Bert Theunissen

Darwin and his pigeons. The analogy between artificial and natural selection revisited.

The analogy between artificial selection of domestic varieties and natural selection in nature was a vital element of Darwin’s argument in his Origin of Species. Ever since, the image of breeders creating new varieties by artificial selection has served as a convincing illustration of how the theory works. In this paper I argue that we need to reconsider our understanding of Darwin’s analogy. Contrary to what is often assumed, nineteenth-century animal breeding practices constituted a highly controversial field that was fraught with difficulties. It was only with considerable effort that Darwin forged his analogy, and he only succeeded by downplaying the importance of two other breeding techniques – crossing of varieties and inbreeding – that many breeders deemed essential to obtain new varieties. Part of the explanation for Darwin’s gloss on breeding practices, I shall argue, was that the methods of his main informants, the breeders of fancy pigeons, were not representative of what went on in the breeding world at large. Darwin seems to have been eager to take the pigeon fanciers at their word, however, as it was only their methods that provided him with the perfect analogy with natural selection. Thus while his studies of domestic varieties were important for the development of the concept of natural selection, the reverse was also true: Darwin’s comprehension of breeding practices was moulded by his understanding of the working of natural selection in nature. Historical studies of domestic breeding practices in the eighteenth and nineteenth century confirm that, besides selection, the techniques of inbreeding and crossing were much more important than Darwin’s interpretation allowed for. And they still are today. This calls for a reconsideration of the pedagogic use of Darwin’s analogy too.

Conservation of cattle genetic resources: the role of breeds

Focusing on cattle (Bos taurus, Bos indicus), the present paper discusses the concept of the breed in the context of the dynamic history of livestock domestication. A breed categorization is proposed on the basis of how the breeds came into existence. The online Appendix (available at http://journals.cambridge.org/AGS) presents a survey of the cattle breeds of the world consisting of: (1) a list of breeds per country and then subdivided according to the proposed categories; (2) a list of breed names, including synonyms and translations, ordered according to a comprehensive breed classification; and (3) an alphabetical list of these names. The commonly accepted perceptions of breeds and how these are influenced by the nomenclature are described. Considering the history of breeds, it is argued that conservation of genetic diversity does not necessarily imply conservation of breeds. However, breeds are instrumental for the conservation of genetic diversity as independent genetic management units. These considerations may very well be extrapolated to other domestic species.

Breeding for Nobility or for Production? Cultures of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the Netherlands, 1945–1995

In the 1970s and 1980s Dutch farmers replaced their dual-purpose Friesian cows with Holsteins, a highly specialized American dairy breed. The changeover was related to a major turnabout in breeding practices that involved the adoption of quantitative genetics. Dutch commercial breeders had long resisted the quantitative approach to breeding that scientists had been recommending since World War II. After about 1970, however, they gave up their resistance: the art of breeding, it was said, finally became a science. In historical overviews this turnabout is seen as part of what is called the “modernization project” in Dutch agriculture that the government instigated after the war. Economic developments are assumed to have necessitated this project, and specialization of production is seen as a natural consequence. This essay argues that the idea that the art of breeding was turned into a science is to a certain extent misleading. Furthermore, it aims to show that economic pressures and government policies cannot adequately explain the turn toward Holsteins. A better understanding can be obtained by framing the Holsteinization process as the result of a changeover in breeding culture—that is, in the ensemble of shared convictions, beliefs, conventions, methods, practices, and the like that characterized practical cattle breeding and that involved scientific, technical, economic, aesthetic, normative, and commercial considerations.

The Nineteenth-Century Background

In his Origin of Species Charles Darwin was very reticent on the question of human descent. He had already considered the problem of Man by the end of the 1830s, when the principle of evolution through variation and natural selection took shape in his mind,1 but all we read about our species in the Origin, published in 1859, is that: “Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history.”2 In spite of this caution the implications of evolutionary theory for Man were immediately clear to the attentive reader: humans belonged to the animal kingdom, and had developed from lower forms by a gradual process of variation and natural selection. Many people also came to the immediate conclusion that our far-distant ancestors must be sought within the line of primates.

The relevance of Cuvier's lois zoologiques for his palacontological work

Summary Historians of science have repeatedly, and justly, pointed to the discrepancy between theory and practice in the writings of Cuvier. This discrepancy is especially conspicious in his palaeontological works. No satisfactory analysis of the relation between theory and practice in Cuviers palaeontology has appeared as yet. In this paper I shall point out the shortcomings of the interpretations of E. S. Russell, H. Daudin, W. Coleman, M. J. S. Rudwick and B. Balan. These authors either overrated or underestimated the role Cuviers anatomical rules played in his research. Next I shall argue that theory, as embodied in the anatomical rules, played an important role in Cuviers study of fossil animals. However, the rules were not used as abstract principles of reconstruction. It is a persistent misconception that Cuviers main concern in the Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles was the reconstruction of extinct animals. Most memoirs deal only with the identification, description and classification of fo...

Ecology, Evolution and Behaviour of Wild Cattle: Domestic cattle and buffaloes

Domestic bovine species By the process of domestication, several bovine species have adapted to an agricultural habitat. As shown in Table 3.1, taurine and indicine cattle are numerically the most important, followed by river and swamp buffalo. These species have spread to several continents, while the domestic forms of the yak, banteng and gaur are concentrated near the distribution areas of their wild ancestors. Domestication of the extinct kouprey ( Bos sauveli ) has been proposed after finding kouprey mtDNA in a museum specimen of a Cambodian bull (Hassanin et al . 2006). In line with molecular phylogenies (Buntjer et al . 2002; Verkaar et al . 2004; Nijman et al . 2008; Decker et al . 2009; MacEachern et al . 2009), taurine and zebu cattle can be crossed with other bovines, except buffaloes (Lenstra & Bradley 1999). Interspecific breeding may occur spontaneously or is carried out for terminal crossing or upgrading of breeds (Table 3.2). Hybrid taurine–zebu offspring are fertile, but crossing of zebu or taurine cattle to other species results in fertile cows and sterile bulls. Because of their complete cross-fertility, taurine and zebu cattle should both be considered as subspecies of the wild ancestor Bos primigenius . However, because they resulted from different domestications, here they are described separately. The same applies to the swamp and river types of water buffalo, the cross-fertile subspecies of the wild Bubalus arnee (Groeneveld et al . 2010; Yindee et al . 2010).

Een weinig spectaculair Darwinjaar

An Unspectacular Darwin Year The publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species did not provoke heated debate in the Netherlands. Of the few responses that did emerge, the majority were moderate in tone. It was only in 1868, when the German materialist Carl Vogt gave a series of lectures in Rotterdam, that the issue of human evolution in relation to Christian belief gave rise to a short outburst of polemics. And the Dutch situation has not changed since then: the theory of evolution is hardly ever discussed publicly, unless religious issues are at stake. The year 2009 is no exception: the works published on the occasion of the Darwin commemorations sparked no polemics. A number of these works are reviewed here. Two historical PhD theses, by Janneke van der Heide and Bart Leeuwenburgh, add valuable detail to our picture of the Dutch reception of Darwin’s works and confirm that, by and large, quiet appropriation was the customary response. Dirk Van Hulle’s book, based on textual analysis of Darwin’s manuscripts and books, provides an original insight into Darwin’s romantic inspiration. Several popular works, by Chris Buskes et al., Marc van Roosmalen and Job Slok, aim to explain Darwin’s career and ideas to a wider audience; Buskes et al. do the best job.

Cephalisation, Pithecanthropus, and Evolution

From 1897 on Dubois was occupied with research on cephalisation,1 a subject arising directly from his study of the Pithecanthropus fossils. He began by working on this at irregular intervals, but the research gained momentum after 1918.