Jump to content

Talk:On the Origin of Species/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with  Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it  Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and strike it out.

It may take me a couple of days to post comments, as this is about the book rather than the general concepts, so I'll have to do a bit of reading. Please remind me if I haven't posted comments by Sun 29 Mar.

Thanks for submitting this article, the Biology section has plenty of species-level GAs and not enough on the big topics. If you can get this to FA this year I think you have a good chance of making the front page, since it's 150 yrs since the book was published. --Philcha (talk) 10:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

[edit]

Structure

[edit]
  •  Done I wonder if section "Impact on the scientific community" should be split into 2: "Contemporary scentific response" dealing with things like the opposition of Agassiz and Owen, and "Present-day influence" or "Influence on modern biology" describing how almost all biological theory is based on Darwin's work. The latter might also mention cladistics, which is now the dominant classification method in zoology as well as paleontology, and is explicitly based on the notion of evolution. Especially if you can find any refs for precursors of cladistics, as the only illustration in Origin looks like a cladogram with polytomies, and File:Darwins first tree.jpg also looks like a cladogram (the radial layout is that now used for unrooted cladograms, but I think D's is rooted). BTW I specifically said cladistics "... is now the dominant classification method in zoology as well as paleontology" as I've seen evidence that it's more controversial in botany because horizontal gene transfers are more common in plants (see sources listed at Talk:Clade --Philcha (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am more than a little concerned about going down this road. This article is about the book On the Origin of Species not a general history of Darwinian theory. I think it is best to focus on direct effects of the book or the debate over it rather than go into a bunch of stuff about modern developments. I did add a see also for History of evolutionary thought to the section so that any reader who wanted more information on the further development of evolutionary theory could have a place to start. As for cladistics, I see your point but the only source I have, Bowler (2003), that discusses its origins talks about it being an outgrowth of/ reaction to the modern synthesis without mentioning any direct connection to Origin. So unless you have a source in mind drawing the connection in this article would be OR. Origin did more or less directly inspire a 19th century effort to reconstruct the tree of life (especially for animals) using Morphology and embryology and that is briefly mentioned in the article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of points on which the book itself may have anticipated later ideas. I'd certainly not want to extend into "Darwinian theory" as that's poorly defined and almost "apple pie and motherhood" - e.g. Stephen Jay Gould would have considered himself a Darwinian despite rejecting Darwin's gradualism. --Philcha (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are several cases of this sort noted in the "content" section when a historian has called attention to such anticipations. One thing I have added to the impact is a brief mention how the book changed the focus of scientfic work by causing many scientists to become involved in the effort to reconstruct evolutionary lineages. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look out for these points when I review the revised "Content" section. --Philcha (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Suggest renaming "Public reaction" the more general "Responses to publication", as it includes the scientific response as well as the public reaction. The focus should be on scientific responses, which should form the first section, logically followed by the "Reception outside Great Britain" which covers further scientific responses, with the "Religion" section at the end, as is appropriate for an essentially scientific topic. All three sections to be revised to suit. . dave souza, talk 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You could even follow the conventions of articles about books / movies / plays / records and call it "Reception". Off the top I'd be inclined to have a section about scientists and another about reception by non-scientists: the "outside UK" section currently includes Muslim reactions, and the eventual one, after the translation problems were resolved, was religion-based. --Philcha (talk) 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, will work on those lines. The Muslim reactions paragraph is of dubious notability, Freeman 1977 doesn't list any tranlation into Arabic and it definitely wasn't tranlated into Arabic in Darwin's lifetime, so I was thinking of deleting that to keep the article more concise. . dave souza, talk 03:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support that.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If Origin wasn't translated into Arabic in Darwin's lifetime, I agree the Muslim response is irrelevant. -Philcha (talk) 07:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear — I support looking at removing the Islamic text. I have a real problem with some of what else you both seem to be suggesting. You can't cleanly separate scientific and non-scientific reactions the way you seem to be proposing. The Mid 19th century world was different than today's. Many people we would consider scientists (Gray, Sedgwick, Mivart) reactions were heavily influenced by their religious ideas. Others (Huxley, Haeckel) were influenced by their hostility to religious ideas. Because of the tradition of natural theology, science and metaphysics were much more closely entwined than they are in the modern world. The scientific community was not as separate from other intellectuals as is the case today. Like Origin many serious scientific works, for example Island Life (1881) and much else of what Alfred Russel Wallace wrote (and what Huxley, Mivart, and many other wrote), were aimed at both scientits and well educated non-scientiests alike, and people who were not what we would consider perfessional scientists, like Samuel Butler, Whewell, Chambers, and Herbert Spencer felt free to write on scientfic topics and were taken far more seriously when they did so than would be the case today (Wallace for one was distinctly influenced by Vestiges). You can have a subsection on the impact on the scientific community, but you can't separate scientific and non scientific (Religious, philosophic, and popular belief) reception the way you could if you were wrting about some 20th century topic. You need to be historicaly accurate and that means not loosing sight of how interconnected popular opninion (educated popular opinion), religious opnion, and scientfic opinion were at the time.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fully agree, which is why the current Reception structure is a problem. It gives the impression that the response was primarily religious, even giving great attention to Hodge in 1874, while in practice Darwin's primary concern was how scientists received his ideas. Their response included Huxley's drive for agnostic science education, the theistic evolution of Gray (supporting natural selection) and Argyll and Mivart (opposing natural selection, but wanting teleolgically driven evolution) along with Owen who now accepted evolution as a continuous expression of divine archetypes, bitterly opposing Huxley. While Håckel introduced rather unwelcome atheism. And, as you say, Wallace as a socialist influenced by Vestiges and later turning to spiritualism, and both Spencer and Chambers championing progressive evolution, leading to Darwinism embracing all sorts of ideas but generally rejecting natural selection, with the exception of Wallace and Weissmann. The purely religious reaction could be stripped out and put in a closing section, but the Oxford debate was primarily scientific and Wilberforce had scientific credentials, as well as allegedly being briefed by Owen and apparently taking a similar line, so that would be mentioned in both contexts. I'm willing to try developing something in a sandbox. . dave souza, talk 08:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're both right. I'm sure some source must make the same point that the boundary was then much less clear, and it would help modern readers if you could state that really clearly up-front. If any objections were clearly motivated by religious or social / political considerations per se (rather than by a concept of natural science that was permeated by religion), such a division would be good. Otherwise either a geographical or a temporal division would be better. I'd favour a temporal one if it can stand up, e.g. in the X yrs after publication and by the end of D's life, as that will also partly cover the geographical dimension as translations and debate spread. However "if it can stand up" may be a very big "if". --Philcha (talk)

I just want to emphasise that regardless of Darwin's original intentions, On the Origin of Species had major impacts on areas outside of science, and some of Darwin's tactics (like including the quotations on natural theology from Whewell and Bacon inside the front cover) show that Darwin was quite aware that the scientific debate could not be separated from the theological one. A fact that the debate over Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation a decade earlier would surely have convinced him. However, while I think there is currently a lot of good material in the "Reception" section I admit some reorganization would help. So I will hold fire until I see Dave's revisions. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

[edit]
  •  Done I'd retitle to "Summary of Darwin's theory", as that's what it summarises, not the contents of the article. --Philcha (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not bitterly opposed to lists and this is a good place for one. However I'd combine some of the items: 1 ("... if all offspring survived to reproduce ...") and 2 ("... populations remain roughly the same size ..."); 3 (food limited) and 4 (struggle for survival); 5 ("... no two individuals are identical")and 7 ("Much of this variation is inheritable"); 8 ("Individuals less suited ... while individuals more suited ...") and 9 ("The individuals that survive are most likely to leave their inheritable traits to future generations"). obsoleted by other changes --Philcha (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Although the WP convention for articles about books, movies, etc. is that refs are not required for plot summaries, I think this summary needs a 3rd-pary ref to confirm that you've selected the right points, expressed them correctly and presented the logic of the argument correctly. I know you refer to Origin, but that chapter is long and deriving such a concise summary from it is a non-trivial task. --Philcha (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You could cite the quote from the intro, "As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive ... any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form", although a summary by an independent authority would be better. --Philcha (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem here is that 2 sources were combined into one footnoote. On source was the recapitulation chapter of Origin. The other, which is what it really follows, is page 479-480 of Ernst Mayr's The Growth of Biological Thought (1982). I think I will make the source more clear and makt it follow Mayr's consise summary more closely. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I'm not happy with the labels "Fact:" and "Inference:" at the start of each line. The first 2 or 3 words in a list like this normally give a strong clue to the rest of the item, and labels at the fron obscure this. In addition colons (and full-stops) are nearly invisible in the font WP uses, unless you tell your browser to enlarge to the point where everything looks bold. How about placing "fact" / "inference" in parentheses at the ends of items? --Philcha (talk) 07:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I had been following Mayr's format, but I agree given the near invisibility of colons on WP your suggestion looks better. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - so it's not just my lousy eyesight :-) --Philcha (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Developments before Darwin's theory

[edit]
  •  Done "The idea of biological evolution was around long before Darwin published On The Origin of Species. Some have traced the concept back as far as Aristotle" could be made more concise. --Philcha (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed and modified per. Bowler to show medieval lack of concern about fixity of species, or even physical form rather than mythical importance. . dave souza, talk 00:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good, shows how ideas evolved before D rather than being fixed by some religious edict. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I'm not sure what the sentence "Natural philosophers exploring the wonders of what they saw as God's works in nature made many discoveries, and naturalists such as Carolus Linnaeus categorised an enormous number of species" contributes. The rest of the para is about the rise of the notion that God created an immutable set of species. --Philcha (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely revamped, Bowler makes it clear that John Ray introduced the concept of species as fixed by God. Linnaeus is also important, worth a mention. dave souza, talk 00:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reads mch better thanks. I'll AGF on the sources. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The main source for the 1st para is a radio discussion, and it's a little difficult (not impossible) to find the parts that directy support your account of the notion that God created an immutable set of species. I'l actpt it for a GA review, but I think that for FA review you'll need a more academic source (article or textbook) that covers the pojnt more directly and concisely. -Philcha (talk)
Bowler 2003 . . dave souza, talk 00:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Sentence "Several competing theories of geology were put forward; James Hutton's uniformitarian theory of 1785, which was expanded and explained by Charles Lyell in his Principles of Geology in the 1830s, envisioned gradual change over aeons of time" looks out of place. All the others in this para are about early concepts of evolution. The significance of Lyell's uniformitarianism was that the Earth was a lot older than the few thousand years implied by literal interpretation of the Bible, and probably old enough for modern species to have evolved. I'd place that last, then edit the 1st sentence of the next para ("In Britain, in the aftermath of the American and French Revolutions such ideas were considered a threat to the social order") to make it plain it's about evolution, not geological uniformitarianism. --Philcha (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left Lyell out as he really comes up with the Beagle voyage, which I'll revamp shortly. Interestingly, both Hutton and Lyell put forward an infinitely old Earth rather than an ancient Earth. . dave souza, talk 00:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something really bad has happened in the recent editing of this section and I am sorry I didn't see it earlier it says: "The Ussher chronology calculated recent creation, then was contradicted by the geology of Nicholas Steno with stratigraphy showing ancient eras identified by fossils." This is flat out false. Steno developed important concepts in stratigraphy (that fossils were the remains of living organisms that had been buried when horizontal layers of sediment were depositite) but as history of paleontology says: "Steno who, like almost all 17th century natural philosophers, believed that the earth was only a few thousand years old, resorted to the Biblical flood as a possible explanation for fossils of marine organisms that were far from the sea." I am sure that text is correct as it follows Martin Rudwick. The source you cite (Bowler 2003) in no way supports what you have said. Nobody in the Wester scientific tradition suggested an earth older than a few thousand years until d Malleit and Buffon in the mid 18th century! I am going to try and fix this now because it is so misleading. If you want to change what I do feel free but please be accurate! Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Done (see next comment) "In England, natural history was dominated by the universities which trained clergy for the Church of England in William Paley's Natural Theology which sought evidence of beneficial "design" by a Creator in nature" is a jumble and should be split.
  •  Done I also think you need to be more explicit about the universities-CofE link. Was their main function to train clergy? IIRC Oxford dons had to be ordained CofE clergy, but I'm not sure about other UK universities. --Philcha (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will tackle this soon, probably reducing the detail. For info, both Oxford and Cambridge restricted entry to signed-up CofE (Thirty-Nine Articles), so nonconformists had to go to Scottish universities until London University opened around 1826. About half of the students doing the ordinary BA like Darwin would use it as their qualification to become clergymen, for the others it was a finishing school for gentlemen, and the dons had to be ordained CofE clergy. Science didn't count as a subject at that time, but several dons were very interested in it. . . dave souza, talk 00:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and at Oxford in particular Dons like Buckland, Sedgwick, and Henslow that wanted to teach classes in geology, bontany, or other scientific topics, had to connect those topics to natural theology in order to justify them, which explains in part why Buckland was so interested in flood geology. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have essentially trimmed it down to say that the English universities were controlled by the Church of England, hope that's clearer. . . dave souza, talk 19:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another simplification that works well at this level of summarisation - thanks. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "and by the empiricism of the Baconian method"? (2nd para) --Philcha (talk)
Good clarification, done. . dave souza, talk 09:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "The Ussher chronology calculated recent creation", why not be explicit about 4004BC? --Philcha (talk)
The Ussher chronology article covers various creation dates, and it's a little shorter, will think about this. . dave souza, talk 09:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Carolus Linnaeus used a similar taxonomy to classify enormous numbers of fixed species in 1735, later suggesting that some new species could arise through hybridisation" makes L's position(s) uncertain. Did he never believe in fixed species, or did he change his mind? Or would it be better to omit mention of L. to avoid getting tangled in a side-issue? --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have rephrased it to mention divine plan but miss out the later slight move towards speciation of hybrids. . dave souza, talk 09:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, we can't include everything, especially details that might suck us into another debate. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I felt compelled to add Buffon back in. If you are going to mention figures like Geoffroy you shouldn't leave Buffon out. Bowler (2003) and Larson (2004) treat him as signficant even Quammen mentions him, and Darwin credits him as being the first modern writer to discuss evolution. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the way you've done it makes his importance clear. --Philcha (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I suspect the mentions of Neptunism and Plutonism will just bewilder non-specialist readers. I think the key points are that Werner's theory allowed for but did not depend on catastrophes, while Hutton maintained that the Earth was shaped by gradual processes that are still going on, and allowed for an infinitely-old Earth. I'm not sure what "deistic" adds to the understanding of H's significance in this context. --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have changed this to "Werner thought strata were deposits from shrinking seas, but James Hutton proposed a self maintaining infinite cycle." That should suit non-specialists, the main thing is that Werner thought of a water world depositing rocks, and apparently others made more emphasis on the final deposition being Noah's flood. . . dave souza, talk 09:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My impression (?) is that the big geological debate was catastrophism vs uniformitarianism, and that uniformitarianism encouraged D to apply a similar approach to biology, so that e.g. selective breeding and comparative anatomy and ecology of modern organisms could illustrate what happened in the past. If I've got it right, the details of Werner's waterworld (which would have been one-shot, one-way) seem irrelevant. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The big debate at the end of the 18th century was between Werner's Neptunism, which was the majority view, and various forms of Plutonism, the most extreme being Hutton's uniformitarian ideas that influenced Lyell. Darwin heard both in rival lectures at Edinburgh, the chemistry prof. Thomas Charles Hope being Huttonian, and the geology prof. Jameson was still teaching Neptunism at the same time as ridiculing Hope. Jameson translated Cuvier's book and added the Biblical Flood into catastrophism, but Darwin learnt that from Sedgwick after the universal flood had been abandoned by all but Buckland. By 1831 there was less of an argument with Lyell's uniformitaarianism, but like Hutton he believed in an infinitely recycling world so a compromise had to be reached. I think it's worthwhile showing that there were other ideas before catastrophism. . dave souza, talk 11:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like your re-phrasing, as the "shrinking seas" imply a oneway, one-time process, compared w Hutton's view. --Philcha (talk)
  •  Done In the 3rd para "Some proposed ideas of development of species" looks superfluous to me. How about rephrasing the next sentence, e.g. In the 1790s Charles Darwin's grandfather Erasmus Darwin outlined a hypothesis about the development of species, and in 1809 Jean-Baptiste Lamarck published a more fully developed theory. Both ..."? --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The aim was to indicate that there were others, Buffon et al., but as you say it's a bit superfluous so I've slightly modified your suggestion. . dave souza, talk 09:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, was trying a bit too hard to include the similarity Bowler notes to the chain of being, have now made it "progressive tendency driving organisms continuously towards greater complexity" and have deleted the phrase you've noted. . dave souza, talk 09:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, a summary of pre-Darwinian evolutionary thought can't include everything. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "Cuvier explained the fossil record by catastrophism in which animals and plants were locally annihilated and other fixed species migrated into their place", how about e.g. "Cuvier believed extinctions were caused by local catastrophes, after which other fixed species repopulated the areas affected"? --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried merging it into the preceding sentence. . dave souza, talk 09:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neat work! --Philcha (talk)
  • "In a Britain shaken by the French Revolution, Lamarck's ideas were opposed as a threat to divinely appointed social order" needs explanation. Do you mean L's theory made divine creation redundant and thus undermined religious faith, which was seen as an essential support for social order? "Social order" is particularly tricky, as it could refer to avoiding a Hobbesian war of all against all or to maintaining the current social hierarchy and restricting social mobility. --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To review this bit. . dave souza, talk 09:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "William Paley's Natural Theology emphasised adaptation as showing beneficial "design" by the Creator acting through laws", how about e.g. "William Paley's Natural Theology regarded adaptation as evidence of beneficial "design" by the Creator acting through laws"? --Philcha (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either is ok, the thing for Darwin was the emphasis on adaptation. Paley had a utilitarian view of God's benevolence to the organisms, rather than designing pretty creatures for man's benefit. . . dave souza, talk 09:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"emphasised" is the word that bugs me and makes me wonder about the nature of and reasons for the emphasis, that's why I prefer the simpler "as evidence of", which IIRC summarises his "watchmaker" argument. --Philcha (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have done. The watchmaker argument tends to emphasise complexity, but Paley's adaptation had a big influence on Darwin's examination of organisms in the context of their environment. . dave souza, talk 12:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I picked on the "watchmaker" argument because it's the only part I've read about in detail :-) --Philcha (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inception of Darwin's theory

[edit]
  •  Done Re "... botanist John Stevens Henslow and geologist Adam Sedgwick, both of whom believed in the importance of natural theology", what does "the importance of ..." mean? --Philcha (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge science was based on natural theology and, in a sense, was religion, per. Browne p. 129, revised to clarify. . dave souza, talk 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. --Philcha (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Darwin noted the geographical distribution of modern species in hope of finding their "centre of creation", hope that's clearer. On the Galapagos Darwin "industriously collected all the animals, plants, insects & reptiles from this Island. — It will be very interesting to find from future comparison to what district or "centre of creation" the organized beings of this archipelago must be attached",[1] meeting Henslow's interest in distribution from continents to new islands, and in line with Lyell's idea that rather than worldwide creation after catastrophes, there was recurring creation of organisms to meet new environments, at "centres of creation". . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think simpler is better at this level. -Philcha (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As above, he was still thinking in terms of creation in Australia but wrote down doubts about immutability of species on their way back to England from Cape Town. . dave souza, talk 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "On his return Richard Owen showed that fossils Darwin had found were of extinct species related to current species in the same locality", on whose return. How about e.g. "Richard Owen showed that fossils Darwin brought back were ..."? --Philcha (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having mentioned his thoughts "as they neared England", starting the new paragraph with Owen's views doesn't need "on his return". . dave souza, talk 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the fossils were sent back by other ships before Darwin returned, so "brought back" doesn't quite work, which is why I used "that Darwin found", further suggestions welcome. . dave souza, talk 17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another case where simpler is better, your minor change is fine. --Philcha (talk)
Several dates added. . dave souza, talk 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather too detailed, have just mentioned fancy pigeons. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now just Darwin mentioned in para. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the revised version from the top:

  •  Done "At the University of Edinburgh Darwin neglected medical studies for natural history" is a little too condensed. How about e.g. "Darwin went to the University of Edinburgh, but soon devoted most of his time to natural history"? BTW the dates would be useful. --Philcha (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have clarified it, so much for being concise :-/ dave souza, talk 12:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have the same problem with leads. :-)
Joking apart, I think the addition about his dissatisfaction with Lamarck while still a student adds a lot of value. --Philcha (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification, he wasn't exactly dissatisfied. In his autobiography Darwin recalled "I listened in silent astonishment, and as far as I can judge, without any effect on my mind. I had previously read the Zoönomia of my grandfather, in which similar views are maintained, but without producing any effect on me." Historians differ on how much effect Grant's Lamarckism had, but on the Beagle voyage Darwin clearly thought in terms of creation and fixed species until they'd gone past South Africa on the last lap. . dave souza, talk 17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. from my (blinkered) modern viewpoint, I interpreted the bit about Lamarck as meaning D was not convinced by L's suggested process of evolution while you, who've done the research, say D rejected evolution completely while at Edinburgh. Other readers nay be led into the same mistake I made. I think the 2 options are: play down D's initial Christian preconceptions, and omit this mention of Lamarck; or produce a timeline of the changes in D's ideas and slip bits into the article to describe the changes in D's view explicitly. You know the subject matter, what do you recommend? --Philcha (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should have said that some historians think Darwin was greatly influenced by Grant's Lamarckian ideas, but the reasonably reliable Browne suggests that he no longer respected Grant after Grant took credit for Darwin's first discoveries, and having already read his grandfather's book and Lamarck's works as well as opposing authors felt completely indifferent about Grant's praise for Lamarck, though surprised that Grant had announced this rather dangerous opinion for possibly the first time to anyone. Either way, Darwin's studies at Edinburgh ended on a sour note and he found Cambridge much more congenial. He was convinced by natural theology, and was effectively a convinced creationist on the Beagle, right up to the last lap. Hence unimpressed by Grant's Lamarckism . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a complicated story, too much to tell properly here. I'd be inclined to say simply that D learned of L's ideas from Grant and leave it there. The full story could be told at at Charles Darwin or at one of the listed "main" articles. Of course if you take this article to FAC someone will ask how much D was influenced by L's ideas at this early stage, and you can then point to this discussion. -Philcha (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, we've actually moved from a description of Grant's Lamarckism to leaving it out altogether, the linked articles give more detail if required. . dave souza, talk 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I find it unacceptable not to at least mention his exposure to Grant's ideas. This is a standard part of almost all accounts (Quammen, Larson, Bowler) of Darwin's development. It is true that Darwin was unimpressed at the time (any more than he had been when he read his Grand fathers ideas) and that he disliked Grant because Grant had not credited him when he published results of some the experimental work Darwin had performed for him, but the exposure is still noteworthy. Grant was a major figure in early 19th century transmutationism. I have worded it in such a way that it is clear that Darwin rejected transmutation (which is a broader term than just Lamarckism), which I hope will address the problem that started this thread. It is also completely consistent with the cited source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, thanks for that clarification. . dave souza, talk 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I think "On the Beagle expedition, as a geologist Darwin took up Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism" tries to cram at least 1 quart into a pint pot:
    •  Done It would be helpful to give the dates of the expedition, as we're racing through D's life here. These dates would also clarifiy the context for the next para.--Philcha (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, have rephrased with the start and end years shown. . dave souza, talk 12:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's satisfactory for GA, the prose mavens at FAC might have other ideas. --Philcha (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In hope of fending off the mavens, changed it to "In December 1831 he joined the Beagle expedition as a geologist and naturalist, soon becoming an exponent of Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism." . . dave souza, talk 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that phrasing is it implies that his embracing of uniformitarianism was a direct consequence of his joining the Beagle expedition. The way you presented it earlier (12:13, 1 April 2009) D read Lyell on the first leg of the sea journey and was convinced by the end of the first stop-over, at St Jago (date?). --Philcha (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gives in to wordiness, now says "He read Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology and from their first stop ashore, at St. Jago, found that uniformitarianism explained the geological history of landscapes." . . dave souza, talk 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FitzRoy wanted a geologist, and Darwin spent most of his time and notes on geology. He was also to collect natural history, and of course did more than that. Rephrased a bit, . dave souza, talk 12:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, we want to leave some space for the book. --Philcha (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Do you mean D "converted" to uniformitarianism through reading Lyell's writings while at sea? --82.34.73.184 (talk)
Yes, he was given the book at the start of the voyage and by the end of the first landfall at St. Jago was a convinced disciple of Lyell, thinking of writing his own book. . . dave souza, talk 12:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth adding "by the end of the first landfall at St. Jago". --Philcha (talk) 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now says "soon becoming an exponent of Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism", didn't want too much detail. . dave souza, talk 20:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added link, piped to appear as "each was unique to a particular island", for amateurs like me. . dave souza, talk 17:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some reviewers have objected to "Easter egg" links, but I think yours is a neat combo of explanation and linking - thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Darwin's research widened in 1838 to include the breeding of domestic animals such as fancy pigeons" does not explain why this is relevant. It's also unclear why it should be in the same para as the following sentences. How does this relate chronologically to the "similarity between breeders selecting traits and a Malthusian Nature selecting from variants thrown up by chance" reported in the next para? --Philcha (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
March 1838 pigeons etc, November 1838 Malthus. Tried to make it more obvious unorthodox research, added note as started using the term "descent". . dave souza, talk 20:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine talking to such non-academics was unorthodox then, but I don't think the word "unorthodox" helps. Why was he talking to pigeon and animal breeders? --Philcha (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and thinking of "descent"" looks just tacked on, has no obvious connection with his talking to pigeon and animal breeders. --Philcha (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's "Unusually for the time, Darwin questioned fancy pigeon and animal breeders as well as established scientists." which I think works better. . dave souza, talk 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "At the zoo he had his first sight of an ape, and the orang-utan's antics impressed him as being "just like a naughty child"[18] which from his experience of the natives of Tierra del Fuego made him think that there was little gulf between man and animals" is another gallon in a pint pot:
    •  Done does not explain the significance of the Tierra del Fuegans very primitive culture, nor does Tierra del Fuego.
Added a couple of sentences to the voyage paragraph to mention the "gulf" issue, removed that from the ape section. . dave souza, talk 12:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done The sentence uses Darwin as source for the orang's being "just like a naughty child" and Larson (2004) for the rest. They way it's phrased looks like a minor case of WP:SYN, tho I'm sure that's not what you intended. --Philcha (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources and pigeon sentence to be improved. . dave souza, talk 12:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both now cited to D&M, left out quote and now simply state "was profoundly impressed by how human the orang-utan seemed." . . dave souza, talk 20:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done The chronology looks confused. If the Tierra del Fuegans suggested to D that there was little gulf between man and animals, that could have happened during the Beagle voyage (1831-1836) or as a result of later reflections - to which the zoo visit might have contributed.--Philcha (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources suggest it was during the voyage, moved it there. . dave souza, talk 12:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "In late September he started reading ..." 1837? --Philcha (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "In late September he started reading Thomas Malthus's An Essay on the Principle of Population, and was reminded of its statistical proof that human populations breed beyond their means and compete to survive in the context of Adam Smith's then influential emphasis on competition and individual struggle.[19]":
At least a couple of cubic metres :-/ dave souza, talk 12:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Smith's theories emphasised economic competition, mainly in efficiency of production, but IIRC he did not advocate non-economic competition (and might have regarded it as a Hobbesian universal war). You'd have to explain very carefully any influence Smith had on D. Is it well supported, and is it worth the trouble? --Philcha (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, will review. . dave souza, talk 12:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to leave it out, emphasise struggle for existence rather than competition. . dave souza, talk 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY "He saw at once that favourable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavourable ones destroyed in a kind of wedging, forcing the well adapted into gaps in the economy of nature as weaker structures were thrust out, resulting in the formation of new species" sticks closely to D's words quoted by van Wyhe, but I'd cut all the metaphorical stuff: it's an intermediate stage in the development of the theory, and these are generally less coherent than the published version; the metaphors are how D happened to think of it at the the time, probably influenced by other thoughts he had around then, and make little sense outside his mind (Einstein allegedly got the idea for his Special Theory by trying to imagine how the universe looked from the point of view of a photon). Also "he saw" suggests D. got it right,and that's uncertain: D seems to have regarded natural selection as a major creator of variations, while modern evolutionary thought sees it as their pruner. I suggest "He concluded at once that favourable variations would tend to be preserved and unfavourable ones destroyed, resulting in the formation of new species". --82.34.73.184 (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed a bit, but the wedging was his idea at that time, and one he repeats in the book with the change that it's wedging into the smiling face of nature rather than the economy of nature. He was right to see favourable variations being preserved and unfavourable ones destroyed, but didn't know where the variations came from. . dave souza, talk 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how the "wedge" metaphor helps, at least not in the condensed form required here. --Philcha (talk)
OK, will review. . dave souza, talk 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not super-happy about "wedging", but it's time the article had some more eyes on it. --Philcha (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done ""every part of newly acquired structure is fully practical ..." - ".... of [a] newly acquired structure ..."? I realise you're quoting D's notes, where his mind outran his pen. --82.34.73.184 (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have simplified. . dave souza, talk 20:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The new wording reads well but the sense is not the same, as "perfected" could be contrasted with "newly acquired". Of course I could be using too much hindsight here, as it was not until the 6th edition that D dealt with how half-evolved features could be beneficial (in his new "anti-Mivart" chapter). --Philcha (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blast, will try in morning. . dave souza, talk 22:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lost track o fthe changes, but the current text looks OK. --Philcha (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further development

[edit]
Trimmed that bit out (war against catastrophism, really). . dave souza, talk 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -Philcha (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now it just says that they began correspondence about Darwin's theorising. Not sure about him not responding: they seem to have corresponded regularly once they met on Hooker's return at the end of 1843, and although Hooker was slow to take the 1844 Essay away, he sent notes back pretty promptly. . dave souza, talk 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your revision is fine. --Philcha (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been 1958, sorted. . dave souza, talk 20:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the lastest revision:

  •  Done Re "Darwin now had the framework of his theory of natural selection “by which to work” as his “prime hobby”"
Have done. . dave souza, talk 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just justifies it being in the background to his main work, so left it out as unneccessary. . dave souza, talk 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. . dave souza, talk 20:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Events leading to publication

[edit]
  •  Done "Darwin pressed on, overworking, and was throwing himself into his work with his book on Natural Selection well under way, when on 18 June 1858 he received a parcel from Alfred Russel Wallace enclosing about twenty pages describing an evolutionary mechanism, an unexpected response to Darwin's recent encouragement, with a request to send it on to Lyell." Wow! I can write longer sentences, but only when I'm showing off. Please split it, and make chronology clear. --Philcha (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"counsel" still bugs me as it's current UK English for barrister. "independent reviewer"? --Philcha (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think just editor is probably sufficient. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The very first sentence "An 1855 paper on the "introduction" of species written by Alfred Russel Wallace, a naturalist working in Borneo, analyzed patterns in biogeography and the fossil record, claiming they could best be explained if every new species always came into existence nearby to an already existing species closely related to it" is rather long, but I see no useful way to split it. Perhaps the middle can be abbreviated a bit e.g. "... in Borneo, claimed that patterns in biogeography and the fossil record could best be explained if ...". --Philcha (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tightened it up a little. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have mixed feeligs about this one. The answer to your question is to the suprise of almost every historian who covers this. (Quammen 2006) says "remarkably" would you be more comfortable with that? I believe other historians have used words like "incredibly" and "amazingly", but I will have to wait until I get home to check sources. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think the sources support it I have gone ahead and deleted the word. It really wasn't adding much. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publication and subsequent editions

[edit]
I don't have a source that covers all of this but I did find the following online source that covers the most important points: [2]. I will wait a few days to see if someone has the original source. If not it can be rewritten to match the source I found plus some stuff in Quammen (2006) and Bowler (2003) without too much damage. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good source, D & M date it as arriving within a week of 15 January 1871, so publication by 22 January is implied. . . dave souza, talk 09:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D&M and Freeman refs covering all points added. . . dave souza, talk 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a source must be found to justify "cleverest and most devastating" The King's college cite calls it "the most important", and Bowler says it "provided a cornucopia of arguments against the selection theory", and Quammen says Darwin added a chapter to the 6th addition "answering one of his most aggressive critics point by point". Again if and editor can find the original source I think the text is fine. If not other sources can be used to salvage most of the important points. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Desmond & Moore p. 577 say "Mivart's clever critique On the Genesis of Species arrived, the most devastating all-round attack on natural selection in Darwin's lifetime." Other sources may be more balanced. The criticism really belongs in the "Impact on the scientific community" section, Bowler gives a good summary of Mivart the Duke of Argyll, among others, arguing against natural selection while accepting evolution, which we only cover obliquely by reference to The eclipse of Darwinism. . . dave souza, talk 09:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refs added, I've omitted "cleverest" as superfluous, have left in "the most devastating critique of natural selection in Darwin's lifetime" which fits in with most important, the "cornucopia of arguments" is a good summary so may review that. . dave souza, talk 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On review, have made it more informative using D&M's description, "listed detailed arguments against natural selection and claimed it meddled in metaphysics." For info, Darwin's refutation is at chapter VII which starts with other objections, then devotes pages 176–204 to refuting Mivart. . dave souza, talk 11:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"and claimed it meddled in metaphysics" is tricky because metaphysics is a quite slippery term, and I'm never sure what to make of it in any particular context. In addition it picked up some negative baggage in the 20th cent: the logical positivists claimed that any statement that was neither empirically verifiable nor logically tautological was metaphysical and therefore meaningless; and Karl Popper thought for a few decades that the theory of evolution by natural selection was a "metaphysical research programme" because it was not empirically falsifiable and was in his opinion (during that period) tautological. I think you need to explain what Mivart meant by "metaphysics". --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Para beginning "The sixth edition was published by Murray on 19 February 1872 ..." needs refs.
Refs added, D&M covers everything but title change, Freeman covers that and backs up main points. . dave souza, talk 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The last para is 1 sentence. If I understand it correclty, the previous para is about the writign and publication of the same edition. Can these paras be combined? Or make the para break just before "He told Murray of working men in Lancashire ... ", so that one para deals with content and the other with commercial details. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content

[edit]
  • I have a strong feeling that this is too long. Unfortunately en.WP has few articles on books of similar scientific importance that can be used as guides. Principia Mathematica (Newton) is currently rated start-class (I'd say it's better, possibly B ), and the best I could find was Special relativity, which was promoted to GA in 2005 and kept as GA by a reassessment in 2006, but has too few refs to pass as GA to-day. I also looked to see what other independent encyclopedias did, but they don't have a single article that covers the book, they have overviews and then more detailed articles about specific aspects of evolution. In short, there are no useful precedents. I think you should aim to reduce the size of the "Content" section by 1/3.
    I'd focus on: the ideas listed in the "Summary" section; points on which D. anticipated later biological theory (I had not realised there were so many); his tactics in presenting the least controversial aspects first and developing his thesis / theses in a very careful step-by-step fashion, because he was a rather diffident man and wished to forestall disputes.
    I sugges you produce trial drafts in sub-page(s) of the article's Talk page - that will give you a much freer hand in trying out different approaches to summarisation. --Philcha (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a valid point. The current section on content is too long and that is reducing the impact of some of the really important points. On the other hand I think there is a lot of good material in here and in many ways it is one of the best summaries of the Origin available on the internet. I think the problems mostly result from the fact that the first editors to work on the section felt the need to summerize all of Darwin's ideas rather than just focusing on the important ones and later editors felt compelled to follow their example. I believe that in many cases the writings of later Historians and scentists in particular Bowler (2003), Larson (2004) and especially Mayr (1982) and Quammen (2006) will provide useful guidence about what is important enough to mention and what can be cut out. My plan will be to edit down what is already there keeping as much as possible of the really good material. I think by doing this it will be possible to get the 30% reduction you are looking for and still keep most of the material that I think makes this particular summary one of the best available. I also agree with you that there should be a short section on the nature and structure of Darwin's argument. There are a few comments on this taken from the work of various historians scattered throughout the "Content" section but pulling them together into one subsection would give them better impact. I will start a series of edits along these lines and I hope they will address your concerns. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. In the light of what you said about the current version being one of the best summaries of the Origin available on the internet, I'd save that to a sub-page first. I'd also use another sub-page (or more) for new drafts. I'm not sure about "a short section on the nature and structure of Darwin's argument" - should that not be the function of the existing "Summmaray" section? --Philcha (talk) 08:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The summary section has been renamed, per this review's request, to "summary of Darwin's theory". It is a summary of the theory of natural selection not a summary of Origin. The nature of Darwin's argument sub section is not a summary either. Instead it is a set of comments (all based on commentary by various historians) on how the Origin is structured and why Darwin structured it that way as well as on the nature of the evidence he presented. It doesn't realy add any length to the contents section because it is all based on comments that were already scattered through that text; So no net gain or loss of information. I have just put them together in a single sub section for greater impact. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have just completed a series of edits that I think have reduced the "content" section by about 20%. The cuts consist both of what I consider to be extraneous (at least for this level of summary) details, and some copyediteds that streamlined the prose a little. I think the entire section is now more compact and readable. I would appreciate it if you took a look at the results and see what you think now. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case anyone has a problem with my edits here is a subpage with the original contents of content: Talk:On the Origin of Species/oldcontent Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public reaction

[edit]

(to be reviewed; see comments above on "Structure")

Comparison with Wallace's ideas

[edit]

(to be reviewed)

This section has been deleted with some of the content folded back into other sections. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images

[edit]
We have addes several images to relevent sections including one of Darwin and the Cuvier elephant jaw illustration you requested. Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Artichoker

[edit]

It's a really nice read, I just have a couple of things.

  • checkYIs the first sentence/paragraph of Public Reaction necessary? The one that reads "Public reaction can be partitioned into three overlapping realms: scientific, religious, and philosophical."
Deleted. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

Some things I found while reading around:

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks very much for these comments, these are really useful. I'm researching towards a drastic rewrite of the background section and will take them into account, hope you'll watchlist this and comment on the changes. . dave souza, talk 11:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks very much for the valuable feedback. I will start addressing issues as quickly as I can. In particular if Dave is focusing on the background section. I will try and compress the section on the contents of the book somewhat. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you guys are really going for it! Pl leave a msg here when you think I should resume the review. --Philcha (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum

[edit]
  • I note some concern above about the length of the Content section. I think with some careful copyediting it could be reduced even a little further in size, and some of the prose made a little more direct, "such as removing redundancies like "in order to", for instance, which would be an advantage come FAC time. As it is though I think its length can be justified.
I did some tightening. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked what Darwin actually says in Origin, but I'd be surprised if he proposed the teleological argument that "bees making hexagonal cells could have evolved ... to minimize wax use".
I have changed it to read "with natural selection acting to economize on wax".Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that the word "fact" crops up very frequently in the Content section, so I think a bit of pruning could be done there as well.
I got rid of all but 2 occurances (not counting the several that are inside quotations). Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A minor MoS point; the citations are inconsistent in their use of p and pp.
Yes, you are right and it will never get through FAC that way. The article mostly uses the Harvnb template specifying the page numbers with the p= field. That seems to yield p. and I think that is what we should standardize on. Before we start trying to fix everthing does anyone else feel different? Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can use either p= or pp= with the {{Harvnb}} template. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As in Template:Harvard citation#Usage, "Instead of using the optional loc parameter, you may also use one of the following parameters: p = page pp = pages" giving p. and pp. as appropriate. That seems to me to be what we should standardise on. . dave souza, talk 20:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the actual question is which to use p= or pp=. There are basically 3 aproaches. Use p= for single page references and pp= for multiple page references, or use either p= or pp== for everything. Amazingly WP:Mos and WP:CITE are silent on this point. So I checked 3 FA ariticles Alfred Russel Wallace, History of evolutionary thought, and Charles Darwin. Even more amazingly none of those 3 articles is consistent with itself in this regard (the all use both p. for some multiple page cites and pp.) for some single page cites). So maybe the point isn't as important as I thought. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is an important point that will get picked up on at FAC. Take a look at this FA, for instance. You'll see it uses p= for single pages and pp= for page ranges. I've been through the article and made it consistent anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 12:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Bit embarassing about Charles Darwin, probably deterioration since FA, now corrected. . dave souza, talk 19:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Darwin passed FAC in 2006, an altogether kinder and more gentle time. The standards expected of a featured article have increased very significantly since then. In your position though I'd be concerned about Geometry guy's comments below. I'm not sure I agree with him, but his comments need to be addressed nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Geometry guy

[edit]

I was also asked to comment spontaneously on this, without reading the review first. My two main reactions were: the article is too long, and the language strays from being encyclopedic. The length issue has two facets: first, as noted above, the "content" section needs to be pruned (if this were fiction, the plot summary would not be allowed to dominate the article); second, this is not an article on evolution by inheritance and natural selection— we already have a featured article on that topic. The language issue also has two facets: first, there are poor tense and subject choices; second, there is non-neutral prose. Concerning the latter, I am not a creationist, but I am an Wiki-show-don't-tell-ist per WP:NPOV. Ideally a reader with creationist sympathies would be able to read this article and learn about the depth of argument that this book presents for an evolutionary model. Such a reader should not be turned off unnecessarily by the attitude of the article.

I believe these issues combine to yield failures of the GA criteria. A significant portion of this article reads like an essay. Encyclopedia articles are not essays. Geometry guy 22:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. The length of the summary of the book's main points is being addressed. Not sure which portion(s) of the article raise your conserns about language, it would be helpful if you could be more specific. The responses section needs significant work, in my opinion, and I'm trying to pull together research on that. While of course we make the assumption that evolution is scientifically supported, some paragraphs at present seem to include unnecessary statements about modern positions. Hope that's picking up your concerns correctly. . . dave souza, talk 20:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We will continue to copyedit down the content section somewhat more. However, I don't think articles on near contemporary fiction or non-fiction are appropriate comparisons. This is a 150 year old book. I think better comparisons might be articles on very old books like Odyssey, Iliad, Mahābhārata, and Talmud; all of which devote considerably more space to discussion of the contents of the book that do articles on more contemporary books. Unfortunately none of the articles I list are FA. I am unaware of a FA class article on a book that is more than 100 years old, let alone on one that is a major work in the history of science. However, one comparison that might be useful is Agrippina a FA class article on an 18th century Opera that also devotes far more space to discussing the plot and characters of the opera, more than would be expected in say an article on a contemporary movie. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair example, as Agrippina (opera) was passed as FA in Mar 2009. However that opera's plot summary is 1 screenful (w my mon & res), while the "Contents" section here is 5.5. I'd be strongly tempted to copy the current/ original "Contents" section to a separate article. since as you said it's very good at the level of detail it aims for, and produce a shorter one for this article, focussing on an outline of the reasoning and any points that connect strongly to other parts of this article. I don't think the separate article would be in any danger of AfD as you have enough 3rd-party sources mixed in with refs to the book. As I said before, I'd start a more concise version on a sub-page and from the ground up, as that gives you a much freer hand. --Philcha (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should overdo the comparison with an article on a fictional work (non-fiction is very different), but I did not have in mind contemporary fiction. There are several FAs on older works: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Candide, The Country Wife, Hamlet, Mary: A Fiction, Peterborough Chronicle, Romeo and Juliet, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, Uncle Tom's Cabin. The characteristic feature of articles on older literature is not a more extensive description of the contents, but more extensive sourced analysis of the work. Geometry guy 10:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we are in disagreement at this point, but I thought I would mention that I finally found an FA article on a book that was more than 100 years old. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman has been nominated for today's featured article later this month. I think it supports everyone's point. About half of the article is devoted to discussion of the contents of the book but there is a goodly amount of literary/historical analysis as well. It also has a significant historical background section. All in all it it is an interesting example even if not an exact one. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that this article should be written on the basis that evolution is scientifically supported. Hence it does not need to engage with that argument.

Regarding language concerns, I now give some examples.

  • The book is readable even for the non-specialist... Whose opinion is this?
  • The topic of evolution had been highly controversial during the first half of the 19th century... The tense places the reader at the time of publication: "was" instead of "had been" is usually better for descriptions of past events.
  • Support for evolutionary ideas was already growing... The past continuous and "already" again set the article in the 19th century instead of the 21st.
  • An older generation of naturalists found it difficult to accept that humans could be descended from other animals. Point of view: those stupid old fuddy-duddys.
  • The Protestant Reformation replaced symbolism with Biblical literalism which was soon challenged by emerging science seeking Cartesian mechanical explanations, and by the empiricism of the Baconian method. Is this relevant? In any case, analysis like this needs not only to be cited but qualified (attributed).
  • Filled with zeal for science, he studied catastrophist geology with Adam Sedgwick. I don't think the source supports this.
  • Darwin now had the framework of his theory of natural selection “by which to work”. Not "now".
  • Darwin tentatively wrote about his ideas to Lyell in January 1842, then in June he roughed out a 35-page "Pencil Sketch" of his theory. "Tentatively" and "roughed out" are unencyclopedic unless attributed (perhaps using a direct quotation) to the source. I doubt anyone was there at the time observing Darwin being tentative or rough.
  • Vestiges had significant influence on public opinion, and the intense debate helped to pave the way for the acceptance of the more scientifically sophisticated Origin by moving evolutionary speculation into the mainstream. "significant", "intense" and "sophisticated" according to whom?
  • While some commentators, such as Richard Dawkins, have taken this as an indication that Darwin was bowing to pressure to make concessions to religion,[41] biographer James Moore describes Darwin's vision as being of God creating life through the laws of nature.[42] Even in the first edition the term Creator appears several times... tells the reader which view is "correct". Take care with words like "even" and "while".

We now reach the content section. It is fine to describe the content in the narrative present ("the first four chapters lay out the case for natural selection as an agent of evolution analogous to the artificial selection practiced by animal breeders.") just as you would for an article on a fictional work. However, the present tense is inappropriate for Darwin's actions (he's dead) or sourced analysis (it isn't contemporary).

  • Only deep into the book does he turn to that evidence. Historians say that Darwin was at his best, piling on supporting facts from different disciplines, in these last chapters. They point out that he never claimed to be able to directly prove that new species arose through a process of branching evolution driven by natural selection. illustrates several problems of tense and non-neutral prose.
  • Darwin starts with a reference to the distribution of rheas... Again, for the narrative present, Darwin is not an appropriate subject: use something that still exists - the book or a chapter of it.
  • Chapter I discusses the considerable variation of plants and animals under domestication.[57] He discusses how domestication has been going on since the Neolithic period, and turns in detail to his studies of domestic pigeons. Chapter I is not male!
  • In Chapter II Darwin considers variation in nature. He wrote that the nineteenth-century definition of species was chiefly a matter of opinion... Awkward change of tense, again caused by misuse of the narrative present.
  • Historians have pointed out that in this passage Darwin has anticipated the modern concept of an ecological niche and the role such niches play in supporting biological diversity.[65] He does not suggest that every individual with a favourable variation must be selected, or that the selected or favoured animals are better or higher, but merely that they are more adapted to their surroundings. I don't have access to the source, but this seems to editorialize. Both the tenses used and the choice of words (be careful with "point out": see WP:WTA, WP:WEASEL) suggest that.
  • One of the chief difficulties for Darwin and other naturalists in his time was that there was no agreed-upon model of heredity; early in Chapter I Darwin states "The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown". A secondary source as well as Darwin would be helpful.
  • Darwin did state that some changes that were commonly attributed to use and disuse... "did" is unnecessarily suggestive.
  • It was not until the early 20th century... is not a particularly encyclopedic construction.
  • It is a common theme in the history of evolution and genetics written by scientists, rather than historians, to claim that Darwin's lack of an adequate model of heredity was the source of suspicion of natural selection, but later historians of science have adequately documented that this was not the source of most objections to Darwin, and that later scientists, such as Karl Pearson and the biometric school, developed compelling models of evolution by natural selection with even a "blending" model of heredity like that used by Darwin. That's quite a sweeping assertion! "Adequately" according to whom? The historians themselves?

I think I'll stop for now. I'm impressed by the work which has gone into this (and wouldn't be commenting at length otherwise). I hope the above illustrates the problems I see. Reading the content section in more depth, I see now that it blends content with analysis. It might be easier for the reader, and more encyclopedic, to have a section which purely describes the content. That would be much shorter than the current one. Geometry guy 11:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we'll work on this. Is it ok if we intersperse responses with your comments, or would a new discussion section be better? . dave souza, talk 15:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a new discussion section. Geometry guy 17:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep up the good work guys! Fantastic editors, fantastic reviewing, working together to make the article sing. I'm convinced you can make that deadline. Geometry guy 22:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Efforts to address Geometry guy's comments

[edit]

I think part of the problem is that the "Contents" section included both synopsis and analysis. I have created a separate "Analysis of text" section and moved some of the more general comments there; although I have left comments that were aimed at specific portions of the text inside the contents section. I have also add a little text, with reference, that supports the "The book is readable even for the non-specialist" text in the lead (I prefer this to filling the lead up with inline references. In subsequent edits I will try and address some of the stylistic comments and compress things a little.Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to address the issues you raised about the lead and the content section. I expect that your other comments will be addressed presently. Thank you for your valuable feedback. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto for me, have started but rather tied up this weekend, will take some time. . dave souza, talk 08:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I agree with you about citations in the lead, and am glad you've picked up on separating synopsis and analysis. Keep up the good work! Geometry guy 09:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased relevant sentence as The Protestant Reformation inspired Biblical literalism and concepts of creation which conflicted with the findings of emerging science seeking Cartesian mechanical explanations using the empiricism of the Baconian method. Thus, have moved the point about the Medieval symbolic approach into the preceding paragraph. This is based closely on Bowler, and should be non-controversial: more detailed source on the shift from complex and largely symbolic understandings of Genesis to the literalism of Luther et sl. available on request. It is also summarising several pages of information, and am thinking of stopping at emerging science and leaving out "Cartesian mechanical explanations using the empiricism of the Baconian method", relying on the piped link for clarifications. . dave souza, talk 08:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added Browne as source for "a burning zeal to add even the most humble contribution to the noble structure of Natural Science" and names of Humboldt and John Herschel who inspired this zeal as well as giving Darwin texts on the scientific methodology of the time. Browne also covers Sedwick's catastrophism of that time, which affirmed "that the Earth's surface presents a definite succession of dissimilar phenomena". She says that a major factor in the field trip Sedwick took Darwin on was to refute the Huttonian uniformitarianism in Lyell's just published book, so the contrast with Lyell's geology is appropriate. . dave souza, talk 08:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Darwin tentatively wrote about his ideas to Lyell in January 1842, then in June he roughed out a 35-page "Pencil Sketch" of his theory." – added source, D&M describe Darwin writing to Lyell (in the US) "probably cautiously, cryptically and with some trepidation..... [Lyell] merely noted on a fly-leaf that Darwin "denies seeing a beginning to each crop of species"." Browne describes the pencil sketch as "page after page of scribbled pencilled sentences, arrows and insertions everywhere... decidedly garbled, thirty-five folio pages of crabbed, elliptical scrawl." Suggestions for alternative phrasing welcome. . . dave souza, talk 14:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, fellas. I see you've been doing a lot of work on the article, and had some major discussions. Please let me know when it's time to resume the review. --Philcha (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Dave has some plans for changes that I am unaware of I think it should be ready for re-review, and I want to take a moment an thank all of the reviewers again, for their assistence in improving this article. I think all of this effort at the GA stage is going to help considerably with the ultimate goal of getting this article through FA before Nov 24th so that it can be featured on the mainm page for the 150th anniversary of the book's publication. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is going a bit slowly, I've some ideas in hand for modifications to the reception section, and think the background would benefit from a brief mention of Naturphilosophie and Geoffroy. Hope to implement the first changes today. . . dave souza, talk 11:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re Aristotle

[edit]

 Done The implication that Aristotle proposed something like D's theory is wrong. The relevant passage in A's Physics (which simply means "the study of nature" in Ancient Greek) is A's attempt to rebut an objection based on Empedocles's statement of a concept very like natural selection. Aristotle and Natural Selection says A's words are often misinterpreted because they are taken out of context (rebuttal of Empedocles). I suggest you credit Empedocles instead, for which Aristotle and Natural Selection will be a good ref. --Philcha (talk) 23:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The origin and evolution of intelligence says the same. --Philcha (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Quammen is slightly misleading by saying that the idea dates back to Aristotle. Have incorporated it using the book, not having journal access. . dave souza, talk 12:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Darwin also credits Aristotle in his historical sketch, even though he is clearly refering to Aristotle's summary of Empodocles's ideas. The issue is a little tricky because Empodocles's actual writing on this particular topic has not survived so all that exists is Aristotle's characterization of his ideas, which is why authorities differ in attributing the ideas to Aristotle or Empodocles since the first written account of it known is Aristotle's. However, I have no problem with the refinement. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried a slightly different tack on resolving the Aristotle/Empedocles issue that is accurate but I think is more appropriate for this article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neat! --Philcha (talk) 06:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

[edit]

You might at some stage find useful:

Thanks, I had already used the 2nd source you mentioned to discuss this topic in history of paleontology so I used it here as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm resuming the review after a break for discussion and updates. --Philcha (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Developments before Darwin's theory (2)

[edit]
  •  Done The source for all of the 1st 2 paras of this except Aristotle & Empedocles is Bowler (2003). I'm reading ch "Pre-evolutionary worldview" (pp 27ff) and cannot find support for some of the statements in this section. I think you'd do better to follow Bowler's account in his sequence, because it's logical as well as chronological: Early Christian & Medieval awareness of Classical debates bet "proto-evolutionsts" (my term) like Empedocles and proponents of fixed species, like Aritotle; view of naure as capricious, monsters common; literal interp of Bible by Protestants; mechanistic approach of Descartes to origin of Earth, refined by Newton; comfortable relationship bet empiricial science & nat theology in Renaissance & Restoration times because nat theology refined species concept, which made nature orderly rather than capricious, -> Linnaeus; argument from design; problem of origin of new species ("generation" in Bowler). --Philcha (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bowler has a habit of referring back to earlier siginificant concepts in sections on later eras. .. dave souza, talk 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done "In Medieval Europe its symbolic importance was emphasised, and scholars saw the Classical great chain of being as a social hierarchy, with organisms described by their mythological and heraldic significance as much as by their physical form" unsuported throughout:
See below, chain now deleted, and "organisms described by their mythological and heraldic significance as much as by their physical form" based on Bowler p. 43, re Gesner still holding to "emblematic" significance which Harrison argues had to be eliminated as a by-product of Protestant literalism before a scientific approach could emerge. . . dave souza, talk 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done What supports "symbolic importance"?
Reference added. Bowler p. 27 argues that modern creationist views didn't apply then, but that would have been an anachronistic diversion, clarified as meaning of Genesis then allegorical rather than strictly literal. . . dave souza, talk 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done I see no mention in Bowler pp27-51 of a "great chain of being", and by p51 Bowler's well into the Enlightenment. I see no need to drag progressivism into this until the article gets to (?) Lamarck. --Philcha (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, cut out as note below. . .dave souza, talk 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bowler p. 62 says it goes back to the ancient Greek thinkers, that's consistent with your source. . dave souza, talk 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Bowler's stuff about "great chain of being" (pp54ff) emphasises its political aspect, & poss goes better w the notion that evolutionism undermined the social order ("God bless the squire and his relations, And keep us in our proper stations"). Having the orderly "great chain of being" alongside the sentence "Nature was widely believed to be unstable and capricious ..." makes no sense. "chain of being" makes more sense alongisde the political / religious objections to Darwin. --Philcha (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Some concepts of the great chain of being were proto-evolutionary,, see examples (Aristotle, Smellie) at "The Great Chain of Being after Forty Years: An Appraisal". Another reason to leave it out here as an unnecessary complication. --Philcha (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, it made some sense to mention it in sequence if we had later references to its influence on Linnaeus, Lamarck and social order, but that was rather detailed for this article leaving this mention isolated. So I've cut it out. dave souza, talk 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done "In the Royal Society, formed to seek stability after the religious turmoil of the English civil war ..." is wrong. Bowler (pp. 32 & 38) makes supporting stability a prereqisite, not an objective. --Philcha (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My phrasing misrepresented that, have changed it to "After the turmoil of the English civil war, the Royal Society had to show that science did not threaten religious and political stability, and John Ray..." . . dave souza, talk 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have given the date of 4004 BC and tied it to Buffon disputing the date, followed by Werner and Hutton. . dave souza, talk 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Chronologically the mention of Ussher is about in the right place, but IMO logically it belongs w Hutton & Lyell as a contrast to the "old Earth" (by their standards) implied by their uniformitarianism. I'd consider re-arranigng the 2 paras so the 2st deals w biology & the 2nd w geology. --Philcha (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have related Ussher more closely to Hutton, my feeling is that the ancient chronology had to precede the concept of biological development over these ages, and Cuvier's catastrophist sequence of species. . dave souza, talk 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When revising, considered possibility of splitting the two geology sentences off as a separate paragraph, but it all comes under the shift to literalism and scientific responses, so left it as one paragraph. . dave souza, talk 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added "To Ray, parasitism was a puzzling problem." The links cover the problems Bowler discusses, and the same question troubled Darwin who could not persuade himself "that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars".[3] . .dave souza, talk 16:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here I think you've been too terse. Per Bowler, the nat theologists could accept predation because the prey died pretty quickly (I guess they hadn't seen hyenas and wild canids eating large prey alive), but could not understand how an omnipotent and beneficent God could have deliberately created organisms that lived by causing prolonged suffering - a biological application of the "problem of pain". --Philcha (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revised as "In God's benevolent design, carnivores caused mercifully swift death, but the suffering caused by parasitism was a puzzling problem." . . dave souza, talk 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY I'd rethink this section. Its objective here is to set the scene for Origin, not to give a potted history of evolutionary thought. I'd work backwards from "what ideas and debates was D aware of as a youth / young man?" I know Bowler cautions against seeing the older theorists through later eyes, but WP is an encyclopedia, not an academic treatise, and lies to children are often necessary. Schools accept this, e.g. they teach Newtonian mechanics, which became one of the "lies to children" after 1905 (Special Relativity). --Philcha (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was my aim, imperfectly realised. Darwin was aware of Linnaeus and saw the Wernerian vs. Huttonian debate at Edinburgh uni, where he was reminded of Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck by Grant who was working in terms of his friend Geoffroy's ideas, and Darwin read Ray just before reading Malthus and getting his theory. He learnt Baconian science at Cambridge, and quotes Bacon at the start of OtOOS. Not sure about Buffon, and Darwin's historical sketch of 1861 says "Passing over authors from the classical period to that of Buffon, with whose writings I am not familiar", so there's an argument for mentioning that Ussher's chronology soon came under question, then skipping ahead to Werner. . . dave souza, talk 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In rewrite to focus on shift to old Earth geology by 1780s, omitted Buffon. . dave souza, talk 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buffon has been re-added. Darwin's historical sketch of 1861 covers him by "Passing over authors from the classical period to that of Buffon, with whose writings I am not familiar, Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on this subject excited much attention."[4] but from 1866 onwards he expanded this to "Passing over allusions to the subject in the classical writers, the first author who in modern times has treated it in a scientific spirit was Buffon. But as his opinions fluctuated greatly at different periods, and as he does not enter on the causes or means of the transformation of species, I need not here enter on details. Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention."[5] . . . dave souza, talk 09:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clumsy me, have simplified it to "also viewed species as fixed according to the divine plan" . .dave souza, talk 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simplified as above, will think about the nature orderly point. . dave souza, talk 18:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to say "John Ray developed an influential natural theology of rational order" . . dave souza, talk 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "Geoffroy took a more idealist view involving saltation and parallels with embryonic development":
    •  Done Étienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire says G's analysis of homologies was based on topology, but he took the idea too far, becoming almost a Platonist. But I don't think philosophical idealism is useful here. What matters is his analysis of homologies - "the parts may change to almost any extent in form and size, and yet they always remain connected together in the same order" (Origin, quoted by the UCMP page, which I'd accept as WP:RS and FAC ought to - follow the "authors" link if anyone gives trouble). --Philcha (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the idealism is that of Naturphilosophie which is useful to mention, as we come back to it later on. His homologies and archetypes seem to have influenced both Owen and Grant, though the UCMP article doesn't mention Grant. Have named the author in the citation. . dave souza, talk 17:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the mentions of Naturphilosophie are useful. Naturphilosophie was part of a German philosophical tradition totally unlike anything the English-speaking world - the account at [[[Naturphilosophie]] makes it look like a (typically 19th-cent German) vast exaggeration of Kant's idea that we see the world the way we do because that's how our minds are constituted, which was his his resolution of the "barrier of ideas" problem presented in the works of Berkeley and Hume. If you try to explain it, the article will get sucked in. --Philcha (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Desmond focusses on Geoffroy's deistic ideas of an abstract unity of plan, so now mention "unity of plan reflecting higher laws" without trying to include the relationship to ideas of Naturphilosophie. . . dave souza, talk 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have left out the saltation, he did draw parallels between embryological development and his idealised relationship to archetypes, as cited to Desmond in Recapitulation theory. There's an interesting interaction in that simple linear recapitulation being refuted by von Baer's branching relationship which Darwin welcomed, but Haeckel returned to the simple linear relationship. . dave souza, talk 17:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this is suitable for History of evolutionary thought, but we already have have enough to summarise at Origin of Species. --Philcha (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Desmond, Adrian J. (1989), The politics of evolution p. 53, "Geoffroy went on to speculate that the past transformations of life on the planet had been affected not as Lamarck supposed, but in a similar way – through the changing environmental conditions of each age acting the embryo to alter its development." . . dave souza, talk 17:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO that's much more on the money than the idealism / Naturphilosophie stuff - environmentally-induced "mutations" in embryos provide a source of variation, and G's concept of homology explains the mechanics of how varieties / species arise via "morphing". --Philcha (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G seems to have had mixed views, with fixed species generally then sudden changes with environmental shifts in era. He influenced the transmutationist Grant, and the anti-transmutationist Owen who adapted idealism and Naturphilosophie to British establishment views. By publication of the Origin, Owen had hinted at a transformist idealism and this as adopted by Argyll and Mivart formed a strain of the non-Darwinian evolutionism of the "eclipse of Darwinism" period. . dave souza, talk 09:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten, focussing on various ideas for and against transmutation using Desmond as a source. . dave souza, talk 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "but authorities opposed ideas of transmutation", should it be "but the authorities opposed ideas of transmutation", i.e. a political issue? Or does it simply mean "eminent writers"? --Philcha (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was both: authorities as in the Cambridge professors and the medical establishment of the Royal Societies, and authorities as in the courts who could prosecute for blasphemy, or punish writers like William Lawrence who lost copyright in a book which the court held was blasphemous. . dave souza, talk 16:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is better-supported by the source(s)? --Philcha (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced to Desmond & Moore, "the church and scientific authorities" as well as implying Tory domination in the aftermath of the Napoleonic wars making such views dangerous for scientists. Browne shows a less clear-cut picture, as she focussed on the religious and political turmoil in Edinburgh and in Edinburgh University at that time, where one of the big controversies was about the materialism of phrenology and philosophical anatomy, and few openly professed evolutionism. As she states, Grant may not have been open about his views until he moved to London. . dave souza, talk 18:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made it "scientific authorities" as they were the most significant. . . dave souza, talk 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"scientific authorities opposed ideas of transmutation as a threat to divinely appointed social order" looks odd to a modern eye. How about e.g. "scientific authorities, who were also churchmen, opposed ideas of transmutation as a threat to divinely appointed social order"? --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried changing the order of the para. to start with all scientists in the English uni's being CofE clergymen, and made it establishment scientists. . dave souza, talk 14:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Combining Grant and "establishment scientists" is makes Grant seem some sort of counter-culture scientist. He was also appointed a prof and UCL, but in Robert Edmond Grant there's no sign of a theology degree and with his origins I doubt if he was CofE.
If this were uk.WP rather than en.WP I'd suggest simply "the establishment", but the cousins won't recognize that and will think of Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. --Philcha (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a materialist and transmutationist, he was indeed a sort of counter-culture scientist! However, the ambiguities are a good point, and I've compromised a bit by calling him an anatomist rather than a medical student (he came across Lamarck and Geoffroy during post-MD studies, and wasn't a prof when Darwin assisted him in Edinburgh) and using "most naturalists" instead of "establishment scientists". Hope that works. . dave souza, talk 19:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do. --Philcha (talk) 20:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I still don't see how the mention of Neptunism vs Plutonism helps in this article. From the point of view of evolution, young-Earthers vs old-young-Earthers was the key issue. --Philcha (talk) 07:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the early 19th century all geologists were old-Earthers, the dispute was between catastrophists, some of whom were diluvialists and identified the last catastrophe with the Flood, and uniformitarians following on from Huttonian Plutonism who saw a steady state world with the same processes continuing. The fossil record with a series of abrupt changes in eras suited the catastrophist view, but the worldwide flood was a British view and discarded by most by 1831, with the exception of Buckland. Lyell explained the fossil record through local "centres of creation" and extinctions when the environment changed. So, the old-vs.-young Earth is projecting modern creationism onto a more complex debate at that time. . dave souza, talk 09:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten to focus on shift to old Earth ideas by 1880s, mention uniformitarianism (science) linking Hutton with Lyell. . dave souza, talk 10:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm releived to see that you wrote 1780s in the artcile :-) --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, typo here. As a matter of interest, this paper mentions Darwin's antipathy to Jameson's Wernerism, finding it absurd [after hearing the Huttonian Plutonist explanation from the chemistry lecturer Thomas Charles Hope] and describes Sedgwick's reputation for having supported both Wernerism and the Noachian Deluge theory. Bowler describes Sedgwick as a catastrophist, which covers both. . dave souza, talk 09:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inception of Darwin's theory (2)

[edit]
Done. . dave souza, talk 17:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Sorry to be a pain, but I'm still not happy about "He was exposed to Grant's transmutational ideas but was unimpressed". We discussed this earlier, ending with Rusty's comment of 18:56, 2 April 2009. How about e.g. "Grant supported Lamarck's theories, but at this stage Darwin rejected the idea of transmutation of species"? --Philcha (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having reviewed this and gone through Browne's more detailed discussion of the interaction, have decided on "One day Grant revealed his enthusiasm for transmutation of species, but Darwin rejected this." From Browne's description, Darwin rejected or was indifferent to Grant's evolutionary radicalism, and given the evidence that Darwin embraced ideas of creation of fixed species at Cambridge and for nearly all of the Beagle voyage, rejected works for me. . dave souza, talk 20:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "was reminded of its (Malthus') statistical proof that human populations breed beyond their means and struggle to survive", where and when had he read it before? --Philcha (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to "with its statistical proof", Desmond & Moore emphasise that his friends and relatives included Malthusians, notably Harriet Martineau, so he'd have known the basics, but that detail isn't needed here. . dave souza, talk 17:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "He continued to research and extensively revise his theory, in the background to his main occupation, publication of the scientific results of the Beagle voyage" looks clumsy to me. How about e.g. "He continued to research and revise his theory in the background, as his main occupation was publishing the scientific results of the Beagle voyage"? --Philcha (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the awkward phrasing to the Further development section and changed it to "Darwin continued to research and extensively revise his theory, in the background to his main work of publishing the scientific results of the Beagle voyage." Hope that's a bit better. . dave souza, talk 17:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Darwin delay publication?

[edit]

 Done It's a common belief (which I held until 30 mins ago!) that D held off until 1859 through fear of the scientific & religious response, damamge ot his scientific & social reputation, etc. I've just read Wyeh's (2007) Mind the gap: Did Darwin avoid publishing his theory for many years? and his account of the origins of this notion and the evidence against it looks pretty convincing. I think a short section is needed on this. The two obvious places I can see are between "Inception" and "Further development" or as a separate section at the end. Between "Inception" and "Further development" is chronologically about right, as Wyeh quotes a letter showing that D became a Darwinist in 1837 (search for "hoot"). OTOH that would interrupt the development of his ideas, and it's more of a historical footnote, so I'd probably opt for the end. --Philcha (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is why there was an emphasis on the species work being in the background to his main work on researching and writing up Beagle results. While keeping a mention at the end of "Reception", I've now moved that point to the start of the "Further development" section to make it clear that it wasn't his main work at that time, and have clarified the point that his Beagle work (on the barnacles) completed in '54 before he turned full time to species work. That, combined with the point that he was still revising and developing his theory in a significant way, should make it clear that he wasn't just holding off publishing. James Moore continues to push the "avoided publishing for fear" idea, but from my reading of his sources he seems less convincing. We could briefly mention the controversy in the modern influence section, citing van Whye's analysis and possibly citing Desmond and Moore, but not sure if that's making too much of it. It is fair to say that Vestiges emphasised the need to present a solid well argued case when publishing, and Darwin probably spent a lot of time trying to meet Whewell's rather unrealistic standard of consilience of different inductions to test the truth of his theory. However, Prince Albert read Vestiges to Queen Victoria to introduce her to current ideas of science, so the "development hypothesis" wasn't all that shocking in 1844, despite Sedwick's scathing review of 1845. . . dave souza, talk 20:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I suggested a separate section is that it's such a widespread, heavily-hyped story - as I said, I believed until to-day. --Philcha (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will try to put something together tomorrow, time for both of us to call it a night! Since many eminent historians seem to oppose van Wyhe we'll have to take care about npov, but checking his arguments against sources gives more credence to his position, in my opinion. . dave souza, talk 22:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth I think Quammen (2006) pp 84-87 might be a useful guide here. He lays out the range of explanations that have been given for the "gap" ranging from concern about the consequences (opinions of society at large, his old freinds, Emma), desire to gather more data, other pressing work (especially during the barnacle period), bouts of illness, and suggests that they all probably played some role and also suggests that as far as determining the relative importance of the various factors "..that isn't likely to be settled by psychobiography or squinty textual analysis at a distance of a century and a half". I think you are going to have to come up with some sort of "historians disagree" text along with a brief list of possible explantions for this one. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I felt Quammen had a reasonable balance but forgot about that analysis of his. His book predates van Wyhe's paper, but covers similar ground as I recall, must read it again. This evening I've roughed out some ideas at User:Dave souza/Reception of the Origin#Time taken to publish, far too long but gives a rough idea of where it could fit and some thoughts of things that might be included. . dave souza, talk 22:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have boldy added a stripped down version of the section. The link to Glen Roy is worth a look for the Historic geological investigations section. . dave souza, talk 13:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just after "Events leading to publication" is a good place!
Minor points:
 Done *"Charles Darwin's illness, possibly stress related, caused repeated delays, and may have been caused by the stress of his huge workload"? --Philcha (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought the "large output of books" covered the "huge workload" and meant to delete that bit, but forgot. On second thoughts have deleted the stress bit altogether. . dave souza, talk 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that works well. . dave souza, talk 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "and his estimate was that writing his "big book" would take five years was, as usual, optimisticthough he took longer than intended on most of his books"? "big book" because origin, published 1859 (1854+5), was only of an "abstract" of what he planned. --Philcha (talk) 13:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks and have implemented it. We do mention Darwin's big book on Natural Selection in the Events leading to publication section (without inverted commas) so that should be reasonably clear. . dave souza, talk 15:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further development (2)

[edit]
  •  Done The 2 sentences about the switch from allopatric to sympatric speciation and about dispersal across oceans puzzle me, as I'd have thought dispersal across oceans would be more associated with allopatric speciation. --Philcha (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've separated the switch from the research by adding "also" and moving the dispersal to after the domestic animal work, calling it research into difficulties with his theory. He didn't abandon allopatric speciation, but changed his emphasis, partly because of concerns that small populations might not produce enough variations. This apparently is now thought to be a mistaken move, but sympatic speciation had been a concern from the start, with the puzzle of the rheas. . dave souza, talk 20:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Events leading to publication (2)

[edit]

Green tickY Looks pretty good. --18:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Publication and subsequent editions (2)

[edit]
OK, have revised accordingly. . dave souza, talk 09:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publication outside Great Britain

[edit]
They appear in Reception outside Great Britain, perhaps best to move them in with the Publication. Talk:On the Origin of Species#Suggestions proposes deleting the reception outside UK section and merging any unique info elsewhere – any comments? . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, then if readers forget by the time they reach "Reception" they may at least remember there was an explanation earlier. --Philcha (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amalgamated appropriate parts of Reception outside Great Britain into this section, covering this point. . dave souza, talk 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thnaks. --Philcha (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Browne says D was troubled by these editions, and adds that he was offended by the 3rd without explaining why, so have chaged it to "was troubled by these editions" . . dave souza, talk 13:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another case there the source doesn't comply with WP's standard (sigh) --Philcha (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The phrasing of the list of publication dates looks odd. How about e.g. "During Darwin's lifetime it was published in: Swedish in 1869; Danish in 1872; ..."? --Philcha (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, it seems to be a reasonable improvement to change the order as you suggest, using commas as in "published in Swedish in 1869, Danish in 1872, ..." . . dave souza, talk 17:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. --Philcha (talk) 15:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of text

[edit]
  •  Done This section doesn't work for me, as its 2 sub-sections are unrelated. I'd be inclined to place "Nature of Darwin's argument" before "Content" as a sort of roadmap, and retitled "Structure of Darwin's argument". I think "Literary style" might work as the final sub-section of "Reception", after the content-related sub-sections. --Philcha (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the "Structure of Darwin's argument" as a first section of "Content" or immediately preceding it seems good to me, and it could include the paragraphs giving comments by Secord and Quammen. The Examiner review could become an opening paragraph to the Reception section. . . dave souza, talk 11:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've copyedited the text to tighten it up, and tried out moving it to form the opening part of the Content section before the subsections describing the intro and chapters of the book. It looks reasonable to me, would it be preferable to move the Eaminer review as suggested above? . . dave souza, talk 17:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guys I think we have made a huge mistake here. After I read Geometry Guy's comments I did some research on FA articles on books. Every single one I looked at has a separate section that discusses sholarly analysis of the structure and style of the text. This is pretty much a mandatory requirment for book articles. Frankly without one I would be inclined to oppose at FAC. When I saw this earlier I was inclined to take the extraodinary step of reverting Dave's edit, but unfortunately he has made other edits since. Therefore I am going to go back and reconstruct the section rather than revert. I would suggest we take a little more care to make sure we have a talk page consensus before we make any more sweeping reorganizations of this kind. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For examples of what I am talking about see the "Rhetoric and style" section of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and the "Style and genre" section of I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings which were both featured on the main page this month.Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, for discussion purposes here's the info merged into the Content section, this edit restores the section as it was, and this edit reintoroduces the various copeyetits/changes I'd mede. Any comments? . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My last edit took your previous version (the text you had put on top of "Content") with all of your valuable copyedits, changed the name of the section to "Structure and style" (anlalysis of text was an uninspired choice I admit), and made some tweaks. You and I had an edit conflict. So I have put what I did in place, but gone back and added the subsection headers (with a tweak) that you put in your last version. I hope this combined version will satisfy all or at least provide a starting place for more tweaks. Sorry to snap like that, but I agreed with Geometry Guy that separating analysis from synopsys was an important step, and I hated to see things move backwards. I do think that your copyedits were a signficant improvement over the original text. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, always glad to reverse trial edits that don't work well, sorry about the edit conflict. Your further copyedits are an improvement, as far as I'm concerned. Much appreciated, dave souza, talk 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The net result was to improve the text so it was all for the best. I would have said this hours ago but my internet service went out this evening. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the old "call it a feature and sell the benefits" strategy :-) Joking apart, it's a neat solution. --Philcha (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

Green tickY No issues strike me, and I like the way it points out that D's theory did not instantly become dominant. --Philcha (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on the scientific community

[edit]
  •  Done In "Scientific readers were already aware of arguments for a lawful process of change in species, ..." I think lawful has the wrong connotations - what would an unlawful process of change be like? How about e.g. "Scientific readers were already aware of arguments that species changed by processes that were subject to laws of nature, .."? --Philcha (talk)
Good idea, have slightly modified your wording. . . dave souza, talk 21:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "In April 1860 he coined the term Darwinism for his efforts to secularise and professionalise science" is ambiguous - to recognise D's effort to to secularise and professionalise science, or to give a catchy label to THH's efforts to secularise and professionalise science? --Philcha (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, Huxley coined the term in his Westminster Review article, shortly before praising the Origin as likely to exert great influence, "not only on the future of Biology, but in extending the domination of Science over regions of thought into which she has, as yet, hardly penetrated." Link in the Contemporary reviews section. Hope my revision has clarified that. . dave souza, talk 21:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Never heard of the "great hippocampus debate", what's it about? Thomas Henry Huxley contains a brief description that could be condensed a bit more. You'd also have to clarify the chronology: the debate started at the same BA meeting on 1860, but was empirically settled in 1862 and THH staked it, beheaded it and buried it at a crossroads in 1862-1863. OTOH is it really relevant to Origin, which said little about human evolution? It might be more appropriate to Descent of Man. --Philcha (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will look at reviewing and trimming that. An inordinate fondness for water babies: search for Nothing is to be depended on but the great hippopotamus test. That appears to be from 1863,[6] so the timing fits. . . dave souza, talk 21:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I thought Water Babies was a kids book (apart from the inevitable Victorian moralising)! The great hippopotamus test cracked me up. You should insert it into Water Babies and several other articles. I'm fighting the temptation (probably losing) to insert it into Hippocampus, as another paleo editor and I have a running battle with the medics over their anthropocentrism. --Philcha (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If memory serves me well I did put in the book article, but think the usual Wikipedia attrition has watered it down. Probably objections to my sources. Still a fun story. . . dave souza, talk 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have succumbed to temptation and mentioned Kingsley's satire with a reference to the UCMP page for interested readers. The whole story, including the quotation from the Water-Babies and a preceding privately circulated satire on the hippocampus theme by Kingsley, is covered in Browne 2002 pp. 160–161. She describes its importance as a much needed "well-publicised affray" that "propelled Darwin's ideas out of the arcane realm of learned journals and books into the ordinary world of humour, newspapers and demotic literature", and the whole ape-human dispute was a central part of the debate, though barely mentioned in OtOOS. Good luck with the medics. . dave souza, talk 09:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've been too terse here and to summarise the issue at stake. E.g. "Owen claimed that lack a brain structure, the hippocampus minor, which humans possess, and that humans therefore could not have evolved form apes. In two years of ... discredited Owen's analysis of ape brains." --Philcha (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC) ... Huxley discredited Owen's assertion that apes lack a brain structure, the hipocampus minor, which humans possess, and which Owen regarded ...[reply]
Incorrigibly tense, I've made it "In two years of acrimonious public dispute over Owen's claim that human brains were unlike ape brains, satirised by Charles Kingsley as the "great hippocampus test", Huxley triumphed." which seems to me reasonably explanatory in the contest of the other sentences about this dispute. On second thoughts have added a link to The Water-Babies, A Fairy Tale for a Land Baby and promise to add detailed info, refs. Browne, to that article. Gotta rush off now, hope that works. . dave souza, talk 19:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's good now, thanks. --Philcha (talk)
Moved "Bronn's alterations to his German translation added to the misgivings of conservative thinkers, but it was welcomed by philosophical radicals already used to transformationist ideas of metamorphosis and monadology." from "Reception outside GB" section to replace that sentence, focussing on the scientific rather than the social aspect. My recollection is that Haeckel was campaigning for freethought and secularism in a similar way to Huxley, but that seems unnecessary detail here. . dave souza, talk 14:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, explained as "blending inheritance would mix traits so that selection could not accumulate useful traits", didn't want to mention genetics in the 19th century context. . dave souza, talk 20:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's now ambiguous - did Jenkin use his own / the general belief in blending inheritance as a weapon against D, or did he say D's advocacy of blending inheritance was inconsistent w natural selection? --Philcha (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to both. Have tried changing it to "Darwin accepted blending inheritance, but Fleeming Jenkin calculated that mixing traits would prevent selection from working to accumulate useful traits.", focussing on the latter, though as I recall Jenkin was anti-evolution anyway. On reflection changed it to "Darwin accepted blending inheritance, but Fleeming Jenkin calculated that as it mixed traits, natural selection could not accumulate useful traits." A more concise but less informative sentence would be "Fleeming Jenkin calculated that Darwin's blending inheritance would mix traits, so natural selection would not work." Must go now for a bit, any thoughts welcome. . dave souza, talk 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "The problems of geologic time and heredity were only resolved by discoveries in the 20th century" is not quite right, as Mendel's work was done in the 1860s - but describing how M's work was lost and resurrected might be too long. You could finesse it by e.g. "The problems of geologic time and heredity were only resolved by discoveries in the 20th century" --Philcha (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, have done so. . dave souza, talk 09:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "natural selection only became accepted as the main driving force of evolution ... modern evolutionary synthesis" looks wrong to me. Evolution needs 3 types of "force": inheritance; generator(s) of variations; and pruner(s) of variations, and neither is the main driving force - in section "Summary of Darwin's theory" bullets 5 & 6 describe inheritance with variation. --Philcha (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved by removing "driving force of evolution" bit, prior to trying cliffhanger ending as discussed below. . dave souza, talk 09:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Religious

[edit]
  •  Done The title is vague. How about e.g. "Response of British religious congregations"? --Philcha (talk)
It includes British and American theologians, will think about this. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modified to Religious attitudes as the title. . .dave souza, talk 14:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As our article correctly states, his surname was Powell, and after his death his family changed their surname to Baden-Powell in his memory. Note the lack of a hyphen.[7] . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bloody "unearned increments" (Lloyd George)! --Philcha (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "By the early 20th century even authors of The Fundamentals were mostly explicitly open to the possibility that God created through evolution" looks clumsy. How about "By the early 20th century even most authors of The Fundamentals were mostly explicitly open to the possibility that God created through evolution" - or this that not quite what you menat? --Philcha (talk) 19:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a significant point but complicated as out of 90 essays (according to the WP article) our source states that four major scholars were explicity open to evolution, and three were opposed, two of them very minor figures. Have rephrased it as "By the early 20th century even four noted authors of The Fundamentals were explicitly open to the possibility that God created through evolution." . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception outside Great Britain

[edit]
Removed this in merge into scientific reception. . dave souza, talk 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Section now merged, added piped link to Lamarckism#neo-Lamarckism at first mention of neo-Lamarckism in that section. . dave souza, talk 14:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern influence

[edit]
  •  Done This looks like a bolt-on eulogy. When I suggested this section I expected modern synthesis to be included, so "Impact on the scientific community" would finish just before the mention of Weismann, as his precursor to the central dogma and the rediscovery of Mendel paved the way for the modern synthesis. That would highlight Dave's "happy ending", as we last saw our heroine tied to the railway tracks. --Philcha (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good thinking, have tried out cliffhanger ending as suggested. dave souza, talk 09:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, geeza brek.[8] . dave souza, talk 14:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the stuff. Ah willnae need ma Latin grammer after a'.
A'hve done a wee copyedit on the punctuation. Ah hope ye dinnae mind. --Philcha (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'll look over "Content" tomorrow - it's 21:00 in UK and I dread to think how long it will take me just to read it. -- Philcha (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it is 3am here in San Diego and I am still looking over this thing. What else would I be doing on a Friday night/Saturday morning :) Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but your being a Californian explains a lot :-) --Philcha (talk) 10:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content

[edit]

comment I still think it's longer than I'd like. I expect many of my comments will be attempts to make it more concise and focussed. --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title pages and introduction

[edit]
  •  Done The bit about theology & science could be more concise, e.g. "Quotations from William Whewell and Francis Bacon introduce a theme that recurs throughout the book, that ther is no conflict between science and religion" (with summaries of these quotes in a footnote) could replace the first 2 sentences. --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got rid of th contents of the quotes and condensed the sentences. However I did not simplify it to the degree you suggest as Darwin was trying to do more than show there was no conflict between science and religion. He was trying to show that good theology was in harmony with good science. Huxley and possibly Darwin himself would have been satisfied with merely separating science and religion, but Darwin was accutely aware that most of the people he most wanted to convince, elite British scientists and philosophers, still expected science and theology to compliment one another not reside in separate magisteria. To paraphrase Einstein one should simplify as much as possible but no more. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried tightening that aspect a little while adding cited explanations of the meaning behind the first two sentences, the first of which reminds readers of Darwin's credentials, and the second reinforces the justification for looking for natural law rather than miracles as an explanation, as given by a leading and influential philosopher of science. The later addition of the Historical sketch is already mentioned in the preceding section on publication, so isn't needed here. . . dave souza, talk 10:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The 1st quote ("WHEN on board H.M.S. 'Beagle,' as naturalist ... one of our greatest philosophers") and the passage "He referred to the distribution of rheas, ... to animals still living on that continent" cover the same ground. In this case I'd scap the quote, as the other quote in this section ("As many more individuals of each species are born than can possibly survive, ... any selected variety will tend to propagate its new and modified form") sums up the book. I'd also skip the mention of Herschel. --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took the opposite tack. I was loathe to cut the "mystery of mysteries" quote because it is too well known. For example Quammen (2006) starts off his summary of the book with that exact same quoation as do many others. So instead I cut out the mention of Herschel as you suggested and cut down the text to eliminate much of the redundancy with the quote. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your latest version works for me, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment In the sub-section the intro sentence for the summmary of each chapter tends to repeat all or part of the sub-section title, which paraphrases D's chapter / section titles. Eliminating that duplication is a painless way to shave perhaps 10% off the length. --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variation under domestication and under nature

[edit]
  •  Done The first para could be much more concise, e.g. "In chapter I Darwin reviews the history of animal and plant breeding, and contemporary opinions on the origins of the many distinct breeds under cultivation. Referring to his own study of fancy pigeon breeding, he concludes that all the diverse varieties appear to have descended from the one species of rock pigeon." --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Likewise in the 2nd para, e.g. "The following chapter notes that experts have often had to change their minds about whether a particular population should be classified as a species for a variety. In Darwin's opinion a variety is an incipient species and a species is just a distinctive and stable variety. Historians consider this an important new idea: most earlier naturalists considered variations as minor deviations from the archetypes defined by God, but Darwin and Wallace gave variations between individuals of the same species a central place in biology." That's 60-70% of the length of the current text, and focusses on the change in viewpoint.--Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I studied your proposed condensation carefully. I think that you omitted some important concepts like the relationship between the size of a genus and the number of varieties likely to be found in its species. I also wanted to keep the little snippet quotes from Origin as I think these are valuable and help ground the summary to the actual text. Therefore what I finally produced is not quite as concise as what you suggested but it is considerably more concise than what was there before and I hope it will satisfy both of us. I also broke the text on variations between indiviuals into a separate short paragraph because it is really a general observation on the contents of both chapters and is separate from the idea of the blurry line between varieties and species. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both the fact or the significance of "the relationship between the size of a genus and the number of varieties likely to be found in its species" are news to me, so most readers will need some help here. It's not an obvious thing, for example the ctenophores have few species but very diverse forms and feeding strategies. --Philcha (talk) 10:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note that said that Darwin made this observation based on tables he made for species of plants found in several different countries and also of Beetles from several different districts. Darwin expected this result because he assumed that if a lot of speciation was going on in a genus you would find a mix of species and incipient species/varieties. I admit to not being an expert but I suspect that the pattern does hold for organisms like some plants and many insects that speciate fairly quickly. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that more varieties per species or per genus? The latter looks trivial. The former needs an explanation. --Philcha (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and looked at summaries of the contents of Origin in Larson (2004) and Quammen (2006) and saw that they completely ignore this, so I have conceded the point and removed it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struggle for existence, natural selection, and divergence

[edit]
  •  Done I'd cut the intro sentence to e.g. "Chapter III introduces Darwin's key concept": (followed by the quote "Owing to this struggle for life ... in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection"). --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I pared it back.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""which I have called incipient species" is a nice lead in, and underscores your comments in the previous section about D's and Wallace's new perspective. --Philcha (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Which Charles Lyell is this about? Charles Lyell was a geologist, but the DAB page notes a botanist of the same name a generation earlier, for whom there is no article; but Charles Lyell says the geologist's father was a botanist of the same name. If you mean the botanist, did he support an idea of a "war" between plants, similar to de Candolle's? --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Charles Lyell discussed competition between species in Principles of geology (as a factor in extinction), and Darwin would never have said just "Lyell" if he was refering to anyone else. Lyell addressed many biologic topics in Principles in part because at the time no distinction was made between paleontology and geology (both were usually called geology) so Lyell addressed issues related to paleontology such as causes of extinction, introduction of new species (including a scathing critique of Lamarck's ideas), and biogeographical issues (his hypothesis of centers of creation). Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the identification of "Lyell" your deduction or is there a source for it? --Philcha (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your answer mentions several of L the geologist's ideas, but not struggle for existence. Did D explicitly mention L the geologist's ideas about struggle for existence? --Philcha (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, lets try this. This is from Bowler (2003) p.151 "Lyell made an even greater contribution toward establishing a more dynamic view of what would later be called ecological relationships (Egerton 1968). He realized that the environment could not be absolutely uniform over any large area, and even in one spot the conditions would change slowly through time. A species could not be perfectly adapted to a single environment, nor could the species inhabiting a region interact in a pefectly harmonious way ... the conditions at one point might favor one species, while a short distance away, a rival with a different life style might have the advantange. In between, the two species would be struggling to occupy territory that was open to either of them. Lyell quoted the botanist Alphonse de Candolle: "All the plants of a given country are at war with one another" (Lyell 1830-33: 2:131). Long-term climatic modifications might alter the balance of power and lead to the extinction of the disadvantaged species. (Kinch 1980)" The Lyell Bowler is talking about is clearly Sir Charles Lyell the geologist because a) he is the only Lyell in Bowler's index and b) the citation (Lyell 1830-33: 2:131) is clearly to Lyell's Principles of Geology. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair deduction from Bowler. You'd better make a note of it for FAC. Isn't it a pain when sources don't meet WP's standards (sigh) --Philcha (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also I have changed the text of the article to "He noted that A. P. de Candolle and Charles Lyell had both stated that all organisms are exposed to severe competition." which follows what Darwin wrote more closely. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And its significance is more obvious - thanks. --Philcha (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I think the passage "He discussed the universal struggle for existence ... ""It is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms"" could be abbreviated to e.g. "He acknowledges his debt to the ideas of the botanists A. P. de Candolle and Charles Lyell (the father of the geologist) about a struggle for existence between plants, and to Malthus' doctrine that population is limited by food supply. Darwin considers other checks on population growth, including ecological interdependencies, and notes that competition is most severe between closely related forms that compete for the same ecological niches." --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tightened it somewhat, but again I can't support cutting out so many key ideas. In particular the text about using the term struggle for existence is a large sense is important. Darwin devotes a sub section to it, and it addresses a common misapprehension that equates struggle with violence and thus assumes that it does not include things like symbiosis and cooperation in social species. Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Darwin devotes a sub-section to this, the article needs to be more explicit, e.g "the struggle was not just against other animals but between animals and the environment, and in this aspect animals often co-operated". --Philcha (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice examples! --Philcha (talk) 04:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I'd abbreviate the summary of ch IV to e.g. "Chapter IV examines the relationship between natural selection and the environment. He suggests that, if conditions change, some local species will become extinct, others may immigrate, and both groups are then likely to adapt to the new conditions. Since artifial selection by animal breeders produced very distinctive breeds, he suggests natural selection might do the same, so that variants specialise in exploiting different local resources and this allows a greater total population than unspecilaised forms could achieve." --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tightened the text some, but did not want to loose quotes, especially the one referenced by Quammen (2006).
That works for me. --Philcha (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DoneThe sentence "Historians have remarked that in this passage Darwin had anticipated the modern concept of an ecological niche and the role of such niches in supporting biological diversity" does not quite match the preceding para, incl the quote. The preceding passage focusses on higher total population as the ultimate benefit, and diversity as a means to that end, while "Historians have remarked ... in supporting biological diversity" appears to treat diversity as an end in itself. --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of understand your point but in discussing "widely diversified places in the polity of nature" Darwin is clearly describing ecological niches, and since his point is that such niches encourage divergence between different varieties the implication is that they will conribute to diversity. The cited source, Quammen (2006) draws the conclusion quite clearly and seems justified in doing so to me. I did change "role in supporting diversity" to "role in creating diversing" since "supporting diversity" could sound like a purley ecological process rather than an evolutionary one. Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. The Darwin quote shows that for him the pay-off was increased population - as I said, diversity was just a means to an end. Given the current intellectual climate, where every (apparent) extinction is treated as a sign of human wickedness, it's important to be clear that diversity was not an end in itself for D. The problem with "Historians have remarked that in this passage ..." is that the final phrase "and the role of such niches in supporting biological diversity" makes it look like divesity is an end in itslef. I'd like the sentece better if that closing phrase was dropped. --Philcha (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I dropped the phrase. The point is still valid though. It is specialization to fill ecological niches that generates biological diversity in the first place. and that connects directly to Darwin's concept of divergence driven by natural selection.Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. "creating" would have been valid, but potentially confusing when the text has to be so birief. --Philcha (talk) 04:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In the final para, the 1st sentence, about sexual selection, looks perfunctory and arbitrarily tacked on. Were D's remarks about sexual selection so sketchy? If not, this is a rare case where I'd expand the text, and make it a separate para. --Philcha (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this article were on Darwin's The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871), I would agree with you, but for Origin sexual selection was a minor topic. Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So there's nothing to expand. I don't suppose you'd want to drop it. How about e.g. "Darwin first mentions his concept of sexual selection, which he later described more fully in ..."? --Philcha (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual selection is kind of a minor topic in Origin Just a single 2 paragraph sub section, but upon further review you are correct that the text in the article didn't really reflect Darwin's explantion very well so I have tried to improve it.Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, better explanation of the problem, and the examples are worth twice their weight in theoretical explanation. --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tree diagram used to show the divergence of species. It is the only illustration in the Origin of Species.
Done. Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I'd expand the image to make its topology visible (I think legibility is a lost cause in this case). If I were producing this, I'd create a separate version for thumbnail use, sharpening lines and increasing contrast. Or you could use template:Annotated image to crop and zoom, as in the example on the right. --Philcha (talk)
I expanded the image and you are right it does look better. You are correct about legibility; even the full page version of the image in my paper back copy of Bowler (2003) is hardly legible. However, I would be reluctant to enhance an image taken directly from the text. Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine thanks. I checked at 4:3 as well as 16:9 aspect ratio, and showing the whole pic causes no layout issues at 4:3. --Philcha (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(that's enough for now, let's see what you think of my comments)

I very much appreciate your comments. Even when I have declined to cut quite as much as you suggest your comments have inspired me to find ways to tighten the text, which is a good thing. Rusty Cashman (talk) 10:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Variation and heredity

[edit]
  •  Done IMO "A difficulty for Darwin was that in his time there was no agreed-upon model of heredity;[80] early in Chapter I Darwin stated "The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown" is verbose. How about e.g. "In Darwin's his time there was no agreed-upon model of heredity;[80] early in Chapter I Darwin stated "The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown"? --Philcha (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tightened. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
It si now. --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "It is a theme in some histories of evolution and genetics written by scientists, rather than historians, to claim that Darwin's lack of an adequate model of heredity was the source of suspicion of natural selection", how about e.g. "It is a theme in Some histories of evolution and genetics written by scientists, rather than historians, to claim that Darwin's lack of an adequate model of heredity was the source of provoked suspicion of natural selection"? --Philcha (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tightened it up. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks unchanged. Did you forget to save? --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking to see if you were paying attention. :) Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I'm nor sure the mention of Pearson and the biometric school is relevant - Pearson was born 1857, his first academic appointment was 1881, his first relevant publication is hard to identify but probably not before 1885; Darwin died 1887. Pearson looks more like a footnote in the history of evolutionary thought. -Philcha (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added in the 19th century to make it clear that the objections being discussed were not just the ones immediately after publication but also the ones raised later in Darwin's life time and during the "eclipse of Darwinism" period following his death. I don't have the source cited but Bowler (2003) p. 226 makes it clear that Pearson and W.F.R. Weldon (the two best known biometricians) were trying to study natural selection scientfically. However having said that there is no particular reason to mention Pearson specifically so I have deleted his name and just left the reference to the biometric school. The basic point, that the biometrician models showed that natural selction could work even with blending inheritence, remains valid. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This also looks unchanged. Did you forget to save? --Philcha (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preview, save what is the difference? Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't too clever either, doh! I commented on phrases and missing the point that the last sentence is a just a little too long - or did Dave write that? --Philcha (talk) 07:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be surprised, but it is split now. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulties for the theory

[edit]
A flying squirrel's "wings" are just folds of skin stretched between the legs[1]
  •  Done How about "Darwin attributed this to suggested that competition between different forms, combined with the relatively small number of individuals populations of intermediate forms, resulting incaused the extinction of such forms, leaving only distinct forms to be found"? --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "The rest of Chapter VI the chapter is concerned deals with ..."? --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I suggest the current term "behaviors" rather than "habits" in your own prose. --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  DoneHow about "He discussedpresented flying squirrels, a relatively straightforward modification of ordinary squirrels, and flying lemurs as examples of how bats might have evolved from non-flying ancestors" with a pic to make the point? "presented" to avoid repetition of "discussed" in next sentence. --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "how the vertebrate eye could have evolved in steps" should link to Evolution of the eye, where the lead image tells the story. --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among theHis examples he examined wereincluded two that he had investigated experimentally"? --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done"Darwin stated that there was a range of behaviour between differentsome species of slave-making ants, with some speciesare more dependent on slaves than others"? --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In "he saw no problem with species with an extreme dependency on slave workers, having evolved in incremental steps" the comma is totally wrong, although I understand your desire for a delimiter between 2 phrases. You might have to turn the structure upside-down, e.g "hwe thought it quite reasonable that ..."
    PS Sorry for this late cmt, don't know whether I missed it before or something's changed. --Philcha (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I excised the offending punctuation. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed all of these comments except for the flying squirrel picture. So far we have been very careful in this article to stick with period illustrations. I am more than a little reluctant to break that rule especially in the content section since Origin was not illustrated except for the tree diagram. We added the Rhea illustration for introduction, but at least that was a period illustration that was published in one of Darwin's works (his journal of the Voyage of the Beagle). Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly accepted. --Philcha (talk) 07:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have my comments inspired you to have a go at copyediting the rest of "Content" yourself? --Philcha (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geologic record

[edit]
Perhaps desirable to explain in more detail, but the very fact that rocks get folded under other rocks, sink below the ocean, eroded or, as we now know, pushed into subduction zones, all means that there can never be a perfect record of geological formations. . dave souza, talk 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "Acceptable fossil evidence of pre-Cambrian life was not found until the 1950s, but subsequent discoveries have extended the history of life back by billions of years, explaining the "Cambrian explosion"" has multiple issues:
That's why "acceptable" is there, but that's with hindsight as Huxley was impressed for a while with the Canadian pseudofossil, iirc. Possibly rephrase as below. . dave souza, talk 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walcott found stromatolite fossis as early as 1878, but in large part becuase of the earlier debacles with psuedo fossils that proved to be of inorganic origin the discovery was ignored. This I reworded back to "Fossil evidence of precambrian life was not accepted until the 1950s". There was new evidence involved (micro-fossils were found in stromatolites making it more obvious they were organic in origin) but it was also a matter of re-evaluating the evidence that had been discovered decades before. The cited source covers all of this in detail. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some quotes from the source we are currently citing: "In 1950, when Ledyard Stebbins' Variation and Evolution in Plants (1) first appeared, the known history of life—the familiar progression from spore-producing to seed-producing to flowering plants, from marine invertebrates to fish, amphibians, then reptiles, birds, and mammals—extended only to the beginning of the Cambrian Period of the Phanerozoic Eon, roughly 550 million years ago." As to Walcott's discoveries it says:"Precambrian fossils continued to be regarded as suspect, a view no doubt bolstered by Dawson's Eozoon debacle but justified almost as easily by the scrappy nature of the available evidence. Foremost among the critics was Albert Charles Seward (1863–1941), Professor of Botany at the University of Cambridge and the most widely known and influential paleobotanist of his generation. Because practically all claimed Precambrian fossils fell within the purview of paleobotany—whether supposed to be algal, like Cryptozoon stromatolites, or even bacterial—Seward's opinion had special impact." More about Seward's views: "In 1931, in Plant Life Through the Ages, the paleobotanical text used worldwide, Seward assessed the “algal” (that is, cyanobacterial) origin of Cryptozoon as follows: “The general belief among American geologists and several European authors in the organic origin of Cryptozoon is … not justified by the facts...". So what you have is an ongoing scientific controversy that wasn't resolved until the 1950s. I think this more than justifies the current wording in the article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, propose "Good fossil evidence of pre-Cambrian life was found in the 1950s, and subsequent discoveries have extended the history of life back by billions of years, overcoming Darwin's problem with the "Cambrian explosion"." Alternatively, "Fossil evidence of pre-Cambrian life found since the 1950s has extended the history of life back by billions of years, overcoming Darwin's problem." . . . dave souza, talk 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that solving Darwin's particular delimma (no life before the Cambrian) is a far cry from "explainging the Cambrian explosion", which is something Paleontolgists and evolutionary theorists are still trying to do. I have reworded to avoid making such a strong claim. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent rewording, sorry about my misunderstanding. . dave souza, talk 09:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Walcott 1899 - he got the kingdom wrong, but was right that it was evidence of life, and it was accepted by his peers - Cradle of Life (probably a rehash of the Schopf artilce you've cited, same chapter title). Ediacara biota also mentions a find in the 1930s that was dismissed at the time. Sprigg's 1946 finds in the Edicara hills were dismissed for a couple of years. What happened in the 1950s was that evidence other than Walcott's became respectable. Look at the summary in Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale#Theoretical_significance - the history is complex. If you check Schopf's article / book, you may find support for e.g. "Evidence of life in the Ediacaran period, which immediately preceded the Cambrian, was found from 1868 onwards,(ref) but dismissed at the time, and the first evidence that was widely accepted was found by Charles Doolittle Walcott in 1899.(ref Schopf) Discoveries in the 1950s extended the history of life back by billions of years". The ref for "from 1868 onwards" should be an actual footnote listing the finds, with a citation for each. --Philcha (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I put the comment above in the wrong place, but moving it now would only increase confusion.
I hadn't realised just how much damage Seward did in the 1930s, which justifies Schopf's pretty strong comments. So the chronology is: Eozoon published in 1865, refuted as metamorphosed limestone in (?) 1894; Ediacaran fossils published 1868 and 1872, rejected by other Victorian scientists simply because of preconceptions; Cryptozoon actual stromatolites published by Walcott 1883(!), and Precambrian alga Chuaria by Walcott 1899 (he thoughtit was an animal shell), plus further finds by Walcott; all Walcott's finds (all Edicaran, i.e probably 560 to) were accepted at the time but wrongly rubbished by Seward in 1931, although some of his other dismissals were justified; Sprigg found Edicaran fossils in Ediacara hills 1946, took a couple of years to get accepted; Tyler & Barghoorn 1954 published Tyler's 1953 finds in the Gunflint chert from 2,100 million years ago(!!); the rest is history.
It's too long and messy for this article. How about e.g. "Valid evidence of life in the Ediacaran period, which immediately preceded the Cambrian, was found by various scientists between 1868 and 1924. These discoveries were rejected by other scientists, partly as a result of their own preconceptions and partly because some claims genuinely turned out to be false. However discoveries in the mid-1950s extended the history of life back to over 2,100 million years ago." Schopf is a good enough ref for this; you could add a footnote that explains the whole sorry mess, but that might be too much for what is already a big article. BTW I recommend {{ma}}: it handles all the WP:MOSNUM stuff and links to a time line generated on toolserver.wikimedia.
Thanks for making me look more closely at this can of primtive life! I'll update Fossils_of_the_Burgess_Shale#Theoretical_significance now. --Philcha (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised my suggested wording dropped the link to Cambrian explosion. How about in an earler sentence e.g. "The initial appearance of entire groups of well developed organisms in the oldest fossil bearing layers posed a problem now known as the Cambrian explosion"? Could cite Darwin's dilemma: the realities of the Cambrian ‘explosion’. --Philcha (talk) 10:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried out something on these lines, leaving the source as it was. Easily reverted if it's not an improvement. . dave souza, talk 10:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, but we'd better wait for Rusty to wake up :-) --Philcha (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will leave it alone now for ease of reversion! . . dave souza, talk 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done "as in punctuated equilibrium" is also asking for trouble. Since Gould & Eldredge first publishe "punk eek" ther's been a lot of debte about whther it's an important insight, trivial, or just plain wrong. The cited source isn't WP:RS enough for such a complex issue. Like fireworks, the subject is best viewed from a safe distance. --Philcha (talk) 23:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source is by a published author on history of science, "as in" was intended to convey similarity to the phenomenon lately labelled punk eek. Could perhaps make it "rather like punctuated equilibrium". From Eldredge's essay their complaint was about geneticists and the assumptions of steady rate evolution being made in molecular biology, but in the crossfire Darwin got accused of something contrary to his clear statements, particularly in the 6th edition. Any thoughts welcome. It just seemed worth mentioning both issues as they're common modern concerns. . . dave souza, talk 23:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re the source, at FAC you'd have to cite peer-reviewed articles by the guy, and even then it might not be accepted. All the literature I've seen about punk eek assumes D was a gradualist, and all his comments about the slowness of evolution suggest that. If you're going to cite the writer at TalkOrigins then for WP:NPOV you'd have to mention and cite other views. It's not worth the hassle and space. --Philcha (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Dawkins has several times made the point (usually while trying to beat Gould about the head and shoulders) that Darwin anticipated punctuated equilibrium. I will attempt to dig up supporting references.Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you'd have to mention and cite opposing points of view, per WP:NPOV - is it worth it? -- Philcha (talk) 08:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before we jump to that conclusion lets see what the last statements from the Punk eek camp were. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<ri> Better source, and while I don't have access to the full text, the abstract is explicit: "The major tenets of the recent hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium are explicit in Darwin's writing... ". There's a common misunderstanding about what Darwin wrote, and a brief mention here linked to more explicit discussion on the main punk eek article would help to clarify this. We don't care whether it's a great insight or nonsense, this is purely about the question of Darwin's views which are clearly not as gradualist as they appear to have been portrayed. Will think about the phrasing to avoid NPOV issues. . dave souza, talk 08:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent find! I'd still be cautious, e.g "X and Y have found elements of the punk eek theory in Origin ..." - no point in asking for trouble. -Philcha (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This NYT article refers to that source, and Gould's response in his last book, quoted as "He did find many genuine Darwinian resonances". Will now try to find a form of words. . dave souza, talk 09:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd avoid the NYT article, as it mainly focusses on controversial and complex matters outside the scope of Origin of species - species-level selection (AFAIK now a dead letter), exaptation rather than pre-adaptation (Gould was a Marxist, and ideologically opposed anythin that might be used to support social Darwininsm), and Gould's spin-doctoring of sources. --Philcha (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried out "Darwin expected species to change slowly, but not at the same rate – some organisms such as Lingula were unchanged since the earliest fossils. The pace of natural selection would depend on variability and change in the environment,[102] as recently debated in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis.", with the intention of citing Rhodes but not the NYT article. The only reason for the NYT piece is for the quotation from Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory which presumably we can find elsewhere, but that's something to be taken up on the detailed articles, not here. Regarding the wording, I did ponder about making it "as recently discussed in the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis", wasn't sure if that was too much a hint that Darwin's views included the principal tenets of punk eek. . .dave souza, talk 10:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at Punctuated_equilibrium#Common_misconceptions, which reminded me that Dawkins distinguished between "discrete variable speedism", which he thought includes punk eek and is genuinely radical, and "continuous variable speedism", which Dawkins regards as the standard model. As far as I can see Darwin's words look like "continuous variable speedism" with comments on the importance of allopatric & peripatric speciation. I would go not further than "there has been discussion of whether Darwin's words foreshadow the puntuated equilibrium hypothesis", although it would be necessary to find a source for that (Punctuated_equilibrium#Common_misconceptions says it's not clear whether Dawkins was writing about Gould & Eldredge's version of punk eek or misconceptions of it). --Philcha (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first priority here is to note that Darwin pointed out that the pace varied and species could remain unchanged as long as the habitat existed, distancing himself from Lamackian ideas of progressive evolution, as stated by Bowler. We can additionally note that what Darwin said has been an issue in the punk eek debate, or we can leave that out. From my viewpoint it's interesting and informative, but I can appreciate that it's likely to raise arguments. . dave souza, talk 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW you'd better note this Google Scholar search], in case someone asks "who the hell's Elseberry" (author of the cited Talk Origins page). --Philcha (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But why are we copyediting all of the direct quotes out? I thought they were particularly effective in this section. What is motivating this? Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for striking that, just to say that in this instance I thought the quotes conveyed less information in more words, and other sources said more about the background. Wherever I've overtrimmed, readding info is welcome. . dave souza, talk 09:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some links – For information, the issues were debated in February 2009 between Larry Moran for Sandwalk: Darwin on Gradualism supporting Gould's view, and John Wilkins on Myth 4: Darwin was a gradualist : Evolving Thoughts. An article updated 14 January 2009 by Peter Skelton of The Open University states that "Investigations of population genetics and more detailed studies of fossil lineages have subsequently shown that neither Mayr's assumptions concerning the role of population size in speciation, nor Gould and Eldredge's inference about punctuational evolution being linked with speciation are necessarily valid." Perhaps less usefully, Padian testified on punctuated equilibrium at the Kitzmiller trial in 2005.[9] . . dave souza, talk 15:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have just tried: "Some evolutionary theorists have suggested that this anticipated the puntuated equilibrium hypothesis." I think that is easily supported by the sources we cite and should pass muster. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Making "Some evolulutionary theorists have suggested that ..." a separate sentence has left "This ... " in the next sentence dangling - to what does it refer? Perhaps reverse the order of the 2, then combine? --Philcha (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "some" theorists is asking for [who?] tagging. As suggested, I've merged the sentences, so that they start with "This distanced his theory from Lamarckian laws of inevitable progress," and having toyed with "it is disputed whether it anticipates the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis" or "it has been disputed if it anticipates the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis", settled on "arguably anticipating the punctuated equilibrium hypothesis." Think that covers it. . dave souza, talk 09:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do, thanks. --Philcha (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic distribution

[edit]
Clarified. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk)
I made it clear that ch XII is just a continuation of chapter XI and that the ch XII summary covers both. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that will revent readers for wondering if a bit has been omitted or duplicated. --Philcha (talk)

Classification, morphology, embryology, rudimentary organs

[edit]
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk)
Fixed along with a little more copyediting as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk)
Now you are really confusing me. When he discussed "a multilevel system of groups and sub groups based on varying degrees of resemblance" is was surely refering to Linnaen taxonomy, which predated Darwin's work by more than a century, and Linneaus's system was hardly the first such system suggested, just ultimately the most successful. Darwin wasn't trying to change taxonomy, just point out that his theory provided a scientific explanation for the underlying patterns that taxonomists had been using. Of course as a practical matter Darwin's theory did change the way taxonomy was done and the result was evolutionary taxonomy, which retained the multi-level (phyla, class, genus, etc) structure but emphaised the evolutionary relationships between different groups. As I understand it, Cladistics is a radical approach to taxonomy suggested in the 1960s and 70s that at its most extreme claims that levels like kingdoms, phyla, and classes, are meaningless and all that matters is the phylogenic tree and the relationship of species to one another in that tree. It particularly rejects non monophyletic groups like "reptiles" (as opposed to amniotes which include birds and mammals as well as what are called reptiles) and "amphibians" that do not consist of all the descendants of a particular branch. Obviously Darwin's concept of an evolutioanry tree is essential to cladistics (as the "Modern influence" section makes clear) but I don't think he anticipated it. I doubt that Darwin would have considered the distinction between reptile and bird to be arbitrary (the way a modern cladist does) even if he would have emphasised the evolutionary connection between them. Am I missing something? Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you know the text and commentaries better than I do. I only asked because some of the text & quotes seemed to offer more support for D as a cladist than for the punk eek connection. --Philcha (talk)
Evolving thoughts on taxonomy inspiring Darwin, and interesting clarification on Linnaeus introducing not really evolutionary ideas about hybrids, and influencing Darwin. Just for info. . . dave souza, talk 09:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding remarks

[edit]
Fixed. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk)

Reception (2)

[edit]
Probably. Browne says "bundle of reformist ideas" which I've translated as social reform, since reformism specifically refers to ideas after 1900 so isn't a useful link. . dave souza, talk 09:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thnkas. --Philcha (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on the scientific community (2)

[edit]
  •  Done "Lamarckism and the vague "law of development" of Vestiges were discredited" by Origin or previously? --07:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Previously, the whole sentence was meant to be about what scientists already thought: changed it to "had been discredited". . . dave souza, talk 09:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin, have rephrased as "Darwin presented natural selection as a scientifically testable mechanism while accepting that other mechanisms such as inheritance of acquired characters were possible". . dave souza, talk 09:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. --Philcha (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a Scotticism :-/ Changed to "but few thought natural selection was significant." . dave souza, talk 09:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a Scotticism I recognise. Your change is good.--~~
  •  Done Re "In April 1860 Huxley coined the term Darwinism in his push" I'm more used to seeing italics used for titles of books, etc., see 2 exmaples in next para. I would have used quotes,and I notice the next para uses quotes twice for phrases. I dunno what MOS says, but I bet it demands consistency. --Philcha (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that it uses italics for terms, but since we're quoting Huxley have changed it to a quote. . dave souza, talk 09:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Watch this space at FAC. It now good enough for goverGA work.--Philcha (talk)

Impact outside Great Britain

[edit]
  •  Done "... welcomed by philosophical radicals already used to transformationist ideas of metamorphosis and monadology" is meaningless to me. I'm not going to make it a sticking point because I know that I have little patience with any kind of non-empiricist philosophy, and most continental European philosophy looks more like pontificating to me. But you should be ready to explain this at FAC. --Philcha (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is taken pretty much directly out of the source, but frankly "welcomed by philosophical radicals" would work just as well for me. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are some modifications which I'm thinking of removing, and the "philosphical radicals" is about the community at large rather than scientists. The important issue is: The German scientific public was already familiar with notions of transformation, from Metamorphosis of Plants to the transmutation of Vestiges. It's desirable to mention that Bronn's translation suited this audience, still thinking about rephrasing it. . dave souza, talk 20:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not all the stuff that was in the old "reception outside of GB" section was really scientific impact (the stuff about Tolstoy comes to mind). I hope we don't loose that material however. Origin may have been a scientific work, but its cultural impact was broader than that, and I think things like the Tolstoy allusion help capture that fact. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. The main problem with "philosophical radicals" is that Browne doesn't define them, so we really need another source about the cultural impact in Germany and I've not found one. Philosophical Radicals are something else, and radicalism (historical) may be relevant but that's a bit of a guess. . dave souza, talk 22:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bowler says "Some German scientists, of whom Haeckel was most active, were political radicals" so made it political radicals, which makes the social aspect clearer. . . dave souza, talk 09:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re "The evolutionary ideas, if not natural selection", would "Darwin's evolutionary ideas, althoughnot natural selection" be clearer? --Philcha (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is clearer, have added it. . dave souza, talk 09:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Bronn's alterations in his German translation"? --Philcha (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, clearer though slightly longer. Have added it. . dave souza, talk 09:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural selection

[edit]
  •  Done "He had most difficulty with the geologic time scale when his estimate of the time taken for erosion of The Weald was disputed, with Kelvin arguing that the Earth had cooled in less than 100 million years, and with heredity when Fleeming Jenkin argued that blending inheritance would mix traits so that selection could not accumulate useful traits" looks like another "Chinese army" sentence (they're born faster than they march past). --Philcha (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK,ok, was trying to indicate that they were the biggest problems but that's superfluous so have rephrased. . dave souza, talk 10:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In "His estimate of the time taken for erosion of The Weald was disputed, then William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) argued that the Earth had cooled in less than 100 million years", did you mean "then" or "when"? Or is do you mean "Lord Kelvin, who was at the time just plain William Thomson"? --Philcha (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought about adding "by geologists" then forgot, have now made it "His estimate of the time taken for erosion of The Weald was disputed by geologists, then William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin)...." . . dave souza, talk 16:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, rechecked Bowler and Browne, and it seems the geologists were going along with Thomson/Kelvin rather than preceding him as I'd recalled from somewhere. Will revise. . dave souza, talk 16:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Re "... with Kelvin arguing that ...", every reviewer I've encountered wants a full name first time out. I'd be inclined to use "Lord Kelvin", but I don't know whether he'd been made a baron at this point. --Philcha (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently not, a source for his arguments with Huxley is headed "William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)" so used that. . dave souza, talk 10:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be awkward, his full name of William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin, dates from 1892 when he became Baron Kelvin of Largs which is at the seaside, a long train ride from the Kelvin which is a river running through Glasgow and past the uni. And a lot of people call him Lord Kelvin. He kept up his argument that the a cooling Earth couldn't be billions of years old, giving shorter and shorter estimates, then after his death radiation was discovered and Darwin was vindicated. See wording above. . dave souza, talk 16:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I suggest staying with the name "Lord Kelvin" as that is the name that will be most familiar to most modern readers. Not using it, even if technically historically correct is liable to create confustion. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently have "William Thomson (later Lord Kelvin)" which covers all the bases, hope it's not too confusing. . dave souza, talk 22:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I ce'd to "later awarded the title Lord Kelvin", is that OK? --Philcha (talk) 07:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearer, though longer. If length is a big issue we can go back to "William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)". . . dave souza, talk 09:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 09:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased, made it "Darwin's views" as it thought to invalidate his gradualism as well as his idea that natural selection was the main mechanism. dave souza, talk 10:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding issues

[edit]
  •  Done As far as I can see, there's only one in the main content: need to explain the hippocampus issue rather than leave everyone to look up the UCMP page - normal sane readers ignore refs. --Philcha (talk) 16:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. --Philcha (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The link checker report shows lots of missing params in citations: {ok}} *Now I've figure out how you've structured the refs to Origin (to avoid repeating the bibio detailsa zilion times) I think they're OK. Be prepared to explai at FAC. --Philcha (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images

[edit]

Lead

[edit]
Have redrafted the lead to improve grammar / readability and cover article topics more closely. . . dave souza, talk 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok one it is. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done The bit about the sub-sub-title and explanation of "races" looks rather minor for its leading position. I'd skip the sub-sub-title altogether, leaving On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection as they carry enough payload. --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left the full title as it is traditional to give this in book articles, but I removed the explanatory text. It can be found later in the article and I agree it is too much detail for the lead. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. --Philcha (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reorganized the 2nd paragraph to bring the associated ideas together as you suggest and moved the first sentence of it down to the 3rd paragraph. I think part of the problem was that the 2nd paragraph was moving back and forth between talking about the book and describing the state of affairs before publication. Now it just talks about the period before publication. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Godd call. --Philcha (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent improvements, minor quibble: the British scientific establishment included Scotland with no ties to the Church of England, so changed it to English, which was the main area of establishment influence. . . dave souza, talk 08:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Och ae! --Philcha (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done In 3rd para, "This soon led to widespread agreement that evolution with a branching pattern of common descent had occurred" looks at odds with "intensely debated" in the 2nd. By when? --Philcha (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.
It echoes the last paragraph of the "Religious attidudes" sub section of "Reception". I don't think you can avoid this topic in this article. If it were purely about the Origin as a scientific work you could, but this article discusses the book's cultural, philosophical, and religious impact as well as its impact on science. To me it would be very strange to be discussing things like the Wilberforce debate and Asa Gray's or Baden-Powell's ideas on theology without at least acknowledging the modern controversy. I think it is better to briefly but clearly address the issue upfront than to try and ignore the elephant in the room.Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the sentence has gone, but your comments suggest you might be thinking of a replacement, so I'll leave this open for now. I've found the single sentence "The first phase of the American creation–evolution controversy, inspired by fundamentalism, occurred in the 1920s" at the end of section "Religious attitudes", but I think that's more like "BTW there's an elephant in the room, let's not talk about it." --Philcha (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually an explicit and well sourced point that the controversy had largely died away before the 1920s, and the elephant is in a different room of a later period. . dave souza, talk 08:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will think about this some before I restore something. I still think my comments are valid, and I suspsect when we expose this article to a wider circle of reviewers at FAC we are going to end up having to address this somehow. The creation-evolutionary controversy may be non-existent in scientific terms but it is all too significant in cultural and political terms in some parts of the world. (U.S., Australia, and even Canada, Kenya and Turkey). Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MNA. The debate belongs elsewhere, a discreet pointer is good. Perhaps a see-also to quote mining would be good, and we could add the "races" issue to that article. . . dave souza, talk 07:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I don't think "and his book legitimised scientific discussion of evolutionary mechanisms" really reflects the main text. In science, Lamarck and various others discussed evolutionary mechanisms, and de Candollle & Lyell had written of a struggle for existence. In public opinion Vestiges had acted as a lightning rod. I guess the clause is aiming to balance "transmutation was not accepted by the scientific mainstream" in the previous para. But I think that "led to widespread agreement that evolution with a branching pattern of common descent had occurred" a couple of sentences later makes the point. --Philcha (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supported by sources inc. Bowler 2003 p. 180, also superfluous as you say. Have deleted it and made it "widespread scientific agreement". . . dave souza, talk 08:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KISS! --Philcha (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done I think "encouraged acceptance of methodological naturalism as the basis of science in Britain" goes too far:
    •  Done No term like "methodological naturalism" is used in the main text. I guess you're contrasting D's totally empiricist approach w the nearly neo-Platonist idealism of many other biologists like Geoffroy, and w the similar approach of natural theologsts like John Ray. But else where the article uses "naturalist" to mean "fild biologist", not adherent of a philosophy of science. --Philcha (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's wrong and a hangover from the old lead which I should have trimmed, done now. . dave souza, talk 08:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. The thought occurs that we could note that science became more secular, as it did with Huxley's campaigning, but that's surplus to the lead so didn't add it. . . dave souza, talk 08:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  DoneI see nothing in the article about an impact on the philosophy of science, nor on the approach of researchers on other sciences. In fact I see nothing that says Origins made idealism extinct in biology. --Philcha (talk) 06:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, hangover trimmed as above. . . dave souza, talk 08:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing this. --Philcha (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here we have a fundamental coverage problem. The problem was not so much with the lead as it is with the main content. This topic is more than important enough to merit a mention in the lead and in the main text. One of the most important roles Origin played in the history of science was its role as a weapon for Huxley and the rest of the X club in their effort to professionalize and secularlize British science. Unfortunately in the course of many edits to the "Reception" section we have managed to obscure this fact. The "Impact on the scientific community" subsection mentions the X club shaping Victorian science but not in what direction they shaped it. The "Religious attitudes" section we have some of Huxley's comments in which he "promoted scientific naturalism over theology" but we don't draw any connection to the X club or mention how tremendously important these opinions of Huxley (and the rest of the X club) were in shaping the British scientific and educational establishements (and the practice of science in all English speaking countries. I don't have time to fix this now, but I have some good sources that cover this (Larson 2004, Bowler and Morus 2005, and some others). The debate over Origin really was the starting point of the effort to replace natural theology with methodological naturalism in the life sciences (the physical sciences had already been moving that direction for centuries) I will fix the main text first and then restore the allusion in the lead. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realised militant creationism had spread so far. You guys are writing the article and are going to have to defend it at FAC, so the following is just my opinion and not a deal-breaker for GA. If you interpret WP:WIAFA's requirement for "comprehensive coverage" as meaning you have to consider every debate in which Origin has beem mentioned, the article gets unmanageable. If sources for such debates mention Darwin but not Origin, I'd say they are out of scope, since D wrote other books on evolution and / or later writers may using "Darwin" or "Darwinism" as a label for developments of Origins which D did not explicitly propose. Such issues include modern creationism and its close relative ID, whether Darwin was a phyletic gradualist and whether punk eek contradicts Darwin, whether Neo-Darwinism (which version?) is true to Origins, and probably a dozen others I don't know about because they are far from the mainstream, at least from the point of view of the paleo topics on which I've worked. OTOH if good sources say Origins led to the adoption of methodological naturalism in the life sciences, that's a much more direct and relevant effect of the book, and should probably be in for FAC, although again I don't think it's a a deal-breaker for GA.
A while back, I asked whether your FA strategy was to get this article as good as poss at GA, which would imply a much longer GA review, or to leave time for 2 attmpts at FA, which would require a relatively(!!!) short GA review. You preferred the latter. Even so this GA review has gone on for 6 weeks, simply because this is a huge topic. --Philcha (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see WP:MNA. From my reading so far of Bowler and Morus, as well as Bowler 2003, Secord, and Desmond, methodological naturalism was already well under way and a significant issue from Bacon onwards, while natural theology as well as Naturphilosophie and its offshoots continued to be significant in the eclipse of Darwinism. Both Huxley in the UK and Haeckel in Germany used their versions of Darwin's ideas to push against clerical dominance in science and education, perhaps we can make that plainer but we already state that the X Club had great influence. So, a point to make clear but really a topic for a main article. Bit tied up myself, will try to chip in but we don't want to reinforce the common misconception of an abrupt scientific revolution on the publication of the Origin. . dave souza, talk 07:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to go back to restoring the "veritable Whitworth gun" quote, but the connection needs to be made and it needs some kind of brief mention in the lead. I care much less about the allusion to the creation-evolution controversy. I will make some edits to address this tonight. It is true that Huxley and others had already started their assault on natural theology in biology, but the debate over Origin was what really gave them traction and it played a direct role in the formation of the X club, and the creation of the journal Nature. As for the length of the GA review it has indeed been lengthy. I suspect it could have really passed GA a while ago but you have been good enough to turn it into what has amounted to an extended peer review, which has been quite useful. I suspect we will be done in a day or two (depending on what you guys think of the edits I make tonight), which should still leave plenty of time for making a first try at FAC by the end of this month. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second the thanks to Philcha for the extended and extremely useful peer review, agree that there's great significance in the effect of the book on the shift to secular science and education as promoted by Huxley. Look forward to your edits to clarify that issue. . . dave souza, talk 20:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I took a stab at it. It was more a matter of reorganizing what was already there so that the connections were clear rather that adding anything new.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tweaked the wording a little to clarify the issues as I understand them, and added piped links to articles to avoid redirects, while keeping the title the same. . dave souza, talk 09:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm happy overall with the wording of the edits about naturalism, but I think they've introduced a small-scale structure issue:
  • "Evolution had less obvious use in anatomy and morphology" doesn't seem related to anthing else in the para.
  • The rest of the para seems to have 2 separate thems: THH's doubts about whether natural selection was enough, which would seem to fit better in "Natural seletion" and have more impact there ("even THH ..."); and the passage about methodological naturalism describes a medium-term effect rather than a short-term response, so I'd be inclined to put it towards the bottom of "Impact on the scientific community" --Philcha (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think my latest edits have made the connections clearer. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am missing something all of the issues raised on this page have been addressed. So unless Dave has some more tweaks to my tweaks, I believe the ball is is in Philcha's court. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion of review

[edit]

I'm very pleased to say that this article meets the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images. Many thanks for the work you've put into this big, complex and important topic.

Once you've got this to FA status, please consider reviewing some other GA candidate articles. You'll find a list of candidate articles at WP:GAN, grouped by subject area. In addition to the instructions there and the Good Article criteria, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. If at any stage in a review you are uncertain about how to handle something, ask at WT:GAN, where experienced reviewers will be happy to help. --Philcha (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
 If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e.use the "edit" link at the top of the page.

  1. ^ Thorington, R.W. (2005). "Family Sciuridae". In Wilson, D.E. and Reeder, D.M. (ed.). Mammal Species of the World: a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 754–818. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:On_the_Origin_of_Species/GA1&oldid=1235849226"