The development of Darwin's theory : natural history, natural theology, and natural selection, 1838-1859 / Dov Ospovat.

  • Ospovat, Dov.
Date:
1995, ©1981
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

Credit: The development of Darwin's theory : natural history, natural theology, and natural selection, 1838-1859 / Dov Ospovat. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    276/328 (page 258)
    Notes to pp. 134-9 44 Richard Owen, Description of Teeth and portions of Jaws of Two Extinct Anthracotheroid Quadrupeds . . 45 William Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy considered with reference to Natural Theology, 1:114; Louis Agassiz, On the Differences between Progressive, Embryonic, and Prophetic Types; W. S. MacLeay, Horae Entomologicae, pp. 266-7. 46 William Coleman, Limits of the Recapitulation Theory. 47 Carl Vogt, Embryologie des Salmones, pp. 256-61. 48 Or, among invertebrates, within the separate classes. 49 Louis Agassiz, Monographie des Poissons Fossiles du Vieux Grès Rouge ou Systeme Dêvonien (Old Red Sandstone), p. xxvi. 50 Richard Owen, Report on British Fossil Reptiles, Part II, p. 201 ; Lectures on Invertebrates, p. 129. 51 Owen Collection, Manuscripts, Notes and Synopses of Lectures. 1840-64, Hunterian Lectures for 1853, British Museum (Natural History). 52 William В. Carpenter, Principles of Physiology, General and Comparative, pp. viii-ix; [Richard Owen], Lyell - on Life and its Successive Develop¬ ment, p. 430; [Richard Owen], Generalizations of Comparative Anatomy, p. 48. 53 [Owen], Lyell - on Life and its Successive Development, pp. 448-50. 54 [Owen], Generalizations of Comparative Anatomy, pp. 51-2. 55 Owen himself took it to be evidence of descent, though not of transmuta¬ tion. For his distinction between these ideas, see [Richard Owen], Darwin on the Origin of Species, pp. 501-3. John H. Brooke, in discussing Owen's views, seems not to have considered the possibility of such a distinction (Richard Owen, William Whewell, and the Vestiges). 56 Thomas H. Huxley, The Coming of Age of 'The Origin of Species' (1880), p. 241. 57 See Martin J. S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils, pp. 239-67; and Daniel P. Todes, V. О. Kovalevskii: The Genesis, Content, and Reception of His Paleontological Work. 58 Thomas H. Huxley, On Certain Zoological Arguments Commonly Adduced in Favour of the Hypothesis of the Progressive Development of Animal Life in Time (1855), in The Scientific Memoirs of Thomas Henry Huxley, 1:300-4; Huxley, On the Persistent Types of Animal Life (1859), in Scientific Memoirs, 2:90-3. Huxley remained a nonprogressionist until 1868 (On the Animals which are Most Nearly Intermediate between Birds and Reptiles [1868], in Scientific Memoirs, 3:303-13). See Michael Bartholomew, Huxley's Defence of Darwin. 59 Thomas H. Huxley, American Addresses, pp. 83-84, 90. Only after Huxley said that this European series of fossils was proof of evolution did he go on to discuss the even more impressive American series then just discovered. For his European series Huxley used Plagiolophus (Cuvier's Palaeotherium minus) from the Eocene, Amhitherium (Cuvier's Palaeotherium aurelianense) from the upper Eocene and lower Miocene, Hipparion from the Miocene, and a species of Equus from the latter part of the Miocene. Owen in 1851 used two unspecified species of Paleotherium, one each 258