Wallace, Darwin, and the Practice of Natural History Author(s): Melinda B. Fagan Source: Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 2007), pp. 601-635 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737514 . Accessed: 02/06/2013 13:59 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. . Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of Biology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
36
Embed
Wallace, Darwin, and the Practice of Natural History - Wallace and Darwin... · Wallace, Darwin, and the Practice of Natural History ... AND THE PRACTICE OF NATURAL HISTORY 603 ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Wallace, Darwin, and the Practice of Natural HistoryAuthor(s): Melinda B. FaganSource: Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 2007), pp. 601-635Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737514 .
Accessed: 02/06/2013 13:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History ofBiology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of the History of Biology (2007) 40:601-635 ? Springer 2007
DOI 10.1007/s 10739-007-9126-8
Wallace, Darwin, and the Practice of Natural History
MELINDA B. FAGAN Department of History and Philosophy of Science Indiana University
Goodbody Hall 130, 1011 East Third St
Bloomington, IN 47405 USA E-mail: me fagan @ indiana, edu
Abstract. There is a pervasive contrast in the early natural history writings of the
co-discoverers of natural selection, Alfred R?ssel Wallace and Charles Darwin. In his
writings from South America and the Malay Archipelago (1848-1852, 1854-1862), Wallace consistently emphasized species and genera, and separated these descriptions
from his rarer and briefer discussions of individual organisms. In contrast, Darwin's
writings during the Beagle voyage (1831-1836) emphasized individual organisms, and
mingled descriptions of individuals and groups. The contrast is explained by the
different practices of the two naturalists in the field. Wallace and Darwin went to the
field with different educational experiences and social connections, constrained by
different responsibilities and theoretical interests. These in turn resulted in different
natural history practices; i.e., different habits and working routines in the field.
Wallace's intense collecting activities aimed at a complete inventory of different
species and their distributions at many localities. Darwin's less intense collecting
practice focused on detailed observations of individual organisms. These different
practices resulted in different material, textual and conceptual products. Placing
natural history practices at the center of analysis reveals connections among these
diverse products, and throws light on Wallace and Darwin's respective treatment of
individuals and groups in natural history. In particular, this approach clarifies
the relation between individuals and groups in Wallace's theory of natural selection,
and provides an integrative starting point for further investigations of the broader
social factors that shaped Victorian natural history practices and their scientific
products.
Keywords: Alfred R?ssel Wallace, Charles Darwin, natural history, scientific practice,
Brachyurus Macklotti, Temm., B. novae guineas, Schlegel, Tany
siptera, sp., Eurystomus gularis, Vieill., Carpophaga, n.s., with
several small flycatchers, thrushes, and shrikes, and that most
magnificent of the swallow-tribe, Macropteryx mystaceus, Less., were what I now obtained... The following families are abundant in
species and in individuals. They are everywhere common birds"
(italics in original)1
I shot a condor, it measured from tip to tip of wing 8 & 1/2 feet; -
from beak to tail 4 feet. - They are magnificent birds; when seated
on a pinnacle over some steep precipice, sultan-like they view the
plains beneath them. I believe these birds are never found excepting where there are perpendicular cliffs: further up the river, where the
lava is 8 & 900 feet above the bed of the river, I found a regular
breeding place; it was a fine sight to see between ten & twenty of
these Condors start heavily from their resting spot & then wheel
away in majestic circles.*"
These passages illustrate a pervasive contrast in the early writings of
Alfred R?ssel Wallace and Charles Darwin. Both naturalists spent years in the field before independently developing their theories of natural
selection.3 Wallace worked as a specimen collector in South America
(1848-1852) and the Malay Archipelago (present-day Indonesia; 1854?
1862), while Darwin acquired his specimens during the Beagle voyage
(1831-1836), primarily from South America. In his notes, essays and
correspondence from the field, Wallace consistently emphasized species and genera, and separated these descriptions from his rarer and briefer
discussions of individual organisms. The first passage above, from an
1857 article describing collecting in the Aru Islands, is typical: Wallace
provides an enthusiastic litany of species, families and genera. It is easy to miss his distinction at the end of the passage, between families,
species and individuals, in ternis of "abundance." Yet this too is
1 Wallace, 1857d, pp. 476, 479.
2 Keynes, 1988, p. 237.
3 Darwin and Wallace, 1858, Darwin, 1968 [1859]. McKinney (1972, pp. 97-155), Brackman (1980) and Brooks (1984, pp. 200-269) argue that Darwin drew on Wallace's 1858 essay for his own theory. Browne (1980), Beddall (1988), Kohn (1985, pp. 245
257), and Raby (2001, pp. 129-142) effectively criticize this 'conspiracy theory.' The current consensus is that the theories were conceived independently {cf. Browne 2003,
pp. 14-45).
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
facts, and an object to which they can be applied when collected."28 A
letter of September 1847 went further: "I begin to feel rather dissatisfied with a mere local collection; little is to be learnt by it. I should like to take some one family to study thoroughly, principally with a view to the
theory of the origin of species. By that means I am strongly of opinion that some definite results may be arrived at."29 In his 1863 memoir,
Bates recalls this as the motivation for their trip:
Wallace...proposed to me a joint expedition to the river Amazon, for the purpose of exploring the Natural History of its banks; the
plan being to make for ourselves a collection of objects, dispose of
the duplicates in London to pay expenses, and gather facts, as Mr.
Wallace expressed it in one of his letters, "toward solving the
problem of the origin of species," a subject on which we had
conversed and corresponded much together.30
Wallace's collecting was thus driven by both his scientific interests and
his financial constraints. These dual motivations literally resulted in
duplicate collections. As planned, Wallace made two collections on both
expeditions: one sold to cover his expenses, the other set aside for his
personal scientific use.31
There was never any question of duplicates for Darwin. A paying
passenger on the Beagle, he owned all his collections outright and had
no need to sell them.32 With no economic incentive to collect, and no
official responsibility to do so, Darwin was free to indulge his own
interests in natural history. Among these, geology took precedence. Darwin's Beagle correspondence contains many remarks to this effect:
"I am seeing the country & collecting in every branch of Nat. History..." "But Geology carries the day;" "Since leaving Valparaiso, during this
cruize [sic], I have done little excepting in Geology," pursuing it "even
to the neglect of marine Zoology."33 Unlike Wallace, Darwin began to
consider the problem of the origin of species, and consider transmuta?
tion as a possible answer, only after his collecting days had ended. He
later dated his own first "vague doubts" about the "stability of species" to the end of the Beagle voyage, and began to keep species notebooks in
28 Wallace, 1906, p. 254.
29 Wallace, 1906, pp. 254-256.
30 Bates, 1863, p. i.
31 Wallace, 1869, p. vii; Wallace, 1906, p. 266, 306.
32 Browne, 1995, pp. 185, 206-209, 219, 230-232.
33 CCD 1, pp. 230, 232, 432, 436; see Herbert, 2005, pp. 1-47, for more on Darwin's
geological background.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WALLACE, DARWIN, AND THE PRACTICE OF NATURAL HISTORY 609
July 1837. During the voyage, Darwin's primary theoretical interests
were geological, as he enthusiastically applied Charles Lyell's theories in
various localities.
Wallace and Darwin thus came to the field with different educational
experience and connections, constrained by different responsibilities and
theoretical motivations. These biographically specific contrasts are
embedded in the wider social and scientific context, which changed
considerably in the twenty years separating their field expeditions.
Geology, botany and zoology, the three traditional branches of natural
history, began to fragment into distinct disciplines, as publications and
societies proliferated in London and in provincial centers.35 The
establishment of rules for zoological nomenclature (in which Darwin
participated), and the rise in prominence of the British Museum in the
1840s, focused Wallace's practice by allowing him to target gaps in a
stable taxonomic framework.36 Yet the methods and equipment of
natural history collecting underwent little change.37 Wallace and Dar?
win's different natural history practices reflected their different loca?
tions, framed by their personal circumstances and motivations, within
this wider context.
Natural History Practice
Wallace and Darwin's natural history practices differed in intensity, in
the principal activities performed, and in the standards they used.
Wallace's practice was more intense than Darwin's in at least two re?
spects: overall length of time in the field, and daily working routine.
Most of Darwin's work in natural history took place in the first four
years of the voyage (late 1831 to late 1835) while the Beagle mapped the South American coastline.38 Darwin collected specimens mainly along the coast of South America and adjacent islands, spending slightly less
than half the voyage onboard. Though most of his trips ashore were of
fairly short duration, Darwin made eight significant inland expeditions
34 Darwin and Seward, 1903, Volume 1, p. 367; de Beer, 1960; Barrett et al. 1987;
Herbert, 1980. 35
Allen, 1976; Farber, 2000, pp. 33, 47. 36 Desmond and Moore, 1991; McOuat, 1996, 2001. 37
Larsen, 1996; Allen, 2001. 38 CCD I pp. 540-542; Keynes, 1988; Darwin, 1987 [1839]. Summary in Browne,
1995, pp. 164-165, 226-228.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WALLACE. DARW?N, AND THE PRACTICE OF NATURAL HISTORY 613
field, Wallace tailored his collecting activities according to what would
sell, concentrating on groups that fetched good prices: tropical birds,
butterflies, and beetles. However, economic pressures did not com?
pletely determine Wallace's collecting practice. His theoretical interest
in characterizing the species in a given area, their relative abundance, and relations between the species composition at different localities, remained strong throughout his collecting career. In letters to the
Entomological Society of London, for example, Wallace complains that
amateur naturalists neglect "small and obscure...groups" in favor of
"large and handsome" species, obscuring "a true idea of the Ento?
mology of this country."57 Wallace practiced what he preached: at each
collecting site, he sought as many different species as could be found,
showy or drab, new or familiar. He often revisited sites, returning at
different seasons to get a more complete sampling, and recorded precise details of his collecting locales.
Darwin's principal collecting activities were quite different. For one
thing, his geological interests often trumped his zoology and botany.58 This is evident from the relative frequency and length of geological
(compared to zoological) discussion in Darwin's diary, notes and cor?
respondence between 1831 and 1836, as well as from many of his own
remarks.59 Accordingly, much of his time onshore was occupied with
geological investigations rather than zoological and botanical collecting. Darwin's geologizing often involved covering large areas of terrain on
horseback; such trips did not afford opportunities for extensive zoo?
logical collecting. Bones and seeds might have withstood the shocks of
hard riding, but most plant and animal specimens would have been dust
in the saddlebags, even if there had been time to collect them. Since
these activities did not mesh well, Darwin's focus on geology meant less
zoological and botanical work.
After geologizing, Darwin's main natural history interest during the
Beagle voyage was marine zoology. His maritime collecting method was
one of the first recorded uses of a plankton net: "a bag four feet deep, made of bunting, & attached to [a] semicircular bow this by lines is kept upright, & dragged behind the vessel. - this evening it brought up a
57 Wallace, 1856b, pp. 5113-5117; Wallace, 1858b, pp. 6120-6124; see also MJc
(16 July 1858). 58
See Herbert, 2005, especially pp. 98-128. 59
CCD 1, pp. 232, 418, 432, 495. Darwin's geology notes were four times longer than
those for zoology (Keynes, 2000, p. ix). Well over half of the latter concern marine
invertebrates; descriptions of single specimens run to 5-6 pages. Vertebrates typically
get only a few lines. See Herbert (2005, pp. 140-176) for Darwin's geological writings
during the Beagle voyage.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
mass of small animals, & tomorrow I look forward to a greater har?
vest."60 Darwin examined his harvests of marine invertebrates under his
microscope, making superbly detailed observations in his zoology notebook.61 Eager to describe new7 species, he also attempted to identify each specimen using the considerable resources of the Beagle's library.
Onshore, where one could not simply wait for one's net to fill, Darwin
still spent comparatively little time hunting for specimens as opposed to
making detailed observations: "I find one hours collecting keeps me in
full employment for the rest of the day."62 In contrast, Wallace's
"extensive collections of birds & insects" demanded "constant personal
attention", leaving him little time to observe individual specimens in
detail.63
Darwin also relied on others to do his collecting to a much greater extent than Wallace. Though Wallace worked mostly alone in South
America, he employed regular assistants in the Archipelago: Charles
Allen, the son of an English carpenter, and Ali, a young Malay hired in
1855, who remained with Wallace for the remainder of his travels.64
Both young men helped Wallace shoot and prepare specimens, though Ali was apparently much more competent. Wallace also intermittently
engaged one or two native hunters and guides for short periods in
particular localities. He sometimes paid local hunters for specimens,
notably Paradise birds, which were caught alive using specialized methods. But when his health permitted, Wallace worked alongside his
assistants, adding their labors to his own. He did not use assistants to
pursue different activities.65
Darwin did employ assistants to collect while he geologized, or
microscopically examined his marine harvests. In July 1833, while living in Maldonado, he hired Syms Covington, a Beagle crew member, to
assist him in ornithology. Regarding their arrangement, Darwin wrote
frankly to Fox: "You ask me about Ornithology; my labours in it are
very simple. - I have taught, my servant to shoot & skin birds, & I give
60 Keynes, 1988, p. 21.
61 For further detail, see Sloan (1985, pp. 87-103). 62
Keynes, 1988, p. 64. 63
Malay Diary I, 35 (1 Oct 1856). 64
Wallace, 1906, pp. 338-340, 382-383; Camerini, 1996, 1997. Other assistants, such
as Baderoon, a young man of Macassar, worked for Wallace for shorter periods than
Charles and Ali. 65
See, for example, MJa, 35 (1 Oct 1856).
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WALLACE. DARWIN, AND THE PRACTICE OF NATURAL HISTORY 615
him money. I collect reptiles, small quadrupeds, & fishes industriously. The invertebrate marine animals, are however my delight..."66 Darwin
was also willing and able to pay for specimens, epitomizing his policy as
"if gold or galloping will get them, they will be mine."67 Darwin's
plankton net and social networks, as well as his wealth and position, enabled him to pursue his interests in geology and to make detailed
microscopic observations of particular specimens. Wallace, in contrast,
spent more of his time actively hunting for specimens in the jungles and
fields, and less on detailed observations. He was keenly aware of this
tradeoff, noting in his personal journal that
to make any thing like extensive collections of birds & insects,
keeping brief notes of the most interesting facts connected with
them will fill up the whole time of one person, with two or three
native assistants. He absolutely cannot do much else, and is often
even obliged to abridge his notes in order to secure the safe pres? ervation of his specimens.68
Finally, Wallace and Darwin applied different standards to their col?
lecting practices. Darwin, with his preference for painstaking micro?
scopic observation, aimed to thoroughly describe a few specimens of a
species rather than collect a whole "series." A letter to Henslow makes
this explicit: "Most assuredly I might collect a far greater number of
specimens of Invertebrate animals if I took less time over each: But I
have come to the conclusion, that 2 animals with their original colour &
shape noted down, will be more valuable to Naturalists than 6 with only dates & place."69 Ever meticulous, Darwin took pains to record any features likely to degrade after preservation or drying, and dissected
duplicates when possible.
Representing a species with "2 animals," however meticulously de?
scribed, was not Wallace's way. One reason for this was his concen?
tration on insects and birds, groups far better-characterized in the 1850s
than marine invertebrates in the 1830s. But Wallace's concern for series
of specimens was not merely due to passive uptake of the natural history
66 CCD 1, p. 316 (Letter to Fox: 23 May 1833, Maldonado). Also CCD 1, pp. 312,
314, 321. 67
CCD 1, p. 398. See also Keynes, 1988, p. 160. 68
MM, 18 (July-August 1856). 69 CCD 1, p. 251; also Keynes, 1988, p. 207. At the time Darwin believed that most
variation in animals and plants occurred between species and varieties, not within them;
he thus may have seen no benefit to representing species with "series" (Darwin 1987
[1844]; Stott, 2003, pp. 146, 241-242). Moreover, as marine invertebrate taxonomy was
in an unsettled state, characterizing new animals was a sensible and productive strategy.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Standards of his day. Rather, the combination of Wallace's theoretical
and economic interests led him to collect whole series of specimens for
particular species, from his first expeditions on the Rio Negro in the
1840s, to his hunt for Paradise birds in the Aru Islands over a decade
later.70 The financial incentives to collect multiple specimens of partic?
ularly salable species, such as showy Lepidoptera and Paradise birds, are
obvious. But Wallace's theoretical interests, specifically his distinction
of true species from "mere varieties" on the basis of constancy rather
than degree of differentiation, also demanded multiple specimens of
each species.71 To determine what species he had, either for sale or
theoretical speculation, Wallace needed to examine multiple individuals.
His field reports from 1856 onwards indicate that Wallace aimed to
collect both male and female specimens of different stages of maturity.72 For some species, such as Paradise birds with ontogenetically variable
plumage, a "good series" required over twenty specimens; while for
many Cole?ptera he found three sufficient.73
Wallace and Darwin's natural history practices in the field thus
differed in three significant ways. First, they worked at different inten?
sities, both overall and on a daily basis. Second, their principal routine
activities were different. Wallace spent 5 or 6 h each day hunting for
specimens, and an equal amount of time processing and classifying his
haul. Darwin spent much less time actively searching for specimens,
allowing them to come to him via net or networking, and much more
time minutely describing individual specimens, with special attention to
marine invertebrates. Finally, they used different standards for collect?
ing. Darwin aimed to meticulously describe one or two specimens per
species and was most excited by novelty; while Wallace sought "a good series" of specimens to represent each species and a complete inventory of species at a given locality. These different practices were in turn
shaped by the circumstances and motivations that brought Wallace and
Darwin to the field: economic, social, and scientific.
Material Results
Their different practices, unsurprisingly, yielded different material
results. Darwin's zoological and botanical collection from his Beagle
70 Wallace, 1850b, pp. 494-496.
71 Wallace, 1860, p. 107.
72 Wallace, 1850b, pp. 494-495; 1856c, 1857c, p. 415; 1861.
73 Wallace, 1869, p. 539.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
estimated his private collection at approximately 3000 bird skins of
about 1000 species, and approximately 20,000 beetles and butterflies of
about 7000 species. Unlike Darwin, he appears to have organized his
collection by numbering species, as well as keeping track of the number
of specimens of each.79
Writings from the Field
Wallace and Darwin's natural history practices also yielded writings,
though these were not (of course) produced in the same way as the
collections described above. The relevant writings were produced con
comitantly with those material collections, and concern the same ob?
jects: living things, their habits and habitats. These writings result from
natural history practice, in the sense that differences in the latter made a
difference to the former. In what follows, I draw on Wallace's published
early writings, including portions of his correspondence, as well as his
personal journal from the Malay Archipelago (1856-1861), zoology notes (1855-58), and one theoretical notebook (1855-59).80 Comparable sources for Darwin include his Beagle diary, field notebooks, zoological and geological notes, catalogue of specimens, and his correspondence
with family and friends. These various writings exhibit the contrast
introduced above. Wallace consistently emphasized groups of organ?
isms, while Darwin described many details of individual organisms.
Also, Wallace clearly distinguished between groups and individuals, while Darwin was more ambiguous. Five lines of evidence show the
pervasiveness of this contrast, and reveal the connections with the
practices discussed above.
First, and most coarsely, are the relative frequencies with which
Wallace and Darwin mention groups vs. individual organisms in their
writings from the field. Of 96 published papers and letter extracts
written by Wallace between 1848 and 1862, twelve do not mention
natural history (ten letter extracts, and two reports to the Royal Geo?
graphic Society).81 The remaining 84 pieces can be subdivided as fol?
lows: collecting reports (25), private correspondence (23), short articles
79 Wallace, 1850b, pp. 494-495; Zoology Notebook 1855-58.
80 See 'Manuscript Sources' below. Most of Wallace's Amazon writings were lost in
the fire on the Helen. 81
Complete dataset available by request from author. See "The Alfred R?ssel Wal?
lace Page" (Charles Smith) at http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/home.htm for a compre?
hensive bibliography of Wallace's published writings.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
collection, and one article concludes with an impersonal summary of
"dimensions of young orang-utan."96 Thus Wallace's tendency to
emphasize species appears even in this exceptional case.
Darwin did not typically describe himself as "meeting" species, nor
do his writings include lengthy discussions of the habits and behaviors
of species as such. Instead, he vividly described meetings with individual
animals and plants. General observations of natural history, such as
those of Gal?pagos tortoises and lizards, are liberally sprinkled with
individual encounters: "one I saw killed," "one large tortoise, which I
watched," "one [egg] which I measured," "I have seen a large one which
weighed twenty pounds," "I carried one to a deep pool...and threw it in
several times" "I watched one for a long time...and pulled it by the tail," and many others.97 Thus, Wallace and Darwin tended to write about
encounters with and habits of groups and individual organisms,
respectively.
Finally, Wallace and Darwin treated their respective 'de-emphasized entities' differently. Wallace wrote of individual specimens mainly to
complain about having only one representative of a species, as in this
typical letter to Stevens: "Here [Macassar] in two months I have got fifteen species...Of these six are represented by single specimens only, but of the rest I send you thirty fine specimens, and they will, I doubt
not, contain something new."98 Since Wallace aimed to represent each
species with a "good series" of specimens, a single specimen was not
enough. He also occasionally described how particular individuals
(most often orang-utans, unusual butterflies or Paradise birds) were
caught or shot, thereby becoming his specimens.99 Wallace also wrote of
individual animals when describing new or controversial observations
about the habits of a given species or genus. These were based on his
extensive observations of animal behavior in the wild, or on the many
rough dissections he performed in the course of specimen preparation. For example, in several ornithological articles Wallace connected the
fat, tough skin, and stomach contents of "a freshly killed bird," to the
beautiful features of its species, which are the main emphasis.100 Though
96 Wallace 1869, p. 57; 1856a, p. 390. 97
Darwin, 1987 [1839], pp. 464-476, also pp. 126-127; Keynes, 1988, p. 272. Darwin's
vivid and personal style has been linked to Romantic influences on his work (e.g.,
Herbert, 2005, pp. 131-135). 98
Wallace, 1857a, pp. 5652-5657. 99
E.g., Wallace, 1869, pp. 552-572, 572-575. 100
Wallace, 1861, pp. 288-290. See also Wallace, 1854a, 1854b, 1856c, 1856d, 1857b, 1860, 1861.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The man who spent hours each day transforming individual organisms into representatives of groups would be the last person to conflate the
two, or to minimize the distinction between them. Species and higher taxa were what Wallace worked towards, and receive more attention in
his writings, but individual organisms are always, and necessarily, in the
background.
Darwin, lacking Wallace's motives, developed a different routine of
natural history practice. His emphasis on individuals emerged from his
routine practice, which involved relatively little time actively hunting for
species, and more time carefully examining the minute features of
specimens brought to him via net or network. He worked at a more
sedate pace, lavished attention on each specimen he collected, and
meticulously described their features. The distinctive features of his
writing dovetail with these aspects of his practice. His habit of extrap?
olating from one or two individuals to the characteristics of entire
species is reflected in his tendency to mingle descriptions of individuals
and groups. Detailed observations of each individual specimen, readily
extrapolated to the species, result in descriptions rich in individual de?
tail, in which the line between specimen and species tends to blur.
Conclusion: Wallace's theory
The contrast in Wallace and Darwin's writing, and the explanation in
terms of their practice, is of interest in its own right. Moreover, this
practice-based approach has broader significance as well. Historians of
biology have recently called for integrative approaches to evolutionary
theory that move beyond facile internalist-externalist dualisms.111 This
account responds to such calls, connecting the wider social context
which shaped Wallace and Darwin's different routines, with the results
of their practice. This comparative approach can readily be extended to
other naturalists (e.g., Robert Grant, Henry Walter Bates, Joseph
Hooker, Richard Spruce, and Thomas Huxley) and to Wallace and
Darwin's subsequent practices and the products of these (e.g., Darwin's
years of Notebook theorizing, experiments on plants, and barnacle re?
search; Wallace's anthropological theories, investigations of spiritual?
ism, and socialist activism). This approach also provides a starting point for further investigations of the broader social and scientific factors that
shaped Darwin and Wallace's different practices (e.g., taxonomic the?
ories and methods, imperial politics and colonialism).
111 See, e.g., Jones 2002, Hull 2005.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WALLACE, DARWIN, AND THE PRACTICE OF NATURAL HISTORY 627
The more narrowly focused contrast between Wallace and Darwin
has theoretical significance as well. Differences in their natural history
practice made for differences in their theories about the objects of that
practice, which can be seen alongside the material and literary contrasts.
In particular, the contrasting emphases and distinctions in Wallace and
Darwin's writings from the field indicate the conceptual frameworks of
their theories of natural selection. A detailed comparison of the devel?
opment and articulation of these theories is beyond the scope of this
paper. In any case, Darwin's theory has been thoroughly examined in its
own right, and the history of its development extends well beyond the
Beagle voyage.112 However, Wallace's theory, fully developed during his
years in the field, has received far less attention. The practice-based account can throw light on Wallace's theory of natural selection, and
thereby improve our understanding of both theories, with their obvious
similarities and subtle differences.
As noted above, Wallace went to the field with the aim of testing the
hypothesis of transmutation of species. There are parallels with Dar?
win's work of the 1830s and 1840s, as well as a direct connection:
Wallace was influenced by Malthus and Lyell, wrote out his ideas in
species notebooks, and drew on Darwin's own Journal of Researches for
geological and biogeographical information.113 His writings from the
field include two theoretical essays: the 1855 "Law" paper (written in
Borneo during the rainy season) and the Ternate paper of 1858 (written on Gilolo when Wallace was ill).114 The latter, entitled "On the ten?
dency of varieties to depart indefinitely from the original type," was
presented alongside Darwin's theory at the July 1, 1858 meeting of the
Linnean Society, galvanizing Darwin to write (and quickly publish) the
Origin of Species the following year. Though these events have been
examined in detail by various authors, Wallace's theory itself has been
left (to paraphrase Shermer) in the shadow of Darwin's.115
There is a longstanding (though not unanimous) historical and
philosophical consensus that Darwin's theory focused on selection of
112 See Darwin and Wallace, 1959 [1858]; de Beer, 1960; Darwin, 1968 [1859]; Stauffer, 1975; Burkhardt and Smith, 1985; Barrett et al. 1987; Darwin, 1987 [1842-1844].
Ospovat (1981) provides a classic account of the development of Darwin's theory; see
also Kohn (1985). 113
Fichman, 2004; Slotten, 2004. 114
Wallace, 1855b; Darwin and Wallace, 1959 [1858]. Wallace's classificatory essays,
and a more thorough account of the development of his theory of natural selection, will
be dealt with in future papers. For the timing and site of Wallace's 1858 essay, see
McKinney (1972), Slotten (2004). 115
See references in note 3; also CCD 1, pp. xvii-xix, 107.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
individual organisms, Wallace's on differential survival of varieties.116
The difference is often attributed to confusion or oversight on Wallace's
part. Bowler (1976) claims that Wallace "recognized the Malthusian
concept of struggle at the individual level, but immediately translated
this into what would happen when permanent varieties came into
conflict." Gould (2002) judges him more harshly: "Wallace never
comprehended the question of levels at all, as he searched for adapta? tion wherever he could find it, oblivious to any problems raised by the
locus of its action." Slotten (following Kottler, 1985) circumspectly notes that "it is unclear if in 1858 [Wallace] considered competition
among individuals to be as important as competition among subpop? ulations in a species."117 The received view of Wallace that emerges from these representative assessments is that he was either a group
selectionist, misguided about the mechanism of selection, or both. One
difficulty for this received view is that Wallace evidently did conceive of
natural selection as acting on individuals. His first description of the
mechanism is explicitly individualistic:
...so long as a country remains physically unchanged, the numbers
of its animal population cannot materially increase. If one species does so, some others requiring the same kind of food must diminish
in proportion. The numbers that die annually must be immense; and as the individual existence of each animal depends upon itself, those that die must be the weakest - the very young, the aged, and
the diseased, - while those that prolong their existence can only be
the most perfect in health and vigour - those who are best able to
obtain food regularly, and avoid their numerous enemies. It is..."a
struggle for existence," in which the weakest and least perfectly
organized must always succumb (italics mine).118
Wallace then discusses the operation of natural selection in terms of
relative abundance of different species of an "allied group," such that
better-adapted varieties replace the parent species in a process of
Kleiner, 1985; Gayon, 1998, pp. 19-59; Ruse, 1999, p. 233; Gould, 2002, pp. 126-137; Browne, 2003, p. 18. For 'neutral theories' see Kottler, 1985; Slotten, 2004, p. 159. For a
dissenting view, see: Mayr, 1982, pp. 494-497. Bulmer (2005) rejects the group selec?
tionist interpretation of Wallace, but criticizes him instead for "misunderstanding the
population ecology of competing species" (p. 133). I thank an anonymous reviewer for
bringing Bulmer's article to my attention. 117
Bowler, 1976, p. 24; Gould, 2002, p.136; Slotten, 2004, p. 159. 118
Darwin and Wallace, 1959 [1858], pp. 56-57. All quotations in this section are from
WALLACE, DARWIN, AND THE PRACTICE OF NATURAL HISTORY 629
"progression and continued divergence." The received view of Wallace
as group selectionist is understandable, given that much of his essay is in
terms of adaptation and replacement at the level of varieties. But, seen
in the context of his practice and other writings from the field, Wallace's
theory is neither confused nor misguided. Nor does it posit an addi?
tional process occurring over and above selection on individual
organisms. After describing selection on individual organisms (an unusual departure from his typical emphasis), Wallace shifts to species and varieties, the focus of most of his writing, which his routine practice led him to emphasize:
Now, let some alteration of physical conditions occur in the district - a long period of drought [etc.]...
- any change in fact tending to
render existence more difficult to the species in question, and
tasking its utmost powers to avoid complete extermination; it is
evident that, of all the individuals composing the species, those
forming the least numerous and most feebly organized variety would suffer first, and, were the pressure severe, must soon become
extinct. The same causes continuing in action, and parent species would next suffer, would gradually diminish in numbers, and with a
recurrence of similar unfavourable conditions might also become
extinct. The superior variety would alone remain, and on a return
to favorable circumstances would rapidly increase in numbers and
occupy the place of the extinct species and variety (p. 58).
As in Wallace's other writings from the field, the individual and group levels are linked via the notion of abundance, the number of individuals
composing a group. Wallace defines the best-adapted species as those
that "obtain and preserve a superiority in population," while those that
exhibit "some defect of power or organization ...must diminish in
numbers, and, in extreme cases, become altogether extinct" (p. 57). Thus "continuance of the species and the keeping up of the average number of individuals" amount to the same thing (p. 55). The core of
Wallace's theory, like Darwin's, is survival of the individuals that are
best at obtaining food and avoiding predators. The two men thus rightly
recognized their theories as essentially the same, despite their different
emphases.119 The practice-based account provides a more nuanced and sympa?
thetic interpretation of Wallace's theory, and clarifies its contrast with
Darwin's individualistic focus. Though much changed in Darwin's
practice between 1836 and 1858, his emphasis on individual organisms
and vivid examples remained a feature of his writing and theorizing.120 Wallace's routine practice of hunting, processing, and classifying shaped
the theory that he conceived in the midst of these activities. In the
material and literary results of his natural history practice, groups figure
prominently, but individual organisms form the base or starting-point. The same pattern can be seen in his 1858 theory. Individual organisms are in the background of Wallace's theory, constituting the basis for the
claims he makes about species and varieties. The practice-based account
thus places Wallace's theory of natural selection in its proper context -
the field -
rather than leaving it in Darwin's shadow.
Acknowledgments
I thank Sander Gliboff, John Beatty, Jane Camerini, Steve Crowley, Michael Dickison, Elisabeth Lloyd, Rasmus Winther, the editor and
two anonymous reviewers for insightful discussion and comments; the
Linnean Society for permission to examine Wallace's unpublished
MSS; and Jane Camerini for guidance on Wallace's published and
unpublished writings. Earlier drafts of this paper were presented at
the Vienna International Summer University workshop on "The
Quest for Objectivity" (Vienna, Austria, July 26, 2004) and as the 2005 Hanson Prize Lecture at Indiana University (Bloomington, IN,
January 20, 2006). Many thanks to participants on both occasions for
helpful questions and comments. Any errors are mine.
120 See, for example, his Notebook theorizing on orang-utans in the late 1830s (CCD 2
p. 80; de Beer, 1960: C79; Barrett et al. 1987, pp. C79, C235, D138, M85, M107, M128, M138-140, M156, N13, N63, N88, N94), much of which is reprised in Darwin, 1871;
1998 [1872].
References
Manuscript Sources:
Malay archipelago journals, 4 notebooks (13 June 1856^4 May 1861). Linnean Society, Archives (Ms. 178a-d) (cited as MJa-d).
Natural history notebook, 1855-1859. Linnean Society, Archives (Ms. 180).
WALLACE, DARWIN, AND THE PRACTICE OF NATURAL HISTORY 631
Published Sources:
Allen, D.E. 1976. The Naturalist in Britain. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
-2001. Naturalists and Society. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Barrett, P.H., Gautry, P.J., Herbert, S., Kohn, D. and Smith, S. (eds.). 1987. Charles
Darwin's Notebooks, 1836-1844. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bates, H.W. 1863. The Naturalist on the River Amazons. London: John Murray.
Beddall, B.G. 1968. ''Wallace, Darwin, and the Theory of Natural Selection." Journal of
the History of Biology 1: 261-323. -1988. "Darwin and Divergence: the Wallace Connection." Journal of the History of
Biology 21: 1-68.
Bowler, P.J. 1976. "Alfred R?ssel Wallace's Concepts of Variation/' Journal of the
History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 31: 17-29.
Brackman, A.C. 1980. A Delicate Arrangement: The Strange Case of Charles Darwin and
Alfred R?ssel Wallace. New York: Times Books.
Brooks, J.L. 1984. Just Before the Origin: Alfred R?ssel Wallace's Theory of Evolution.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Browne, J. 1980. "Darwin's Botanical Arithmetic and the "Principle of Divergence,"
1854-1858." Journal of the History of Biology 13(1), 53-89. -
1992. "A Science of Empire: British Biogeography Before Darwin." Revue of
Historical Sciences 45(4), 453-475. -1995. Charles Darwin: Voyaging, vol. 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
-2003. Charles Darwin: The Power of Place, vol. 2. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Bulmer, M. 2005. "The Theory of Natural Selection of Alfred R?ssel Wallace FRS."
Notes & Records of the Royal Society 59: 125-136.
Burkhardt, F. and Smith, S. (eds.). 1985. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin, Vol?
umes I, II, VII (1821-1859). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (cited as
CCD). Camerini, J.R. 1996. "Wallace in the Field." Osiris 11: 44-65 (2nd series).
- 1997. "Remains of the Day: Early Victorians in the Field." B. Lightman (ed.), Victorian Science in Context. Chicago.
Camerini, J.R. (ed.). 2002. The Alfred R?ssel Wallace Reader: a Selection of Writings
from the Field. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
[Chambers, Robert.] 1994 [1844]. Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Reprint: Secord, J.A. (ed.). Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Darwin, Charles. 1987 [1839]. Journal of Researches in Geology and Natural History.
New York: New York University Press. [Volumes 2 and 3 of the works of Charles
Darwin, edited by Paul H. Barrett and R. B. Freeman.].
-1987 [1842-1844]. Barrett, P.H., and Freeman, R.B. (eds.). The Works of Charles
Darwin, Volume 10: The Foundations of the Origin of Species. New York: New York
University Press.
Darwin, Charles, and Wallace, Alfred R?ssel. 1959 [1858]. "On the Tendency of Species to Form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural
Means of Selection." Journal of the Linnean Society 3: 45-62. Lowenberg, Bert James
(Chairman, Darwin Anniversary Committee) Darwin, Wallace and the Theory of
Natural Selection. Cambridge: Arlington Books.
Darwin, Charles. 1968 [1859]. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: Penguin Books.
-1871. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. London: John Murray.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
- 1998 [1872]. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, 3rd ed.
(P. Ekman, ed.). New York: Oxford University Press, 1998 (1st edition 1872). Darwin, F. and Seward, A.C. (eds.). 1903. More Letters of Charles Darwin. London:
John Murray, de Beer, G. (ed.). 1960. Darwin's Notebooks on the Transmutation of Species. London:
British Museum.
Desmond, A. and Moore, J. 1991. Darwin: the Life of a Tormented Evolutionist. New
York: Warner Books.
Farber, P.L. 2000. Finding Order in Nature: the Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to
E.O. Wilson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Fichman, M. 2004. An Elusive Victorian: The Evolution of Alfred R?ssel Wallace.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gayon, J. 1998. Darwinism's Struggle for Survival. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
George, W. 1979. "Alfred R?ssel Wallace, the Gentle Trader: Collecting in Amazonia
and the Malay Archipelago 1848-1862/' Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 9: 503-514.
Ghiselin, M.T. 1997. Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Gould, S.J. 1980. "Wallace's Fatal Flaw." Natural History 89: 26^0.
-2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gruber, H.E. 1985. "Going the Limit: Toward the Construction of Darwin's
Theory." D. Kohn (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, pp. 9-34.
Herbert, S. (ed.). 1980. The Red Notebook of Charles Darwin. Ithaca and London:
British Museum (Natural History) and Cornell University Press. -2005. Charles Darwin, Geologist. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Hull, D.L. 1989. The Metaphysics of Evolution. Albany: State University of New York
Press. -
2005. "Deconstructing Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Context." Journal of
History of Biology 38: 137-152.
Jones, G. 2002. "Alfred R?ssel Wallace, Robert Owen and the Theory of Natural
Selection." British Journal of History of Science 35: 73-96.
Keynes, R.D. (ed.). 1988. Charles Darwin's Beagle Diary. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
-2000. Charles Darwin's Zoology Notes and Specimen Lists from H.M.S. Beagle.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Keynes, R.D. 2003. Fossils, Finches, and Fuegians: Darwin's Adventures and Discoveries
on the Beagle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kleiner, S.A. 1985. "Darwin's and Wallace's Revolutionary Research Programme."
British Journal of Philosophy of Science 36: 367-392.
Kohn, D. (ed.). 1985. The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Kottier, M.J. 1985 "Charles Darwin and Alfred R?ssel Wallace: Two Decades of
Debate Over Natural Selection." D. Kohn (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, pp. 367-432.
Larsen, A. 1996. ''Equipment for the Field." N. Jardine, J.A. Secord and E.C.
Spary (eds.). Cultures of Natural History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
pp. 358-377.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WALLACE, DARWIN, AND THE PRACTICE OF NATURAL HISTORY 633
Love, A.C. 2002. "Darwin and Cirripedia Prior to 1846: Exploring the Origins of the Barnacle Research." Journal of the History of Biology 35: 251-289.
Lowenberg, Bert James (Chairman, Darwin Anniversary Committee). 1959. Darwin,
Wallace and the Theory of Natural Selection. Cambridge: Arlington Books.
Marchant, J. 1916. Alfred R?ssel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences. New York:
Harper & Bros.
Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
McKinney, H.L. 1972. Wallace and Natural Selection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
McOuat, G. 1996. "Species, Rules and Meaning: The Politics of Language and the Ends
of Definitions in 19th Century Natural History." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 27: 473-519.
-2001. "Cataloguing Power: Delineating 'Competent Naturalists' and the Meaning of Species in the British Museum." British Journal of the History of Science 34: 1-28.
Moore, J. 1997. "Wallace's Malthusian Moment: the Common Context Revisited." B.
Lightman (ed.), Victorian Science in Context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
pp. 290-311.
Osborn, H.F. 1894. From the Greeks to Darwin: an Outline of the Evolution Idea.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Ospovat, D. 1981. The Development of Darwin's Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni?
versity Press.
Raby, P. 2001. Alfred R?ssel Wallace: A Life. London: Chatto and Windus.
Ruse, M. 1980. "Charles Darwin and Group Selection." Annals of Science 37: 615-630. -
1999. The Darwinian Revolution, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
(1st ed. 1979). Shermer, M. 2002. In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred R?ssel Wallace.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Sloan, P.R. 1985. "Darwin's Invertebrate Program 1826-1836: Preconditions for
Transformism." D. Kohn (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, pp. 71-120.
Slotten, R.A. 2004. The Heretic in Darwin's Court: The Life of Alfred R?ssel Wallace.
New7 York: Columbia University Press.
Smith, C.H. (ed.). 1991. Alfred R?ssel Wallace: an Anthology of His Shorter Writings.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stauffer, R.C. (ed.). 1975. Charles Darwin's Natural Selection: Being the Second Part of His Big Species Book Written from 1856 to 1858. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stott, R. 2003. Darwin and the Barnacle (1st American edition). New York: Norton &
Company.
Wallace, Alfred R?ssel. 1849. Journey to Explore the Province of Para (Letter to Ste?
vens, written October 1848) Annals and Magazine of Natural History, vol. 13 (2nd
series), January 1849, pp. 74-75.
-1850a. Journey to Explore the Natural History of South America (Letter to Ste?
vens, written September 12, 1849, Santarem). Annals and Magazine of Natural His?
tory, Volume 26 (2nd series), February 1850, pp 156-157. -1850b. Journey to Explore the Natural History of the Amazon River. Extract from
a Letter to Stevens, November 15, 1849 Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Volume 6 (2nd series), December 1850, no. 36, pp. 494-496.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
- 1852. "Letter to the Editor, Concerning the Fire on the "Helen", Zoologist,
November 1852, section on "Proceedings of Natural-History Collectors in Foreign
Countries," pp. 3641-3643.
-1969 [1853]. A Narrative of Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro, With an Account
of the Native Tribes, and Observations on the Climate, Geology, and Natural History
of the Amazon Valley. 2nd ed. New York: Haskell House Publishers.
-1854a. On the Habits of the Butterflies of the Amazon Valley. Transactions of the
Entomological Society of London 2 (new series) part VIII: 253-264, April 1854 (read at Nov 7, Dec 5 1853 meetings).
-1854b. "Some Remarks on the Habits of the Hesp?ridas." Zoologist 11: 3884-3885
(May 1854, no. 127). -1854c. "Letter from Singapore," dated 9 May 1854. Printed in: Zoologist 12: 4394
4397 (August 1854). -
1855a. ""Letter from Sarawak," dated 8 April 1855, Si Munjon Coal Works,
Borneo." Zoologist 13: 4803-4807.
-1855b. "On the Law Which has Regulated the Introduction of New Species."
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Volume 16 (2nd series), September 1855,
184-196. -
1856a. "Some Account of an Infant "Orang-utan,"." Annals and Magazine of
Natural History 17: 386-390 (2nd series, May 1856, no. 101). -1856b. "Observations on the Zoology of Borneo (10 March 1856, Singapore)."
Zoologist 14: 5113-5117 (June 1856). -1856c. "On the Orang-utan or Mias of Borneo." Annals and Magazine of Natural
History 17: 471-476 (2nd series, June 1856, no. 102). -
1856d. "On the Habits of the Orang-utan of Borneo." Annals and Magazine of
Natural History 18: 26-32 (2nd series, July 1856, no. 103). - 1856e. A New Kind Of Baby. Chambers' Journal 6 (3rd series): 325-327 (22
November 1856: no. 151). -
1857a. "Untitled letter to Stevens, 1 December 1856, Macassar." Zoologist 15:
5652-5657 (July 1857). - 1857b. Untitled Letter to Stevens, With Postscript, 10 March, 15 May 1857,
Dobbo, Am Islands. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London, 1856-1857:
92-93 (communicated 5 October 1857). -
1857c. "On the Great Bird of Paradise, Paradisea apoda, Linn.; 'Burong mati'
(Dead Bird) of the Malays; 'Fan?han' of the natives of Am." Annals & Magazine of Natural History 20: 411-416 (December 1857, no. 120, 2nd series).
- 1857d. "On the Natural History of the Am Islands." Annals & Magazine of
Natural History. 20: 473-485 (December 1857, no. 121, 2nd series).
-1858a. "On the Entomology of the Am Islands." Zoologist 16: 5889-5894.
-1858b. "Letter from Amboyna (20 December 1857)." Zoologist 16: 6120-6124.
-1859a. "Extract of a Letter from Ternate, 2 September 1858." Ibis 1: 111-113. - 1859b. "Letter from Batchian (22 March 1859)." Proceedings of the Zoological
Society of London 27: 129. -1860. "Note on the Sexual Differences in the Genus Lomaptera." [communicated 6
February I860]. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of London, 1858-1859: 107. -1861. "On the Ornithology of Ceram and Waigiou; 20 December 1860, Ternate."
Ibis 3: 283-291 (July 1861; no. 11). -1862. "Narrative of Search After Birds of Paradise." Proceedings of the Zoological
Society of London, 1862: 153-161.
This content downloaded from 150.135.114.31 on Sun, 2 Jun 2013 13:59:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions