on the origin of species thesis

• University Archives
• Special Collections
• Records Management
• Policies and Forms
• Sound Recordings
• Theses and Dissertations
• Selections From Our Digitized Collections
• Videos from the Archives
• Special Collections Exhibits
• University Archives Exhibits
• Research Guides
• Current Exhibits
• Upcoming Events
• Past Events
• Past Exhibits
• Camelot Comes to Brandeis
• Special Collections Spotlight
• Library Home
• Degree Programs
• Graduate Programs
• Brandeis Online
• Summer Programs
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Admissions
• Financial Aid
• Summer School
• Centers and Institutes
• Funding Resources
• Housing/Community Living
• Clubs and Organizations
• Community Service
• Brandeis Arts Engagement
• Rose Art Museum
• Our Jewish Roots
• Mission and Diversity Statements
• Administration
• Faculty & Staff
• Alumni & Friends
• Parents & Families
• Campus Calendar
• Directories
• New Students
• Shuttle Schedules
• Support at Brandeis

Robert D. Farber University Archives and Special Collections

Charles darwin's "on the origin of species".

Darwin’s ideas about the evolution and natural selection sparked a transformation in the intellectual view of life itself. A New York Times review of The Origin of Species on March 28, 1860, states that “Mr. Darwin, as the fruit of a quarter of a century of patient observation and experiment, throws out, in a book whose title at least has by this time become familiar to the reading public, a series of arguments and inferences so revolutionary as, if established, to necessitate a radical reconstruction of the fundamental doctrines of natural history.”

March 29, 2012

•  See the Kohlers’ essay “ The Origin of Species as a Book” in The Cambridge Companion to the “Origin of Species,” Michael Ruse and Robert J. Richards, eds. Cambridge University Press, 2008. Cambridge Collections Online.
• About Our Collections
• Online Exhibits
• Events and In-Person Exhibits
• From the Brandeis Archives

Ask the publishers to restore access to 500,000+ books.

Internet Archive Audio

• This Just In
• Grateful Dead
• Old Time Radio
• 78 RPMs and Cylinder Recordings
• Audio Books & Poetry
• Computers, Technology and Science
• Music, Arts & Culture
• News & Public Affairs
• Spirituality & Religion
• Radio News Archive

• Flickr Commons
• Occupy Wall Street Flickr
• NASA Images
• Solar System Collection
• Ames Research Center

• All Software
• Old School Emulation
• MS-DOS Games
• Historical Software
• Classic PC Games
• Software Library
• Kodi Archive and Support File
• Vintage Software
• CD-ROM Software
• CD-ROM Software Library
• Software Sites
• Tucows Software Library
• Shareware CD-ROMs
• Software Capsules Compilation
• CD-ROM Images
• ZX Spectrum
• DOOM Level CD

• Smithsonian Libraries
• FEDLINK (US)
• Lincoln Collection
• American Libraries
• Canadian Libraries
• Universal Library
• Project Gutenberg
• Children's Library
• Biodiversity Heritage Library
• Books by Language
• Additional Collections

• Prelinger Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Occupy Wall Street
• TV NSA Clip Library
• Animation & Cartoons
• Arts & Music
• Computers & Technology
• Cultural & Academic Films
• Ephemeral Films
• Sports Videos
• Videogame Videos
• Youth Media

Search the history of over 866 billion web pages on the Internet.

Mobile Apps

• Wayback Machine (iOS)
• Wayback Machine (Android)

Browser Extensions

Archive-it subscription.

• Explore the Collections
• Build Collections

Save Page Now

Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future.

Please enter a valid web address

• Donate Donate icon An illustration of a heart shape

On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life(first edition)

Bookreader item preview, share or embed this item, flag this item for.

• Graphic Violence
• Explicit Sexual Content
• Hate Speech
• Misinformation/Disinformation
• Marketing/Phishing/Advertising
• Misleading/Inaccurate/Missing Metadata

plus-circle Add Review comment Reviews

1,703 Views

10 Favorites

DOWNLOAD OPTIONS

For users with print-disabilities

IN COLLECTIONS

Uploaded by DrJohnlky on November 24, 2015

SIMILAR ITEMS (based on metadata)

On the Origin of Species

61 pages • 2 hours read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Introduction & Chapters 1-2

Chapters 3-4

Chapters 5-7

Chapters 8-10

Chapters 11-14

Key Figures

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Summary and Study Guide

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection , or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (published in 1859) is a seminal work in evolutionary biology of great historical and scientific importance. Darwinian thought, especially regarding evolution, is now commonly accepted as the most powerful theory in biology and the natural history of species—and the system of natural selection that this theory advanced has been applied (and misappropriated) in many other fields.

Darwin released six updated editions of On the Origin of Species during his lifetime but always considered it merely the popularized “abstract” of a longer work, which he never completed: Natural Selection , a more detailed, scientific account of the basic concepts he presented in On the Origin of Species (which he worried lacked adequate scientific evidence). He initially abandoned the larger project because a colleague, Alfred Russell Wallace , independently (but concurrent) developed natural selection theory. Wallace sent Darwin a draft of his research on the subject in March 1958, prompting Darwin to focus more intently on writing On the Origin of Species , which he completed the following year. However, in 1868, he released part of the longer work, which was published under the title The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication .

On the Origin of Species presents natural selection theory as a framework for understanding and explaining varieties and species and their generation from common parentage over millennia. This theory posits that organisms with random but beneficial mutations succeed in competing for existence in their environment and propagate offspring that exhibit the same modification and similarly benefit. This process persists through generations, and the accumulation of trait differences over time forms new species. Darwin approaches his development of this theory systematically, applying it to myriad problematic issues in natural history, breeding, biology, geology, and paleontology.

During Darwin’s lifetime, On the Origin of Species was extremely controversial. Although it’s now widely considered the cornerstone of evolutionary biology and the scientific community generally agrees with its basic premises, the theory is still divisive and often misunderstood. In Darwin’s day, the prevailing paradigm for explaining the origin of species—which the research of Darwin and other proponents of natural selection theory eventually dethroned in scientific circles—was independent creation theory. Often backed by metaphysical and religious assumptions diametrically opposing Darwinian evolution, this view continued to hold sway in some populations throughout the 20th century and still does today, though its relevance is waning. Although many others in Darwin’s day advocated natural selection, On the Origin of Species remained the central text on the theory.

This study guide references the Everyman’s Library edition, titled The Origin of Species , which reprints the first edition and begins on page 519 of the volume, after the full text of The Voyage of the Beagle .

Content Warning: The source text uses outdated, offensive language when discussing non-Western cultures, Indigenous populations, and Black Africans.

On the Origin of Species contains 14 chapters, most of which are devoted to the application of natural selection theory to the sciences. Darwin begins by briefly outlining historical progress toward the theory, noting scientific advancements and significant publications. The short introduction acknowledges his debt to others, including Thomas Malthus, states that the purpose of his work is to gain insight into means of species modification and coadaptation, and notes that the book is merely an abstract of a much longer work.

Chapter 1, “Variation Under Domestication,” attempts to explain the causes of species variability in domesticated breeding environments, noting that breeders make modifications for their own good, not for the organism benefit, and that “the conditions of life” (570) are of utmost importance in determining the causes of variability. Chapter 2, “Variation Under Nature,” extends the inquiry to the natural world, which becomes the central focus throughout the rest of the book. Much of this chapter concerns the distinction between species and varieties, a difference that Darwin deems ultimately arbitrary.

Chapter 3, “The Struggle for Existence,” focuses on the complex interconnected competition among species and between members of the same species. The strenuous conditions of life and stark competition among organisms for scarce resources sets up the book’s fundamental concept. Chapter 4, “Natural Selection,” expands on the previous chapter provides an overview of the central theory, detailing “the preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations” (601). Darwin shows how natural selection works via descent from common parentage with modification. This chapter includes the book’s only diagram, which subsequent chapters reference; it simplistically maps a genealogical history of species.

In Chapter 5, “Laws of Variation,” Darwin discusses the hidden mechanisms of natural law that determine natural selection. Darwin emphasizes how little scientists know about these laws. (Human ignorance of natural processes is a common theme in Origin .) Chapter 6, “Difficulties on Theory,” to objections to natural selection theory and responds to them. At the end of this chapter, Darwin acknowledges “Conditions of Existence” as the greatest law directing the form of all organic beings, from which even “Unity of Type” derives.

Chapter 7, “Instinct,” investigates the extremely complex instinctual patterns of behavior like those of the honeybee and ants through the lens of natural selection’s slow processes. Chapter 8, “Hybridism,” navigates the problem of sterility among hybrid species while maintaining the importance of variation and diversity in sex, which relates to a potential objection to natural selection’s validity.

Chapter 9, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” and Chapter 10, “On the Geological Succession of Organic Beings,” focus on the fossil record. Darwin considers it deeply imperfect and limited and therefore argues that any challenge to natural selection based on the fossil record requires thorough examination—but that what little the fossil record does provide supports natural selection theory. Chapters 11 and 12, both on “Geographical Distribution,” acknowledge many strange facts about the geographical distribution of species that may mistakenly lead to belief in independent creation theory. Darwin challenges this view and defends natural selection through insights into the nature of seeds, birds, climatic history, and other aspects of life.

Chapter 13, “Mutual Affinities of Organic Beings: Morphology: Embryology: Rudimentary Organs,” examines the taxonomic problem of species classification, advocating a principled single-system approach. Darwin notes that classification shouldn’t (and generally doesn’t) rely on the mere resemblance of various species but should instead use genealogical heritage as the fundamental principle of organization. To develop this idea, he discusses morphology, embryology, and the genealogy of rudimentary organs. Chapter 14, “Recapitulation and Conclusion,” summarizes Darwin’s findings and some ramifications. Notably, Darwin admits that his view could entail a single source organism as the ultimate ancestor of all of life. Although he never directly addresses what this means for humans, its implications could certainly incite controversy.

Related Titles

By Charles Darwin

The Voyage of the Beagle

Featured Collections

Appearance Versus Reality

View Collection

Nature Versus Nurture

Order & Chaos

Religion & Spirituality

Required Reading Lists

Science & Nature

The Best of "Best Book" Lists

Darwin’s Book: On the Origin of Species

• Published: 14 October 2012
• Volume 22 , pages 2267–2294, ( 2013 )

Cite this article

• Jonathan Hodge 1  

1367 Accesses

12 Citations

Explore all metrics

This essay is an interpretation of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species . It focuses on the contents of the Origin as Darwin intended them to be understood and the background to the work, thus revealing the originality (or otherwise) of the work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Origins’ Chapter XIV: The Good Old Habit of Summarizing

There Have Been Few Such Naturalists Before, but Still…: Darwin’s Public Account of Predecessors

Agassiz, L. (1859). Essay on classification . London: Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans, and Roberts and Trubner.

Google Scholar  

Appel, T. A. (1987). The Cuvier-Geoffroy debate: French biology in the decades before Darwin . New York: Oxford University Press.

Barrett, P. H., Gautrey, P. J., Herbert, S., Kohn, D., & Smith, S. (Eds.). (1987). Charles Darwin’s notebooks, 1836–1844 . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Bateson, W. (1894). Materials for the study of variation, treated with especial regard to discontinuity in the origin of species . London: Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bendall, D. S. (Ed.). (1983). Evolution from molecules to men . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Browne, J. (1995). Charles Darwin: Voyaging. Volume I of a biography . New York: Knopf.

Browne, J. (2002). Charles Darwin: The power of place. Volume II of a biography . New York: Knopf.

Chambers, R. (1844). Vestiges of the natural history of creation . London: Churchill.

Coleman, W. (1964). Georges Cuvier zoologist. A study in the history of evolution theory . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Darwin, C. (1845). Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the world (2nd ed.). London: John Murray.

Darwin, C. (1851a). A monograph of the fossil Lepadidae; or, pedunculated cirripedes of Great Britain . London: Palaeontographical Society.

Darwin, C. (1851b). A monograph of the sub-class Cirripedia, with figures of all the species. The Lepadidae; or pedunculated Cirripedes . Ray Society: London.

Darwin, C. (1854a). A monograph of the fossil Balanidae and Verrucidae of Great Britain . London: Palaeontographical Society.

Darwin, C. (1854b). A monograph of the sub-class Cirripedia, with figures of all the species. The Balanidge (or Sessile Cirripedes); the Verrucidae, and C . London: Ray Society.

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life . London: John Murray.

Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex . London: John Murray.

Darwin, C. (1909). The foundations of the “Origin of Species”: Two essays written in 1842 and 1844 . Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press (editor F. Darwin).

Darwin, C. (1975). Charles Darwin’s “Natural Selection”, being the second part of his big species book written from 1856 to 1858 . Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press (editor R. C. Stauffer).

Darwin, C. (1985). The correspondence of Charles Darwin . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Delage, Y. (1903). L’hérédité et les grands problèmes de la biologie générale . Paris: Reinwald.

Desmond, A., & Moore, J. (1992). Darwin: The life of a tormented evolutionist . New York: Warner.

Desmond, A., & Moore, J. (2009). Darwin’s sacred cause: How a hatred of slavery shaped Darwin’s views on human evolution . New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Dewey, J. (1910). The influence of Darwin on philosophy . New York: Henry Holt.

Engels, E.-M., & Glick, T. F. (Eds.). (2009). The reception of Charles Darwin in Europe . London: Continuum.

Fichman, M. (2004). An elusive Victorian: The evolution of Alfred Russel Wallace . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Herschel, J. F. W. (1830). Preliminary discourse on the study of natural philosophy . London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longman.

Hodge, M. J. S. (2008a). Before and after Darwin: Origins, species, cosmogonies and ontologies . Aldershot: Ashgate.

Hodge, M. J. S. (2008b). Darwin studies: A theorist and his theories in their contexts . Aldershot: Ashgate.

Hodge, M. J. S. (2009). Capitalist contexts for Darwinian theory: Land, finance, industry and empire. Journal of the History of Biology, 42 , 399–416.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hodge, M. J. S., & Radick, G. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge companion to Darwin (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Humboldt, Av. (1907). Personal narrative of travels to the equinoctial regions of America, during the years 1799–1804 by Alexander von Humboldt and Aimé Bonpland; translated from the French of Alexander von Humboldt and edited by Thomasina Ross . London: Bell.

Hutton, J. (1788). Theory of the earth; or an investigation of the laws observable in the composition, dissolution, and restoration of land upon the globe. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1 (2), 209–304.

Kohler, M., & Kohler, C. (2009). The origin of species as a book. In M. Ruse & R. J. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to the “Origin of Species” (pp. 333–351). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lamarck, J. B. (1809). Philosophie zoologique . Paris: Dentu.

Locke, J. (1689). An essay concerning human understanding . New York: Dover (editor A. C. Fraser).

Lyell, C. (1830–1833). Principles of geology: Being an attempt to explain the former changes in the earth’s surface by reference to causes now in operation . London: John Murray.

Malthus, T. R. [1826] 1914. An essay on the principle of population (6th ed.). London: Everyman.

Mayr, E. (1982). The growth of biological thought: Diversity, evolution and inheritance . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ospovat, D. (1981). The development of Darwin’s Theory: Natural history, natural theology, and natural selection, 1838–1859 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (reissue 1995).

Owen, R. (1849). On the nature of limbs . London: Voorst.

Powell, B. (1855). Essays on the spirit of the inductive philosophy . London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans.

Prichard, J. C. (1813). Researches into the physical history of man . London: J. and A. Arch.

Reznick, D. N. (2009). The “Origin” then and now: An interpretive guide to the “Origin of Species” . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Richards, R. J. (2002). The romantic conception of life: Science and philosophy in the age of Goethe . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Roger, J. (1997). Buffon: A life in natural history (S. L. Bonnefoi, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Rudwick, M. J. S. (1969). The strategy of Lyell’s principles of geology. Isis, 61 , 5–33.

Ruse, M. (1975). Darwin’s debt to philosophy: an examination of the influence of the philosophical ideas of John F.W. Herschel and William Whewell on the development of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 6 , 159–181.

Ruse, M. (2009). The Darwinian revolution: Rethinking its meaning and significance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 , 10040–10047.

Ruse, M. (Ed.). (2012a). The Cambridge encyclopedia of Darwin and evolution . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ruse, M. (2012b). Gaia in context: Plato to Pagans . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ruse, M., & Richards, R. J. (Eds.). (2008). The Cambridge companion to the “Origin of Species” . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Russell, E. S. (1916). Form and function: A contribution to the history of animal morphology . London: John Murray (reprinted by the University of Chicago Press, 1982).

Secord, J. A. (2000). Victorian sensation: The extraordinary publication, reception, and secret authorship of “Vestiges of the natural history of creation” . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sedgwick, A. (1850). Discourse on the studies at the University of Cambridge (5th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Seward, A. C. (Ed.). (1909). Darwin and modern science: Essays in commemoration of the centenary of the birth of Charles Darwin and of the fiftieth anniversary of publication of “The Origin of Species” . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shermer, M. (2002). In Darwin’s shadow: The life and science of Alfred Russel Wallace . New York: Oxford University Press.

Sober, E. (2010). Did Darwin write the “Origin” backwards? Philosophical essays on Darwin’s theory . Buffalo: Prometheus.

Spencer, H. (1868). Essays: Scientific, political, and speculative . London: Williams and Norgate.

Tax, S. (Ed.). (1960a). Evolution after Darwin: The evolution of life . Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Tax, S. (Ed.). (1960b). Evolution after Darwin: The evolution of man . Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Tax, S., & Callender, C. (Eds.). (1960). Evolution after Darwin: Issues in evolution . Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Turner, F. M. (2002). John Henry Newman: The challenge to evangelical religion . New Haven: Yale University Press.

von Baer, K. E. ([1828–1837] 1853). Über Enwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere (Fragments related to Philosophical Zoology: Selected from the works of K. E. von Baer). In Scientific memoirs . London: Taylor and Francis (Edited and translated by A Henfry, and T H Huxley).

Wallace, A. R. (1855). On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 16 , 184–196.

Wallace, A. R. (1870). Contributions to the theory of natural selection . London: Macmillan.

Wallace, A. R. (1889). Darwinism: An exposition of the theory of natural selection with some of its applications . London: Macmillan.

Wallace, A. R. (1905). My life: A record of events and opinions . London: Chapman and Hall.

Westfall, R. S. (1971). The construction of modern science: Mechanisms and mechanics . New York: Wiley.

Whewell, W. (1833). Astronomy and general physics (Bridgewater Treatise, 3) . London: William Pickering.

Whewell, W. (1837). The history of the inductive sciences . London: Parker.

Whewell, W. (1840). The philosophy of the inductive sciences . London: Parker.

Young, R. M. (1985). Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s place in Victorian Culture . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The essay has benefitted greatly from suggestions made by Greg Radick, Michael Ruse, Evelleen Richards, Jon Topham and Roger White.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK

Jonathan Hodge

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan Hodge .

Additional information

This essay is written against the background of a huge amount of work on Charles Darwin—his life, his science, his predecessors, his contemporaries and their culture, the successors and the fate of the ideas, and much more. Necessarily therefore much is presupposed in this essay. To start into this pertinent literature, begin with the Origin itself, the first edition ( 1859 ), easily available online or as an inexpensive bound book (the best is the facsimile edition, with an introduction by Ernst Mayr, published by Harvard University Press). The best way to make a start on interpretive issues is to go to the two Cambridge Companions : one on the Origin (Ruse and Richards 2008 ), and the other on Darwin (Hodge and Radick 2009 ). Documentation for much of what is said here about Darwin and his work can be found in two volumes: Hodge ( 2008a , b ). The Dewey-Mayr thesis is discussed at greater length in Hodge and Radick ( 2009 ). Capitalist contexts are explored more fully in Hodge ( 2009 ). The zoologist David Reznick’s ( 2009 ) book on the Origin now provides the most detailed guide to its fourteen chapters and to their connections with current evolutionary biology. To sample recent studies by many specialists writing on the reception of Darwin’s ideas, see Engels and Glick ( 2009 ). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Darwin and Evolution , edited by Michael Ruse, contains many pertinent essays and articles, including one by the author on the origins of the Origin in Darwin’s early notebook theorising (Ruse 2012a ). This encyclopedia and the two Cambridge Companions provide further guidance to the secondary literature. They direct one also to indispensable websites, most notably the Darwin Online website managed by John van Wyhe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Hodge, J. Darwin’s Book: On the Origin of Species . Sci & Educ 22 , 2267–2294 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9544-7

Download citation

Published : 14 October 2012

Issue Date : September 2013

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-012-9544-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Natural Selection
• Adaptive Divergence
• Species Origin
• Common Descent
• Explanatory Virtue
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center

Origin of Species

Learn about this topic in these articles:, assorted references.

…“Instinct” in his crucial work On the Origin of Species (1859), he declined to attempt to define the term:

England became quieter and more prosperous in the 1850s, and by mid-decade the professionals were taking over, instituting exams and establishing a meritocracy. The changing social composition of science—typified by the rise of the freethinking biologist Thomas Henry Huxley—promised a…

…edition (published in 1869) of On the Origin of Species by British naturalist Charles Darwin, which suggested that organisms best adjusted to their environment are the most successful in surviving and reproducing. Darwin borrowed the term from English sociologist and philosopher Herbert Spencer, who first used it in his

…of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Ripley’s popular success lay in his ability to reflect the values, aspirations, and tastes of the educated Americans of the age.

English naturalist Charles Darwin, in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859), recognized the problem of determining whether a feature evolved for the function it currently serves:

influence on

…Darwin had published his celebrated Origin of Species (1859). This concept, arising in strong debates, provided the starting point for anthropology.

…in 1859 of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life . In his book Darwin stated that all living creatures multiply so rapidly that if left unchecked they would soon overpopulate the world. According to…

Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life , published in 1859, brought order to the world of organisms. A similar unification at the microscopic level had been brought about by the cell…

His On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859) is a sustained argument showing that the diversity of organisms and their characteristics can be explained as the result of natural processes.

…Darwin published his monumental books On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871). Darwin never claimed, as some of his Victorian contemporaries insisted he had, that “man was descended from the apes,” and modern scientists would view such a statement as a useless simplification—just as they…

In 1859 he published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection , a treatise establishing the theory of evolution and, most important, the role of natural selection in determining its course. He published many other books as well, notably The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation…

Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) offered a theoretical explanation for the empirical principle of faunal sequence. The fossils of the successive systems are different not only because parts of the stratigraphic record are missing but also because most species have lost in their struggles for survival…

…the publication in 1859 of On the Origin of Species , by Charles Darwin (1809–82). Arguing for the truth of evolutionary theory may be conceived as involving three tasks: namely, establishing the fact of evolution—showing that it is reasonable to accept a naturalistic, or law-bound, developmental account of life’s origins; identifying,…

…Wallace’s urging, later editions of On the Origin of Species used a term coined by Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), survival of the fittest , in place of natural selection . This substitution, unfortunately, led to countless (and continuing) debates about whether the thesis of natural selection is a substantive claim about the real…

…the publication in 1859 of Origin of Species by Charles Darwin (1809–82). This book was taken as a challenge to the authority of Scripture because there was a clear inconsistency between the Genesis account of creation and the biological account of humans’ slow emergence from lower forms of life. The…

…of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species , published in 1859, was of course great and further enhanced the appeal of the evolutionary view of things. But it is very important to recognize that ideas of social evolution had their own origins and contexts and that Darwin’s theory was fundamentally…

…however, it was Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859 that initiated the modern approach with its assertion that behaviour, like morphology and physiology, evolves through natural selection. Darwin is also remembered for being the first to discuss sexual selection, the special form of natural selection that acts…

…his uncle Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species (1859), Galton believed that human capabilities could be understood through scientific investigation. From 1884 to 1890 Galton maintained a laboratory in London where visitors could have themselves measured on a variety of psychophysical tasks, such as weight discrimination and sensitivity…

…religion came with Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859). Yet the challenge was neither unprecedented nor unique. In 1860 Essays and Reviews was published; a lively appraisal of fundamental religious questions by a number of liberal-minded religious thinkers, it provoked the sharpest religious controversy of the century.

significance to

When Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) came into his hands soon after his arrival in New Zealand, it took him by storm; he became “one of Mr. Darwin’s many enthusiastic admirers,” and a year or two later he told a friend that he had renounced Christianity altogether.…

…played them up, using Darwin’s Origin of Species as a “Whitworth gun in the armoury of liberalism.” Unlike some contemporaries (such as Saint George Jackson Mivart) who sought a reconciliation between science and theology, he framed the debate over Creation and evolution in black-and-white, either/or terms and was unforgiving of…

Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species led Jeffrey to interpret the form and structure of plants historically and to use comparative morphology and anatomy to provide evidence of specific evolutions. In 1899 Jeffrey reclassified all vascular plants into Lycopsida and Pteropsida; while later classifications have refined plant groupings,…

The Legacy of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"

Darwin's Great Book Profoundly Changed Science and Human Thought

• Important Historical Figures
• U.S. Presidents
• Native American History
• American Revolution
• America Moves Westward
• The Gilded Age
• Crimes & Disasters
• The Most Important Inventions of the Industrial Revolution
• African American History
• African History
• Ancient History and Culture
• Asian History
• European History
• Latin American History
• Medieval & Renaissance History
• Military History
• The 20th Century
• Women's History

Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species" on November 24, 1859 and forever changed the way humans think about science. It's not an exaggeration to say that Darwin's landmark work became one of the most influential books in history.

Decades earlier, the British naturalist and scholar had spent five years sailing around the world aboard a research ship, H.M.S. Beagle . After returning to England, Darwin spent years in quiet study, examining plant and animal specimens.

The ideas he expressed in his classic book in 1859 did not occur to him as sudden bursts of inspiration, but were developed over a period of decades.

Research Led Darwin to Write

At the end of the Beagle voyage, Darwin arrived back in England on October 2, 1836. After greeting friends and family he distributed to scholarly colleagues a number of specimens he had collected during the expedition around the world. Consultations with an ornithologist confirmed that Darwin had discovered several species of birds, and the young naturalist became fascinated with the idea that some species seemed to have replaced other species.

As Darwin began to realize that species change, he wondered how that happened.

The summer after returning to England, in July 1837, Darwin began a new notebook and took to writing down his thoughts on transmutation, or the concept of one species transforming into another. For the next two years Darwin essentially argued with himself in his notebook, testing out ideas.

Malthus Inspired Charles Darwin

In October 1838 Darwin re-read "Essay on the Principle of Population," an influential text by the British philosopher Thomas Malthus . The idea advanced by Malthus, that society contains a struggle for existence, struck a chord with Darwin.

Malthus had been writing about people struggling to survive in the economic competition of the emerging modern world. But it inspired Darwin to begin thinking of species of animals and their own struggles for survival. The idea of "survival of the fittest" began to take hold.

By the spring of 1840, Darwin had come up with the phrase "natural selection," as he wrote it in the margin of a book on horse breeding he was reading at the time.

In the early 1840s, Darwin had essentially worked out his theory of natural selection, which holds that organisms best suited to their environment tend to survive and reproduce, and thus become dominant.

Darwin began writing an extended work on the subject, which he likened to a pencil sketch and which is now known to scholars as the "Sketch."

The Delay in Publishing "On the Origin of Species"

It is conceivable that Darwin could have published his landmark book in the 1840s, yet he did not. Scholars have long speculated on the reasons for the delay, but it seems that it's simply because Darwin kept amassing information he could use to present a lengthy and well-reasoned argument. By the mid-1850s Darwin began working on a major project that would incorporate his research and insights.

Another biologist, Alfred Russel Wallace, was working in the same general field, and he and Darwin were aware of each other. In June 1858 Darwin opened a package sent to him by Wallace, and found a copy of a book Wallace had been writing.

Inspired in part by the competition from Wallace, Darwin resolved to push ahead and publish his own book. He realized he could not include all his research, and his original title for his work in progress referred to it as an "abstract."

Darwin's Landmark Book Published in November 1859

Darwin finished a manuscript, and his book, titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races In the Struggle for Life," was published in London on November 24, 1859. (Over time, the book became known by the shorter title "On the Origin of Species.")

The original edition of the book was 490 pages, and had taken Darwin about nine months to write. When he first submitted chapters to his publisher John Murray, in April 1859, Murray had reservations about the book. A friend of the publisher wrote to Darwin and suggested he write something quite different, a book on pigeons. Darwin politely brushed that suggestion aside, and Murray went ahead and published the book Darwin intended to write.

" On the Origin of Species" turned out to be quite a profitable book for its publisher. The initial press run was modest, only 1,250 copies, but those sold out in the first two days of sale. The following month a second edition of 3,000 copies also sold out, and the book continued selling through successive editions for decades.

Darwin's book generated countless controversies, as it contradicted the biblical account of creation and seemed to be in opposition to religion. Darwin himself remained mostly aloof from the debates and continued his research and writing.

He revised "On the Origin of Species" through six editions, and he also published another book on evolutionary theory, "The Descent of Man," in 1871. Darwin also wrote prolifically about cultivating plants.

When Darwin died in 1882, he was given a state funeral in Britain and was buried in Westminster Abbey, near the grave of Isaac Newton. His status as a great scientist had been assured by the publication of "On the Origin of Species."

• Biography of Peggy Shippen, Socialite and Spy
• Chuck Yeager: The Pilot Who Broke the Sound Barrier
• Biography of William Jennings Bryan
• Biography of Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy
• Biography of Daniel Webster, American Statesman
• Biography of Jill Biden, Professor and First Lady
• Biography of William 'Boss' Tweed, American Politician
• Biography of Joseph McCarthy, Senator and Leader of Red Scare Crusade
• Allan Pinkerton and His Detective Agency
• Cotton Mather, Puritan Clergyman and Early American Scientist
• Biography of Robert G. Ingersoll
• Thomas Nast's Campaign Against Boss Tweed
• Biography of John McCain, From POW to Influential US Senator
• Tappan Brothers
• John C. Calhoun: Significant Facts and Brief Biography
• Biography of John Sutter, Owner of Where California Gold Rush Began

The Origin of Species

By charles darwin, the origin of species summary and analysis of introduction.

Darwin opens by saying that while on board the HMS Beagle as a naturalist in South America he made observations about the animals and the land which formed the foundation for what would become his theory of natural selection. He hopes this theory, which he will develop in this book sheds light on “the mystery of mysteries”, the origin of species.

Darwin tells how, when he returned home in 1837, he thought that he may have something worth investigating so he spends the next years accumulating and reflecting on information. In 1844 he writes a sketch of the conclusions that his research is pointing towards but he holds off expanding his ideas, instead researching further, for another 15 years.

He calls his work an abstract for a larger book which will take many more years to complete. He notes that he felt compelled to publish his work now after reading the manuscript of Alfred Russel Wallace , who had arrived at similar conclusions as Darwin and was about to publish his findings. As an abstract he notes that it may be incomplete, imperfect and at times lacking references, but that any questions which arise will be answered when he publishes his findings in full.

Darwin acknowledges that other naturalists have observed the relations between similar species but have attributed the cause of these changes exclusively to external conditions such as climate and food. He sees these causes as insufficient to account for the great variation in nature. In order to research what other forces could be at work he will look first at his research with domesticated plants and animals even though this was not a common practice of other naturalists.

The introduction closes with Darwin laying out in the arguments that each of the following chapters will explore in more detail. In particular he explains that traits may pass from one generation to the next, that into each generation more individuals will be born than can possibly survive and the ones that do survive will do so because of slight competitive advantages that they inherit and consequently pass on to their offspring. This natural selection is what, over time, causes some species to evolve, others to diverge and become their own unique species and others to become extinct. This being true, all species are in some manner related to each other and not independently created.

The Origin of Species Questions and Answers

The Question and Answer section for The Origin of Species is a great resource to ask questions, find answers, and discuss the novel.

What is this passage mostly about?

It looks to be about the pros and cons of nonnative species.

Is there an outline for Darwin’s Natural Selection???

I thinkl Natural Selection is included in this book but I'm not aware of an outline.

what are the required traits?

The required traits for what in particular?

Study Guide for The Origin of Species

The Origin of Species study guide contains a biography of Charles Darwin, literature essays, a complete e-text, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis.

• About The Origin of Species
• Character List
• Quotes and Analysis

Essays for The Origin of Species

The Origin of Species literature essays are academic essays for citation. These papers were written primarily by students and provide critical analysis of The Origin of Species.

• Marxist Influences in Darwin's Origin of Species
• Darwin's Design: Social Theory in Origin of Species
• Influence of Darwin's "Origin of Species" on Literature
• Malthus and Darwin: A Study of Theories and Their Adaptation
• The Proof Behind Darwin’s Claims: A Rhetoric of Research and Transformation

E-Text of The Origin of Species

The Origin of Species E-Text contains the full text of The Origin of Species

• Introduction
• CHAPTER 1. VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.
• CHAPTER 2. VARIATION UNDER NATURE.
• CHAPTER 3. STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE.
• CHAPTER 4. NATURAL SELECTION.

Wikipedia Entries for The Origin of Species

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Darwin: From the Origin of Species to the Descent of Man

This entry offers a broad historical review of the origin and development of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection through the initial Darwinian phase of the “Darwinian Revolution” up to the publication of the Descent of Man in 1871. The development of evolutionary ideas before Darwin’s work has been treated in the separate entry evolutionary thought before Darwin . Several additional aspects of Darwin’s theory of evolution and his biographical development are dealt with in other entries in this encyclopedia (see the entries on Darwinism ; species ; natural selection ; creationism ). The remainder of this entry will focus on aspects of Darwin’s theory not developed in the other entries. It will also maintain a historical and textual approach. Other entries in this encyclopedia cited at the end of the article and the bibliography should be consulted for discussions beyond this point. The issues will be examined under the following headings:

1.1 Historiographical Issues

1.2 darwin’s early reflections, 2.1. the concept of natural selection.

• 2.2. The Argument of the Published Origin

3.1 The Popular Reception of Darwin’s Theory

3.2 the professional reception of darwin’s theory, 4.1 the genesis of darwin’s descent, 4.2 darwin on mental powers, 4.3 the ethical theory of the descent of man.

• 4.4 The Reception of the Descent

5. Summary and Conclusion

Other internet resources, related entries, acknowledgments, 1. the origins of darwin’s theory.

Charles Darwin’s version of transformism has been the subject of massive historical and philosophical scholarship almost unparalleled in any other area of the history of science. This includes the continued flow of monographic studies and collections of articles on particular aspects of Darwin’s theory (Prestes 2023; R. J. Richards and Ruse 2016; Ruse 2013a, 2009a,b,c; Ruse and Richards 2009; Hodge and Radick 2009; Hösle and Illies 2005; Gayon 1998; Bowler 1996; Depew and Weber 1995; Kohn 1985a). The continuous production of popular and professional biographical studies on Darwin provides ever new insights (Ruse et al. 2013a; Johnson 2012; Desmond and Moore 1991, 2009; Browne 1995, 2002; Bowlby 1990; Bowler 1990). In addition, major editing projects on Darwin’s manuscripts and the completion of the Correspondence , project through the entirety of Darwin’s life, continue to reveal details and new insights into the issues surrounding Darwin’s own thought (Keynes [ed.] 2000; Burkhardt et al. [eds] 1985–2023; Barrett et al. [eds.] 1987). The Cambridge Darwin Online website (see Other Internet Resources ) serves as an international clearinghouse for this worldwide Darwinian scholarship, functioning as a repository for electronic versions of all the original works of Darwin, including manuscripts and related secondary materials. It also supplies a continuously updated guide to current literature.

A long tradition of scholarship has interpreted Darwin’s theory to have originated from a framework defined by endemic British natural history, a British tradition of natural theology defined particularly by William Paley (1743–1805), the methodological precepts of John Herschel (1792–1871), developed in his A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy (1830 [1987]), and the geological theories of Charles Lyell (1797–1875). His conversion to the uniformitarian geology of Charles Lyell and to Lyell’s advocacy of “deep” geological time during the voyage of the HMS Beagle (December 1831–October 1836), has been seen as fundamental in his formation (Norman 2013; Herbert 2005; Hodge 1983). Complementing this predominantly anglophone historiography has been the social-constructivist analyses emphasizing the origins of Darwin’s theories in British Political Economy (Young 1985: chps. 2, 4, 5). It has also been argued that a primary generating source of Darwin’s inquiries was his involvement with the British anti-slavery movement, a concern reaching back to his revulsion against slavery developed during the Beagle years (Desmond and Moore 2009).

A body of recent historiography, on the other hand, drawing on the wealth of manuscripts and correspondence that have become available since the 1960s (online at Darwin online “Papers and Manuscripts” section, see Other Internet Resources ) has de-emphasized some of the novelty of Darwin’s views and questions have been raised regarding the validity of the standard biographical picture of the early Darwin. These materials have drawn attention to previously ignored aspects of Darwin’s biography. In particular, the importance of his Edinburgh period from 1825–27, largely discounted in importance by Darwin himself in his late Autobiography , has been seen as critical for his subsequent development (Desmond and Moore 1991; Hodge 1985). As a young medical student at the University of Edinburgh (1825–27), Darwin developed a close relationship with the comparative anatomist Robert Edmond Grant (1793–1874) through the student Plinian Society, and in many respects Grant served as Darwin’s first mentor in science in the pre- Beagle years (Desmond and Moore 1991, chp. 1). Through Grant he was exposed to the transformist theories of Jean Baptiste Lamarck and the Cuvier-Geoffroy debate centered on the Paris Muséum nationale d’histoire naturelle (see entry on evolutionary thought before Darwin , Section 4).

These differing interpretive frameworks make investigations into the origins of Darwin’s theory an active area of historical research. The following section will explore these origins.

In its historical origins, Darwin’s theory was different in kind from its main predecessors in important ways (Ruse 2013b; Sloan 2009a; see also the entry on evolutionary thought before Darwin ). Viewed against a longer historical scenario, Darwin’s theory does not deal with cosmology or the origins of the world and life through naturalistic means, and therefore was more restricted in its theoretical scope than its main predecessors influenced by the reflections of Georges Louis LeClerc de Buffon (1707–1788), Johann Herder (1744–1803, and German Naturphilosophen inspired by Friederich Schelling (1775–1854) . This restriction also distinguished Darwin’s work from the grand evolutionary cosmology put forth anonymously in 1844 by the Scottish publisher Robert Chambers (1802–1871) in his immensely popular Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation , a work which in many respects prepared Victorian society in England, and pre-Civil War America for the acceptance of a general evolutionary theory in some form (Secord 2000; MacPherson 2015). It also distinguishes Darwin’s formulations from the theories of his contemporary Herbert Spencer (1820–1903).

Darwin’s theory first took written form in reflections in a series of notebooks begun during the latter part of the Beagle voyage and continued after the return of the Beagle to England in October of 1836 (Barrett et al., 1987). His reflections on the possibility of species change are first entered in March of 1837 (“Red Notebook”) and are developed in the other notebooks (B–E) through July of 1839 (Barrett et al. 1987; Hodge 2013a, 2009). Beginning with the reflections of the third or “D” “transmutation” Notebook, composed between July and October of 1838, Darwin first worked out the rudiments of what was to become his theory of natural selection. In the parallel “M” and “N” Notebooks, dating between July of 1838 and July of 1839, and in a loose collection called “Old and Useless Notes”, dating from approximately 1838–40, he also developed many of his main ideas on human evolution that would only be made public in the Descent of Man of 1871 (below, Section 4).

To summarize a complex issue, these Notebook reflections show Darwin proceeding through a series of stages in which he first formulated a general theory of the transformation of species by historical descent from common ancestors. He then attempted to work out a causal theory of life that would explain the tendency of life to complexify and diversify (Hodge 2013a, 2009, 1985; Sloan 1986). This causal inquiry into the underlying nature of life, and with it the search for an explanation of life’s innate tendency to develop and complexify, was then replaced by a dramatic shift in focus away from these inquiries. This concern with a causal theory of life was then replaced by a new emphasis on external forces controlling population, a thesis developed from his reading of Thomas Malthus’s (1766–1834) Essay on the Principle of Population (6th ed. 1826). For Malthus, human populaton was assumed to expand geometrically, while food supply expanded arithmetically, leading to an inevitable struggle of humans for existence. The impact of Darwin’s reading of this edition of the Essay in August of 1838, was dramatic. It enabled him to theorize the existence of a constantly-acting dynamic force behind the transformation of species.

Darwin’s innovation was to universalize the Malthusian “principle of population” to apply to all of nature. In so doing, Darwin effectively introduced what may be termed an “inertial” principle into his theory, although such language is never used in his text. Newton’s first law of motion, set forth in his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1st ed. 1687), established his physical system upon the tendency of all material bodies to persist eternally either at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line, requiring a causal force explanation for any deviations from this initial state. But Newton did not seek a deeper metaphysical explanation of this inertial state. Law One is simply an “axiom” in Newton’s Principia. Similarly, the principle of population supplied Darwin with the assumption of an initial dynamic state of affairs that was not itself explained within the theory—there is no attempt to account causally for this tendency of living beings universally to reproduce geometrically. Similarly for Darwin, the principle of population functions axiomatically, defining a set of initial conditions from which any deviance from this ideal state demands explanation.

This theoretical shift enabled Darwin to bracket his earlier efforts to develop a causal theory of life, and focus instead on the means by which the dynamic force of population was controlled. This allowed him to emphasize how controls on population worked in company with the phenomenon of slight individual variation between members of the same species, in company with changing conditions of life, to produce a gradual change of form and function over time, leading to new varieties and eventually to new species. This opened up the framework for Darwin’s most important innovation, the concept of “natural” selection.

2. Darwinian Evolution

The primary distinguishing feature of Darwin’s theory that separates it from previous explanations of species change centers on the causal explanation he offered for how this process occurred. Prior theories, such as the theory of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (see entry on evolutionary thought before Darwin ), relied on the inherent dynamic properties of matter. The change of species was not, in these pre-Darwinian efforts, explained through an adaptive process. Darwin’s emphasis after the composition of Notebook D on the factors controlling population increase, rather than on a dynamic theory of life grounded in vital forces, accounts for many of the differences between Darwin’s theory and those of his predecessors and contemporaries.

These differences can be summarized in the concept of natural selection as the central theoretical component of Darwinian theory. However, the exact meaning of this concept, and the varying ways he stated the principle in the Origin over its six editions (1859–1872), has given rise to multiple interpretations of the meaning of this principle in the history of Darwinism, and the different understandings of his meaning deeply affected different national and cultural receptions of his theory (see below, Section 3 .1).

One way to see the complexity of Darwin’s own thinking on these issues is to follow the textual development of this concept from the close of the Notebook period (1839) to the publication of the Origin of Species in 1859. This period of approximately twenty years involved Darwin in a series of reflections that form successive strata in the final version of his theory of the evolution of species. Understanding the historical sequence of these developments also has significance for subsequent controversies over this concept and the different readings of the Origin as it went through its successive revisions. This historical development of the concept also has some bearing on assessing Darwin’s relevance for more general philosophical questions, such as those surrounding the relevance of his theory for such issues as the concept of a more general teleology of nature.

The earliest set of themes in the manuscript elaboration of natural selection theory can be characterized as those developed through a particular form of the argument from analogy. This took the form of a strong “proportional” form of the analogical argument that equated the relation of human selection to the development of domestic breeds as an argument of the basic form: human selection is to domestic variety formation as natural selection is to natural species formation (White, Hodge and Radick 2021, chps. 4–5). This makes a direct analogy between the actions of nature with those of humans in the process of selection. The specific expressions, and changes, in this analogy are important to follow closely. As this was expressed in the first coherent draft of the theory, a 39-page pencil manuscript written in 1842, this discussion analogized the concept of selection of forms by human agency in the creation of the varieties of domestic animals and plants, to the active selection in the natural world by an almost conscious agency, a “being infinitely more sagacious than man (not an omniscient creator)” who acts over “thousands and thousands of years” on “all the variations which tended towards certain ends” (Darwin 1842 in Glick and Kohn 1996, 91). This agency selects out those features most beneficial to organisms in relation to conditions of life, analogous in its action to the selection by man on domestic forms in the production of different breeds. Interwoven with these references to an almost Platonic demiurge are appeals to the selecting power of an active “Nature”:

Nature’s variation far less, but such selection far more rigid and scrutinizing […] Nature lets <<an>> animal live, till on actual proof it is found less able to do the required work to serve the desired end, man judges solely by his eye, and knows not whether nerves, muscles, arteries, are developed in proportion to the change of external form. (Ibid., 93)

These themes were continued in the 230 page draft of his theory of 1844. Again he referred to the selective action of a wise “Being with penetration sufficient to perceive differences in the outer and innermost organization quite imperceptible to man, and with forethought extending over future centuries to watch with unerring care and select for any object the offspring of an organism produced” (Darwin 1844 in ibid., 101). This selection was made with greater foresight and wisdom than human selection. As he envisions the working of this causal agency,

In accordance with the plan by which this universe seems governed by the Creator, let us consider whether there exist any secondary means in the economy of nature by which the process of selection could go on adapting, nicely and wonderfully, organisms, if in ever so small a degree plastic, to diverse ends. I believe such secondary means do exist. (Ibid., 103).

Darwin returned to these issues in 1856, following a twelve-year period in which he published his Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands (1844), the second edition of his Journal of Researches (1845), Geological Observations on South America (1846), the four volumes on fossil and living barnacles ( Cirripedia ) (1851, 54, 55), and Geological Observations on Coral Reefs (1851). In addition, he published several smaller papers on invertebrate zoology and on geology, and reported on his experiments on the resistance of seeds to salt water, a topic that would be of importance in his explanation of the population of remote islands.

These intervening inquiries positioned Darwin to deal with the question of species permanence against an extensive empirical background. The initial major synthesis of these investigations takes place in his long manuscript, or “Big Species Book”, commenced in 1856, known in current scholarship as the “Natural Selection” manuscript. This formed the immediate background text behind the published Origin . Although incomplete, the “Natural Selection” manuscript provides insights into many critical issues in Darwin’s thinking. It was also prepared with an eye to the scholarly community. This distinguishes its content and presentation from that of the subsequent “abstract” which became the published Origin of Species . “Natural Selection” contained tables of data, references to scholarly literature, and other apparatus expected of a non-popular work, none of which appeared in the published Origin .

The “Natural Selection” manuscript also contained some new theoretical developments of relevance to the concept of natural selection that are not found in earlier manuscripts. Scholars have noted the introduction in this manuscript of the “principle of divergence”, the thesis that organisms under the action of natural selection will tend to radiate and diversify within their “conditions of life”—the contemporary name for the complex of environmental and species-interaction relationships (Kohn 1985b, 2009). Although the concept of group divergence under the action of natural selection might be seen as an implication of Darwin’s theory from his earliest formulations of the 1830s, nonetheless Darwin’s explicit definition of this as a “principle”, and its discussion in a long late insertion in the “Natural Selection” manuscript, suggests its importance for Darwin’s mature theory. The principle of divergence was now seen by Darwin to form an important link between natural variation and the conditions of existence under the action of the driving force of population increase.

Still evident in the “Natural Selection” manuscript is Darwin’s implicit appeal to some kind of teleological ordering of the process. The action of the masculine-gendered “wise being” of the earlier manuscripts, however, has now been given over entirely to the action of a selective “Nature”, now referred to in the traditional feminine gender. This Nature,

…cares not for mere external appearance; she may be said to scrutinise with a severe eye, every nerve, vessel & muscle; every habit, instinct, shade of constitution,—the whole machinery of the organisation. There will be here no caprice, no favouring: the good will be preserved & the bad rigidly destroyed.… Can we wonder then, that nature’s productions bear the stamp of a far higher perfection than man’s product by artificial selection. With nature the most gradual, steady, unerring, deep-sighted selection,—perfect adaption [sic] to the conditions of existence.… (Darwin 1856–58 [1974: 224–225])

The language of this passage, directly underlying statements about the action of “natural selection” in the first edition of the published Origin , indicates the complexity in the exegesis of Darwin’s meaning of “natural selection” when viewed in light of its historical genesis (Ospovat 1981). The parallels between art and nature, the intentionality implied in the term “selection”, the notion of “perfect” adaptation, and the substantive conception of “nature” as an agency working toward certain ends, all render Darwin’s views on teleological purpose more complex than they are typically interpreted from the standpoint of contemporary Neo-selectionist theory (Lennox 1993, 2013). As will be discussed below, the changes Darwin subsequently made in his formulations of this concept over the history of the Origin have led to different conceptions of what he meant by this principle.

The hurried preparation and publication of the Origin between the summer of 1858 and November of 1859 was prompted by the receipt on June 18 of 1858 of a letter and manuscript from Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) that outlined his remarkably similar views on the possibility of continuous species change under the action of a selection upon natural variation (Wallace 1858 in Glick and Kohn 1996, 337–45). This event had important implications for the subsequent form of Darwin’s published argument. Rapidly condensing the detailed arguments of the unfinished “Natural Selection” manuscript into shorter chapters, Darwin also universalized several claims that he had only developed with reference to specific groups of organisms, or which he had applied only to more limited situations in the manuscript. This resulted in a presentation of his theory at the level of broad generalization. The absence of tables of data, detailed footnotes, and references to the secondary literature in the published version also resulted in predictable criticisms which will be discussed below in Section 3.2 .

2.2. The Central Argument of the Published Origin

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservaton of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life was issued in London by the publishing house of John Murray on November 24, 1859 (Darwin 1859 [1964]). The structure of the argument presented in the published Origin has been the topic of considerable literature and can only be summarized here. Although Darwin himself described his book as “one long argument”, the exact nature of this argument is not immediately transparent, and alternative interpretations have been made of his reasoning and rhetorical strategies in formulating his evolutionary theory. (Prestes 2023; White, Hodge and Radick 2021; Hodge 2013b, 1977; Hoquet 2013; Hull 2009; Waters 2009; Depew 2009; Ruse 2009; Lennox 2005; Hodge 1983b).

The scholarly reconstruction of Darwin’s methodology employed in the Origin has taken two primary forms. One approach has been to reconstruct it from the standpoint of currently accepted models of scientific explanation, sometimes presenting it as a formal deductive model (Sober 1984). Another, more historical, approach interprets his methodology in the context of accepted canons of scientific explanation found in Victorian discussions of the period (see the entry on Darwinism ; Prestes 2023; White, Hodge and Radick 2021; Hodge 2013b, 1983b, 1977; Hoquet 2013; Hull 2009; Waters 2009; Depew 2009; Lennox 2005). The degree to which Darwin did in fact draw from the available methodological discussions of his contemporaries—John Herschel, William Whewell, John Stuart Mill—is not fully clear from available documentary sources. The claim most readily documented, and defended particularly by White, Hodge and Radick (2021) and M. J. S. Hodge (1977, 1983a), has emphasized the importance of John Herschel’s A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy (1830 [1987]), which Darwin read as a young student at Cambridge prior to his departure on the HMS Beagle in December of 1831.

In Herschel’s text he would have encountered the claim that science seeks to determine “true causes”— vera causae— of phenomena through the satisfaction of explicit criteria of adequacy (Herschel, 1830 [1987], chp. 6). This concept Newton had specified in the Principia as the third of his “Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy” (see the entry on Newton’s philosophy , Section 4). Elucidation of such causes was to be the goal of scientific explanation. Vera causae , in Herschel’s formulation, were those necessary to produce the given effects; they were truly active in producing the effects; and they adequately explained these effects.

The other plausible methodological source for Darwin’s mature reasoning was the work of his older contemporary and former Cambridge mentor, the Rev. William Whewell (1794–1866), whose three-volume History of the Inductive Sciences (Whewell 1837) Darwin read with care after his return from his round-the-world voyage (Ruse 2013c, 1975). On this reading, a plausible argument has been made that the actual structure of Darwin’s text is more closely similar to a “Whewellian” model of argument. In Whewell’s accounts of his philosophy of scientific methodology (Whewell 1840, 1858), the emphasis of scientific inquiry is, as Herschel had also argued, to be placed on the discovery of “true causes”. But evidence for the determination of a vera causa was to be demonstrated by the ability of disparate phenomena to be drawn together under a single unifying “Conception of the Mind”, exemplified for Whewell by Newton’s universal law of gravitation. This “Consilience of Inductions”, as Whewell termed this process of theoretical unification under a few simple concepts, was achieved only by true scientific theories employing true causes (Whewell 1840: xxxix). It has therefore been argued that Darwin’s theory fundamentally produces this kind of consilience argument, and that his methodology is more properly aligned with that of Whewell.

A third account, related to the Whewellian reading, is that of David Depew. Building on Darwin’s claim that he was addressing “the general naturalist public,” Darwin is seen as developing what Depew has designated as “situated argumentation”, similar to the views developed by contemporary Oxford logician and rhetorical theorist Richard Whately (1787–1863) (Depew 2009). This rhetorical strategy proceeds by drawing the reader into Darwin’s world by personal narration as it presents a series of limited issues for acceptance in the first three chapters, none of which required of the reader a considerable leap of theoretical assent, and most of which, such as natural variation and Malthusian population increase, had already been recognized in some form in the literature of the period.

As Darwin presented his arguments to the public, he opens with a pair of chapters that draw upon the strong analogy developed in the manuscripts between the action of human art in the production of domestic forms, and the actions of selection “by nature.” The resultant forms are presumed to have arisen through the action of human selection on the slight variations existing between individuals within the same species. The interpretation of this process as implying directional, and even intentional, selection by a providential “Nature” that we have seen in the manuscripts was, however, downplayed in the published work through the importance given by Darwin to the role of “unconscious” selection, a concept not encountered in the Natural Selection manuscript. Such selection denotes the practice even carried out by aboriginal peoples who simply seek to maintain the integrity and survival of a breed or species by preserving the “best” forms.

The domestic breeding analogy is, however, more than a decorative rhetorical strategy. It repeatedly functions for Darwin as the principal empirical example to which he could appeal at several places in the text as a means of visualizing the working of natural selection in nature, and this appeal remains intact through the six editions of the Origin.

From this model of human selection working on small individual natural variations to produce the domestic forms, Darwin then developed in the second chapter the implications of “natural” variation, delaying discussion of the concept of natural selection until Chapter IV. The focus of the second chapter introduces another important issue. Here he extends the discussion of variation developed in Chapter I into a critical analysis of the common understanding of classification as grounded on the definition of species and higher groups based on the possession of essential defining properties. It is in this chapter that Darwin most explicitly develops his own position on the nature of organic species in relation to his theory of descent. It is also in this chapter that he sets forth the ingredients for his attack on one meaning of species “essentialism”.

Darwin’s analysis of the “species question” involves a complex argument that has many implications for how his work was read by his contemporaries and successors, and its interpretation has generated a considerable literature (see the entries on species and Darwinism ; Mallet 2013; R. A. Richards 2010; Wilkins 2009; Stamos 2007; Sloan 2009b, 2013; Beatty 1985).

Prior tradition had been heavily affected by eighteenth-century French naturalist Buffon’s novel conception of organic species in which he made a sharp distinction between “natural” species, defined primarily by fertile interbreeding, and “artificial” species and varieties defined by morphological traits and measurements upon these (see the entry on evolutionary thought before Darwin , Section 3.3). This distinction was utilized selectively by Darwin in an unusual blending of two traditions of discussion that are conflated in creative ways in Darwin’s analysis.

Particularly as the conception of species had been discussed by German natural historians of the early nineteenth-century affected by distinctions introduced by philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), “Buffonian” species were defined by the material unity of common descent and reproductive continuity. This distinguished them by their historical and material character from the taxonomic species of the “Linnean” tradition of natural history. This distinction between “natural” and “logical” species had maintained a distinction between problems presented in the practical classification of preserved specimens, distinguished by external characters, and those relating to the unity of natural species, which was grounded upon reproductive unity and the sterility criterion (Sloan 2009b).

Remarkable in Darwin’s argument is the way in which he draws selectively in his readings from these two preexistent traditions to undermine the different grounds of species “realism” assumed within both of these traditions of discourse. One framework—what can be considered in his immediate context the “Linnean” tradition—regarded species in the sense of universals of logic or class concepts, whose “reality” was often grounded on the concept of divine creation. The alternative “Buffonian” tradition viewed species more naturalistically as material lineages of descent whose continuity was determined by some kind of immanent principle, such as the possession of a conserving “internal mold” or specifying vital force (see evolutionary thought before Darwin 3.3). The result in Darwin’s hands is a complex terminological interweaving of concepts of Variety, Race, Sub-species, Tribe, and Family that can be shown to be a fusion of different traditions of discussion in the literature of the period. This creative conflation also led to many confusions among his contemporaries about how Darwin actually did conceive of species and species change in time.

Darwin addresses the species question by raising the problems caused by natural variation in the practical discrimination of taxa at the species and varietal levels, an issue with which he had become closely familiar in his taxonomic revision of the Sub-class Cirripedia (barnacles) in his eight-year study on this group. Although the difficulty of taxonomic distinctions at this level was a well-recognized problem in the literature of the time, Darwin subtly transforms this practical problem into a metaphysical ambiguity—the fuzziness of formal taxonomic distinctions created by variation in preserved specimens is seen to imply a similar ambiguity of “natural” species boundaries.

We follow this in reading how natural variation is employed by Darwin in Chapter Two of the Origin to break down the distinction between species and varieties as these concepts were commonly employed in the practical taxonomic literature. The arbitrariness apparent in making distinctions, particularly in plants and invertebrates, meant that such species were only what “naturalists having sound judgment and wide experience” defined them to be ( Origin 1859 [1964], 47). These arguments form the basis for claims by his contemporaries that Darwin was a species “nominalist”, who defined species only as conventional and convenient divisions of a continuum of individuals.

But this feature of Darwin’s discussion of species captures only in part the complexity of his argument. Drawing also on the tradition of species realism developed within the “Buffonian” tradition, Darwin also affirmed that species and varieties are defined by common descent and material relations of interbreeding. Darwin then employed the ambiguity of the distinction between species and varieties created by individual variation in practical taxonomy to undermine the ontological fixity of “natural” species. Varieties are not simply the formal taxonomic subdivisions of a natural species as conceived in the Linnaean tradition. They are, as he terms them, “incipient” species (ibid., 52). This subtly transformed the issue of local variation and adaptation to circumstances into a primary ingredient for historical evolutionary change. The full implications to be drawn from this argument were, however, only to be revealed in Chapter Four of the text.

Before assembling the ingredients of these first two chapters, Darwin then introduced in Chapter Three the concept of a “struggle for existence”. This concept is introduced in a “large and metaphorical sense” that included different levels of organic interactions, from direct struggle for food and space to the struggle for life of a plant in a desert. Although described as an application of Thomas Malthus’s parameter of geometrical increase of population in relation to the arithmetical increase of food supply, Darwin’s use of this concept in fact reinterprets Malthus’s principle, which was formulated only with reference to human population in relation to food supply. It now becomes a general principle governing all of organic life. Thus all organisms, including those comprising food for others, would be governed by the tendency to geometrical increase.

Through this universalization, the controls on population become only in the extreme case grounded directly on the traditional Malthusian limitations of food and space. Normal controls are instead exerted through a complex network of relationships of species acting one on another in predator-prey, parasite-host, and food-web relations. This profound revision of Malthus’s arguments rendered Darwin’s theory deeply “ecological” as this term would later be employed. We can cite two thought experiments employed by Darwin himself as illustrations (ibid., 72–74). The first concerns the explanation of the abundance of red clover in England. This Darwin sees as dependent on the numbers of pollinating humble bees, which are controlled in turn by the number of mice, and these are controlled by the number of cats, making cats the remote determinants of clover abundance. The second instance concerns the explanation of the abundance of Scotch Fir. In this example, the number of fir trees is limited indirectly by the number of cattle.

With the ingredients of the first three chapters in place, Darwin was positioned to assemble these together in his grand synthesis of Chapter Four on “natural” selection. In this long discussion, Darwin develops the main exposition of his central theoretical concept. For his contemporaries and for the subsequent tradition, however, the meaning of Darwin’s concept of “natural” selection was not unambiguously evident for reasons we have outlined above, and these unclarities were to be the source of several persistent lines of disagreement and controversy.

The complexities in Darwin’s presentation of his central principle over the six editions of the published Origin served historically to generate several different readings of his text. In the initial introduction of the principle of natural selection in the first edition of Darwin’s text, it is characterized as “preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations” (ibid., 81). When Darwin elaborated on this concept in Chapter Four of the first edition, he continued to describe natural selection in language suggesting that it involved intentional selection, continuing the strong art-nature analogy found in the manuscripts. For example:

As man can produce and certainly has produced a great result by his methodical and unconscious means of selection, what may not nature effect? Man can act only on external and visible characters: nature cares nothing for appearances, except in so far as they may be useful to any being. She can act on every internal organ, on every shade of constitutional difference, on the whole machinery of life. Man selects only for his own good; Nature only for that of the being which she tends. Every selected character is fully exercised by her; and the being is placed under well-suited conditions of life. (Ibid., 83)

The manuscript history behind such passages prevents the simple discounting of these statements as mere rhetorical imagery. As we have seen, the parallel between intentional human selectivity and that of “nature” formed the proportional analogical model upon which the concept of natural selection was originally constructed.

Criticisms that quickly developed over the overt intentionality embedded in such passages, however, led Darwin to revise the argument in editions beginning with the third edition of 1861. From this point onward he explicitly downplayed the intentional and teleological language of the first two editions, denying that his appeals to the selective role of “nature” were anything more than a literary figure. Darwin then moved decisively in the direction of defining natural selection as the description of the action of natural laws working upon organisms rather than as an efficient or final cause of life. He also regrets in his Correspondence his mistake in not utilizing the designation “natural preservation” rather than “natural selection” to characterize his principle (letter to Lyell 28 September 1860, Burkhardt Correspondence 8, 397; also see Darwin Correspondence Project in Other Internet Resources ). In response to criticisms of Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin then adopted in the fifth edition of 1869 his contemporary (1820–1903) Herbert Spencer’s designator, “survival of the fittest”, as a synonym for “natural selection” (Spencer 1864, 444–45; Darwin 1869, 72). This redefinition further shifted the meaning of natural selection away from the concept that can be extracted from the early texts and drafts. These final statements of the late 1860s and early 70s underlie the tradition of later “mechanistic” and non-teleological understandings of natural selection, a reading developed by his disciples who, in the words of David Depew, “had little use for either his natural theodicy or his image of a benignly scrutinizing selection” (Depew 2009, 253). The degree to which this change preserved the original strong analogy between art and nature can, however, be questioned. Critics of the use of this analogy had argued since the original formulations that the comparison of the two modes of selection actually worked against Darwin’s theory (Wallace 1858 in Glick and Kohn 1997, 343). This critique would also be leveled against Darwin in the critical review of 1867 by Henry Fleeming Jenkin discussed below.

The conceptual synthesis of Chapter Four also introduced discussions of such matters as the conditions under which natural selection most optimally worked, the role of isolation, the causes of the extinction of species, and the principle of divergence. Many of these points were made through the imaginative use of “thought experiments” in which Darwin constructed possible scenarios through which natural selection could bring about substantial change.

One prominent way Darwin captured for the reader the complexity of this process is reflected in the single diagram to appear in all the editions of the Origin . In this illustration, originally located as an Appendix to the first edition, but thereafter moved into Chapter Four, Darwin summarized his conception of how species were formed and diverged from common ancestral points. This image also served to depict the frequent extinction of most lineages, an issue developed in detail in Chapter Ten. It displayed pictorially the principle of divergence, illustrating the general tendency of populations to diverge and fragment under the pressure of population increase. It supplied a way of envisioning relations of taxonomic affinity to time, and illstrated the persistence of some forms unchanged over long geological periods in which stable conditions prevail.

Figure: Tree of life diagram from Origin of Species ( Origin 1859:“Appendix”.

Remarkable about Darwin’s diagram of the tree of life is the relativity of its coordinates. It is first presented as applying only to the divergences taking place in taxa at the species level, with varieties represented by the small lower-case letters within species A–L of a “wide ranging genus”, with the horizontal lines representing time segments measured in terms of a limited number of generations. However, the attentive reader could quickly see that Darwin’s destructive analysis of the distinction between “natural” and “artificial” species in Chapter Two, implied the relativity of the species-variety distinction, this diagram could represent eventually all organic relationships, from those at the non-controversial level of diverging varieties within fixed species, to those of the relations of Species within different genera. Letters A–L could also represent taxa at the level of genera, families or orders. The diagram can thus be applied to relationships between all levels of the Linnaean hierarchy with the time segments representing potentially vast expanses of time, and the horizontal spread of branches the degree of taxonomic divergence over time. In a very few pages of argument, the diagram was generalized to represent the most extensive group relations, encompassing the whole of geological time. Extension of the dotted lines at the bottom could even suggest, as Darwin argues in the last paragraph of the Origin , that all life was a result of “several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one” (Darwin 1859 [1964], 490). This could suggest a single naturalistic origin of all original forms either by material emergence, or through the action of a vitalistic power of life. Darwin’s use of Biblical language could also be read as allowing for the action of a supernatural cause.

In response to criticisms concerning this latter point, Darwin quickly added to the final paragraph in the second edition of 1860 the phrase “by the Creator” (1860: 484), which remained in all subsequent editions. as did the quotations on the frontispiece from familiar discussions in British natural theology concerning creation by secondary causation. Conceptual space was thereby created for the reading of the Origin by some contemporaries, notably by the Harvard botanist Asa Gray (1810–88), as compatible with traditional natural theology (Gray 1860).

The sweep of the theoretical generalization that closed the natural selection chapter, one restated even more generally in the final paragraph of the book, required Darwin to deal with several obvious objections to the theory that constitute the main “defensive” chapters of the Origin (Five–Nine), and occupy him through the numerous revisions of the text between 1859 and 1872. As suggested by David Depew, the rhetorical structure of the original text developed in an almost “objections and response” structure that resulted in a constant stream of revisions to various editions of the original text as Darwin engaged his opponents (Depew 2009; Peckham 2006). Anticipating at first publication several obvious lines of objection, Darwin devoted much of the text of the original Origin to offering a solution in advance to predictable difficulties. As Darwin outlined these main lines of objection, he discussed, first, the apparent absence of numerous slight gradations between species, both in the present and in the fossil record, of the kind that would seem to be predictable from the gradualist workings of the theory (Chps. Six, Nine). Second, the gradual development of organs and structures of extreme complexity, such as the vertebrate eye, an organ which had since Antiquity served as a mainstay of the argument for external teleological design (Chp. Six). Third, the evolution of the elaborate instincts of animals and the puzzling problem of the evolution of social insects that developed sterile neuter castes, proved to be a particularly difficult issue for Darwin in the manuscript phase of his work and needed some account (Chp. Seven). As a fourth major issue needing attention, the traditional distinction between natural species defined by interfertility, and artificial species defined by morphological differences, required an additional chapter of analysis in which he sought to undermine the absolute character of the interbreeding criterion as a sign of fixed natural species (Chp. Eight).

In Chapter Ten, Darwin developed his interpretation of the fossil record. At issue was the claim by Lamarckian and other transformists, as well as Cuvierian catastrophists such as William Buckland (1784–1856) (see the entry on evolutionary thought before Darwin , Section 4.1), that the fossil record displayed a historical sequence beginning with simpler plants and animals, arriving either by transformism or replacement, at the appearance of more complex forms in geological history. Opposition to this thesis of “geological progressionism” had been made by none other than Darwin’s great mentor in geology, Charles Lyell in his Principles of Geology (Lyell 1832 [1990], vol. 2, chp. xi; Desmond 1984; Bowler 1976). Darwin defended the progressionist view against Lyell’s arguments in this chapter.

To each of the lines of objection to his theory, Darwin offered his contemporaries plausible replies. Additional arguments were worked out through the insertion of numerous textual insertions over the five revisions of the Origin between 1860 and 1872, including the addition of a new chapter to the sixth edition dealing with “miscellaneous” objections, responding primarily to the criticisms of St. George Jackson Mivart (1827–1900) developed in his Genesis of Species (Mivart 1871).

For reasons related both to the condensed and summary form of public presentation, and also as a reflection of the bold conceptual sweep of the theory, the primary argument of the Origin could not gain its force from the data presented by the book itself. Instead, it presented an argument from unifying simplicity, gaining its force and achieving assent from the ability of Darwin’s theory to draw together in its final synthesizing chapters (Ten–Thirteen) a wide variety of issues in taxonomy, comparative anatomy, paleontology, biogeography, and embryology under the simple principles worked out in the first four chapters. This “consilience” argument might be seen as the best reflection of the impact of William Whewell’s methodology (see above).

As Darwin envisioned the issue, with the acceptance of his theory, “a grand untrodden field of inquiry will be opened” in natural history. The long-standing issues of species origins, if not the explanation of the ultimate origins of life, as well as the causes of their extinction, had been brought within the domain of naturalistic explanation. It is in this context that he makes the sole reference in the text to the claim that “light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history”. And in a statement that will foreshadow the important issues of the Descent of Man of 1871, he speaks of how “Psychology will be based on a new foundation, that of the necessary acquirement of each mental power and capacity by gradation” (ibid., 488)

3. The Reception of the Origin

The broad sweep of Darwin’s claims, the brevity of the empirical evidence actually supplied in the Origin , and the implications of his theory for several more general philosophical and theological issues, opened up a controversy over Darwinian evolution that has waxed and waned over more than 160 years. The theory was inserted into a complex set of different national and cultural receptions the study of which currently forms a scholarly industry in its own right. European, Latin American and Anglophone receptions have been most deeply studied (Bowler 2013a; Gayon 2013; Largent 2013; Glick 1988, 2013; Glick and Shaffer 2014; Engels and Glick 2008; Gliboff 2008; Numbers 1998; Pancaldi, 1991; Todes 1989; Kelly 1981; Hull 1973; Mullen 1964). To these have been added analyses of non-Western recptions (Jin 2020, 2019 a,b; Yang 2013; Shen 2016; Elshakry 2013; Pusey 1983). These analyses display common patterns in both Western and non-Western readings of Darwin’s theory, in which these receptions were conditioned, if not determined, by the pre-existing intellectual, scientific, religious, social, and political contexts into which his works were inserted.

In the anglophone world, Darwin’s theory fell into a complex social environment that in the United States meant into the pre-Civil War slavery debates (Largent 2013; Numbers 1998). In the United Kingdom it was issued against the massive industrial expansion of mid-Victorian society, and the development of professionalized science. To restrict focus to aspects of the British reading public context, the pre-existing popularity of the anonymous Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation of 1844, which had reached 11 editions and sold 23,350 copies by December of 1860 (Secord “Introduction” to Chambers 1844 [1994], xxvii]), with more editions to appear by the end of the century, certainly prepared the groundwork for the general notion of the evolutionary origins of species by the working of secondary natural laws. The Vestiges ’s grand schema of a teleological development of life, from the earliest beginnings of the solar system in a gaseous nebula to the emergence of humanity under the action of a great “law of development”, had also been popularized for Victorian readers by Alfred Lord Tennyson’s epic poem In Memoriam (1850). This Vestiges backdrop provided a context in which some could read Darwin as supplying additional support for the belief in an optimistic historical development of life under teleological guidance of secondary laws with the promise of ultimate historical redemption. Such readings also rendered the Origin seemingly compatible with the progressive evolutionism of Darwin’s contemporary Herbert Spencer (see the entry on Herbert Spencer ). Because of these similarities, Spencer’s writings served as an important vehicle by which Darwin’s views, modified to fit the progressivist views expounded by Spencer, were first introduced in non-Western contexts (Jin 2020, 2019 a,b; Lightman [ed.] 2015; Pusey 1983). Such popular receptions ignored or revised Darwin’s concept of evolution by natural selection to fit these progressivist alternatives.

Outside the United Kingdom, the receptions of Darwin’s work display the importance of local context and pre-existent intellectual and social conditions. Three examples—France, Germany, and China—can be elaborated upon. In France, Darwin’s theory was received against the background of the prior debates over transformism of the 1830s that pitted the theories of Lamarck and Etienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire against Cuvier (Gayon 2013; entry on evolutionary thought before Darwin , 4.1). At least within official French Academic science, these debates had been resolved generally in favor of Cuvier’s anti-transformism. The intellectual framework provided by the “positive philosophy” of Auguste Comte (1798–1857) also worked both for and against Darwin. On one hand, Comte’s emphasis on the historical progress of science over superstition and metaphysics allowed Darwin to be summoned in support of a theory of the progress of science. The Origin was so interpreted in the preface to the first French translation of the Origin made by Clémence Royer (Harvey 2008). On the other hand, the Comtean three stages view of history, with its claim of the historical transcendence of speculative and metaphysical periods of science by a final period of experimental science governed by determinate laws, placed Darwinism in a metaphysical phase of speculative nature philosophy. This view is captured by the assessment of the leading physiologist and methodologist of French Science, Claude Bernard (1813–78). As he stated this in his 1865 treatise on scientific methodology, Darwin’s theory was to be regarded with those of “a Goethe, an Oken, a Carus, a Geoffroy Saint Hilaire”, locating it within speculative philosophy of nature rather than granting it the status of “positive” science (Bernard 1865 [1957], 91–92]).

In the Germanies, Darwin’s work entered a complex social, intellectual and political situation in the wake of the failed efforts to establish a liberal democracy in 1848. It also entered an intellectual culture strongly influenced by the pre-existent philosophical traditions of Kant, Schelling’s Naturphilosophie , German Romanticism, and the Idealism of Fichte and Hegel (R. J. Richards 2002, 2008, 2013; Gliboff 2007, 2008; Mullen 1964). These factors formed a complex political and philosophical environment into which Darwin’s developmental view of nature and theory of the transformation of species was quickly assimilated, if also altered. Many readings of Darwin consequently interpreted his arguments against the background of Schelling’s philosophy of nature. The marshalling of Darwin’s authority in debates over scientific materialism were also brought to the fore by the enthusiastic advocacy of Darwinism in Germany by University of Jena professor of zoology Ernst Heinrich Haeckel (1834–1919). More than any other individual, Haeckel made Darwinismus a major player in the polarized political and religious disputes of Bismarckian Germany (R. J. Richards 2008). Through his polemical writings, such as the Natural History of Creation (1868), Anthropogeny (1874), and Riddle of the Universe (1895–99), Haeckel advocated a materialist monism in the name of Darwin, and used this as a stick with which to beat traditional religion. Much of the historical conflict between religious communities and evolutionary biology can be traced back to Haeckel’s polemical writings, which went through numerous editions and translations, including several English and American editions that appeared into the early decades of the twentieth century.

To turn to a very different context, that of China, Darwin’s works entered Chinese discussions by a curious route. The initial discussions of Darwinian theory were generated by the translation of Thomas Henry Huxley’s 1893 Romanes Lecture “Evolution and Ethics” by the naval science scholar Yan Fu (1854–1921), who had encountered Darwinism while being educated at the Royal Naval College in Greenwich from 1877 to 1879. This translation of Huxley’s lecture, published in 1898 under the name of Tianyan Lun , was accompanied with an extensive commentary by Yan Fu that drew heavily upon the writings of Herbert Spencer which Yan Fu placed in opposition to the arguments of Huxley. This work has been shown to have been the main vehicle by which the Chinese learned indirectly of Darwin’s theory (Jin 2020, 2019 a, b; Yang 2013; Pusey 1983). In the interpretation of Yan Fu and his allies, such as Kan Yuwei (1858–1927), Darwinism was given a progressivist interpretation in line with aspects of Confucianism.

Beginning in 1902, a second phase of Darwinian reception began with a partial translation of the first five chapters of the sixth edition of the Origin by the Chinese scientist, trained in chemistry and metallurgy in Japan and Germany, Ma Junwu (1881–1940). This partial translation, published between 1902 and 1906, again modified the text itself to agree with the progressive evolutionism of Spencer and with the progressivism already encountered in Yan Fu’s popular Tianyan Lun. Only in September of 1920 did the Chinese have Ma Junwu’s full translation of Darwin’s sixth edition. This late translation presented a more faithful rendering of Darwin’s text, including an accurate translation of Darwin’s final views on natural selection (Jin 2019 a, b). As a political reformer and close associate of democratic reformer Sun Yat-Sen (1866–1925), Ma Junwu’s interest in translating Darwin was also was involved with his interest in revolutionary Chinese politics (Jin 2019a, 2022).

The reception of the Origin by those who held positions of professional research and teaching positions in universities, leadership positions in scientific societies, and employment in museums, was complex. These individuals were typically familiar with the empirical evidence and the technical scientific issues under debate in the 1860s in geology, comparative anatomy, embryology, biogeography, and classification theory. This group can usually be distinguished from lay interpreters who may not have made distinctions between the views of Lamarck, Chambers, Schelling, Spencer, and Darwin on the historical development of life.

If we concentrate attention on the reception by these professionals, Darwin’s work received varied endorsement (Hull 1973). Many prominent members of Darwin’s immediate intellectual circle—Adam Sedgwick, William Whewell, Charles Lyell, Richard Owen, and Thomas Huxley—had previously been highly critical of Chambers’s Vestiges in the 1840s for its speculative character and its scientific incompetence (Secord 2000). Darwin himself feared a similar reception, and he recognized the substantial challenge facing him in convincing this group and the larger community of scientific specialists with which he interacted and corresponded widely. With this group he was only partially successful.

Historical studies have revealed that only rarely did members of the scientific elites accept and develop Darwin’s theories exactly as they were presented in his texts. Statistical studies on the reception by the scientific community in England in the first decade after the publication of the Origin have shown a complicated picture in which there was neither wide-spread conversion of the scientific community to Darwin’s views, nor a clear generational stratification between younger converts and older resisters, counter to Darwin’s own predictions in the final chapter of the Origin (Hull et al. 1978). These studies also reveal a distinct willingness within the scientific community to separate acceptance of Darwin’s more general claim of species descent with modification from common ancestors from the endorsement of his explanation of this descent through the action of natural selection on slight morphological variations.

Of central importance in analyzing this complex professional reception was the role assigned by Darwin to the importance of normal individual variation as the source of evolutionary novelty. As we have seen, Darwin had relied on the novel claim that small individual variations—the kind of differences considered by an earlier tradition as merely “accidental”—formed the raw material upon which, by cumulative directional change under the action of natural selection, major changes could be produced sufficient to explain the origin and subsequent differences in all the various forms of life over time. Darwin, however, left the specific causes of this variation unspecified beyond some effect of the environment on the sexual organs. Variation was presented in the Origin with the statement that “the laws governing inheritance are quite unknown” (Darwin 1859 [1964], 13). In keeping with his commitment to the gradualism of Lyellian geology, Darwin also rejected the role of major “sports” or other sources of discontinuous change in this process.

As critics focused their attacks on the claim that such micro-differences between individuals could be accumulated over time without natural limits, Darwin began a series of modifications and revisions of the theory through a back and forth dialogue with his critics that can be followed in his revisions to the text of the Origin . In the fourth edition of 1866, for example, Darwin inserted the claim that the continuous gradualism depicted by his branching diagram was misleading, and that transformative change does not necessarily go on continuously. “It is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification” (Darwin 1866, 132; Peckham 2006, 213). This change-stasis-change model allowed variation to stabilize for a period of time around a mean value from which additional change could then resume. Such a model would, however, presumably require even more time for its working than the multi-millions of years assumed in the original presentation of the theory.

The difficulties in Darwin’s arguments that had emerged by 1866 were highlighted in a lengthy and telling critique in 1867 by the Scottish engineer Henry Fleeming Jenkin (1833–1885) (typically Fleeming Jenkin). Using an argument previously raised in the 1830s by Charles Lyell against Lamarck, Fleeming Jenkin cited empirical evidence from domestic breeding that suggested a distinct limitation on the degree to which normal variation could be added upon by selection (Fleeming Jenkin 1867 in Hull 1973). Using a loosely mathematical argument, Fleeming Jenkin argued that the effects of intercrossing would continuously swamp deviations from the mean values of characters and result in a tendency of the variation in a population to return to mean values over time. It is also argued that domestic evidence does not warrant an argument for species change. For Fleeming Jenkin, Darwin’s reliance on continuous additive deviation was presumed to be undermined by these arguments, and only more dramatic and discontinuous change—something Darwin explicitly rejected—could account for the origin of new species.

Fleeming Jenkin also argued that the time needed by Darwin’s theory to account for the history of life under the gradual working of natural selection was simply unavailable from scientific evidence, supporting this claim by an appeal to the physical calculations of the probable age of the solar system presented in publications by his mentor, the Glasgow physicist William Thompson (Lord Kelvin, 1824–1907) (Burchfield 1975). On the basis of Thompson’s quantitative physical arguments concerning the age of the sun and solar system, Fleeming Jenkin judged the time since the presumed first beginnings of life to be insufficient for the Darwinian gradualist theory of species transformation to have taken place.

Jenkin’s multi-pronged argument gave Darwin considerable difficulties and set the stage for more detailed empirical inquiries into variation and its causes by Darwin’s successors. The time difficulties were only resolved in the twentieth-century with the discovery of radioactivity that could explain why the sun did not lose heat in accord with Newtonian principles.

As a solution to the variation question, Darwin developed his “provisional hypothesis” of pangenesis, which he presented the year after the appearance of the Fleeming Jenkin review in his two-volume Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication (Darwin 1868; Olby 2013). Although this theory had been formulated independently of the Jenkin review (Olby 1963), in effect it functioned as Darwin’s reply to Jenkin’s critique. The pangenesis theory offered a causal theory of variation and inheritance through a return to a theory resembling Buffon’s theory of the organic molecules proposed in the previous century (see entry on evolutionary thought before Darwin section 3.2). Invisible material “gemmules” were presumed to exist within the cells. According to theory, these were subject to external alteration by the environment and other external causes. The gemmules were then shed continually into the blood stream (the “transport” hypothesis) and assembled by “mutual affinity for each other, leading to their aggregation either into buds or into the sexual elements” (Darwin 1868, vol. 2, 375). In this form they were then transmitted—the details were not explained—by sexual generation to the next generation to form the new organism out of “the modified physiological units of which the organism is built” (ibid., 377). In Darwin’s view, this hypothesis united together numerous issues into a coherent and causal theory of inheritance and explained the basis of variation. It also explained how use-disuse inheritance, a theory which Darwin never abandoned, could work.

The pangenesis theory, although not specifically referred to, seems to be behind an important distinction Darwin inserted into the fifth edition of the Origin of 1869 in his direct reply to the criticisms of Jenkin. In this textual revision, Darwin distinguished “certain variations, which no one would rank as mere individual differences”, from ordinary variations (Darwin1869, 105; Peckham 2006, 178–179). This revision shifted Darwin’s emphasis away from his early reliance on normal slight individual variation, and gave new status to what he now termed “strongly marked” variations. The latter were now the forms of variation to be given primary evolutionary significance. Presumably this strong variation was more likely to be transmitted to the offspring, although details are left unclear, and in this form major variation could presumably be maintained in a population against the tendency to swamping by intercrossing as Fleeming Jenkin had argued.

Darwin’s struggles over this issue defined a set of problems that British life scientists in particular were to deal with into the 1930s. These debates over the role of somatic variation in the evolutionary process placed Darwinism in a defensive posture that forced its supporters into major revisions in the Darwinian research program (Gayon 1998; Vorzimmer 1970). The consequence was a complex period of Darwinian history in which natural selection theory was rejected by many research, or defended in modified form by others (Bowler 1983, 2013a; Largent 2009).

4. Human Evolution and the Descent of Man

Darwin had retained his own conclusions on human evolution quietly in the background through the 1860’s while the defense of his general theory was conducted by advocates as diverse as Thomas Henry Huxley (1825–95) in England, Asa Gray (1810–88) in the United States, and Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919) in the emerging new Germany. Darwin’s own position on the “human question” remained unclear to the reading public, and his rhetorical situating of the Origin within a tradition of divine creation by secondary law, captured in the frontispiece quotations from William Whewell and Francis Bacon, allowed many before 1871 to see Darwin as more open to religious interpretations of human origins than those of some of his popularizers.

Darwin’s interest in developing his insights into the origins of human beings and the explanation of human properties through descent with modification was, however, evident in his correspondence as early as January of 1860 when he began collecting evidence on the expressions of the emotions in human beings (Browne 2002, chp. 9). He then developed a questionnaire specifically intended to gain such information from contacts in Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego (Radick 2018). Further engagement with these issues was then generated by the discussions of Lyell (1863) and A. R. Wallace (1864), both of whom suggested that natural selection could not account for the development of the “higher” rational faculties, language, and ethical motivation (R. J. Richards 1987, chp. 4). It was then in February of 1867 that Darwin decided to remove material from his massive manuscript of the Variation of Plants and Animals Under Domestication to create a “very small volume, ‘an essay on the origin of mankind’” (Darwin to Hooker, 8 February 1867 and CD to Turner, 11 February 1867, Burkhardt, Correspondence 15: 74, 80). At this time he also sent to several international correspondents a more detailed questionnaire asking for information on human emotional expression. Further impetus to develop his views was created by the arguments of William R. Greg (1809–1881) in an essay in Fraser’s Magazine (1868), with further support by arguments of A. R. Wallace in 1869, both of whom drew a sharp distinction between human properties and those of animals (R. J. Richards 1987, 172–184). These arguments denied that natural selection could explain the origins of these “higher powers”.

Darwin’s drafting of his views on human issues, begun in early 1868, expanded into a major enterprise in which he became deeply engaged with the issue of the implications of his theory for ethics. The result of this effort devoted to anthropological topics was two separate works: the Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex , delivered to the publisher in June of 1870 with publication in 1871, and its companion, Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals , which he commenced in early 1871 with publication in early 1872.

As commentators have noted, these two works differ markedly in their arguments, and reflect different relationships to Darwin’s causal theories of natural and sexual selection, with sexual selection predominting over natural selection for the major portion of the Descent , and both of these causal theories generally missing from the descriptive approach of the Expression (Radick 2018).

Sexual selection—the choosing of females by males or vice versa for breeding purposes—had received a general statement by Darwin in Chapter IV of the Origin , but this played only a minor role in the original argument, and its importance was denied by co-evolutionist A. R. Wallace. In the Descent this was now developed in extensive detail as a major factor in evolution that could even work against ordinary natural selection. Sexual selection could be marshaled to explain sexual dimorphism, and also the presence of unusual characters and properties of organisms—elaborate feeding organs, bright colors, and other seemingly maladaptive structures such as the antlers on the Irish Elk or the great horn on the Rhinoceros beetle—that would appear anomalous outcomes of ordinary natural selection working for the optimal survival of organisms in nature. In a dramatic extension of the principle to human beings, the combination of natural and sexual selection is used to explain the origins of human beings from simian ancestors. It also accounts for the sexual dimorphism in humans, and is a major factor accounting for the origin of human races (E. Richards 2017; R. A. Richards 2013).

Although the secondary causal role of sexual selection in the development of species generally was to be the main topic of the bulk of the Descent , this plays an ambiguous role initially in the “treatise on man” that occupies the initial chapters, and functions differently in his treatment of the origins of mental powers, the moral sense, and the origin of races in this opening discussion.

In constructing this presentation, Darwin reaches back to the early Notebooks that he had separated out from the “transformist” discussions to deal with his inquiries into ethics, psychology, and emotions (see Section 1.2 above). Of particular importance for the opening discussions of the Descent was the “M” notebook, commenced in July of 1838, and “N”, begun in October of that year. On occasion he also samples the collection of entries now entitled “Old and Useless Notes”, generally written between 1838 and 1840.

The initial topic of focus in the Descent deals with the far-reaching issues concerning the status and origin of human mental properties, faculties presumed traditionally to be possessed uniquely by human beings. These properties Darwin now places on an evolutionary continuum with those features of animal behavior long regarded as instinctual. In this he placed himself in opposition to the long tradition of discourse that had distinguished humans from animals due to the possession of a “rational principle” related to their possession of a rational soul. This tradition had been given a more radical foundation in the revolutionary reflections on the relation of mind and body initiated by René Descartes (1596–1650) in the middle of the seventeenth century. Descartes deepened this distinction with the separation of the two substances—thinking substance, or res cogitans , possessed only by humans, and extended material substance, res extensa that constituted the rest of the natural world, including animals and plants, rendering animals only lifeless machines without rational faculties.

Darwin’s collapse of this Cartesian barrier with his theory of human origins outlined in the Descent continued a discussion that had been a concern of his transformist predecessors, especially Jean Baptiste Lamarck (Sloan 1999). But Darwin took this issue to a new level as he interpreted the human-animal relationship in the context of his novel theory of divergent evolution from common ancestors. Darwin also broke with the view of humans as the summit of a natural teleological process. Darwin instead denies such teleological ordering, and effectively reduces human properties to those of animals—mental as well as physical—by tracing them to their origin in properties of lower organisms.

The warrant for the identification of human and animal mental properties, however, is not supported by substantial argumentation in the Descent. The opening discussions of the treatise summarize the anatomical evidence for “homologies” —true identities—between humans and animals due to descent from common ancestors, claims already set out in Chapter Thirteen of the Origin. But the transferal of this identity of structure to inner non-anatomical “mental” properties rested on premises that are not made explicit in this text, and were not identities drawn by Huxley, Wallace and Lyell, for example, in their treatments of humans in relation to evolutionary theory, although they acknowledged the anatomical continuities.

To understand Darwin’s arguments, it is useful to return to his Notebook discussions on which he was drawing for his reasoning (see above, Section 1.2). In his “C” Notebook, opened in February of 1838, Darwin has a remarkable entry that displays very early on his commitment to a metaphysical “monism”—the thesis that there is only one substance underlying both mind and body. With this goes the thesis of a parallelism of the complexity of mental properties with those of material structure. In this entry in “C” following on Darwin’s reflections on the issue of instinct, and also recording some of his observations on animals at the Regents Park zoological gardens, Darwin comments:

There is one living spirit, prevalent over this wor[l]d, (subject to certain contingencies of organic matter & chiefly heat), which assumes a multitude of forms <<each having acting principle>> according to subordinate laws.—There is one thinking […] principle (intimately allied to one kind of organic matter—brain. & which <prin> thinking principle. seems to be given or assumed according to a more extended relations [ sic ] of the individuals, whereby choice with memory, or reason ? is necessary.—) which is modified into endless forms, bearing a close relation in degree & kind to the endless forms of the living beings.— We see thus Unity in thinking and acting principle in the various shades of <dif> separation between those individuals thus endowed, & the community of mind, even in the tendency to delicate emotions between races, & recurrent habits in animals.— (Barrett 1987, 305)

As we follow these issues into the “M” Notebook, the assumption of a single “thinking principle,” allied to one kind of organic matter, seems then to underlie Darwin’s subsequent reflections on mind and matter. The “M” Notebook cites numerous “mental”properties common to humans and animals that generally parallel levels of material organization, similar to the identities expressed in the later Descent. The range of this universal extension of mental properties is far-reaching in these early discussions: consciousness and “free will” extends to all animals, including invertebrates:

With respect to free will, seeing a puppy playing cannot doubt that they have free will, if so all animals., then an oyster has & a polype (& a plant in some senses […]; now free will of oyster, one can fancy to be direct effect of organization, by the capacities its senses give it of pain or pleasure, if so free will is to mind, what chance is to matter […] (Barrett 1987, 536).

When these themes reappear in Chapter Two of the first edition of the Descent , Darwin seems to draw implicitly upon this matter-mind identity theory as an obvious consequence of his theory of descent from common ancestry. There he enumerates a long list of traditional human mental and emotional properties to claim that each of them are identities with the properties of simpler forms of life. The list is expansive: courage, deceit, play, kindness, maternal affection, self-complacency, pride, shame, sense of honor, wonder, dread, imitation, imagination, and dreaming. All are considered to be represented in a wide range of animals, with “play”and “recognition” found even in the ants.

When he addresses the more complex mental properties that specifically had been considered by a long tradition of discussion to be the distinctive human properties—possession of language, reason, abstract conceptual thinking, self-reflection—these again are treated as having their manifestations in other forms of life, with none of them unique to human beings. Language, the property that Descartes, for example, had considered to be the primary distinguishing character denoting the human possession of mind as distinct from matter, Darwin treats a developing in a gradual process from animal sounds that parallel the differentiation of species, illustrated by the fact that languages “like organic beings, can be classed in groups under groups” (Darwin 1871 [1981], 60). He closes his discussion of mental powers with an analysis of religious belief that derives it from imagination and belief in spirits found in aboriginal peoples. It can even be homologized with the “deep love of a dog for his master, associated with complete submissions, some fear, and perhaps other feelings” (ibid., 68). Darwin’s discussions of the relation of human and animal mental and emotional properties would set the agenda for a complex discussion that would carry into contemporary debates over animal cognition and the relations of human and animal properties (see the entries on animal cognition ; methods in comparative cognition ; and animal consciousness ).

The subsequent treatment of ethical issues in the third chapter of the Descent was for Darwin a topic to be approached “exclusively from the side of natural history” (ibid., 71). This issue also presented him with some of his most difficult conceptual problems (CD to Gray, 15 March 1870, Burkhardt, Correspondence 18, 68). In this discussion he also employs natural selection theory as an explanatory cause.

Under the heading of “Moral Sense”, Darwin offered some innovations in ethics that do not easily map on to standard ethical positions classified around the familiar categories of Rule or Act Utilitarianism, Kantian Deontology, Hedonism, and Emotivism. Darwin’s closest historical affinities are with the Scottish “Moral Sense” tradition of Frances Hutcheson (1694–1746), Adam Smith (1723?–1790), and David Hume (1711–1776). More immediately Darwin drew from the expositions of the moral sense theory by his distant relative, Sir James Macintosh (1765–1832) (R. J. Richards 1987, 114–122, 206–219).

Traditional moral sense theory linked ethical behavior to an innate property that was considered to be universal in human beings, although it required education and cultivation to reach its full expression (see the entry on moral sentimentalism ). This inherent property, or “moral” sense, presumably explained such phenomena as ethical conscience, the sense of moral duty, and it accounted for altruistic actions that could not be reduced to hedonic seeking of pleasure and avoiding pain. It also did not involve the rational calculation of advantage, or the maximization of greatest happiness by an individual prior to action, as implied by Utilitarianism. For this reason Darwin criticized John Stuart Mill’s version of Utilitarian theory because it relied on acquired habits and the calculation of advantage (Darwin 1871 [1981], 71n5).

Darwin’s reinterpretation of the moral sense tradition within his evolutionary framework also implied important transfomations of this theory of ethics. The moral sense was not to be distinguished from animal instinct but was instead derived historically from the social instincts and developed by natural selection. From this perspective, Darwin could claim a genuine identity of ethical foundations holding between humans and animals, with the precursors of human ethical behavior found in the behavior of other animals, particularly those with social organization. Natural selection then shaped these ethical instincts in ways that favored group survival over immediate individual benefit (ibid., 98). Human ethical behavior is therefore grounded in a natural property developed by natural selection, with the consequence that ethical actions can occur without moral calculus or rational deliberation.

When moral conflict occurs, this is generally attributed to a conflict of instincts, with the stronger of two conflicting instincts favored by natural selection insofar as it favors group benefit (ibid. 84). In human beings the “more enduring Social Instincts” thus come to override the less persistent “individual” instincts.

The adequacy of evolutionary ethical naturalism as a foundation for ethical realism proved to be a point of contention for Darwin’s contemporaries and successors following the publication of the Descent . For some moral philosophers, Darwin had simply reduced ethics to a property subject to the relativizing tendencies of natural selection (Farber 1994: chp. 5). It was, in the view of Darwin’s philosophical critics, to reduce ethics to biology and in doing so, to offer no way to distinguish ethical goods from survival advantages. Not even for some strong supporters of Darwinism, such as Thomas Huxley and Alfred Russel Wallace, was Darwin’s account adequate (ibid., chp. 4). Much of subsequent development of moral philosophy after Darwin would be grounded upon the canonical acceptance of the “is-ought” distinction, which emerged with new force from the critique of “evolutionary” ethical theory. This critique began with Thomas Huxley’s own break with Darwinian ethical theory in his Romanes Lecture, “Evolution and Ethics”of 1893 (Huxley 1893). This lecture, reflecting Huxley’s views eleven years after Darwin’s death, would play an important role in the Chinese reception of Darwinism (Huxley 1895; see above, section 3.1). This line of critique also received an influential academic expression in G. E. Moore’s (1873–1958) Principia Ethica —itself an attack on Spencer’s version of evolutionary ethics (Moore 1903). Debates over the adequacy of evolutionary ethics continue into the present (see the entries on biological altruism and morality and evolutionary biology ; see also, R. J. Richards 2015, 2009, 1999, 1987, Appendix 2; Charmetant 2013; Boniolo and DeAnna (eds.) 2006; Hauser 2006; Katz (ed.) 2000; Maienschein and Ruse (eds.) 1999).

4.4 Reception of the Descent

The international reception of the Descent of Man and Expression of the Emotions is a topic in need of the kind of detailed studies that surround the historical impact of the Origin. These works presented the reading public after 1871 with a more radical and controversial Darwin than had been associated with the author of the popular Journal of Researches or even the Origin itself, and his anthropological works created a watershed in the public reception of Darwin’s views (Radick 2013). The Descent finally made public Darwin’s more radical conclusions about human origins, and seemed to many of his readers, even those previously sympathetic to the Origin , to throw Darwin’s authority behind materialist and anti-religious forces. Public knowledge of Darwin’s own conclusions on human evolution before 1871 had rested on the one vague sentence on the issue in the Origin itself. The Descent made public his more radical conclusions. Even though the question of human evolution had already been dealt with in part by Thomas Huxley in his Man’s Place in Nature of 1863 (Huxley 1863), and by Charles Lyell in the same year in his Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (Lyell 1863), followed by Alfred Russel Wallace’s articles in 1864 and 1870 (Wallace 1864 and online), these authors had either not dealt with the full range of questions presented by the inclusion of human beings in the evolutionary process, or they had emphasized the moral and mental discontinuity between humans and animals. Only Ernst Heinrich Haeckel had drawn out a more general reductive conception of humanity from evolutionary theory and he had not ventured into the specific issues of ethics, social organization, the origins of human races, and the relation of human mental properties to those of animals, all of which are dealt with in the Descent . Darwin’s treatise presented, as one commentator has put it, “a closer resemblance to Darwin’s early naturalistic vision than anything else he ever published” (Durant 1985, 294).

Darwin’s extension of his theory to a range of questions traditionally discussed within philosophy, theology, and social and political theory, has shaped the more general history of Darwinism since the 1870s. It set the agenda for much of the development of psychology of the late nineteenth century (R. J. Richards 1987). It also hardened the opposition of many religiously-based communities against evolutionary theory, although here again, distinctions must be made between different communities (Ellegård 1990, chp. 14). Such opposition was not simply based upon the denial of the literal scriptural account of the origins of humankind, an issue that played out differently within the main religious denominations (Haught 2013; Finnegan 2013; Swetlitz 2013; Artigas, Glick, & Martinez 2006; Moore 1979). The more fundamental opposition was due to the denial of distinctions, other than those of degree, between fundamental human properties and those of animals.

Furthermore, the apparent denial of some kind of divine guidance in the processes behind human evolution and the non-teleological character of Darwin’s final formulations of the natural selection theory in the fifth and sixth editions of the Origin , hardened this opposition. His adoption from Herbert Spencer of designator “survival of the fittest” as a synonym for “natural selection” in the fifth edition of 1869 added to this growing opposition. As a consequence, the favorable readings that many influential religious thinkers—John Henry Newman (1801–1890) is a good example—had given to the original Origin , disappeared. The rhetoric of the Descent , with its conclusion that “man is descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears” (Darwin 1871 [1981], 389), presented to the public a different Darwin than many had associated with the popular seagoing naturalist.

The new opposition to Darwin is reflected in the many hostile reviews of the Descent to appear in the periodical press (R. J. Richards 1987, 219–230). Particularly at issue were Darwin’s accounts of the origin of ethical principles and intelletual powers, including language, self-reflection, abstract thinking and religious belief as derivations from animal properties (Anon. 1871)

The profound revolution in thought that Darwin created, however, was eventually recognized even by his one-time harsh critics. The once leading British comparative anatomist Richard Owen (1804–1892), who had long been estranged from Darwin since his harsh review of the Origin in 1860, nonetheless could comment on the occasion of Darwin’s burial in Westminster Abbey in a letter to Horace Walpole:

The great value of Darwin’s series of works, summarizing all the evidence of Embryology, Paleontology, & Physiology experimentally applied in producing Varieties of Species, is exemplified in the general acceptance by Biologists of the Secondary Law, by Evolution, of the ‘Origin of Species’ […] In this respect Charles Darwin stands to Biology in the relation which Copernicus stood to Astronomy. […] [Copernicus] knew not how the planets revolved around the sun. To know that required the successive labours of a Galileo, a Kepler and finally a Newton […] Meanwhile our British Copernicus of Biology merits the honour and the gratitude of the Empire, which is manifest by a Statue in Westminster Abbey. (Richard Owen to Horace Walpole, 5 November, 1882, Royal College of Surgeons of England Archives, MS0025/1/5/4).

The subsequent history of the debates surrounding Darwin’s achievement forms a complex story that involves much of the history of life science, as well as ethical theory, psychology, philosophy, theology and social theory since 1870. For a general summary of recent scholarship see Ruse 2013a and articles from this encyclopedia listed below.

This article has intended to give a historical overview of the specific nature of Darwinian theory, and outline the ways in which it differed from the theories of predecessors in the nineteenth century (see the entry evolution before Darwin ). The eventual general consensus achieved by the middle of the twentieth century around the so-named “Synthetic” theory of evolution that would combine population genetics with a mathematical analysis of evolutionary change, has formed a successful research program for more than half a century (Smocovitis 1996; Mayr and Provine 1980; Provine 1971). This “synthesis” has been challenged in recent decades by the current movement known as evolutionary developmental theory, or “evo-devo”. This development represents in some important respects a return to presumably discarded traditions and lines of exploration of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries which sought to link evolution with embryological development, and to a complex understanding of genetics, with re-examination of the effects of external conditions on inheritance (Gilbert 2015; Newman 2015; Laubichler and Maienschein 2007; Gissis and Jablonka 2011; Pigliucci and Müller 2010; Amundson 2005; Gilbert, Opitz and Raff 1996). Where these debates and revisions in evolutionary theory may lead in another fifty years is a matter of speculation (Gayon 2015 in Sloan, McKenny and Eggleson 2015).

More general philosophical issues associated with evolutionary theory—those surrounding natural teleology, ethics, the relation of evolutionary naturalism to the claims of religious traditions, the implications for the relation of human beings to the rest of the organic world—continue as issues of scholarly inquiry. The status of Darwin’s accounts of human mental powers and moral properties continue to be issues of philosophical debate. The adequacy of his reliance on sexual selection to explain sex and gender roles in human society form heated topics in some feminist scholarship. Such developments suggest that there are still substantial theoretical issues at stake that may alter the future understanding of evolutionary theory in important ways (Sloan, McKenny, & Eggleson [eds] 2015).

• Amundson, Ron, 2005, The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought: Roots of Evo-Devo , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139164856
• Anon., “Review of the Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex” , Edinburgh Review 134 (July 1871), 195–235.
• Artigas, Mariano, Thomas F. Glick, and Rafael A. Martínez, 2006, Negotiating Darwin: The Vatican Confronts Evolution, 1877–1902 , Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Barrett, Paul H., Peter J. Gautrey, Sandra Herbert, David Kohn, and Sydney Smith (eds.), 1987, Charles Darwin’s Notebooks: 1836–1844 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [online manuscripts at Darwin’s notebooks and reading lists.]
• Beatty, John 1985, “Speaking of Species: Darwin’s Strategy”, in Kohn 1985a: 265–281. doi:10.1515/9781400854714.265
• Bernard, Claude, 1865 [1957], Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine , translated Henry Copley Greene, New York: Dover. Originally published in 1927, New York:Macmillan. [ Bernard 1865 available online ]
• Boniolo, Giovanni and Gabriele De Anna (eds.) 2006, Evolutionary Ethics an Contemporary Biology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Bowlby, John, 1990, Charles Darwin: A New Life , New York: Norton.
• Bowler, Peter J., 1976, Fossils and Progress: Paleontology and the Idea of Progressive Evolution in the Nineteenth Century , New York: Science History.
• –––, 1983, The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900 , Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• –––, 1990, Charles Darwin: The Man and His Influence , Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 1996, Life’s Splendid Drama: Evolutionary Biology and the Reconstruction of Life’s Ancestry, 1860–1940 , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2013a, “Darwinism in Britain”, in Ruse 2013a: 218–225. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.028
• Browne, Janet, 1995, Charles Darwin: Voyaging , New York: Knopf.
• –––, 2002, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Burchfield, Joe D., 1975, Lord Kelvin and the Age of the Earth , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Burkhardt, Frederick et al., (eds.), 1985–2023, The Correspondence of Charles Darwin , 30 volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Chambers, Robert, 1844 [1994], Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation , facsimile reprint of first edition, J. Secord (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [ Chambers 1844 available online ]
• Charmetant, Erin. 2013,“Darwin and Ethics”, in Ruse 2013a, 188–194.
• Darwin, Charles Robert, 1836–1844 [1987], Charles Darwin’s Notebooks: 1836–1844 , Paul H. Barrett, Peter J. Gautrey, Sandra Herbert, David Kohn, and Sydney Smith (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. See also the Darwin Online section on Darwin’s notebooks and reading lists .
• –––, 1856–1858 [1974], Charles Darwin’s “Natural Selection”, Being the Second Part of his Big Species Book Written from 1856 to 1858 , R.C. Stauffer (ed.), 1974, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Natural Selection 1974 available online ]
• –––, 1842 [1996], “1842 Sketch On Selection Under Domestication, Natural Selection, and Organic Beings in the Wild State”, selection in Glick and Kohn 1996, 89–99.
• –––, 1844a [1996], “1844 Essay: Variation of Organic Beings in the Wild State”, in Glick and Kohn 1996, 99–115.
• –––, 1859 [1964], On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection , London: Murray. Facsimile reprint, ed. E. Mayr Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press [ Origin first edition available online ]
• –––, 1860, second edition [ Origin second edition available online ]
• –––, 1861, third edition, [ Origin third edition available online ]
• –––, 1862, first French edition, De l’origine des espèces , Clémence Royer (trans.), Paris: Guillaumin. [ Origin French first edition available online ]
• –––, 1866, fourth edition, [ Origin fourth edition available online ]
• –––, 1869, fifth edition, [ Origin fifth edition available online ]
• –––, 1872, sixth edition, [ Origin sixth edition available online
• –––, 1868, The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication , two volumes, London: John Murray. First edition available online
• –––, 1871 [1981], The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex , two volumes, London: John Murray. Reprinted, ed John T. Bonner and Robert May, Princeton: Princeton University Press [ Descent 1871 available online ]
• –––, 1872, Expression of the Emotions in Man and the Animals , London: John Murray. [ Expression available online ]
• Depew, David J., 2009, “The Rhetoric of the Origin of Species”, in Ruse and Richards 2009: 237–255. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521870795.015
• Depew, David J. and Bruce H. Weber, 1995, Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Desmond, Adrian J., 1984, Archetypes and Ancestors: Palaeontology in Victorian London, 1850–1875 , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, and James R. Moore, 1991, Darwin , London: Michael Joseph.
• –––, and James R. Moore, 2009, Darwin’s Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution , Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt.
• Durant, John R., 1985, “The Ascent of Nature in Darwin’s Descent of Man ”, in Kohn 1985a: 283–306. doi:10.1515/9781400854714.283
• Ellegård, Alvar, 1990, Darwin and the General Reader; the Reception of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in the British Periodical Press, 1859–1872 , reprint of 1958 edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Elshakry, Marwa, 2013, Reading Darwin in Arabic, 1860–1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Engels, Eve-Marie and Thomas F. Glick (eds.), 2008, The Reception of Charles Darwin in Europe , London/New York: Continuum.
• Farber, Paul Lawrence, 1994, The Temptations of Evolutionary Ethics , Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Finnegan, Diarmid A., 2013, “Darwin and Protestantism”, in Ruse 2013a: 468–475. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.060
• Gayon, Jean, 1998, Darwinism’s Struggle for Survival: Heredity and the Hypothesis of Natural Selection , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2013, “Darwin and Darwinism in France before 1900”, in Ruse 2013a: 243–249. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.031
• –––, 2015, “What Future for Darwinism?”, in Sloan, McKenny and Eggleson 2015: 404–423.
• Gilbert, Scott F., 2015, “Evolution Through Developmental Change”, in Sloan, McKenny, & Eggleson 2015: 35–60.
• –––, John M. Opitz, and Rudolf A. Raff, 1996, “Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology”, Developmental Biology , 173 (2): 357–372. doi:10.1006/dbio.1996.0032
• Gissis, Snait B. and Eva Jablonka (eds.), 2011, Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology , (Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Gliboff, Sander, 2007, “H. G. Bronn and the History of Nature”, Journal of the History of Biology , 40 (2): 259–294. doi:10.1007/s10739-006-9114-4
• –––, 2008, H. G. Bronn, Ernst Haeckel, and the Origins of German Darwinism: A Study in Translation and Transformation , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Glick, Thomas F. (ed.), 1988, The Comparative Reception of Darwinism , New edition with new preface, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2013, “Darwinism in Latin America”, in Ruse 2013a: 258–263. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.033
• –––, and Elinor S. Shaffer (eds.), 2014, The Literary and Cultural Reception of Charles Darwin in Europe , London: Bloomsbury.
• –––, and David Kohn (eds.), 1996, On Evolution: The Development of the Theory of Natural Selection , Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
• Gray, Asa, 1860, “Review: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection”, American Journal of Science and Arts , series 2, 29: 153–184, written anonymously. doi:10.2475/ajs.s2-29.86.153 [ Gray 1860 available online ]
• Haeckel, Ernst, 1868 [1876], Natürliche Schöpfungsgeschichte , Berlin: G. Reimer. Translated as The History of Creation , two volumes, London: Henry S. King.
• –––, 1874 [1879], Anthropogenie oder Entwickelungsgeschichte des Menschen , translated as The Evolution of Man: A Popular Exposition of the Principal Points of Human Ontogeny and Phylogeny. New York: Appleton.
• –––, 1895–99 [1901], Die Welträthsel ( Riddle of the Universe ). Translated by Joseph McCabe, New York/London: Harper and Brothers.
• Harvey, Joy, 2008, “Darwin in French Dress: Translating, Publishing and Supporting Darwin in Nineteenth-Century France”, in Engels and Glick 2008: 354–374.
• Hauser, Marc D., 2006, Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong , New York: Ecco.
• Haught, John F., 2013, “Darwin and Catholicism”, in Ruse 2013a: 485–492. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.062
• Herbert, Sandra, 2005, Charles Darwin, Geologist , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Herschel, John F. W., 1830 [1987], A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy , reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [ Herschel 1830 available online ]
• Hodge, Jonathan [M.J.S.}, 1977, “The Structure and Strategy of Darwin’s ‘Long Argument’”, British Journal for the History of Science , 10(3): 237. doi:10.1017/S0007087400015685
• –––,1983a, “Darwin and the Laws of the Animate Part of the Terrestrial System (1835–1837): On the Lyellian Origins of His Zoonomical Explanatory Program”, Studies in the History of Biology , 6: 1–106.
• –––, 1983b, “The Development of Darwin’s General Biological Theorizing”, in D. S. Bendall, Evolution From Molecules to Men , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 43–62.
• –––, 1985, “Darwin as a Lifelong Generation Theorist”, in Kohn 1985a: 207–243. doi:10.1515/9781400854714.207
• –––, 2009, “The Notebook Programmes and Projects of Darwin’s London Years”, in Hodge and Radick 2009: 44–72, doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521884754.003
• –––, 2013a, “The Origins of the Origin ”, in Ruse 2013a: 64–71. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.007
• –––, 2013b, “Darwin’s Book: On the Origin of Species ”, Science and Education , 22(9): 2267–2294. doi:10.1007/s11191-012-9544-7
• –––, and Gregory Radick (eds.), 2009, The Cambridge Companion to Darwin , Second edition, 2009, doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521884754.
• Hoquet, Thierry, 2013, “The Evolution of the Origin (1859–1872)”, in Ruse 2013a: 158–164. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.020
• Hösle, Vittorio and Christian Illies (eds.), 2005, Darwinism and Philosophy , Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Hull, David L. (ed.), 1973, Darwin and His Critics: The Reception of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by the Scientific Community , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2009, “Darwin’s Science and Victorian Philosophy of Science”, in Hodge and Gregory Radick 2009: 173–196, doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521884754.008
• –––, Peter D. Tessner, and Arthur M. Diamond, 1978, “Planck’s Principle”, Science , 202(4369): 717–723. doi:10.1126/science.202.4369.717
• Huxley, Thomas Henry, 1863, Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature , London: Williams and Norgate. [ Huxley 1863 available online ]
• –––, 1893, “Evolution and Ethics”, London: Macmillan. Romanes lecture.
• –––, 1895, Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays , London: Macmillan. Includes a “Prolegomena”. Parts translated into Chinese by Yan Fu as 天演論 ( Tianyan lun ), 1898. [ Huxley 1895 available online ] [ Yan Fu translation of Huxley 1895 available online ]
• Jenkin, H. Fleeming, 1867 [1973], “[Review] The Origin of Species”, The North British Review , 46 (June): 277–318. Reprinted in Hull 1973: 303–350. [ Jenkin 1867 available online ]
• Jin, Xiaoxing, 2019a, “Darwin in China, 1870–1935”, Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Notre Dame.
• –––, 2019b, “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.
• –––, 2020, “The Evolution of Evolutionism in China, 1870–1930”, Isis 111(1): 46–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/708367.
• –––, 2022, “The Evolution of Social Darwinism in China, 1895–1930”, Comparative Studies in Society and History 64(3): 690–721. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417522000214.
• Johnson, Paul, 2012, Darwin: Portrait of a Genius , New York: Viking.
• Katz, Leonard D. (ed.), 2000, Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives , Exeter, UK: Imprint Academic.
• Kelly, Alfred, 1981, The Descent of Darwin: The Popularization of Darwinism in Germany, 1860–1914 , Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
• Keynes, Richard (ed.), 2000, Charles Darwin’s Zoology Notes & Specimen Lists from H.M.S. Beagle , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ Keynes 2000 available online ]
• Kohn, David (ed.), 1985a, The Darwinian Heritage , Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400854714
• –––, 1985b, “Darwin’s Principle of Divergence as Internal Dialogue”, in Kohn 1985a: 245–257. doi:10.1515/9781400854714.245
• –––, 2009, “Darwin’s Keystone: The Principle of Divergence”, in Ruse and Richards 2009: 87–108, doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521870795.008.
• Laubichler, Manfred Dietrich and Jane Maienschein (eds.), 2007, From Embryology to Evo-Devo: A History of Developmental Evolution , (Dibner Institute Studies in the History of Science and Technology), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• –––, 2013, “Developmental Evolution”, in Ruse 2013a: 375–382. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.048
• Largent, Mark, 2013, “Darwinism in the United States, 1859–1930”, in Ruse 2013a: 226–234.
• –––, 2009. “The So-Called Eclipse of Darwinism”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society , 99(4): 3–21.
• Lennox, James G., 1993, “Darwin Was a Teleologist”, Biology & Philosophy , 8(4): 409–421. doi:10.1007/BF00857687
• –––, 2005, “Darwin’s Methodological Evolution”, Journal of the History of Biology , 38(1): 85–99. doi:10.1007/s10739-004-6511-4
• –––, 2013, “Darwin and Teleology”, in Ruse 2013a: 152–157. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.019
• Lightman, Bernard (ed.), 2015, Global Spencerism: The Communication and Appropriation of a British Evolutionist , Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004264007
• Lyell, Charles, 1830–33 [1990], Principles of Geology , 3 vols. London: Murray, facsimile reprint, ed. Martin J. Rudwick, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1863, The Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man , London: John Murray. [ Lyell 1863 available online ]
• MacPherson, Ryan, 2015, Debating Evolution Before Darwinism: An Exploration of Science and Religion in America, 1844–1859 , Mantako, MN: Into Your Hands Press.
• Maienschein, Jane and Michael Ruse (eds.), 1999, Biology and the Foundation of Ethics , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609077
• Mallet, James, 2013, “Darwin and Species”, in Ruse 2013a: 109–115. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.013
• Malthus, Thomas, 1826, An Essay on the Principle of Population , 6th edition. London.[available online]
• Mayr, Ernst and William B. Provine (eds.), 1980, The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Mivart, St. George Jackson, 1871, On the Genesis of Species , London: MacMillan [available online]
• Moore, George Edward, 1903, Principia Ethica , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [ G.E. Moore 1903 available online ]
• Moore, James R., 1979, The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America 1870–1900 , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511622830
• Mullen, Pierce C., 1964, “The Preconditions and Reception of Darwinian Biology in Germany, 1800–1870”, Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
• Newman, Stuart A., 2015, “The Evolution of Evolutionary Mechanisms”, in Sloan, McKenny, and Eggleson 2015: 61–89.
• Norman, David, 2013, “Charles Darwin’s Geology”, in Ruse 2013a: 46–55. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.005
• Numbers, Ronald L., 1998, Darwinism Comes to America , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Olby, Robert C., 1963, “Charles Darwin’s Manuscript of Pangenesis”, The British Journal for the History of Science , 1(3): 251–263. doi:10.1017/S0007087400001497
• –––, 2013, “Darwin and Heredity”, in Ruse 2013a: 116–123. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.014
• Ospovat, Dov, 1981, The Development of Darwin’s Theory: Natural History, Natural Theology, and Natural Selection , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Pancaldi, Giuliano, 1983 [1991], Darwin in Italia: Impresa scientifica e frontiere culturali , (Saggi 248), Bologna: il Mulino. Translated as Darwin in Italy: Science across Cultural Frontiers , Ruey Brodine Morelli (trans.), Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991.
• Peckham, Morse (ed.), 2006, The Origin of Species: a Variorum Text , Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, reprint of 1959 edition.
• Pigliucci, Massimo and Gerd Müller (eds.), 2010, Evolution, the Extended Synthesis , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Prestes, Maria Elice Brzezinski (ed.), 2023, Understanding Evolution in Darwin ’s ‘Origin’: The Emerging Context of Evolutionary Thinking , Cham: Springer.
• Provine, William B., 1971, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Pusey, James Reeve, 1983, China and Charles Darwin , (Harvard East Asian Monographs 100), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Radick, Gregory, 2013, “Darwin and Humans”, in Ruse 2013a: 173–181. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.022
• Richards, Evelleen, 2017, Darwin and the Making of Sexual Selection , Chicago: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226437064.001.0001
• Richards, Richard A., 2010, The Species Problem: A Philosophical Analysis , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511762222
• –––, 2013, “Sexual Selection”, in Ruse 2013a: 103–108. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.012
• Richards, Robert J., 1987, Darwin and the Emergence of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 1999, “Darwin’s Romantic Biology: The Foundation of His Evolutionary Ethics”, in J. Maienschein and M. Ruse 1999 (eds.) 1999: 113–153. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609077.007
• –––, 2002, The Romantic Conception of Life: Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2005, “Darwin’s Metaphysics of Mind”, in Hösle and Illies 2005, 166–180.
• –––, 2008, The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle Over Evolutionary Thought , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• –––, 2009, “Darwin on Mind, Morals and Emotions”, in Hodge and Radick 2009: 96–119, doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521884754.005
• –––, 2013, “The German Reception of Darwin’s Theory, 1860–1945”, in Ruse 2013a: 235–242. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.030
• –––, 2015, “Darwin’s Evolutionary Ethics: the Empirical and Normative Justifications”, in Sloan, McKenny and Eggleson, 2015, 182–200.
• –––, and Michael Ruse, 2016, Debating Darwin , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Ruse, Michael, 1975, “Darwin’s Debt to Philosophy: An Examination of the Influence of the Philosophical Ideas of John F. W. Herschel and William Whewell on the Development of Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution”, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science , 6: 159–181.
• –––, 2009a, “The Origin of the Origin ”, in Ruse and R. J. Richards 2009: 14–14. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521870795.003
• –––, 2009b, Defining Darwin: Essays on the History and Philosophy of Evolutionary Biology , Amherst, MA: Prometheus Books.
• –––, 2009c, Philosophy After Darwin: Classic and Contemporary Readings , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• ––– (ed.), 2013a, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Darwin and Evolutionary Thought , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895
• –––, 2013b, “Evolution before Darwin”, in Ruse 2013a: 39–45. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.004
• –––, 2013c, “The Origin of Species ”, in Ruse 2013a: 95–102. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.011
• –––, and Robert J. Richards (eds.), 2009, The Cambridge Companion to the “Origin of Species” , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521870795
• 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.
• Shen, Vincent, 2016, “Translation and Interpretation: the Case of Introducing Darwinian Evolutionism into China”, Universitas: Monthly Review of Philosophy and Culture , 43: 3–25.
• Sloan, Phillip R. 1986, “Darwin, Vital Matter, and the Transformism of Species”, Journal of the History of Biology , 19 (3): 369–445. doi:10.1007/BF00138286
• –––, 1999, “From Natural Law to Evolutionary Ethics in Enlightenment French Natural History”, in Maienschein and Ruse 1999: 52–83. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511609077.004
• –––, 2009a, “The Making of a Philosophical Naturalist”, in Hodge and Radick 2009: 21–43, doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521884754.002
• –––, 2009b, “Originating Species: Darwin on the Species Problem”, in Ruse and R. J. Richards 2009: 67–86. doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521870795.007
• –––, Gerald P McKenny, and Kathleen Eggleson (eds.), 2015, Darwin in the Twenty-First Century: Nature, Humanity, and God , Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Smocovitis, Vassiliki Betty, 1996, Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Sober, Elliott, 1984, The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Spencer, Herbert, 1864, Principles of Biology , London: Williams and Noegate. [ Spencer 1864 available online ]
• Stamos, David N., 2003, The Species Problem: Biological Species, Ontology, and the Metaphysics of Biology , Lanham, MA: Lexington Books.
• –––, 2007, Darwin and the Nature of Species , Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Swetlitz, Marc, 2013, “Judaism, Jews, and Evolution”, in Ruse 2013a: 493–498. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.063
• Theunissen, Bert, 2013, “The Analogy between Artificial and Natural Selection”, in Ruse 2013a: 88–94. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.010
• Todes, Daniel Philip, 1989, Darwin Without Malthus: the Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought , New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Vorzimmer, Peter J., 1970, Charles Darwin, The Years of Controversy: The Origin of Species and Its Critics, 1859–1882 , Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Wallace, Alfred R., 1858, “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type”, in Glick and Kohn 1996, 335–345.
• –––,“The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man Deduced from the Theory of ‘Natural Selection’”, Journal of the Anthropological Society of London , 2: clviii–clxxxvii. doi:10.2307/3025211
• Waters, C. Kenneth, 2009, “The Arguments in the Origin of Species ”, in Hodge and Radick 2009: 120–144, doi:10.1017/CCOL9780521884754.006
• Whewell, William, 1837, History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Times , three volumes, London: Parker.
• –––, 1840, The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences , London: Parker. [ Whewell 1840 available online ]
• –––, 1858, Novum Organon Renovatum, Being the Second Part of the Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences , thirrd edition, London: Parker. [ Whewell 1858 available online ]
• White, Roger M., M. J. S. Hodge, and Gregory Radick, 2021, Darwin’s Argument by Analogy: From Artificial to Natural Selection , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wilkins, John S., 2009, Species: a History of the Idea , Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
• Yang Haiyan, 2013, “Encountering Darwin and Creating Darwinism in China”, in Ruse 2013a: 250–257. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139026895.032
• Yan Fu, 1898, Tianyan lun , translation of Huxley 1895, [available online ]
• Young, Robert M., 1985, Darwin’s Metaphor: Nature’s Place in Victorian Culture , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online , maintained by John van Wyhe, Cambridge University Library. In particular note the Darwin Papers & Manuscripts section
• Darwin Manuscripts Project , maintained by David Kohn in cooperation with the American Museum of Natural History Research Library.
• Letter to Charles Lyell, 28 September 1860, DCP-LETT-2931
• Letter from J.D. Hooker, 8 February 1867, DCP-LETT-5395
• Letter to William Turner, 11 February 1867, DCP-LETT-5398
• Letter to Asa Gray, 15 March 1870, DCP-LETT-7132
• Ghiselin, Michael T., 2009, Darwin: A Reader’s Guide [PDF], Occasional Papers of the California Academy of Sciences 155.
• The Huxley File , maintained by Charles Blinderman and David Joyce (Clark University).
• Works by Ernst Heinrich Haeckel , Project Gutenberg.
• Wallace Online , maintained by John van Wyhe, Cambridge University Library.

adaptationism | altruism | altruism: biological | animal: cognition | animal: consciousness | biology: philosophy of | comparative cognition, methods in | creationism | Darwinism | evolution: concept before Darwin | evolution: cultural | fitness | genetics: ecological | life | morality: and evolutionary biology | moral sentimentalism | natural selection | natural selection: units and levels of | Newton, Isaac: philosophy | species | Spencer, Herbert | teleology: teleological notions in biology | Whewell, William

The author wishes to acknowledge the valuable comments on this version of the article by David Depew, Gregory Radick, M. J. S. Hodge, Alan Love, and Xiaoxing Jin. Additional comments were made on an earlier version by Michael Ruse, Robert J. Richards, Edward Zalta, M. Katherine Tillman, and the anonymous reviewers for the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I am particularly indebted to Dr. Xiaoxing Jin for information contained in his substantial doctoral work and subsequent research on the reception of Darwinism into China. Responsibility for all interpretations is my own.

Copyright © 2024 by Phillip Sloan < sloan . 1 @ nd . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2024 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

An Early Review of On the Origin of Species

“Darwin openly and almost scornfully repudiates the whole doctrine of Final Causes. He finds no indication of design or purpose anywhere…”

One hundred and sixty years ago today, Charles Darwin published his revolutionary text on natural selection, On the Origin of Species , containing his collected evidence in favor of the ideas of common descent and branching evolution. A few months after the book’s initial publication in 1859, a reviewer took to the pages of the North American Review to offer some thoughts on Darwin’s insights. Check this out:

Darwin openly and almost scornfully repudiates the whole doctrine of Final Causes. He finds no indication of design or purpose anywhere in the animate or organic world. Like Geoffroy St. Hilaire, he takes good care “not to attribute any intention to the Almighty.” The nicest and most complex adaptations do not to him prove design. The eye was not made to see with, or the ear to hear. The fact that these organs respectively do see and hear is accounted for, on this theory, by supposing that, through an accidental and purposeless variation, some one zoophyte or other animal very low down in the scale happened to be born with a faint glimmering of vision, with the poor rudiment of an eye, “an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism”; that this “slight accidental variation” passed down by inheritance, giving to the possessors of it a great advantage over their fellows, even so great that the former were preserved, while the latter died out; that in the lapse of years, another and yet another “slight accidental variation” successively supervened, and, if an improvement, was retained, while those not having it, and those variations which were not improvements, perished.

Read the full review of this classic text in evolutionary biology for some perspective on Darwin’s initial reception.

Support JSTOR Daily! Join our new membership program on Patreon today.

JSTOR is a digital library for scholars, researchers, and students. JSTOR Daily readers can access the original research behind our articles for free on JSTOR.

Get Our Newsletter

Get your fix of JSTOR Daily’s best stories in your inbox each Thursday.

Privacy Policy   Contact Us You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking on the provided link on any marketing message.

More Stories

• Meteorite Strike in South Africa

HMS Challenger and the History of Science at Sea

Astronomers Have Warned against Colonial Practices in the Space Industry

Tree of Peace, Spark of War

Recent posts.

• Where Are the Trees?
• Remembering the Rumble in the Jungle
• When Aldous Huxley Dropped Acid
• Gandhi’s Cloth, Ancient Texts, and Old-Growth Photos

Support JSTOR Daily

Sign up for our weekly newsletter.

• Skip to Page Content
• Skip to Navigation
• Skip to Search
• Skip to Footer
• COVID-19 Health and Safety
• Admissions and Ticketing
• Temporary Hall Closures
• Accessibility
• Field Trips
• Adult Group Visits
• Guided Tours
• Transportation
• Davis Family Butterfly Vivarium
• Invisible Worlds: Immersive Experience
• The Secret World of Elephants
• Turtle Odyssey
• Worlds Beyond Earth: Space Show
• Extinct and Endangered: Insects in Peril
• Grounded by Our Roots
• Ice Cold: An Exhibition of Hip-Hop Jewelry
• Opulent Oceans
• What's in a Name?
• Children & Family Programs
• Teen Programs
• Higher Education
• Adult Programs
• Educator Programs
• Evaluation, Research, & Policy
• Master of Arts in Teaching
• Online Courses for Educators
• Urban Advantage
• Climate Week NYC
• Viruses, Vaccines, and COVID-19
• The Science of COVID-19
• OLogy: The Science Website for Kids
• News & Blogs
• Science Topics
• Margaret Mead Festival
• Origami at the Museum
• Astrophysics
• Earth and Planetary Sciences
• Herpetology
• Ichthyology
• Ornithology
• Richard Gilder Graduate School
• Hayden Planetarium
• Center for Biodiversity and Conservation
• Institute for Comparative Genomics
• Southwestern Research Station
• Research Library
• Darwin Manuscripts Project
• Microscopy and Imaging Facility
• Science Conservation
• Computational Sciences
• Staff Directory
• Scientific Publications
• Ways to Donate
• Membership FAQ
• Benefit Events
• Corporate Support
• Planned Giving
• Beagle Voyage
• Beagle Voyage February 1835 - 1836
• London Years Spring 1837- July 1842
• Down House September 1842 - November 1859
• Biology of Flowers
• Plant Physiology
• Diverse Botanical Topics
• Human Evolution 1837-1873
• Experiment Notebooks and Notes 1839 - 1861
• Cambridge University Library
• All Collections
• Abstracts of Scientific Works
• Reading Notebooks
• Charles Darwin’s Library
• Darwin's Book Publications
• Staff and Contact Information

Creating the Origin

Voyage of H.M.S.  Beagle -  Chile-Atlantic   February 1835 - 1836

Darwin’s work in creating On the Origin of Species  encompassed much more than just setting pen to paper and writing the epochal book he published in 1859. The Origin was the mature fruit of a prolonged process of scientific exploration and creativity that began toward the end of the Beagle voyage with the first kindling of Darwin’s interest in evolution and that continued to develop through numerous stages.

London Years   Spring 1837 - July 1842   

In the late 1830s Darwin lived in London, first with his brother Erasmus and then with his bride Emma. There, after he came to entertain a belief in evolution, Darwin took the career defining decision fully to commit to the ‘species theory’. This commitment led him to undertake the grand-scale evaluation of the natural history evidence pro and con evolution, which he recorded in telegraphic notes and brief essays in his Transmutation Notebooks and his Metaphysical Notebooks. He also devoted himself to conceiving and framing a convincing explanation of evolution—or set of mechanisms. This search for a ‘theory by which to work’ went through several intermediate phases until he grasped and elaborated natural selection in 1838-1839, which completed the ‘notebook’ phase of the theory’s development. After a gap of some three years, creating the Origin  entered its narrative phase as Darwin tried to write out his full theory—what he later called ‘one long argument’. This argument he would amplify and revise over a period of 17 years (1842-1858) in four successive versions: the unpublished 1842 Sketch, 1844 Essay, and the Origin ‘long version’ manuscript, now known as Natural Selection , and finally the published Origin .

Down House   September 1842 - November 1859

But the 1844 Essay was written at Down House and the four canonical documents just listed are actually only part of the surviving documentation of Darwin’s species work, which also includes three different ‘experiment’ notebooks, and two sets of topical portfolios filled with some 4700 loose notes of varying length ( Origin  Portfolios I & II). Over this long period of drafting and revising a coherent narrative, Darwin both grappled with the best ways to express his far reaching concepts and sought to overcome many ‘difficulties on the theory’. At the same time, he also undertook a range of extended efforts to extract supporting information from the scientific literature and he framed or undertook empirical, even experimental, studies—some quite extensive and others tentative—likewise to support his developing ‘long argument’. All this thinking and writing was accompanied by much agonizing. On the one hand, the agony included his decision to defer publication in 1844, apparently in the wake of the hostile scientific reception of Robert Chambers’ Vestiges of Creation .  On the other hand, there was his decision in 1858—following receipt of Alfred Russel Wallace’s paper—to accelerate his publishing timetable by considerably shortening the Natural Selection manuscript. In the end, Darwin was able to dash off his final draft, the ‘abstract’ that became Origin of Species , in just 16 months. Explore Creating the  Origin scientific manuscripts.

share this!

September 12, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

New fossil fish species scales up evidence of Earth's evolutionary march

by Flinders University

Climate change and asteroids are linked with animal origin and extinction—and plate tectonics also seems to play a key evolutionary role, "groundbreaking" new fossil research reveals.

The discovery of an exceptionally well preserved ancient primitive Devonian coelacanth fish in remote Western Australia has been linked to a period of heightened tectonic activity, or movement in the Earth's crust, according to the new study in Nature Communications .

Led by Flinders University and experts from Canada, Australia and Europe, the new fossil from the Gogo Formation in WA, named Ngamugawi wirngarri, also helps to fill in an important transition period in coelacanth history, between the most primitive forms and other more "anatomically-modern" forms.

"We are thrilled to work with people of the Mimbi community to grace this beautiful new fish with the first name taken from the Gooniyandi language," says first author Dr. Alice Clement, an evolutionary biologist and paleontologist from Flinders University.

"Our analyses found that tectonic plate activity had a profound influence on rates of coelacanth evolution. Namely that new species of coelacanth were more likely to evolve during periods of heightened tectonic activity as new habitats were divided and created," she says.

The study confirms the Late Devonian Gogo Formation as one of the richest and best-preserved assemblages of fossil fishes and invertebrates on Earth.

Flinders University Strategic Professor of Palaeontology John Long says the fossil, dating from the Devonian Period (359–419 million years ago), "provides us with some great insight into the early anatomy of this lineage that eventually led to humans."

"For more than 35 years, we have found several perfectly preserved 3D fish fossils from Gogo sites which have yielded many significant discoveries, including mineralized soft tissues and the origins of complex sexual reproduction in vertebrates," says Professor Long.

"Our study of this new species led us to analyze the evolutionary history of all known coelacanths."

Many parts of human anatomy originated in the Early Paleozoic (540–350 million years ago). This was when jaws, teeth, paired appendages, ossified brain-cases, intromittent genital organs, chambered hearts and paired lungs all appeared in early fishes.

"While now covered in dry rocky outcrops, the Gogo Formation on Gooniyandi Country in the Kimberley region of northern Western Australia was part of an ancient tropical reef teeming with more than 50 species of fish about 380 million years ago.

"We calculated the rates of evolution across their 410 million-year history. This revealed that coelacanth evolution has slowed down drastically since the time of the dinosaurs, but with a few intriguing exceptions," explains Professor Long.

Today, the coelacanth is a fascinating deep-sea fish that lives off the coasts of eastern Africa and Indonesia and can reach up to 2m in length. They are "lobe-finned" fish, which means they have robust bones in their fins not too dissimilar to the bones in our own arms, and are thus considered to be more closely related to lungfish and tetrapods (the back-boned animals with arms and legs such as frogs, emus and mice) than most other fishes.

Over the past 410 million years, more than 175 species of coelacanths have been discovered across the globe. During the Mesozoic Era, the age of dinosaurs, coelacanths diversified significantly, with some species developing unusual body shapes. However, at the end of the Cretaceous Period, around 66 million years ago, they mysteriously disappeared from the fossil record.

The end Cretaceous extinction, sparked by the impact from a massive asteroid, wiped out approximately 75% of all life on Earth, including all of the non-avian (bird-like) dinosaurs. Thus, it was presumed that the coelacanth fishes had been swept up as a casualty of the same mass extinction event.

But in 1938, people fishing off South Africa pulled up a large mysterious looking fish from the ocean depths, with the "lazarus" fish going on to gain cult status in the world of biological evolution.

Another senior co-author, vertebrate paleontologist Professor Richard Cloutier, from the University of Quebec in Rimouski (UQAR), says the new study challenges the idea that surviving coelacanths are the oldest "living fossils."

"They first appear in the geological record more than 410 million years ago, with fragmentary fossils known from places like China and Australia. However, most of the early forms remain poorly known, making Ngamugawi wirngarri the best known Devonian coealacanth.

"As we slowly fill in the gaps, we can start to understand how living coelacanth species of Latimeria, which commonly are considered to be 'living fossils,' actually are continuing to evolve and might not deserve such an enigmatic title," says Professor Cloutier, a previous honorary visiting scholar at Flinders University.

The study's co-authors have affiliations with Mahasarakham University in Thailand, the South Australian Museum, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, University of Bristol, Curtin University in Western Australia and the WA Museum.

Journal information: Nature Communications

Provided by Flinders University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Parasitoid wasp that lays its eggs inside of adult fruit fly discovered

Novel coupled nanopore platform offers greater precision for detecting molecules

Two-way mathematical 'dictionary' could connect quantum physics with number theory

California has dramatically improved its air quality, but racial disparities persist

7 minutes ago

Unbiased look at plants reveals how they achieve transcriptional regulation

32 minutes ago

Physicists achieve ultrafast steering of quantum-entangled electrons

37 minutes ago

International team discovers new process for cells to repair DNA damage

57 minutes ago

Residents in San Joaquin Valley breathe chemical pesticides, according to new study

59 minutes ago

Study reveals profound impact of synthesis method on disordered materials

Odds of asteroid 99942 Apophis striking Earth slightly higher than thought

Relevant physicsforums posts, epothilone b study connected to 'hard problem of consciousness' model.

Sep 9, 2024

Any stereo audio learning resources for other languages?

Sep 8, 2024

Too much fluoride might lower IQ in kids?

Sep 6, 2024

The predictive brain (Stimulus-Specific Error Prediction Neurons)

Sep 1, 2024

Any suggestions to dampen the sounds of a colostomy bag?

Aug 31, 2024

Will cryosleep ever be a reality?

Aug 30, 2024

More from Biology and Medical

Related Stories

Fossil study shows coelacanths thrived in Switzerland after a mass extinction

Jul 20, 2023

380-million-year-old heart illuminates evolutionary history

Sep 15, 2022

Fish that outlived dinosaurs reveals secrets of ancient skull evolution

Apr 17, 2019

Fossil hunter discovers new species of 210-million-year-old lungfish

Aug 6, 2024

Enormous ancient fish fossil discovered in search of pterodactyl remains

Feb 15, 2021

An ancient Australian air-breathing fish from 380 million years ago

Feb 6, 2024

Recommended for you

Trilobite fossils from upstate New York reveal 'extra' set of legs

6 hours ago

AI-based technique speeds up the analysis of fossils

22 hours ago

Paleontologists discover fossil birds with teeth had seeds in their stomachs, indicating that they ate fruit

Sep 10, 2024

Multiple ways to evolve tiny knee bone could have helped humans walk upright

New Zealand's kākāpō developed different feather colors to evade predatory birds, genome sequencing shows

How the butterfly got its pupa: Modeling study traces origins of complete metamorphosis

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Author Biographies
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The use of some species of bacteria and algae in the bioremediation of pollution caused by hydrocarbons and some heavy metals in al asfar lake water.

1. Introduction

2. methodology, 2.1. collection of algal samples, 2.2. isolation, purification, and identification of algal samples, 2.3. morphological examination and establishment of monocultures, 2.4. isolation and purification of bacterial strains, 2.5. detection of heavy metals by chemical analysis of samples, 2.6. chemical element analysis after incubation with algal consortium, 2.7. molecular identification, 2.8. polyaromatic hydrocarbon analysis, 3.1. microscopic examination of predominant microbial consortium members, 3.2. bioremediation of water samples from al asfar lake, 3.3. characterization of taxonomic identity of most efficient bio-remediating algal strains using molecular analysis and phylogenetic inference, 3.4. polyaromatic hydrocarbon analysis, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Akl, F.M.A.; Ahmed, S.I.; El-Sheekh, M.M.; Makhlof, M.E.M. Bioremediation of n-alkanes, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals from wastewater using seaweeds. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023 , 30 , 104814–104832. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sharma, R.K.; Agrawal, M.; Marshall, F. Heavy metal contamination of soil and vegetables in suburban areas of Varanasi, India. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2007 , 66 , 258–266. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• El Mahmoudi, A.; Massoud, M.; Al-Dakheel, Y.; Hussein, A. Studies of Al Asfar and Al Uyoun Evaporation Lakes Water Quality and the Potential of Its Reuse in Agriculture Activities, Al Hassa Area, KSA. J. King Abdulaziz Univ. -Meteorol. Environ. Arid. Land Agric. Sci. 2011 , 22 , 67–85. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• El-Sheekh, M.M.; Mahmoud, Y.A.-G. Technological Approach of Bioremediation Using Microbial Tools: Bacteria, Fungi, and Algae. In Handbook of Research on Inventive Bioremediation Techniques ; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2017; Available online: https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/technological-approach-of-bioremediation-using-microbial-tools/176461 (accessed on 25 June 2024).
• Nagm El Deen, F. Master’s Thesis, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt, 2013.
• Spain, O.; Plöhn, M.; Funk, C. The cell wall of green microalgae and its role in heavy metal removal. Physiol. Plant. 2021 , 173 , 526–535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Groudeva, V.I.; Groudev, S.N.; Doycheva, A.S. Bioremediation of waters contaminated with crude oil and toxic heavy metals. Int. J. Miner. Process. 2001 , 62 , 293–299. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hassan, Z.U.; Ali, S.; Rizwan, M.; Ibrahim, M.; Nafees, M.; Waseem, M. Role of Bioremediation Agents (Bacteria, Fungi, and Algae) in Alleviating Heavy Metal Toxicity. In Probiotics in Agroecosystem ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 517–537. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mondal, M.; Halder, G.; Oinam, G.; Indrama, T.; Tiwari, O.N. Chapter 17—Bioremediation of Organic and Inorganic Pollutants Using Microalgae. In New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering ; Gupta, V.K., Pandey, A., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 223–235. ISBN 9780444635044. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Raklami, A.; Meddich, A.; Oufdou, K.; Baslam, M. Plants—Microorganisms-Based Bioremediation for Heavy Metal Cleanup: Recent Developments, Phytoremediation Techniques, Regulation Mechanisms, and Molecular Responses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022 , 23 , 5031. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sherwood, A.R.; Presting, G.G. Universal primers amplify a 23s rdna plastid marker in eukaryotic algae and cyanobacteria. J. Phycol. 2007 , 43 , 605–608. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dellaporta, S.L.; Wood, J.; Hicks, J.B. A plant DNA minipreparation: Version II. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 1983 , 1 , 19–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pérez, S.; Guillamón, M.; Barceló, D. Quantitative analysis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in sewage sludge from wastewater treatment plants. J. Chromatogr. A 2001 , 938 , 57–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Picó, Y.; Alvarez-Ruiz, R.; Alfarhan, A.H.; El-Sheikh, M.A.; Alshahrani, H.O.; Barceló, D. Pharmaceuticals, pesticides, personal care products and microplastics contamination assessment of Al-Hassa irrigation network (Saudi Arabia) and its shallow lakes. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 701 , 135021. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Singh, N.; Verma, T.; Gaur, R. Detoxification of hexavalent chromium by an indigenous facultative anaerobic Bacillus cereus strain isolated from tannery effluent. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2013 , 12 , 1091–1103. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cornu, J.Y.; Huguenot, D.; Jézéquel, K.; Lollier, M.; Lebeau, T. Bioremediation of copper-contaminated soils by bacteria. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2017 , 33 , 1–9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Danouche, M.; El Ghachtouli, N.; El Arroussi, H. Phycoremediation mechanisms of heavy metals using living green microalgae: Physicochemical and molecular approaches for enhancing selectivity and removal capacity. Heliyon 2021 , 7 , e07609. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Al-Amin, A.; Parvin, F.; Chakraborty, J.; Kim, Y.I. Cyanobacteria mediated heavy metal removal: A review on mechanism, biosynthesis, and removal capability. Environ. Technol. Rev. 2021 , 10 , 44–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ince, M.; Ince, O.K. Introductory Chapter: Sources, Health Impact, and Environment Effect of Hydrocarbons. In Hydrocarbon Pollution and its Effect on the Environment ; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; p. 1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Srogi, K. Monitoring of environmental exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: A review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2007 , 5 , 169–195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Das, N.; Chandran, P. Microbial degradation of petroleum hydrocarbon contaminants: An overview. Biotechnol. Res. Int. 2011 , 2011 , 941810. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Essa, E.; Abu El-Hassan, G.; Farag, S. Biochemical Composition, Toxicity and Bioactivities of the Essential Oil extracted from Coffea arabica L. husks against the Cotton Leafworm, Spodoptera littoralis (Boisduval) (Lepidoptera: Noctudiae). Egypt. Acad. J. Biol. Sci. A Entomol. 2022 , 15 , 37–49. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elumalai, P.; Parthipan, P.; Huang, M.; Muthukumar, B.; Cheng, L.; Govarthanan, M.; Rajasekar, A. Enhanced biodegradation of hydrophobic organic pollutants by the bacterial consortium: Impact of enzymes and biosurfactants. Environ. Pollut. 2021 , 289 , 117956. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Altammar, F.; El Semary, N.; Aldayel, M. The Use of Some Species of Bacteria and Algae in the Bioremediation of Pollution Caused by Hydrocarbons and Some Heavy Metals in Al Asfar Lake Water. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187896

Altammar F, El Semary N, Aldayel M. The Use of Some Species of Bacteria and Algae in the Bioremediation of Pollution Caused by Hydrocarbons and Some Heavy Metals in Al Asfar Lake Water. Sustainability . 2024; 16(18):7896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187896

Altammar, Fatimah, Nermin El Semary, and Munirah Aldayel. 2024. "The Use of Some Species of Bacteria and Algae in the Bioremediation of Pollution Caused by Hydrocarbons and Some Heavy Metals in Al Asfar Lake Water" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 7896. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187896

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals