Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T22:28:30.295Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Non-Progress of Non-Progression: Two Responses to Lyell's Doctrine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Michael Bartholomew
Michael Bartholomew
Affiliation:
Sub-Department of the History of Medicine, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

‘Non-Progression’, the interpretation of life-history launched by Lyell in 1830 and defended by him for over twenty years, can be summarized as follows. Palaeontologists, Lyell contended, should assume that at every period of the earth's recoverable past, each class of plants and animals has been represented somewhere on earth. Species have been created solely as responses to perpetually shifting environmental conditions, and not as temporally conditioned stages in the unique unrolling of a grand plan. If certain environments are especially suited to reptiles, then the Creator tailors collections of beautifully adapted terrestrial, aquatic, and even aerial reptiles for them—as He did, for example, for the environments recorded in the British Jurassic; as He did, much more recently, for the Galapagos Islands; and as He will do again, if conditions somewhere on earth ever force mammals into extinction, leaving ecological niches which can more suitably be filled by reptiles. If, for example, changes in the topography and climate of the Sussex Weald eventually lead to the re-establishment of an environment that particularly suits iguanodons, then iguanodons will assuredly appear there again. The essential point about Lyell's interpretation is that time does nothing to determine a particular flora and fauna. When designing a new animal, the Creator, according to Lyell's view, has to take into account only the creature's or plant's destined environment: He has to consult no timetable, or lineage, governing the production of new forms. In notes for a speech given in 1852 Lyell reduced his interpretation to the epitome, ‘Adaptation to geographical circumst5 not progressive develop the real history of past changes’.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , July 1976 , pp. 166 - 174
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1976

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

1Lyell, to Mantell, , 15 02 1830,Google Scholar
in [Mrs] Lyell, K. M. (ed.), Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. (2 vols., London, 1881), i. 262.Google Scholar
2 Notes for a lecture on ‘Progressive development’, given in Boston, , 26 11 1852, Edinburgh University Library, Lyell papers.Google Scholar
3 I have argued this more fully in Bartholomew, Michael, ‘Lyell and evolution: an account of Lyell's response to the prospect of an evolutionary ancestry for man’, The British journal for the history of science, vi (1972–1973), 261–303.Google Scholar
4Rudwick, M. J. S., ‘Uniformity and progression: reflections on the structure of geological theory in the age of science’, in Roller, D. H. D. (ed.), Perspectives in the history of science and technology (Norman, Oklahoma, 1971), pp. 209–27.Google Scholar
5 See, for example, Sedgwick, A., ‘Presidential address’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, i (1826–1833), 281–316 (305–6);Google Scholar
[Scrope, G. P.], ‘Murchison's Silurian system’, Quarterly review, lxiv (1839), 102–20 (112–13).Google Scholar
I have found only one reviewer who noted the antievolutionary significance of non-progression; see [Whewell, W.], ‘Lyell's Geology (vol. II)’, Quarterly review, xlvii (1832), 103–32 (117).Google Scholar
6Wilson, L. G. (ed.), Sir Charles Lyell's scientific journals on the species question (New Haven and London, 1970).Google Scholar
Lyell, C., The geological evidence of the antiquity of man (London, 1863), p. 405.Google Scholar
7Lyell, and Murchison, R. I., ‘On the excavation of valleys …’, Edinburgh new philosophical journal, vii (1829), 15–48.Google Scholar
Lyell, to Murchison, , 15 01 1829,Google Scholar
in Lyell, , op. cit. (1), i. 234. Lyell's emphasis.Google Scholar
8 Murchison to Sedgwick, no date, in Geikie, Archibald, Life of Sir Roderick I. Murchison (2 vols., London, 1875), ii 152.Google Scholar
9Murchison, R. I., The Silurian system (2 vols., London, 1839).Google Scholar
10Lyell, , ‘Anniversary address of the President, 1851’, Quarterly journal of the Geological Society of London, vii (1851), xxv–lxxvi (lxxv–lxxvi);Google Scholar
Murchison to Lyell, no date, in Geikie, , op. cit. (8), ii. 119;Google Scholar
Lyell, C., Elements of geology (6th edn., London, 1865), 577;Google Scholar
Owen, R., ‘Description of the impressions and footprints of the Protichnites from the Potsdam sandstone of Canada’, Quarterly journal of the Geological Society of London, viii (1852), 214–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Mantell, G., ‘Notice of the discovery of reptilian remains …’, Quarterly journal of the Geological Society of London, viii (1852), 92–109;Google Scholar
Murchison to Sedgwick, no date, in Geikie, , op. cit. (8), ii. 120.Google Scholar
12Lyell, C., A manual of elementary geology (4th edn., London, 1852) pp. ix–x;Google Scholar
Principles of geology (9th edn., London, 1853), pp. 135–6.Google Scholar
13 [Geikie, A.], ‘Sir Roderick Murchison and modern schools of geology’, Quarterly review, cxxv (1868), 188–217 (199).Google Scholar
For other cautious progressionist responses to Telerpeton, see: Phillips, J., ‘Anniversary address of the president, 1859’, Quarterly journal of the Geological Society of London, xv (1859), xxiii–lxi (xxxi–xxxii);Google Scholar
Miller, H., Testimony of the rocks (no edn. given, Edinburgh, 1890), p. 71.Google Scholar
14Murchison, R. I., Siluria (4th edn., London, 1867), iii. 266–7;Google Scholar
Lyell, , Student's elements of geology (3rd edn., London, 1878), p. 358.Google Scholar
For a record of the changes of opinion concerning the Elgin beds, see Huxley, T. H., ‘The crocodilian remains found in the Elgin sandstones …’ (1877), reprinted in Scientific memoirs, ed. Foster, M. and Lankester, E. R. (4 vols., London, 1898–1902), iv. 188–247.Google Scholar
15Murchison, to Barrande, , 9 04 1852,Google Scholar
in Geikie, , op. cit. (8), ii. 146.Google Scholar
16Murchison, R., Siluria (3rd edn., London, 1859), PP. 505–30.Google Scholar
Lyell, C., Supplement to the fifth edition of a manual of elementary geology (2nd edn., London, 1857), pp. 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17De Beer, S. (ed.), ‘Darwin's notebooks on transmutation of species’, in Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) historical series, ii (1959–1963), 3–200; iii (1967), 129–76; (ii. 67).Google Scholar
18 Darwin's copy is in Cambridge University Library.Google Scholar
19 ‘Darwin, 's notebooks’, op. cit. (17), ii. 99. Darwin's emphasis.Google Scholar
20Darwin, 's, iii. 138.Google Scholar
21Darwin, 's, ii. 107.Google Scholar
22Rudwick, M. J. S., The meaning of fossils (New York and London, 1972), p. 233.Google Scholar
23 ‘Darwin, 's notebooks’, op. cit. (17), ii. 169–70.Google Scholar
24Darwin, G. and Wallace, A. R., Evolution by natural.selection (Cambridge, 1958), p. 63. Darwin's emphasis.Google Scholar
25Darwin, G. and Wallace, A. R., p. 158.Google Scholar
26Darwin, C., The origin of species, reprint of 1st, 1859 edn. (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1968), pp. 312–16, 454–15.Google Scholar
27Huxley, T. H., ‘The progress of science’ (1867), reprinted in Method and results (Collected essays, vol. i, London, 1893), p. 99.Google Scholar