1. Darwinmania!

Comment #197447 by hyposcada on June 22, 2008 at 4:11 am

A nicely written article, but it is a shame that one of Olivia's favourite quotations is the erroneous and poorly informed statement made by the President of the Linnean Society in 1859 i.e. that "The year which has passed has not, indeed, been marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once revolutionize, so to speak, the department of science on which they bear."! Not only was he incorrect (see the extract from Darwin expert Janet Browne's book on my website: http://wallacefund.info/faqs), but his quote has repeatedly been used to denigrate Wallace's contribution by people who clearly want to 'big-up' Darwin.

Scientific discoveries do not need to be published in book form in order to convince people of their reality - indeed most are published in the form of relatively short scientific articles. Judging by the attention which the 1858 paper received between its publication in August 1858 and the publication of Darwin's Origin in November 1859 it seems unlikely that it would have disappeared into obscurity (unlike Patrick Matthew's book for example).

Anyway, neither Darwin's nor Wallace's efforts actually convinced 'the Victorian mind' for very long:- natural selection as an explanation for evolutionary change became very unpopular amongst biologists from the 1880's until the "modern synthesis" in the late 1930's - a period which has been named "The eclipse of Darwinism" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_eclipse_of_Darwinism).

Natural selection became accepted by the biological community as the main mechanism of evolutionary change in the 1930's, not because of the (by then) old fashioned arguments and out-of-date information in the Origin, but due to the development of population genetics. Thus the ultimate triumph of the theory of natural selection in the twentieth century had in reality little to do with the Origin, despite popular misconceptions to the contrary.

2. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #185243 by hyposcada on May 27, 2008 at 8:53 am

Here is what Wallace expert Charles Smith has to say about the question "was Wallace Welsh?":-

Answer: Several people have criticized me for not giving Wales its just due with regard to Wallace's national affinities. I think the Welsh claim on him is rather tenuous, but here are the facts (at least those given in Wallace's autobiography My Life), so you decide. Wallace's mother and father, who were of long-term English and English-Scottish descent, respectively, moved from St. George's, Southwark, to the small town of Usk about 1820, probably for financial reasons (possibly either because it cost less to live there, or to avoid creditors). At that time Usk was part of the area known as Monmouthshire, at least in some respects an administrative division of England. However, this region, going back to ancient times, had originally been known as Gwent, culturally and politically part of Wales. Many years later (after Wallace's birth, that is), in 1974, the region was fully "returned" to Wales, again with the name Gwent (more recently, the name Monmouthshire has again been substituted). Wallace himself was born in Usk in 1823, but it is very clear from My Life that he and his family felt like, and were made to feel like, outsiders there. In 1828, when he was just five, the family moved again, this time back over to England, to the town of Hertford (a relative had died there, freeing up an inexpensive source of lodgings). They never returned to Wales as a family. Wallace did however work in Wales for two three-year periods (1840-1843 and 1845-1848) during the time he was employed as a journeyman surveyor (first, for his older brother, and later, to wrap up and continue that brother's business after he died). In later life Wallace visited Wales only on a few short occasions (vacations and lectures); he also concerned himself with the social and economic problems of the Welsh a good deal less than he did with those of the English, Irish, and Scots. My personal view of this is that given the Wallace family's heritage and relatively short period of residence in Wales--not to mention the Monmouthshire technicality--Wallace can hardly be considered a Welshman (though it is clear enough that Wales figured importantly in several respects in his early life). Apparently Wallace himself agreed: although on many occasions he drew attention to his ancestral connections with the Scots, to my knowledge he never once referred to himself as a Welshman, and indeed always named his place of birth as "Monmouthshire," not "Gwent." Further, his contemporaries just about always referred to him as an Englishman. It is on record, moreover, that he declined the offer of an honorary doctorate from the University of Wales--after accepting ones from Dublin and Oxford--not exactly what one would expect had he felt elemental ties to the region. To summarize: I would be happy to refer to Wallace as "Welsh" were any of the following true: (1) one or both of his parents had Welsh heritage (2) Wallace had grown to adulthood there (i.e., without moving back to England for over ten years first) (3) his parents had remained in Wales permanently instead of moving back to England (4) Wallace had voluntarily moved back to Wales during his teen years or adulthood (i.e., as opposed to being first dragged along by his brother, or later cleaning up his brother's affairs) (5) Wallace had settled in Wales permanently after his return from the Malay Archipelago in 1862 (6) Wallace had referred to himself as a Welshman (7) Gwent had always been unambiguously Welsh and referred to by that name. However, none of these are true. Perhaps he can most conservatively be referred to as "an Englishman born in Wales." (Taken from http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/FAQ.htm#Welsh).

3. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #184731 by hyposcada on May 26, 2008 at 4:28 am

27. Comment #184728 by hungarianelephant on May 26, 2008 at 4:11 am

Matt (Ascaphus) appeared to be commenting on the quote he cited - if not why cite it? In my reply to his post I was not concerned with what Davies was arguing - only with comments about my own arguments. For my opinion of Davies' book see:- http://wallacefund.info/wallace-news

My 'quotes' cited in the icWales article were in any case only an approximation of what I actually said (what more can be expected of newspaper reporters?). I would have substituted "most people" for "everyone" had I seen the proofs.

4. Mail-boat record 'proves Darwin stole his original ideas from a Welsh scientist'

Comment #184723 by hyposcada on May 26, 2008 at 3:39 am

Matt,

Actually I received my zoology degree and PhD from one of the best universities in Britain! The point which you and other poorly informed people on this forum seem to have missed is that the theory of natural selection was jointly published by Darwin and Wallace in August 1858, 15 months before Darwin's Origin of Species was published. In science publication is everything. It is irrelevant from the point of view of scientific priority that Joe Smith discovered natural selection four hundred years ago if he never got around to publishing his idea. Personally I believe in reporting historical events accurately and giving credit where credit is due. If you seek to distort the facts then you are not better than the IDiots. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the history of the events surrounding the discovery of natural selection before posting your opinions.

George Beccaloni