A comparative analysis of the Darwin-Wallace papers and the development of the concept of natural selection (original) (raw)

Summary

The classical theory of descent with modification by means of natural selection had no mother, but did have two English fathers, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) and Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913). In 1858, the Linnean Society of London published two contributions of these naturalists and acknowledged both authors as the proponents of a novel hypothesis on the driving force of organismic evolution. In the present report the most important sections of the Darwin-Wallace papers are summarized. This close reading of both publications reveals six striking differences in emphasis: Darwin and Wallace did not propose identical ideas. The species definitions of both authors are described and the further development of the concept of natural selection in wild populations is reviewed. It is shown that the contributions of A. R. Wallace, who died 90 years ago, are more significant than usually acknowledged. I conclude that natural selection’s lesser known co-discoverer should be regarded as one of the most important pioneers of evolutionary biology, whose original contributions are underestimated by most contemporary scientists.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Biologie, Universität Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Str. 40, 34109, Kassel, Germany
    U. Kutschera

Authors

  1. U. Kutschera
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence toU. Kutschera.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kutschera, U. A comparative analysis of the Darwin-Wallace papers and the development of the concept of natural selection.Theory Biosci. 122, 343–359 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-003-0063-6

Download citation

Key words