拉塞尔(1799–1880)是英国利物浦的啤酒制造商，1846年利用自己私人天文台自制的24英寸口径牛顿赤道式反射镜发现了海卫一，1870年-1872年任英国皇家天文协会理事长。
本照片摄于里克天文台。
以下特附加一篇有关拉塞尔的英文原版文章：
J. Brit. Astron. Assoc., 106, 4, 1996
.
William Lassell and 'the accident of a maid-servant's carelessness'
or Why Neptune was not searched for at Starfield
by Richard Baum
With the discovery of an eighth magnitude object near Delta Capricorni on 1846 September 23, J. G. Galle and H. d'Arrest at Berlin successfully concluded the search for Neptune, then the farthest known planet from the Sun. The event was promptly acclaimed, and designated one of the greatest triumphs of celestial mechanics. News reached England on September 30. Next day J. R. Hind announced the discovery in a letter to the London Times where it was avidly read by the owner of the largest telescope in England, William Lassell (1799–1880), the wealthy Liverpool brewer.[1]
That same day Sir John Herschel scribbled a note to Lassell urging him to look for 'satellites with all possible expedition!!'[2] The letter arrived at Starfield, Lassell's Liverpool home the following day, October 2; that night he logged his first observation of Neptune. Within days he had made two extraordinary observations. On the 3rd, he thought the planet encircled by a ring, and on the 10th he had his first glimpse of its principal moon, Triton.[3] But these were trifles compared to what Edward S. Holden, director of the Lick Observatory, disclosed in 1892.[4]
In 1876 Holden spent several months in England. He travelled widely and struck up many friendships. He was particularly taken by Lassell with whom he had previously corresponded, and visited the family home at Maidenhead, a large property called Ray Lodge. As a result of this intimacy he became privy to a family secret; a circumstance first disclosed to him by Mrs Lassell, but later confirmed and explained in greater detail by Lassell himself. Lassell however, had no intention of publicly divulging it 'during the lifetime of Professor Adams' in case it revived bad memories of a painful episode in his life. As it happened John Couch Adams outlived Lassell by twelve years, dying in 1892.
Two years earlier, in anticipation of that event, Holden had resurrected the secret and had been in touch with Jane Lassell, Lassell's second eldest daughter. Writing from Mount Hamilton on 1890 May 9, he remarked, 'I remember very well, when I was once at your house, being told by Mrs Lassell & afterwards by your father, the very strange history of how Neptune was not searched for at Starfield. How Dawes had written from Greenwich to Mr.Lassell, who was then confined to a sofa by a strained ankle, & how the letter was lost, through the carelessness of a maid-servant – & how finally, the search was not made. This conversation interested me greatly, partly because of its relation to the history of Astronomy & partly because of the delicate solicitude of your father lest some notice of this should come to Professor Adams & perhaps add a regret to his feeling regarding the discovery. Its interest to Astronomy seems to me to lie in various points. It is certain for example that if your father had searched for Neptune with the splendid two-foot reflector, that he would have recognized it at once by its disc. – Again if he had found it, the whole merit of the discovery would have gone to England, for this was a year or so before Le Verrier's announcement. Thus the official life of Le Verrier (& the developement of Astronomy in France) would have been greatly influenced. This accident of a maid-servant's carelessness has then really affected the developement of the astronomy of a nation ... I thoroughly appreciate the delicate feeling of your father that this should never be known to Professor Adams.'[5] Holden then asked if Miss Lassell would prepare an account of 'the circumstances in a form that could be printed,' and if she would entrust the manuscript to him for use when appropriate. He gave assurance not to publish while Professor Adams was alive, but felt the story should sometime be 'told as a part of a strange history – one of the strangest in astronomical history.'[6]
Jane Lassell responded on June 9: 'Your letter of the 9th of May last correctly states the incident you refer to, whereby the honour of the discovery of Neptune was lost to England. I can hardly add anything to your graphic account, in fact it had escaped my memory that my Father had wished the matter to remain dormant till Professor Adams' death. ... I think such a statement as you have yourself written to me would answer every purpose in the interests of science – it is correct and can have our sanction.'[7]
Holden did not have long to wait. John Couch Adams died on 1892 January 21. Nine days later the following story was released. 'It is known that in October 1845, Professor Adams, then an undergraduate of Cambridge submitted to Sir George Airy, Astronomer Royal, the results of his computations on the perturbations of Uranus and the elements of a new planet – Neptune – which would account for the observed disturbances in the orbit of the former.' About this time the Rev. W. R. Dawes, the well known double star observer, chanced to visit Greenwich 'and the letters and computations of Adams were shown to him by Airy.' Unlike the latter, Dawes was very impressed and 'at once wrote to Lassell to beg him to search for Neptune, in the region designated by Adams, with his powerful two-foot reflecting telescope (which was then mounted at Starfield, near Liverpool).' When the letter arrived 'Lassell was confined to his sofa by a sprained ankle' and unable to observe. He thus had it placed on his writing table, but once he was improved 'the letter could not be found as it, together with some other papers, had been removed and destroyed by a too zealous maid-servant.' I think, Holden continued, 'though I am not sure, that renewed inquiry was made by Lassell of Dawes as to the data in question. However this may have been, they were never recovered, and the mistaken zeal of the maid-servant had its full effect.' Holden concluded his recollection by emphasizing 'the delicate consideration of Mr. Lassell,' who kept all this secret 'in order that no possible shade of regret should be inspired during the lifetime of Professor Adams.'[8]
The story, which is basically an oral tradition, a tribal incident perpetuated by hearsay and memory, has been cited by many writers, including Morton Grosser, author of the standard work on the discovery,[9] and is now an integral part of the mythology that has grown up around the dramatic events of 1846. As told it has the ring of authenticity. Adams did call at Greenwich in October 1845. We also know Lassell was indisposed, which makes the 'mislaid letter' aspect all the more plausible. Or does it? That Lassell could have discovered Neptune is beyond doubt. Whether in fact he had the opportunity to do so before September 23 as he claimed, is quite another matter.
Lassell was a compulsive observer who relished every opportunity to demonstrate the excellence of his telescopes. By late 1845 he was the proud owner of a 24-inch Newtonian built with the assistance of James Nasmyth, inventor of the steam hammer, and owner of the Bridgewater foundry at Patricroft, near Manchester. One only has to skim through Lassell's observing diaries for 1845 and 1846 to sense the pride he felt in his achievement. What better chance then of showing off its capabilities than a search for, and possible discovery of, the long rumoured exterior planet? What a triumph all round if it should be found! Yet Lassell's records are strangely mute of such excitement. His correspondence offers no contradiction – not even the merest trace of regret or grievance. After investigating the incident in 1982 Robert W. Smith, Hubble Space historian, came to the conclusion that the story as told to Holden is unreliable and misleading,[10] and in a subsequent paper he adduced further evidence in support of his contention.[11]
Of course there may be some truth in Lassell's recall of Dawes' visit to Greenwich in October 1845. It is well known Adams left a brief summary of his findings for Airy at Greenwich on the 21st, giving the orbital elements and mean longitude of Neptune for 1845 October 1. Yet Dawes' extant papers give no indication he knew of these results prior to October 1846. Curiously in 1890 Jane Lassell recollected 'that the calculation had been wholly made by Mr Dawes – but possibly he got some data from Professor Adams.' She did admit however, 'we were very young at the time and the matter has been considerably one of hearsay to us.'[12]
Perhaps the most telling piece of evidence is in Smith, 'The Cambridge Network in Action: The Discovery of Neptune'.[13] During 1846 Lassell corresponded about his Saturn observations with Sir John Herschel. Herschel knew of the search at Cambridge, yet neglected to mention it, nor did he so much as hint at the probable existence of an exterior planet. In August though he could not contain himself, as William Rowan Hamilton, Astronomer Royal of Ireland at Dunsink Observatory, and professor of astronomy at Trinity College, Dublin, reported to a correspondent some two months later: 'I may mention that, when I was lately [in August 1846] a guest of Sir John Herschel at Collingwood, we took a drive together to visit Mr. Dawes, an amateur of astronomy, who has erected a private observatory, with some excellent instruments, in that neighborhood, during which visit the conversation turned on the theoretical announcement of the new planet by Le Verrier. It was not generally supposed that the stranger would show himself till about Christmas; but Sir John Herschel recommended Mr. Dawes to begin looking for him at once.'[14] Dawes apparently did not react to the suggestion, but Smith queries if this incident might be the source of Lassell's discomfiture. Obviously without documentary evidence this can only be speculation. So doubts remain. However with the discovery of an overlooked statement by Albert Marth, one time assistant to Lassell, it is possible even they can now be finally laid to rest.
At the monthly meeting of the British Astronomical Association held in Barnard's Inn Hall, Holborn, 1892 June 29, Captain William Noble presiding, visual study of Mars and the Milky Way was high on the programme. In the course of the discussion Marth made some interesting remarks about Lassell and his observations of Mars. Before resuming his seat, he requested time to correct a story 'which had grown out of a partly misunderstood statement. Prof. Holden, of the Lick Observatory, had recently given ... of Lassell's failure to discover the planet Neptune, derived from what he had been told in 1876 by Mrs. Lassell, but which he had refrained from making known till after Prof. Adams's death.'
According to Marth: 'There had been ... no need for it to have been hushed up till then. Prof. Adams was perfectly well acquainted with the story, as the speaker [Marth] had learnt in the course of a confidential consultation three years ago [1889], before the last council meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society which Adams attended, Dawes having told it to him some 40 years before.' Marth himself first heard the story in 1876 from Mrs Lassell, several weeks before Holden's visit. Though he could not learn the full date, he understood it was in September 1846, only a couple of weeks before the actual discovery of Neptune, when Dawes wrote to Lassell 'urging him to point the 24-inch reflector to a certain part of the heavens and look for a star with a disk.'[15]
A reconciliation of fact and hearsay now seems possible, especially if Dawes did inform Lassell of John Herschel's imperative. For on 1846 September 7, Lassell wrote to Herschel, regretting his indisposition and temporary absence from home, but hoped to be back at Starfield in three or four days. In the event he was, and observing with the 24-inch on September 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16.16 Neptune was discovered on the 23rd, but this was not known to Lassell until October 1. Lassell and Dawes were very close friends, and in regular correspondence; it is known, for instance, that in February 1846 Lassell stayed at Cranbrook, Kent, about 40 miles southeast of London, where Dawes had settled in a country house not far from Sir John Herschel. So if Lassell had lost the positional data, presuming it had been sent, he had only to ask for it to be replaced.
As already mentioned Lassell observed Neptune for the first time on 1846 October 2. His entry is surprisingly stark; but it appears the planet was found quickly and easily by its disk. Did he perhaps then realise a lost opportunity with regret, a feeling that in memory influenced his recollections and converted them into the tale he subsequently told Holden? After all at the age of 77, relying solely on memory, he was recalling events that took place thirty years earlier when he was 47.
Although the truth may never be known, by his intimations of Adams and Dawes, Marth does at least edge the story away from family oral tradition, coincidentally to invest it with a little more credibility. Now the emphasis is on Dawes who by implication is cited as having full knowledge of the incident. This places him more centrally, and focuses our attention on his meeting with Herschel in August 1846, and the indisposition of Lassell early in September – two key elements in the original story. Importantly, according to Marth Dawes informed Adams sometime around 1852 when the incident was still comparatively fresh in mind. Hence if there is any truth in it we are left with an uncomfortable thought – how is it no search was mounted for Neptune from Starfield in September 1846? There are of course many valid reasons, enough to keep the door open on a fascinating mystery in the life of one of the big names in the history of astronomy.
Acknowledgments
I should like to thank Dorothy Schaumberg, Mary Lea Shane Archives of the Lick Observatory for all her help in the preparation of this notice, and for permission to quote from the letters of Edward Holden and Jane Lassell. Dr Robert W. Smith is thanked for early stimulating discussions on this and closely associated matters.
Richard Baum
25 Whitchurch Road, Great Boughton, Chester CH3 5QA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
1 Hind J. R., 'Discovery of Le Verrier's planet', letter to the editor, The Times, Thursday, 1846 October 1, p. 8, col. 6. Lassell inserted a cutting of the letter between the entries for 2 and 3 Oct 1846 in his current observing diary. Lassell papers 9.7, Royal Astronomical Society Archives.
2 J. Herschel to W. Lassell, 1 October 1846, Royal Society Herschel papers (H.S. 22.285)
3 Smith R. W. & Baum R., 'William Lassell and the Ring of Neptune: A Case Study in Instrumental Failure,' J. Hist. Astron., 15, 1–17 (1984)
4 Holden E. S., 'Historical Note Relating to the Search for the Planet Neptune in England in 1845–6', Pub. Astron. Soc. Pacific, 21, 21–23 (1892). Also reprinted in Astron. & Astrophys., 11, 287–288 (1892)
5 E. S. Holden to Jane Lassell, 1890 May 9. Mary Lea Shane Archives of the Lick Observatory
6 ibid.
7 Jane Lassell to E. S. Holden, 1890 June 9. Mary Lea Shane Archives of the Lick Observatory
8 op. cit. (ref. 4)
9 Grosser M., The Discovery of Neptune, Harvard University Press, 1962, p. 92
10 Smith R. W., 'William Lassell and the Discovery of Neptune', J. Hist. Astron., 14, 30–32 (1983)
11 Smith R. W., 'The Cambridge Network in Action: The Discovery of Neptune', Isis 80, 395–422 (1989)
12 op. cit. (ref. 7)
13 op. cit. (ref. 11)
14 Graves R. P., Life of William Rowan Hamilton, Vol. II (Dublin/London, 1885), 529. Obviously 1847 January 1, the date cited by Le Verrier for technical reasons, was being mistaken by some astronomers as the time to start a search for Neptune. In fact the best time was the summer of 1846, as Le Verrier had already suggested.
15 Report of Meeting of the Association, 1892 June 29, J. Brit. Astron. Assoc., 2, 433 (1892)
16 W. Lassell to J. Herschel, 1846 September 7, Royal Society Herschel papers (H S 11.129)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be published in the Journal of the British Astronomical Association, August 1996.
Copyright 1996, Richard M. Baum and the British Astronomical Association
他的个人传记：
AUTOGRAPHS AND MANUSCRIPTS
A VALUABLE ASTRONOMY COLLECTION
44. WILLIAM LASSELL (1799-1880)
The English astronomer William Lassell was a fellow and between 1870-72 president of the Royal Astronomical Society, as well as a member of the Royal Society, where in 1858 he was awarded the Royal Medal. At a young age he became interested in lenses, and by 1820 he began to construct reflecting telescopes. He built an observatory near Liverpool, and erected a nine-inch Newtonian telescope, which was the first example of the adaptation to reflectors of the equatorial plan of mounting. Here he was able to observe the paths of comets, following them further than was possible at any public observatory. He was the first to invent and design machines for surfacing mirrors of speculum metal in which the movement of the polisher closely initiated the circular motion used in polishing by hand, and was the first to apply Fraunhofer's equatorial mounting to large reflecting telescopes. With his twenty-four-inch Newtonian completed in 1846, Lassell discovered Neptune's larger satellite, Triton, and as one of the first observers of Saturn's rings, he discovered Hyperion, the eighth satellite of Saturn. In addition, he confirmed the existence of two satellites of Uranus, Ariel and Umbriel. Many of his discoveries were made by a machine that he designed and James Nasmyth constructed. With this machine he ground and polished a speculum of rare perfection, two feet in diameter, and twenty feet in focal length.
Lassell married the daughter of Rev. Edward Griffith, who had immigrated to Australia from England. His daughter, Caroline Lassell, became his assistant and helped him catalogue more than six hundred new nebulae, besides carefully describing and drawing nebulae already known.
SOLD
The following collection is preserved together in a morocco clamshell box:
1. "Description of a machine for polishing specula, &c., with directions for its use; together with remarks upon the art of casting and grinding specula, and a description of a twenty-foot Newtonian telescope equatorially mounted at Starfield, near Liverpool." Original offprint from Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. XVIII. [London]: George Barclay, 1849. 4to. [ii], 20 pp., with 2 engraved plates showing the machine for polishing specula. Separate original drawing of the 20-foot Newtonian Telescope equatorially mounted laid into the offprint with manuscript notes on the verso. A presentation copy, "to Caroline Lassell, with her father's best love." Original edition, in blue paper wrappers. The printed title is: "... A Twenty-Five Foot Newtonian Telescope. . . ." which apparently is a mistake as the word "Five" is crossed out. Some browning on plates, otherwise in excellent condition.
2. LASSELL'S MANUSCRIPT ALBUM OF ASTRONOMICAL LECTURES. 4to. 156 pp. Bound in cloth. Lecture notes and original pen and ink drawings. Signed William Lassell, 1850. With newspaper clippings of the Edward Griffith family of Queensland. Griffith immigrated to Australia from Wales and England in 1842. One of his sons, Sir Charles, was Premiere of Queensland and the first Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia. There is a very early daguerreotype of Sir Charles (?) by H. Lambert of Bath. This manuscript contains Lassell's unpublished notes for his astronomy lectures.
3. MANUSCRIPT JOURNAL/DIARY. 8vo. 288 pp. Bath, England, January 1, 1814 through December 31, 1814. A year in the life of Edward Griffith Sr.
4. LASSELL, DAWES, WEBB, Prof. Challis, Astronomer Royal, and MR. DE LA RUE [Airy]. "Observations on Donati's Comet. Sketches and notes by (the above)." Extract from Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. XXX, published collectively in November 1861. 4to. pp. 55-84. With 8 plates of Donati's Comet in black on white. Original blue wrappers, back wrapper partially lacking.
5. A LARGE FOLDING LITHOGRAPH OF LASSELL'S NEWTONIAN REFLECTING TELESCOPE. 336 x 280 mm. Aperture 4 feet, Focus 36 feet 7 inches. January, 1860. With a manuscript note: "taken to Malta in 1861 and used for observations." The telescope invented by Lassell was equatorially mounted in Sandfield Park, near Liverpool.
6. MANUSCRIPT OF LASSELL'S TELESCOPIC MEMORANDA, & METHOD OF POLISHING IT. 65 x 100 mm. 13 pp. With illustrations. Original marbled wrappers [ca. 1840's]. From the writing, this item appears to be an early manuscript, possibly created while Lassell was still in school.
7. MANUSCRIPT DRAWING WITH DESCRIPTION OF THE PATH OF THE GREAT COMET OF 1858, October 25th. Oblong sheet. 230 x 730 mm. Lassell's observations, which are of great interest and value, are noted, including that the path is on a scale of 34,954 millions of miles to 2 feet.
8. "On polishing the specula of reflecting telescopes." Offprint from Proceedings of the Royal Society, No. 157, 1875. 8vo. 2 pp. Unbound.
DNB, XI, pp. 601-02; DSB, VIII, p. 46; for a detailed description of Lassell's life and works, see H.C. King, The History of the Telescope, pp. 217-28
45. BEST, Charles H. (1899-1978)
Typed letter signed. One page. Toronto: April 6, 1971.
$ 800.00
Best writes to Graham Noble on letterhead of the Banting and Best Department of Medical Research, Charles H. Best Institute of the University of Toronto. Noble has requested Best to autograph insulin stamps as well as a "first day" envelope.
Best's reply is of considerable scientific interest. He will not sign the envelope and points out inaccuracies concerning his partnership with Banting, including facts relating to the naming of insulin. "As you may know my partner, F.G. Banting was a surgeon. I was trained in biochemistry. Our research utilized both skills. Banting would never have said that he isolated insulin. Our four papers were published - Banting and Best. The second inaccuracy is the statement that Banting named insulin in 1921. It had been postulated earlier that diabetes was due to lack of an internal secretion produced in the Islands of Langerhans and this hypothetical substance had been given the name ‘insuline' after the Latin insula, an island, first in 1909 and again in 1915. Banting and I called our hormone ‘iletin' and later changed to ‘insulin'."
46. BONNET, Charles (1720-93)
Autographed letter signed. To the Academy of Sciences. Four pages (240 x 190 mm). Geneva, February 20, 1762.
$ 1800.00
Bonnet, naturalist, biologist and philosopher " is considered one of the fathers of modern biology. He is distinguished for both his experimental research and his philosophy, which exerted a profound influence upon the naturalists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries . . . he sought after truth with courage and perseverance . . . the personal qualities of Bonnet, as much as his writings, justify the extraordinary reputation that he enjoyed in his lifetime and that survives today" (DSB, II, p.286).
Bonnet writes to an unknown recipient at The Academy of Science in reply to criticism concerning his book, Essai Analytique, and his work on metaphysics. He describes his feelings of discouragement in that despite the clarity he endeavored to maintain in the book, the Academy lacked the real sense of his thoughts. He realizes that metaphysics is not essentially in the Academy's research plans, but if they would have read his preface, he was certain they would have understood how "Metaphysics and the Art of Observing is the Art of the Metaphysician as it is with he who studies Physics." Bonnet further discusses the difficult relationship between himself and the Parisian journalists whom he felt misinterpreted his work and condemned him before getting to the crux -- or meditating on the link between the principles and the work. He goes on to talk about his misfortune of striking against diverse prejudices -- "judge me for myself."
Possibly the most exciting aspect of the letter is Bonnet's discussion of his own analytical methods of thought and how he approaches each experiment, comparing himself to Buffon, whom he says "launches himself like an eagle toward the sun" while he [sets himself] a course slowly from one experiment to one result."
In a postscript Bonnet states that "polemic writings only satisfy one's pride, and that he will not answer even one critic."
47. DELAMBRE, Jean-Baptiste Joseph (1749-1822)
Autographed letter signed. To Mme. Lafrancais Lalande (niece of the noted French astronomer Jérome Lalande). One page in Delambre's own hand on the stationery of the Institut National, Paris, April 9, 1807.
$ 650.00
This letter concerns the various offers for reprinting Delambre's eulogy of Lalande, in which he summarizes his many accomplishments, as an astronomer, teacher, friend, and inspiration to other great astronomers. Delambre himself had been approached by a M. Sauro of Du Moniteur, while a M. Millin had been dealing with Mme. Lalande. Delambre discusses the possible formats in which the eulogy could be produced, and questions who would bear the costs of the production. He proposes a compromise in which Sauro would be granted the right to produce offprints, and Millin would reprint the eulogy in his journal, Magasin encyclopédique.
(together with)
"Discours prononcé par M. Delambre . . . aux obsèques de Joseph-Jérôme de Lalande, le lundi 6 Avril 1807." Offprint from Du Moniteur, No. 102. Paris: [n.p.], 1807.
8vo. in 6's. 12 pp. Blue wrappers.
First edition of Delambre's eulogy.
Nouvelle Biographie Générale, 13, pp. 409-11, 428, 954
MAN OF THE CENTURY
48. EINSTEIN, Albert (1879-1955)
Typed letter signed by Einstein, dated 1954. To NORMAN THOMAS, American socialist, who ran for president of the United States. Together with 2 photographs (Einstein and Thomas), with captions of their lives and a long explanation of the letter. Extremely large and elaborate frame, approximately 22 x 40 inches.
SOLD
The letter itself is quite interesting, in that it has more of a political (as opposed to scientific) connotation, a bit unusual for Einstein letters that appear on the market.
MANUSCRIPT BY LAMARCK DESCRIBING HIS THEORY OF ORGANIC MUTABILITY
49. LAMARCK, Jean Baptiste (1744-1829)
Two holograph manuscripts. Four pages on two leaves (215 x 171 mm). Written in Lamarck's small and clear hand, in brown ink on both sides of each page, with numerous corrections and underlining. An annotation on one of the leaves in another contemporary hand notes the dates 1817 or 1818.
$ 18,000.00
According to Professor Richard Burkhardt of the University of Illinois, a renowned expert on Lamarck, one of these manuscript notes constitutes possibly the earliest extant statement on Lamarckism, specifically his theory of inheritance of acquired characteristics. They are evidently lecture notes from Lamarck's regular course on invertebrate zoology at the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris.
It was in these public presentations that Lamarck introduced his evolutionary theory, based upon his botanical research and studies of what he termed "invertebrates" while professor of zoology at the Museum. Through the development of his novel systems of natural classification, he reasoned that animals and plants are predisposed towards organic complexity due to the influence of climate and other environmental factors. "Lamarck pointed out the ‘degradations' in structural organization of the larger classificatory groupings or ‘masses' as one moved down the series from the most complex to the simplest . . . he did suggest that, for animals, changing circumstances and physical needs led to new responses which eventually produced new habits; these habits tended to strengthen certain parts or organs through use. Gradually new organs or parts would be formed as acquired modifications were passed on through reproduction" (DSB, VIII, p.589-90).
Although Lamarck firmly believed in a direct link between phenotypes and different environmental settings, he didn't quite articulate the means whereby spontaneous generation or mutations occurred until the period when the present manuscripts were composed. These ideas were published in his Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertèbres (1815-22), which summarizes his four evolutionary laws.
Lamarck (1744-1829) was a great naturalist, and believed that there is a "natural sequence" for living organisms: he emphasized the view that living things should be studied as a whole. His works cover a broad spectrum of subjects, from botany to chemistry, meteorology, zoology and geology. His theories regarding inheritance of acquired characters in evolution, which had a direct influence on Darwin, have, over the years, been the basis for a continuing historical debate. |
|
置顶卡
变色卡
千斤顶
显身卡