Ricardo Guerrero

Guerrero, Ricardo

Hemeroteca Cientifica Catalana

PERSPECTIVESOn July 3 and 4, 2008, the Linnean Society of London (Fig. 1)commemorated with a meeting the presentation of the jointpapers outlining evolutionary theory authored by Darwin andWallace (1st July 1858). One hundred fifty years after thatmeeting⎯probably the most famous of all held at theLinnean Society since its foundation in 1788⎯and the fol-lowing publication of On theOrigin of Species by Means ofthe Natural Selection, or ThePreservation of Favoured Racesin the Struggle for Life (London:John Murray, 24th November1859), the concept of evolutionhas itself “evolved”. Not that thefoundations established byDarwin are no longer valid;rather, the body of knowledgecurrently available—the productof enormous technological de-velopments—has made it possi-ble to study living organisms at alevel inconceivable during Dar-win’s time. New insights andnew ideas on evolution havearisen from fields of biology that either were in their infancyin Darwin’s time or have emerged since then. Together, bio-chemistry, molecular genetics, population genetics, microbi-ology, ecology, genomics, proteomics, and a better under-standing of cell ultrastructure and evolutionary phenomenahave consolidated Darwin’s “dangerous idea”.In celebration of both the 150th anniversary of the pres-entation of Darwin–Wallace papers and the publication of Onthe Origin of Species, the Linnean Society organized theaforementioned meeting to discuss “The driving forces ofevolution: from Darwin to the modern age”, with the partic-ipation of experts from several related fields, including sym-biogenesis, virus-host interac-tions, hybridogenesis, horizon-tal gene transfer, and epigenet-ics. These are among the manyscientific areas that have pro-vided new insights into evolu-tion, thus expanding our recog-nition of the seemingly count-less manifestations of naturalselection and consequently bio-diversity [5]. The meeting wasorganized by David Cutler, cur-rent president of the LinneanSociety, and of the Royal Bota-nical Gardens, at Kew, and byFrank Ryan, Honorary ResearchFellow at the University ofSheffield, and author of thewell-known books Darwin’s blind spot and Tuberculosis: thegreatest story never told.The introductory lecture was given by Lynn Margulis,from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who talkedon the origin of eukaryotes in the Proterozoic Eon and theinfluence of sulfur metabolism [3]. What, in the late 1960s,seemed to be the dream of the brilliant young researcher shewas then, is now the widely accepted hypothesis thatexplains eukaryotic evolution as the merging of several eco-INTERNATIONAL MICROBIOLOGY (2008) 11:209-212DOI: 10.2436/20.1501.01.62  ISSN: 1139-6709 www.im.microbios.org E-mail: rguerrero@iec.cat*Fellow of the Linnean Society of London.Ricardo Guerrero*Department of Microbiology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, SpainThe session that did not shake the world(the Linnean Society, 1st July 1858)Fig. 1. The arms of the Linnean Society of London.210 INT. MICROBIOL. Vol. 11, 2008physiological abilities of prokaryotic cells [4]. Jan Sapp,from York University, Toronto, discussed how the landscapeof evolutionary biology has changed over the last fewdecades in light of microbial evolutionary biology, which hasintroduced new concepts, such as the above-mentioned sym-biogenesis as well as lateral gene transfer. Eva Jablonka,from Tel Aviv University, Marion Lamb, from the Universityof London, and Hugh Dickinson, and Robert Grant-Downton, both from the University of Oxford, addressed themany different roles of epigenetic variation in adaptive evo-lution. The term epigenetics was coined by Conrad Wad-dington, in 1947, and refers to a branch of biology that stud-ies the causal interactions between genes and their products,those that shape the phenotypes of living beings. However, itwas not until the 1990s that use of the term became wide-spread among biologists, although by that time its definitionwas no longer as Waddington’s. Nowadays, epigeneticsrefers to changes in gene function that can be inheritedthrough mitosis and/or meiosis but do not involve changes inDNA sequences. Jablonka and Lamb focused their presenta-tion on cellular epigenetic inheritance from a historical pointof view, while Dickinson and Grant-Downton talked abouttrans-generational inheritance of epigenetic information as agenuine phenomenon in plants, albeit one that is not yet com-pletely understood. Loren Rieseberg, from Indiana University, and BarbaraMable, from the University of Glasgow, discussed the role ofhybridization in plant and animal evolution. Riesebergexplained that one of the consequences of hybridization is toincrease or reduce biodiversity in plants. Mable set the his-torical context for our view of hybridization in animals ver-sus that in plants, and reviewed modern evidence for the roleof hybridization in animal evolution. The last lecture of theday was given by Mauricio Linares, from the University ofLos Andes, Colombia, who presented a phenomenon of alter-native speciation in insects, the case of Heliconius butterflies.This genus did not result from the splitting of a single line-age but from the merging of two distinct lineages, each ofwhich contributed genes to a new species.The second day’s lectures started with those of FrankRyan and Luis Villarreal, from the University of California,Irvine, who provided new insights into the role of viruses inhost evolution. Ryan talked of viruses as potential symbionts(“aggressive symbionts”) and the major role they may play inevolution. Villarreal discussed different roles of viruses innature, beyond the usual assumption that viruses are“killers”. Instead, viruses promote the interactions anddynamics of individual genomes in a kind of social selectionthat reflects the outcome of viral persistence in specific hostsand in nature. The topic of symbiogenesis came up again inthe contribution of Marilyn Roossinck, from the SamuelRoberts Noble Foundation, Ardmore, Oklahoma. In her view,viruses are mutualistic symbionts of their hosts and as suchcan play crucial roles in host adaptation to ecological niches.Erik Larsson, from the University of Uppsala, pointed out thegenetic load that the human genome has acquired from infec-tions with exogenous retroviruses. According to recent data,as much as 8% of the human genome consists of humanendogenous retroviruses. The meeting concluded on the afternoon of the secondday with three final lectures. Michael Syvanen, from theUniversity of California, Davis, and Donald Williamson,Emeritus Reader at the University of Liverpool, took theiraudience back through the history of life to the Cambrianexplosion, marked by the sudden evolution of the metazoanphyla. This event has been difficult to explain within theframework of Darwinian theories. Syvanen presented theresults of whole-genome comparisons carried out in speciesfrom five metazoan phyla. These data, which have allowedmolecular clock calculations, suggest that diversification ofsome of the phyla might have started earlier than traditional-ly believed. Williamson presented another approach to thestudy of the Cambrian explosion. Contrary to the traditionalassumption that adult animals and their larvae evolved fromthe same genetic stock, he proposed that the basic form oflarvae originated as adults in other taxa and were transferredby hybridization, becoming later additions to life-histories.Finally, James Truman and Lynn Riddiford, both from theHowad Hughes Medical Institute, discussed the role of theinsect developmental hormone (i.e., juvenile hormone, JH) inthe evolution of insect metamorphosis. They suggested that aheterochronic advance in the time of appearance of JH mighthave been a key factor in the success of insect evolution. * * *It is well-known that Charles Robert Darwin (Shrewsbury,Shropshire, 12 February 1809–Down, Kent, 19 April 1882)had been preparing drafts of chapters for On the Origin ofSpecies at least since the mid-1840s, but the letter he receivedon 18 June 1858, from Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913),forced him and his mentors, Sir Charles Lyell and JosephHooker, to accelerate the writing and publication of the book.Wallace’s letter, written in February 1858, enclosed a shortessay, On the Tendency of Varieties to depart indefinitelyfrom the Original Type, in which Wallace put forward essen-tially the same hypothesis on the origin of species thatDarwin had sketched as early as 1842 and, with the advice ofLyell, had started to expand upon in 1856. At the end of June,Darwin hesitantly consented to leave the matter in the handsof Hooker and Lyell, permitting them to simultaneously com-GUERRERO211INT. MICROBIOL. Vol.11, 2008municate his own and Wallace’s papers to the Linnean Soci-ety [1]. Darwin, already a famous naturalist permanently liv-ing in England, was a member of that prestigious Society;Wallace, at the time an obscure naturalist errant in the MalayArchipielago, was not. But, once again, Death played a rolein shaping history.Robert Brown (1773–1858), president of the LinneanSociety between 1849 and 1853, had died on June 10. To rec-ognize the loss incurred by the death of the great Scottishbotanist, the meeting of June 17, which would have been thelast of the 1857–1858 session, was adjourned after formalbusiness; thus, no papers were read. But, as Brown was amember of the Council at the time of his death, a substitutehad to be elected within three months. Accordingly, theCouncil decided to prolong the session of 1857–1858 by anadditional meeting on Thursday, July 1. At this meeting, thepapers whose presentation had been postponed on June 17were to be read. To avoid further delay in communicating theresearch of Darwin and Wallace, Hooker and Lyell weredetermined to present the papers at the extra meeting of thesession, although neither Darwin nor Wallace was able toattend (Wallace was far away in the Moluccas; Darwin wasill and grief-stricken by the death of one of his sons). Hookerand Lyell wrote a joint letter to the secretary, John JosephBennett, accompanying an enclosure with Darwin–Wallacepapers. It was sent out on June 30, just one day before themeeting. This was too late for the Members to read the scien-tific papers prior to the meeting, in case they wanted to do so.The letter said [http://www.linnean.org/index.php?id=380]:My Dear Sir, The accompanying papers, which we have the honour of communi-cating to the Linnean Society, and which all relate to the same subject,viz. the Laws which affect the Production of Varieties, Races, andSpecies, contain the results of the investigations of two indefatigablenaturalists, Mr. Charles Darwin and Mr. Alfred Wallace.These gentlemen having, independently and unknown to one another,conceived the very same very ingenious theory to account for the appear-ance and perpetuation of varieties and of specific forms on our planet,may both fairly claim the merit of being original thinkers in this impor-tant line of inquiry; but neither of them having published his views,though Mr. Darwin has for many years past been repeatedly urged by usto do so, and both authors having now unreservedly placed their papersin our hands, we think it would best promote the interests of science thata selection from them should be laid before the Linnean Society.Taken in the order of their dates, they consist of:I. Extracts from a MS. work on Species*, by Mr. Darwin, whichwas sketched in 1839, and copied in 1844, when the copy was read byDr. Hooker, and its contents afterwards communicated to Sir CharlesLyell. The first Part is devoted to “The Variation of Organic Beingsunder Domestication and in their Natural State”, and the second chapterof that Part, from which we propose to read to the Society the extractsreferred to, is headed, “On the Variation of Organic Beings in a state ofNature; on the Natural Means of Selection; on the Comparison ofDomestic Races and true Species”.* This MS. work was never intended for publication, and thereforewas not written with care.—C.D. 1858.II.An abstract of a private letter addressed to Professor Asa Gray, ofBoston, U.S., in October 1857, by Mr. Darwin, in which he repeats hisviews, and which shows that these remained unaltered from 1839 to1857.III. An Essay by Mr. Wallace, entitled “On the Tendency ofVarieties to depart indefinitely from the Original Type”. This was writ-ten at Ternate in February 1858, for the perusal of his friend and corre-spondent Mr. Darwin, and sent to him with the expressed wish that itshould be forwarded to Sir Charles Lyell, if Mr. Darwin thought it suf-ficiently novel and interesting. So highly did Mr. Darwin appreciate thevalue of the views therein set forth, that he proposed in a letter to SirCharles Lyell, to obtain Mr. Wallace’s consent to allow the Essay to bepublished as soon as possible. Of this step we highly approved, providedMr. Darwin did not withhold from the public, as he was stronglyinclined to do (in favour of Mr. Wallace), the memoir which he had him-self written on the same subject, and which as before stated, one of ushad perused in 1844, and the contents of which we had both of us beenprivy to for many years. On representing this to Mr. Darwin, he gave uspermission to make what use thought proper of his memoir, &c.: and inadopting our present course, of presenting to the Linnean Society, wehave explained to him that we are not solely considering the relativeclaims to priority of himself and his friend, but the interests of sciencegenerally; for we feel it to be desirable that views founded on a widededuction from the facts, and matured by years of reflection, shouldTHE LINNEAN SOCIETYFig. 2. First page’s facsimile of the address of Thomas Bell (president of theLinnean Society of London from 1853 until 1861) read at the annual meet-ing held between the meeting of July 1st, 1858 and the publication of On theOrigin of Species, on November 24th, 1859.©TheLinnean Society212 INT. MICROBIOL. Vol. 11, 2008constitute at once a goal from which others may start, and that, while thescientific world is waiting for the appearance of Mr. Darwin’s completework, some of the leading results of his labours, as well as those of hisable correspondent, should together be laid before the public.We have the honour to be yours very obediently, Charles Lyell. Jos. D. Hooker.Both the title and topic selected for Darwin’s contribution(clearly dated many years before) and the inclusion of a let-ter written undoubtedly in advance of the reception ofWallace’s short essay, strongly suggest the aim of Hookerand Lyell of emphasizing that Darwin was first in having theidea, and that his idea had been more elaborated thanWallace’s.In those days, the Members of the Linnean Society didnot receive in advance either the agenda of the meetings orthe titles of the papers to be read. But even if that had beenthe custom, there would have been no time to inform themabout the Darwin–Wallace papers, which Hooker and Lyellsent to the secretary of the Society just the day before thescheduled meeting. It was therefore a surprise to most of theMembers who attended it. Although fewer than 30 Fellows,and only one Associate and two visitors, are named in theMinutes, surely more people attended the meeting. In fact,the Minutes do not include the names of any of the officers,except that of the president, Thomas Bell [2].The meeting had two parts, one “bureaucratic” and another“scientific”. The first one dealt with the formal business ofrecording gifts to the Library, electing George Bentham as aCouncillor and nominating him as a vicepresident in place ofBrown; finally, it was read a resolution recording the meet-ing’s appreciation of Brown’s great services. The second partconsisted of the reading of several scientific contributions:The Darwin–Wallace papers came first, followed by five ofthe six papers that had not been read in the former meeting.All those papers were related to Botany, dealing with: theorganization of Phoronis hippocrepis, observations onAmmocaetus, a new genus of Cucurbitales, a new genusnamed Hanburia, the Nueva Quinologia of Pavon and thevegetation of Angola. The sixth paper was to be presented bythe just nominated vicepresident, George Bentham. But thehearing of the Darwin–Wallace papers so perturbatedBentham that he withdrew his paper, and it was not read atthat meeting. It may seem ironic that Bentham’s paper was based on hiswork on the British flora, and supported Linné’s position ofthe fixity of species. (Later on, Bentham was the president ofthe Linnean Society from 1861 until 1874, the second longestpresidential tenure at the Linnean Society. Only the first pres-ident, Sir James Edward Smith, has held that position forlonger⎯40 years!, from 1788 until 1828.) After the readingof the Darwin–Wallace papers, Bell did not call for remarks,and Bentham later indicated that Bell would not haveallowed anyone to discuss the startling hypothesis so unex-pectedly presented and thereby prolong an already longmeeting [2].President Bell had little or no idea that he was presidingover the start of a revolution in biology, the foundation of atheory that would change the intellectual framework ofhumankind. In his presidential address in May 1859, whenreviewing the period from May 1838, he made the followingremarks, which seem awkward nowadays: “The year whichhas passed [...] has not, indeed, been marked by any of thosestriking discoveries which at once revolutionize, so to speak,the department of science on which they bear; it is only atremote intervals that we can reasonably expect any suddenand brilliant innovation which shall produce a marked andpermanent impress on the character of any branch of knowl-edge, or confer a lasting and important service on mankind.A Bacon or a Newton, an Oersted or a Wheatstone, a Davy ora Daguerre, is an occasional phenomenon, whose existenceand career seem to be specially appointed by Providence, forthe purpose of effecting some great important change in theconditions or pursuits of man” (Fig. 2).The improvised gathering at the Linnean Society, withoutthe presence of either Darwin or Wallace, attended only by afew Members, most of them “classical” botanists or zoolo-gists, who must have get mortally tired or bored by theDarwin–Wallace papers, did not seem to convey the idea thata new theory was emerging, that it was the birthday of a newera in biology. Nevertheless, from then on, other people havehad their feelings deeply stirred and have realized the far-reaching significance of that question. In fact, the publicationof Darwin’s revolutionary book only seventeen months after-wards was a sudden success, and the whole edition was soldthe same day of its release. People were eagerly waiting forthe book, and soon many different disciplines or thinkers(from biology to economy, from historians to anarchists)were “impregnated” by Darwin’s dangerous idea. But thiswould be another story.References1. Ayala FJ. 2007. Darwin’s greatest discovery: Design without designer.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:8567-85732. Gage AT, Stearn WT. 1988. A bicentenary history of the Linnean Societyof London. Academic Press, London, 242 pp3. Guerrero R, Berlanga M. 2006. Life’s unity and flexibility: the ecologi-cal link. Int Microbiol 9:225-2354. Guerrero R, Berlanga M. 2007. The hidden side of the prokaryotic cell:rediscovering the microbial world. Int Microbiol 10:157-1685. Mayr E. 1964. Introduction to “On the Origin of Species”, a facsimileof the first edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 502 ppGUERRERO

The session that did not shake the world (the Linnean Society, 1st July 1858)

http://revistes.iec.cat/index.php/IM/article/download/9672/9667

The session that did not shake the world (the Linnean Society, 1st July 1858)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hemeroteca Cientifica Catalana