Claude Bernard's non reception of Darwinism

The aim of this paper is to explain why, while Charles Darwin was well recognized as a scientific leader of his time, Claude Bernard never really regarded Darwinism as a scientific theory. The lukewarm reception of Darwin at the Académie des Sciences of Paris and his nomination to a chair only after 8 years contrasts with his prominence, and Bernard's attitude towards Darwin's theory of species evolution belongs to this French context. Yet we argue that Bernard rejects the scientific value of Darwinian principles mainly for epistemological reasons. Like Darwin, Bernard was interested in hereditary processes, and planned to conduct experiments on these processes that could lead to species transformation. But the potential creation of new forms of life would not vindicate Darwinism since biologists can only explain the origin of morphotypes and morphological laws by the means of untestable analogies. Because it can be the object neither of experiments nor of any empirical observation, phylogeny remains out of science's scope. Around 1878 Bernard foresaw a new general physiology based on the study of protoplasm, which he saw as the agent of all basic living phenomena. We will analyze why Bernard regarded Darwinism as part of metaphysics, yet still referred to Darwinians in his latter works in 1878. Basically, the absence of a scientific reception of Darwinism in Bernard's work should not obscure its philosophical reception, which highlights the main principles of Bernard's epistemology.

Time to synchronize our clocks: Connecting developmental mechanisms and evolutionary consequences of heterochrony

Heterochrony, defined as a change in the timing of developmental events altering the course of evolution, was first recognized by Ernst Haeckel in 1866. Haeckel's original definition was meant to explain the observed parallels between ontogeny and phylogeny, but the interpretation of his work became a source of controversy over time. Heterochrony took its modern meaning following the now classical work in the 1970-80s by Steven J. Gould, Pere Alberch, and co-workers. Predicted and described heterochronic scenarios emphasize the many ways in which developmental changes can influence evolution. However, while important examples of heterochrony detected with comparative morphological methods have multiplied, the more mechanistic understanding of this phenomenon lagged conspicuously behind. Considering the rapid progress in imaging and molecular tools available now for developmental biologists, this review aims to stress the need to take heterochrony research to the next level. It is time to synchronize the different levels of heterochrony research into a single analysis flow: from studies on organismal-level morphology to cells to molecules and genes, using complementary techniques. To illustrate how to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of phyletic morphological diversification associated with heterochrony, we discuss several recent case studies at various phylogenetic scales that combine morphological, cellular, and molecular analyses. Such a synergistic approach offers to more fully integrate phylogenetic and ontogenetic dimensions of the fascinating evolutionary phenomenon of heterochrony.

The First Brazilian Thesis of Evolution: Haeckel's Recapitulation Theory and Its Relations with the Idea of Progress

The aim of this work is to present the thesis "On the Ontogenetic Evolution of the Human Embryo in its Relations with Phylogenesis," by Affonso Regulo de Oliveira Fausto (1866-1930), published in Brazil in 1890. To our knowledge, it was one of the first Brazilian academic works focused specifically on evolution. It was also the first doctoral thesis that addressed the topic of recapitulation in order to analyze what was then called the progressive evolution of the human species in tandem with the embryological development of the individuals that would constitute the Brazilian "type." In the present work, we analyze the author's thesis in relation to its sources, concepts, as well as the country's political context at the time of its publication. Fausto's text, in which he explicitly recognized the influence of Ernst Haeckel's (1834-1919) recapitulation theory, represents a window to understand better a concept of nation based on science and on the idea of inexorable progress that was accepted in Brazil at the end of the nineteenth century.

Ernst Haeckel, Nikolai Miklucho-Maclay and the racial controversy over the Papuans

Background

The “German Darwin” Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) was a key figure during the first “Darwinian revolution“, a time when the foundations of the modern evolutionary theory were laid. It was Haeckel, who crucially contributed to the visualization of the Darwinian theory by designing “genealogical-trees” illustrating the evolution of various species, including humans. Although the idea of explaining human evolution by natural selection belongs to Darwin, Haeckel was the first who attempted to create a new exact anthropology based on the Darwinian method.

Discussion

Trying to immediately reconstruct human evolution proceeding from the description of modern populations led Haeckel to the views which, from the contemporary perspective, are definitely racist. Haeckel created racial anthropology intending to prove human origins from a lower organism, but without the intention of establishing a discriminatory racial praxis. Although hierarchical in its outcome, the Haeckelian method did not presuppose the necessity of a racial hierarchy of currently living humans. It is crucial to grasp in what sense Haeckel’s theoretical explorations in human evolution were racist, and in what sense they were not. Our argument flows as follows. One of Haeckel’s pupils was the Russian ethnographer, anthropologist and zoologist Nikolai Nikolajewitsch Miklucho-Maclay (1846–1888). Maclay and Haeckel worked closely together for several years; they traveled jointly and Maclay had enough time to learn the major methodological principles of Haeckel’s research. Yet in contrast to Haeckel, Maclay is regarded as one of the first scientific anti-racists, who came to anti-racist views using empirical field studies in Papua-New Guinea.

Conclusions

We claim that while conducting these studies Maclay applied scientific principles to a significant extent acquired from Haeckel. The paper contributes to the view that Haeckel’s theoretical racism did not follow the Darwinian method he used.

Ernst Haeckel, ancient forests, and the Anthropocene

In this Addendum to an article in  Nature commemorating the 100th anniversary of Ernst Haeckel's death (9 August 1919), we recall the largely forgotten fact that Haeckel (1868) was an early proponent of the concept of an "Anthropozoic Age", a 19th-century anticipation of the "Anthropocene". Haeckel in particular highlighted man's extensive remodeling of the planet in ancient forests. Earlier influences on Haeckel included Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) and dozens of similar writers in the 19th century Romantic era, including the Italian geologist and priest Antonio Stoppani (1824-1891), and the American diplomat and environmentalist George P. Marsh (1801-1882). Starting in the 1840s, Marsh described in extraordinary detail the destructive influence of mankind on natural ecosystems, again with particular emphasis on the destruction of forests. Marsh, like Haeckel after him, was a pioneer in describing the far-reaching human re-modeling of the planet that they and their colleagues presciently labeled the "Anthropozoic Age".

Haeckel and du Bois-Reymond: rival German Darwinists

Ernst Haeckel and Emil du Bois-Reymond were the most prominent champions of Darwin in Germany. This essay compares their contributions to popularizing the theory of evolution, drawing special attention to the neglected figure of du Bois-Reymond as a spokesman for a world devoid of natural purpose. It suggests that the historiography of the German reception of Darwin's theory needs to be reassessed in the light of du Bois-Reymond's Lucretian outlook.

Ernst Haeckel's "ecology" in Russia of the first half of the twentieth century

The vast scientific heritage of Ernst Haeckel, evolutionist and thinker, comprises ecology as well. It is well known that it was he in 1866 introduced the term "ecology" for the science on interaction of the organisms and the environment. Haeckel built his system of the biological science (to be more precise, of the zoological science), including ecology, on the basis of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory (the theory of natural selection). Traditionally, it is supposed that Haeckel's merit in world ecology is just the introduction of its name. However, there are few works devoting to development of Russian ecology. Actually, analysis of the impact of Haeckel's ecological views on Russian biologists and development of ecology in the first half of the last century demonstrates that widely used opinion should be corrected. I hypothesise that Haeckel's influence on Russian biologists was somewhat more than commonly thought. In spite of a rather long oblivion of the term "ecology" in the Russian literature followed by confusion of ecology and some other sciences (physiology, biogeography), some biologists saw in the Haeckel's understanding of ecology the base for synthesis of ecology and the evolutionary theory. There are some specific traits of Haeckel's influence on Russian biologists. At first, some of them accepted his evolutionary approach. Secondly, they highly appreciated his definition of ecology. Biologists defended such understanding of ecology even in the period of Lysenkoism pressure. At the same time, it is evident that Haeckel's influence on development of ecology was somewhat limited.

Evolutionary ethics and Haeckelian monism: the case of Heinrich Schmidt's Harmonie (1931)

This paper offers the first ever published discussion of the ethical treatise Harmonie: Versuch einer monistischen Ethik [Harmony: an attempt at a monistic ethics] by Heinrich Schmidt (1874-1935), one of the leading figures in the circle of Ernst Haeckel. Published near the end of Schmidt's life (1931), it constituted a kind of summation of decades of intense involvement in the "project" of German monism that found its epicentre in Jena, and in Haeckel's attempts at founding it on Darwinian and Goethian lines. After a brief description of Schmidt's life and works, we summarize the main lines of Haeckel's evolutionary thought and their expression in his sparse ethical writings. A detailed description of Harmonie follows, in which we seek to demonstrate Schmidt's close adherence to Haeckel's monist foundations, as well as indicate where he expanded his own thinking in directions beyond Haeckel's. Lastly, we suggest that Harmonie, perhaps contrary to Schmidt's wishes after 1933, nevertheless offers textual evidence of the deep incompatibility of Schmidt's understanding of ethics to the sociopolitical ideology of National Socialism. This is consistent with the historical record of how Haeckel's monism, together with those like Schmidt who worked tirelessly to promote it, was negatively regarded by the NSDAP.

The reception of Haeckel in pre-revolutionary Russia and his impact on evolutionary theory

The "German Darwin" Ernst Haeckel was influential not only in Germany, but in non-German-speaking countries as well. Due to the widespread use of German as a language of science in the Russian Empire along with growing Russian-German links in various scientific fields, Haeckel directly and indirectly influenced Russian intellectual landscape. The objective of the present paper is to investigate Haeckel's impact on Russian biology before the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. We outline the transfer of Haeckelian ideas to Russia and its adaptation to a national research tradition. Haeckel's ideas influenced the most crucial Russian evolutionists such as brothers Alexander and Vladimir Kovalevsky, Ilya (Elias) Metschnikoff, Mikhail Menzbier (Menzbir), Karl Kessler, Andrei Famintzyn, and Konstantin Mereschkowsky. At the same time, Haeckel's speculative hypotheses and his attempts to convert Darwinism into a universal worldview by promoting monism found little support in biological circles of Russia. Russian biology grew as an empirical science having weak connections to "romantic philosophy" as German biology did. This, among others, explains the acceptance of Haeckel as a biologist and the rejection of Haeckel as a philosopher by crucial Russian evolutionists.

The concept of the 'organic individual' in Haeckel's writings

Biological individuality was a hotly debated concept in nineteenth-century German biology, both in botany and in zoology. Much discussion centered on a comparison of higher plants with colonial organisms that are subject to polymorphism and exhibit division of labor among their parts. Building on the work of Matthias Jakob Schleiden, Johannes Müller, Rudolf Leuckart, and especially the botanist Alexander Braun, Haeckel in his writings continued to refine his theory of relative individuality. Haeckel recognized three kinds of individuality: physiological, morphological, and genealogical, the latter two hierarchically structured. These distinctions allowed him to embed in his theory of relative (biological) individuality the threefold parallelism of ontogeny, phylogeny, and classification. For Haeckel, this threefold parallelism provided the strongest proof for Darwin's theory of descent with modification.

Plasmodial slime molds and the evolution of microbial husbandry

Detailed analyses into the life cycle of the soil-dwelling microbe Dictyostelium discoideum led to the conclusion that this "social amoeba" practices some form of "non-monoculture farming" via the transfer of bacteria to novel environments. Herein, we show that in myxomycetes (plasmodial slime molds or myxogastrids) a similar "farming symbiosis" has evolved. Based on laboratory studies of two representative species in the genera Fuligo and Didymium, the sexual life cycle of these enigmatic microbes that feed on bacteria was reconstructed, with reference to plasmo- and karyogamy. We document that the spores carry and transfer bacteria and hence may inoculate new habitats. The significance of this finding with respect to Ernst Haeckel's work on myxomycetes and his concept of ecology are addressed.

Ernst Haeckel's embryology in biology textbooks in the German Democratic Republic, 1951-1988

In our era of computers and computer models, the importance of physical or graphical models for both research and education in developmental biology (embryology) is often forgotten or at least underappreciated. Still, one important aspect of embryology is the (evolutionary) developmental anatomy of both human and animal embryos. Here, we present a short history of the visualization of Ernst Haeckel's "biogenetic law" and his "gastraea theory" in biology textbooks from the German Democratic Republic (GDR) between 1951 and 1988. Our analysis of GDR textbooks showed embryology was integrated into different disciplines and remained an educational constant within the school textbooks throughout the GDR despite various educational reforms. While the majority of these textbooks failed to reference either Ernst Haeckel or his contributions to embryology, they often did mention Haeckel in sections dedicated to the theory of evolution and the promotion of Soviet ideals such as materialism.

The First Darwinian Phylogenetic Tree of Plants

In 1866, the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) published the first Darwinian trees of life in the history of biology in his book General Morphology of Organisms. We take a specific look at the first phylogenetic trees for the plant kingdom that Haeckel created as part of this two-volume work.

Ernst Haeckel's biodynamics 1866 and the occult basis of organic farming

One hundred and 50 years ago (Sept. 1866), Ernst Haeckel published a monograph entitled General Morphology of Organisms, wherein key terms, such as Protista, Monera, ontogeny, phylogeny, ecology and the 'biogenetic law' where introduced. In addition, Haeckel coined the word "biodynamics" as a synonym for "general physiology." In contrast, Rudolf Steiner's "biodynamic agriculture," which originated in 1924, and was promoted via Ehrenfried Pfeiffer's book of 1938 with the same title, is an occult pseudoscience still popular today. The misuse of Haeckel's term to legitimize disproven homeopathic principles and esoteric rules within the context of applied plant research is unacceptable.

Ludwig Edinger: the vertebrate series and comparative neuroanatomy

At the end of the nineteenth century, Ludwig Edinger completed the first comparative survey of the microscopic anatomy of vertebrate brains. He is regarded as the founder of the field of comparative neuroanatomy. Modern commentators have misunderstood him to have espoused an anti-Darwinian linear view of brain evolution, harkening to the metaphysics of the scala naturae. This understanding arises, in part, from an increasingly contested view of nineteenth-century morphology in Germany. Edinger did espouse a progressionist, though not strictly linear, view of forebrain evolution, but his work also provided carefully documented evidence that brain stem structures vary in complexity independently from one another and across species in a manner that is not compatible with linear progress. This led Edinger to reject progressionism for all brain structures other than the forebrain roof, based on reasoning not too dissimilar from those his successors used to dismiss it for the forebrain roof.