Talk:Charles Lyell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Add external link
Please add a link to <http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/>, which is editing and publishing all of the correspondence of Charles Darwin. Charles Lyell was a significant correspondent of Darwin. Eadp 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image source
Dr Steven Plunkett (Talk) | (contribs) added this "Image source" section heading and the following line to the article at 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC):
- Portraits of Honorary Members of the Ipswich Museum (Portfolio of 60 lithographs by T.H. Maguire) (George Ransome, Ipswich 1846-1852)
To what does this pertain? Might its pertinence to Charles Lyell be specified? Athænara ✉ 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The lithograph of Sir Charles Lyell by T Maguire is one of the series of 60+ commissioned by George Ransome (Secretary of Ipswich Museum) and published as such by him in the years 1846-1852 consecutively. These images were all of Honorary members, Vice-presidents, patrons, etc, of the Ipswich Museum. The lithos are now known mainly from detached examples and dissociated from their source, but the publication reference I have cited is the original and only form in which this lithographic series was issued. It is therefore appropriate bibliographical information pertaining to the lithograph. It is the proper name for the ultimate image source. Hope that makes sense! Sorry to be so slow in replying, heart attack intervened. bw Dr Steven Plunkett 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] So which is it?
Section 1:"Lyell continued to firmly reject the idea of organic evolution in each of the first nine editions of the Principles. Confronted with Darwin's On the Origin of Species, he finally offered a tepid endorsement of evolution in the tenth edition."
Section 2.5: "Charles Darwin was a close personal friend, and Lyell was one of the first prominent scientists to support On the Origin of Species; he also fully accepted natural selection as the driving engine behind evolution in his tenth edition of Principles."
Tepid endorsement, or full acceptance? I'd favor the second since it seems to have a source, though I don't have access to it. 71.136.181.209 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Desmond, Adrian & Moore, James (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN 0718134303 make quite a lot of Lyell's struggle to accept evolution and natural selection, but as far as I've found aren't clear exactly what came when. Certainly Lyell was cautious at the time of publication of the Origin in 1859, supporting Darwin in publishing but struggling to accept the ideas. Quoting p. 547 – In July 1867 Lyell was in despair, working on a tenth edition of the Principles of Geology, trying in vain to turn what was an anti-Lamarckian opus into a pro-Darwinian fudge. Darwin, ever hopeful, rejoiced that he was going to "speak out plainly about species" for the first time, even though his proof chapter on man was... "too orthodox, except for the beneficed clergy". – Haven't been able to find the letters quoted, but earlier correspondence in 1863 shows Darwin and Hooker disappointed that Lyell's Antiquity of Man published earler that year failed publicly to endorse natural selection in the book,[1] and showed an inability to decide about modification of species.[2][3][4] ... dave souza, talk 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some more information:
- On May 3, 1860, Charles Lyell wrote in his notebook: "I adopted the hypothesis of limited variability 30 years ago & have adhered to it, not that we have experience enough to establish such a dogma. Mr. Darwin has written a work which will constitute an era in geology & natural history to show that the rival hypothesis of unlimited variability is the more probable of the two, & that the descendants of common parents may become in the course of ages so unlike each other as to be entitled to rank as a distinct species, from each other or from some of their progenitors. (Leonard G. Wilson, ed., Sir Charles Lyell's Scientific Journals on the Species Question. Yale University Press, 1970. Pg. 407)
- This certainly supports Lyell's cautious attitude shortly after the Origin was published. He refers to Darwin's "hypothesis" as being "the more probable" if one were to weigh the evidence. He is certainly not expressing any absolute acceptance or certainty. In Darwin's Feb. 24th letter to Hooker, Darwin wrote that "I have read Lyell's book...He has showed great skill in picking out salient points in the argument for change of species; but I am deeply disappointed (I do not mean personally) to find that his timidity prevents him giving any judgment." [5] Albie34423 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Evolution
The para on evolution is quite misleading, because it fails to appreciate the mental torment this issue caused Lyell (for religious reasons). The reality is that he never accepted nat sel as the main couse of evolution, and he was quite a late-comer to evolution as well. In Desmond's Archetypes and Ancestors: palaeontology in Victorian London (Blond & Briggs 1982) page 179 (one of many references to Lyell in this excellent source) we find:
- "Even Charles Lyell agreed with Argyll that 'natural selection was a force quite subordinate to that variety-making or creative power to which all the wonders of the organic world must be referred.' "
Lyell's Antiquity of Man is famous for its equivocation on all the points of most interest at the time, and almost all biographers have inferred that from such an honest and professional geologist this equivocation reflected his concern for the damage Darwin's ideas might do to his religion.
None of this bears on his personal frienships with his three more secular friends CD, JDH and THH, which were remarkably secure. Bearing in mind several comments above, I think there is an overwhelming case for rewriting the section on evolution to better reflect those hist sci biographers whose sources we are going to use. And let's not forget Janet Browne's two volumes as an important – almost essential – source. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, that sounds right, sorry I'm a bit tied up with other work but a rewrite would be welcome. One quibble – "reflected his concern for the damage Darwin's ideas might do to his religion" seems rather close to the creationist perception of Darwin as anti-religion, from memory it was more that he simply could not see or accept that evolution was undirected or without a teleological aim, but found Darwin's arguments convincing and had a huge struggle trying to reconcile them with his religious beliefs. .. dave souza, talk 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- OK, so at last I've done something about it, plus some refs. Improvements to the article are still needed, but at least what it says in different sections is now approximately consistent. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)