WI Darwin didn't publish in 1859

[John Fredrick Parker]

FTWDK -- In February 1858, biologist Alfred Russell Wallace was in Indonesia with a fever, during which he was struck with an idea of evolution by natural selection; as it turned out, one Charles Darwin had thought up a very similar idea, but was reluctant to publish it.

He corresponded with his colleague, and the prospect of Wallace publishing convinced Darwin to publish his own, and the two provided for a joint presentation in July that year called On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. From this presentation, Darwin put together his work in a volume, published the next year as On the Origin of the Species.

But WI -- Wallace died of that very fever in 1858; no corresponding with Darwin, no joint presentation, and Darwin doesn't publish Origin. Darwin's continues to keep his work to himself, and there is nobody else to push the idea of evolution of natural selection prior to Darwin's death in 1882. His work is published posthumously, arranged by his friend Thomas H Huxley in 1884.

An, and without evolution by natural selection causing such a stir in the biological community, a small publication by a Catholic monk gets noticed in 1865...

How do these fields and theories develop from there? What are the larger implications (socially, etc)?

 

[Keenir]

welcome to the forum, sir. and this is an excellent what-if.

FTWDK --

what?

In February 1858, biologist Alfred Russell Wallace was in Indonesia with a fever, during which he was struck with an idea of evolution by natural selection; as it turned out, one Charles Darwin had thought up a very similar idea, but was reluctant to publish it.

Wallace had at least one fever or illness on every island he went to -- the man was one of very few who could out-"i'm not feeling well" Darwin himself.

He corresponded with his colleague, and the prospect of Wallace publishing convinced Darwin to publish his own, and the two provided for a joint presentation in July that year called On the Tendency of Species to form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection. From this presentation, Darwin put together his work in a volume, published the next year as On the Origin of the Species.

But WI -- Wallace died of that very fever in 1858; no corresponding with Darwin, no joint presentation, and Darwin doesn't publish Origin. Darwin's continues to keep his work to himself, and there is nobody else to push the idea of evolution of natural selection prior to Darwin's death in 1882. His work is published posthumously, arranged by his friend Thomas H Huxley in 1884.

Darwin hasn't exactly been quite during the 20 years he's been gathering notes and assembling The Origin - he's been talking about bits and pieces of it (and asking for specimens and findings) from pretty much any naturalist who'll send him mail.

and his buddies Lyell and Hooker have been after Darwin for a while to publish. but Darwin wants to make sure there's no room for complaint or critics.

An, and without evolution by natural selection causing such a stir in the biological community, a small publication by a Catholic monk gets noticed in 1865...

How do these fields and theories develop from there? What are the larger implications (socially, etc)?

I assume you're referring to Mendel's works....I don't think any of the Churches back then saw anything wrong with heredity itself, but it might be a back door for the posthumously-published Origin to enter through.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

welcome to the forum, sir.

Thank you -- though I've been here since May

what?

For Those Who Don't Know

I assume you're referring to Mendel's works....I don't think any of the Churches back then saw anything wrong with heredity itself, but it might be a back door for the posthumously-published Origin to enter through.

Nice -- interseting to think how it plays out

 

[Talkie Toaster]

Well, you need something for Darwin to *do* for the next 25 years. Even if he writes more papers on barnacles and so on he's still going to have time to tinker with On The Origin of Species beyond recognition. He will probably realise his dream of publishing a massive, multi-volume tome. No doubt he will actually incorporate Mendel's work in one of the volumes.

I wonder, however, if its format as an encyclopaedic work might lessen its popularity among the wider public, even as it is faster to convince scientists? And does that mean that evolution does not become the political issue that it has, but remains a purely scientific thing?

 

[Keenir]

Any more thoughts?

you posted at night - unavoidable, as the world's round - but some members who'd comment on this, are asleep right now; sorry.

Well, you need something for Darwin to *do* for the next 25 years.

you mean besides correspond with sailors, biologists, and scholars the world over...and besides handle his family and his various ills (and the therapies he underwent)...yes?

Even if he writes more papers on barnacles and so on he's still going to have time to tinker with On The Origin of Species beyond recognition.

and that's what will turn it into a posthumous work -- even in OTL, he was never satisfied, even when he finally published (the first and third editions, I think, are quite different from one another)

He will probably realise his dream of publishing a massive, multi-volume tome. No doubt he will actually incorporate Mendel's work in one of the volumes.

...which will reinforce his belief that he needs more time to put The Origin together.

either way, I suspect that a posthumous The Origin will mean that this ATL will never see the follow-up book about man and the races of mankind.

I wonder, however, if its format as an encyclopaedic work might lessen its popularity among the wider public, even as it is faster to convince scientists?

with as much of it as he involved dogs and pigeons and other domestics in, it might get picked up by farmers (or at least the affluent/communities)

And does that mean that evolution does not become the political issue that it has, but remains a purely scientific thing?

its possible.

evolution as followed by farmers and scientists. hm.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

No doubt he will actually incorporate Mendel's work in one of the volumes

This could be the most interesting part -- OTL, evolution and genetics were different areas of study which scientists weren't sure how to fit together, until Dobzhansky published Genetics and the Origin of the Species in 1937 (!)

Could these basic ideas be thought up 50 years earlier if Mendel doesn't have to be "discovered"?

 

[DuQuense]

Whe are delaying the book by ~25 years. There was a lot of Process [Scientifically and Technically] in those 25 years. This world view had trickled down to the lesser educated.
There is not going to be the same [intensity] religious backlash.

Social Darwinism takes longer to develop, and gets much more involved in the eugenics movement,

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

There is not going to be the same [intensity] religious backlash.

No major creationism movement? Huzzah

Social Darwinism takes longer to develop, and gets much more involved in the eugenics movement

 

[Lord Grattan]

Thank you -- though I've been here since May.

You must also not have a real job in order to have a PPD average of 19+ since then.

 

[RMcD94]

Wouldn't someone else publish the same theories, albeit some time later?

It's going to be clear to someone at some point.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Wouldn't someone else publish the same theories, albeit some time later?

It's going to be clear to someone at some point.

Well, sure -- I've got the idea coming out 25 years later than OTL.

 

[Keenir]

Wouldn't someone else publish the same theories, albeit some time later?

It's going to be clear to someone at some point.

Well, yes and no. Charles Darwin was able to see what he did, because he was comparing the findings of naturalists all across the world.

Alfred Wallace was able to see it, because, as a collector for other people, he had to compare tonnes of variations in hordes of various species - at least half of which went to the aforementioned naturalists.

Some people in their era hit on the idea of evolution, but didn't grasp one aspect or another (the Malthusian aspect of selection, for example)

Other people were so focused on a particular field of study, that the Theory didn't occur to them.

And many were, like Bates and Wallace, too poor and too busy most of their lives.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Good points by Keenir; also, had not known about Henry W Bates

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I'm still curious about the social implications of this turnabout -- if DuQuense is right and idea on Social Darwinism takes longer to develop, what are the implications of this?

 

[usertron2020]

Is everyone rolling Descent of Man into Origin? Because as much as the religious conservatives had a problem with Origin, wasn't Descent what really got them in a lather?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Good question! My thinking is no, since I don't see Darwin tackling the subject without public feedback on his theory in general.

Likely it'd be left to others to apply the theory to humans.