The inquiry below was prompted by the following twitter-exchange:
---------
As shown in the previous post, Karl Ernst von Baer had, independently of Charles Darwin, taken patterns of the geographic distribution of organisms to indicate the mutability and common descent of species and varieties (Baer 1859, 74ff). Charles Darwin learned about this case from a publication of Rudoph Wagner (1861. Zoologisch-antropologische Unetrsuchungen) that gave excerpts of Baer's essay on the pages 50-52. He, therefore, added Baer to the Historical Sketch of the 4th edition of his Origin of Species (1866, p. xxi).
Joseph Dalton Hooker, in turn, asked Charles Darwin about Baer, on the occasion of preparing an address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) about research on the geographical distribution of organisms to be delivered on 1 September 1881 in York. Hooker wanted to know whether anybody had used the idea of species mutability to explain the existence of representative species in very distant locations. In particular, he asked:
This raises the question why Darwin said that he did not know Buch's views in 1859?
1. Malcolm J. Kottler (1978. Annals of Science 35: 275-297, footnote 25) thought that Darwin had completely forgotten his reading and abstracting of the relevant passages of Buch's book.
2. Hugh Dower (2009. Darwin's Guilty Secret) believed that Darwin's statement was a conscious lie with the purpose to emphasize his originality to Hooker: "Darwin even told an unequivocal lie, in a letter to Hooker, about his not having known about Leopold von Buch's contribution to evolution theory, while the notebooks show that he did." (see also Dower's Appendix, here)
3. Neither Kottler nor Dower considered the context, in which Hooker had asked Darwin about von Baer + the Canaries. This offers the third possibility that Darwin confused the names of von Baer and von Buch in his reply. This would imply an intended sequence of mentioning Buch-Baer-Buch-Baer, however, rather than Buch-Buch-Buch-Baer (see bold font in above transcript).
Given that Hooker did not ask about von Buch in the first place and did not inquire into a priority issue in the second, it seems unlikely that Darwin was lying to Hooker on purpose, in order to diminish the importance of von Buch. In that case, he could simply have remained silent rather than dropping Buch's name in the first and then having to lie to his friend in the second. On the contrary, Darwin even offered Hooker to lend him his exemplar of Buch's book, which could have lead Hooker to include Buch into his BAAS address. In my opinion, Darwin's reply shows a considerable degree of confusion and/or senescence (he died in April 1882), but not necessarily dishonesty.
Anyway, the recorded Darwin-Hooker correspondence that relates to Hooker's BAAS address is completely void of any mention of von Buch except for the one by Darwin on 21 August 1881. Hooker's BAAS address, delivered on 1 September 1881 in York, does not mention Buch either, although a comprehensive review should have done so. Darwin's brother, Erasmus Alvey, died on 26 August 1881. Therefore, it seems likely that the time was too short and life too chaotic for the borrowing of the book and proper inclusion of Leopold von Buch in Hooker's BAAS address to come to pass. The next recorded letter in the Darwin-Hooker correspondence is a condolence (Hooker to Darwin 29 August 1881) and three days later Hooker already delivered his BAAS address in York.
All that matters is that Darwin knew about von Buch in 1837, and denied it in 1881.— Hugh Dower (@HughDower) 15. Januar 2019
---------
As shown in the previous post, Karl Ernst von Baer had, independently of Charles Darwin, taken patterns of the geographic distribution of organisms to indicate the mutability and common descent of species and varieties (Baer 1859, 74ff). Charles Darwin learned about this case from a publication of Rudoph Wagner (1861. Zoologisch-antropologische Unetrsuchungen) that gave excerpts of Baer's essay on the pages 50-52. He, therefore, added Baer to the Historical Sketch of the 4th edition of his Origin of Species (1866, p. xxi).
Joseph Dalton Hooker, in turn, asked Charles Darwin about Baer, on the occasion of preparing an address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) about research on the geographical distribution of organisms to be delivered on 1 September 1881 in York. Hooker wanted to know whether anybody had used the idea of species mutability to explain the existence of representative species in very distant locations. In particular, he asked:
"Of all the followers of Latreille [he probably meant Lamarck], in the mutability of species any one of them use this in explanation of (see end) representative species in very distant locations? Von Baer, as you point out, was convinced by the facts of geog. distribution that all species were descended from one parent form, and I suppose must have been led to this by the phenomena of representation. Can you tell me if this was so? I d have no time to consult the Zoog. & Anthrop. Untersuch. [He meant the essay of Rudoph Wagner with the excerpts of Baer (1859) that Darwin (1866) had given as a source in his Historical Sketch.]That is, Hooker inquired about von Baer and about a peculiar situation where two species on two distant islands diverge from a parental form on the mainland, but in convergent directions. This combination of the name von Baer and mentioning of the Canaries must have evoked a memory of Leopold von Buch's Physical Description of the Canary Islands in Darwin, for he replied about von Buch rather than von Baer.
[Some parts omitted; "see end" above referred to the postscript below.]
P.S. What I want to know if any one ever suggested that the representative for an instance of an Azorean plant by a Canarian was due to their having in common parents the offspring of which diverged samely from the parent type but converged in those localities, either through both varying in the same direction or by one varying in the direction of the other." (Hooker to Darwin, 20 August 1881, my transcription with some help of Roland Jackson, author of The Ascent of John Tyndall)
"My dear HookerWhile Darwin could not have known Baer's essay of 1859, when he was writing his Origin of Species in 1858/9, he did take notes on the French translation of Buch's Descriptio Physique des Iles Canaries in his Notebook B (1837/8, p. 156 + 158, see here).
I cannot aid you much or at all. I shd think that no one could have thought on the modification of species, without thinking of representative species.— But I feel sure that no discussion of any importance had been published on this subject before the Origin; for if I had known of it, I shd assuredly have alluded to it in the Origin, as I wished to gain support from all quarters. I did not then know of Von Buch’s view (alluded to in my Historical Introduction in all the later editions). Von Buch published his “Isles Canaries” in 1836 and he here briefly argues that plants spread over a continent & vary, & the varieties in time come to be species. He also argues that closely allied species have been thus formed in the separate valleys of the Canary Islands, but not on the upper and open parts. [Marginalia written vertically at the left edge:] I could lend you Von Buch’s Book if you like: I have just consulted the passage. [End of marginalia] I have not Baers papers, but as far as I remember the subject is not fully discussed by him." (Darwin to Hooker, 21 August 1881, emphases added)
This raises the question why Darwin said that he did not know Buch's views in 1859?
1. Malcolm J. Kottler (1978. Annals of Science 35: 275-297, footnote 25) thought that Darwin had completely forgotten his reading and abstracting of the relevant passages of Buch's book.
2. Hugh Dower (2009. Darwin's Guilty Secret) believed that Darwin's statement was a conscious lie with the purpose to emphasize his originality to Hooker: "Darwin even told an unequivocal lie, in a letter to Hooker, about his not having known about Leopold von Buch's contribution to evolution theory, while the notebooks show that he did." (see also Dower's Appendix, here)
3. Neither Kottler nor Dower considered the context, in which Hooker had asked Darwin about von Baer + the Canaries. This offers the third possibility that Darwin confused the names of von Baer and von Buch in his reply. This would imply an intended sequence of mentioning Buch-Baer-Buch-Baer, however, rather than Buch-Buch-Buch-Baer (see bold font in above transcript).
Given that Hooker did not ask about von Buch in the first place and did not inquire into a priority issue in the second, it seems unlikely that Darwin was lying to Hooker on purpose, in order to diminish the importance of von Buch. In that case, he could simply have remained silent rather than dropping Buch's name in the first and then having to lie to his friend in the second. On the contrary, Darwin even offered Hooker to lend him his exemplar of Buch's book, which could have lead Hooker to include Buch into his BAAS address. In my opinion, Darwin's reply shows a considerable degree of confusion and/or senescence (he died in April 1882), but not necessarily dishonesty.
Anyway, the recorded Darwin-Hooker correspondence that relates to Hooker's BAAS address is completely void of any mention of von Buch except for the one by Darwin on 21 August 1881. Hooker's BAAS address, delivered on 1 September 1881 in York, does not mention Buch either, although a comprehensive review should have done so. Darwin's brother, Erasmus Alvey, died on 26 August 1881. Therefore, it seems likely that the time was too short and life too chaotic for the borrowing of the book and proper inclusion of Leopold von Buch in Hooker's BAAS address to come to pass. The next recorded letter in the Darwin-Hooker correspondence is a condolence (Hooker to Darwin 29 August 1881) and three days later Hooker already delivered his BAAS address in York.
