Uwe Hossfeld

Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913): the forgotten co-founder of the Neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution

The British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913), who had to leave school aged 14 and never attended university, did extensive fieldwork, first in the Amazon River basin (1848–1852) and then in Southeast Asia (1854–1862). Based on this experience, and after reading the corresponding scientific literature, Wallace postulated that species were not created, but are modified descendants of pre-existing varieties (Sarawak Law paper, 1855). Evolution is brought about by a struggle for existence via natural selection, which results in the adaptation of those individuals in variable populations who survive and reproduce (Ternate essay, 1858). In his monograph Darwinism (1889), and in subsequent publications, Wallace extended the contents of Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) into the Neo-Darwinian theory of biological evolution, with reference to the work of August Weismann (1834–1914). Wallace also became the (co)-founder of biogeography, biodiversity research, astrobiology and evolutionary anthropology. Moreover, he envisioned what was later called the anthropocene (i.e., the age of human environmental destructiveness). However, since Wallace believed in atheistic spiritualism and mixed up scientific facts and supernatural speculations in some of his writings, he remains a controversial figure in the history of biology.

The prominent absence of Alfred Russel Wallace at the Darwin anniversaries in Germany in 1909, 1959 and 2009

It is well known that the contribution of Alfred Russell Wallace (1823–1913) to the development of the “Darwinian” principle of natural selection has often been neglected. Here we focus on how the three anniversaries to celebrate the origin of the Darwin–Wallace theory in Germany in 1909, in 1959 in the divided country, as well as in 2009, have represented Charles Robert Darwin’s and Alfred Russell Wallace’s contributions. We have analyzed books and proceedings volumes related to these anniversaries, and the main result is that Wallace was almost always ignored, or only mentioned in passing. In 1909, Ernst Haeckel gave a talk in Jena, later published under the title The worldview of Darwin and Lamarck (Das Weltbild von Darwin und Lamarck), but not as the Darwin–Wallace concept. Haeckel mentions Wallace only once. In two important proceedings volumes from the 1959 anniversaries, Wallace was ignored. The only fair treatment of Wallace is given in another book, a collection of documents edited by Gerhard Heberer, for which the author selected nine key documents and reprinted excerpts (1959). Three of them were articles by Wallace, including the Sarawak- and Ternate-papers of 1855 and 1858, respectively. An analysis of the dominant themes during the celebrations of 2009 shows that none of the six topics had much to do with Wallace and his work. Thus, the tendency to exclude Alfred Russell Wallace is an international phenomenon, and largely attributable to the “Darwin industry”.

Rediscovery of oxudercine type specimens (Teleostei: Gobiidae) assumed destroyed during World War II

Walter Bruno Eggert described nine species and fifteen subspecies of the oxudercine genus Periophthalmus in 1929 and 1935. His descriptions were based primarily on specimens collected by Jürgen Wilhelm Harms during several expeditions to South-east Asia and Japan. The whereabouts of many of the type specimens were unknown, and were presumed destroyed during World War II. We recently rediscovered the type material for six species and ten subspecies in the collection of the Phyletic Museum in Jena, Germany. We provide detailed accounts of this material and the historical figures involved in safeguarding them during the tumultuous war years.

Hero or villain? Stasi archives shed light on Russian scientist.

Sir — Nikolai Timoféeff-Ressovsky (1900–81), one of the most striking personalities in twentieth-century science, did ground-breaking research in the fields of population genetics, radiation biology and evolutionary biology while working in Germany and the Soviet Union (see, for example, D. Paul and C. Krimbas, Scientific American 266, 86–92; 1992). Until now, studies of his life, which began in Tsarist Russia, have been hindered by language barriers, the cold war and inaccessible archives. We have recently unearthed material for the first time from the archives of the Stasi (East German security service) which illuminates some, although not all, of the questions surrounding his life. The material includes Third Reich material from Timoféeff-Ressovsky and his family; records of interrogations by Soviet officials after the Second World War of him and his German colleagues Karl Zimmer and Hans Born; an official 1988 Soviet investigation into whether he should be rehabilitated; and an East German investigation provoked by a biography. Soviet officials had accused TimoféeffRessovsky of treason on three grounds: failure to return from Germany after going to do research there in 1925; providing Germany with information on Soviet scientific institutes; and contributing to the German war effort. TimoféeffRessovsky, who had been running an independent research institute in Berlin since 1937, denied working for the German war effort, although other scientists in his institute had done so. Zimmer told the Soviet officials that wartime research at the institute had included the biological effect of neutron radiation; the manufacture of radioactive elements, including radium; the effect of X-rays on humans; paints to illuminate instruments in aircraft; X-ray weapons against enemy planes; the effect of cosmic radiation on pilots at high altitudes; and protection from radiation. Zimmer also testified that, beginning in 1939 for the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Brain Research, and in 1942 for TimoféeffRessovsky’s genetics department, war work was carried out, including research on “weapons of mass destruction”: X-rays and neutron radiation. Born described radiation experiments on animals, on volunteers (including Born himself) and on human corpses. The transcripts of these interrogations make clear that the Soviet security service was mainly interested in military research and experiments with radium and uranium. Afterwards, Timoféeff-Ressovsky spent nearly a year in a prison camp. During the period of glasnost, Daniel Granin’s book Zubr (Novyj Mir, Moscow, 1987) portrayed Timoféeff-Ressovsky as a scientific genius victimized by stalinism and as an anti-fascist who fought against Hitler: one of his sons had died in a Nazi concentration camp. Perhaps encouraged by this, Timoféeff-Ressovsky’s surviving son Alexei sought his father’s rehabilitation. Soviet justice officials rejected this request in 1988, on the grounds that his father was a traitor who had worked on weapons of mass destruction for Germany. In 1989, by contrast, East German officials from the Stasi, the ruling Socialist Unity party and the Academy of Sciences noted that Timoféeff-Ressovsky had only given information to Germany on Soviet institutes during the German–Soviet nonaggression pact, when scientists had been encouraged to cooperate, and that he had stayed away from the Soviet Union to avoid persecution for opposing the then stateapproved theory of lysenkoism. They concluded that the war work done at his institute came to nothing. This report by the East German Academy of Sciences may explain why Soviet officials rehabilitated Timoféeff-Ressovsky soon afterwards. These sources suggest that TimoféeffRessovsky did not collaborate with the Third Reich for the war effort. But, as the East German report noted, neither could he be described as an anti-fascist. Uwe Hossfeld*, Mark Walker† *Ernst Haeckel House, Friedrich Schiller University, Berggasse 7, 07745 Jena, Germany †Department of History, Union College, Schenectady, New York 12308-3163, USA

Beyond borders: on the influence of the creationist movement on the educational landscape in the USA and Russia

This paper provides a detailed look at how creationism originated in the United States and then explores how this evangelical trend was exported to Russia by American missionaries following the fall of the USSR. The comparison between these two countries is particularly interesting since the rivalry between the US and the USSR during the race to space caused both countries to revamp their science education. Yet, while political interests led both governments to focus on science education, creationist activities were simultaneously focused on diminishing the coverage of evolution in science classrooms. Now, decades following Sputnik’s trip to space, the urgency to strengthen scientific learning has waned, while creationists are still equally focused on removing scientific naturalism in favor of supernatural explanations for the origin of species. This paper thus offers an in-depth look at which groups are currently responsible for promoting creationist activities in the US and in Russia and which groups are working hard to keep supernatural doctrines out of science curriculum.

Armin von Tschermak-Seysenegg (1870–1952): Physiologist and Co-‘Rediscoverer’ of Mendel’s laws

The ‘rediscovery’ of Mendel’s laws in 1900 was a turning point in modern research of heredity/genetics. According to the traditional view, adopted and fostered by many textbooks of genetics, Mendel’s principles were presented in the first half of 1900 simultaneously and independently by three biologists (H. de Vries, C. Correns, E. v. Tschermak-Seysenegg). Having thus laid the foundations of further development, the ‘rediscovery’ continues to attract considerable interest. Since the 1950s, however, serious questions arose concerning both the chronology and specific conceptual achievement of the scientists involved. Not only the independence but also parallelism was analysed in the context of individual research programmes of these three scholars. The youngest of them, Erich v. Tschermak-Seysenegg, was even excluded from the list of ‘rediscoverers’. The aim of this paper is to use new archival evidence and approximate the contribution of the physiologist and ophthalmologist Armin von Tschermak-Seysenegg (1870–1952) to the events of 1900 and 1901.