Gliboff 2007, 2008

Journal of the History of Biology (2007) 40:259–294 

DOI 10.1007/s10739-006-9114-4 

H. G. Bronn and the History of Nature

• Sobre a tradução
• Bronn’s own reaction to the Origin was so ambivalent that it seems almost self-contradictory. Although he had methodological objections and doubts about species transformation that could not be overcome in the short time before his death in 1862, he also realized that Darwin had been grappling with the same problems as himself, for just as long, and was now offering some bold new solutions to them. Despite his reservations, he reviewed the Origin in the geological journal that he edited7 and translated it personally into German. Bronn was uniquely well positioned to understand Darwin and introduce his work to German readers. To be sure, Bronn did not translate everything to Darwin’s liking. He inserted a chapter-length critique of Darwin’s argument, and he has often been criticized by Darwinian purists for his supposed mistakes, liberties, and obtuseness.8 Darwin himself did not give Bronn much credit as a contributor to evolution, either. He expressed incredulity at Bronn’s claim to have anticipated aspects of his theory and published a ‘‘foreboding’’ of them,9 and he omitted Bronn from his ‘‘Historical Sketch.’’10
•  Most secondary authorities have been equally unappreciative of Bronn’s science and his positive role in the translation and transmission of Darwin’s theory.11 Bronn is presumed to have been an old-fashioned German idealist, who, incapable of making the shift to the new evolutionary paradigm, misrepresented it in his translation as a variation on familiar teleological and developmental models. But this is quite wrong. Bronn actually rejected transcendental archetypes, linear and teleological scales and sequences of organization, pre-determined species-lifespans, and any and all principles derived from embryology and imposed upon the fossil record. Bronn and Darwin both could agree that idealistic morphology overemphasized internal forces of change, generated within the organism, and that it failed to capture the complex interdependencies among species and external conditions. Such inward-looking approaches could never explain the timing and placement of a species’  first appearance, or the richness of organic diversity and variation. Bronn viewed Darwin not as a threat to an old order that he cared to preserve, but as a potential ally in his effort to establish a historical science of life, featuring contingent, external causes of change. 261
• NOTA 11 [autores que levaram em conta o papel de Bronn como tradutor-intermediador]: Baron, 1961; Bowler, 1976; Junker, 1991; Nyhart, 1995; Schumacher, 1975; Seibold and Seibold, 1997
• Explicação concisa das ideias de Bronn 265-7
• Próximas seções sobre a filo da cc de bronn mto parecidas com o livro.
• Struggle:
• The process Bronn describes amounts to a limited form of natural selection. Bronn conceives the natural world as a dangerous place, where much loss of life is required to maintain the balance of nature in the face of Malthusian overproduction. He even characterizes the interrelationships of species with each other and with inanimate nature using words such as ‘‘Konflikt’’ and ‘‘ka¨mpfen.’’43 The wording anticipates Darwinian ‘‘struggle,’’ which Bronn would later translate as ‘‘Kampf.’’ This is perhaps the basis for Bronn’s cryptic claim to have published a ‘‘foreboding’’ of Darwin’s theory.44 In contrast to the Darwinian version, however, the outcome of Bronnian struggle is the demise of extreme anomalies, maladapted hybrids, and, in geological time, of obsolescent species. Bronn does not apply the idea to the differential survival of all the minor variations within a species. 277-8
• Seção sobre Bronn on Darwin bem parecida com o livro, porém maios sucinta.
• Conclusion
• Bronn’s work should serve as a reminder that Darwin was not the only one ‘‘patiently accumulating and reflecting on all sorts of facts which could possibly have any bearing on’’ the origin of species.71 Before 1859, Bronn had prepared the case for a historical approach to life, incorporating empirical evidence from paleontology, biogeography, morphology, and artificial selection, reconciling and applying Malthusian, Lyellian, progressivist, and adaptationist insights, and formulating questions about progress, adaptation, and the causes of change. 
• Bronn applied the methodological ideals of German university Wissenschaft to the history of nature, with the aim of establishing zoology generally and paleontology in particular as properly scientific pursuits. He stressed quantification of change and progress, coordination of data from around the world and across geological periods, and interactions between organisms and the environment. He strove to unify the life sciences with physics, geology, and ultimately cosmology, by connecting organic change to the physical evolution of the earth and the necessity that species always be well-enough adapted to it to survive. 
• Even though the approach did not lead Bronn to the same conclusions as Darwin, it did point away from some of the dominant pre-Darwinian German conceptions of organic change, especially those modeled after embryology and which had life develop along its own trajectory, without reference to external conditions. Bronn was greatly interested in Darwin’s work, not because he saw it as derivative from older German ideas to which he still wished to cling, but because it had the potential to solve Bronn’s own problems explaining what caused new species to appear. For a positive, though critical, introduction of his theory into Germany, Darwin was indebted not to the remaining Naturphilosophen or idealistic morphologists, but to the innovative Bronn, who saw in Darwin a promising new approach to the history of nature. 292

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

H. G. Bronn, Ernst Haeckel, and the Origins of German Darwinism 2008

Introduction

• Little note has been taken, however, of how exclusively British his network was. Except for his cultivation of an American ally in the botanist Asa Gray, Darwin left the international reception of his theory largely to chance. Considering the prominence of German biologists in the nineteenth century, Darwin's overtures toward them seem especially weak.”, Heb made hardly any until after 1859, when he sent complimentary copies of the Origin, out of the blue, to perhaps a dozen German scientists. Even then, Darwin needed help from Thomas H. Huxley to figure out who in | Germany would be appropriate recipients? 1 [Barreira linguística?]
• Darwin e Huxley estavam pensando no suiço Kolliker para traduzir o livro para o alemão, mas Bronn escreveu pedindo para traduzir e já com um editor em mente. Darwin decidiu seguir com Bronn.
• Darwin não esperava que Bronn fosse traduzir, sugeriu que ele indicasse um tradutor e fizesse uma revisão técnica da obra, além de adicionar comentários positivos ou negativos.
• At the time of his initial contact with Bronn, Darwin had not yet read the prizewinning monograph, and he did not seem to be conversant with many details of Bronn's successional theory. He probably did not even read Bronn's review of the Origin very carefully, either, for even though he told Bronn that he had been quite pleased with it, he wrote to the geologist Charles Lyell that “The united intellect of my family has vainly tried to makeit out.—I have nevertried such confoundedly hard German: nor does it seem worth the labour.”'2 This was a serious miscalculation, ecause Bronn would not only soon translate Darwin's book, but also append those notes of refutation and confirmation that Darwin had invited and that would steer the initial German debates over Darwinism into channels of Bronn's choosing. 3-4 [barreira linguística]
• Cuidado com julgar as traduções
• . If the historical - sources appear to differ, we must beware of jumping to the conclusion “» that the Germans mangled or misconstrued Darwin's obvious meaning. + Jt may be that we are misunderstanding the historical sources because of the ways in which both Darwinism andits technical vocabulary in English and German haveevolved. 4
• Problemas interpretativos: verbais, visuais e conceituais.
• Bronn havia compreendido errado a SN, Darwin falhou em ver isso em sua rápida leitura de seu review.
• Gliboff retorna a questão de não interpretrar erroneamente os termos de Bronn e Haeckel. Eles utilizavam termos antigos com novos sentidos.
• Darwin era um squire, Bronn era funcionário público e havia estudado para ser professor de história natural e política. Com o tempo se tornou o paleontologo mais conhecido da alemanha.
• Bronn's major work on organic history, Geschichte der Natur, published in three thick volumesin the 1840s,? balanced a detailed study of thefossil record with a careful critique of its incompleteness and its biases. It provided a wide-ranging, quantitative account of biogeography, including the small amount of data that was then available on fossil species distributions outside of Europe. It analyzed the methods and accomplishments of plant- and animal breeders, using some of the same English sources available to Darwin, and asking some of the same questions about the causes of variation and the production of varieties. It compared domestic with natural variation as well, and in so doing, it undermined some conventional assumptions about the fixity of taxonomic types, especially of the higher taxa, over geological time. It expounded upon the universality of Malthusian overproduction and the enormous loss of life that was the inevitable price for maintaining the balance of nature, and it even described existence in nature as a struggle, in which the maladapted would go under. It discussed the ubiquity of adaptation to the environment, including physical and biotic, local and regional conditions, and the complex, reciprocal effects of species on species, and species on the landscape. Bronn showed an appreciation for the appearance of design in nature and treated natural theology with respect, even as he moved, over the course of his career, toward a naturalistic alternative to the designing Creator. 11
• In contrast to Darwin, who had natural selection impose order and apparent purpose on nature's random variations, Bronn explained how nature could be orderly and law-governed yet still produce a wild variety of landforms, mineral forms, plants, and animals. He saw variation as the product of nature's laws, not as raw material to be further sorted and shaped. Bronn's wasa successional theory, not an evolutionary one. Instead of connecting the dots and drawing family trees, Bronnleft fossil species disconnected and unrelated by heredity. Old species were driven to extinction as environmental changes gradually made their adaptations obsolete, and unidentified creative forces or processes caused new species to come into being that were both better adapted and morphologically more advanced. Bronn noted that new species often resembled the ones they succeeded, but that was because they were formed by the same laws and forces, under the influence of similar-—but of course not identical—local conditions. 12 
• Bronn também dava atenção para as mudanças na Terra e como os organismos respondiam a isso
• In Bronn's system, each species lived until gradual geological and environmental change, including changes in the flora and fauna with which it interacted, madeits survival impossible. There were no catastrophic mass extinctions and subsequent mass creations, as older theories had it, for example that of Louis Agassiz, whom Bronn was most keento refute. Bronn's detailed stratigraphic data consistently showed that species came into existence and went extinct individually, rather than in synchrony, and as they came and went, there was a continual, gradual, and progressive turnover in the composition of the world's flora and fauna. Life became more advanced by several measures (also devised by Bronn), and by Bronn's logic, such organic progress followed necessarily ftom progressive change in the Earth and the principle that species must always be well adapted to the conditions they would actually encounter. Bronn argued that necessary, quantifiable laws were behind the observed patterns of organic change, and the goalof his research was to discern those laws, even if it could not identify the mechanism by which new species originated. 12
• Problema de comunicação entre os dois não apenas devido a língua, mas ao jeito como eles viam o mundo.
• Estudos da tradução e ciência, um meio de entender melhor a transmissão de ideias. Valorização da visão do tradutor, não apenas um reprodutor de conteúdo.
• The most obvious translation problems that Proa had to deal with were the linguistic ones: what were the best choices of German wordsfor Darwin's English terms, especially when these were being used in novel ways? What did Darwin mean, for example, when he said that species “progressed” or became “improved” or “perfected” by natural selec-” tion? By using these terms, was he alluding to, and perhaps endorsing, pre-Darwinian ideas about forms on a linear scale of nature? Or was he appropriating existing language for new purposes? Did the German “Vervollkommnung” have the same range of possible meanings, and could it be extended to cover Darwin's new ones? What about “the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life” in Darwin's subtitle? Who favored them and why? Could it have been because they were more vervollkommnet? 13-4
• Gliboff acredita que Darwin e Bronn mudaram a linguagem. O uso de termos antigos por Bronn não significa que ele tenha um olhar antigo, mas que está dando um novo significado à palavra.
• Problema com os bichos:
• Some of Bronn's translation problems were not strictly linguistic, but “ vreflected the authors” differing experiences with nature, Bronn's more “paleontological and European-centered, and Darwin's more global and “oriented toward living organisms. Bronn's knowledge was encyclopedic, bufstillhe did not know exactly the same animals and plants with the same degree of familiarity and by the same names as Darwin. The problems were most acute in discussions of artificial selection, where neither namesnor breeds were standardized internationally. What varieties was Darwin actually talking about? Even when Bronn could find the right German names for them, had he or his readers ever seen them, and could they fully appreciate the point that they were supposed to illustrate?  14
• Bronn preferia ser mais profundo, enquanto Darwin mais panorâmico. Bronn passava sem um mecanismo, preferindo explicações sobre a mudança das espécies, algo que Darwin evitava tratar explicitamente. Bronn não gostava da personificação da SN feita por Darwin, redigia seu texto de maneira mais impessoal.
• Bronn ficou mordido de não ter sido citado tanto quanto achava que deveria, preterido por autores ingleses.
• Bronn e especialmente Haeckel foram ligados ao transcendentalismo alemão com mais força do que realmente eram. Haeckel ainda foi ligado ao nazismo injustamente, segundo Gliboff.

The science of life at the turn of the Nineteenth Century

• Teologia natural durou muito mais na inglaterra do que na alemanha. Dificuldade de interpretação por parte dos alemães.
• Rule of law: Abordagem newtoniana para a biologia.
• Kant é um critério de comparação para naturalistas alemães. Kant dizia que era impossível analisar a natureza sem supor que ela era teleológica. Há portanto naturalistas que acreditam na teleologia mesmo fora da análise e aqueles mais kantianos que a seguem somente para análise.
• Não havia um transcendentalismo de tipo homogeneo entre autores pré-darwinianos
• Baer era contra a recapitulação. Transformo o conceito e seus apoiadores numa caricatura que foi seguida por historiadores desde então.
• Baer asserted that the whole idea of species transformation was nothing but the reification of an ill-founded, continuous, linear scale of nature. Where once morphologists imagined the embryo going through an ideal sequence of forms, Baer said, transformationists now interpreted that same sequence as the history of the species. But who actually did this? Baer's straw man had no resemblance to Oken or to any other non-transformationist, since they never made such historical claims at all. Thecritique also did not apply to transformationists like Kielmeyer or Treviranus, who envisioned a discontinuous or branching family tree in place of the old scale of nature. Lamarck might have been accused of making the course of species transformation follow a linear scale of nature, but even his view allowed some branching, and in any case, he did not make the connection to embryology that Baer was trying to skewer.
• Even Meckel, as we have seen, did nottreat the scale of nature in the way that Baer insinuated. He did not insist on a strictly linear scale, and he did not have the embryo progress as a unit and recapitulate whole lower adults. Each organ or organ system progressedat its ownrate, and its manner of progressing—Meckel's yardstick for measuring height on the scale of development—was not very different from Baer's at all. Using terminology usually associated with Baer, Meckel was already going by Grad der Ausbildung twenty years earlier. The main difference is that Meckel used his yardstick to make comparisons amongany andall animals, whereas Baer allowed comparisons only within each of the four Cuvierian classes, which he also claimed to havedescribed independently of Cuvier.”* 
• In Baer's depiction, recapitulation theory stood or fell with the single straight-line progression of adult formsin the scale of nature. Baer objected that the animals could not be fitted onto a continuous linear scale, and he proposed a system of four classes, equivalent to Cuvier's embranchements only defined not by adult anatomy but rather by the earliest discernible symmetries of the embryo. Noneoftheclasses was higher or lower than the others, so there was no linearscale to recapitulate in the first place. Thedistinctness of even such early embryos of all the classes spoke for divergence from a common starting point, rather than recapitulation of a commonline of development. Then there was the objection that some embryonic structures, such as the placenta, were never found in lower adults at all. So it should have been obvious that embryos were never perfectly equivalent to lower adults. Even worse, how absurd it was to think that an embryo could pass through the stages of air-breathing forms or flying birds or insects whenit was immersed in the amniotic fluid! 55-6

H.G Bronn and the history of nature

• Buscava-se um estatatuto cientifico para as ccs da vida
• Bronn's framework drew on most of the principal elements of scientific biology discussed above, relying on special laws and forces as did Blumenbach, the systems thinking of Kielmeyer, the integration of biology with geology, chemistry, physics, and cosmology in the manner of Reil, and the quantification of patterns and trends in the fossil record, using the methods of Humboldtian biogeography. There were also some conspicuous departures from earlier trends in morphology, however. The concept of archetype camein for criticism and was used only sparingly, and never in the sense of a transcendental idea or cause of development. 63
• Bronn em sua ciencia era fisicalista e nomotético. Não era transcendentalista. Também holista e indutivista.
• As leis para Bronn eram apenas generalizações de padrões naturais. Com exceção de uma:
• There was, however, a significant exception, and that was the “principle” or “law” or even “fundamental law” (Grundgesetz) of adaptation, to which Bronn ascribed a higher status. It was not an empirical rule, subject to reconsideration as more data were collected. It held necessarily, for both natural and a logical reasons, because it was evident that no species would survive if it appeared at a time and place for which it was not suited. At times Bronn seemed to imply that nature would not even create such a species in the first place: “The fundamental law, whereby the gradual appearance of the living world was guided has been that of the continual adaptation of the living world to the external, geological conditions of existence at every point in time. 67
• Bronn dava prioridade ao ambiente (geologia) e adaptação ao invés dos arquétipos mais típicos do pensamento alemão.
• Sobre novas spps.
• In short, species succession was quite distinct from embryonic development, according to Bronn. The embryo came into existence already belonging to a species, subject to species-specific laws, and with a predefined adult form to reach. New species, on the other hand, arose from separate creative acts, which were not dictated by any law or bound by any requirementto recapitulate embryonic forms: “In the case of creation, which appears to have been the result of a new act of the Almighty and not the result of a pre-existing law of nature, no gradual progression was required to go from an embryonic form of eachclass to that class's highest level. 69
• Não havia escala natural a ser seguida. As tendencia s são diferentes para cada grupo.
• Procurava encontrar as causas do fenomeno da variação.
• Sobre novas spps
• These “lawful means” of returning species to normal were the basis of Bronn's argument against species transformation. He saw environmentally induced changes as temporary. When the environmental factor ceased to act, the changes disappeared from the species,just as the work of the breeder came undone when a domestic variety was returned to the wild. Generally, anomalous or monstrous individuals would notsurvive long enough to reproduce, because of the imperfection of vital organs. Or if they did survive, they generally would have only more typical individuals to mate with, and so would have trouble passing on their anomalous variation. And even if the offspring remained atypical, there would still be a large number of hurdles to their survival and reproduction, including sterility and lack of vigor. Inborn variations “mate just as gladly and successfully with the typical form as among themselves, and they transmit [ibertragen] their peculiarity to their offspring quite often, in the former case—where it must struggle against the more powerful, because more stable, type;—but in the latter case almost always. However, many of the formsthat arise in this way must soon perish, because they are based upon imperfection of organs that are essentialto life.”7 
• Bronn's claim to have anticipated Darwin's theorycould very well have been based on this process, which amounted to a limited form of natural selection. Bronn conceived the natural world as a dangerous place, where much loss of life was required to maintain the balance of nature in the face of Malthusian overproduction. He even characterized the interrelationships of species with each other and with inanimate nature using words such as Konflikt or Kampf, a wording that foreshadowed Darwinian “struggle,” which Bronn would latertranslate as Kampf. He wrote, for example, that seeds had to struggle (kâmpfen) against dry summers or severe winters.
• n contrast to the Darwinianversion, however, the outcome of Bronnian struggle was not gradual, progressive change, but only the demise of extreme anomalies, maladapted hybrids, and, in geological time, obsolescent species. It was a conservative and eliminative process, not a creative one. Bronn did not apply the idea to the differential survival of all the minor variations within a species. 76-7
• Acreditava em uma força divina para introdução de novas spps. Mas era mais deísta, assim a força poderia ser entendida como lei. Duas leis, a aperfeiçoamejto de cada ser e adaptação.
• Quatro conceitos desenvolvidos depois: plano (corporal), entwickelung (diversidade intragrupal), adaptação e manchfaltigkeit ("striving for diversity"). Isso foi um afastamento da explicação teologica anterior.
• Bronn used two strategies in 1858 to overcomehis lack of a mechanism of species production. One wasto study the effects of the productive process instead of its causes, and to continue, as before in Geschichte der Natur, to seek the patterns and laws of historical change. The other strategy was to divide the problem into two more-manageable parts: elimination of the obsolescent species and creation of the new ones. The eliminative side was governed as before by the law and necessity of adaptation. The creative side was less certain: “But even though the above laws undoubtedly obtain in Creation, we are far from maintaining that they [with the exception of the negative side of the law of adaptation to external conditions], are of such an absolute kind and effect as attraction, elective affinity, and other laws of nature that do not allow any exceptions”sº (emphasis added, but brackets original, indicating an insertion by Bronn that was not in the French manuscript of 1855). Even worse, Bronn's account of the creative side lacked certainty not only about the very occurrence of progress, but its nature and direction: “We also do not in fact yet know which [taxonomic] compendium the Creator Himself consulted when prescribing the systematic sequence of creatures.” 85-6
• The law of progressive development had a lower status, because progress could be delayed by the need to wait for proper geological conditions to appear, or compromised by the need to adapt a progressive design to prevailing conditions. From Bronn's methodological perspective, it was not an ideal solution, because the creative side of the succession problem wasnot brought underthe rule of necessary and naturalistic laws. Consciousof his system's limitations, Bronn was still open to new suggestions. That was why he was prepared to read Darwin's Origin with such great interest and see it not as a surprising and revolutionary new proposal, but as a potential solution to his own remaining difficulties. 86

Darwin's Origin

• Trad e interpretação
• There was only one small difference that Darwin admitted indirectly, perhaps even unintentionally, by means of the words he used to describe the direction of change in nature and under domestication. Varieties or species in nature were said to be “improved” (the word was used 45 times in this sense) or “perfected” (16 times) by natural selection. Domestic varieties were invariably said to be “improved” (19 times) by artificial selection, and never “perfected.”* As discussed further in the next chapter, these appeared to Bronn to be important distinctions. He magnified the difference in the translation, and related it to the differences between scales of morphological progress. 99
•  Here in Darwin's Origin, the frequent usage of “improved” for both artificial and natural outcomessuggested thatselection usually was making the same kinds of modifications in both cases. But why was Darwin not consistent in calling the natural outcome “improvement”? Were the two terms meant to distinguish among improvements in suitability for human purposes, competitive ability or fitness, and advancement up a scale of morphological perfection? I think rather that he was trying to conflate these different directions of change. When Darwin wrote “perfected,” he was addressing the morphologists in their own language but subtly changing the meaning of their term at the same time. By using it interchangeably with “improved” in the context of natural selection, he linked morphological advancement with competitive improvement as well as with artificial improvement. Contrariwise, Darwin might perhaps have been read as implying that the correspondence between artificial and natural selection did not hold in every detail and that there were times when the word “improvement” did not quite capture all that natural selection was capable of accomplishing. There was still something in nature that deserved to be called “perfection” and which artificial selection did not produce. In the German Origin, Bronn opted forthis latter interpretation. 99-100
• With the argument from artificial selection, Darwin not only addressed Herschel's expectations, but also took a page out of Paley's Natural Theology, which likewise began with an analogy to humanartifice. These uses of artificial selection seemed calculated to win over a British audience, especially since Darwin illustrated the chapter with familiar British breeds of plants and animals. To appreciate the chapter fully, one would almost have to have grown up, like Darwin, reading Paley and being “charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation,” followed developments in British philosophy, and been familiar with British sheep, hunting dogs, and fancy pigeons. For a German academic reader like Bronn, the analogy to artificial selection was of much less interest and cogency. 101
• Sobre SN
• This might have been effective rhetoric to use on British audiences, who shared Darwin's admiration of Paley and might have expected any proposed cause of adaptation to play all of the Designer's roles. Unfortunately, the more natural selection sounded like a personal agent, imposing order upon random variation, the less it sounded to Bronn like an appropriate explanatory device in a Wissenschaft of life. Bronn was expecting a system of laws and forces that would reflect the inherent orderliness of nature, maintain the integrity of species and taxonomic categories, and produce the observed sequences of forms. Instead he was getting a chaos of variations and an unpredictable, anthropomorphic meddler sometimes imposing a kind of order. 106
• From Bronn's point of view, however, this tactic was ineffective, or worse. Not having grown up with Paley, Bronn was unimpressed by the form of the argument, and did not feel compelled to equate a good explanation with a true one. He could also see that Darwin was playing the game of competing explanations withouta full deck, for Bronn's own favored explanation was not among the competitors that Darwin weighed against natural selection. Bronn's brand of successionism was not committed to perfect design and perfect geographical placement. Organic forms, for Bronn, were produced by the joint influences of local conditions, the law of adaptation, structural considerations related to type, and various laws of diversification and progress. Adaptation had to be good enough for survival, to be sure, but not necessarily perfect. Bronn's system could accommodate any number of design compromises. And in any case, Bronn posited a dynamic environment, so no matter how perfectly adapted a species might have been when it was created or otherwise generated, progressive changes of the Earth's surface gradually Darwin's Origin reduced its adaptedness and diminished its numbers until it eventually went extinct. 108-9 
• This particular argument of Darwin's about the illogic of island biogeography also left Bronn unscathed.If island faunas consistently resembled those of the nearest mainland, that only went to show the importance of geographic location in influencingthe creative force. So, although Bronn was impressed by Darwin's ability to supply good explanations of many disparate phenomena,he did not see Darwin explicitly challenging his own explanations of those same phenomena. 
• There were also many features of Bronn's work that Darwin did not even attempt to bring under his system of consilient historical explanations. Darwin never validated his theory against detailed tables of fossil occurrences or compilations of morphological descriptions like Bronn's. He avoided committing himself to particular evolutionary histories of particular groups. Darwin never dealt with the origin and the nature of life, its relationship to chemicals and minerals, or the causes and patterns of geological change. Worst of all, Darwin implied that naturalists would have to construct an individualized, hypothetical story of migration, environmental change, variation, struggle, selection, and modification for each and every species or lineage. It was easy to do this, indeed too easy, for Bronn's taste, for there was little danger of having the stories proven wrong. Under Darwin's theory, hypotheses multiplied, and no universal patterns and laws of change were discovered. 
• Also lacking in Darwin's book was any analysis of what was meant morphologically by “perfection” or “improvement,” comparable to Bronn's efforts to define Vervollkommnung. Most of the time, the direction of evolutionary change wasclearly supposed to be toward better competitive ability, but as Bronn complained,there was no way to know exactly what made the superior competitor better, and no way to compare and rank species withoutsetting one loose in the other's territory. Sometimes Darwin indicated that competitive superiority had something to do with increasing efficiency and division of labor.” As we shall see in the next chapter, Bronn did not criticize this ambiguity as a deficiency in Darwin, but rather used it as an opportunity to insert his own analysis. He tried to link competitive ability, by way of division of labor, to his own definitions of Vervollkommnung. Darwin's uneven usage of “improvement” and “perfection” might even have suggested to Bronn that there was meantto be a distinction between practical improvement and morphological perfection. In any case, his German wording made that distinction more clearly than Darwin. 109
• Sobre recapitulação
• In short, Darwin's treatment of recapitulation was more an attempt to explain it, whenever it could be shown to occur, than an endorsement of its use in working out evolutionary history. Other Darwinians, particularly Haeckel, made recapitulationism into an investigative tool and a research program.
• Ver 113-4 para várias críticas feitas a Darwin por alemães diferentes. Quanto a Bronn:
• onn stood out among German-language commentators for welcoming Darwin's emphases on historical contingency, adaptation, and the complex interactions among organisms and changing environments. His ambitions for an independent discipline of paleontology made him resist direct applications of embryological analogies to the history of life and left him open to alternatives such as Darwin's. Still, he did not accept Darwin's arguments without reservation, or interpret them exactly as would a British gentleman naturalist. He was at one and the same time Darwin's interpreter and critic, his ally in promoting a historical approachtolife and his rival for priority and leadership in the dawning era of historical biology. 
• As an ally, he strove to make Darwinism palatable to himself and his fellow morphologists by treating natural selection, where possible, as a law of nature that acted with the same necessity and predictability as any law of physics. He also translated the Origin not simply into German,but into familiar morphologists” terms such as Entwicklung and Vervollkommnung (perfection). Avoiding neologisms, he used the older language in new and subversive ways to describe patterns of random variation, selection, and competitive improvement. The linguistic continuity by itself does not demonstrate either Bronn's confusionor the persistence in his writings of transcendentalist or developmental notions of type, progress, and purpose. 
• As a rival, Bronn took several opportunities to refer Darwin's readers to his own works as the more authoritative sources on the fossil record and the patterns or laws of progress that Darwin should have been using and explaining. He also tended to depict natural selection either as an extension of his own system, in which organic change was driven by the continual need for adaptation to changing environments, or as a flawed alternative to it. And whenever Darwin used his tactic of contrasting natural selection and common descent with “the accepted view” or issuing challenges to unnamed creationists to explain a puzzling phenomenon, Bronn construed it as a reference to his own successional theory and rejected the comparison. 
•  Darwin continually underestimated Bronn as a rival and never thought of his work as the accepted view that needed to be challenged. He did not read Bronn's prizewinning essay until after writing the Origin of Species, and seems only to have mined theearlier Geschichte der Naturfor factual information, mainly on variation and domestication, while ignoring the laws and explanations. Probably, he did what historians have continued to do to Bronn and took him for an old-fashioned German transcendentalist or developmentalist. That is why he did not think it “worth the labour,” at first, to try to decipher Bronn's book review in early 1860. 114-5
• Em sau resenha do Orign Bronn neha opriginlaidade a Darwin e o coloca como um derivativo de Lyell e dele mesmo. Ele fica bravo de não ter sido mais citado do que foi.
• What Bronn was looking for in Darwin, wasthe creative process that his own theory had left unspecified, and he wanted it described in terms of necessary laws and the forces that they governed. He did notfind precisely that, but something close enough to be intriguing and to entice him into the translation project. 116
•  Bronn acreditava que a seleção era menos importante que a variação. Acreditava que não havia evidencia para que o acumulo de variação por seleção suyperasse a tendencia da spp de voltar ao normal. Também acreditava que a origem deveria explicar a primeria espécie de todas. Em suma, considerava a teoria improvavel e especulativa.
• Bronn was prepared to go a long way with Darwin. He agreed that environmental change and adaptation were the underlying causes of species turnover. He already defined species by community of descent from a number of founding individuals who might well have varied originally among themselves. The big change, from Bronn's point of view was that Darwin made those founding individuals the offspring of preexisting species, rather than separate creations or productions:
• Bronn não entendeu SN
• If anything in the review gave Darwin the impression that Bronn was not understanding him properly, it was Bronn's treatment of natural selection. Bronn translated the term as “Wahl der Lebensweise,” which translates back literally as “choice of the way of life” or, more liberally, “lifestyle selection.” According to Bronn, it was Darwin's main cause of variety production, and it worked as follows: Malthusian population growth led to competition and struggle for existence. Struggle forced many individuals to move to new places, try out new food sources, or somehow select a new means of making living or a new environmentin which to live. The individuals who selected a new lifestyle then become modified in consequence of their choices 118-9
• ver 119 para a interpretação lamarckiana não totalmente sem razão de Bronn.
• Darwin corrige Bronn e manda o sketch que não mencionava ccs alemães. Ver 120-2 para cartas sobre isso.

Bronn's origin

• On the whole, the Bronn translation never deserved its reputation for inaccuracy and distortion. There were some interpretive and linguistic problems, to be sure, but hardly more than is usual in any translation, and many of them have arisen only in the minds of modern readers who have ascribed anachronistic meanings to Bronn's words, and perhaps to Darwin's as well. Bronn's prose might have been somewhat disappointing to anyone who wanted him to wax as poetic as Darwin sometimes could, but it was certainly up to any reasonable standard of nineteenth-century scientific writing. Bronn tried faithfully to follow the original closely and to refrain from interjecting his own opinions overtly into the main text. He saved most of his objections for the end. The translator's footnotes were not very long or frequent, and they usually provided zoological or paleontological points of information or discussion of word choices. Bronn's voice intruded only in a few notes that referred the reader to his own work, suggesting a certain continuing irritation at not being cited, especially where Darwin was generous with credit to Owen or others. For example, in connection with the increasing prevalence of serially repeated organs or segments as one goes down the morphological scale, Bronnnoted that “these and related questions were developed much more exhaustively” in his own Gestaltungs-Gesetze than they were by Owen.
• Duas Origins de Bronn, uma da segunda e outra da terceira. Algumas coisas da segunda alemã são corrigidas na terceira, mas outros problemas também aparecem.
• Psycology virou physiology e uma linha sobre as conseguencias humanas foi omitida 124. Ainda o Freudian slip do capítulo de Bronn, excluido quado Carus tomou as rédeas da coisa 125
• Bronn se via como um cc mais bem estabelecido que Darwin e portanto apto a apresentar as ideias de Darwin ao publico alemão de seu modo.
• Prós que Bronn via em Darwin
• Bronnnoted approvingly that Darwin always related the utility of a variation to the environment in which it occurred. Different environments necessitated different adaptations, and one would therefore have expected the process of adaptation to require continual adjustment and readjustment to environmental change. Here he could see that Darwin 128 Chapter 4 agreed with him on the principle of adaptation, even if they differed on evolutionary continuity. He also noted with approval that Darwin's conception of the environment included not only its physical features but also the complex interactions among organisms, again a fundamental claim of Bronn's. [...] Bronn even saw the way to explain and unify his many laws of progress and reduce them to effects of naturalselection. He only had to assumethat progress, in the various ways he had defined it, tended to be adaptive. Here he specifically mentioned the development and “perfection” of individual organs by use-inheritance, the differentiation of serially repeated organs, the diversification of forms, and the conservation of early stages of embryonic development. These were all measures of progress that Bronn had identified in previous works and that Darwin could now explain as effects of naturalselection.
• Contras
• Falta de provas indutivas para algumas afirmações (contudo, admitia que elas poderiam ser obtidas futuramente)
• Tinha problemas com sps que não apresentam variações e com os termos (ou o uso deles) de Darwin, como superior/inferior e fitness, melhoramento, favorecido.
• More seriously, Bronn rejected Darwin's characteristic method of providing many separate, hypothetical historical narratives to explain evolutionary outcomes and letting “improved” or “favoured”refer to different kinds of qualities in different situations. Accepting such a strategy would have defeated Bronn's efforts to place paleontology on a wissenschaftlich footing by deriving and quantifying its general laws of change and progress. Darwin's approach almost evoked the image of the prescientific natural historian, who only collected and described individual cases, without systematizing and illuminating them properly. Still, Bronn had no definite grounds for rejecting all those historical hypotheses. 129
• Dois problemas principais: grau e direcionalidade infitina para a variação (faltava uma lei que explicasse a organização taxonomia dos seres vivos); falta de explicação para a primeira sp.
• Darwin não pareceu se incomodar a principio
• SA para Bronn
• ut Darwin's analogy to artificial selection was designed to play most effectively to British audiences. Its methodological and rhetorical roles in the overall argument did not translate well into German. Methodologically, it was supposed to establish natural selection as a vera causa in the sense of Herschel, but that was not an issue for Bronn. For Bronnthelegitimacy of natural selection as a causal agent was founded upon the logical and natural necessity that the maladapted not survive. Empirical support for its existence and efficacy could have been sought directly in nature, in organism-environmentrelationships, the way that Bronn had supported his own principle of adaptation. No analogy to humanartifice seemed called for. If anything, the analogy undermined the idea that a necessary, deterministic law was involved, since a breeder could just as easily select capriciously or by unpredictable criteria. As a uniformitarian, Bronn might have been interested in artificial selection as a present-day process to be invoked in explanations of the past, but, again, Bronn would not have seen the need to use breeding practices for this purpose. Therelevant present-day processes, for him, would not be human activities at all. 
• Rhetorically, Darwin's use of artificial selection echoed Paley's muchadmired Natural Theology, which likewise began with a compelling appeal to humanartifice as an analogy to what a greater power could accomplish. But any appeal to Paleyan logic was lost on the German professor, who was trained in a tradition of biological research that had made its break from theology long before Cambridge. He learned his natural history in a philosophical faculty, quite separate from the theological. Although Bronn made use of natural theology in Geschichte der Natur in the 1840s, where he inferred the existence of a plan of nature and ascribed species production to divine intervention, he had been distancing himself from it ever since. And even there, he had not made the Creator into an anthropomorphic Technician, but made Him behave much morelike a predictable force of nature. 132-3
• Sobre os organismos citados por Darwin
• Bronn's knowledge of zoology was encyclopedic, and no one was better qualified than he to translate all the zoological terminology in the later chapters of the Origin, but the opening chapter on domesticated plants and animals gave him unexpected trouble. Even though he had made a detailed study of plant and animal breeding, with particular attention to British achievements, Bronn was not completely familiar with all of Darwin's examples—orat least not familiar with them in the same way as Darwin. In his Geschichte der Natur he had counted varieties and discussed rates of production and what conditions best facilitated the breeder's work. He was not much concerned with documenting the precise morphological or behavioral changes that the breeders had achieved. Herelied on published sources and mostlikely had not actually seen specimens of many of the breeds he discussed. Most of his readers, both inside and outside the academic community, probably knew even less about them. Bronn had to seek expert help to find German names for Darwin's examples, and still he was left with uncertainties and ambiguities. Darwin's references to “laughers” and “pouters” and “tumblers” and “runts”—all breeds of fancy pigeon—gave him almost as many headaches as the British hunting dogs. These examples were notincidental, but central to Darwin's argument, and Darwin wrote as if they wereall commonly known, as indeed they would have been to British gentlemen. 133
• What other German breed could havefit here? It would have had to be namedfor the funny soundof its coo. Bronn settled on die Trommeltaube, literally the drum pigeon, with a coo that was likened to a drumbeat. However, that probably was still not what Darwin meant, because in a later discussion of pigeon breeding (in Variation under Domestication), Darwin gave Trommeltaube as the Germanfor the trumpeter rather than the laugher. (Darwin provided no German equivalentfor the laugher.”? In other cases, Bronn gave up and left variety names untranslated, for example the runt, but that canalso be confusing,especially if the reader knows a little English, because the runt wasthelargest of the fancy breeds. Bronn wrote to Darwin for help with the British hunting dogs, and he repeated Darwin's answer in a footnote, which I think confused matters further. [...] 134  
• Thus, there was uncertainty not only about the names of the breeds, but about precisely how they look. The German words, even when they were technically correct, did not always convey the intended picture, especially in the case of the pointer, which got two German names plus a verbal description, before the reader was asked to acceptit as an illustration of Darwin's claim: 135
• n the case of the pigeons, too, the unfamiliarity and inaccessibility of Darwin's examples obscured the subtle argument that Darwin was making. He was trying to strike a delicate balance in the readers” minds, convincing them that the domestic varieties were so radically different from one another as to suggest divergenceinto distinct species or even genera, yet so similar as to be recognizable as descendants of a common wild ancestor. “Compare the English carrier and the short-faced tumbler,” Darwin wrote, assuming that readers could picture these pigeons, “and see the wonderful difference in their beaks, entailing corresponding differencesin their skulls”*º (emphasis added). But the world of the pigeon fanciers was foreign to Bronn and probably to mostof his academic readers, and they could not see or bring to mind the comparisonsthat Darwin wanted them to make. And even if they had access to pigeon fanciers and their stocks, it was not always clear which breeds Darwin wanted them to look at or whether they looked the same in Germany as in England. It is not that Bronn and German academics would have been unable to follow the logic of this argument—quite the contrary. But the examples did not have the intended effect. They had to be explained and footnoted and qualified so much that Darwin's evidencelost the vividness it would have had for British readers. 135-6
•  Não há tradução para seleção que mantenha todos os sentidos utilizados por Darwin. Bronn não estava interessado no aspecto comparativo com SA ou com a teologia natural, queria uma lei natural necessária.
• Bronn chose the terms Ziichtung for the human art of breeding or cultivation and natiirliche Zúchtung for natural selection. This choice had the advantage of alluding to agricultural practice, but it still did not directly indicate that selection was the relevant one of the breeder's methods. Bronn compensated somewhat for this shortcoming by introducing the term in connection with Darwin's first mention of artificial selection, along with the further specification that it meant “Auswahl zur Nachzucht” (choice [of individuals] for subsequent breeding). Bronn acknowledged in a footnote that Ziichtung by itself could be interpreted to include breeders” techniques other thanselection, and that Auswahl zur Ziichtung (choice for breeding) would therefore have been more precise. He also said that he had considered the neologism Zuchtwahl,literally “breeding-choice,” but decided for unstated reasonsthat it would best be used for sexual, not natural selection. Hence,he arrived at the poorly matched coinages, sexuelle Zuchtwahl (but sometimes also geschlechtliche Auswahl or even sexuelle Ziichtung) for sexual selection, but natiirliche Ziichtung for natural selection. As a result, when Darwin wrote about “artificial,” “natural,” and “sexual selection,” it sounded consistently like three versions of the same process, but it was not so in Bronn's German.In later German editions, Carus switched to Zuchtwahl for selection of all kinds, and the word is still commonly used. Another possibility would have been natiirliche Auslese (natural harvesting or picking), which is also in use today, as is the borrowed word Selektion.
• Talvez tenha rejeitado Zutchwahl para não dar a impressão teleológica/antropomórfica de um Wahler (escolhedor). Contudo isso valia para a SS, que tinha agentes bem claros enquanto a SN era entendida por ele como uma lei.
• Em seu capítulo critico reclamou da falta de definição de superior e inferior e melhoramento. Afinal, o que era selecionado, favorecido ou melhorado?
• Título
• Bronn's usage of Vervollkommnung appeared most prominently in the subtitle of the book. There, Bronn rendered Darwin's “preservation of favoured races in the struggle forlife” as “Erhaltung der vervollkommneten Rassen,”thatis, preservationofthe perfected races. Thatcertainly raises red flags for modern readers, who associate “perfection” with preDarwinian concepts of progress on linear scales of nature. In later editions, Carus changed vervollkommneten to begiinstigten, which was a moreliteral rendering, but which still had disadvantages, at least from Bronn's point of view. Like Darwin's original “favoured,” the word might have seemed to imply the existence of an external agent to display the favoritism, something that Bronn would not want to accept. It also implied a value judgment and perhaps a scale of favorability, but failed (as did the original English) to convey what sorts of things naturalselection was supposed to favor. Bronn probably thought he was improvingthe subtitle by specifying that the (not only morphologically, but by his reasoning, also competitively) more perfected races were the ones thatsurvive. 
• Bronn did not use Vervollkommnung strictly for morphological perfection. He also used it often where Darwin wrote “improvement,” even in contexts where it was clear that competitive improvement was meant. For example, in Darwin's “Recapitulation and Conclusion,” Darwin listed among his “laws” of evolution: “A Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection,entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms.”In translation, “less-improved” became “minder vervollkommnet.” 
• Curiously, Bronn also did not always use Vervollkommnung for “improvement.” He consistently avoided suggesting such an equivalence in the context of artificial selection, where he substituted the agricultural term Veredelung. Through this verbal differentiation, Bronn expressed his low opinion of Darwin's analogy betweenthe natural and theartificial process, and implied that the selector's actions did not necessarily lead to the same kind of perfection to which nature tends. As discussed in the previous chapter, Darwin had left himself open to this sort of interpretation, because he himself did not always use the same words for artificial and natural improvements. Bronn took the opportunity to strengthen the contrast. 139
• Onearea where Bronn could not find common ground with Darwin was in connection with the mystery of mysteries: where new species came from. Bronn could not even begin to translate the title without choosBronn's Origin 143 ing between two alternatives for “origin” that corresponded to their two contrasting conceptions. As Junker has also discussed, Caruslater made an issue of Bronn's choice of Entstehung instead of Ursprung.* Both words could have beentranslated as “beginning” or “origin,” and dictionaries often included the one in the definition of the other, but there was a difference in nuance that might have reflected one of Bronn's central reservations about Darwin's theory. Ursprung, related etymologically to the English “spring” or “wellspring,” had connotations of something bursting forth, like water from a source,and would have suggested an origin de novo morestrongly. Entstehung, on the other hand, would have evoked a process of differentiating, developing, or arising out of preexisting components. 
• Why Carus disapproved of Bronn's choiceis notat all clear, because one could arguejust as easily that Entstehung better suited Darwin's purposes. Under Darwin's theory, species do indeed originate by gradual transformation of preexisting organisms, in contrast to successional theorieslike Bronn's that have species spring into existence. Perhaps Carusdetected an implicit criticism in Bronn's title, for Bronn's wording, as Junker has suggested, called attention to Darwin's failure to deal with ultimate origins— the Ursprung of the very first species—to Bronn'ssatisfaction.** Butthen, again, since Darwin really did not try to explain ultimate origins, why should he have wanted Ursprung in thetitle? Carus was off the mark with some of his other criticisms of Bronn's German word choices as well,” so Isuspect that he was just being overzealousin finding fault with his predecessor and currying favor with Darwin. In any case, Darwin expressed no opinion on the matter, other than to instruct Carus to retain Bronn's title for the sake of continuity with the earlier editions. 142-3
• O uso de Vervollkommnung fez com que Bronn fosse associado mais fortemente do que realmente era ao lamarckismo e transcendalismo por historiadores. A palavra era um elo entre Bronn e Darwin:
• Bronn's usage of Vervollkommnung washis meansoflinking Darwinian fitness to his own conception of progress. The word represented a tentative move by Bronn toward a synthesis of perfection with selection, under the assumption that morphological progress came about because the “favoured races” were simultaneously the higher on Bronn's morphological scales. This synthesis, if successful, would have fulfilled Bronn's longstanding goal, expressed in his Geschichte der Natur, of eventually reducing all of his other laws to side effects of the Fundamental Law of Adaptation. The subtitle of the German Origin was perfect for announcing this as Darwin's potential contribution to Bronn's theory. It also provided a form of insuranceagainst the possible success of Darwin's theory. Under Darwinism, Bronn could still save the phenomena of progress that he spent so many years documenting and analyzing, by correlating morphological perfection with survival value.
• Aperfeiçoamento, melhoramento e favorecido era usados meio que intercambiavelmente no Origin, de modo que traduzi-los uniformemente não era absurdo (contudo, outras palavras também era usadas). 
• Division of labor was by no means the only way to gain competitive advantage, but it did provide the area of overlap between the Bronnian conception of progress and Darwinian fitness. Darwin made this very connection, and he strengthened it in successive editions of the Origin, perhaps for the purpose of drawing an older generation of morphologists into the Darwinian fold.Even though the word has cometo have some very un-Darwinian connotations, Bronn's usage of Vervollkommnung was not very different from Darwin's own usages of “perfection” and “progress,” and was probably not unwelcome to Darwin. Bronn made Darwin speak the morphologists' language more consistently and say to them that scales of progress were to be defined and explained in new ways, but notrejected. 142
• Problemas com a adição do Criador (144-6)
• Correspondencia entre Darwin e Bronn com Darwin se defendendo com historia da cc 146-7
• Bronn não gostou da falibilidade do registro fóssil, na verdade da vagueza contingencial da ideias de darwin.
• Conclusão excelente, cobre todos os pontos. 152-4

Ernst Haeckel as a Darwinian reformer

• Haeckel ajudou na difusão e elaboração do Darwinismo. Utilizou os termos de Bronn, mas não era transcendentalista. Era nomotético, mas suas leis tinham muitas exceções.. Também não era lamarckista, embora fizesse uso da herança de caracteres adquiridos.  155-6
• Concerning Haeckel's “Lamarckism,” I argue that it, too, was more rhetoric than substance,for he declared that most ofit had been superseded by Darwin, and he rejected basic features of contemporary Lamarckism, such as the linear animal scale and animals” inner drive to ascendit, or the active role of the animal psyche in responding to perceived needs and thereby shaping the body. The Lamarckian drive to perfection wasfar too similar to German transcendentalist assumptions to be acceptable to him, and the psychological factors, by at least some interpretations, were too “dualistic,” in the sense of allowing for a mental realm that was independent of the physical body and brain. Haeckel's was a Lamarckism stripped of the abovefeatures, but retaining inheritance of acquired characteristics and adding universal common descent. Even the inheritance of acquired characteristics was decidedly un-Lamarckian in Haeckel's hands, becauseit did not producefully formed adaptations all by itself. The Lamarckian mechanism produced heritable, mostly favorable variation, upon which Darwinian natural selection still had to act. Darwin had used what we now think of as “Lamarckian heredity” (use-inheritance and environmental effects) in the same manner, even though he might have put greater emphasis than Haeckel on “individual differences.” 156
• by stripping Lamarck, the one bona fide evolutionist of the lot, of his most objectionable features, Haeckel subsumed a potential competitor into his system. Haeckel's Lamarck never invoked subtle fluids, an inherent drive to perfection, or any role for the animal psyche, but only the purely mechanistic effects of use and disuse and of external, environmental forces. 168
• Via Darwin como um meio de unificar a biologia e livra la da teleologia e reliigão. Concordou com os pros de Bronn, mas não seguiu todos os seus contras.
• Haeckel also echoed some of Bronn's ambivalence about Darwin's theory, but not on the questionsof species transformation and common descent per se, which he clearly accepted right away. He only hinted at some problems of evidence and at the possibility that struggle, selection, and all the rest of Darwin's principles might not exhaust the causes of organic change. Onthe positive side, Haeckel ventured to answer some of Bronn's objections, particularly the claim that Darwin had failed to eliminate the need for a special Creation or formative force. Evenif Darwin did leave open the possibility that the very first species was created, Haeckel said that such an inconsistency in the otherwise perfectly naturalistic account should probably notbe takenliterally. Indeed, even at this early stage, Haeckel madeit clear that the greatest attractions of Darwin's theory for him were its freedom from teleology and divine intervention,and its promise of substituting scientific understanding for superstitious wonderment. Despite all the difficulties that remained to be overcome, Haeckel endorsed the positive half of Bronn's two-minded conclusion. He quotedit at length, to the effect that Darwin was at the very least on the right track toward a naturalistic understanding of morphology, development, and evolution: “With the translator Bronn I see in Darwin's direction the only possible way to come close to understanding the great law of development that controls the whole organic world”? (emphasis in original).  159
• Haeckel aplicou as ideias de darwin em seu estudo sistemático das radiolaria. 158-61 Também deu palestras sobre evo humana já em 1862. 161
• Gliboff critica a interpretação de Di Gregorio que, segundo ele, força Haeckel a ser um tipologista. 163-4 O entendimento de Darwin foi influenciado pela leitura de Bronn (164-5)
• Haeckel's manner of expressing Darwin's ideas in his notebook in terms of paired, interacting laws was certainly reminiscent of Bronn.So is the fact that he made adaptation the higher law, which somehow entailed or embraced unity of type. In fact, the quote was a close paraphrase of a passage of Bronn's, but not from his early theoretical works. It was from his Darwin translation, near the end of chapter 6 of the Origin, entitled “Difficulties on Theory.” But the talk of law was not entirely Bronn's invention.In the original, Darwin himself wrote that “all organic beings have been formed on two great laws—Unity of Type, and the Conditions of Existence.”1” Bronn took the small liberty of promoting Darwin's laws into Bronnian Grundgesetze, and making the second one into “Adaptation to Conditions of Existence,” which corresponded better to his own Grundgesetz of adaptation. Darwin's claim that “unity of type is explained by unity of descent” came through pretty much intact in Haeckel's note, as did Darwin's claim that “the law of Conditions of Existence is the higher law; as it includes, through the inheritance of former adaptations, that of Unity of Type.”!* Tothis point, Haeckel's passage was a reasonable rendition, albeit in Bronnºs terminology, of what Darwin actually wrote, and there is no reason to conclude from it that Haeckel misunderstoodit or failed to free himself ftom Gegenbaur's, or even older, ideas about types.
• Still, Darwin did not express himself in quite the same way as Haeckel, and the words did make a difference. The language of Mannichfaltigkeit and of interacting laws brings to mind an old problem of German morphology, one that was once addressed by Meckel and later by Bronn. The note suggests that Haeckel wasinterpreting Darwin with an eye toward addressing German morphologists in their own language and solving problems of theirs that Darwin had not addressed explicitly. Haeckel wasfinding opportunities for himself to break new ground in Darwinian morphology, and he began to capitalize on them in 1863, when he addressed the GDNÁ meeting. 164-6
• Haeckel referred to the process as natiirliche Auslese or natiirliche Zuchtwahl (sometimes also Ziichtung, 169
•  Echoing Bronn, Haeckel found that struggle and selection were what made evolution necessary. 173
• In his approach to biological law, Haeckel had taken a page from Bronn's book in order to generate unpredictable and diverse results from a system of ostensibly deterministic laws. 176
• Título da conferência usa terminologia morfologista adereçando os naturalistas mais antigos. 166 Já trazendo as implicações de ruptura da descendência comum incluindo o homem 167
• Retórica: Goethe, Oken, Lamarck (omitido), Cuvier (twisted). 167-8 Oposição religião-cc, mas ainda permitia a possibilidade de criação da primeira sp em 1863, excluída a partir de 66 168 progresso com consequencia, não como objetivo já aplicada ao homem e a sociedade 170, ver 173 também
• The law of progress almost sounded like a cause of historical change, as it had been to Bronn. At the end of his talk, Haeckel quoted Bronnat length on Darwin's potential to unify all the phenomena of natural history and eventually overcomeall the remaining objections. Herelied upon Bronn's authority again during a discussion period, following the talk, when he was challenged by a geologist on the paleontological evidence for steady progress.
• Over the next three years, however, Haeckel went on to build his own complete, unified system of the organic world, based on a narrower interpretation of Darwin than he had offered at Stettin. He toned downthe deference to Bronn and the overtures to developmental interpretations of evolution, and he set forth his own distinct version of Darwinism. 170

 

• Houve uma enfatização de Darwinismo de haeckel (haecklismo) após a morte de sua esposa em 1864.
• This hardening of Haeckelism is evident in the contrast between Haeckel's 1863 lecture and his 1866 book. From 1866 on, Haeckel defined his Darwinism more strictly, made his break with developmentalism and teleology more explicit and thorough, focused on countering Bronn's objections to Darwin's theory, and developed a thoroughgoing evolutionary system of morphology. Whereas his 1863 lecture had reached out to all morphologists and been agnostic about the origin of the first species, the later Haeckel tolerated not a hint of any predetermined, providential, or self-directed life-processes. The biological world had to be an extension of the physical, devoid of any independent purpose or agency. Darwinian evolution proceeded according to discoverable laws, perhaps, but those laws were blind and purposeless,like the laws of physics. And there was no part of biology—not even human biology, anthropology, psychology, or the humanities—that escaped Haeckel's reduction to mechanistic, monistic principles. 173
• Adereçou a questão da origem primeira 173-4 e da direcionalidade 175 de Bronn
• Componente criativo de Haeckel
• The creative part of Haeckel's mechanism of evolution,therefore, was outside the organism. The physical environment was continually modifying organisms, generally—but not always—in an “adaptive” or “progressive” direction. 174
• Usou as mesmas palavras de Bronn, mas com significados distintos.
• poses. Adaptation was still a Grundgesetz, as Bronn had it, but now it governed the production of new and generally beneficial variations, rather than the elimination of maladapted species. It did not appear to have the same epistemological status as Bronn's version, however. There was no claim that it held necessarily, as a matter of logic as well as empirical observation. 176
• Mais influencia de Bronn em Haeckel
• Haeckel also took over the traditional embryological metaphors for evolution, while eliminating their teleology and determinism. He did not deny the apparent parallelism between the development ofthe individual embryo and the forms of lower animals, either in the fossil record or the idealized scale of nature, but he gaveit a strictly evolutionary interpretation and revised the standard terminology. The term Entwicklung had been used before for any progressive morphological sequence, whetherin the embryoitself or in the fossil record, and in the fossil record it might have applied to a process of linear transformation, or to a branching tree of commondescent, or even to a schemeof successive spontaneous generations like Bronn's. Haeckel now distinguished among these meanings of Entwicklung. He called individual embryonic development “ontogeny” (Ontogenie), and the historical developmentof the species, “phylogeny” (Phylogenie). He also specified that any parallelism was only between those two sequences, not with a Bronnian succession of species, andcertainly not with an idealized scale of forms. Parallels were not due to any transcendental plan or developmental law that determined both sequences. And, most important, internally generated changesor trends in ontogeny did not cause evolutionary change or determineits direction. On the contrary, changes in ontogeny were caused by historical events— interactions between organism and environment—that produced and preserved successful variations. The twists and turns of ontogeny were caused by the history of the species, and, properly interpreted, they could, in principle, yield an actual record, or recapitulation, of phylogeny.
• ....
• Twopoints are importantto note aboutthis law of homochronic heredity. The first is that it was entirely unoriginal, but came from Darwin, by way of Bronn. Darwin had made the same generalization and even suggested its applicability to embryology. Darwin wrote, in the chapter on variation under domestication, that, “at whatever period of life a peculiarity first appears, it tends to appear in the offspring at a corresponding age, though sometimesearlier... . 1 believe this rule to be of the highest importance in explaining the laws of embryology.” In translation, Bronngave the passage a slightly stronger wording, making the peculiarity always appear at the corresponding age, though sometimesearlier. And although Haeckel followed Bronn and keptthe timing exact in his formulation of the law, he introduced other laws that allowed variations to be moved up to earlier developmental stages, or sometimes even to be delayed to later stages. ... The second important point about Haeckel's law of homochronic heredity is that it did not commit Haeckel to the unrealistic claims about “terminal addition” and preservation of ancestral adult forms that Gould attributes to him.177-8
• Recapitulacionismo como resposta a Bronn
• The phenomenon of recapitulation had tremendous practical significance for Haeckel, because it could be used in reconstructing the history of the lineage and its taxonomic relationships. It provided an answer to Bronn's complaints about Darwin's many hypothetical historical narratives that could not be supported by the fossil record. The availability of phylogenetic information in every embryo gave the evolutionary morphologist new authority to describe the history of life, which had been the province of the paleontologist. 180
• Recapitulation also worked for Haeckel in the sense that no matter how much the record of any one lineage was falsified by adaptive changes, ontogeny always provided support for the general principles of Darwinian evolution.
• Haeckel era contra o transcendalismo, metafisica e teleologia. 181
• Flexibilidade da teoria 182
• Critica a darwinização de Baer por historiadores da cc 183
• Bronn
• Haeckel had to reconcile the two accounts of the direction of development, Baerian differentiation from general to specific, and progress from lower to higher or ancient to modern on an evolutionary lineage. Bronn had shown the way to make them commensurable 184 e 185
• Haeckel's faith in progress predated his Darwinism and did not derive from it. ... He stopped short of making progress a necessity or a necessary consequence of Darwinism, however. It was "merely and empirical law" ... in both organic evolution and human culture 185-6
• The Gastreae theory 186-8

Conclusions

• Reitera a historia enviesada de Baer sobre o recapitulacionismo e o afastamento de Bronn e Haeckel do transcendalismo e sua aproximação com a rigidez da wissenschaft. Critica a historia disciplinar de Baer. Reitera o uso da linguagem 190-2. 
• Bronn
• By the time Bronn began developing his own approach to making Wissenschaften of zoology and paleontology in the 1840s and 1850s, Germanbiology had a broad palette of methods and concepts to offer him. Like Darwin, he aimed forahistorical conception of life, with a focus on adaptation and environment as determinants of form. Unlike Darwin, he embraced the need to uphold traditional ideals of Wissenschaft and accordingly to preserve the orderliness of the taxonomic system and to derive the interacting laws of form and change. 
• Bronn's starting point was already far removed from the idealism caricatured by Baer and Russell. In his principal pre-Darwinian works, he revived the problem of Mannigfaltigkeit, raised new concerns about variation, adaptation, the dynamics of interorganismal and organismenvironmentinteractions, and offered concrete criteria by which to judge progress and perfection. He also used terms like “type,” “developmental law,” and “perfection” in new ways. Eschewing transcendentalism, Bronn used Cuvierian functional types for the larger classes. Species, in contrast, were defined by descent from or resemblance to “prototypes,” which were actual individuals, the founding members of the species. Various lawlike mechanisms saw to it that species would not vary too far, for too long, from their prototypes. When new species appeared in the fossil record, Bronn's law of unity of type made them resemble old ones, buthigher laws of progress, diversification, and highest of all, adaptation, worked against type. The Earth's physical evolution necessitated continual adaptive improvement and progress of species, demanding diversity and change evenasthe law of type demanded continuity.
•  Because historical change was driven by external causes and the need to adapt to them, its course could not run parallel to that of embryonic development, according to Bronn. This was chiefly because the embryo had to become adapted, by stages, only to the present-day environment, notto a series of past ones. Embryonic stages might often look like lower or more ancient forms, but that was only because both the embryo and the fauna had to increase in complexity, division of labor, and so on, as they went from comparably simple origins to comparable present-day endpoints. But the specific changes observed in the embryo did not recapitulate any actual history. The past had to be understood through the study of fossils and geology, not through comparative embryology. 
• When Bronn wrote of law, perfection, and type, he clearly did not mean the same things as transcendental morphologists two or three decades earlier. The words should not be taken to mark him as hopelessly behind the times in the dawning Darwinian age, any more than Darwin's own discussions of the “law of Unity of Type,” “progress,” or “perfection” should similarly mark him. The corresponding words in the translation of the Origin cannot plausibly be read as twisting Darwin into conformity with outmoded views that Bronn himself had never even espoused. Rather, we should recognize that Bronn engaged with Darwin and explained him to German morphologists in their own language. 191-2
• Criticas de Bronn
• Theresult was much closer to Darwin? intentions thanis ever admitted, but at the same timeit changed Darwin's drift in subtle ways. Bronn accepted the concepts of struggle and selection, and he approved of Darwin's emphasis on the natural necessity for individuals and species to adapt continually to a changing environment. But he also toned down the imagery and metaphor that seemed to personify natural selection as an ersatz Designer, and he tried to accentuate the rule of law, but also the unpredictably complex interplay of laws in Darwin's system. Far from distorting Darwin beyond recognition, this did him a service by adapting his argument to Germanscholars” expectationsfor a wissenschafilich presentation.
• Still, Bronn was not just any Germanprofessor. He was a leading paleontologist with his own prizewinning theory of organic history to defend. Inexplicably, Darwin had failed to apply his vaunted networking skills in his dealings with Bronn. He displayed a surprising ignorance of Bronn's work and slighted Bronnºs contributions to morphology and paleontology repeatedly, without even seeming to realize what he was saying. This elicited a few bilious responses from Bronn, and might have prompted Bronn to be more assertive of his own views in his commentary on the translation. He treated Darwin's ideas, where possible, as extensions of his own, particularly in connection with the primacy of environmental change and adaptation as causes of form. Bronn also sought common ground with Darwin in the analysis of progress and perfection, to which Bronn had devoted a great deal of effort. Darwin seemedto suggest himself that division of labor and specialization brought competitive advantages with them, and this gave Bronn the key to reconcile the two definitions of progress.
• Bronnalso questioned some of Darwin's particular arguments. Darwin's argument by analogy to artificial selection fell flat with Bronn, for someof the very reasonsthat had madeit work with his British audience. These included the appeal to British authorities like John Herschel, who had called for any proposed new causes to be justified by analogy with known ones; Bronn cared not a whit for Herschel's methodological prescriptions. Darwin's analogy also banked on the familiarity with hunting dogs, fancy pigeons, and other examples on the part of his readers, and perhaps also on the parallel structure of William Paley's analogical argument about watches and organisms, which had been very successful. Buthere, again, the allusions were too Anglocentric to make much of an impression on the German professor.
• Darwin's inferences about past events did not convince Bronn, either. They seemed to him to amountto special pleading, when laws of nature should have been invoked. Darwin had no trouble accounting for diversity of forms and infinite intergradations between them, but by the same token, he offered too little to preserve the integrity of species and higher taxonomic groups. Species stayed well-defined because naturalselection kept eliminating hybrids and intermediates, but there was no guarantee, no law, that natural selection always had do so. Darwin could alwaystell some hypothetical evolutionary story about how the intermediates were eliminated, or else not, as the situation required; and this sort of tactic was not scientific enough for Bronn.
• Finally, Bronn rejected Darwin's conclusion that successional theories like his own were obsolete. Admittedly, Bronnstill had a mysterious creative force bringing new species into existence, and he was sometimes apologetic aboutthis. But, as Bronn pointed out, Darwin needed such a force, too, at least for the very first species. Strictly speaking,natural selection had not fully supplanted it, and Bronn saw no reason why he Hi | | | j 194 Conclusion could not continue to invokeit in his own theory. What difference did it makethat he let it create more species, more often, than Darwin? 193-4
• Haeckel tirou algumas coisas de Bronn, mas buscou responder suas criticas desenvolvendo sua marca de Darwinismo. 194-6
• At the very least, an improved understanding of Bronn's translation helps explain some of Ernst Haeckel's interpretations and turns of phrase in his further development of Darwinism in the 1860s and 1870s, for Haeckel initially studied Bronn's Origin, not Darwin's. As he made his career as a promoter and popularizer of Darwinism, he was selling a product on which Bronn had left a distinct mark. He took over Bronn's language, and definitions, of progress, perfection, and law. He continued to connect division of labor to Darwinian competitive improvement. He also continued Bronn's work toward loosening the constraints of transcendental and other sorts of types on historical and geographic variation and change. He argued that the explanatory roles previously played by types could now be taken over by evolutionary common ancestors or commoncharacteristics of a lineage. Heused the terms more or less interchangeably, but not because he wastrying to save the old concept of type. Darwin and Bronn had redefined “type” for him, and he used the word freely in its new sense. 
• But where Bronn had still been ambivalent about Darwin, Haeckel took action to eliminate the very problems Bronn had identified. He was most diligent in defending a naturalistic account of the appearance of the very first species, without a Creation or a creative force, as well as in further emphasizing the lawfulness of Darwinian processes. For the devotee of Wissenschaft, Haeckel provided laws in abundance,all working at cross-purposes, like Bronn's or even Meckel's, to maintain unity while also generatingvariety. 
• Of course, not everything in Haeckel derived from Bronn. He had goals, observations, and an ideology of his own. It is also significant that Haeckel was working on the systematics of the Radiolaria when he first encountered the Origin, rather than on comparative embryology. His initial interest was in Darwin's argument about the workings of the species “manufactory” and the distribution of varieties among species and of species among genera. Success should breed success, under natural selection, and Darwin had predicted that the greatest number of varieties, or incipient species, should be found in the genera that had already proven successful in producing species. Haeckel was pleased to be able to verify Darwin's prediction with his Radiolaria data. Thus the old problem of Mannigfaltigkeit was what first brought Haeckel around to Darwinism, not any perceived parallels between embryology and evolution. He worked those out subsequently, as a young professor at Jena, where he explored the opportunities for applying and formalizing Darwin's theory. He did not content himself with making modest reforms in morphology, but established an ambitious research program geared toward reconstructing phylogenetic relationships and unifying the life sciences and the humansciences within an evolutionary framework, while also promulgating thetenets of his monism.
• Haeckel referred continually to his monism and anticlericalism, which were important considerations in every interpretive problem. He would brook no “dualism,” no separate realm of types or ideas, mind or spirit. There was no room in his system for the will or goal of the organism to modify its form. He could tolerate no Creation or unique creative moment. Nature had to be continually creative, throughout evolutionary history, rather than merely working out preexisting potential. Hence Haeckel embraced external, environmental factors as the causes of variation and historical change. These broke up the chain of purely biological causes that might otherwise have stretched all the way back to the Creation. On such external and contingent causes of change, he found common ground with both Bronn and Darwin.
• The breadth of Haeckel's program made special demands on the evolutionary process. There had to be strong, conservative laws and mechanisms of heredity to preserve the unity of type and remnants of old ontogenies, from which to reconstruct phylogenies. On the other hand, Haeckel needed to account for Mannigfaltigkeit and to have it emerge unpredictably over evolutionary time, rather than all at once at the Creation. Thus he also needed variation to break up hereditary unity and continuity, even if it meant falsifying the historical record preserved in the embryo. And the variations had to have mechanistic causes in the physical environment, not psychic, teleological, or providential ones. This was his reason for insisting on environmentaleffects and inheritance of acquired characteristics as the sources of adaptive variation. This version of the “Lamarckian” mechanism (i.e., without the perceived needs of the organism or any innate drive to perfection) was the only one available that was “mechanistic” in the proper sense for Haeckel's purposes. The appealof the inheritance of acquired characteristics was not that it would make variation occur in adulthood and facilitate “terminal addition” of new features at the end of ontogeny. Haeckel used “Lamarckian heredity” for new, Darwinian purposes.
• His
• But Haeckel's biggest problem with His was that he soughtto eliminate historical explanations from biology. He reduced evolution, heredity, and adaptation to uninteresting by-products of the unchanging laws that made organisms grow, develop, and reproduce—all mechanical laws, such as those that governed the pushing and pulling of sheets of embryonictissue into new shapes. In so doing, His threatened to upset Haeckel's balance of causes, and that is why Haeckel's response was so furious. To Haeckel, His represented an extreme of law and determinism that would reduce ontogeny and phylogeny to a mere running through of sequencesthat had been preordained at the Creation and were unresponsive to environmental change and the need for adaptation. 196-7
• Independencia da embrio e anato comparada da filogenetica e contra a recapitulação 197
• Weismann 198-9
• O que é ser darwinista seção Darwininism in the twentieth century 199-202
• Instead of shunting them aside as pseudo-, pre-, anti-, or otherwise nonDarwinian in spirit, historians need to situate Haeckel and the younger Darwinians in his orbit within a broad landscape of early-twentiethcentury theories. The aging Haeckel, the old school, the neo-Darwinians, and various other factions in Germany and abroad together constituted the Darwinism of the time, rather than “eclipsing”it, as in the standard story.” What was there for them to eclipse? Nosingle theory can beidentified as the one true Darwinism that was lurking in the shadows, waiting for the opportunity to emerge and become synthesized with Mendelism. 201
• Refina seu entendimento da sintese 202
• REFS
• 21. Hull, “Darwinism as a historical entity.” 22. Giuliano Pancaldi, Darwin in Italy: Science Across Cultural Frontiers, trans. Ruey Morelli, 2nd ed. (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1991); James Pusey, China and Charles Darwin (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983). 23. Daniel P. Todes, Darwin without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).

• Translation and transformation 202-3
• Darwin's theory has appeared in many variations besides Bronn's and Haeckel's. Even Darwin's closest early supporters, such as Wallace, Huxley, Hooker, Lyell, or Gray, differed so much in their interpretations and applications of it thatit hasbeen impossible from the outset to identify a single, orthodox version.ziIn other national contexts the most 'prominent Darwiniansread it first and foremostas a theory of social evolution and progress;inspiring movements toward national unity in Italy or against colonial domination in China.? Russian biologists grappled with the metaphor of struggle and shifted its range of meanings toward the inclusion of more cooperation and communal efforts to survive in harsh environments.” In its major twentieth-century incarnation,the modern synthesis, Darwin's basic mechanismsof variation and heredity were Mendelized and expressed in the mathematical language of population genetics, and evolution becameidentified with shifting genefrequencies. Later developments in molecular biology have kept the precise mechanisms and meaningsof variation and heredity in flux, while proponents of “evo-devo”challenge the gene-centered interpretation altogether, harkening back to a time when morphology was the soul of natural history and evolution was about changes in form and function. Meanwhile, Darwin's “places” have morphed into ecological niches and the economy of nature into ecosystems. Plate tectonics has eliminated the steady Lyellian cycles of uplift and subsidence featured in Darwin's Origin. It has revolutionized biogeography and rendered some of Darwin's explanations of dispersal across geographic barriers superfluous. Theinferred age of the Earth has grown tremendously. Mass extinctions by meteors, supervolcanoes, and other catastrophes beyond Darwin's worst nightmares have gained acceptance. Darwin's assumptions about progress and perfection in nature have becomeas obsolete as his overtures to Paleyan natural theology.
• And yet, through all these changes in content and context, Darwinism somehow remains “Darwinism.” Surely, then, the definitionis flexible, enough to include the versions of Bronn and Haeckel. They supplied interpretations of Darwin's model that kept it viable and madeit applicable to problems deemed important in the German context of their day. We have seen Bronn drawing on earlier German sources and ideals of scholarship in order to fill out Darwin's account of progress and perfection, while also demanding a theory of ultimate origins, firmer rules of inference about historical events, and laws of change. We have seen Haeckel formulating new Darwinian rejoinders to Bronn's objections and demands, providing greater systematic organization of the facts of morphology, heredity, variation, and progress, and greater specificity about the origin of life and the course of phylogenetic history. Haeckel's determination to shore up the theory against teleology and directed evolution encouraged him to adopt Bronn's arguments for environmental causes of change, because they took the initiative away from the organism,its will, or any law of variation built into the lineage at the Creation. Haeckel balanced the historical contingency thus introduced with a conceptof heredity that imposed historical constraints on development and preserved evidence of phylogeny in the living organism.
• These interpretations, no matter how fleeting their successes might have been, are not to be set aside as uninteresting aberrationsand intellectual dead-ends, or deplored as abuses of Darwinism. They are all part of the story of the development of Darwin's theory, a story not of steady progress toward today's understanding but of exploring the range of possible meanings and applications of Darwin's words and concepts. Darwin's gift to modern science, in the end, was not just “a theory by which to work,” as he called it in his autobiography,” but rather a theory on which to work, and on which scientists still do work, in a continuing process of translation and transformation.