The chief purpose of the book will have been met if I have succeeded in indicating the sources of biological ideas and the main currents along which they have advanced, and if I have succeeded, furthermore, in making readers acquainted with those men of noble purpose whose work has created the epochs of biological history, and in showing that there has been continuity of development in biological thought.
Of biologists who may examine this work with a critical purpose, I beg that they will think of it merely as an outline sketch which does not pretend to give a complete history of biological thought. The story has been developed almost entirely from the side of animal life; not that the botanical side has been underestimated, but that the story can be told from either side, and my first-hand acquaintance with botanical investigation is not sufficient to justify an attempt to estimate its particular achievements.
The writer is keenly aware of the many imperfections in the book. It is inevitable that biologists with interests in special fields will miss familiar names and the mention of special pieces of notable work, but I am drawn to think that such omissions will be viewed leniently, by the consideration that those best able to judge the shortcomings of this sketch will also best understand the difficulties involved.
The author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to several publishing houses and to individuals for permission to copy cuts and for assistance in obtaining portraits. He takes this opportunity to express his best thanks for these courtesies. The parties referred to are the director of the American Museum of Natural History; D. Appleton & Co.; P. Blakiston's Sons & Co.; The Macmillan Company; The Open Court Publishing Company; the editor of the Popular Science Monthly; Charles Scribner's Sons; Professors Bateson, of Cambridge, England; Conklin, of Philadelphia; Joubin, of Rennes, France; Nierstrasz, of Utrecht, Holland; Newcombe, of Ann Arbor, Michigan; Wheeler and E.B. Wilson, of New York City. The editor of the Popular Science Monthly has also given permission to reprint the substance of Chapters IV and X, which originally appeared in that publication.
W.A.L.
Northwestern University,
Evanston, Ill., April, 1908.
CONTENTS
| [PART I] | ||
| The Sources of Biological Ideas Except Those ofOrganic Evolution | ||
| [CHAPTER I] | ||
| An Outline of the Rise of Biology and of the Epochs in itsHistory, | [3] | |
| Notable advances in natural science during the nineteenth century, [3].Biology the central subject in the history of opinion regardinglife, [4]. It is of commanding importance in the world of science,[5]. Difficulties in making its progress clear, [5]. Notwithstandingits numerous details, there has been a relatively simple andorderly progress in biology, [6]. Many books about the facts ofbiology, many excellent laboratory manuals, but scarcely anyattempt to trace the growth of biological ideas, [6]. The growthof knowledge regarding organic nature a long story full of humaninterest, [7]. The men of science, [7]. The story of their aspirationsand struggles an inspiring history, [8]. The conditions underwhich science developed, [8]. The ancient Greeks studied natureby observation and experiment, but this method underwenteclipse, [9]. Aristotle the founder of natural history, [9]. Sciencebefore his day, [9], [10]. Aristotle's position in the development ofscience, [11]. His extensive knowledge of animals, [12]. His scientificwritings, [13]. Personal appearance, [13]. His influence, [15].Pliny: his writings mark a decline in scientific method, [16]. Thearrest of inquiry and its effects, [17]. A complete change in themental interests of mankind, [17]. Men cease to observe and indulgein metaphysical speculation, [18]. Authority declared thesource of knowledge, [18]. The revolt of the intellect against theseconditions, [19]. The renewal of observation, [19]. The beneficentresults of this movement, [20]. Enumeration of the chief epochsin biological history: renewal of observation, [20]; the overthrowof authority in science, [20]. Harvey and experimental investigation,[20]; introduction of microscopes, [20]; Linnæus, [20]; Cuvier,[20]; Bichat, [21]; Von Baer, [21]; the rise of physiology, [21]; thebeginnings of evolutionary thought, [21]; the cell-theory, [21]; thediscovery of protoplasm, [21]. | ||
| [CHAPTER II] | ||
| Vesalius and the Overthrow of Authority in Science, | [22] | |
| Vesalius, in a broad sense, one of the founders of biology, [22]. A pictureof the condition of anatomy before he took it up, [23]. Galen:his great influence as a scientific writer, [24]. Anatomy in theMiddle Ages, [24]. Predecessors of Vesalius: Mundinus, Berangarius,Sylvius, [26]. Vesalius gifted and forceful, [27]. His impetuousnature, [27]. His reform in the teaching of anatomy, [28].His physiognomy, [30]. His great book (1543), [30]. A descriptionof its illustrations, [30], [32]. Curious conceits of the artist, [32].Opposition to Vesalius: curved thigh bones due to wearing tighttrousers, the resurrection bone, [34], [35]. The court physician, [35].Close of his life, [36]. Some of his successors: Eustachius andFallopius, [36]. The especial service of Vesalius: he overthrewdependence on authority and reëstablished the scientific methodof ascertaining truth, [37], [38]. | ||
| [CHAPTER III] | ||
| William Harvey and Experimental Observation, | [39] | |
| Harvey's work complemental to that of Vesalius, [39]. Their combinedlabors laid the foundations of the modern method of investigatingnature, [39]. Harvey introduces experiments on livingorganisms, [40]. Harvey's education, [40]. At Padua, comesunder the influence of Fabricius, [41]. Return to England, [42].His personal qualities, [42]-45. Harvey's writings, [45]. His greatclassic on movement of the heart and blood (1628), [46]. Hisdemonstration of circulation of the blood based on cogent reasoning;he did not have ocular proof of its passage throughcapillaries, [47]. Views of his predecessors on the movement ofthe blood, [48]. Servetus, [50]. Realdus Columbus, [50]. Cæsalpinus,[51]. The originality of Harvey's views, [51]. Harvey'sargument, [51]. Harvey's influence, [52]. A versatile student;work in other directions, [52]. His discovery of the circulationcreated modern physiology, [52]. His method of inquiry becamea permanent part of biological science, [53]. | ||
| [CHAPTER IV] | ||
| The Introduction of the Microscope and the Progress of IndependentObservation, | [54] | |
| The pioneer microscopists: Hooke and Grew in England; Malpighiin Italy and Swammerdam and Leeuwenhoek in Holland, [54].Robert Hooke, [55]. His microscope and the micrographia (1665),[56]. Grew one of the founders of vegetable histology, [56]. Malpighi,1628-1694, [58]. Personal qualities, [58]. Education, [60].University positions, [60], [61]. Honors at home and abroad, [61].Activity in research, [62]. His principal writings: Monographon the silkworm, [63]; anatomy of plants, [66]; work in embryology,[66]. Jan Swammerdam, 1637-1680, [67]. His temperament,[67]. Early interest in natural history, [68]. Studies medicine, [68].Important observations, [68]. Devotes himself to minute anatomy,[70]. Method of working, [71]. Great intensity, [70]. Highquality of his work, [72]. The Biblia Naturæ, [73]. Its publicationdelayed until fifty-seven years after his death, [73]. Illustrationsof his anatomical work, [75]-76. Antony van Leeuwenhoek,1632-1723, [77]. A composed and better-balanced man, [77]. Self-taughtin science, the effect of this showing in the desultory characterof his observations, [77], [87]. Physiognomy, [78]. New biographicalfacts, [78]. His love of microscopic observation, [80].His microscopes, [81]. His scientific letters, [83]. Observes thecapillary circulation in 1686, [84]. His other discoveries, [86].Comparison of the three men: the two university-trained menleft coherent pieces of work, that of Leeuwenhoek was discursive,[87]. The combined force of their labors marks an epoch, [88].The new intellectual movement now well under way, [88]. | ||
| [CHAPTER V] | ||
| The Progress of Minute Anatomy, | [89] | |
| Progress in minute anatomy a feature of the eighteenth century.Attractiveness of insect anatomy. Enthusiasm awakened by thedelicacy and perfection of minute structure, [89]. Lyonet, 1707-1789,[90]. Description of his remarkable monograph on theanatomy of the willow caterpillar, [91]. Selected illustrations,[92]-94. Great detail—4,041 muscles, [91]. Extraordinary characterof his drawings, [90]. A model of detailed dissection, but lackingin comparison and insight, [92]. The work of Réaumur, Roesel,and De Geer on a higher plane as regards knowledge of insect life,[95]. Straus-Dürckheim's monograph on insect anatomy, [96]. Rivalsthat of Lyonet in detail and in the execution of the plates, [99].His general considerations now antiquated, [99]. He attemptedto make insect anatomy comparative, [100]. Dufour endeavors tofound a broad science of insect anatomy, [100]. Newport, a veryskilful dissector, with philosophical cast of mind, who recognizesthe value of embryology in anatomical work, [100]. Leydig startsa new kind of insect anatomy embracing microscopic structure(histology), [102]. This the beginning of modern work, [102].Structural studies on other small animals, [103]. The discoveryof the simplest animals, [104]. Observations on the microscopicanimalcula, [105]. The protozoa discovered in 1675 by Leeuwenhoek,[105]. Work of O.F. Müller, 1786, [106]. Of Ehrenberg1838, [107]. Recent observations on protozoa, [109]. | ||
| [CHAPTER VI] | ||
| Linnæus and Scientific Natural History, | [110] | |
| Natural history had a parallel development with comparative anatomy,[110]. The Physiologus, or sacred natural history of the MiddleAges, [110], [111]. The lowest level reached by zoölogy, [111]. Thereturn to the science of Aristotle a real advance over the Physiologus,[112]. The advance due to Wotton in 1552, [112]. Gesner,1516-1565. High quality of his Historia Animalium, [112]-114.The scientific writings of Jonson and Aldrovandi, [114]. JohnRay the forerunner of Linnæus, [115]. His writings, [117]. Ray'sidea of species, [117]. Linnæus or Linné, [118]. A unique serviceto natural history. Brings the binomial nomenclature intogeneral use, [118]. Personal history, [119]. Quality of his mind,[120]. His early struggles with poverty, [120]. Gets his degree inHolland, [121]. Publication of the Systema Naturæ in 1735, [121].Return to Sweden, [123]. Success as a university professor in Upsala,[123]. Personal appearance, [125]. His influence on naturalhistory, [125]. His especial service, [126]. His idea of species,[128]. Summary, [129]. Reform of the Linnæan system, [130]-138.The necessity of reform, [130]. The scale of being, [131].Lamarck the first to use a genealogical tree, [132]. Cuvier'sfour branches, [132]. Alterations by Von Siebold and Leuckart,[134]-137. Tabular view of classifications, [138]. General biologicalprogress from Linnæus to Darwin. Although details weremultiplied, progress was by a series of steps, [138]. Analysisof animals proceeded from the organism to organs, from organsto tissues, from tissues to cells, the elementary parts, and finallyto protoplasm, [139]-140. The physiological side had a paralleldevelopment, [140]. | ||
| [CHAPTER VII] | ||
| Cuvier and the Rise of Comparative Anatomy, | [141] | |
| The study of internal structure of living beings, at first merelydescriptive, becomes comparative, [141]. Belon, [141]. Severinuswrites the first book devoted to comparative anatomy in 1645,[143]. The anatomical studies of Camper, [143]. John Hunter,[144]. Personal characteristics, [145]. His contribution to progress,[146]. Vicq d'Azyr the greatest comparative anatomistbefore Cuvier, [146]-148. Cuvier makes a comprehensive studyof the structure of animals, [148]. His birth and early education,[149]. Life at the sea shore, [150]. Six years of quiet study andcontemplation lays the foundation of his scientific career, [150].Goes to Paris, [151]. His physiognomy, [152]. Comprehensivenessof his mind, [154]. Founder of comparative anatomy, [155]. Hisdomestic life, [155]. Some shortcomings, [156]. His break withearly friends, [156]. Estimate of George Bancroft, [156]. Cuvier'ssuccessors: Milne-Edwards, [157]; Lacaze-Duthiers, [157]; RichardOwen, [158]; Oken, [160]; J. Fr. Meckel, [162]; Rathke, [163];J. Müller, [163]; Karl Gegenbaur, [164]; E.D. Cope, [165]. Comparativeanatomy a rich subject, [165]. It is now becoming experimental,[165]. | ||
| [CHAPTER VIII] | ||
| Bichat and the Birth of Histology, | [166] | |
| Bichat one of the foremost men in biological history. He carried theanalysis of animal organization to a deeper level than Cuvier, [166].Buckle's estimate, [166]. Bichat goes to Paris, [167]. Attracts attentionin Desault's classes, [167]. Goes to live with Desault, [168].His fidelity and phenomenal industry, [168]. Personal appearance,[168]. Begins to publish researches on tissues at the age ofthirty, [170]. His untimely death at thirty-one, [170]. Influenceof his writings, [170]. His more notable successors: Schwann,[171]; Koelliker, a striking figure in the development of biology,[171]; Max Schultze, [172]; Rudolph Virchow, [174]; Leydig, [175];Ramon y Cajal, [176]. Modern text-books on histology, [177]. | ||
| [CHAPTER IX] | ||
| The Rise of Physiology—Harvey. Haller. Johannes Müller, | [179] | |
| Physiology had a parallel development with anatomy, [179]. Physiologyof the ancients, [179]. Galen, [180]. Period of Harvey, [180].His demonstration of circulation of the blood, [180]. His methodof experimental investigation, [181]. Period of Haller, [181]. Physiologydeveloped as an independent science, [183]. Haller's personalcharacteristics, [181]. His idea of vital force, [182]. His bookon the Elements of Physiology a valuable work, [183]. Discoveryof oxygen by Priestley in 1774, 183. Charles Bell's great discoveryon the nervous system, [183]. Period of Johannes Müller, [184].A man of unusual gifts and personal attractiveness, [185]. Hispersonal appearance, [185]. His great influence over students, [185].His especial service was to make physiology broadly comparative,[186]. His monumental Handbook of Physiology, [186]. Unexampledaccuracy in observation, [186]. Introduces the principlesof psychology into physiology, [186]. Physiology after Müller,[188]-195. Ludwig, [188]. Du Bois-Reymond, [189]. ClaudeBernard, [190]. Two directions of growth in physiology—thechemical and the physical, [192]. Influence upon biology, [193].Other great names in physiology, [194]. | ||
| [CHAPTER X] | ||
| Von Baer and the Rise of Embryology, | [195] | |
| Romantic nature of embryology, [195]. Its importance, [195]. Rudimentaryorgans and their meaning, [195]. The domain of embryology,[196]. Five historical periods, [196]. The period ofHarvey and Malpighi, [197]-205. The embryological work ofthese two men insufficiently recognized, [197]. Harvey's pioneerattempt critically to analyze the process of development, [198]. Histeaching regarding the nature of development, [199]. His treatiseon Generation, [199]. The frontispiece of the edition of 1651, [202],[202]. Malpighi's papers on the formation of the chick within theegg, [202]. Quality of his pictures, [202]. His belief in pre-formation,[207]. Malpighi's rank as embryologist, [205]. The period ofWolff, [205]-214. Rise of the theory of pre-delineation, [206].Sources of the idea that the embryo is pre-formed within the egg,[207]. Malpighi's observations quoted, [207]. Swammerdam'sview, [208]. Leeuwenhoek and the discovery of the sperm, [208].Bonnet's views on emboîtement, [208]. Wolff opposes the doctrineof pre-formation, [210]. His famous Theory of Generation (1759),[210]. Sketches from this treatise, [210]. His views on the directingforce in development, [211]. His highest grade of work, [211].Opposition of Haller and Bonnet, [211]. Restoration of Wolff'sviews by Meckel, [212]. Personal characteristics of Wolff, [213].The period of Von Baer, [214]-222. The greatest personality inembryology, [215]. His monumental work on the Development ofAnimals a choice combination of observation and reflection, [215].Von Baer's especial service, [217]. Establishes the germ-layertheory, [218]. Consequences, [219]. His influence on embryology,[220]. The period from Von Baer to Balfour, [222]-226. The processof development brought into a new light by the cell-theory,[222]. Rathke, Remak, Koelliker, Huxley, Kowalevsky, [223], [224].Beginnings of the idea of germinal continuity, [225]. Influence ofthe doctrine of organic evolution, [226]. The period of Balfour,with an indication of present tendencies, [226]-236. The greatinfluence of Balfour's Comparative Embryology, [226]. Personalityof Balfour, [228]. His tragic fate, [228]. Interpretation of theembryological record, [229]. The recapitulation theory, [230].Oskar Hertwig, [232]. Wilhelm His, [232]. Recent tendencies;Experimental embryology, [232]; Cell-lineage, [234]; Theoreticaldiscussions, [235]. | ||
| [CHAPTER XI] | ||
| The Cell-Theory—Schleiden. Schwann. Schultze, | [237] | |
| Unifying power of the cell-theory, [237]. Vague foreshadowings, [237].The first pictures of cells from Robert Hooke's Micrographia, [238].Cells as depicted by Malpighi, Grew, and Leeuwenhoek, [239], [240].Wolff on cellular structure, [240], [241]. Oken, [241]. The announcementof the cell-theory in 1838-39, [242]. Schleiden andSchwann co-founders, [243]. Schleiden's work, [243]. His acquaintancewith Schwann, [243]. Schwann's personal appearance,[244]. Influenced by Johannes Müller, [245]. The cell-theory hismost important work, [246]. Schleiden, his temperament and disposition,[247]. Schleiden's contribution to the cell-theory, [247].Errors in his observations and conclusions, [248]. Schwann'streatise, [248]. Purpose of his researches, [249]. Quotations fromhis microscopical researches, [249]. Schwann's part in establishingthe cell-theory more important than that of Schleiden, [250].Modification of the cell-theory, [250]. Necessity of modifications,[250]. The discovery of protoplasm, and its effect on the cell-theory,[250]. The cell-theory becomes harmonized with the protoplasmdoctrine of Max Schultze, [251]. Further modifications ofthe cell-theory, [252]. Origin of cells in tissues, [252]. Structure ofthe nucleus, [253]. Chromosomes, [254]. Centrosome, [256]. Theprinciples of heredity as related to cellular studies, [257]. Verworn'sdefinition, [258]. Vast importance of the cell-theory inadvancing biology, [258]. | ||
| [CHAPTER XII] | ||
| Protoplasm the Physical Basis of Life, | [259] | |
| Great influence of the protoplasm doctrine on biological progress, [259].Protoplasm, [259]. Its properties as discovered by examination ofthe amœba, [260]. Microscopic examination of a transparent leaf,[261]. Unceasing activity of its protoplasm, [261]. The wonderfulenergies of protoplasm, [261]. Quotation from Huxley, [262]. Thediscovery of protoplasm and the essential steps in recognizingthe part it plays in living beings, [262]-275. Dujardin, [262]. Hispersonality, [263]. Education, [263]. His contributions to science,[264]. His discovery of "sarcode" in the simplest animals, in 1835,[266]. Purkinje, in 1840, uses the term protoplasma, [267]. VonMohl, in 1846, brings the designation protoplasm into generaluse, [268]. Cohn, in 1850, maintains the identity of sarcode andprotoplasm, [270]. Work of De Bary and Virchow, [272]. MaxSchultze, in 1861, shows that there is a broad likeness betweenthe protoplasm of animals and plants, and establishes the protoplasmdoctrine. The university life of Schultze. His love ofmusic and science. Founds a famous biological periodical, [272]-274.The period from 1840 to 1860 an important one for biology,[274]. | ||
| [CHAPTER XIII] | ||
| The Work of Pasteur, Koch, and Others, | [276] | |
| The bacteria discovered by Leeuwenhoek in 1687, [276]. The developmentof the science of bacteriology of great importance to thehuman race, [276]. Some general topics connected with the studyof bacteria, [277]. The spontaneous origin of life, [277]-293. Biogenesisor abiogenesis, [277]. Historical development of the question,[277]. I. From Aristotle, [325] B.C., to Redi, 1668, [278]. Thespontaneous origin of living forms universally believed in, [278].Illustrations, [278]. II. From Redi to Schwann, [278]-284. Redi,in 1668, puts the question to experimental test and overthrowsthe belief in the spontaneous origin of forms visible to the unaidedeye, [279]. The problem narrowed to the origin of microscopicanimalcula, [281]. Needham and Buffon test the questionby the use of tightly corked vials containing boiled organicsolutions, [281]. Microscopic life appears in their infusions,[282]. Spallanzani, in 1775, uses hermetically sealed glass flasksand gets opposite results, [282]. The discovery of oxygen raisesanother question: Does prolonged heat change its vitalizing properties?[284]. Experiments of Schwann and Schulze, 1836-37,[284]. The question of the spontaneous origin of microscopic liferegarded as disproved, [286]. III. Pouchet reopens the questionin 1858, maintaining that he finds microscopic life produced insterilized and hermetically sealed solutions, [286]. The questionput to rest by the brilliant researches of Pasteur and of Tyndall,[288], [289]. Description of Tyndall's apparatus and his use of opticallypure air, [294]. Weismann's theoretical speculations regardingthe origin of biophors,[292]. The germ-theory of disease,[293]-304. The idea of contagium vivum revived in 1840, [293].Work of Bassi, [293]. Demonstration, in 1877, of the actual connectionbetween anthrax and splenic fever, [294]. Veneration ofPasteur, [294]. His personal qualities, [296]. Filial devotion, [297].Steps in his intellectual development, [298]. His investigation ofdiseases of wine (1868), [298]. Of the silkworm plague (1865-68),[298]. His studies on the cause and prevention of disease constitutehis chief service to humanity, [298]. Establishment of thePasteur Institute in Paris, [298]. Recent developments, [300].Robert Koch; his services in discovering many bacteria of disease,[300]. Sir Joseph Lister and antiseptic surgery, [302]. Bacteriain their relation to agriculture, soil inoculation, etc., [303].Knowledge of bacteria as related to the growth of general biology,[304]. | ||
| [CHAPTER XIV] | ||
| Heredity and Germinal Continuity—Mendel. Galton. Weismann, | [305] | |
| The hereditary substance and the bearers of heredity, [305]. Thenature of inheritance, [305]. Darwin's theory of pangenesis, [306].The theory of pangens replaced by that of germinal continuity,[307]. Exposition of the theory of germinal continuity, [308]. Thelaw of cell-succession, [309]. Omnis cellula e cellula, [309]. Thecontinuity of hereditary substance, [309]. Early writers, [312].Weismann, [310]. Germ-cells and body cells, [310]. The hereditarysubstance is the germ-plasm, [311]. It embodies all the pasthistory of protoplasm, [311]. The more precise investigation ofthe material basis of inheritance, [311]. The nucleus of cells, [311].The chromosomes, [312]. The fertilized ovum, the starting-pointof new organisms, [313]. Behavior of the nucleus during division,[313]. The mixture of parental qualities in the chromosomes, [313].Prelocalized areas in the protoplasm of the egg, [314]. The inheritanceof acquired characteristics, [314]. The application ofstatistical methods and experiments to the study of heredity, [314].Mendel's important discovery of alternative inheritance, [316].Francis Galton, [317]. Carl Pearson, [318]. Experiments on inheritance,[318]. | ||
| [CHAPTER XV] | ||
| The Science of Fossil Life, | [320] | |
| Extinct forms of life, [320]. Strange views regarding fossils, [320].Freaks of nature, [321]. Mystical explanations, [321]. Large bonessupposed to be those of giants, [322]. Determination of the natureof fossils by Steno, [322]. Fossil deposits ascribed to the Flood, [323].Mosaic deluge regarded as of universal extent, [324]. The comparisonof fossil and living animals of great importance, [325].Cuvier the founder of vertebrate palæontology, [325]. Lamarckfounds invertebrate palæontology, [326]. Lamarck's conception ofthe meaning of fossils more scientific than Cuvier's, [327]. Thearrangement of fossils in strata, [328]. William Smith, [328]. Summaryof the growth of the science of fossil life, [329]. Fossil remainsas an index to the past history of the earth, [332]. Epoch-makingwork of Charles Lyell, [330]. Effect of the doctrine oforganic evolution on palæontology, [332]. Richard Owen'sstudies on fossil animals, [332]. Agassiz and the parallelism betweenfossil forms of life and stages in the development ofanimals, [334]. Huxley's geological work, [335]. Leidy, [337]. Cope,[337]. Marsh, [338]. Carl Zittel's writings and influence, [338].Henry F. Osborn, [339]. Method of collecting fossils, [340]. Fossilremains of man, [340]. Discoveries in the Fayûm district ofAfrica, [341]. | ||
| [PART II] | ||
| The Doctrine of Organic Evolution | ||
| [CHAPTER XVI] | ||
| What Evolution Is: The Evidence upon which it Rests, etc., | [345] | |
| Great vagueness regarding the meaning of evolution, [346]. Causes forthis, [346]. The confusion of Darwinism with organic evolution,[347]. The idea that the doctrine is losing ground, [347]. Scientificcontroversies on evolution relate to the factors, not to the fact, ofevolution, [347]. Nature of the question: not metaphysical, nottheological, but historical, [348]. The historical method appliedto the study of animal life, [349]. The diversity of living forms, [349].Are species fixed in nature? [350]. Wide variation among animals,[350]. Evolutionary series: The shells of Slavonia andSteinheim, [351]-353. Evolution of the horse, [354]. The collectionof fossil horses at the American Museum of Natural History,New York, [355]. The genealogy of the horse traced for morethan two million years, [354]. Connecting forms: the archæopteryxand pterodactyls, [358]. The embryological record and itsconnection with evolution, [358]. Clues to the past history ofanimals, [358]. Rudimentary organs, [361]-363. Hereditary survivalsin the human body, [363]. Remains of the scaffolding forits building, [364]. Antiquity of man, [364]. Pre-human types, [365].Virtually three links: the Java man; the Neanderthal skull; theearly neolithic man of Engis, [364]-366. Evidences of man's evolutionbased on palæontology, embryology, and archæology, [366].Mental evolution, [366]. Sweep of the doctrine of organic evolution,[366]-367. | ||
| [CHAPTER XVII] | ||
| Theories of Evolution—Lamarck. Darwin, | [368] | |
| The attempt to indicate the active factors of evolution is the source ofthe different theories, [368]. The theories of Lamarck, Darwin,and Weismann have attracted the widest attention, [369]. Lamarck,the man, [368]-374. His education, [370]. Leaves priestlystudies for the army, [370]. Great bravery, [371]. Physical injurymakes it necessary for him to give up military life, [371]. Portrait,[373]. Important work in botany, [371]. Pathetic povertyand neglect, [372]. Changes from botany to zoölogy at the age offifty years, [372]. Profound influence of this change in shapinghis ideas, [374]. His theory of evolution, [374]-380. First publicannouncement in 1800, [375]. His Philosophie Zoologique publishedin 1809, [375]. His two laws of evolution, [376]. The firstlaw embodies the principle of use and disuse of organs, the secondthat of heredity, [376]. A simple exposition of his theory, [377].His employment of the word besoin, [377]. Lamarck's view ofheredity, [377]. His belief in the inheritance of acquired characters,[377]. His attempt to account for variation, [377]. Timeand favorable conditions the two principal means employed bynature, [378]. Salient points in Lamarck's theory, [378]. Hisdefinition of species, [379]. Neo-Lamarckism, [380]. Darwin. Histheory rests on three sets of facts. The central feature of histheory is natural selection. Variation, [380]. Inheritance, [382].Those variations will be inherited that are of advantage to therace, [383]. Illustrations of the meaning of natural selection, [383]-389.The struggle for existence and its consequences, [384]. Variousaspects of natural selection, [384]. It does not always operatetoward increasing the efficiency of an organ—short-wingedbeetles, [385]. Color of animals, [386]. Mimicry, [387]. Sexualselection, [388]. Inadequacy of natural selection, [389]. Darwin thefirst to call attention to the inadequacy of this principle, [389].Confusion between the theories of Lamarck and Darwin, [390].Illustrations, [391]. The Origin of Species published in 1859, [391].Other writings of Darwin, [391]. | ||
| [CHAPTER XVIII] | ||
| Theories Continued—Weismann. De Vries, | [392] | |
| Weismann's views have passed through various stages of remodeling,[392]. The Evolution Theory published in 1904 is the best expositionof his views, [392]. His theory the field for much controversy.Primarily a theory of heredity, [393]. Weismann's theorysummarized, [393]. Continuity of the germ-plasm the central ideain Weismann's theory, [394]. Complexity of the germ-plasm. Illustrations,[395]. The origin of variations, [396]. The union oftwo complex germ-plasms gives rise to variations, [396]. His extensionof the principle of natural selection—germinal selection,[397]. The inheritance of acquired characters, [398]. Weismann'sanalysis of the subject the best, [398]. Illustrations, [399]. Thequestion still open to experimental observation, [399]. Weismann'spersonality, [400]. Quotation from his autobiography, [401].The mutation theory of De Vries, [402]. An important contribution.His application of experiments commendable, [403]. Themutation theory not a substitute for that of natural selection, [404].Tendency toward a reconciliation of apparently conflicting views,[404]. Summary of the salient features of the theories of Lamarck,of Darwin, of Weismann, and De Vries, [405]. Causes for bewildermentin the popular mind regarding the different forms of theevolution theory, [406]. | ||
| [CHAPTER XIX] | ||
| The Rise of Evolutionary Thought, | [407] | |
| Opinion before Lamarck, [407]. Views of certain Fathers of theChurch, [408]. St. Augustine, [409]. St. Thomas Aquinas, [409].The rise of the doctrine of special creation, [410]. Suarez, [410].Effect of John Milton's writings, [411]. Forerunners of Lamarck:Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Goethe, [411]. Statement of Buffon'sviews on evolution, [412]. Erasmus Darwin the greatest of Lamarck'spredecessors, [413]. His writings, [414]. Paley's NaturalTheology directed against them, [414]. Goethe's connection withevolutionary thought, [414]. Causes for the neglect of Lamarck'stheoretical writings, [415]. The temporary disappearance of thedoctrine of organic evolution, [415]. Cuvier's opposition, [415].The debate between Cuvier and St. Hilaire, [415]. Its effect, [417].Influence of Lyell's Principles of Geology, [418]. Herbert Spencer'sanalysis in 1852, [419]. Darwin and Wallace, [420]. Circumstancesunder which their work was laid before the LinnæanSociety of London, [420]. The letter of transmission signed byLyell and Hooker, [420]-422. The personality of Darwin, [422].Appearance, [423]. His charm of manner, [423]. Affectionateconsideration at home, [424]. Unexampled industry and conscientiousnessin the face of ill health, [424], [426]. His earlylife and education, [425]. Voyage of the Beagle, [425]. The resultsof his five years' voyage, [426]. Life at Downs, [426].Parallelism in the thought of Darwin and Wallace, [427].Darwin's account of how he arrived at the conception of naturalselection, [427]. Wallace's narrative, [428]. The Darwin-Wallacetheory launched in 1858, [429]. Darwin's book on The Origin ofSpecies regarded by him as merely an outline, [429]. The spreadof the doctrine of organic evolution, [429]. Huxley one of its greatpopular exponents, [431]. Haeckel, [431]. After Darwin, the problemwas to explain phenomena, [431]. | ||
| [CHAPTER XX] | ||
| Retrospect and Prospect. Present Tendencies in Biology, | [434] | |
| Biological thought shows continuity of development, [434]. Characterof the progress—a crusade against superstition, [434]. The firsttriumph of the scientific method was the overthrow of authority,[435]. The three stages of progress—descriptive, comparative, experimental,[435]. The notable books of biology and their authors,[435]-437. Recent tendencies in biology: higher standards, [437];improvement in the tools of science, [438]; advance in methods,[439]; experimental work, [439]; the growing interest in the studyof processes, [440]; experiments applied to heredity and evolution,to fertilization of the egg, and to animal behavior, [440], [441]. Sometendencies in anatomical studies, [442]. Cell-lineage, [442]. Newwork on the nervous system, [443]. The application of biologicalfacts to the benefit of mankind, [443]. Technical biology, [443].Soil inoculation, [444]. Relation of insects to the transmission ofdiseases, [444]. The food of fishes, [444]. The establishment andmaintenance of biological laboratories, [444]. The station atNaples, [444]. Other stations, [446]. The establishment and maintenanceof technical periodicals, [446]. Explorations of fossilrecords, [447]. The reconstructive influence of biological progress,[448]. | ||
| [READING LIST,] | [449] | |
| I. General References, [449]-451. II. Special References, [451]-460. | ||
| [Index], | [461] | |
ILLUSTRATIONS
[1. Aristotle], 384-322 B.C.,
[2. Pliny], 23-79 A.D.,
[3. Galen,] 131-200,
[4. Vesalius,] 1514-1565,
[5. Anatomical Sketch from Vesalius' Fabrica] (1543),
[6. The Skeleton from Vesalius' Fabrica,]
[7. Initial Letters from the Fabrica,]
[8. Fallopius,] 1523-1563,
[9. Fabricius, Harvey's Teacher,] 1537-1619,
[10. William Harvey,] 1578-1657,
[11. Scheme of the Portal Circulation according to Vesalius] (1543),
[12. Hooke's Microscope] (1665),
[13. Malpighi,] 1628-1694,
[14. From Malpighi's Anatomy of the Silkworm] (1669),
[15. Swammerdam,] 1637-1680,
[16. From Swammerdam's Biblia Naturæ,]
[17. Anatomy of an Insect Dissected and Drawn by Swammerdam],
[18. Leeuwenhoek,] 1632-1723,
[19. Leeuwenhoek's Microscope],
[20a. Leeuwenhoek's Mechanism for Examining the Circulation of the Blood],
[20b. The Capillary Circulation, after Leeuwenhoek,]
[21. Plant Cells from Leeuwenhoek's Arcana Naturæ,]
[22. Lyonet,] 1707-1789,
[23. Larva of the Willow Moth, from Lyonet's Monograph] (1750),
[24. Muscles of the Larva of the Willow Moth, from Lyonet's Monograph],
[25. Central Nervous System and Nerves of the Same Animal],
[26. Dissection of the Head of the Larva of the Willow Moth],
[27. The Brain and Head Nerves of the Same Animal,]
[28. Roesel von Rosenhof,] 1705-1759,
[29. Réaumur,] 1683-1757,
[30. Nervous System of the Cockchafer, from Straus-Dürckheim's Monograph] (1828),
[31. Ehrenberg,] 1795-1876,8
[32. Gesner,] 1516-1565,
[33. John Ray,] 1628-1705,
[34. Linnæus at Sixty] (1707-1778),
[35. Karl Th. von Siebold,]
[36. Rudolph Leuckart,]
[37. Severinus,] 1580-1656,
[38. Camper,] 1722-1789,
[39. John Hunter,] 1728-1793,
[40. Vicq d'Azyr,] 1748-1794,
[41. Cuvier as a Young Man,] 1769-1829,
[42. Cuvier at the Zenith of His Power],
[43. H. Milne-Edwards], 1800-1885,
[44. Lacaze-Duthiers], 1821-1901,
[45. Lorenzo Oken,] 1779-1851,
[46. Richard Owen], 1804-1892,
[47. J. Fr. Meckel,] 1781-1833,
[48. Karl Gegenbaur,] 1826-1903,
[49. Bichat,] 1771-1801, 169
[50. Von Koelliker,] 1817-1905,
[51. Rudolph Virchow,] 1821-1903,
[52. Franz Leydig,] 1821-1908 (April),
[53. S. Ramon y Cajal,]
[54. Albrecht Haller,] 1708-1777,
[55. Charles Bell,] 1774-1842,
[56. Johannes Müller], 1801-1858,
[57. Ludwig,] 1816-1895,
[58. Du Bois-Reymond,] 1818-1896,
[59. Claude Bernard,] 1813-1878,
[60. Frontispiece of Harvey's Generatione Animalium] (1651),
[61. Selected Sketches from Malpighi's Works],
[62. Marcello Malpighi], 1628-1694,
[63. Plate from Wolff's Theoria Generationis] (1759),
[64. Charles Bonnet,] 1720-1793,
[65. Karl Ernst von Baer,] 1792-1876,
[66. Von Baer at about Seventy Years of Age,]
[67. Sketches from Von Baer's Embryological Treatise] (1828),
[68. A. Kowalevsky,] 1840-1901,
[69. Francis M. Balfour,] 1851-1882,
[70. Oskar Hertwig in 1890,]
[71. Wilhelm His,] 1831-1904,
[72. The Earliest Known Picture of Cells, from Hooke's Micrographia] (1665),
[73. Sketch from Malpighi's Treatise on the Anatomy of Plants] (1670),
[74. Theodor Schwann,] 1810-1882,
[75. M. Schleiden,] 1804-1881,
[76. The Egg and Early Stages in Its Development (after Gegenbaur)],
[77. An Early Stage in the Development of the Egg of a Rock Limpet (after Conklin)],
[78. Highly Magnified Tissue-Cells from the Skin of a Salamander (after Wilson)],
[79. Diagram of the Chief Steps in Cell-Division (after Parker)],
[80. Diagram of a Cell (modified after Wilson)],
[81. (A) Rotation of Protoplasm in Cells of Nitella.
(B) Highly Magnified Cells of a Tradescantia Plant,
Showing Circulation of Protoplasm (after Sedgwick and Wilson)],
[82. Félix Dujardin,] 1801-1860,
[83. Purkinje,] 1787-1869,
[84. Carl Nägeli], 1817-1891,
[85. Hugo von Mohl], 1805-1872,
[86. Ferdinand Cohn], 1828-1898,
[87. Heinrich Anton De Bary,] 1831-1888,
[88. Max Schultze,] 1825-1874,
[89. Francesco Redi,] 1626-1697,
[90. Lazzaro Spallanzani], 1729-1799,
[91. Apparatus of Tyndall for Experimenting on Spontaneous Generation,]
[92. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) and His Granddaughter],
[93. Robert Koch, born 1843],
[94. Sir Joseph Lister, born 1827],
[95. Gregor Mendel,] 1822-1884,
[96. Francis Galton, born 1822],
[97. Charles Lyell,] 1797-1875,
[98. Professor Owen and the Extinct Fossil Bird of New Zealand],
[99. Louis Agassiz,] 1807-1873,
[100. E.D. Cope,] 1840-1897,
[101. O.C. Marsh,] 1831-1899,
[102. Karl von Zittel,] 1839-1904,
[103. Transmutations of Paludina (after Neumayer)],
[104. Planorbis Shells from Steinheim (after Hyatt)],
[105. Bones of the Foreleg of a Horse],
[106. Bones of Fossil Ancestors of the Horse,]
[107. Representation of the Ancestor of the Horse
Drawn by Charles R. Knight under the Direction of Professor Osborn.]
[108. Fossil Remains of a Primitive Bird (Archæopteryx)],
[109. Gill-clefts of a Shark Compared with those of the Embryonic Chick and Rabbit],
[110. Jaws of an Embryonic Whale, showing Rudimentary Teeth],
[111. Profile Reconstructions of the Skulls of Living and of Fossil Men],
[112. Lamarck,] 1744-1829,
[113. Charles Darwin,] 1809-1882,
[114. August Weismann, born 1834],
[115. Hugo de Vries],
[116. Buffon,] 1707-1788,
[117. Erasmus Darwin,] 1731-1802,
[118. Geoffroy Saint Hilaire,] 1772-1844, 416
[119. Charles Darwin,] 1809-1882,
[120. Alfred Russel Wallace, born 1823],
[121. Thomas Henry Huxley], 1825-1895,
[122. Ernst Haeckel, born 1834],
[123. The Biological Station at Naples],