Early Evolutionism in Portugal by Paulo Marques

CARLOS ALMA<;A l\luseu Bocage, Rua da Escola Politecnica 58, 1250 Lisboa, Portugal Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia and Centro de Biologill Ambiental, Facliidadc dc Ciencias, Edificio C2, Campo Grande , 1700 Lisboa, Portugal

PublicQfOeS Avulsas, 2.8 Serie, N.o 1

MUSE~

_-_

MUSEU BOCAGE

MUSEU NACIONAL DE HISTORIA NATURAL

EARLY EVOLUTIONISM

IN PORTUGAL

CARLOS ALMA(:A Museu Bocage, Rua da Escola Politecnica 58, 1250 Lisboa, Portugal

Departamento de Zoologia e Antropologia and Centro de Biologia Ambiental,

Faeuldade de Cicncias, Edificio C2, Campo Grande, 1700 Lisboa, Portugal

Publica~oes

Avu/sas, 2.a Serie, N.o 1 LISBOA

199 7

being -

thoughL tual em'or-'"""""-""'''''

Early evolutionism in Portugal

INTRODUCTION In a preceding paper (Almar;:a, 1993), evolutionism in Portugal was analysed by means of the main paths it foHowed in academic circles: scale of perfection, early Darwinism, biogenetic law, neo-Lamarckism, and pre足 -adaptation and natural selection. At the request of the Organising Commit足 tee of Colloque Lamarck (Amiens, 26-30 October 1994) a fUliher point was dealt with: the possible influence of Lamarckism in Portugal. The available evidence suggests that Lamarckism, in its own time, was ignored in Portugal, being known only from the 1860s onwards, jointly with the diffusion of Darwinism (Almar;:a, in press). The rol6 of Portuguese universities in the spreading of evolutionary thought in Portugal was significant and of great value, but not exclusive. Other routes, especially the progressive political parties, newspapers and philosophical journals, were important in popularising evolutionism among the Portuguese intell igentsia of the late 19th century. The aim of the present paper is to show how and why these different vehicles contributed to the early diffusion of a view of the world which was not easily accepted by the Catholic mind of those days. I start with a doctoral thesis (1861) on centres of creation, almost exclusively inspired by creationist thought. We will see how, in a few years (from 1861 to 1865), the intellec足 tual environment in the same university moved from a creationist to an evolutionary perspective.

Carlos Almar;a CENTRES OF CREATION

In the middle of the nineteenth century, natural history research was still in its early stages in Portugal. From its beginnings in the late eighteenth cen tury, accompanying the introduction of scientific education into the Portuguese reformed university, research had never questioned Biblical creationism. One of the most formidable objections to creationism was the geographi cal distribution of living species, mainly plant species (because of the lack of mobility of their vegetative parts). According to the narrative of Genesis, the centre from which life dispersed would have been Mount Ararat, where Noah 's Ark had set down. From there, species had spread over the earth. However incredible that may now appear, most naturalists interpreted literally the sym bolic account of the Bible until the middle of the nineteenth century'. The talented Buftlon, in considering six successive epochs in the history of the universe (compared with the six days of the Biblical creation), cau tiously stated (Les epoques de la nature, vol. T, 1780, pp. 54-55): "Mais avant d'all er plus loin, hatons-nous de prevenir une objection grave, qui pourroit meme degenerer en imputation. Comment accordez-vous, d ira-t' on, cette haute anciennete que vous donnez a la matiere, avec les Traditions sacrees, qui ne donnent au monde que six ou huit mille ans? Quelque fortes que soient vos preuves, quelque fondes que soient vos raisonnemens, quelque evidens que soient vos faits, ceux qui sont rapportes dans Ie Livre sacre ne sont-ils pas encore plus certains? Les contredire, n·est-ce pas manquer a Dieu, qui a eu la bonte de nous les reve ler? "Je suis afllige toutes les fois qu'on abuse de ce grand, de ce saint Nom de Dieu; je suis blesse toutes les fois que I'homme Ie profane, & qu'il prostitue I' idee du premier Etre, en la substituant a celie du fantome de ses opinions. Plus j'ai pem:tre dans Ie sein de la Nature, plus j 'ai admire & profondement respecte son Auteur; mais un respect aveugle seroit superstition: la vrai religion suppose au contraire un respect eclaire. Voyons donc; tachons d'entendre sainement les premiers faits que I'lnterprete divin nous a transmis au sujet de la creation; recueillons avec soin ces rayons echappes de la lumiere celeste: loin d'offusquer la verite, ils ne peuvent qu'y ajouter un nouveau degre d'eclat & de splendeur."

Long after the publication of Les epoques de la nature and despite Lamarck's brilliant work, French creationists were still insisting on the reality of the Biblical narrative. D'Orbigny et Gente, for example, in Geologie appliquee (1851), supported the successive creation theory on the following linguistic grounds (p. 104, footnote): "Le lecteur a sans doute remarque la concordance qui existe entre Ie recit de la Genese et la theor·ie geogenique appuyee sur les faits geologiques. Dieu, dit la Genese,

Succe been successi realms of fj -h - author:

Whate Creation, i_ . .... _ the distribuli~ _

(1982) dIs.<·::tJ:ii:5je5 problem. H.... of creation? Creatro attached to facts. Pri .

merged . . hypothesi

Early evolutionism in Portugal

research was still e ei ghteenth cen ~ imo ihe POituguese c reationism. '3S the geographi use of the lack of • -e of Genesis, the uarat, where Noah's -'-e earth. However li[erally the sym E:'r.:h century 1. hs in the history reation), cau --1-- 55): objection grave, qui -. dira-t' on, celte haute :Tees, qui ne donn ent i \'Us preuves, qu e lque ~ 05 failS, ceu x qui sont :;-~!)s':l Les contredire, <:

~kr?

~ ':e

sai nt Nom de Dieu ;

'SUrue I'idee du premier !- ~

pene tre dans Ie se in '. ~~r: ma is un res pect nn respect eclaire. (we l'l nterprete divin =s r.I) ons echappes de ~- : <!jouter un nou veau

r;:2ll1r e and despite -isting on the reality :nnple, in Geologie _ on the following

entre Ie n~ci t de la Dieu, dit la Genese,

crea Ie monde en six jours et se reposa Ie septieme. Evid emm ent, les jours dont il est ici question son t des epoques; cette assertion, qui n'a rien d ' heterodoxe, est, d 'ailleurs, suffisamment justifiee; car Ie mot hebreu, iom, qu ' on a traduit par j our, signifie aus si revolution, epoque, c'esH't-dire laps de temps plus ou moins consid erable ... "

Successive creation had been previously defended by Agassiz (1841) who considered four ages de la nature, i.e. four periods whose faunas had been successively created according to a Plan of Creation, represented by the realms of fishes, reptiles, mammals, and man , respectively. According to this author: " En envisageant sous ce point de vu e Ie regne anim al tout entier, on ne saurait y meconnaitre un plan premedite, lie dans toutes ses parties. L' idee d ' une intelligence superieure, independante de la creation, et qui , des les premiers temps, en aIJrait fi xe les phases, se presente d ' elle-meme."

Whatever interpretation was given to the unrolling of the Plan of Creation, i.e . a single creation or several successive creations, explaining the distribution of species raised serious difficulties for creationists. May r (1982) discusses this point. The disjunct distributions were surely a major problem. How could they be explained on the basis of a single centre of creation? Creationist biogeographers offered no suitable solutions and remained attached to the idea of some hitherto unknown laws which would explain the facts. Prichard, cited by Swainson (1835), referred to the difficulty in sup porting Linnaeus 's view that all living species were descended from the stock saved in Noah's Ark. In Prichard's opinion, zoological facts a re opposed to the congregation of all species in a sin gle centre. Why then should not other hypotheses be accepted, such as that (1) many species were created after the Biblical Flood or (2) only the inhabited part of the Earth had been sub merged? Multiple creation of the same species was considered a fallacious hypothesis. Swainson (1835, p. 9) expressed himself in different terms: " [t appears that th e various tribes of organised beings were originally placed by the Crea tor in certain regions, for which th ey are by the ir nature particularly adapted. Each species may have had only one beginning in a sing le stock; probably a sin gle pair, as Linnaeus supposed, was fi rst called into being, and their progeny left to di spers e

Carlos Almar;:a themselves to as great a distance from the original centre of their existence as was compatible with its physical capabilities, and with these unknown laws, by which the Creator has regulated the geographic distribution of hi s creatures."

According to Alphonse de Candolle (1855), the Linnean hypothesis of a single centre was useless and opposed to the known facts, resulting from a superficial interpretation of Genesis (p. 1108). Though the exact placing of centres of creation could not be precisely indicated, the fact that most species were now dispersed and limited to restricted areas (p . 1110) " ... c'est deja une preuve qu'elles sont nees dans plusieurs centres differents". Moreo ver, the creation of species could not have been both simultaneous and from but a single individual, or pair, at the beginning (p. 1115). If so, how could carnivores survive without established herbivores, parasites without their hosts, certain plants without other plants' shade? Geological and botanical arguments support successive creation (p. 1111) and the same omnipotent cause which produced one individual could surely have produced many individuals of the same species (p. 1115). On the basis of supernatural creation, multipie origin for disjunct species remained then as an admissible, but not necessary, hypothesis (p. 1117). Such was the situation at the time of the first publication of The Origin of Species (1859). It appears that Darwin's book was mainly known in Portugal through French translations 2 issued in the 1860's. Hence, when Manuel Paulino de 0liveira3 presented his doctoral thesis to the University of Coimbra on 20th November 1861, Darwin's enlightening conclusions 011 the causality of geographical distributions were overlooked . Oliveira's thesis, entitled "Did one or more centres of creation exist?" , comprises the following three chapters: the history of the Earth, centres of creation relative to past geological epochs, and centres of creation relative to the present. Oliveira begins his chapter on the history of the Earth with a discussion of cosmogonic hypotheses. Whiston's, Buffon 's, Laplace's and Angelot's theories about the origin of the Earth are presented and contrasted so as to show that none of them deserves general acceptance. A long igneous period followed the formation of the Earth and when, with decreasing temperature, rocks solidified and water could remain in a liquid state, a new period was

neous gene origin of life strata (azoic have been limi the increas in~ _ Three possible Firstly, i.be _ the same as between p:e . different exp l and cons o f position on passing from would confinn

variability e. - :

-- ~

~~_

Paleo~~~!~ _

many centr on the follm .• ~ = implied a w ide _ to believe that next, it was n area, (3) and would be nec ~ made their ap~.........._ From a present patterns _::" 7" geography, ana . _ Humbolt, Aug

Early evolutionism in Portugal ~ ~.

;.heir ex istence as wa s laws, by which the

an hypothesis of > resulting from ,g!l the exact placing me fact that most - (p. 1110) " ... c ' est ~ rufferents". Moreo ltar!eou s and from 5 l. ]f so, how cou Id -ires without their gica l and botanical e same omnipotent produced many :(6is of supernatural n as an admissible,

-calion of The Origin ainly known in O's. Hence, when esis to the University ening conclusions on ~_ •.;:ed. ~ of creation exist?" , .e Earth, centres of s o f creation relative

with a discussion ~'s and Angelot's - '~ n( rasted so as to ng igneous period .::reasi ng temperature, = .:1 ne\\' period was

initiated with the appearance oflife. The organic reaim, according to Oliveira, began in the Silurian with the first fossils. Different hypotheses on sponta neous generation, are discussed. Oliveira acknowl edges the spontaneous origin of life during Silurian times since no fossils were known in lower strata (azoic strata, in his words). Spontaneous generation would , however, have been limited to that period of the Earth 's history. How to explain, then , the increasing diversity and complexity of spec ies from the Silurian on? Three possible explanations are presented. Firstly, the single creation theory, arguing that species of a period are the same as before, except those which were extinguished by catastrophes between periods. The successive creation and descent theories offered different explanations . Oliveira discusses the theories, presenting the pros and cons of each in tum. He takes an eclectic and convenient personal position on the issue: (1) some species wou Id have escaped the catastrophes, passing from one period to the next; species common to two or more periods would confirm this; (2) other species had been successively created; this would explain the appearance of species quite di stinct from others living in lower strata; and (3) yet other species passed from one period to the next with perceptible modifications (comprised in the present and past range of variability exhibited by the species). Paleogeography and the past distribution of plant species suggested that many centres of creation had existed. Oliveira justifies this point of view on the following grounds: (1) increasing plant diversity over geological periods implied a wide variety of environments where species could live; it was hard to believe that different conditions for the survival of each species would be found in a single area; (2) if some species had passed from one period to the next, it was not credible that they had escaped the catastrophes injust a single area, (3) and furthermore, if only a singie centre of creation had existed, it would be necessary to admit that all the species created in that period had made their appearance in only that one area. From a creationist perspective, centres of creation had to explain the present patterns of plant distribution. Oli veira reviews the history of plant geography, analysing the contributions of Tournefort, Linnaeus, Buffon, Humbolt, Auguste and Alphonse de Candolle, etc. The main object of

Carlos Almac;a

Oliveira's thesis was to prove that many centres of creation had existed, a point of view first advanced by Gmelin in ] 753 . For this, Oliveira relied substantially on Alphonse de Cancolle's well documented book, Geographie

the inconveni deeply attached : he had to n-;==-

botanique raisonruie (1855).

hypothesis research. Tn ~ __ reform of e remained anz.:: - , -:

Living plants were in part derived from species existing in the preceding geological epoch, and in part created in the present epoch. Several 'facts' proved to Oliveira the presence of the first group: (1) it was not credible that all aquatic species had been extinguished during the catastrophe separating the preceding and present periods - the Flood; (2) the same held true for certain terrestrial species living in areas known not to have been submerged (Auvergne, Brittany, Scandinavia, etc.); (3) some tree species were known whose individual life cycles amounted to centuries; if we admitted a few generations preceding the living specimens, then we had to admit that the species were created before the present period; (4) some living species were known as fossils in preceding epochs. Hence, since one fact or another showed that some living species had escaped the Flood, it was not credible that escape had only been possible in a singie place. This implied that more than one centre of creation had existed at the beginning of the present epoch. As most of the living plant species were not known as fossils, they had probably been created in our epoch. If there had been just a single centre of creation, those species would have appeared in the same place where the escape of those already existing had been possible. In Oliveira's opinion, this fact also points to the existence of many centres of creation. The search is continued with recourse to arguments such as the diver sity of ecological conditions necessary to species development, plant disper sal and geographical barriers, in order to prove that many centres of creation might have existed. A special comment is required on this and other dissertations which will be considered below. Doctoral dissertations were not intended as the presen tation of original research, but rather as a way of testing the culture and intellectual capacity of candidates. They had to prepare a monograph, documenting and justifying their response to a question put by the Council of the University some months before. Hence the academic nature of such papers where the points of view of different authorities were contrasted and discussed in order to get at the (better) truth. Oliveira's thesis clearly shows

Deep l ~ .';.....;.::-.~'-' and DaJ'\\in, .:: clearly to :)[] tation, " Are ' r - , - and docum " He nri<p _ (Lamarck'

opinion thar dent types reinforced b, had been kn ~ species \ \ -ere ' Animal grot} diversity had ' _ any degree 0'-' _ Evo luri they form I ofvariabilit} - depends on x: sity of suc h ___~ ristics are the with heat, si ze lection as well ference is tha

Early evolutionism in Portugal

eation had existed, a - th is, Oliveira relied led book, Geographie

pies existing in the the present epoch.

Ie first group: (1) it

inguished during the Kls - the Flood; (2) ~ in areas known not la\'ia, etc.); (3) some lDo unted to centuries; : specimens, then we present period; (4) ling epochs. Hence, ies had escaped the possible in a single ~ tion had existed at

n as fossils, they had [I j ust a single centre ;aID e place where the Il ive ira's opinion, this reation. nts such as the diver apment, plant disper ly centres of creation

ose rtations which will tended as the presen ili ng the culture and e pare a monograph, n put by the Council :Jemic nature of such were contrasted and , rb esis clearly shows

the inconvenience of such a system. Oliveira was a distinguished naturalist, deeply attached to fieldwork and analytical methods. However, in his thesis, he had to present a juridical reasoning about natural phenomena, piling hypothesis on hypothesis, without any kind of personal , even limited, direct research. In a way, biological research and teaching, despite the significant reform of the Portuguese university in the late eighteenth century, still remained attached to theoretical and deductive methods.

THE TRANSMUTATION OF SPECIES Deeply influenced by Linnaeus, Buffon and Cuvier, but also by Lamarck 4 and Darwin, Julio Augusto Henriques was the first Portuguese naturalist clearly to support evolutionism and natural selection. In his doctoral disser tation, "Are species changeable?", presented in July 1865, Henriques states and documents his agreement with Darwinian evolutionary causation. Henriques dei1ies the trend towards progressively perfect organisation (Lamarck's progression dans la composition) and, consequently, the exis tence of animal and plant progressive series. He relies completely on Cuvier's opinion that animal organisation was established according to four indepen dent types - Vertebrata, Mollusca, Articulata, and Radiata - an opinion reinforced by Von Baer's embryological research 5 . Fossils of all four types had been known since Paleozoic times and very often the most "perfect" species were older than the less "perfect" ones (Henriques, 1865, p. 37). Animal groups had evolved in parallel, not successively. Though species diversity had increased progressively, evolution did not proceed according to any degree of increasing perfection. Evolution depended on variability. Species are variable; that is why they form locai races and varieties. Even Cuvier accepted a certain amount of variability within species. According to Cuvier (1812, p. 113), variability depends on external factors, its range increasing prop0l1ionally to the inten sity of such factors. However, variability is limited. Superficial characte ristics are the most variable: colouration varies with light intensity, hair width with heat, size with food. Variability and inheritance explain artificial se lection as well as natural selection. According to Henriques, the only dif ference is that nature's modifying action is slower than man's.

Carlos Almm;a

Species variability or constancy were, in Henriques ' words, opposed theories. The constancy of species had been supported by Linnaeus (in his early works) and by Cuvier. Species variability had been defended by Buffon, Lamarck, Saint-Hilaire, and even by Linnaeus in his final years (the forma tion of new species through hybridisation). Cuvier had reconciled faunal renewal with a single creation by means of sudden catastrophes followed by the migration of species which were not previously living in the annihilated area or continent. Cuvier 's view on limited and superficial variability did not mean that he accepted any kind of evolution . Buffon had presented different views. Though also accepting that variability oniy affects non-essential characters, his feliile imagination had led him to assume that species could evolve either by degeneration or com mon descent6 . However, Buffon had considered both hypotheses as only theoretically possible, not rea1. Lamarck took a definite and positive position on species transformation through the changing of habits consequent to modified living conditions. Greater use of celiain organs (and disuse of others), and the cumulative inheritance of the amounts gained (or lost) by use (or disuse) in each gene ration, would cause species transformation. Henriques does not accept any of the evolutionary causations suggested by Linnaeus (hybridisation), or Buffon (degeneration), or Lamarck (use and disuse), or even by Saint-Hilaire (direct effect of external conditions). The only evolutionary causation is natural selection, whose modifying efficiency can be inferred from artificial selection and increasing diversity. Through artificial selection, man produces new races and varieties in relatively short periods. Why, then, could nature not form new races or even species in thousands of years? All the more so because the distinction between species and varieties or races is not clear. Henriques compares species definitions and criteria followed by Linnaeus, Buffon 7, Cuvier, etc. According to Henriques, similarity is of paramount importance as a species criterion and the only one that can be used with fossils. Other criteria, such as fecundity and community of origin, are less useful: fecundity, because many species produce fertile hybrids; and the absence of known fossils renders it impossible to determine the origins of the great majority of species. Natural selection is the conservation, through reproduction, of acciden tally produced variation when such variation favours individuals in their

Transm u biological --,.-,."......;:r.or tor's intelr __

the newly h- ............~ Acc among the

man, we

p.27). Su

Early evolutionism in Portugal - - words, opposed _ Linnaeus (in his fended by Buffon, _-ears (the forma reco nci led faunal hes followed by in the annihilated -:ial variability did

accepti I1g that imagination had eration or com ~1X>theses as only

cies transformation :.: livi ng conditions. 2nd the cumulative -=-.use) in each gene "'2.!.lSations suggested

.::r Lamarck (use and

conditions). The ifying efficiency . dh·ersity. and varieties in - new races or even ::!me the distinction . k nriques compares luffon 7 , Cuvier, etc. ce as a species Other criteria, such fec undity, because o f known fossils ·ority of species. -~-t::ti o n, of acciden 'jyiduals in their o

! 1•

contemporary living circumstances. The common descent theory, implying evolution by natural selection and survival of the fittest, explains increasing diversity on Earth and clarifies many biological problems like, for example, biogeographical causation and classification. Although no-one has seen one species transforming into another, palaeon tology proves, in Henriques ' words, the transmutation of species. Further more, it clarifies classification which, with increasing scientific development, will be nothing less than the genealogy of species (Henriques, 1865, p. 91 ). Transmutation of species is the only rational explanation for the formation of biological diversity and , contrary to creationism, it does not limit the Crea tor 's intelligence (p. 92). Evolutionism is then to be accepted, with natural selection as the main evolutionary factor. However, isolation may contribute to the origin of species, since it prevents hybridisation between the parent and the newly forming species (p. 96). Accepting evolutionism means that man's origin must be looked for among the primates (p . 103). Comparing primates among themselves, it is easy to see that there are more differences between the skeletons of a lemur and a chimpanzee, than between those of a chimpanzee and man . The skull of Neanderthal man lies between the chimpanzee's and European man 's. Thus, Darwinian theory reaches its full application in man (p. 105). Henriques ' conclusions are remarkable for his time and environment. Even Darwin, in The Origin, abstained from considering man's evolution, and it was only in 1871, when Darwinism was gathering ground, that he dealt with the subject. It will be seen below how Henriques complemented the conclusion of his doctoral d issertation. The following year (1866), Henriques presented a further disserta tion in order to obtain a post as associate professor in the University. Now, he could select the subject of his thesis, and chose "The antiquity of man" as its theme. Summarising the ideas and findings of Boucher de Perthes, Lartet, d' Archiac, Pereira da Costa, Vogt, Lyell, etc., Henriques concludes that man too must be the result of organic evolution . The great antiquity of man being proved, why should not our species evolve like any other? All the more so in that, comparing human fossils and their cultures (Neanderthal man was the oldest known at the time) with living man, we can verify that fossils are close to " lower" living races. Evolution, in man too, may have proceeded by producing "more perfect" forms (1866, p. 27). Such an event is not due to any supernaturai cause, nor will today's

Carlos

Alma~a

life be destroyed by a world catastrophe. To explain such modifications, the acting causes currently observed are sufficient. The current and slow move ments of the continents change the climates and these, in turn, the living beings. Life, however, is always present, without interruptions, since the laws governing it have been established by the Creator (pp. 27-28). We can confirm, therefore, that Julio Henriques, as early as 1865-1866, presented to the Council of the University an evolutionary view of life, including man himself. He did it so well that he was approved as associate professor and, eight years later, when he was 36 years old, as full professor at the University of Coimbra. THE POPULARISATION OF DARWINISM 8

A positivist and a republican, Arruda Furtad0 was the main propagator

of early Darwinism in PortugaL His efforts in popularising the theory, like the other early scientific essays reflecting his philosophical and political views, were published in positivist and republican journals and newspapers such as 0 Positivismo, A Era Nova and A Republica Federal. A self-trained naturalist, Arruda Furtado was profoundly influenced by reading The Origin of Species. All the ideas raised in t11is master work about the origin of isolated populations interested him. In this direction, not only did he strike up a correspondence with Charles Darwin, but he also investigated the causality of the composition and distribution of terrestrial gasteropods in the Azores. At the same time, and on the apparent pretext of explaining a local situation rooted in ignorant clericalism, he began his work of popularising Darwinism. All these aspects are developed below. The correspondence between A. Furtado and Darwin was published and annotated by Tavares (1957). In his first letter (13.06.1881), Furtado informs Darwin of his objectives of clarifying the origin of Azorian species and the natural dispersal processes that may have been at work in the colonisation of the islands, as well as that of popular ising Darwinism in the Azores. He also mentions that he has discovered specimens of Vitrina without traces of repro ductive organs, and asks whether they might not be hybrids of separate species. In his reply (03.07.1881), Darwin mentions that celtain crustaceans on American beaches show characteristics identical to those of the Vitrina speci mens. He goes on to suggest a virtual research programme in causal biogeo

seeds, in ~. as the pre~ length of out such a question s Two Darwin for . . _

(Entadas giu 1957). The -""-""'__,

to obtain """"~---.:: so as to pu asks Darnin .~ Gorda and P-~ . In hi ft1:- . has begu n hi publishing an. Gardens). A-: saying thar H~ large trunks v- G contrary to the deeply buri suggests to F [in which th place to se jf - . Two more ~ Darwin for bis

Early evolutionism in Portugal ,x Llooifi cations, the -_: and slow move - tu m , the living Il ions, since the . 27-28). -~y as 1865-1866, .. view of life, >, ed as associate as fu II professor

'IS\ '1

.". ma in propagator :: (he theory, like _..:..ical and political and newspapers '0 1. j ly influenced by - <his master work Thi s direction, not '::\\1 n, but he also 'on of terrestrial - - eo apparent pretext l, he began his eyeloped below. published and Fu rtado informs pecies and the - ~ colonisation of . -= Azores. He also trnces of repro - -.: separate species.

- '?

ilrina speci ill causal biogeo-

graphy for Furtado to carry out in the Azores: (I) to compare the populations of the different islands of the Azores archipelago, (2) to research the populations of the highest points of each island, (3) to investigate the pos sible presence of glacial remains on the north coast of the northernmost islands, (4) to germinate, in sterilised and damp sand isolated under a bell jar, seeds found on the feet, or in the beaks and intestinal tracts of birds killed by collision with lighthouses, (5) to germinate under similar conditions the soil found between the roots of trees washed up on beaches, (6) to look for seeds, insects, etc., washed up there by strong gales from the same direction as the prevailing ocean currents, and (7) to investigate the buoyancy and length of survival in sea water of the eggs of Azorian caterpillars. Carrying out such a programme would result, obviously, in clarifying many of the questions about the population of oceanic islands. Two more letters from Furtado follow. The first (29.07.1881) thanks Darwin for his suggestions and promises to send seeds of the sea-bean (Enladas gigas), which are often washed up on Azorian beaches (Tavares, 1957). The second letter (17.08.1881) says he will collect plants, insects and gasteropods on the summits of two small mountains (Serra Gorda and Pico da Cruz) and establish contact with a lighthouse keeper and hunters in order to obtain specimens of migratOlY birds, or at least of their feet and beaks, so as to pursue the investigations suggested by Darwin. In this letter, Furtado asks Darwin to whom he should send the herbaria collected on the Serra Gorda and Pico da Cruz. In his reply (02 .09 . 188 I), Darwin expresses satisfaction that Furtado has begun his research and exhorts him to accumulate facts and notes before publishing anything. He suggests sending the herbaria to Sir J. Hooker (Kew Gardens) . A few days later, he writes again, giving Hooker 's address and saying that Hooker told him of the discovery, on an island in the Azores, of large trunks of Cupressus, buried deep in the soil. Darwin, who believed, contrary to the opinions of the best botanists [Darwin's own expression] , that deeply buried seeds are able to maintain their viability for long periods, suggests to Furtado that he should extract soil from deep in the same strata [in which there are buried trunks] and keep it damp and isolated in a warm place to see if any plants genninate. Two more letters followed from Furtado. The first (16.10.1881) thanks Darwin for his suggestions and the gift of Wallace's9 book, and the second

Carlos Alma<;:a

(22 . 10. 1881) gives an account of how he found cockroach eggs beneath plaster statuettes. The covering of plaster over the eggs was interpreted by Furtado as resulting from the protective instinct of the insect, which had covered the eggs to hide them from predators, protect them from light, or simply to keep them in place. He says, at the same time, that he has sent the eggs to Darwin. Darwin 's reply was not long in coming (31.1 0.1881), and suggests that the laying of the eggs may have preceded the replastering of the statuettes, and encouraging FUliado to investigate simi liar cases. In his last (known) letter to Darwin (21.11.1881), Furtado insists that he is right about the instinctive action of the cockroaches since he is certain that the eggs were laid only a week before he made the observation and because there has been no subsequent replastering. He goes on to say that he has coilected fossil leaves which he will send later to Sir J . Hooker, and of which he is sending a sample to Darwin, together with seeds washed up on Azorian beaches. Thus ended the correspondence between Arruda Furtado and Darwin. The famous English naturalist was to die a few months later, an event which Furtado marked with heartfelt praise and homage (A Republica Federal, 23.05.1882). FUliado 's scientific and popularising work continued without any weakening of his evolutionist convictions. All the splendid evolutionist research suggested by Darwin vanished over time, however, seemingly be cause he was deprived of his privileged source of advice, but also perhaps because the undertaking was not easy for an isolated and self-taught man. When he moved to the National Museum of Lisbon, Furtado 's work became more descriptive than causal, although he maintained evolutionist leanings in his popularising activities. Furtado's Darwinist convictions had influenced his research activities even before he began to correspond with Darwin. It appears that he became acquainted with Darwin 's ideas through reading the 1878 edition of The Ori gin ofSpecies. In fact, it is that edition which he refers to in one of his first works (Arruda Furtado, 1881a), as he indicates at the end of the text. In that work, he thinks he will find percentage differences in the number of species of various types of gasteropods represented in continental Europe, and in the Azores and Madeira, which would contradict the idea expressed by Darwin (and commonly accepted) that, for areas of equal size, the diversity of oceanic

islands is less that the propo -~ In add iri ing five pro (2) introductio (4) modificati The high is it possibie

[0 ...:.~

veiops a line 0 defends, a bO\e Furtad 's

trates an ine.· a ......:- expounding dte . ~ use and non-t:ISC... survival and 112:._ His wort articles in A. R r . under the seq theory is baseD. -~ cal origin, its . was or is born are taken up ag:! phy, the sl \\ _ parison of'-- '":::=- to Darwin ism '- _ The coJ}

when he says:

Early evolutionism in Portugal

:. ~

b eggs beneath .as interpreted by insect, which had

. . and suggests that .:: of the statuettes, unado insists that -since he is certain -- - o bservation and ; ~ileS on to say that · oJ Sir J. Hooker, and - . 1... - eeds washed up 1="

""""'do and Darwin. 'f, an event which

3.i!pliblica Federal, ...ont inued without =;ifendi d evolutionist 't"\c r, seemingly be -.:e. but also perhaps ,""'.1 self-taught man. - .ado's work became ionist leanings in

:search activities even :-2l'S tb at he became . edition of The Ori . - in one of his first - -f the text. In that um ber of species ':'m o pe, and in the ressed by Darwin .- ·ersity of oceanic

islands is less than that of continents. In fact, he confirms Darwin 's opin ion that the proportion of endemic species is larger on oceanic islands 10. In addition, he discusses the origin of the Azorian malacofauna, claim ing five processes for its composition: (l) dispersal during the ice age (?), (2) introduction by birds (Physa) , (3) introduction by man (species of Helix), (4) modifications caused by soi I conditions, and (5) hybridisatioll of species . The high degree of endemism found on each island appears to Furtado to be an irrefutable argument against the idea of centres of creation: "How is it possible to accept that, on islands [of the Azores] which are perfectly similar in soil, in vegetation, in every way, an initial creative impetus arose, distinct to each island and each mountain ... ?" On this subject, Furtado de velops a line of reasoning firmly rooted in early Darwinism in which he defends, above al I, the transformation of species. Furtado's popularising activities seem to have begun with a pamphlet aimed at a local priest whose sermons had been irritating the Darwinist republicans (Arruda Furtado, 1881 b). In this pamphlet, Furtado demons trates an inexhaustible faith in the science of the early POltuguese positivists, expounding the pro-evolutionist arguments of the time : rudimentary organs, use and non-use, inheritance of acquired characteristics, the struggl e for survival and natural selection . His work went further, however. In May 1881 he began a series of articles in A RepLlblica Federal (Arruda Furtado, 1881 c), grouped together under the sequential titles: "Some facts on which Darwinian or evolutionary theory is based", "The modern concept of Geological Philosophy, its histori cal origin, its meaning and importance (Popular Education)" and "Nothing was or is born perfect". The id eas referred to above (Arruda Furtado, 1881 b) are taken up again and extended here into issues of evolutionary biogeogra phy, the slow and gradual geological changes, the appearance of man , com parison of " savage" and "civilised" peoples, etc. Once again, his alleg iance to Darwinism is amply evident in this series of articles . The contribution of embryology to proving evolutionism wou Id form patt of an essay published the following year (Arruda Furtado, 1882). Here, he was to follow Haeckel (1874) and other authors such as Le Bon and Buchner, showing himself to be a disciple of gradual evolution and not of saltationism, which he considered to be theological. He shows himself to be a nominalist when he says : " In nature, there is nothing more than the individual. It is

Carlos Almm;a

individuals which make up what we call the species; it is they who fight for survival, one against the other; it is not the species which fights ... " For this reason, he defines the species as merely a formal entity: "The species cannot and shou Id not be considered as anything but a conventional grouping, com足 parable to the genus and the other divisions of natural history... " Arruda Furtado's popularising role was to be significant in Portuguese intellectual circles of the time, which were mainly republican and positivist. His influence in the restricted scientific environment, especially amongst the naturalists of the National Museum of Lisbon with whom he was on intimate terms, is doubtful because his premature death prevented him from making much impact. It is, however, possible that he awoke the ir.terest of Eduardo Burnay and Baltasar Osorio in the evolutionary themes which they later developed in their dissertations (Almaya, 1993).

visited Ann

CONCLUSION Darwinism reached Portugal in the 1860s and - unusual for its early stages - was devoid of Lamarckian evolutionary causality right from its first appearance (Henriques, 1865). The universities played an important role in alerting the Portuguese to evolutionism a role which would be expanded by the progressive political movements only in the following decade. Thus it was that, in 1878, Giraldes published the text of a conference which he had not yet given (Almaya, 1993) and, in the 1880s, pro-evolution initiatives multiplied: Arruda FUliado, Eduardo Burnay, J(Ilio de Matos, etc. However, enthusiasm for the new concept of life did not stop there. Until the second decade of the 20th century, evolutionism was the leitmotiv of uni足 versity dissertations in Biology. Which means that, for about half a century, Portuguese universities exhibited remarkable openness and curiosity about this innovation which so radically transformed their former view of the worid.

invertebrales. ~~~ taceans. mol ._ focused on ~

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to the Director of the Museu Carlos Machado (Ponta Delgada), who sent me copies of some of Arruda Furtado's articles. To Mr David Bloomfield, lowe the revision (in part) and translation (in part) of this work.

botanist, Fel L" ... _ of Julio Hen :. _

Early evolutionism in Portugal

1 is they who fight for fights ... " For this _ ~h e species cannot . nal grouping, com

-Story. .." ' fican t in Portuguese . liean and positivist. _", ially amongst the he was on intimate him from making ir.lerest of Eduardo - es w hich they later

sual for its early from its first ~ an important role in ,:mJd be expanded by - g. decade. Thus it :"erence which he had -e"'.·olution initiatives ~ '-faw s, etc. not stop there. Until D leitmotiv of uni - 2.bout half a century, uriosity about this iew of the worid. -~. right

.. .:li-the Museu Carlos :: .:·f Arruda Furtado's - Dan) and translation

NOTES

1. The botanist J. Pitton de Tournefort, in an expedition ordered by the King of France, visited Annenia and described the Mount Ararat where «on croyoit que I' Arche dc Noe s'etait arretee ... » (Tournefort, 1727, vol. 3, p.203). 2. Citations of English editions of The Origin of Species by Portuguese evolutionists started in the 1880s. Until then , only French translations of Darwin's seminal book were apparently read. This is understandable since French literary and scientific pUblications had a significant influence on Portuguese intellectual life until World War II. In Portuguese scientific libraries, French translations of the Origin by Clemence Royer, Edmond Barbier, l..I. Moulinie, etc., issued from the 1860s onwards, are common. 3. Manuel Paulino de Oliveira (1837-1899). Doctor of Natural Philosophy. Associate professor (1862), full professor (1872), and director of the Zoological Museum of the Uni versity of Coimbra. Oliveira was the organiser of the Zoological Museum, promoting field trips allover the country and assembling significant collections of marine and terrestrial invertebrates, particularly cnidarians, annelids, arachnids, centipedes, millipedes, insects, crus taceans, molluscs, ectoprocts and tunicates (Vieira, 1899). His taxonomic research was focused on the insects of Portugal (beetles and bugs) and Angola, describing several new species. Entomological materials collected in Angola by F. Welwitsch (1853-1860) were studied by Paulino de Oliveira. Furthermore, he published catalogues of Portuguese mammals and nudibranchs, described a new species of spider crab, Maja goltziana Oliveira, 1888, and developed dichotomic keys for the identification of Portuguese mammals and Iberian birds, reptiles and amphibians. 4. Julio Augusto Henriques (1838-1928). Doctor of Natural Philosophy. Associate professor (1866), full professor (1874) and director of the Botanical Institute and Botanical Garden of the University ofCoimbra. Organiser of the botanical institutions of the University, as well as of botanical research and teaching, Henriques is the author of a large number of papers on Portuguese and African floras (of which he described several species), tropical agriculture, history of Botany, etc.

He founded the Broterian Society and its publication

Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana 1880- ) in homage to another distinguished Portuguese botanist, Felix de Avelar Brotero (1744-1828). For a detailed account of the life and activities of Julio Henriques, see Palhinha (1948).

Carlos AlmQ(;:a

5. In his creationist vision of the world, Cuvier rejected any suggestion of a trend towards progressively perfect or complex organisation given the evolutionary connotation that could be derived from the idea of "progress". See Cuvier, Regne Animal, vol. 1, 1817, pp. XX-XXI. 6. As May!" (1982, p. 332) pointed out, Buffon was perhaps the first author to refer clearly to "common descent", which he combined with hybridisation, variation, and dege neration. See Buffon, His/oire naturelle, vol. 4 (1753), p.378-383 and vol. 16 (\770), p.XXI. 7. During his long scientific career, Buffon's ideas evolved from an early stage in which he followed a nominalist species concept to a later one of accepting the essentialist concept. For an understanding of that, compare his species definitions in volumes I (p. 38),2 (p. 437), and 4 (pp. 384-385) with those in volumes 4 (pp. 386 and 389) and 13 (p . I). 8. Francisco de Arruda Furtado (1854-1887). Azorian naturalist. In his scientific work, he dedicated himself to malacology, first as an amateur, then from 1885 as a naturalist at the National Museum of Lisbon. He was the author of several nominal species of gasteropods and cephalopods. For a fuller understanding of Arruda Furtado's life and work, see Tavares (1957) and Arruda (1994). 9. This is the well-known book, "The geographical distribution of animals", auto graphed by Darwin and courteously given to Arruda Furtado (Darwin's letter of 02.09.1881). 10. This and other conclusions by A. Furtado on the diversity of insular and continental gasteropods were impaired by much taxonomic confusion in that group in his time. Taxono mists classed themselves either as lumpers or as splitters, radically altering, according to their opinions, the number of species in each genus. Additionally, many of the naturalists who were aware of this great diversity of criteria, aimed at a "common sense" approach - neither too many species, nor too few. However, this position, like the previous ones, had nothing to do with the biological reality of the species, which was only approached to the extent that the causality of the variation was known. Hence the conventional definition of the species followed by A. Furtado and the merely relative credibility which the attempts at statistical biogeography of his time merit.

AGASSIZ, L. (1841)-1 du globe terreslu_ ALMA<;:A, C. (1993) ALMA<;:A, C. (in p ARRUDA, L. (1994) Professor Gerrrn:.::-.. Lisboa. ARRUDA FURTADO. F nos Ayores. A Er ARRUDA FURTADO, F. Ponta Delgada, A. ARRUDA FURTADO, F II(June28), 11(Jul ARRUDA FURTADO, J BUFFON, Conte de (11.t tion du Cabine CUVIER, G. (1812) pn!liminaire. R CUVIER, G. (181 ) base it I'Hi slOUe Detervi lie, Paris.. D'ARCHIAC, A. I DARWIN, Ch. (13: 9 vation of fan} Books, LondolL DE CANDOLLE,.-\' : princi paux er ~"'" actuelle. ;-"[assoJ D' ORBIGNY, C. comprenant r HENRIQUES, J.A. (I - magnas. lm.

Early evolutionism in Portugal

-::·I1Y suggestion of a trend e e\'olutionary connotation 'Egne Animal, vol. I, 1817,

the first author to refer :luion, variation, and dege and vol. 16 (1770), p.XXI. rom an early stage in which ng the: essentialist concept. !umes I (p. 38), 2 (p. 437), and 13 (p. I). "-list. In his scientific work, 1885 as a naturalist at the aI species 0 f gasteropods life and work, see Tavares

!pS

ibution of animals", auto \;n's letter of 02.09.1881). \ of insular and continental rou p in his time. Taxono altering, according to their (I f the naturalists who were :~ approach neither too liS ones, had nothing to do :hed to the extent that the efinition of the species the attempts at statistical

BIBLIOGRAPHY AGASSIZ, L. (1841) - De Ia succession e( du developpement des etres organises a la surface du globe terrestre, dans les differentes ages de la nature. H. Wolfrath, Neuchatel. ALMA<;A, C. (1993) - Evolutionism in Portugal. Museu Bocage, Lisboa. ALMA<;A, C. (in press) - Lamarck et I'evolutionisme au Portugal. ARRUDA, L. (1994) - Comentarios e notas a obra cientifica de Arruda Furtado. In: Professor Germano da Fonseca Sacarrao (1914-1992), p. 353-376. Museu Bocage, Lisboa. ARRUDA FURTADO, F. de (188Ia) - A prop6sito da distribuifi:ao dos Moluscos terrestres nos Afi:ores. A Era Nova I: 263-283. ARRUDA FURTADO, F. de (188Ib) - 0 homem eo macaco (Uma questao puramente local). Ponta Delgada, Afi:ores. ARRUDA FURTADO, F. de (I88Ic) - Articles in A Republica FederaI7(May31), 8(June7), I I (June28), 12(July5), 13(JulyI2), 14(JulyI9), 15(July26). ARRUDA FURTADO, F. de (1882) - Embryologia. 0 Positivismo 4: 121-163. BUFFON, Conte de (1749-1782) - Histoire naturelle generale et particuliere, avec la descrip tion du Cabinet du Roy. Supplements. Imprimerie Royale, Paris. CUYlER, G. (1812) - Recherches sur les ossements fossiles de Quadrupedes. Discours preliminaire. Reprinted by G.F.Flammarion, Paris, 1992. CUYlER, G. (1817) - Le Regne Animal distribue d'apres son organisation, pour servir de base it I'Histoire naturelle des animaux et d'introduction it I'Anatomie comparee. Deterville, Paris. D' ARCHIAC, A. (1864) - Cours de Paleontologie stratigraphique. F. Savy, Paris. DARWIN, Ch. (1859) - The origin of species by means of natural selection or the preser vation of favoured races in the struggle for life. First edition reprinted by Penguin Books, London, 1981. DE CAN DOLLE, A. (1855) - Geographie botanique raisonnee ou exposition des faits principaux et des lois concernant la distribution geographique des plantes a I'epoque actuelle. Masson, Paris and Kessmann, Geneve. D' ORBIGNY, C. et A. GENTE (1851) - Geologie appliquee aux arts et a I'agriculture, comprenant I'ensemble des revolutions du globe. Gente, Paris. HENRIQUES, J.A. (1865) - As especies sllo mudaveis ? Dissertafi:ao para 0 acto de conclusoes magnas. Imprensa da Universidade, Coimbra.

Carlos Almar;a

HENRIQUES, J.A. (1866) - Antiguidade do homem. Dissertac;:ao para a Facuidade de Philosophia da Universidade de Coimbra. Imprensa da Universidade, Coimbra. LYELL, Ch. (1864) - L'anciennete de I'homme prouvee par la Geologie et remarques sur les theories relatives a I' origine des especes par variation . Translation by M. Chaper. Bailliere et Fils, Paris. MAYR, E. (1982) - The growth of biological thought. Diversity, evolution, and inheritance. Belknap Press, Cambridge. OLIVEIRA, M.P. de (1862) - Haveria urn ou mais centros de creac;:ao vegetal? Dissertac;:ao inaugurai para 0 acto de conclusoes magnas, Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra. PALHINHA, R.T. (1948) - Julio Henriques, botanico e mestre. (Esboc;:o bibliogriifico). Port. Acta BioI. (8): V-XXX. PEREIRA DA COSTA, F.A. (1865) - Da existencia do homem em epoch as remotas no valle do Tejo. Imprensa Nacional, Lisboa. SWAINSON, W. (1835) - A treatise on the geography and classification of animals. Longman and Taylor, London. TAVARES, CN. (1957) - Quatro cartas ineditas de Charles Darwin para Francisco d'Arruda Furtado. Rev. Fac. Cien. Lisboa 2." Serie, C, 5(2): 277-306. TOURNEFORT, lP.de (1727) - Relation d'un voyage du Levant, fait par ordre du Roy. Contenant Histoire ancienne & moderne de plusieuts isles de I 'archipel, de Constan足 tinople, des cotes de la Mer Noire, de I' Armenie, de la Georg ie, des frontieres de Perse & de I' Asie Mineure. Freres Bruyset, Lyon. VIEIRA, ,A.X.L. (1899) - 0 Dr. Manuel Paulino d'Oliveira e os seus trabalhos sobre a Zoologia de Portugal. Ann. Sc. Nat. 6:63-66.

lagosITm -. The begillnino ~: , As classificac;oes : Bosquejo hist6riet Evolutionism in P Onr;a-pintada ou . animais e plantas Evolutionism. C. Evolutionism and Professor GennQ AUTORES , 1994 A expedir;Cio c ier hist6ricos e relewI. 1995 Colheita, prepara< Fish species and C. ALMACA, 19' Uma controwirsi( Burnay). C. AL\! Ciriaco, um negn A natural history Botanical Garden European mam" Mammalogy (List

Ediyao do Museu B( Rua Escola Politecni 1250 Lisboa

a Faculdade de Coimbra.

PUBLICA<;::OES AVULSAS DO MUSEU BOCAGE

ft-:s:;.-.:oe.,

~ and inheritance.

c-getaJ ? 'niversidade de iogr.ifico). Pori.

.--. - -motas no val le

F;a:ncisco d'Arruda

ordre du Roy.

- : e:n.imaJs. Longman ~==

:JT

::ipel de Constan足 5-oatieres de Perse aabalhos sobre a

Tecnicas de transporte de peixe vivo. A. A. SOARES, 1990

Recursos animais e sua conservac;Cio. As populac;oes portuguesas do

lagostim-do-rio - Astacus pallipes Lereboullet, 1858. C. ALMA<;::A, 1990

The beginning of the Portuguese mammalogy. C. ALMA<;::A, 1991

As c!assificac;oes zool6gicas. Aspectos hist6ricos. C. ALMA<;:: A, 1991

Bosquejo hist6rico da Zoologia em Portugal. C. ALMA<;::A, 1993

Evoiutionism in Portugal. C. ALMA<;::A, 1993

Onc;a-pintada ou Jaguar? Sobre a utilizac;Cio dos nomes populares de

animais e plantas no Brasil. 1. C. GUrX, 1993

Evolutionism. C. ALMA<;::A, 1994

Evolutionism and Mendelism. C. ALMA<;::A, 1994

Professor Germano da Fonseca SacarrCio (1914-1992). V ARIOS

AUTORES, 1994

A expedic;Cio cientifica espanhola de 1862-1866 ao Brasil: aspectos

hist6ricos e relewinciado material e da informac;iio recolhida. J. C. GUrX,

1995

Colheita, preparac;Cio e identificac;Cio de Espongiarios. M. T. LOPES, 1995

Fish species and varieties introduced into Portuguese inland waters.

C. ALMA<;::A, 1995

Uma controversia antropol6gica de 1881 (Oliveira Martins e Eduardo

Burnay). C. ALMA<;::A, 1995

Ciriaco, um negro pigarc;o do seculo XV111. C. ALMA<;::A, 1996

A natural history museum of the 18th century: the Royal Museum and

Botanical Garden of Ajuda. C. ALMA<;::A, 1996

European mammals. Proceedings of the 1 European Congress of

Mammalogy (Lisboa, 18-23 March, 1991). 1996

Ediyao do Museu Bocage

Rua Escola Politecnica, 58

1250 Lisboa