Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. James A. Secord.Annie's Box: Charles Darwin, His Daughter and Human Evolution Darwin, His Daughter, and Human Evolution. Randal Keynes.

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 206-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Human Evolution ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
History Of

The Legacy of the ‘Edinburgh Lamarckians’

2019 ◽  
pp. 156-195
Author(s):  
Bill Jenkins
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Medical Student ◽  
Natural History ◽  
Evolutionary Theory ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Early Nineteenth Century ◽  
History Of ◽  
The City

The penultimate chapter looks at the longer-term impact of the efflorescence of evolutionary speculation in early-nineteenth-century Edinburgh on later generations of natural historians. First it examines the evangelical reaction against progressive models of the history of life and its role in the eclipse of the ‘Edinburgh Lamarckians.’ Next it examines to the evolutionary theory proposed by Robert Chambers in his anonymously published Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844) to assess its possible debt to the Edinburgh transformists of the 1820s and 1830s. Finally it turns to the important question of the possible influence of the ‘Edinburgh Lamarckians’ on Charles Darwin during his time as a medical student in Edinburgh in the years 1825 to 1827, during which period he rubbed shoulders with many of the key proponents of evolutionary ideas in the city.

scholarly journals I. On the scelidothere ( scelidotherium, leptocephalum , Owen), a large extinct terrestrial sloth

1857 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 312-314
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
British Museum ◽  
Extinct Species ◽  
Northern Patagonia ◽  
History Of ◽  
Osseous System

The extinct species of large terrestrial Sloth, indicated by the above name, was first made known by portions of its fossil skeleton having been discovered by Charles Darwin, Esq., F. R. S., at Punta Alta, Northern Patagonia. These portions were described by the author in the Appendix to the 'Natural History of the Voyage of H. M. S. Beagle'. The subsequent acquisition by the British Museum of the collection of Fossil Mammalia brought from Buenos Ayres by M. Bravard, has given further evidence of the generic distinction of the Scelidothere, and has supplied important characters of the osseous system, and especially of the skull, which the fragments from the hard consolidated gravel of Punta Alta did not afford.

VII. On the Scelidothere (Scelidotherium leptocephalum, Owen)

1857 ◽  
Vol 147 ◽  
pp. 101-110 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
British Museum ◽  
The Other ◽  
Extinct Species ◽  
Northern Patagonia ◽  
History Of ◽  
Peculiar Character ◽  
Osseous System

The extinct species of large terrestrial Sloth, indicated by the above name, was first made known by portions of its fossil skeleton discovered by Charles Darwin, Esq., F. R. S., at Punta Alta, Northern Patagonia, which were described by me in the chapters of the Appendix to the ‘Natural History of the Voyage of H. M. S. Beagle,’ treating of the “Fossil Mammalia” collected during that voyage. The subsequent acquisition by the British Museum of the collection of Fossil Mammalia brought from the pleistocene beds, Buenos Ayres, by M. Bravard, has given further evidence of the generic distinction of the Scelidothere from the other Gravigrades of the Bruta phylophaga , and has supplied important characters of the osseous system, and especially of the skull, which the fragments from the hard consolidated gravel of Punta Alta did not afford. The best portion of the cranium from the latter locality wanted the facial part anterior to the orbit, and the greater part of the upper walls; sufficient, however, remained to indicate the peculiar character of its slender proportions, and hence the name leptocephalum proposed for the species.

Alfred Waterhouse’s Romanesque ‘Temple of Nature’: The Natural History Museum, London

2006 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 257-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. B. Bullen
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Charles Darwin ◽  
Local Politics ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Natural History Museum ◽  
Medieval Architecture ◽  
History Museum ◽  
Unusual Position ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Temple

The Natural History Museum in London is a spectacular building in many senses (Fig. 1). As one of the outstanding landmarks of high Victorian architecture, it was designed to draw attention both to itself and to its contents. No other museum building in Britain adopted a Romanesque style on this scale; no other building had used terracotta in such a rich and decorative manner, and no other building (other than, perhaps, the University Museum, Oxford) so curiously employed external decoration to illustrate its internal function. It was calculated to appeal to a wide public and its animal sculpture was selfconsciously didactic in the way in which a number of contemporary museum buildings were created to a programme. Planned as a showcase for the nation’s imperial scientific achievements, its appearance was strongly ecclesiastical. When it opened in 1881, The Times leader called it a ‘true Temple of Nature’, which, the writer said, demonstrated ‘the Beauty of Holiness’. But for many visitors in 1881 Nature had abandoned the temple for wilder places; she had bloodied her claws, and the beauty of holiness had been replaced by the more severe, mechanistic principles formulated by Charles Darwin.The concept of a large museum of natural history was the inspiration of the great naturalist Richard Owen. It was also the crowning achievement of his lifetime in science. The ‘Temple of Nature’ that Alfred Waterhouse built for him embodied Owen’s belief that the history of the natural world was not a matter of randomness and chance but the creation of a transcendent presence. In other words, the Natural History Museum is the expression of an ideology, and its shape, size, position, style and decoration are charged with legible meanings. Some of those meanings are readily interpreted, others less so, and although the building history of the museum has been well documented, many questions remain. Why, for example, was Waterhouse chosen as its architect? What spurred him on to use terracotta in such an original way? And above all why did he risk the unusual Romanesque style? The choice of Romanesque for such a building, although it was later imitated elsewhere, was highly original. But that choice was conditioned by a substantial web of aesthetic, social, and political factors. The Natural History Museum was not just Waterhouse’s creation; it was very much the product of its time. It was born of national and local politics; it was shaped by Owen’s unusual position in the scientific world, and it was an expression of Waterhouse’s passion for early medieval architecture.

scholarly journals On the psychology of cooperation in humans and other primates: combining the natural history and experimental evidence of prosociality

2010 ◽  
Vol 365 (1553) ◽  
pp. 2723-2735 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian V. Jaeggi ◽  
Judith M. Burkart ◽  
Carel P. Van Schaik
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Experimental Evidence ◽  
Human Evolution ◽  
Social Distance ◽  
Related Species ◽  
Cooperative Breeding ◽  
Food Sharing ◽  
History Of

In any given species, cooperation involves prosocial acts that usually return a fitness benefit to the actor. These acts are produced by a set of psychological rules, which will be similar in related species if they have a similar natural history of cooperation. Prosocial acts can be (i) reactive , i.e. in response to specific stimuli, or (ii) proactive , i.e. occur in the absence of such stimuli. We propose that reactive prosocial acts reflect sensitivity to (i) signals or signs of need and (ii) the presence and size of an audience, as modified by (iii) social distance to the partner or partners. We examine the evidence for these elements in humans and other animals, especially non-human primates, based on the natural history of cooperation, quantified in the context of food sharing, and various experimental paradigms. The comparison suggests that humans share with their closest living relatives reactive responses to signals of need, but differ in sensitivity to signs of need and cues of being watched, as well as in the presence of proactive prosociality. We discuss ultimate explanations for these derived features, in particular the adoption of cooperative breeding as well as concern for reputation and costly signalling during human evolution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document