Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:40:12.709Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Problematic “Idiosyncrasies”: Rediscovering the Historical Context of D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson's Science of Form

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2014

Maurizio Esposito
Maurizio Esposito*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Santiago(USACH), Chile E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

D’Arcy Thompson has often been portrayed as a loner. His science of form has frequently been labeled anachronistic, idiosyncratic, and unconnected to his contemporary biology. This article aims to challenge this interpretation. Thompson's representation as a loner did not lie in the idiosyncrasies of his science, but in our own historiography. Through the use of unedited archival sources, this study shows that Thompson's biology was well-connected to an international research program – a program mainly shared by developmental biologists, physiologists, and morphologists. In addition, this article also aims to propose a new interpretation of Thompson's On Growth and Form. Drawing on his private correspondence and published sources, the paper re-contextualizes the contents and conclusions of Thompson's seminal work. We will see that Thompson defended a particular kind of organismal biology. The bio-science he supported stemmed not only from Aristotle's zoology or Pythagorean mathematics, but had many allies among twentieth-century naturalists.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 79 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amidon, Kevin. 2008. “Adolf Meyer-Abich, Holism, and the Negotiation of Theoretical Biology.” Biological Theory 3 (4): 357–370.Google Scholar
Andrade, Edward. 1944. “Obituary of E. Hatschek.” Nature 15:46–47.Google Scholar
Bertalanffy, Ludwig von. 1933. Modern Theories of Development: An Introduction to Theoretical Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bonner, John Tyler. 1992. “The Editor's Introduction.” In D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson,On Growth and Form, xiv-xxii, abridged edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cassirer, Ernst. [1950] 1969. The Problem of Knowledge: Philosophy, Science, and History since Hegel. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Le Gros, and Medawar, Peter. 1945. Essays on Growth and Form Presented to D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Coen, Deborah. 2006. “Living Precisely in the Fin-de-Siècle Vienna.” Journal of the History of Biology 39:493–523.Google Scholar
Conklin, Edwin G. 1941. “Letter to Thompson, July 28.” Letter N. 24973, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Conklin, Edwin G. 1942. “Letter to Thompson, August 6.” Letter N. 42364, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Conklin, Edwin G. 1945. “Letter to Thompson, December 23.” Letter N. 24976, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Conklin, Edwin G. 1947. “Letter to Thompson, October 16.” Letter N. 44727, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Dalcq, Albert. 1939, “Letter to the Secretary of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, June 6.” Letter N. 25711, D’Arcy Thompson Papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Delage, Yves. 1903. L’hérédité et les grands problèmes de la biologie générale. Paris: C. Reinwald.Google Scholar
Drack, Manfred, Apfalter, Wilfried, and Pouvreau, David. 2007. “On the Making of a System Theory of Life: Paul A. Weiss and Ludwig von Bertalanffy's Conceptual Connections.” Quarterly Review of Biology 82 (4):349–373.Google Scholar
Dronamraju, Krishna Rao. 1993. If I Am to be Remembered: The Life and Work of Julian Huxley with Selected Correspondence. River Edge NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Edwards, Charles. 1911. “The Vienna Institution for Experimental Biology.” Popular Science Monthly 78:584–60.Google Scholar
Esposito, Maurizio. 2013, “Heredity, Development and Evolution: The Unmodern Synthesis of E. S. Russell.” Theory in Biosciences 123:165–180Google Scholar
Foster, Michael. 1884. “Thompson's letter of recommendation, November 2.” Letter N. 28756, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Garstand, Walter. 1922. “The Theory of Recapitulation: A Critical Restatement of the Biogenetic Law.” Journal of the Linnaean society of London 35:81–101.Google Scholar
Gayon, Jean. 2000. “History of the Concept of Allometry.” American Zoologist 40:748–758.Google Scholar
Geddes, Patrick. 1914, “Letter to Thompson, January 22. Letter N. 16428, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Goodman, Martin. 2007. Suffer and Survive. London: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 1971. “D’Arcy Thompson and the Science of Form.” New Literary History 2: 229–258.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Haldane, John Scott. 1884. “Life and Mechanism.” Mind 9 (33):27–47.Google Scholar
Haldane, John Scott. 1929. “Letter to Thompson, April 23.” Letter N. 16697, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Haldane, John Scott. 1931. The Philosophical Basis of Biology. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Haldane, John Scott. 1935. The Philosophy of a Biologist. London: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Brian. 1999. Evolutionary Developmental Biology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Hatschek, Emil. 1918a. “Letter to Thompson, August 12.” Letter N. 26362, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Hatschek, Emil. 1918b. “A Study of the Forms Assumed by Drops and Vortices of a Gelatinising Liquid in Various Coagulating Solutions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, 95 (669):303–316.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, George Evelyn. 1948. “In Memoriam: D’Arcy W. Thompson.” American Scientist 36:577.Google Scholar
Huxley, Julian Sorell. 1924. “Constant differential growth-ratios and their significance.” Nature 114:895–896.Google Scholar
Huxley, Julian Sorell. 1931 “Letter to Thompson, March 31.” Letter N. 10062, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Huxley, Julian Sorell. 1932a. “Letter to Thompson, January 29.” Letter N. 10065, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Huxley, Julian Sorell. 1932b. Problems of Relative Growth. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar
Huxley, Julian Sorell. 1941. “Letter to Thompson, November 11.” Letter N. 25770, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Huxley, Julian Sorell, and Teissier, Georges. 1936. “Terminology of Relative Growth.” Nature 137:780–781.Google Scholar
Hyman, Libbie. 1954. “Charles Manning Child, 1869–1954.” Biographical Memoirs. National Academy of Sciences 30: 73–103.Google Scholar
Lillie, Frank Rattray. 1942. “Letter to Thompson, July 15.” Box IIA, Folder 84, Lillie correspondence, Marine Biological Station, Woods Hole, USA.Google Scholar
Kay, Lily. 1993. The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kimball, Plochmann George. 1953. “D’Arcy Thompson: His Conception of the Living Body.” Philosophy of Science 20 (2):139–148.Google Scholar
Meyer-Abich, Adolf. 1934, Ideen und Ideale der biologischen Erkenntnis. Beiträge zur Theorie und Geschichte der biologischen Ideologien. Leipzig: Johann Ambrosius Barth.Google Scholar
Müller, Hermann. 1883. Die Befruchtung der Blumen durch Insekten, Leipzig: Leipzig Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar
Müller, Johannes. 1837. Handbuch der Physiologie des Menschen für Vorlesungen, volume 1. Coblenz: J. Holscher.Google Scholar
Mulnard, Jacques. 1992. “The Brussels School of Embryology.” International Journal of Developmental Biology 36:17–24.Google Scholar
Ninham, Barry, and Lo Nostro, Pierandrea. 2010. Molecular Forces and Self-Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pasteels, Jean. 1975. “Notice sur Albert Dalcq.” Annuaire de l’Académie Royale de Belgique 141:1–69.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1981. “Obituary: Joseph Henry Woodger.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32 (3):328–330.Google Scholar
Przibram, Hans. 1922. “Letter to Thompson, April 8.” Letter N. 17230, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Przibram, Hans. 1923. Aufbau mathematischer Biologie. Berlin: Borntraeger [ = Abhandlungen zur theoretischen Biologie, volume18].Google Scholar
Przibram, Hans. 1927. “Letter to Thompson, date unreadable.” Letter N. 25830, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Przibram, Hans. 1928. “Letter to Crew, December 14.” Letter N. 17234, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Punnett, Reginald Crundall. 1908. Mendelism in Relation to Disease. London: J. Hale Sons & Danielsson.Google Scholar
Rehbock, Philip. 1983, The Philosophical Naturalists: Themes in Early Nineteenth-Century Biology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Rehbock, Philip. 1990. “Transcendental Anatomy.” In Romanticism and the Sciences, edited by Cunningham, Andrew and Jardine, Nicholas, 130–143. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Robert. 2002. The Romantic Conception of Life: Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Richards, Robert. 2008. The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ridley, Mark. 1986. “Embryology and Classical Zoology in Great Britain.” In A History of Embryology, edited by Horder, Timothy, Witkowski, Jan, and Christopher, Wylie, 35–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ritterbush, Philip. 1968. The Art of Organic Forms. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Roll-Hansen, Nils. 1984. “E. S. Russell and J. H. Woodger: The Failure of Two Twenty Century Opponents of Mechanistic Biology.” Journal of the History of Biology 17 (3):399–428.Google Scholar
Russell, Edward Stuart. 1917a. “Letter to Thompson, January 6.” Letter N. 14333, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Russell, Edward Stuart. 1917b. “Letter to Thompson, June 21.” Letter N. 14335, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Sapp, Jan. 1987. Beyond the Gene: Cytoplasmic Inheritance and the Struggle for Authority in Genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sheldon, William Herbert. 1919. “Meeting Review.” The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 16: 523–529.Google Scholar
Smuts, Jan Christiaan. 1926. Holism and Evolution. London: MacMillan & Co.Google Scholar
Storch, Otto. 1949. “Berthold Hatschek – Ein Markstein in der Geschichte der Morphologie.” Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Almanach 99:284–296.Google Scholar
Thieffry, Denis. 2001. “Rationalizing Early Embryogenesis in the 1930s: Albert Dalcq on Gradients and Fields.” Journal of the History of Biology 34:149–181.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1884. “The Regeneration of Lost Parts in Animals.” Mind 9:415–420.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1911. “Letter to Geddes, October 25.” Letter N. 16400, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1913. On Aristotle as a Biologist. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1916a. “Letter to Emil Hatschek, July 31.” Letter N. 26323, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1916b, “Letter to Edward Russell, December 29.” Letter N. 14329, D’Arcy Thompson Papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1918. “Letter to Emil Hatschek, August 24.” Letter N. 26329, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1919. “The New Physiology.” Mind 27:359.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1921. “Aristotle's Natural Science.” In The Legacy of Greece, edited by Winn Livingstone, Richard, 137–162. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1925a. “Letter to Woodger, November 29.” Box C1/3, Folder: Correspondence D’Arcy Thompson, Woodger papers, UCL Archive, London.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1925b, “Letter to Huxley, March 5.” Letter N. 28563, D’Arcy Thompson papers, University of S. Andrews Archives.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1940. Science and the Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1942a. On Growth and Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1942b. “Letter to Lillie, June 8.” Box IIA, Folder 84, Lillie correspondence, Marine Biological Station, Woods Hole, USA.Google Scholar
Thompson, D’Arcy Wentworth. 1945. “Obituary: Dr. Hans Przibram.” Nature 155:782.Google Scholar
Thompson, Ruth. 1958. D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson: The Scholar-Naturalist, 1860–1948. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, Arthur. 2006. “D’Arcy Thompson and the Theory of Transformation.” Nature Review Genetics 7:401–406.Google Scholar
Whitfield, John. 2006. In the Beat of a Heart: Life, Energy and the Unity of Nature. Washington: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
Willier, Benjamin. 1957. “Frank Rattray Lillie, 1870–1947.” Biographical Memoirs. National Academy of Sciences 30:179–236.Google Scholar