JHB 2021, 54 - Corsi; Serpico; Galera; *Gamini.

 Corsi, P. Edinburgh Lamarckians? The Authorship of Three Anonymous Papers (1826–1829). J Hist Biol 54, 345–374 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-021-09646-5 [oa]

• Desmond diz que o artigo lamarquista de 1826 é de Grant, Secord atualizou isso para Robert Jameson. Mas tá errado também.
• Estilometria, ver Tanghe e Kestemont (2018)
• Por meio de busca em arquivos digitais identificou os textos como traduções. 1826 foi traduzido do alemão, originalmente de Rengger; 1827 de Férussac do francês; 1829 foi bertrand, trad do frances também.
•  It would indeed be of great interest to establish who were the collaborators Jameson relied on for translations or the perusal of foreign publications. Bill Jenkins has, for instance, established that William MacGillivray (1796–1852), an assistant to Jameson from 1823, translated sections from Lamarck’s Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres, preserved in manuscript form among the papers of his employer: did he also help with the journal (Jenkins 2019, p. 123)? 358
• Analisa contextualmente cada um dos textos, mostrando que o de Férussac não era tão lamarquista assim. E bertrand só era um editor de ciencias informando sobre o desenvolvimento das ideias de terceiros.

• Sidenote: the translator took some stylistic liberties with the original text, as was often the case with all translations at the time 353 
• [se os autores dos artigos são tão importantes pq n identificar os tradutores]

----------------------------------

Serpico, D. The Cyclical Return of the IQ Controversy: Revisiting the Lessons of the Resolution on Genetics, Race and Intelligence. J Hist Biol 54, 199–228 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-021-09637-6 [oa]

• Porque a Resolution da Genetics Society of America sobre o teste de QI e seu uso eugênico não surtiu efeito?
• O Documento possui um histórico bastante complicado de revisões ao longo de 3 anos.
• Para Provine, que não tinha acesso aos documentos que se tornaram acessíveis recentemente: the statement was not impactful because it did not clearly rebuke the hereditarian hypothesis and was not sufciently publicized. Moreover, he believed that GSA members were “ethically naïve,” that is, they simply did not see the moral issues at stake. 201
• Os proponentes do testes eram o hereditarianistas que aplicavam testes psicométricos. O tom geral das ideias deles parece racista, mas houve uma controvérsia quanto a "censura" de sua ciência. Havia um medo de que a aplicação dos testes levasse a um sistema de educação diferencial que priorizasse aqueles com maior QI.
• To summarize, in the frst phase, the committee swung from a Resolution supporting one side of the controversy to a neutral one and then back again to the original position. Draft #4 then served as the basis for the frst ofcial version of the Resolution, which was disseminated to all the Society’s members. 209
• To summarize, many GSA members criticized the implicit attempt of Statement #1 [uma das formas do Resolution] to favor one side of the controversy [o lado da nurture]. This persuaded Oliver Smithies (University of Wisconsin geneticist and president of GSA, 1975–1976) to continue the process: he made a motion for drafting an alternative version of the Resolution (hereafter Statement #2), analyzed in the next section. 212
• No statement 2 há um argumento quanto a independência dos princípios morais em relação aos dados empíricos. Bastante interessante. Várias outras controvérsias em jogo.
• In sum, Smithies’ Resolution was judged as too impartial, and thus unfaithful to the original aims of the GSA’s action. In order to address these criticisms, Smithies made a new motion aimed at deciding whether to publish the frst or the second version of the Resolution. 216
• A terceira e final versão da Resolution saiu em 1976. Era a mais imparcial de todas e, segundo Provine, sofreu por não ser divulgada, mas isso não explica tudo.
• Mesmo assim o texto ainda caiu em disputas políticas, retóricas e científico-filosóficas.
• Várias relação interessantíssimas de comunicação científica são discutidas. Como a moderação, dispustas científicas internas, dilemas éticos da prática científica, timing depois do buzz levarem a diminuição do impacto do que foi dito na Resolution.
• The cautious tones and impartiality made it hard to see the very meaningfulness of the Resolution. In retrospect, defending some specifc scientifc ideas and taking a political stance would probably have been necessary in order to make the statement as impactful as expected. However, as the correspondence between the society’s members attests, many believed that this was outside the capacities of a scientifc society like the GSA. This is even more telling if we consider the marked political inclination and sensibility of the members of the committee. 
• In this sense, the history of the Resolution is particularly enlightening as regards attempts to settle debates at the crossroad of science, ethics, and politics. It is only by looking at the history of the whole afair that we can appreciate the importance of the GSA’s participation—including its failure—in debates on genetics, intelligence, and human populations, and possibly beyond. 224.

-----------------------------

Galera, A. Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and the First Embryological Evolutionary Model on the Origin of Vertebrates. J Hist Biol 54, 229–245 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-021-09638-5

• Evolução passou a se referir a espécies a partir do uso de Lyell para se referir a lamarck. 2
• The historiography of biology has tended to limit coverage of the embryological theories on the evolutionary origin of vertebrates to the post- period and, thereby, to ignore the approaches that derived from Lamarckian theory. This particularly includes the frst evolutionary embryological model proposed decades earlier by Geofroy Saint-Hilaire in the 1820s 2
• Geoffroy, influenciado por Lamarck já era transformista.
• Geofroy renewed the Lamarckian model, elaborating on the concept of acquired characters: the embryo is the biological level at which changes induced by the environment occur (Galera 2006). In short, while living beings have a reproductive tendency to conserve the parental typology—a trend he called nisus formativus— environmental characteristics nevertheless shape ontogeny. Nisus, he explained, “is the principle that governs the successive order of generations, the obligatory return of the same forms, and consequently the reappearance of the same species” (Geoffroy 1828a, p. 214). The embryo repeats the parental anatomy only when the same environmental circumstances are maintained. When conditions change, embryonic development is modifed, generating a diferent morphology that is suited to the new environmental conditions (Geofroy 1827, pp. 120–123, 1833a, p. 82). The result is the genesis of a group of organisms adapted to another medium, the generation of a new species, the phenomenology of which is due only to interacting physical laws involved in the system (Geofroy 1833b). The general sense of the function of nisus formativus, the tendency to conserve the form, is maintained but the object of action—the organism—is diferent.2 Thus, the nisus of each species, again only a tendency, is related to certain environmental conditions. Accordingly, embryogenesis is the modifable stage of living beings, the vital space where specifc transformations take place. 5-6
• Geoffroy seguia o experito empirista expererimental da época. 6
• A proposta de Geoffroy ajudava a sanar a falta de mecanismo da teoria de lamarck. 6
• Later zoologists, however, recognized Geofroy’s innovation. T. Jefery Parker and William A. Haswell, in their popular Text-Book of Zoology,4 noted that Geoffroy, unlike Lamarck, rejected the inheritance of use, rather considering the direct action of the environment to be the sole cause of transformation, and defended sudden morphological change (Parker and Haswell 1897, p. 638). It was, as T. H. Morgan remarked, “a picture of progressive evolution that carries with it an idea of mechanical necessity” (1916, p. 28). Geofroy’s evolutionary mechanism, in short, had a strictly embryological meaning: to explain the formation of new typologies adapted to another environment, that is, reproductive groups that consolidate the transformation in a new habitat. This original approach entailed a major conceptual advance, bringing together embryology and evolution. 6-7
• Geoffroy tinha o Principio de unidade de composição organica. Todos os seres seguem as mesmas regras da natureza. Cuvier era contra, largamente por razões metafísicas. 7-8
• The epistemological principles used by Geofroy to connect animals were the concepts of unity and diversity. Unity was represented in the pattern linking anatomy with function exhibited by all species, and diversity was identifed as the infnity of morphologies that species adopt when developing this pattern. Simply put, Geofroy proposed a way to study bodies by unifying variety through similarities and by fnding in those connections laws that govern corporeal organization—a single code responsible for animal diversity. The rule was “variety from unity” (Geoffroy 1822c, p. 253). [...] The theory states that there is an analogical relationship between all living things. Anatomical similarity, he proposed, is not defned by the form but by the materials of the organs: the same arrangement of parts, the same connections, the same functions. Three rules guide any comparative anatomical study, according to the theory of analogues: the principle of connections, the principle of elective afnities of organic elements, and the principle of balance of organs. The frst establishes the existence of a similar connectivity between the organs: the bodies are made up of a certain number of parts connected in the same way. The second explains the similar arrangement of the organs, based on functional afnity. The third determines the balance of the anatomical ensemble: when one organ over-develops, another sufers a proportional decrease. The principles of connection and afnity justify Geofroy’s theory of the unit of organic composition. The principle of equilibrium explains the variability in this model of organic unity (Geofroy 1822b, pp. xxx–xxxiv; 1830, pp. 214–218). This intricate comparative model was the key to applying the idea of anatomical uniformism, and arguing for the existence of a transformational connection between vertebrates and invertebrates. 8-9
• Chegou a conclusão que existiriam os dermo vertebres, entre os vertebrados e os moluscos. Acreditava que o exosqueleto era um sistema esquelético incipiente 9-10
• Once the possible ancestor of all vertebrates had been specifed, it was necessary to explain how the new anatomical arrangement was formed, and this concerned embryology. The explanation ofered by Geofroy was based on Friedrich Meckel’s model of embryological parallelism,13 formulated in 1811, and later developed by Serres (1824a, b, 1842, 1860). The model had a transformist potential that Geofroy well understood and extended by applying his principle of unity of organic composition. Meckel’s theory established that the successive embryonic states correspond to the adult forms of inferior species. The more distant forms were on the zoological scale, the closer they were to the starting point of the embryonic process (Meckel 1811, pp. 3–10; 1825, pp. 49–50). Repeating the classic concept of the natural scale of life forms (Lovejoy 1936), Geofroy’s model of parallelism interpreted embryogenesis as a morphological sequence that increases complexity. This is, a common developmental process that added structural elements to previous forms, creating the singularities of successive species. Ontogenesis would then be equivalent to the continued metamorphosis of forms projected into adult life. This model matched the principle of unity of composition Geofroy employed in his explanation of animal anatomy. 11
• In the early nineteenth century, the question of what was the ancestor of vertebrates was entirely new and, obviously, so was the answer. In Amphioxus and the Ancestry of Vertebrates, the zoologist Arthur Willey stated that “the frst zoologist to put forward, in a defnite manner, the view of the existence of a direct relationship between Vertebrates and Invertebrates was the celebrated Étienne Geofroy SaintHilaire” (1894, p. 1). As we have seen, Willey was right: Geofroy was the frst, and, in doing so, he inaugurated a successful line of research addressing a fundamental issue at the center of the transformist argument: to demonstrate the morphological connection between vertebrates and invertebrates in a way supported by the evolutionary theory. The challenge was fnding that connection. The Gordian knot of Geofroy’s proposal was to demonstrate the structural nexus between the two groups. He defned the connection using two anatomical arguments. One was the homology between the endoskeleton and exoskeleton. Geofroy prioritized the osseous system because he believed that the skeleton acted to regulate the expression of the other organic systems.15 The second argument was the organological similarity observed by the dorsoventral inversion of the body—an essential matter. Simply put, wrote the zoologist William Gregory, Geofroy “saw in the insect merely a muchmodifed vertebrate turned over on its back” (1946, p. 348). In the opinion of the German biologist Carl Claus, this generalization was hasty, reckless, and based on partial facts (Claus 1884, p. 137). But this idea did not fall into oblivion. It was part of the embryological debate on the origin of vertebrates in the late nineteenth century. Geofroy, as Morgan wrote, “brought the problem of evolution to the bar of judgment, losing the decision, it is true, but his ideas a later generation hold in high esteem” (Morgan 1909, p. 369). 12
• The main difculty encountered by Geofroy’s embryological model on the origin of vertebrates was not the result of his mistakes but rather his revolutionary approach, which went far beyond his time and seemed inappropriate for his contemporaries. Of course, he made errors, but he also had the ability and insight to address the evolutionary debate by tracing two main and converging lines of research: the ontogenetic path of evolution and the morphological connection between invertebrates and vertebrates. Thomas Huxley was right when he wrote: “It may be said that Geofroy’s inspiration was true, but his mode of working it out false” (1854, p. 446). Charles Darwin had indeed refected on this inspiration. In Notebook B, from 1837, Darwin commented (referring to Geofroy 1830), that Geofroy Saint-Hilaire “States there is but one animal: one set of organs:—… I cannot understand whether G. H. thinks development in quite straight line, or branching … says grand idea god giving laws ... then leaving all to follow consequences.—” (Darwin 1987, pp. 197, 198). Darwin included this fnal idea in the conclusion of Origin of Species (1859, p. 488). As the British embryologist Gavin de Beer cautiously suggested, Darwin found in Geofroy’s theory the seed for the relationship between fnal and intermediate causes (Darwin 1960, p. 35). However, the young Darwin must have learned something more, given his interest in Geofroy’s Philosophie anatomique (1818–1822), the second volume of which, entitled Monstruosités humaines (Human Monstrosities), he said was “worth reading” (Darwin 1987, p. 198). Other authors also considered this link more relevant. For instance, Cédric Grimoult claimed that Geofroy outlined Darwin’s ideas about natural selection and imperceptible variations (Grimoult 2000, p. 12). Toby Appel also mentioned Geofroy’s infuence on Darwin in the context of the Cuvier-Geofroy debate, stating that “Geofroy’s ideas were reinterpreted by Darwin” (1987, p. 207). This ideological connection, to a greater or lesser extent, is evidence for the evolutionary potential of Geofroy’s biological theory. However, the historiographical literature generally portrays Geofroy as a minor fgure in evolutionary thought, and historians have overlooked his embryological model of the origin of vertebrates. As this article has shown, however, Geofroy well deserves a prominent place in the history of evolutionary embryology.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Gamini, AM. A Critique of Darwin’s The Descent of Man by a Muslim Scholar in 1912: Muḥammad-Riḍā Iṣfahānī's Examination of the Anatomical and Embryological Similarities Between Human and Other Animals. J Hist Biol 54, 485–511 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-021-09641-w.

• No Irã se ensina evolução sem mencionar o homem. Essa brecha ocorre devido a abertura secular do século XIX e a tradição interpretativa dos xiitas iranianos.
• Durante o movimento de modernização no século XIX e in´cio do século XX houveram alguns que tentaram cocniliar a ciência e a religião. Havia uma verve spenceriana.
• O centro da questão era a inclusão do ser humano na teoria.
• The root of Iṣfahānī’s rejection of the theory of human evolution is probably his conception of human’s spiritual essence. The mental and spiritual abilities of humanity were the main obstacles between many Western intellectuals and the theory of human evolution. For this very reason, Darwin dedicated chapters two to six of Descent of Man to the mental and emotional similarities between humans and animals. These chapters were not available to Iṣfahānī. Nevertheless, he was aware of this defciency, 12
• Iṣfahānī posed a list of Darwin’s experimental evidence for human evolution and criticized them one by one. For this purpose, he referred to Darwin’s The Descent of Man (1871). Although an Arabic translation of the book was not available at the time, a summary of the frst chapter appeared through Khalīl Saʿd’s Arabic translation in al-Hilāl (Saʿd 1904). Saʿd’s translation is nothing but a summary, lacking the fgures and citations to academic references in the original text. Also, many details are eliminated. Nevertheless, Saʿd quotes Darwin’s main ideas of the frst chapter that makes it possible for Iṣfahānī to criticize them according to his knowledge of modern biology. 13
• A tradução resumida de Sa'd influenciou a critica de Isfahani em diversos pontos. 13-20.
• In his review of Marwa Elshakry’s Reading Darwin in Arabic, Peter Bowler wrote: “[I]n the literal sense, hardly anyone read Darwin in the Islamic world” (2015, p. 1255). As is shown above, although Iṣfahānī’s account of Darwin’s theory was not based on a complete reading of Darwin’s original writings, he devoted his survey to a summary of Darwin’s original text, not merely to popular-science articles, and never relied on oral or unreliable information. His various references to books, papers, and Western scientists and philosophers prove that he did his best to update himself about recent works in order to contribute fully to scientifc knowledge of the time 20-21.
• O livro de Isfahani foi ignorado.
• Realmente estudou as ideias de Darwin, sem desprezá-las a priori.