Today is the 185th anniversary of Alfred Russel Wallace. He's best known, of course, as the young(ish) scientist who, while recovering from malaria somewhere in Indonesia, independently came up with the same ideas about evolution that Darwin had been working on for three decades, wrote them up, mailed them to Darwin, and catalyzed the old boy into finally getting the damn book written. In fact, that part of his career is so well known that it's hard to find any mention of Wallace that doesn't also bring up Darwin. Despite his enormous talents as a naturalist, he's almost always cast as Darwin's sidekick. Today is his birthday, though, so it doesn't really seem nice to leave him in the Boy Wonder role. Instead, let's take a look at an outstanding paper that he published in 1855.
First, though, let's set the scene properly. By 1855, Darwin had spent nearly two decades actively investigating the evolution of species. For various reasons, he had not yet published his hypothesis, but he had confided it to a friend and colleague of his - botanist Joseph Hooker - in 1844. The question of how species were formed had been the topic of intense debate for years, and a number of scientists were approaching the topic from different angles. And Alfred Russel Wallace had been in the Malay Archipelago for about a year.
Although Wallace had spent some time around the fringes of the highly social and very upper class world of British naturalists by then, he was hardly an intimate member of their group. His modest background deprived him of the luxury of being able to pursue science as a hobby - unlike Lyell or Darwin, he had to work for a living. This turned out to be quite an advantage for him in some ways, though. He supported himself as a naturalist by collecting samples for wealthy people who kept natural history collections as a hobby. This meant that where some of his scientific peers might collect one or two samples of a species, Wallace collected - and examined - many more than that. It also meant that he had an enormous incentive to know what species lived where - it was his livelihood. Over the years that he'd spent time in the Amazon and the shorter time he'd spent in Indonesia, Wallace had looked at and thought about an enormous number of species of plants and animals, and had felt secure enough in his knowledge to not only report some of the facts that he had learned, but to also draw some more general conclusions from those facts.
His paper, "On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species", was published in the Annals and Magazine of Natural History in September of 1855. The whole paper is really worth a read, but here's the high point:
The following propositions in Organic Geography and Geology give the main facts on which the hypothesis is founded.
Geography.
1. Large groups, such as classes and orders, are generally spread over the whole earth, while smaller ones, such as families and genera, are frequently confined to one portion, often to a very limited district.
2. In widely distributed families the genera are often limited in range; in widely distributed genera, well-marked groups of species are peculiar to each geographical district.
3. When a group is confined to one district, and is rich in species, it is almost invariably the case that the most closely allied species are found in the same locality or in closely adjoining localities, and that therefore the natural sequence of the species by affinity is also geographical.
4. In countries of a similar climate, but separated by a wide sea or lofty mountains, the families, genera and species of theone are often represented by closely allied families, genera and species peculiar to the other.
Geology.
5. The distribution of the organic world in time is very similar to its present distribution in space.
6. Most of the larger and some small groups extend through several geological periods.
7. In each period, however, there are peculiar groups, found nowhere else, and extending through one or several formations.
8. Species of one genus, or genera of one family occurring in the same geological time are more closely allied than those separated in time.
9. As generally in geography no species or genus occurs in two very distant localities without being also found in intermediate places, so in geology the life of a species or genus has not been interrupted. In other words, no group or species has come into existence twice.
10. The following law may be deduced from these facts:--Every species has come into existence coincident both in space and time with a pre-existing closely allied species.
That law - which is known today as "Wallace's Law" or the "Sarawak Law" - remains one of the most compelling pieces of evidence for biological evolution. New species, he pointed out, don't appear randomly. They appear near things that look a hell of a lot like them. His paper was enough to inspire Charles Lyell, who had for years been one of the most vocal opponents of evolution, to start a series of private notebooks on the species question - and also put him in a very receptive frame of mind when Darwin confided his ideas about natural selection to him the following year. All in all, it wasn't a bad day's work for a youngish dude from a lower-middle class background, particularly given the social environment of the day.
Happy birthday, Alfred.
(If you're interested in a Wallace biography, I'd suggest picking up Michael Shermer's "In Darwin's Shadow".)
- Log in to post comments
More like this
It is nice to hear about Alfred Wallace's contributions to our understanding of evolution. For one thing he hasn't got as much credit in the public eye as he should have. The other, more interesting fact is that he was someone who independently came to the same ideas as Darwin when studying the diversity of nature.
To me, the fact that they came to the same ideas although working in parallell suggests the discovery of evolution by natural selection was inevitable in that time period. Even if Darwin had decided not to publish his discoveries, or if Wallace hadn't survived his malaria, this idea would have come out. In another timeline, the creationist folk might now be complaining about the evil atheistic Spoopinists; but the theory of evolution, them, and us, would probably be around.
test test
I'm done -- for the time being.
I'm done -- for the time being.
I always enjoy a little history of science.
Creationists seem to be under the impression that ToE was the demon Darwin's pipe dream, not understanding that biological evolution, having been discovered through scientific means, would eventually have been theorized, if not by Darwin or Wallace then by someone else.
JakeS--
You probably know this, but to make it perfectly clear:
Evolution was already theorized in the late 18th century by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin. (Charles Darwin wasn't born until 1809.)
Alfred Wallace had basically the same idea of evolution--i.e., descent with modification through natural selection--that Charles Darwin did. Darwin's enormous influence was largely due to the huge mass of evidence he collected to test evolutionary theory.
Wallace is not just cast as Darwin's sidekick, he to some extent cast himself in that role. He is one of my candidates for Nicest Person In The World and was not inclined to be peevish about priority. When he came to write his own book on evolution, what did he title it? Darwinism
I recall from my history of biology course readings an interesting contrast between the advice Lyell gave Darwin and advice he gave Wallace. Lyell was among those who advised Darwin not to defend his theories, but to leave it to others. On the other hand, Wallace consulted Lyell about taking up a challenge by a fundamentalist preacher flat-earther who offered a cash prize to any one who could demonstrate that the surface of a body of water was curved. Lyell advised Wallace to go for it. Wallace knew of a long, straight, calm canal. He took the preacher out and drove three stakes, at the same given distance above the water level, in a line and at a long enough interval. On looking through a surveyor's telescope, it could be seen that the middle stake was higher up that the first and last. The preacher refused to pay up, attacked Wallace, filed lawsuits, and basically was a nuisance for the rest of Wallace's life. Incidentally the curve of the earth is 0.6 ft/mile and appears greater due to atmospheric distortion.
Satan, like Jesus has had many prophets he revealed his will to. Darwin was one, and Wallace was another. Their works are both part of Lucifer's Scripture.
Decades ago, I had a fundamentalist girlfriend, who gave me this 'evidence' for the existence of god "How is it that so often two different scientists come up with the same idea at the same time, even if they don't know each other?" Of course her 'explanation' was that this was evidence of divine inspiration. I argued that it resulted from accumulation of evidence to a critical mass, such that eventually, several primed minds would make the obvious inference.
She argued that this was ludicrous... only god could impart such thoughts... and that therefore, ideas that occurred simulataneously were the mark of god.
One of our last exchanges was:
"So if two people come up with the same idea at the same time, it's god's doing"
"Yes"
"So it's really god's idea?"
"Yes"
"Absolutely positive? No other explanation?"
"Yes"
"Have you ever heard of Alfred Russell Wallace?"
etc.
i own a set of encyclopaedia britannica published in 1880.
under "evolution", charles darwin's grandfather has a lot more text than charles does.
for pole greaser: and i am another.
Say, that's Alf, Elvis and me on Jan. 8, anyone else?
Their works are both part of Lucifer's Scripture.
Is available on Amazon yet?
been waitin' ages now.
bloody bastard keeps saying he's gonna finish that book "any day now".
oh, btw, "greasy":
nice job scoring http://www.fixedearth.org/
must have cost you a wad.
good luck making geocentrism pay off for ya.
It is a case of standing on the shoulders of giants. Prior to Darwin and Wallace James Hutton had already proposed well before 1800 the idea of natural selection in his obscure writings:
If an organised body is not in the situation and circumstances best adapted to its sustenance and propagation, then, in conceiving an indefinite variety among the individuals of that species, we must be assured, that, on the one hand, those which depart most from the best adapted constitution, will be most liable to perish, while, on the other hand, those organised bodies, which most approach to the best constitution for the present circumstances, will be best adapted to continue, in preserving themselves and multiplying the individuals of their race.
Theistic evolution was posited by William Buckland in his contribution to the Bridgewater Treatises, published in 1836.
Babbage proposed what could be called Intelligent Design Evolution in his unofficial Ninth Bridgewater Treatise of 1837.
We cam be grateful for these forerunners even if they stand at the entrance to a blind alley saying: don't bother going down there!
A good source of Wallace info:
http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/news.htm
I don't have anything to add except thank you very much for this post. I loved it!
Celebrating Darwin's birthday is bad enough, but now you are celebrating the birthday of a Darwinist too? Sheeeesh. Give me a break.
Neat to know of another scientific giant whose birthday I share (Hawking is another--glad Elvis is outnumbered!).
As long as we're looking at convergence, let's not forget there was yet a third person who had also formulated natural selection. In 1831, Patrick Matthew published "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture" in which he articulated the idea. The book was so obscure, that neither Darwin nor Wallace knew about it. After "On the Origin of Species", Matthew wrote Darwin, claiming priority. For his part, Darwin acknowledged that priority.
So what's the big idea about "natural selection"? Doesn't it just say that more-fit organisms are more likely to survive than less-fit organisms? Isn't that obvious?
Re Larry Fafarman
Mr. Danford might consider following the example of Ed Brayton and ban Mr. Fafarman, a whackjobs' whackjob, from his blog.
There's a commercial for one of the new "reality shows" that's being developed in response to the writer's strike that has a snippet with the following quiz-show exchange:
"What does an entomologist study?" "Entomology."
Proving, as Larry does, that you can make a tautology out of almost anything. It would be nice if Larry and his ilk would realize that what's just a touch less obvious is that more-fit organisms are more likely to pass on the traits that make them more-fit to more offspring. Surviving is just a detail.
SLC, you dunghill, it is very bad netiquette to ask a blogger to arbitrarily censor another commenter. You are trying to provoke me into abusiveness in order to give the blogger a flimsy excuse to censor my comments.
Fatheaded Ed Brayton is an unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger with no credibility. It would be foolish to follow his example.
Bill Gascoyne said,
Well, duh. "Just a touch less obvious" is right -- a very slight touch.
And apparently you still allowed yourself to be provoked. That was less than intelligent of you.
I do not like abusive behavior in the comments here. I'm pretty sure I've told you that before. Don't do it again.
Larry, this is my blog. I don't need an excuse to ban you from commenting here.
I have always wondered whether or not the movie "angels and insects" was about Wallace. BTW Wallace was very into spiritualism and claimed that the human mind had to have been the work of God and could not have arisen thru natural selection.
-- a very slight touch.
That's all that's needed! Cave in!
Revenge for that Friends episode. The one where Ross caves in on evolution!
And SLC's comment is not abusive? You obviously have a double standard.
But having one is a big help.
Larry's going to be taking a break from commenting here for a while.
Doesn't it just say that more-fit organisms are more likely to survive than less-fit organisms?
No, it says that, over time, more fit traits tend to dominate less fit traits in a population. (And, to state what is apparently not obvious, if mutations introduce new traits, there is no limit to how far a population can shift in its collection of traits, leading to organisms that don't bear any obvious resemblance to the originals.)
Isn't that obvious?
If it were obvious, it would have been recognized sooner, and it wouldn't have been so heavily resisted, through the present day. One reason it isn't obvious is that it isn't necessarily true; if Darwin's notion of blended characteristics were correct, then natural selection wouldn't occur. Darwin and Russel didn't arrive at natural selection through pure logic or simply noticing the obvious, they arrived there through examining evidence, recognizing -- once they had synthesized the concept -- that natural selection does occur. Why it occurs -- the mechanistic explanation -- didn't come until later, and is still coming.
Darwin and [Wallace] didn't arrive at natural selection through pure logic
However, it's worth noting that Wallace did apply abduction, reasoning from a set of observations to a hypothesis that necessitates them (the hypothesis "postdicts" the observations):