The Changing Meaning of "Evolution"

Author(s): Peter J. Bowler

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1975), pp. 95-114
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709013 .
Accessed: 25/11/2012 21:26
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE CHANGING MEANING OF "EVOLUTION"

BY PETER J. BOWLER

Introduction.-Historians generallystudythe developmentof ideas

ratherthan of words, yet in some cases it is of value to have detailed
knowledgeof the changingapplicationsof a particularlycrucialword.
The historyof the term "evolution"is a very complexcase, providinga
good illustrationof the care whichmust be taken in studyingthe origin
of eventhe most commonlyused words.Manydifferentfieldsmakeuse
of this term, and at certaintimes a single field has used it not only to
describetwo differentprocesses, but even two fundamentallydifferent
views of the nature of the same process.1This is particularlytrue of
biology, which is the chief concern of the followingpaper. It is well
knownthat "evolution"was not generallyused to describethe theoryof
the transmutationof species until some time after the publicationof
Darwin'sOriginof Species in 1859. Historiansof biology are also familiarwith the fact that at an earlierdate the wordwas used to describe
the embryologicaldevelopmentof a single individual,rather than the
overalldevelopmentof life on the earth.2Yet it is not generallyrealized
that in both of these senses,the wordmeantdifferentthingsto different
people. It has been used to describe embryologicaldevelopmentby
workerswho held fundamentallydifferentviewsas to the natureof that
process,and similarcomplicationsmay be recognizedin the later use of
the term to describe transmutation.Indeed, it is unlikely that any
modernbiologist would completelyaccept the sense in which his predecessorsof the later nineteenthcenturyspokeof evolution.
The starting point for a study of the developmentof our English
word "evolution"must be its Latinorigin.The Latinevolutiorefersto
the act of unrolling,as in the unrollingof the ancienttype of book. As
'Examples of the earliest uses of the term in its various contexts, military,
mathematical, scientific, and general, are given in the Oxford English Dictionary, art.
"Evolution." It should be noted that many of the additional examples cited below are
drawn from a purely personal familiarity with the literature, and it is highly probable that
I have missed many instances in which the word is used, especially in the nineteenth
century. I believe, however, that my discussion is based upon a wide enough survey to be
accurate in its generalizations.
2An early attempt to describe the changing biological meaning of the term is T. H.
Huxley's article "Evolution in Biology," originally publishedin the Encyclopaedia Britannica and reprintedin Huxley's Collected Essays, II, Darwiniana(London, 1894), 187-226.
An excellent modern study of the relationship between embryology and transmutation is
G. Canguilhem et al., "Du developpement a l'evolution au XIXe siecle," Thales, 2 (1960),
3-63.
95

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

96

PETER J. BOWLER

definedin Dr. Johnson's dictionaryand in most moderndictionaries

and encyclopaedias,the literal meaningof the Englishcounterpartis
also to unrollor unfold,3both of these sensesreferringonly to the act of
the openingout of parts which alreadyexist in a more compact form.
The nature of the changes undergoneby the word now become apparent-by the mid-nineteenthcenturyfew embryologistsstill believed
that the developmentof the embryowas no more than the expansionof
preexistingparts, and no modern evolutionistwould accept the idea
that the specieswhichhaveappearedin the courseof the earth'shistory
were in any meaningfulsense alreadypresent at the beginningof the
evolutionaryprocess. "Evolution"no longer means the unfoldingof
preexistingparts;the process is thoughtto involvethe creationof new
structures or entities. Yet this in itself leads to complications, since
many nineteenth-centurybiologicalthinkersdrew an analogy between
embryologyand the appearanceof new species and supposedthat any
system undergoingan evolutionarychangemust be subjectto a steady
increasein its state of complexity-an evolutionmust in some sense be
a "progressive"change.But both the Darwinianandthe moderntheory
woulddeny this, or at least relegatethis factor to a less importantrole
in characterizingthe process. This again leaves the historianwith the
problemof dealingwith a wordwhichmay be used by differentwriters
in quitedifferentsenses.
Evolution and Embryology.-Some

historians of biology have given

the impressionthat eighteenth-centuryembryologistsappliedthe term

"evolution"exclusivelyto the theoryof preexistentgerms, a viewpopularized by Charles Bonnet.4Certainly,this was the most straightforward application of the term, since according to Bonnet and his
colleaguesthe germ of the embryopreexistedin the form of a complete
miniatureorganism(possiblyin a collapsedand unrecognizablestate)
withinthe female ovum. Developmentoccurredpurelyas a resultof an
expansioncausedby the absorptionof nutrients.Cole has noticedthat
the first personto applythe term "evolution"to this unfoldingprocess
was Albrecht von Haller, in his notes to Boerhaave'sPraelectiones
Academicaeof 1744.5Here it is claimedthat the "theoryof evolution"
(evolutionem theoria) of Malpighi and Swammerdam had become
generallypopularamong Haller'scontemporaries.6It is clear from the
3I have checked two editions of Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language ...; the
3rd (Dublin, 1768) and the 9th (London, 1806).
4Bentley Glass, "Heredity and variation in the eighteenth century concept of the
species," in Bentley Glass, et al., eds., Forerunners of Darwin, 1745-1859 (Baltimore,
1968), 144-72, 164; also F. J. Cole, Early Theories of Sexual Generation, (Oxford, 1930),
86.
5Cole, Early Theories of Sexual Generation, 86.
6The relevant passages from Haller's notes are quoted and translated in Howard B.
Adelmann, Marcello Malpighi and the Evolution of Embryology (Ithaca, N.Y., 1966), II,
893-900;893.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANGING

MEANING OF "EVOLUTION"

97

subsequent description that Haller was referring to the theory of

preexistingminiatures,althoughit is by no meanscertainthat Malpighi
and Swammerdamactually proposed such a theory.7When he first
beganto writein supportof this theory, CharlesBonnetspoke only of
the developpementof the germ, but he later beganto speak also of its
evolution.8That the Englishequivalentof this latter term was used in a
similarmanneris revealedby a passagein the PhilosophicalTransactions for 1760.Here a book reviewerexplainsthat "Ourauthorasserts,
that every fungusis containedin an entireand perfect state in the egg,
or as it is called, the seed, and wants nothingbut evolution,in orderto
imbibe the necessary juices."9 This was written before Bonnet's
Considerations sur les Corps Organises popularized the French evo-

lution, suggestingthat this fairlyobviousextensionof the originalLatin

meaningwas recognizedindependentlyby a numberof writersduring
this period.
A glance at the Oxford English Dictionary soon reveals, however,

that in the Englishlanguageat least, the embryologicalmeaningwas

not confinedto the theory of preexistinggerms. The term was, in fact,
usedin a generalsense to describethe developmentof the embryo,even
by writerswho were opposedto the preexistencetheory.The following
statement occurs as early as 1669, in a PhilosophicalTransactions
review of Swammerdam's Historia Insectorum Generalis: "By the

word change [in insects] is nothingelse to be understoodbut a gradual

and natural evolution and growth of the parts."10It is by no means
clear that "evolution"here refers to a mere unfoldingof preexisting
parts. Althoughthere are a numberof statementsin Swammerdam's
work which have encouragedthe belief that he helped to found the
theory of preexistinggerms (one of them is mentionedin the 1669
review1), Swammerdamstresses throughoutthat the insect grows by
7Adelmannargues against Malpighi's acceptance of the preexistence theory: Marcello
Malpighi, II, 885-86. On Swammerdam's position, see n. 11 below.
8Charles Bonnet, Considerations sur les Corps Organises, in Bonnet, Oeuvres de
Philosophie et d'Histoire Naturelle (Neuchatel, 1779), vols. 5 and 6. According to the
preface, the first eight chapters of this work were written some time before the later
parts; in these early chapters, the word evolution does not occur, although Bonnet makes
frequentuse of it in the later parts of the book.
9"An account of a work entitled Jacobi Christiani Schaeffer icones et descriptio
Fungorum quorundam singulariumet memorabilium," Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, 52, part 2 (1762), 455-506; 500. The author of the review regards this idea as quite commonplace.
'?Phil. Trans., 5-6 (1670), 2078-79; 2078.
"Ibid., 2079, where it is reported that Swammerdam held that there was no true
generation in nature, a common point made later by the supporters of the pre-existence
concept, according to which there is no generation since all organisms have existed in
their entirety (as miniatures) since the creation of the world. Swammerdam's original
Dutch is very ambiguous at this point, and the reviewer'sinterpretationis probably erroneous.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

98

PETER J. BOWLER

epigenesis, a process which Harvey had defined as the sequential

formationof the parts of the embryo. I have suggestedelsewherethat
Swammerdambelievedin the preexistenceof a design withinthe egg,
The reviewerfor the Philosophical
rather than an actual miniature.12
Transactionsmust have been aware of Swammerdam'sconstant emphasis on epigenesis,and this suggeststhat he was alreadypreparedto
use the word "evolution"to describea process in which the unfolding
was purely metaphorical,taking place by means of a progressiveand
sequentialdevelopmentof the partsof the embryonicstructure.
An even more generaluse of the term occurs in John Turberville
Needham's Account of Some New Microscopical Discoveries, where

natureis describedas "ever exertingits fecundityin a successiveevolution of organised beings."13This remark suggests no particular
system of embryologicaldevelopment,but Needham was to become
one of the principalopponentsof the preexistencetheory.He developed
an alternative system in collaboration with the French naturalist
Buffon,a system in whichthe embryowas built up out of a numberof
freelyfloating"principles"containedwithinthe semen.14Clearly,he did
not see the overallproductionof the neworganismas a mereexpansion
or unfoldingof a preexistingstructure.An equallygeneraluse of "evolution" was made by ErasmusDarwinin his Botanic Garden.Darwin
spoke of "Thegradualevolutionof the young animalor plant from the
seed."'5Elsewhere,he not only rejectedpreexistence,but also proposed
a completely epigenetic theory in which the embryo goes through a
numberof significantchanges beforeapproachingits final form.16The
Oxford English Dictionarygives other examples from this period in
which "evolution"is used to describeembryologicaldevelopmentin a
sensewhichdoes not restrictit to a mereexpansionof preexistingstructures. Indeed,in the Englishlanguageat least, the word seems to have
been used more frequentlyin the figurativethan in the literal sense. It
shouldbe noted, however,that the wordwas not popularenoughin the
12See my "Preformation and pre-existence in the seventeenth century: a brief
analysis," J. Hist. Biology, 4(1971), 221-43; 238.
'3John Needham, An Account of Some New Microscopical Discoveries (London,
1745), introd., 1.
14Fora summary of this theory, see, e.g., "A summary of some late observations upon
the generation, composition and decomposition of animal and vegetable substances,"
Phil. Trans., 45 (1748), 615-66. Needham's theory closely followed that of Buffon, in
which the embryo was supposed to be formed out of "organic particles" floating in the
semen. The complexity of the embryological debates of the eighteenth century can be
seen from the fact that Buffon, at least, thought that a complete miniature organism was
formed immediately after conception and subsequently grew only by expansion: Histoire
Naturelle, generale et particuliere (Paris, 1749), II, 292.
15ErasmusDarwin, The Botanic Garden(London, 1791), II, 8.
16Idem,Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life (London, 1794), I, 491.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANGING

MEANING OF "EVOLUTION"

99

embryologicalcontext to warrantdiscussionby dictionariesand other

more generalworks. In additionto the Latin origin,Dr. Johnson'sdictionary gives only the military and mathematicalmeanings,and the
sameis trueof a numberof similarworks.17
Althoughthe literal meaningof "evolution"would seem to present
a barrier to its use by naturalists who believed that the embryo
graduallydevelopednew structuresby epigenesis,we can appreciate
how the barriercould be brokendown by comparingthis usage with a
widertendencywhich seems to have developedwithinthe Englishlanguageat this time. Since the seventeenthcentury,non-scientificauthors
had begunto use "evolution"in a figurativesense,18referringto almost
any kind of connected sequenceof events. Usually, such an historical
sequencecould only in the most metaphoricalof senses be regardedas
the unfoldingof a preordaineddesign. Compared to this trend, the
wider embryologicaluse seems quite reasonable,and suggests that in
general the term was being developedin a sense which was not in
harmonywithits Latinorigins.Butjust as the majorityof historicalsequencescan be regardedas developingin accordancewith some pattern
controlledby the interactionof the forces involved,the embryologist
also had to recognizethat the epigeneticdevelopmentof the foetus was
not a randomprocess. Some force (mechanicalor vital, accordingto
taste) must controlthe development,ensuringthat the correctlyshaped
organs are producedin the propersequence.Recognitionof this point
broughtabouta fundamentalchangein embryologicalthought,andthis
in turn changedthe meaningof the term "evolution."The growthof the
embryocame to be seen as a processdirectedtowardthe productionof
an increasinglycomplex structure,with the emphasisbeing placed not
on the preexistenceof a design, but on the organizingactivity of the
processitself.
Already in the eighteenth century, the German embryologist
Caspar Friedrich Wolff (1733-94) had opposed the mechanical
philosophyunderlyingboth the preexistencetheory and the alternative
systems proposedby workerssuchas Needhamand Buffon.Wolff suggested that a vital force (vis essentialis or wesentliche Kraft) directed

the process of epigeneticdevelopmentwhich he himself had described

with some accuracy.19The leadingGermanembryologistsof the early
17Editionsof Johnson's dictionary cited above, n. 3; also the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or dictionary of the arts and sciences, 1st ed. (Edinburgh, 1771), 3rd ed. (Edinburgh,
1797), and 5th ed. (Edinburgh, 1817); Abraham Rees, The Cyclopaedia;or universal dic18Forexamples, see the Oxford English Dictionary.
tionary (London, 1819).
from
the
first
'9Passages
Abhandlung of Wolff's Theoria Generationis (1764) in
which these terms occur are quoted and translated in Adelmann, Marcello Malpighi, V,
2178-97; 2183, 2188. Note that Wolff also uses evolutio in connection with Bonnet's
theory, ibid., 2195.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

100

PETERJ. BOWLER

nineteenthcentury took up Wolff's ideas, with the most importantof

them, Karl Ernst von Baer, stressing that the developmentof the
embryo was essentiallya process leadingto the productionof heterogeneity or complexity of structure.20In his Uber Entwickelungsgeschichteder Thiereof 1828,von Baerusedthe GermanEntwickelungas
his standardterm for the process of development,but in some places
gave the Latin evolutio in parentheses.As the German ideas slowly
penetrated into Britain, the word "evolution" continued to be
associatedwith them, at least to a limited extent. When he translated
parts of von Baerin 1852,T. H. HuxleyrenderedEntwickelungas "development"but retainedthe Latin term in parentheses.2' The noted
physiologistWilliamB. Carpenterused "evolution"directlyin the discussion of embryologyin his Principlesof Physiology,where he emphasizedthe importanceof von Baer's work.22It is hardly surprising
that "evolution"shouldcontinueto be used to at least some extent as a
worddescribingthe developmentof the embryo.But its connectionwith
von Baer's work was in fact leading to an important change in its
meaning. "Evolution" could now be seen as a word suitable for a
process which, far from being a mere expansionof preexistingparts,
was directlycontrolledby a tendencytowardincreasingcomplexity.
Evolution and Transmutation.-Although the theory of the
transmutationof species was not commonlycalled the "theoryof evolution"until late in the nineteenthcentury,the first use of the term in
this context dates back to the first half of that century.Charles Lyell
spoke of the evolutionof one form of life into anotheras early as 1832,
and Darwinhimself used the derivative"evolved"in the sketch of his
theorywhichhe preparedin 1842. It is difficult,however,to determine
to what extent these new applicationsof the wordwere a consciousextension of the embryologicaluse alreadydevelopedin biology. It can
easily be shownthat by the 1850'sthe term "evolution"was beingappliedto the progressivedevelopmentof life whichmost paleontologists
saw in the fossil record, and this appearsto have been a deliberateattempt to emphasizethe parallelwith the developmentof the embryo.
20E.g., Owsei Temkin, "German concepts of ontogeny and history around 1800,"
Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 24 (1950), 227-46.
21T.H. Huxley's translation of von Baer, "On the development of animals, with observations and reflections," in T. H. Huxley and Arthur Henfrey, (eds.), Scientific
Memoirs, selected from the Transactions of the Foreign Academies of Science andfrom
Foreign Journals (Natural History), (London, 1853), 186-238; 233. For the original, see
Karl Ernst von Baer, Uber Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere. Beobachtung und
Reflexion, I Theil (K6nigsburg, 1828), 259.
22WilliamB. Carpenter, Principles of Physiology, general and comparative, 3rd ed.
(London, 1851), 575-76; 870. It was through reading this edition of Carpenter's book that
Herbert Spencer first became aware of von Baer's work.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANGING MEANING OF "EVOLUTION"

101

Thus the term is used by W. B. Carpenterin his descriptionof the

analogy between von Baer's embryological system and the fossil
record.23In 1858 the American geologist James Dwight Dana also
spoke of an "expansionor evolution"of the fishes in the sequenceof
An Englishtranslationof partof a workby the
geologicalformations.24
GermanpaleontologistH. G. Bronneven used the word "evolution"in
its title, as a translationof the GermanEntwickelung.25But although
all three of these workers eventuallybecame more favorabletoward
transmutation,in this pre-Darwinianperiodthey were all explicitlyopposed to transmutationas an explanationof the progressionthey observedin the fossil record.That "evolution"was gainingsome popularityin the contextof the progressivedevelopmentof life is quiteclear,
but these examplescannot be used as evidencethat the word already
meant "progressivetransmutation."As we shall see below,therewas a
school of thoughtwhichconnectedprogressionand transmutation,but
the majority of paleontologists believed that the progressive developmentrevealedby the fossil record had been broughtabout by a
seriesof miraculouscreations.
It has already been noted, however, that there are a number of
instances in which "evolution"was applied to transmutationbefore
1860. But in some of these cases-in particularthat of Darwin-it is
not easy to connectthe use of the term with the idea of progressionand
hence with the embryologicalanalogy. The transmutationof species
need not be a progressiveprocess, and Darwin'stheory was certainly
not developedas an explanationof progression.To appreciatethe possibility that "evolution"could be adoptedfrom an earliercontext quite
differentto that of embryology,it must be recognizedthat the use of
23Carpenter, Principles of Physiology, 580. Carpenter distinguished between a
progression following von Baer's principle of development from the homogeneous to the
heterogeneous and the normal idea of a progressive ascent through the vertebrate classes
in the order fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The crucial nature of this distinction was
often missed by the nineteenth-centuryevolutionists who favored the belief that ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny; see Jane Oppenheimer,"An embryological enigma in the Origin
of Species," and Arthur 0. Lovejoy, "Recent criticism of the Darwiniantheory of recapitulation:its grounds and its initiator," both in Bentley Glass, et al., (eds.), Forerunners
of Darwin.
24JamesDwight Dana, "Agassiz's Contributions to the Natural History of the United
States," American Journal of Science, 2nd series, 25 (1858), 202-16; 215. Dana knew of
Carpenter's Principles of Physiology, ibid., 215.
25H.G. Bronn, "On the laws of evolution of the organic world duringthe formation of
the crust of the earth," Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 3rd series, 4 (1859), 8190, 175-84. This is a translation of the last chapter of Untersuchungen iiber die Entwickelungs-Gesetze der organischen Welt wihrend der Bildungszeit unserer
Erdoberfldche (Stuttgart, 1858). Bronn explicitly proposed a law of progressive development, but held that species were distinct entities. Later, he supervised the German
translation of the Origin ofSpecies.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

102

PETER J. BOWLER

the word was already spreading in other fields. It has already been
pointed out that during the eighteenth century, the term had occasionally been applied to a sequence of events in time, without reference
to the concept of the unfolding of a preexisting structure or design. In
the nineteenth century, this practice was extended, in particular to include the "evolution" of political or social organizations. A good
example of this occurs in the work of the historian Sir Francis Palgrave:
"Our constitutional form of government has been produced by evolution. As the organs were needed, so did they arise."26This is a very
modern sounding use of the term; it carries none of the progressive implications inherent in the growing embryological use of the word and
concentrates solely on change produced by adaptation to new conditions. The existence of this trend, apparently quite distinct from the
embryological use, must be recognized in any attempt to understand
how "evolution" came to be associated with the transmutation theory.
Sir Charles Lyell first spoke of an "evolution" in something like the
modern sense of the word when he discussed and rejected Lamarck's
transmutation theory in the second volume of his Principles of Geology.
According to Lyell, Lamarck believed that "the testacea of the ocean
existed first, until some of them, by gradual evolution, were improved
into those inhabiting the land."27It should be noted that Lyell seems to
regard improvement as an integral part of the evolutionary process, a
fact which makes it not impossible that he chose the word because of its
embryological association with the process of development toward
maturity. Charles Darwin's first use of the term, however, does not include this implication. In the conclusion of his brief 1842 sketch of the
theory of natural selection, he wrote:
There is a simple grandeurin the view of life with its powers of growth,
assimilationand reproduction,beingoriginallybreathedinto matterunderone
of a few forms,andthat whilstthis our planethas gone circlingon accordingto
fixedlaws, andlandandwater,in a cycle of change,havegone on replacingone
another,that from so simplean origin,throughthe processof gradualselection
of infinitesimalchanges,endlessforms most beautifulandmost wonderfulhave
beenevolved.28
26SirFrancis Palgrave, Truths and Fictions of the Middle Ages. The Merchant and
the Friar (London, 1837), 201.
27Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology; being an Attempt to Explain the former
Changes of the Earth's Surface by reference to Causes now in operation, 2nd ed.
(London, 1833), II, 11.
28"CharlesDarwin's sketch of 1842," in Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace,
Evolution by Natural Selection (Cambridge, 1958), 41-88; 87; also "Essay of 1844," ibid.,
91-254; 254, and Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, or the preservation offavoured races in the struggle for life (London, 1854), 490.
Ernst Mayr has stated (Animal Species and Evolution [Cambridge, Mass., 1963], 4) that

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANGING

MEANING OF "EVOLUTION"

103

An essentiallysimilarsentenceoccurs at the conclusionof the essay of

1844 and the Origin of Species itself. But the terms "evolution"or
"evolved"do not occur very often in Darwin'swritingsand althoughhe
seems to havebeenpreparedto regardthe overalldevelopmentof life as
an "evolution,"he did not use the wordin the sense of the evolutionof
one particularform from another (i.e., in the sense used by Lyell in
1832).Nor does Darwinseem to haveassociatedanyidea of progressive
developmentwith the term, at least whenhe first beganto use it. In the
conclusionof the Originof Species he expressedthe opinionthat in the
long run natural selection would give rise to progress,but there is no
hint of this in the 1842 sketch (the "simple origin"referredto in the
above quotationseems to mean that the first living forms were few in
numberratherthan simplein structure).Darwindid not use the term
"evolution"in his discussion of embryology, and it is thus highly
probablethat his first use of it in the moderncontext reflects the increasinggeneralpopularityof the word. Like Palgrave,he saw the term
as suitable for describinga general historical process or sequenceof
events, rather than as a reflection of the progressivelyorientated
embryologicalmeaning.
A similaruse of "evolution"to describetransmutationwas madeby
Baden Powell in his Essays on the Spirit of the Inductive Philosophy.29

In the third of these essays, BadenPowell came out in open supportof

transmutation,but he was very suspiciousof the idea of progression30
and was more concerned to show that the idea of a process of
adaptationwould not interferewith natural theology. We thus have
clear evidencethat in the mid-nineteenthcenturythe term "evolution"
was being used occasionally (1) to refer to transmutation,but not
necessarily in connection with progression, and (2) to describe the
progressionof life by authors who did not accept transmutation.It is
thus somewhat surprisingto find that the term did not come into
general use in the debates over the pre-Darwiniantransmutation
theories. The most famous proposal of such a theory-Robert
Chambers anonymously published Vestiges of the Natural History of

Creation(1844)-explicitly regardeda progressionparallelingthat of

Darwin does not use the word "Evolution" in the Origin, and this is strictly speaking correct. Mayr suggests that Darwin's reluctance to use the term was due to a recognition of
its connections with the preexistence theories of embryology, but in view of the above
examination of the embryological use this seems unlikely. If there was an embryological
connection for Darwin, it would have been related to progressive epigenesis, something he
would have equally strongly avoided. It is for this reason that I suggest a connection with
the non-embryological use of the term.
29Baden Powell, Essays on the Spirit of the Inductive Philosophy, the Unity of
Worlds,and the Philosophy of Creation (London, 1855), ix, xiii, 319, 328, 426.
30Ibid.,321-29.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

104

PETER J. BOWLER

embryonicgrowth as the basis of the transmutationof species.31Yet

nor do the wellChambers'book does not use the word "evolution,"31a
known attacks on his system by Adam Sedgwick, Hugh Miller, and
T. H. Huxley.32The theory was usually known as the "transmutation
theory"or the "developmenthypothesis,"the latter formingpartof the
title of the relevantchapterin Hugh Miller'sFootprintsof the Creator
(1847). The term "development"was almost certainlychosen because
of the parallelbetweenthis type of theory and embryology,and as we
have seen, "evolution"became associated both with embryologyand
with the fossil evidencefor progression.Yet I know of only two examples in which "evolution" was connected with the development
hypothesis,both of whichoccur after the initialdebateover the Vestiges
had died down. Herbert Spencer introducedthe title "theory of evolution" in his essay "The developmenthypothesis"of 1852, but as we
shall see below,this is by no meansa straightforwardexample.Edward
Forbes also spoke of the "hypothesisof the evolutionof all organized
beings" in 1854.33Although these referencesindicate that the connection between "evolution" and progressive transmutation was
recognizedduringthis period, I do not believe that they representa
general tendencywithinthe pre-Darwiniandebates. This comparative
lack of interestin the term "evolution"probablyresults from the fact
that the word was not as closely associated with embryologyas was
"development."
The publicationof the Origin of Species in 1859 did little to en31[RobertChambers], Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (London, 1844; reprinted Leicester, 1969), esp. 212-13. Accounts of the Vestiges debate may be found in
Charles C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology. The impact of scientific discoveries upon religious beliefs in the decades before Darwin (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), and Milton
Millhauser, Just before Darwin, Robert Chambers and Vestiges (Middleton, Conn.,
1959).
3aaM. J. S. Hodge's study of Chamber's work has brought to my attention the fact
that in a preface added to the 1853 edition of the Vestiges, Chambers spoke of the
"gradual evolution of higher from lower . .. ," when describing the embryological system
which first gave him the idea of progressive transmutation. M. J. S. Hodge, "The
universal gestation of nature, Chambers' Vestiges and Explanations," J. Hist. Biol., 5
(1972), 127-51; 138.
32[Adam Sedgwick], "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation," Edinburgh
Review, 82 (1845), 1-85 (note that Sedgwick does speak of "evolution" in an embryological sense; 75); Hugh Miller, Footprints of the Creator or the Asterolepis of
Stromness, 3rd ed. (London, 1851), esp. the chapter "The development hypothesis and its
consequences"; [T. H. Huxley], "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation," British
and Foreign Medico-ChirurgicalReview, 13 (1854), 332-43.
33EdwardForbes, "On the manifestation of polarity in the distribution of organic
beings in time," Proceedings of the Royal Institution, 1 (1851-54), 428-33; 429. Forbes
specifically distinguished this hypothesis from that of a "succession of distinctly originating forms ... in order of the progression within their respective series." The law of polarity was his own alternative to progression.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANGING MEANING OF "EVOLUTION"

105

couragethe use of "evolution"in connectionwith transmutation.The

new theory tendedto divertinterestaway from the progressiveelement
which was so prominent in the development hypothesis. Darwin
proposed natural selection as an explanation of transmutation by
adaptation, and although he now believed that this would produce
progressionin the long run, this was by no means an importantpart of
his theory. Since there was little referenceto "evolution"in the Origin
itself, there was thus no reason for the word to enter prominentlyinto
the debates over the book. I have foundno mentionof the word in the
important critical reviews by Owen, Wilberforce, Agassiz, and
FleemingJenkin.34The term is equallyignoredin the more favourable
accountsgivenby T. H. Huxley,Asa Gray, and CharlesLyell,35and in
the early papersof Alfred Russel Wallace.36EvenCarpenter(who had
used the term previouslyin connectionwith both embryologyand the
fossil record) did not mention it in his reviews of the Origin, one of

which was entitled "The theory of developmentin nature."37"Evolution"was used once (in a footnote) in J. D. Hooker's first discussion
of the theory,38andit also occursin Dana'sManualof Geology.39These
34[RichardOwen], "On the Origin of Species," EdinburghReview, 111 (1860), 487532; [Samuel Wilberforce], "On the Origin of Species," Quarterly Review, 108 (1860),
225-64; "Prof. Agassiz on the Origin of Species," Am. J. Sci., 2nd series, 30 (1860), 14254; [Fleeming Jenkin], "The Origin of Species," North British Review, 46 (1868), 277318. The most thorough account of the debate is Alvar Ellegard, Darwin and the General
Reader, The reception of Darwin's theory of evolution in the British periodical press,
1859-1872 (Goteburg, 1958).
35Huxley'sreviews from the Times and the Westminster Review are reprintedin Darwiniana, 1-21, 22-79; also [Asa Gray], "Review of Darwin's theory of the Origin of
Species .. .," Am. J. Sci., 2nd series, 29 (1860), 152-84. Lyell gave a noncommittal account of Darwin's ideas in his Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (London,
1863), ch. 21. Lyell pointed out the difference between the old "development hypothesis"
with its emphasis on progression and the new theory which was relatively indifferent to
this issue.
36A. R. Wallace, "On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species,"
and "On the tendency of varieties to depart indefinitely from the original type," reprinted
in Wallace, Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection (London, 1870), 1-25, 2644.
37[W. B. Carpenter], "The theory of development in nature," Brit. & For. Med.Chiurg. Rev., 25 (1860) 269-95. Carpenter also reviewed the Origin in the National
Review 10 (1860), 188-214.
38I have used the reprint of Hooker's "Introductory Essay to the Flora of Tasmania,"
Am. J. Sci., 2nd series, 29 (1860), 1-25, 305-26; 309. Hooker speaks of "progressive evolution" and seems almost to stress this aspect of the theory more than Darwin himself.
39J.D. Dana, Manual of Geology (Philadelphia and London, 1862), 602. Dana uses
"evolution" to mean progressive transmutation, and claims that the fossil record supports neither this nor transmutation through the "variation of living individuals."Strictly
speaking, this remark does not count as a contribution to the Darwinian debate, since
Dana had probably not read the Origin at this time because of illness; see William F. Sanford Jr., "Dana and Darwinism,"JHI, 26 (1965), 531-46.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

106

PETER J. BOWLER

were exceptions,however,and it was nearlyanotherdecade beforethe

title "theory of evolution"began to gain popularity.It would appear
probablethat this popularitywas largely the result of the theorybeing
incorporated into the general evolutionary philosophy of Herbert
Spencer.
Herbert Spencer and Evolution-According

to his Autobiography,

Herbert Spencer's early intellectual backgroundhad from the first

predisposedhim to accept the transmutationof species.40He openly
supported transmutation as early as 1852, after which this belief
gradually became incorporatedinto his universal philosophy of development known as the "Synthetic Philosophy."It was also in the
early 1850's that Spencerbecame aware of von Baer's principleof development from the homogeneousto the heterogeneous,a principle
that he took as the modelfor his wholesystem of universalprogress.At
the same time, he began to use the term "evolution"to describethe
growth of the embryo and (on one occasion, at least) the wider developmentof organiclife throughtransmutation.But it was not until
the 1860's that he adopted "evolution"as the general name for the
process of developmentwhich he tried to trace out in every field from
cosmology to the developmentof the humanmind, therebylaying the
foundationsof the modernusage of the term.
Spencerfirst beganto use the term "evolution"in 1852,applyingit
to both embryologicaldevelopmentand the transmutationof species.
In his essay "The developmenthypothesis," he supportedtransmutation by ridiculing"Those who cavalierlyreject the Theory of Evolution as not being supported by the facts. .. ."41 He notedthat the only
alternative-miraculous creation of species-is supportedby no facts
at all, and pointedto embryological"evolution"as an illustrationof the
ability of organic structures to modify themselves.42It is highly
probablethat Spencerderivedboth uses of the term from his readingof
W. B. Carpenter'sPrinciplesof Physiology.He tells us that it was by
readingthe 1851editionof this work that he first became awareof von
Baer's principle of development from the homogeneous to the
heterogeneous.43
Carpenterhad used "evolution"not only in his discussionof von Baer'sembryology,but also whenhe notedthat the same
principlecan be tracedout in the fossil record.AlthoughCarpenteropposed actual transmutation,his use of "evolution"probablybrought
40HerbertSpencer, An A utobiography(New York, 1940), I, 201.
41"Thedevelopment hypothesis," in Herbert Spencer, Essays Scientific, Political and
Speculative (New York, 1896), I, 1-7; 1. Spencer also spoke of "the evolution of life on
the earth" in a letter to Edmund Lott, 23 April 1852, in David Duncan (ed.), The Life and
Letters of Herbert Spencer (reissue; London, 1911), 62.
42Ibid.,5-6.
43Autobiography,II, 9.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANGING

MEANING OF "EVOLUTION"

107

the word to Spencer'snoticein both its embryologicalandwidersense.

Indeed,it would at first sight appearthat in this essay Spencerwas already beginning his generalizationof von Baer's principle into a
philosophyof universalprogress under the name of "evolution."The
very title of the essay seems to connect it with the development
hypothesisof the 1840's,whichwas thoroughlygroundedin the idea of
the progressivedevelopmentof life towardincreasingcomplexity.Butit
wouldbe unwiseto accept withoutquestionthe beliefthat Spencerwas
already generalizing von Baer's principle into a theory of the
progressivetransmutationof speciesin 1852.Despiteits title, "Thedevelopmenthypothesis"supportstransmutation,not progression,with
embryologybeing introducedto illustrate the possibility,not the direction,of organicchange.At a later date, Spencerclearly stated that
his early supportfor transmutationwas not associatedwith a beliefin
progression-he had opposedthe Vestigesof Creationbecause he felt
that organic modificationcould only be broughtabout by adaptation
ratherthan progression.44His first discussionof "the Theory of Evolution" thus may not have been motivatedby his desire to generalize
von Baer's principle of development. Although Spencer may have
derived the name "evolution" from Carpenter's discussion of
embryologyand the fossil record,it seems probablethat it took a little
time for him to appreciatethe significanceof von Baer'sideas and to
connectthem withhis beliefin transmutation.
If the progressive principle was little in evidence in "The developmenthypothesis,"withina few years it had become a prominent
part of Spencer'ssystem, the foundationof his wholephilosophyof development.In 1857, the essay "Progress:its law and cause" gave the
first complete statement of this philosophy,indicatinghow it could be
applied to almost every conceivablefield of study. Spencer did not,
however,continuethe generalizationof the name "evolution"whichhe
had begun in 1852. In "Progress:its law and cause" and the other
essays whichhe wrotein the courseof the 1850's,"evolution"was used
only in its embryologicalcontext,45with "progress" being used to
describe the more general applicationsof von Baer's principle.This
provides further evidence that when Spencer first coined the name
"Theoryof Evolution"in 1852 he had not yet begunto appreciatethe
possibilityof constructinga progressivephilosophywhichwouldapply
to the theory of transmutation.Not until he issued his First Principles
(1860-62)did Spenceragainintroducethe generaluse of the term "evolution."He had decidedthat "progress"carriedtoo strongan associa44Seethe autobiographical"The filiation of ideas," Life and Letters, 533-76, 541.
45E.g., "Progress: its law and cause," Essays, I, 8-62; 16, and "Transcendental
physiology," ibid., 63-107; 106.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

108

PETER J. BOWLER

tion with the developmentof human societies, and proposed "evolution" as an alternativename for the process of developmentwhich
wouldfreeit from anthropomorphicovertones.46He did not explainthe
originof the word,but it seems certainthat it was chosenbecauseof its
originalconnectionwith the process of embryologicaldevelopmentas
describedby Carpenter.
Although von Baer's principleof developmenthad played an importantrole in the creationof Spencer'ssystem duringthe 1850's,it is
noticeablethat in the followingdecade he began to deemphasizethe
connection between embryology and the general process of "evolution." In the Principlesof Biology (issued 1863-64), he specifically
entitledthe chapteron embryology"Development"andgave a footnote
explainingthat "development"and "evolution"referto differenttypes
of processes.47Evolution,he argued,consistedof an increasein both the
size and the complexityof a system, whereasdevelopmentinvolvedonly
the increaseof complexity.It is difficultto see why Spencershouldrefuse to admit that the embryoundergoesan evolutionaccordingto this
definition,but in a biologicalcontext he now reservedthe title "Evolution"exclusivelyfor transmutation.Whateverthe originof his ideas,
transmutation had now become the chief biological aspect of the
system of universal evolution. Embryologywas no longer admitted
withinthe definitionof an evolutionarychange, and it is probablethat
Spencer'spositionon this point marks the beginningof a declinein the
(neververypopular)use of the termin an embryologicalcontext.
Althoughit is difficultto see on whatlogicalgroundsSpencercould
deny that embryologyrepresentedan evolutionof the individual,there
were reasonsof anotherkindwhichmay have promptedhim to neglect
the connectionbetweenthis field and his widerphilosophyof progress.
Only in the most general sense did the developmentof the individual
organismparallelthe evolutionarychangeswhichSpencerwas nowdistinguishingin cosmology, biology, and the history of human societies.
Everyprocess,includingthat of embryologicaldevelopment,ultimately
resulted in a progression toward increasing complexity. But the
problem with embryology-a problem aggravatedby the earlier attempts to use it as a modelfor the overalldevelopmentof life-was that
it representeda process whose everydetailwas completelypredesigned
in accordancewith a singleobjective.Spencer'sideas on transmutation,
and the parallel systems he envisagedin other fields, were a good deal
more sophisticatedthan the earlier laws of progressivedevelopment
suchas that presentedin the Vestigesof Creation.Spencerstill believed
that adaptationwas the central means by which transmutationhad
46Spencer,First Principles of a New Philosophy (New York, 1864), 148.
47Spencer,Principles of Biology (London, 1864), I, 133.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANGING

MEANING OF "EVOLUTION"

109

taken place, and criticizedboth Lamarckand the Chambersfor postulating a specificallyprogressivetrend in nature.48He even accepted
naturalselection,althoughhe believedthat the inheritanceof acquired
characteristicswas by far the more potent means of bringingabout
adaptation.As earlyas 1857,he had realizedthat withinhis overallview
of the earth's physicaldevelopment,continuedadaptationmust, in the
long run, give rise to progress.49Everytime a groupof speciesbecame
adaptedto a newset of conditions,the chanceswerethat therewouldbe
an increasein the numberof species and that some of the new species
wouldbe more complex than any of theirpredecessors.As in Darwin's
theory, progress does not occur all the time, but is statistically
inevitable.With sucha viewpoint,therewas everyreasonfor Spencerto
be criticalof earlierwriterswho had taken a simplemindedapproachto
progression,and this may have led to an increasingsuspicionof the
valueof the analogywiththe predeterminedprogressivedevelopmentof
the embryo.
In First Principles and the Principles of Biology, "evolution" was

used frequentlyand prominentlyto designateboth the theory of the

transmutationof species and the general tendencyof which Spencer
thought transmutationto be but one example. At first, these works
werelargelyignored,except among a close circle of Spencer'sscientific
friends which included T. H. Huxley.50By 1870, however, they had
begun to gain a much wider popularity,51and it is significantthat at
about the same time the term "evolution"beganto figuremore prominentlyin scientificdiscussions.Becauseof his emphasison adaptation,
Spencer's biological evolutionismcould easily be associated with the
growingpopularityof the Darwiniantheory, at least at a generallevel
that would allow both to be connectedunderthe same name. But despite the sophisticationof Spencer'sviews on the relationshipbetween
adaptation and progression, his basic definition of "evolution"
continuedto be in terms of a progressiveincreasein the level of complexity. Although most Darwiniansturned away from progressionto
concentrate on the study of adaptation,their gradual acceptance of
Spencer's name for the theory suggests that they were by no means
completely opposed to the progressiveimplicationsof the Synthetic
Philosophy. "Evolution" became associated with the theory of
transmutationthrough adaptation,but its connectionwith Spencer's
basicphilosophywas not altogetherforgotten.
48Ibid.,402-10.
49"Progress:its law and cause," 51-52. This passage is reprinted in First Principles,
404.
5Autobiography, 85, 121, 153.
5'Letter of 15 March 1869, ibid., 241, where Spencer notes that the sales of his
books in England had improved and had passed the sales of the American editions.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

110

PETER J. BOWLER

The Modern Theory of Evolution.-Beginning in the late 1860's,

"evolution"began to figure more prominentlyin the debate over the

transmutationtheory. Lyell used the term at least twice in the tenth
edition of his Principlesof Geology(1867-68), the editionin whichhe
finallyacceptedDarwin'stheory.52A. R. Wallaceused it severaltimes
in his reviewof this work,53althoughit shouldbe noted that the word
occurs very infrequentlyin Wallace's collected papers on natural selection which appearedin 1870.54T. H. Huxley spoke of "evolution"
frequentlyin at least one paper publishedas early as 1868.55The introductionto Darwin's Descent of Man (1871) noted that many important scientists "are still opposed to evolutionin any form."56Like
Wallace,however,Darwinstill madelittle use of the termin the bulkof
his writings,but this did not preventeven the non-scientificpress from
recognizingthat his theory was being increasinglyreferredto as the
"theoryof evolution."The accountsof the Descent of Man in both the
Timesand the EdinburghReviewmentionthe word,57and referenceto
Alvar Ellegard'sanalysisof the debateshowsthat "evolution"was used
frequentlyin the early 1870's,especiallyat the meetingsandin the press
reportsof the BritishAssociation.58By 1870the term hadalso begunto
appearin the actual titles of works on the subjectof transmutationthe first example of which I am aware is E. D. Cope's "On the
In 1874,a paper
hypothesisof evolution,physicalandmetaphysical."58a
Louis
was
by
Agassiz
publishedposthumouslyunder the title "Evolutionand permanenceof type."59Here Agassiz clearlyrecognizedthat
"evolution"had become synonymouswith transmutation,althoughhe
arguedthat the only evolutionactually to occur in naturewas that of
the embryo. By 1878, the term had become importantenough for the
52CharlesLyell, Principles of Geology, or the modern changes of the earth and its inhabitants considered as illustrative of geology (London, 1867-68), II, 254, 493. The first
of these references, however, is contained in a passage reprinted from the appropriate
section of the first edition.
53[A.R. Wallace], "Sir Charles Lyell on geological climates and the origin of species,"
QuarterlyReview (American edition), 126 (1869), 187-205; 204-05.
54A. R. Wallace, Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection. I have found the
word "evolution" used only once in "The limits of natural selection as applied to man,"
333.
55T.H. Huxley, "On the animals which are most nearly intermediate between birds
and reptiles," An. & Mag. Nat. Hist., 4th series, 2 (1868), 66-75; esp. 66-68, 75.
56TheDescent of Man and selection in relationship to sex (London, 1871), I, 2.
57TheTimes, 8 April 1871, 5: "Darwin on the Descent of Man." EdinburghReview,
134(1871), 99-120; 100, 120.
58Ellegard,Darwinand the General Reader, op. cit., 60, 87-88, 91.
58aLippincott'sMagazine (Philadelphia, 1870), 29-41, 173-180, 310-19; reprinted in
E. D. Cope, The Origin of the Fittest, essays on evolution (New York, 1887), 128-72.
59AtlanticMonthly, 33 (1874), 92-101.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANGING

MEANING

OF "EVOLUTION"

111

EncyclopaediaBritannicato require an article definingits past and

present meanings within science-this was Huxley's "Evolution in
biology." In 1882, "evolution"was used prominentlyin both the titles
and the text of two books by G. J. Romanes:ScientificEvidencesof Organic Evolution, and Mental Evolution in A nimals.

A continuationof this trend is also evident in the translation of

foreign works into English. The German Entwickelungin particular
may be translatedas either"development"or "evolution,"and the latter versionis increasinglyused towardthe end of the century.It is employedin the sub-titleof ErnstHaeckel'sHistory of Creation,although
the alternativetranslationis also used in the text.60In Haeckel's The
Evolution of Man, this mode of translationappears to predominate
throughout.61In 1875, August Weismann'sStudien zur DescendenzTheorie was translated literally as Studies in the Theory of Descent, but
by 1904 his Vortrige iiber Descendenztheorie was modified into The

EvolutionTheory.2 Clearly,alternativenames such as "theoryof descent" did not gain any lasting popularityand, along with the old "development hypothesis,"were soon swampedby the increasinguse of
"evolution."
It can hardlybe a coincidencethat "evolution"came into common
use at the same time that HerbertSpencer'sphilosophybeganto enjoy
some degree of popularity.As noted above, Spencer'sinterest in the
process of adaptationeasily allowed Darwin'stheory to be associated
with "evolution"in biology. But the essence of Spencer'sdefinitionwas
the progress towardincreasingcomplexity,and there is evidencethat
the growing popularityof the word was paralleledby an acceptance
either of Spencer's ideas or of the closely related belief that the developmentof the embryo representsa model for the evolutionof the
species. Ellegard records the dissatisfaction of many writers with
naturalselection,a dissatisfactionwhichled them to emphasizethe idea
60ErnstHaeckel, The History of Creation. or the development of the earth and its inhabitants by the action of natural causes. A popular exposition of the doctrine of evolution in general, and that of Darwin, Goethe and Lamarck in particular (New York,
1876) translated from Naturlichte Schopfungsgeschichte. Gemeinverstendiche wissenschaftliche Vortrige iber die Entwickelungslehre im Allgemeinen und diejenige von
Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck im Besonderen (Berlin, 1873). In the chapter headings,
Entwickelungstheorieis translated as "theory of development."
6'Ernst Haeckel, The Evolution of Man. A popular exposition of the principal points
of human ontogeny and phylogeny (New York, 1879), translated from Anthropogenie:
oder Entwickelungsgeschichtedes Menschen (Leipzig, 1874). Note how "evolution" here
is used to convey the sense both of embryological and phylogenetic development.
62AugustWeismann, Studies in the Theory of Descent (London, 1880-82), translated
from Studien zur Descendenztheorie (Leipzig, 1875), and The Evolution Theory (London,
1904) translated from Vortrage iuberDescendenztheorie, gehalten an der Universitdt zu
Freiburgim Breisgau, 2nd ed. (Jena, 1902).

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

112

PETER J. BOWLER

of a predesignedevolutionaryprocess followinga law of development

analogousto that of embryonicgrowth.63In this sense, "evolution"became for a time the new name for the old developmenthypothesis.
Spencer'sown evolutionarysystem includedno obviouselementof design, but therewas a close enoughparallelbetweenthe two versionsfor
the same name to seem appropriateto both. Nor was Spencer'swork
withoutits own direct influence,as is revealedby R. H. Lock's Variation, Heredity and Evolution, published as late as 1907. Here was a

work devotedexclusivelyto a studyof the phenomenathoughtrelevant

to the processof adaptation,yet Lock defined"evolution"in terms of a
gradualprogressiontowardthe more complexand specificallyreferred
to Spencerto justify this approach.64
If this account of the originof the word's popularityis correct, we
should expect "evolution"to be more commonly used to describethe
generaldevelopmentof life, ratherthan the transmutationof one particular form into another. I believethis is true of the majorityof the
cases cited above;few of the later nineteenth-century
writersfollowed
of
the
in
1832.
In
first
use
term
"evolution"
meant the
Lyell's
general,
overall process of development, and the word was rarely used in
descriptionsof the details of natural selection, or in discussions of
specific examples of transmutation.A. R. Wallace provides an excellent exampleof this-his early paperson naturalselectionmadelittle use of the word,and his Darwinismof 1890used "evolution"only in
its discussionof the developmentof life revealedby the fossil record.65
Only in the twentiethcentury has it become common to speak of the
evolution of one particular species from an earlier form, a custom
which seems to have arisen as the originalconnectionof "evolution"
witha system of generaldevelopmentwas forgotten.
The trend toward a more specialized use of "evolution" by
twentieth-centurywriters on transmutationmarks the last important
changein the word'smeaning.Darwin'stheoryhas enjoyedvaryingfortunes, but by the end of the last century it had become accepted by
most scientists that transmutationby adaptation was the only acceptableversionof evolution.In later decades,a synthesiswith the new
genetics has broughtnaturalselectionback into fashion.In the course
of these changes, both the Synthetic Philosophy and the old developmenthypothesishave been forgotten, but the name "evolution"
has remainedattached to the transmutationtheory as its connections
63Ellegard,Darwin and the General Reader, 242-79; esp. 272-73.
64R. H. Lock, Recent Progress in the Study of Variation, Heredity and Evolution
(London, 1907), 21-22.
65A. R. Wallace, Darwinism. An exposition of the theory of natural selection with
some of its applications (London, 1890), ch. XIII.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANGING MEANING OF "EVOLUTION"

113

with the idea of progresshave become more tenuous.Only occasional

attemptshavebeen madeto associate the moderntheorywitha cosmic
philosophyof development-Julian Huxley has drawn such connections, but admittedthat his fellow scientistswouldbe very suspiciousof
this aspect of his work.66Modern debates on the "direction"of evolution have also been conducted within a frameworkquite different
from that accepted in the previouscentury.67The majorityof evolutionists have questioned the old view in which transmutationwas
thoughtto give rise to an overallprogress,althougha fewworkershave
attempted to redefine the concept of "progress" so as to give it a
meaningwithinthe presentsystem. G. G. Simpsonhas arguedthat althoughprogressis not the essence of evolution,thereis neverthelessa
sense in which man can be regardedas its "highest"product.68Julian
Huxley and J. M. Thoday, despite certain disagreements,have attemptedto producedefinitionsof progressin terms of increasingflexibility or adaptability,allowinga similar conclusionto be drawnconcerning man.69The old Spencerian view is thus not entirely dead,
althoughthese new discussionsbear very little resemblanceto the old
debates about progression,and the modernevolutionisttends to be as
cautiousas Darwinhimselfin arguingthat naturalselectionmust give
riseto progress.
In terms of the originaldefinitionof the word, perhapsthe most
strikingidea developedby a few twentieth-centuryevolutionistsis the
belief that evolutionmight be no more than the unfoldingof potential
structuresalreadypresentin the genetic materialof the first forms of
life. Weismannargued that just as the chemist can only create compounds in accordance with the potentials for combination already
present in the elements themselves, so evolution merely exploits the
potential variation already inherent in the first germ plasm.70An
essentiallysimilarpoint was made by WilliamBatesonin 1914and by
A. H. Clark as late as 1930.71The modern idea of mutation has
renderedthis belief unacceptable,but the very existenceof this possi66JulianHuxley, Evolution in Action, based on the Patten Foundation lectures deliveredat Indiana Universityin 1951 (London, 1951), 11-12.
67Fora survey of these arguments: T. A. Goudge, The Ascent of Life. A philosophical
study of the theory of evolution (Toronto, 1961), ch. V.
68G. G. Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution. A study in the history of life and its
significancefor man (New Haven and Oxford, 1949), 261-62.
69JulianHuxley, Evolution, the Modern Synthesis, 2nd ed. (London, 1963), 556-78,
and J. M. Thoday, "Natural selection and biological progress," in S. A. Barnett, ed., A
Century of Darwin (London, 1962), 313-33.
70Weismann,The Evolution Theory, II, 390-91.
71WilliamBateson, "The Australasian meeting of the British Association. Presidential
Address," Nature, 93 (1914), 635-42; 640-41. A. H. Clark, The New Evolution,
Zoogenesis (Baltimore, 1930), 216.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

114

PETER J. BOWLER

bility revealsthat the same divergenceof meaninghas occurredwithin

both the embryologicaland the Darwiniancontexts of evolution.The
viewexpressedby Weismann,Bateson,andClarkrepresentsan equivalent of the old theory of preexistentgerms upon a cosmic scale-both
imply that "evolution" should assume its original meaning of an
unfoldingor unrollingof structuresalreadypresentin eithera real or a
metaphoricalsense.The alternativeviewin which"evolution"gives rise
to genuine novelty has, however, remained the more popular interpretationof the word'smeaning,althoughthe changesare no longer
thoughtto be partof a system of cosmic development.
Conclusion.-From the beginning,"evolution"has been used by
biologistsin two quite distinct senses. Some embryologistsappliedit
literallyto the unfoldingof a preexistingminiature,whileothersused it
more generallyto cover the process of developmentwithoutimplying
that only an unfoldingwas involved.As the preexistencetheorydeclined
in importanceand was replacedby the embryologyof men such as von
Baer, the word remainedassociatedwith this study and hence became
connectedwith the idea of a progressivedevelopmenttowardincreasing
complexity. Its use by Spencer appears to arise directly out of the
embryologicalcontext, with the result that the idea of progressionbecame connected indirectly with the theory of transmutation by
adaptationand hence with Darwinism.Spencer'sphilosophyseems to
havebeenclosely connectedwith the introductionof the title "theoryof
evolution,"and althoughthe moderntheoryis restrictedto the studyof
transmutation,it was only with some difficultythat its practitioners
freed themselvesfrom the progressionistimplicationsof the Synthetic
Philosophy.An alternative,neutralmeaningof the term has beenused
by Englishauthors since the seventeenthcenturyto describehistorical
developments without introducing a progressive implication. It is
possiblethat this meaninginfluencedthe choice of the wordby Darwin,
althoughit clearly does not representa main currentof biologicalapplication.It is thus somethingof a coincidencethat the moderntheory
of evolutionhas approachedcloser to this neutralmeaning,abandoning
both of the extremes which have played such an important role in
shapingthe historyof biology.
UniversitiSains Malaysia,Penang,Malaysia.

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions