silicon stoppers, which we placed on all site openings except the one being sampled. Once the medium was replaced, we added a stopper to the sampled site and removed the stopper from the next site we needed to sample from, and so on. We used a Nikon SMZ1500 stereomicroscope (Nikon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) to measure density of protists and rotifers (individuals per mL). If species density was too high to be accurately counted, we diluted the sample until an appropriate measure could be taken (Altermatt et al. 2011b ).

    Multiple-species colonization

    In contrast to the single-species colonization setup (absence of species interactions), in the multiple-species colonization setup, all species were released together in each network, such that they could interact during the subsequent spread (presences of species interactions). The initial setup of the multiple-species colonization setup was identical to the single-species colonization setup, with five replicates of each network type used. In order to inoculate each network with the same number of individuals per species at the start of the experiment, we concentrated individuals in the community by mixing 1.5 mL of each species together and removing as much of the medium as possible, without affecting the species’ total abundances, using a syringe and 20-μm filters. We then clamped the section of the tubing 2 cm to the right of the first network site, removed medium, and replaced it with the multiple-species community inoculum. Species abundances were checked prior to inoculation to ensure they were comparable to densities in the single-species experiment (Fig. 3). All sampling and counting methods were conducted in the same way as in the single-species experiment.

    Statistical analysis

    All statistical analyses were performed using the program R, version 2.15.1 (R Development Core Team 2012 ).

    Species abundances, as measured with the method previously mentioned, were used to assess temporal intraspecific colonization patterns and interspecific interactions occurring between the single-species (virtual) and multiple-species (observed) setups. We assessed the relationship between the species’ abundance (response variable) and the three explanatory variables time, presence/absence of species interactions (single- vs. multiple-species setups), and network type (linear vs. dendritic), by fitting generalized additive models (GAM) with a Poisson distribution, using a backward model fitting approach for each species using the mgcv package in the program R (Wood 2011 ). We included time as a smoothing term given the nonlinear relationship of species abundance over time.

    To describe the temporal change in interspecific species abundances across the networks (i.e., species diversity over time and space), we calculated the mean local species richness, Jaccard similarity (Faith et al. 1987 ), and Pielou's evenness.(Jost 2010 ), using the package vegan in R (Oksanen et al. 2009 ). Whereas species richness is a standard method to assess local (site) species diversity and measured as the number species at a given site(Whittaker 1956 ), Jaccard similarity is an established method to assess among site species diversity and is calculated using 1 – [2B/(1 + B)] where B is the Bray–Curtis dissimilarity (Faith et al. 1987 Condit et al. 2002 ). Jaccard similarity is a metric measurement and is often preferred over Bray–Curtis similarity, which is semimetric. Pielou's evenness is used as a measure of distribution of relative species abundances in a community (Jost 2010 ). Pielou's evenness is calculated using J = H/log (S), where H is the Shannon–Weaver diversity index and S is the number of species. All three diversity measures were calculated for the multiple-species setup by calculating the mean diversity measure for each network at each time point and then taking the mean of the network-type replicates (i.e., dendritic and linear network replicates were averaged separately). The measurements from the multiple-species replicates represent our observed communities, whereby species interactions were present. For the single-species setup, we performed the same calculation as the multiple-species setup, but pooled the species-specific replicates within each block together to calculate a virtual community (i.e., absence of species interactions) value for linear and dendritic networks, and calculated the final mean across the blocks. This gave us a real (observed) community value (multiple-species setup) and an expected (virtual) community value (single-species setup) for our diversity measures in the linear and dendritic networks and allowed us to compare colonization dynamics with and without species interactions. In the multiple-species setup, species interactions could take place as all species were present, while in the single-species setup, these interactions were absent. By calculating a virtual community value, we could assign the effect of species interactions on community composition and colonization dynamics. We then assessed relationship of species richness, Jaccard similarity, and Pielou's evenness relative to time, species community setup (presence/absence of species interactions) and network type using a GAM model with a backward model fitting approach. We included time as a smoothing term due to the nonlinear relationship of the response variable over time (Zuur et al. 2009 ).

    Protist and rotifer species traits were previously measured in other experimental studies (Cadotte and Fukami 2005 Haddad et al. 2008 Altermatt et al. 2011a Carrara et al. 2012 Giometto et al. 2013 ). We used these previously measured species traits, including growth rate, cell mass, and carrying capacity, and tested for correlations with occupancy. We did this comparison at the time when variation between networks was strongest (day nine), using linear regression.

    Finally, to characterize colonization patterns in the single- and multiple-species community setups, we calculated the rate of spread for each species in each experimental setup based on how much time was required to reach maximum occupancy (number of sites). Sites were considered occupied when a species was observed present at a given site when sampled, irrespective of the density. We performed a two-way ANOVA, by fitting a linear model using the lm function in R, to determine whether there was an effect of species or network type on the rate of spread in the networks.

    THALASSOCAMELIDAE (Gloops and kelp cows)

    There must be something strange about the sea that attracts mammals. In our timeline, whales, sea cows, seals and certain otters live off and largely in the deep blue, not to mention the extinct desmostylians in Spec, cancridonts and selkies have taken to the  oceans. The fertile waters of South Australia were found to hold yet another funky marine mammal, the gloop, which is associated with marine, coastal, estuarine and marsh faunas. The gloop family includes the kelp cow, one of the largest marine mammals known in  Spec.

    The gloops are generalist cold-water algae and kelp grazers that first appear in the fossil record in the Oligocene. These multituberculates seem to have had their center of origin around Antarctica, certainly the presence of the latest Eocene Merididugongia, a 30 kilo seashore browser of kelp and algae on a newly discovered deposit located only on Spec's Seymour Island indicates so. The Oligocene and Miocene saw the family radiate  across the sub Antarctic as far north as Australia and New Zealand. The Pliocene saw algae browsing tropical forms and the subsequent evolution of the Northern Hemisphere kelp cows.


    Gloops are the most widespread thalassocamelids. They may be found in seasonally migrant herds around the Antarctic Ocean and range north into the tropics and cold Atlantic Ocean. Some 6 species are  currently recognized. Most are generalist algae browsers, though the north atlantic species specializes in kelp and sargassum weed.

    Gloop (Thalassocamelus thieliei)

    Gloop, Thalassocamelus thieliei (coastal wasters of northern Aotearoa and Northern New South Wales)

    The gloop ranges from the coastal waters of northern Aotearoa to northern New South Wales, sustained in these bountiful waters fed by the southern ocean. Gloops have a large, camel-like head, stubby, clawed forelimbs, and a tapering, cylindrical body much like a sea cow. Their tail is deep, flat and powerful, but relatively short, and their back legs are paddle shaped they swim with horizontal undulations much like a sea otter. Gloops have a covering of long wiry hair along the back this not only serves as insulation but harbors green algae, small crustaceans and snails (some beneficial, some parasitic, some commensal). They also have a thick layer of fat for buoyancy and extra insulation, and their belly is covered in very thick, tuberculous calluses that protect them from scraping rocks while feeding and even sometimes from shark attack. These animals feed on a wide range of marine plants, from tender red algae to seaweed, cold water Spec "sea grass" and kelp, which they crop with their thick, muscular lips and cut with their large incisors.

    Gloop breeding behavior is amongst the strangest of Spec's Mammalia. In the breeding season (June - August), females and males congregate around river mouths, the younger first-timers following  the elders there in single file (called "caravans"). Upon arrival the males will pick and fight for a choice area upstream the  further upstream you are, the calmer the water, and the harder you have fought to get there. Naturally the stronger males are positioned further upstream. The males choose their spots in this  way to "serenade" the females with their loud belch-like above-water calls of "GLOOP!! GLOOP!!" punctuated by long strains of jowl-shaking calls. The females travel upstream past the throngs of belching, blubbering males until they find a male that they see fit to sire their young. This bizarre procession, as well as the convoying and lek fighting behavior that precedes it, is a  singularly bizarre spectacle.

    The females travel upstream into estuaries to give birth. The solitary calf (rarely two) is dependant upon its mother for nearly a year. Out of breeding season these animals tend to either live alone or in loose aggregations depending on resources. These animals can live for as long as 40 years or so and grow to 3.5 meters in length.

    Mediterranean Gloop (Thalassocamelus suboriotethyis)

    Unique to the Mediterranean Sea, this animal is a typical tropical water gloop. They slurp the algae growing on vast beds of inoceramid clams and coral reefs. Often seen alongside duckgongs, the two clades never come into conflict, because one feeds on sea grasses, while the other prefers seaweeds and algal mats.

    BOVIGALINAE (Kelp cow)

    The Kelp cow is the only member of its clade. This is truly an exclusive kelp feeder. Compared to other gloops, kelp cows are rather archaic in certain details of their teeth and skull. However, they are more derived in having lost the ancestral belly tubercles and developing a more pachyostylic skeleton, especially around the ribs.

    Kelp Cow (Bovigale memorium)

    Kelpcow, Bovigale memorium (northern Pacific)

    The kelp cow is an impressive 6 to 7 m long beast, weighing as much as a moby duck. It is found primarily in the kelp forests of the northern Pacific ranging from The Baja peninsula to the Sea of Oshkosh, hugging the shallow waters. Local Alaskan and Kamchatkan populations sporadically range into the Bering Sea during the summer season. 

    Kelp cows subsist mostly on kelp, which they process with their formidable dentition and digest in their extensive stomachs. Kelp cows swim with powerful up and down strokes of the lower torso, which moves the paddle-like tail and hind limbs. Kelp cow forelimbs are stubby, with clawed fingers used to grasp large amounts of growth. 

    These animals possess both a large amount of blubber and a reasonably thick coat of of smooth, slick hair. Kelp cows will mainly browse on the floating rafts of kelp when they are in season, but observing kelp cows feeding on whole belts of kelp is both intriguing and amusing. Firstly, the mighty beast dives down and severs the kelp from its holdfast, then the animal returns to the surface and grasps the belt as it eats, much resembling a mouse eating a whole strand of spaghetti.

    Has the human 7-day week had any impact on the evolution of species? - Biology

    Just months before the launch of NASA’s Lucy mission, winners of the Lucy in Space contest have been announced by Arizona State Univ

    In the social sciences division of The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Arizona State University, students and faculty impact and pioneer solutions to society’s challenges through an underst


    Editor's note: This story is part of a series of profiles of

    Editor's note: This story is part of a series of profiles of

    A new study by researchers, including Arizona State University graduate student Maryse Biernat, verifies the age of one of the oldest specimens

    Modern humans are the world’s apex predator. For tens of thousands of years, deep into the Stone Age, humans hunted and killed the largest animals on land and sea. How?

    Thirty years ago, clinical psychiatrist Jonathan Shay drew attention to similarities between the trauma experienced by Greek warriors, as documented in the epic poem “The Iliad,” and Vietnam vetera


    One of the world’s foremost experts in paleoanthropology, Yohannes Haile-Selassie, known for major fossil discoveries in the African Rift Valley and extensive scholarship in human origins science,


    In the last 60,000 years, humans have emerged as an ecologically dominant species and have successfully colonized every terrestrial habitat.

    Humans are unusual because we cooperate with each other in ways that other animals do not.


    Science is society’s best method for understanding the world.

    It is at the confluence of different experiences that new theories come into being.

    An Arizona State University anthropology student is among a group of international researchers who this week published one of the first DNA studies of dire wolves — extinct canines that roame

    Liam Gleason sat scrolling through dozens of images hoping to find something that showed diversity in anthropology for a poster they were creating.


    Humans have a long-standing relationship with the sea that spans nearly 200,000 years.

    Males of the extinct human species Paranthropus robustus were thought to be substantially larger than females — much like the size differences seen in modern-day primates such as gorillas, oranguta


    While the continents of Africa and Europe have been obvious and fruitful treasure troves for exploration and discovery of our modern human origins, Asia has been somewhat overlooked.

    Do humans form closer relationships as we age, understanding the inevitably of our own mortality?

    Astronomy and paleoanthropology are two branches of science that generally don’t intersect.

    Dinosaurs aren’t the only fossil game in town. In fact, anything from an acorn to a meteorite can be a fossil.

    History books often link disease and colonization, in which explorers unknowingly bring with them illnesses that spread to native people.


    Strong social ties are a key driver of cooperation in many species and are associated with adaptive benefits in several of them, including humans, feral horses and dolphins.

    A 13-million-year-old fossil unearthed in northern India comes from a newly discovered ape, the earliest known ancestor of the modern-day gibbon.

    Human adaptation is a unique combination of maturing and learning slowly from childhood to adulthood, the development of complex production skills and the establishment of cooperative sociality.

    Archaeological sites on the far southern shores of South Africa hold the world’s richest records for the behavioral and cultural origins of our species.


    Humans willingly incur costs to punish selfishness in others, and our societies are likely more cooperative as a result.

    An international team including ASU researcher Gary Schwartz, has unearthed the earliest known skull of Homo erectus, the first of o

    Scientists have long been able to measure and analyze the fossil skulls of our ancient ancestors to estimate brain volume and growth.


    In Pondoland, on the east coast of South Africa, Erich Fisher, an Institute of Human Origins research scient

    There’s just something about a good, old-fashioned family drama that never fails to captivate an audience.

    It may not always seem so, but scientists are convinced that humans are unusually cooperative.


    Dental plaque — the stuff that your hygienist is always scraping off your teeth — holds a treasure trove of your DNA and, if not cleaned off occasionally, will build up and remain on your teeth lon


    Research on global biodiversity has long assumed that present-day biodiversity patterns reflect present-day factors, namely contemporary climate and human activities.


    Editor's note:This story is being highlighted in ASU Now's year in review.


    Human behavior over time has been extraordinarily complex that's partly why so many different fields exist to study it.


    Cooperative behaviors, which differ from one country to another, from one community to another, can make the world an interesting — though sometimes challenging place — to live.

    It’s hard to imagine what the world looked like millions of years ago. But in Arizona, a journey through the Grand Canyon on the Colorado River gives a sense of how it might have felt.

    In 1899, when Arizona had not yet gained statehood and Arizona State University was a fledgling institution known as the Tempe Normal School, Zebulon Pearce was freshly graduated with teachers cred

    A new archaeological site discovered by an international and local team of scientists — including ASU researchers — working in Ethiopia shows that the origins of stone tool production are older tha

    A mammal’s posture while moving, or locomotor posture, plays a key role in how variable the number of vertebrae in its spinal column can be across all members of that species, a team of researchers


    We know that our DNA can tell us a lot about ourselves, from susceptibility to certain cancer types to biological relationships.

    Scientists have found the remains of what they believe to be a new species of ancient hominin, Homo luzonensis, on the Philippine island Luzon.

    The face you see in the mirror is the result of millions of years of evolution and reflects the most distinctive features that we use to identify and recognize each other, molded by our need to eat

    Beginning about 60,000 years ago, our species spread across the world occupying a wider range of habitats than any other species.

    ELI5: How did humans become the dominant species?

    I know our ability to communicate has had a big impact on our survival, but compared to many predators we are a very weak species. We get sick if meat is not cooked, we break bones from falling a short height, we can't run fast, we can't climb very well, we have a fairly weak sense of sight/smell/hearing. So why is it that humans ended up being the most intelligent and dominant species, able to build super structures and populate the planet? When thousands of years ago, a man would have no chance in the wild against a lion or tiger, so the 'survival of the fittest' doesn't make sense.

    Because its a bit of a myth that we're useless.

    Humans are incredible long distance runners, infact the best endurance runners on the planet. Humans methods of hunting consisted of chasing the prey until they were tired. And if water ran out or the area became too hostile we could migrate thousands of miles to the next area.

    As for the eating meat and getting sick thing, its because our stomachs arent used to it anymore. We can and do eat raw meat, and it doesnt kill us. But if you are raised always eating that kind of diet, humans immune system and digestive tract gets used to it.

    Our sense of sight is bad compared to say eagles and the like, but we are tall. Compared to Lions and Wolves we can see over bushes, long grass etc which means we can actually see much further, and helps with the long distance running thing.

    The biggest thing is that Humans are smart. Cant kill a lion, bring a pointy stick with you to throw at it.


    Our preconceived views strongly influence our opinions and decisions. People almost universally view the eutherian mammal body as a biological organ with biochemical processes controlling biological cells. This belief fails to recognize the vital role of bio-physics within its natural endogenous electromagnetic field that allows our biochemistry to signal correctly and carrying out vital functions in the brain, central nervous system, heart, motor neuron system and in all cells. These natural oscillating electromagnetic signals from the Earth are produced, and subsequently they interact with ions, such as calcium ions. Calcium ion timing and flux is are active in all cells for proper timing of cell-to-cell communication, gap junctions, neural synapse control, and voltage-gated ion channels on every membrane of every cell in our body. Phase locked loop detection systems are widespread in cells that are coherently bound by structured water especially in neurons in the central and peripheral nervous system. Because neural tissues is so sensitive to these pertubations, modern medicine should begin to understand why neurodegeneration is a direct consequence of altered quantum timing. It explains why neurodegeneration is so rampant and common today in the infant, young, teenager, adult, and elderly forms of modern humans. The names of the diseases are different but the molecular disruptions are common and they are phenotyically different based upon the life cycle stage of the human and level of developmental stage of the central nervous system in the person at that time. It makes sense to me why people suffer from sleep apnea and insomnia, heart palpitations, metabolic syndrome, peripheral neuropathy and restless leg syndrome, obesity, depression, infertility at record rates in the last 100 years.

    The heart and brain are monitored using the ECG and EEG electromagnetic detection systems. Quantum field physics processes involve detailed explanations of how resonant absorption and interference with the natural EMR/EMF signals occurs. This has been causally demonstrated with external ELF signals altering the native ELF calcium ion oscillations in brain and heart tissue in numerous studies world wide. Dr. Frey’s work on the blood brain barrier in the 1970’s is critical in understanding how calcium alterations are coupled to the magnetic field. Frey’s work was presented in 1975 to the New York Academy of sciences and when it soon after the DOD began to systematically discredit his work. Today most of the good research on EMF’s are being done outside our country.

    Understanding and appreciating how quantum field theory and biology meet is critical to understanding our modern world. Soon I expect this to become the critical biophysical science that may help our species and all species from insidious de-evolution opening your mind to the epigenotoxic evidence and considering the epidemiological evidence, leads to a major paradigm shift in cell theory and molecular biology of the cell membrane. It will make you realize genetics is not the issue, and never has been, but epigenetics is and always will be the issue until life stops. Darwin was correct, conditions of existence are the most important part of his evolutionary theory. We need to go back to his work and carefully read what he said.

    Modern scientists work is based upon classic physics when cell biology is life is really based upon quantum field theory. My next blog, EMF 7, will show you how I figured that out using osteoporosis as my model human disease. There was a huge benefit being spine surgeon and understanding how an MRI really works. This is where modern medicine gave me a huge boost in this complex fascinating riddle. I just matched it with my curiosity and my deep desire to heal my own obesity.

    We can’t manage time because we can not stretch a minute or stop a clock, yet. Time goes on and we can make a better use of time, by managing ourself better using our choices and priorities with the knowledge in this series. We manage time best by manage by ourselves better. Stop watching your endogenous molecular clock, and begin to work it to your benefit, from this new biologic perspective. With every minute that passes from here on in, we are trading our lives for something. Let’s ensure that the trade is worth it and that it’s not squandered. I think something big is up.

    We have the same twenty-fours a day to enjoy and use to the best of our ability that any successful person who has ever lived did or does. That’s 86,400 seconds a day, 168 hours a week, 24 hours a day for 7 days a week to fulfill our mission. Soon you will realize every person mission on this planet should be aligned because we are all entangled.

    All authors have been working toward sustainable tourism individually for many years. Conversations among Sara Lewis, Choong Hay Wong, Anchana Thancharoen, Chiahsiung Wu, Lynn Faust created the spark, and Sara Lewis, Choong Hay Wong, Anchana Thancharoen, and Soraya Jaikla outlined the manuscript. Sara Lewis and Michael Reed wrote the initial draft, with local conservation stories contributed by Anchana Thancharoen (Thailand), Paola Velasco Santos (Mexico), Chiahsiung Wu (Taiwan), and Lynn Faust (USA). Avalon Owens and Anchana Thancharoen helped with figure preparation, and the manuscript was reviewed and revised with substantive contributions from all authors.

    APPENDIX S1 Case studies of firefly tourism. Conservation stories from: (a) Tennessee, USA: Managing crowds at the Elkmont Light Show. (b) Mexico: Heeding the social context. (c) Taiwan: A model for sustainable firefly tourism

    FIGURE S1 Firefly tourist sites around the world, with examples of suggested best practices (clockwise from upper left): (1) A clearly defined pathway protects the flightless females and juveniles in the adjacent forest habitat of Diaphanes lampyroides in Fenqihu, Chiayi County, Taiwan (photo by Hua-Te Fang). (2) All-weather interpretive signs provide visitors with accurate and detailed information on firefly life cycle and diversity, Alishan area, Taiwan (photo by S.M. Lewis). (3) Before each tour, visitors enjoy an educational program at Parque Biológica de Gaia, Portugal (photo by Jorge Pereira Gomes). (4) Courtship display of Photinus palaciosi in their forest habitat at Tlaxcala, Mexico (photo by Francisco Israel Hernández Alcántara). (5) Visitors watch displays of Asymmetricata circumdata from a raised walkway that protects larval and adult habitat in Prachin Buri, Thailand (photo by S.N. Taengsuan). (6) Trolly shuttles visitors to display sites of Photinus carolinus in their forest habitat at Elkmont TN, USA (Great Smoky Mountains National Park, public domain)

    TABLE S1 List of firefly tourism sites identified in this study with: country, geographic location, map status (main text Table 2 provides additional information on sites designated as major), information source, and URL (if available)

    VIDEO S1 Visitors can interact with interpretive displays at the Guanghua Firefly Trail & Education Center in Alishan Township, Taiwan (video by S.M. Lewis)

    Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.


  1. Gardajar

    Fuck a sober student ... Othello missed! A loud rustle of money is heard - this goof went to spawn! FATE, AS A WOMAN, SHOULD BE SURPRISED WITH A GOOD END AND SUDDEN TURN. No matter how much you lie to the state, you still can't get yours back.

  2. Rayner

    Always respected the authors of this blog, infa 5 ++

  3. Obasi

    You are not right. Enter we'll discuss it. Write to me in PM, we will handle it.

  4. German

    Useful information

Write a message