Orthogenesis versus Darwinism : The Russian case

Transcription

Armand Colin
Orthogenesis versus Darwinism : The Russian case
Author(s): Igor POPOV
Source: Revue d'histoire des sciences, T. 61, No. 2 (juillet-décembre 2008), pp. 367-397
Published by: Armand Colin
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23634280 .
Accessed: 05/10/2014 15:58
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 [email protected].
.
Armand Colin is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Revue d'histoire des
sciences.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 136.165.238.131 on Sun, 5 Oct 2014 15:58:30 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
versus Darwinism : The
Russian case
Orthogenesis
*
Igor POPOV
» : cette expres
: « La Russie,
la seconde
patrie du darwinisme
servit de
de Darwin,
Kliment Timiriazev
du disciple
(1843-1920),
russes
mot d'ordre
aux historiens
et biologistes
jusqu'a
jusqu'à
aujourd'hui.
ne furent pas
les diverses
versions
russes de l'antidarwinisme
I'antidarwinisme
Toutefois,
Resume
Résumé
sion
L'une
desire leurs détracteurs.
désiré
detracteurs.
I'auraient
insignifiantes
que l'auraient
vivants
une
soutient
ce qui suit
suit: : les organismes
possederaient
posséderaient
àa varier dans certaines
et cette prédisposition
directions,
predisposition
position
aussi
d'elles
prédis
predis
meme
même
devolution
l'évolution
meme
; de même
que les
forme, les tendances
phylogene
phylogéné
de
certaines
se développeraient
selon
lois, sans tenir compte
tiques
developperaient
idee fut le plus souvent
ni de la sélection
selection
naturelle.
Cette idée
l'adaptation
I'adaptation
» (orthos, direct).
« évolution
» ou « orthogenèse
Dans
evolution
orthogenese
appelee
appelée
dirigee
dirigée
Lev S. Berg et Dmitry
les années
annees
deux
russes,
1920,
scientifiques
d'abord
determinerait
déterminerait
cristaux
croissent
N. Sobolev,
cette notion.
présentèrent
presentment
Par la suite,
développement
developpement
sur les versions
une
de
certaine
des conceptions
evolutionnistes
évolutionnistes
non seulement
cette idée
idee connut
fondees
fondées
sur
en Russie
un
aussi une influence
essentielle
el le exerça
propre, mais elle
exerga
une
moderne.
Ce fait constitue
russes du darwinisme
recentes
récentes
entre les histoires
significative
en Russie et dans le monde
anglophone.
de
devolution
l'évolution
Mots-cles
: orthogenese
; Russie.
difference
différence
Summary
statement
serves
les tendances
suivant
- the
: « Russia
; nomogenese
native
second
land
; darwinisme
of Darwinism
Darwin's
Kliment
Timiriazev
apostle
by Russian
historians
and biologists
as the motto for the Russian
However,
various
as
insignificant
versions
claimed
be
versions
so phylogenetic
and
adaptation
of anti-Darwinism
biologie
de
» - this
(1843-1920)
up to today.
were
not
as
One
of these
by their opponents.
: living organisms
have a predisposition
prédisposition
determines
and this very prédisposition
predisposition
desirable
désirable
the following
to vary in certain
trends of évolution
evolution
« directed
Russian
would
la
directions,
of all; ; as crystals grow, accepting
a certain form,
first ofall
laws irrespective
of
trends develop
internal
internai
following
was
most
often called
natural
selection.
sélection.
This idea
» or « orthogenesis
» (orthos, straight). In the 1920s
- Lev S.
and
presented
Berg
Dmitry N. Sobolev
based
on this idea.
In the following
years in
evolutionary
concepts
not only in itself, but also exerted an essential
Russia this idea developed
evolution
évolution
two Russian
influence
scientists
on
the
Russian
versions
modern
of modem
Darwinism.
This
fact
*
Institute, Russia 198504 Saint-Pe
Igor Popov, Saint-Petersburg State University, Biological
sh., 2. E-mail : [email protected]
tersburg, Stary Peterhof, Oranienbaumskoye
Revue d'histoire des sciences
j Tome 61 -2 juillet-decembre 2008 | 367-397
367
Igor POPOV
represente
lutionary
Keywords
between
the recent
a significant
différence
in Russia and in the English-speaking
histories
: orthogenesis
; nomogenesis
; Darwinism
of evo
world.
biology
; Russia.
Introduction
« Russia - the second native land of Darwinism
» : this statement by
has ser
Darwin's
Russian apostle Kliment Timiriazev
(1843-1920)
ved as a motto for Russian biologists and historians of biology since
late xixth century up to today. The idea of évolution
received
an
enthusiastic
and the educated
welcome
by Russian
biologists
the
Darwinism
in
Russian
and
of
has
public
position
biology
remained
for
the
150
Various
versions
of
anti
strong
past
years.
envi
Darwinism,
however, even in this primarily pro-Darwinian
ronment were significant. One of these versions claimed that living
to vary in certain directions, and
organisms have a prédisposition
this prédisposition
determines trends of évolution ; as crystals grow,
trends evolve following their
taking a certain form, so phylogenetic
internai laws irrespective of adaptation
and natural sélection. Most
» or « orthoge
frequently this idea was named « directed évolution
in a certain direction nesis » (orthos, straight) - development
Introduced by Germán
though this notion also had other meanings.
in 1893 to characterize
the
(1855-1912)
zoologist Wilhelm Haacke
of constraints on variation \ later the term « orthogene
existence
sis » was often used by palaeontologists
and taxonomists
to desí
series of forms. At the same time, this view on
gnate various
évolution was often described
by other terms, such as autogénesis,
and ologe
autoevolution,
typogenesis,
nomogenesis,
apogenesis
nesis. The concept of directed évolution was first formulated in the
1860s 2, but then later re-appeared
several times. Every developed
country
had
its own
concept
of orthogenesis,
or even
■Wilhelm
Haacke, Cestaltung und Vererbung : Eine Entwickelungsmechanik
men (Leipzig : T. O. Weigel Nachfolger, 1893).
■Rudolf Albert von
Kóllicker, Über die Darwin'sche
Schopfungstheorie,
more than
der Organis
Zeitschrift für
14 (1864), 114-186.
Cari Wilhelm von Nàgeli, Entstehung
Zoologie,
und Begriff der naturhistorischen Art (München
: Verlag der Akademie,
1865). Alpheus
between the différent stages of the life in the individual and
Hyatt, On the parallelism
those in the entire group of the molluscous
order Tetrabranchiata,
Memoirs read before
the Boston Society of natural history ; being a new series ofthe Boston journal of natural
198-210.
Edward Cope, On the origin of genera, Proceedings
of
history, 1 (1866),
4 (1868), 242-305.
Academy of natural sciences of Philadelphia,
wissenschaftliche
368
Orthogenesis
versus
Darwinism
: The
Russian
case
one 3, and Russia was no exception.
in
Orthogenesis
appeared
Russian biology in the xixth century in statements critical of Darwi
nism 4. But these statements failed to provide an alternative
to
Darwinism
and were ignored by most Russian biologists. However
in the 1920s orthogenesis
turned out to be at the foreground of
Russian
Several
on the
scientists claimed
biology.
on évolution,
and the spécial
of
concepts
were elaborated,
which turned out to be signifi
evolutionary
of this view
support
directed
évolution
Russian biology. Two Russian
cantforthefollowing
developmentof
Lev Berg and palaeonto
biologists
ichthyologist and geographer
- elaborated
them independently
from each
logist Dmitry Sobolev
other. The development
of the directed évolution concept was an
essential
part of biology in Russia in the xxth century. While in
and partly in German-speaking
here
English-speaking
biologiesthe
sies of orthogenesis
were rediscovered
only relatively recently, and
were presented
in form of new concepts 5, in Russia this non
Darwinian
tradition was not interrupted. The « directed évolution »
influenced the Russian versions of modem Darwinism,
« evolutionary
ted
in parailel
to the American
(1940-1990s).
which
exis
synthesis
»
- See for review :
Игорь Юрьевич Попов, Ортогенез против дарвинизма : Историко-ноуиньш
анализ концепций напраленной эволюции (Санкт-Петербург
: Санкт-Петербургский
госу
дарственный
университет, 2005) (Igor Popov, Orthogenesis versus Darwinism : A historie
in Arrlgo A. Cigna, Marco
issue). Id., Directed évolution of mankind and biosphère,
Durante (eds.), Impact of radiation risk in normal and emergency situations (Dordrecht :
Springer Verlag, 2006), 211-218.
- Karl Ernst von Baer, Über Darwin'sche
Lehre, in Studien aus dem Gebiete der Naturwis
senschaften (St-Petersburg : Verlag der Calferlichen
H. Schmissdorf,
Hofbuchhandlung
Николай Яковлевич Данилевский,
1876), 235-479.
Дарвиниз/п : Критическое исследование
1885) (Nikolay Danilevsky, Darwinism : CriticaI research).
(Санкт-Петербург,
- Nils
Punctuated
Eldredge, Stephen Jay Could,
equilibrla : An alternative to phyletic
¡n Models
in paleobiology
(San Francisco : Freeman and Cooper, 1972),
gradualism,
82-115. Stephen Jay Could, The return of hopeful monsters, Natural history, 86 (1977),
22-30. Id., Darwinism and the expansion
of evolutionary theory, Science, 216 (1982),
: Flarvard Univ. Press,
380-387.
Id., The Structure of evolutionary
theory (Cambridge
Id. and Richard Lewontin, The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian
ofthe Royal Society of
paradigm : A critique of the adaptationist program, Proceedings
581-598.
Antonio Lima de Faria, Evolution without sélection
London, 205 (1979),
- New York - Oxford:
(Amsterdam
Elsevier, 1988).
Id., Biological
periodicity : Its
: Conn. JAI Press, USA,
molecular mechanism and evolutionary implication (Greenwich
in der Evolution : Schwim
1995). Wolfgang Friedrich Cutmann, Konstruktionszwange
mende Vierfüsser, Natur undMuséum,
124/6 (1994), 165-189.
Id., Gibtes Alternativwege
Natur und Muséum, 126/8 (1996),
für die Entwicklung der Organisation von Lebewesen,
2002).
auf den Bereich der klassischen Biologie and
Id., Globalisierung-Rückwirkung
Natur und Muséum, 127/7 (1997), 209-219.
Kunio Kawamura, The origin
Palâontologie,
of life from « the life of subjectivity », Fundamentáis
of Ufe (2002), 563-575.
250-262.
Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61 -2 i juillet-décembre
2008
369
Igor POPOV
Lev Berg and nomogenesis
Lev Semionovich
Berg was born March 14, 1876 into a Jewish
of Moldova
now). His
family in Bendery in Bessarabia
(republic
father was a notary, and thus could provide his son a decent primary
and secondary
éducation
in the town Kishiniov (now capital of
A good student Berg earned a gold medal, which entitled
Moldova).
him to enter any university, and he chose Moscow.
Although that
time in Russia
Moscow
University did not accept Jewish students,
overcame
this
obstacle
Berg
by accepting
christening. At Moscow
from
to
he
1894
1898
conducted
research in ichthyo
University
in
which
he
had
been
interested
since
childhood.
logy,
Despite a
successful early scientific career, after graduation Berg was assigned
the rather unimportant position of inspector of fisheries for the Aral
Sea located in a remóte provincial Kazakh city. Berg did not despair
and started intensive researches in ichthyology, limnology, geology,
and geography. After several years he wrote a book on Aral and its
surrounding territories, which in 1909 he submitted as a master's
thesis. His committee
considered
it such a valuable
contribution
that it awarded him the degree of doctor of sciences.
Even after such
a success,
however, he could not find a better position until 1916,
when he became
a professor at Petrograd University 6. He worked
there up to his death in 1950 7.
The scientific héritage of Berg is huge. He is considered
to be the
founder of Russian ichthyology
by right. Every study on Russian
still begins with the references
to Berg's general
ichthyofauna
treatises on the fishes of Russia. At the same time Berg was not less
known as a geographer,
and he was elected
Academician
as a
He conducted
numerous researches on the changes of
geographer.
of the division
into landscape
climate, the principies
areas, the
the
of
etc.
was
a
glacial
loess,
changes,
origin
Berg
person of
Besides
the
main
trends
of
his
research
encyclopaedic
knowledge.
6 - Saint-Petersburg
was renamed
into Petrograd in 1914 when the war with Germany
started, then in 1924 after Lenin's death it was renamed into Leningrad, and then in 1991
- into
Saint-Petersburg back.
7 - Лев Семёнович
Берг. Автобиографическая
записка, в кн. Па/пяти акадетика П. С. иерга
: АН СССР, 1955), 8-17 (Leo Berg, Sketch on autobiography).
(Москва
Ленинград
:
Владимир Александрович
Исаченков, Дмитрий Дмитриевич
Квасов, П. С. Берг (Москва
1988) (Vladimir A. Isachenkov,
Просвещение,
Dmitry D. Kvasov, L. S. Berg). Игорь
Л. С. Берг (1876-1950)
: Штиинца,
Аркадьевич
Крупеников,
(Кишенёв
1976) (Igor А.
Krupenikov, L. S. Berg).
370
Orthogenesis
versus
Darwinism
: The
Russian
case
he addressed,
for example, even such topics
or the origin of land plants 8.
as an origin of Aleuts,
During a period of wars and révolutions
Berg wrote his main
treatises (1914-1922),
evolutionary
including his famous book on
« nomogenesis
» - « évolution
on the basis of law ». When the
possibility of relatively normal activity at scientific institutions had
this book was published 9. Itwastranslated
reappeared,
intoEnglish
and printed in Great Britain soon after10. The main idea of nomo
of everything against Darwinism.
(But
genesis is a generalizaron
not against Darwin personally.
his
Berg emphasized
respect and
he could not agree with him
delight of Darwin, but nevertheless
in anything concerning
évolution.)
practically
Berg formulated
briefly the main points of his concept in 10 theses : « (1 ) Organisms
evolved
from thousands
of primary forms. (2) Their évolution took
(and partly divergence).
(3) on
place mainly in form of convergence
the basis of laws, (4) embracing
numerous
individuáis
over enor
mous territory, (5) in discrète steps. (6) The number of hereditary
variations
is limited, and they follow definite directions.
(7) The
for
and
natural
existence
sélection
are
not
the
factors
of the
struggle
are conserva
evolutionary
progress. Moreover, these phenomena
tive forces keeping the norm. (8) Species are separated clearly from
each other. (9) A significant part of évolution is the development
of
sources.
Extinction
is
caused
not
external
(10)
pre-existed
only by
factors, but by internai ones as well 11. » Except for these postulâtes
contains the idea of direct action of the environment
nomogenesis
transformation.
to Berg some diffé
upon evolutionary
According
rences among species and intraspecific catégories resulted from the
action of « geographical
».
landscapes
a huge set of data from numerous
:
disciplines
Berg generalized
Ele could discuss,
genetics, morphology, taxonomy, palaeontology.
for example, the parailelism of flowers and the reproductive organs
8 - Leo
of the V pacifie science congress.
Berg, On the origin of the Aleuts, Proceedings
Лев Семёнович
Canada.
5 (1933) (Toronto : Univ. of Toronto press, 1934), 2773-2775.
наземных растений, Природа, 2 (1949), 434-447 (Lev Berg, Origin
Берг, Происхождение
of land plants).
: Гос.
Берг, Но/погенез или эволюция на основе законо/перностей (Петербург
or évolution on
Т. 1. (Lev Berg, Nomogenesis
изд., 1922), Труды географического тнетитута,
the basis of laws).
10 - Leo Berg, Nomogenesis
or évolution
determined
1926).
Берг, Труды по теории
Writings on evolutionary theory, 311).
by law (London
эволюции (Москва
: Constable
: Наука,
1977)
& Со. Itd.,
(Leo
Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61 -2 j juillet-décembre
Berg,
2008
371
Igor POPOV
studies
(Cnetales),
by
plants
palaeontological
de
Vries, anthropological
experiments
by Hugo
of
studies by Franz Boas, etc. He noticed ail main achievements
with
citations
of
at
that
the
text
time, decorating
expressive
biology
modem
scientists
and
The
ancient and
philosophers.
bibliography
of nomogenesis
contains hundreds of sources. It is interesting that
Berg almost did not use his own data on fishes, aiming to create a
This fact confused greatly some of
balanced
survey on évolution.
that Berg demonstra
his critics. They were forced to acknowledge
oí gnetaceous
Edward Cope,
ted a great érudition
12.
from the viewpoint
that any chance
event is a
Berg proceeded
For example,
a person can
display of some regular processes.
send a letter not writing address.
But such a chance
accidentally
event has a quite definite frequency. In 1908 in Russia 1,2 billion of
letters were sent, and 27 per 1 million of them were without an
address. In 1910 1,5 billion of letters were sent, and among them
also 27 per one million were without addresses.
Turning to biolo
gical phenomena
Berg protested
against any claim of chance
and distribution of organic characters.
He objected
appearance
mainly on the facts of similarities
among
groups of organisms
a huge number of
inexplicable
by direct relationship,
collecting
them : electrical
in différent groups of fishes,
organs appeared
hornless
cattle originated
in various
continents
independently,
extinct cephalopods
différent branches
could
have
representing
very similar shells, etc. From Berg's viewpoint such data indicated
that évolution proceeds
If that is
mainly in theform of convergence.
the case then adaptation
is just a relatively insignificant by-product
of such a process. In this connection
Berg criticized many adapta
tionistic explanations.
For example,
Darwinian
interprétation of the
e.
origin of flying fishes means that they have adapted to flight,
because
of sélection pressure the fins of the ancestors of these fishes
became elongated,
the fishes became capable
of jumping, and now
we can observe an original construction - flying fishes. Berg did not
He asserted that fins could be elongated
accept such explanation.
of any sélection
of the
irrespectively
pressure and requirements
environment.
There are fishes, which used to jump from the water,
but they have quite normal fins, and on the contrary, there are fishes
12 - Теория нотогенеза. Новая фаза в развитии российского антидарвиниз/па : Сборник
критических
: Гос. тимирязевский
статей, пок ред. В. М. Козо-Полкнскоео
(Москва
научно-иссл.
: New phase in the development
of Russian
институт, 1928) (Theory of nomogenesis
anti-Darwinism.
Collection of critical articles).
372
Orthogenesis
versus
Darwinism
: The
Russian
case
with
never jump
out of water, living
fins, which
elongated
somewhere
at the bottom. Berg argued that the existence
of long
fins is one of the possible
kinds of variation, which is typical for
some fishes and occurs sometimes
as an anomaly
in other species
himself
such
at
noticed
Rutilus
(he
roach,
rutilus, in the
anomaly
Aral sea).
Such
kinds origínate spontaneously,
irrespectively of the
of environment, though in some conditions they seem
requirements
to be adaptations.
abundant
Berg collected
évolution
in a definite
material to prove the fact of spontaneous
but he could
not say almost
direction,
of evolutionary
transformation.
He
anything about a mechanism
that « steriochemical
of
a hypothesis
just expressed
properties
definite directions
in évolution.
proteins » caused
Berg did not
allow any hints on « mystical » or non-material
forces moving
him in the religious
but the critics used to accuse
évolution,
In 1930 the caricature was published in a newspaper
obscurantisme
of the Leningrad University : Berg was drawn dressed in Russian
» and Remark's roman about
national suit holding « Nomogenesis
in nomogenesis
war. Marxist ideologists
detected
with
other
which
were
not
and
features,
compatible
many
pacifism
were
related
the
Such
accusations
of
Soviet
society.
partly
ideology
with the fact that Berg was a « tolstovets », i. e. a follower of
Russian writer count Lev Tolstoy (1828-1910).
Tolstoy was prea
«
mutual
a
non-resistance
to
evil
force
»,
love, equality of
by
ching
the first world
the simplicity of family life, rejection of any
rights, vegetarianism,
etc.
In
1880s
his views came into particular prominence
luxury,
a
for
base
peculiar religious doctrine reminiscent Buddhism
being
and Christianity. Since the adhérents of this doctrine interpreted
Bible too freely and expressed
passive protest against autocracy,
they were persecuted
by Tsar Régime and Orthodox Church.
He really was a vegetarían
Berg tried to follow Tolstoy principies.
He started to rear his children in the remóte Russian
and ascetic.
which would not
village trying to teach them in the environment,
contain anything evil. (Révolution
destroyed such an idyllic.) Berg
but the
real ly had not only scientific protest against Darwinism,
of totalitarianism
moral one as well. He foresaw the establishment
to the
in Russia. The ideology of totalitarian society corresponds
therefore
role of struggle in the évolution,
idea of the progressive
Revue d'histoire des sciences j Tome 61 -2 | juillet-décembre
2008
Igor POPOV
Darwin's
However
because
hint on
to resist
theory. Berg wanted
the attacks of Soviet ideologists
Berg kept such views only in his
them in his scientific activity.
it as far as possible 13.
were not well-founded,
family, not allowing any
He had never attracted
attention by Russian national
suit (Tolstoy used to do it), never
» and never wrote anything aboutTolstoy's
behaved as « God'sfool
in
his
principies
evolutionary treatises. If to appreciate
Berg only on
the basis of reading nomogenesis,
it is impossible
to guess his style
of life. Berg always stressed, that the motives of nomogenesis
are
«
scientific.
He
often
cited
Maxwell's
statement
purely
Accepting
dogma the science makes a suicide », pointing out that Darwinism
could not be accepted
as a perennial
He stated for the
dogma.
of
our
of
évolution.
progress
knowledge
to the reason hardly influenced
which
Berg's appeal
ideologists,
his persécution
in late 1920s. Isaac Présent (1902-1969),
organized
which became
later a fellow-fighter of Lysenko, was especially
in it. However
active
the persécution
not
despite
Berg was
because
repressed. It was happened
Berg never replied the ideolo
In 1930 when the persécution
a high
reached
gist's accusations.
point Berg left University himself. Thefaculty of geography began to
without him, that is why the university leaders asked Berg
collapse
to corne back, and he did it in 1936. That time the passion
for
criticism was settled a little, and Berg did not provoke
nomogenesis
it anymore. He continued
his studies in geology, geo
successfully
graphy, biology (mainly ichthyology) and the history of a science
reaching highest académie
positions : in 1940 he was elected to be
the président of the Russian Geographical
Society, and in 1946
- member of the
of sciences
of USSR. A remarkable case
Academy
to Berg during the élection of academician.
At first he
happened
was one of the two candidates
for this position, but he became
the
another candidate
only one, because
Nikolay Baransky (1881
1963) - rejected the vacancy
claiming the following : « Nobody
could be an Academician,
when Berg is not an Academician
14. »
Dmitry Sobolev and « historical biogenetics »
Sobolev
was born in 1872 in the village Khri
Dmitry Nikolaevich
of
Kostroma
peli
région (Central Russia) into the family of a priest.
13 - Раиса
Львовна
генетика
Берг,
Суховей : Воспо/пишния
мысли, 2003) (Raisa Berg, Dry wind : Memories
исторической
14 - Cit. from Berg, op. cit. in п. 13, 265.
: Памятники
(Москва
of geneticist).
374
versus
Orthogenesis
According
seminary,
Darwinism
: The
to family tradition
but after it he chose
Russian
case
he studied in the Kostroma
another career : he entered
spiritual
Warsaw
branch of the faculty of physics
University in the natural sciences
and mathematics.
Sobolev
from the university in 1899
graduated
with a gold medal.
In the years that followed
he worked in the
Warsaw polytechnic
institute in the laboratory of geology. In 1905
1906
he got a temporary
St-Petersburg
position in the faculty of mineralogy
institute.
polytechnic
at the
In 1911, Sobolev was awarded a master's degree for his research on
the Devonian
fossils of Poland.
Three years later he submitted a
doctoral thesis on goniatites (a group of extinct cephalopods)
to the
Kiev University 15. Unfortunately, the thesis failed to receive appro
val. It was rumoured that the board was displeased
with inappro
priate citations from the poems of Lucretius, which Sobolev
plenti
decorated
his
book
with
16.
Sobolev
himself
refused
to
believe
fully
that so insignificant a reason could affect the judgment of compé
tent scientists, and explained
their displeasure
by the fact that his
thesis was of a « heretical character » trampling upon a common
view of évolution.
The « heretical
character » was expressed
not in the citations from
in
but
rather
citations
from
the
Lucretius,
writings of the advocates
- Theodor
of the idea of directed évolution
Eimer (1843-1898),
Steinmann
Cari von Nageli
Gustav
(1856-1929),
(1817-1891),
and Jean-Baptiste
Lamarck
(1878-1945)
(1744
Edgar Dacqué
much more significant place in the
1829). These citations occupied
book by Sobolev than the « harmless » fragments of antique poetry.
Sobolev
almost did not mention Darwin's
évolution,
Discussing
it was hardly related to the explanation
of evolu
theory, because
tionary novelties. Sobolev
regarded the popularity of the theory of
:
in this field as a misunderstanding
natural sélection
« Darwin's followers proclaimed the omnipotence of natural sélec
tion in the origin of the new organic forms. However it sounds rather
strange because even Darwin himself did not aspire to explain the
origin of novelties, ascribing it to chance. He just explained the
15 - ДмитрийНиколевич Соболаев, Наброски по филогении гониатитов,Изв.Варшавского
И/пператора
политехниуеского института
Sketch on phylogeny of goniatits).
Николая II, 1 (1914),
1-191
(Dmitry Sobolev,
биогенетики
16 - ДмитрийНиколаевичСоболев, Началаисторической
(Симферополь : Гос.
изд. Украины,
1924)
(Dmitry Sobolev,
Bases of históricaI biogenetics,
1).
Revue d'histoire des sciences | "Tome 61 -2 ! juillet-décembre
2008
375
Igor POPOV
advantage of survival of those forms which have some characters
suitable for the struggle for existence 17. »
In addition to novelties Sobolev
referred to the data on mutations
and combinations,
which were also opposed
to Darwinism
at that
time. Besides the neglect of Darwin's
writings the « heretical cha
racter » became
to taxonomy.
apparent in the Sobolev's
approach
Confronted with thegreat variety of cephalopod
shells he looked for
formulas and laws, which would
let him overcome
the chaos.
Sobolev considered
living organisms to be something like « isomor
which should be decom
phic mixtures » of chemical
substances,
to clarify their classification.
posed to their consistent components
Sobolev's
book was very original and precious,
which explains,
probably,
the displeasure
of his senior colleagues.
Even in the face of criticism Sobolev
did not change his viewpoint
or compromise
: he continued
instead to develop
his concept.
his merits were appreciated,
and he got appropriate
Eventually
the failure of the doctoral thesis,
positions and degrees.
Despite
Sobolev
became
chair of the geology department of the Kharkov
this position until his death in 1949. From
University. He occupied
1922 upto 1933 he was director of the research institute on geology
as well, and in 1934-1935
he was dean of thefaculty of geology and
In 1934 he was final ly awarded
the doctoral degree 18.
geography.
In 1924 a book Bases of históricaI biogenetics
was
by Sobolev
in which the ideas close to nomogenesis
were presen
published,
ted 19. Later Sobolev
several other writings, which were
published
written during times of war and révolution 20. Sobolev
never consi
dered them out-of-date and made no essential corrections
in later
17 - Sobolev,
18 - Николай
op. cit. in n. 15, 105
Николаевич
Яковлев, Пять лет со дня смерти Д. Н. Соболева,
Ежегодник
Всесоюзного палеонтологического общества, XV (1954-1955),
369-371
(Nikolay N. Yakov
lev, Five years from the death of D. N. Sobolev).
Юдович Лапкин, Игорь
Иосиф
Соболев
Ремизов, Дмитрий Николаевич
со дня рождения),
(К столетию
Известия АН СССР, Серия геол., 8 (1972), 129-132
(losif Yu. Lapkin, Igor N. Remizov,
Sobolev - То 100-year annlversary of birthday).
Dmitry Nikolaevich
19 - Sobolev, op. cit. in n. 16.
20 - Дмитрий Николаевич
Зетля и жизнь. I. Геодогшеские циклы (Киев : Научно
Соболев,
1-я серия, 1926) (Dmitry Sobolev,
популярная библиотека
Укр. Отд. Геол. Комитета.
Earth and Ufe. 1. Ceological
Зетля и жизнь.
cycles). Дмитрий
Соболев,
II. Эволюция и революции в истории органического
: Научно-популярная
библио
тира (Киев
тека Укр. Отд. Геол. Комитета.
1-я серия, 1927) (Id., Earth and Ufe. 2. Evolution and
révolutions in the history of organic world). Дмитрий Николаевич
Зетля и
Соболев,
жизнь. III. О причинах выпирания организтов (Киев :
библиотека
Научно-популярная
Укр.
1-я серия, 1928) (ld., On the causes of extinction of organisme).
Отд. Геол. Комитета.
376
Orthogenesis
versus Darwinism
: The Russian case
éditions ofthem. In the years that followed, as well as inthecase
of
the
non-Darwinian
heresies
remained
from
his
offi
Berg,
sepárate
ciai career. Sobolev
was acknowledged
as an expert in historical
and paleontology
in these
fields he also
geology
(although
«
»
«
»
His
historical
¡deas).
expressed many
disputable
biogenetics
were overlooked.
Unlike Berg, Sobolev continued some theoretical
researches
but they very less related with
évolution,
concerning
«
of
Darwinism
versus
». Sobolev
was
polemics
orthogenesis
concerned
with other problems. He became
more interested in the
of the évolution
of the entire biosphère.
But the
global processes
core of his concepts presented in his early writings hardly changed.
The main question,
which
consisted
in the following :
Sobolev
put concerning
évolution,
« Whether it is an accumulation and sélection of random variations
occurring in every possible directions, which in themselves do not
predetermine a defined course of phylogenetic trend, which is
directed only by sélection, or this elementary variability is ordered
and is subordinated to definite laws, which predetermine the direc
tion of évolution irrespectively of sélection 21 ? »
Sobolev
The claim of
resolutely asserted the second
viewpoint.
évolution on the basis of laws was his central point. His main book
» consists of the présentation
« of the laws of
about « biogenetics
«
»
».
is
the
same
that
is
biogénesis
Biogénesis
usually called « évo
lution ». Sobolev
preferred to use term « évolution » in its initial
sense close to the sense of a term « preformism », /'.e. to desígnate
the process of display of something that already existed. In such a
case it turns out, that « Darwin reaped a fine crop there, where he
had not sown, he acquired
while
glory as the founder evolutionism
not being an evolutionist22
». Only by misunderstanding
had his
doctrine ».
concept got the name of « evolutionary
« misunderstanding
».
It was not a single example of terminological
For some reason Sobolev
aspired to change the common termino
logy of biology, including even the most general terms : he replaced
» with historical
« biology » with « biontology », « palaeontology
« biontology
». The word in the title of his book - « historical
»
» - means
« biogénesis
the science
of studying
biogenetics
21 - Sobolev, op. cit. in n. 16, 24.
22 - Ibid., 32.
Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61 -2 | juillet-décembre
2008
377
Igor POPOV
- « normal
of living forms related
successive
change
generi
23 ». Moreover
Sobolev
introduced
spécial terms for taxono
cally
« military » terms,
of cephalopods.
He invented
mic catégories
which could greatly amuse the reader. He described the « hordes »
of ammonites, which split intothe « bands », « cohorts », « phalan
book an impressive image of a
xes », etc. After reading Sobolev's
full-scale military offensive to modernity by various quaint créatu
res arises. As in a world war whole columns of them perished, and
for them. Some
new ones
substituted
survived
by
organisms
chance,
forever.
but the large and maybe
the best part of them disappeared
a style of présentation
was not popular
in the
in
world, but
doing so Sobolev
presented rather valuable
ideas about ordering data on variety. He tried to reveal in living
elements
organisms something like the periodic System of chemical
Certainly
scientific
such
or the homologous
series of organic substances.
He ordered his
« divisions », « maniples », « phalanxes
», etc. in parallel series. In
summarized
his studies on goniatites, presenting a
1927, Sobolev
« reticular gradational-combinational
system » ofthem. He tried to
and typological
: he invented Sys
unify genealogical
approaches
« historical
tems
affinities introducing
typological
reflecting
numerous tables
aspects » in them. For this purpose he composed
of combinations
of features : vertical lines of them demonstrated
« steady traces » which originated
in form of saltations,
while
« gradational traces » which origina
horizontal lines demonstrated
ted in process of évolution in definite directions. « Periodicity is not
alien to my system »-noticed
Sobolev-«
horizontal
series to other the similar
ved
in the transition fromone
transformations
are obser
» 24.
Sobolev
noticed that his concept corresponded
to nomogenesis
in
general, but specified some distinctions with ¡t. The most essential
différence concerns the problem of irreversibility. Sobolev believed
that reversible movement
is an integral part of évolution as well as
a movement
forward. As it is known, each specialized
organism
originates
from less specialized
ancestors.
However
any organism,
23 - Sobolev, op. cit. in n. 16, 3.
24 - Дмитрий
Опыт
Соболев,
построения
ретикулярной
градативно
комбинативной
системы
гониатитов,
HayRoei записки по бюлогй'. Дерягавне видавництво
170-200
Construction
of reticular gradational
(1927),
(Dmitry Sobolev,
Украти
combinatlonal
System of goniatits, 172).
378
versus
Orthogenesis
Darwinism
: The
Russian
case
» ones, have features of spe
including relatively « non-specialized
« Nature could not be populated
cialization.
» - Sobo
by schemes
lev agreed with Cuvier. For Sobolev the ancestor of any spécialized
as well, but it was able to return to earlier stages
group is specialized
of its évolution
and then start to evolve in another direction. This
occurs rapidly, and that is why it is impossible
to find
process
transitional forms in the fossil record. Berg was of the other view
point. He admitted that theoretically évolution could be reversible,
but he thought that it is extremely improbable,
that évolution
in
is
an
irreversible
25.
general
process
In the last Sobolev's
writings another significant différence with
became
While Berg expected
to find the
nomogenesis
apparent.
solution to the problem of evolutionary
mechanisms
from studies of
Sobolev looked to the highest levels of the living
organic molécules,
world. He came to the conclusion
that it is impossible to explain the
of évolution, while remaining within the framework of
mechanisms
researches on isolated organisms. Only the analysis of the évolution
of the entire Earth could clarify this problem. Sobolev
worked on
this subject during the last years of his life, planning to write a
spécial treatise about it, but he had no time to complete this work.
Like Berg, Sobolev
to the lack of laws in biology discus
appealed
his
motives.
However
the
critics tried to find some others to
sing
discrédit his « biogenetics
». They were less successful
in the case
than in the case of nomogenesis,
of biogenetics,
because
Sobolev's
«
not
does
contain
such
a
détail
like
tolstovstvo
».
biography
spicy
On the contrary, Sobolev abandoned
resolutely the religious family
tradition. Like Berg, Sobolev
did not allow
any hints on non
material forces in his scientific research. His writings were full of
tables, formulas and laws, /. e. looked purely scientific. That is why
the critics used to consider biogenetics
as a kind of eccentricity not
it seems that Sobolev
had some
However,
properly understood.
» motives as well. But unlike Berg's ones, these
« non-scientific
motives were rather pré-Christian, than Christian ones. Sobolev was
He had a profound
more influenced
by ancient
philosophy.
and
to
read antic treatises.
of
ancient
liked
knowledge
languages
in
Darwin's
context
of the rich
considered
Sobolev
theory
it as a small
e. he appreciated
cultural héritage,
centuries-old
in the long history of science,
épisode
292-302
which
явления и законы
Берг, Изменчивость
(Lev Berg, Variation and laws of nature).
is not so significant
природы,
as
Природа, 7-9 (1919),
2008
379
Igor POPOV
His attitude
the propagandists
claimed.
ing than critical.
condescend
to Darwiriism
was
rather
and his officiai académie
was not repressed,
Like Berg, Sobolev
Sobolev
It
took
in
Soviet
time.
also
career progressed
place because
As
into
himself.
to
accusations
did not react
Berg
withdrawing
Both « geo
moved
to geology.
moved
to geography,
Sobolev
» suffered lesser ideological
and
control than biology
sciences
and
lived
far
from
Moscow
Sobolev
humanities.
Moreover,
away
the
and
the
conflicts
on
where
scientific centers
Saint-Petersburg
science
concentrated.
Destiny
Russia
of the concepts
of directed
évolution
in
Directed évolution concept provoked a strong reaction of Russian
in 1920s.
The appearance
of nomogenesis
scientific community
and biogenetics
received
a short burst of enthusiastic
reaction,
which soon was replaced
for strong criticism. The regularities or
laws of évolution
attracted great attention. Many meetings and
to directed
éditions
devoted
évolution
were organized.
Some
in Rus
Darwinians
of the dominance
of nomogenesis
complained
these complaints
were hardly well foun
sian biology 26. However
ded. The reaction was rather négative in general. Even the authors
had not supported
it actively. There
sympathizing
orthogenesis
were three main reasons of this fact :
1. The writings on orthogenesis
provoked an impression of a certain
of the formulations
unclearness
the essence
of the
concerning
évolution
mechanism.
Yuri
So, Russian
geneticist
Filipchenko
He referred to the « auto
(1882-1930)
expressed such a viewpoint.
« with the great sympathy », and often made
genetic » viewpoint
critical
comments
always
stressed
on
natural
his sceptics
sélection
not wanting
However
theory27.
to joint some camp
he
of
26 - БорисМихайловичКозо-Полянский,
Последнее
словоантидарвинизта: Изложение
икрити
ческий
нового
разбортеориинотогенеза,
ученияобэволюции
органического
тира (Краснодар :
Last wordof Anti-Darwinism
: Summary and
1923) (Boris Kozo-Poliansky,
Буревестник,
critical research ofthe nomogenesis
theory, a new concept on évolution).
27 - Юрий Александрович
О параллелизме
в живой природе, Успехи совретен
филипченко,
ной биологии, 4 (1924), 242-257
(Yury Filipchenko, About parallelism in living nature).
Филипченко,
Юрий Александрович
Эволюционная идея в биодогии : исторический обзор
: Наука, 1977) (Id., Evolutionary idea in biology :
эволюционныхучений XIX века (Москва
Historie survey ofthe evolutionary concepts ofxixth century).
380
Orthogenesis
versus Darwinism
: The Russian case
evolutionists.
He believed,
that our knowledge
of macroevoiution
mechanisms
still remains obscure (the terms macro- and microevo
lution were introduced by Filipchenko).
name was « sacred » for the great majority of
because
Darwin
a progress
in
biologists,
personified
could
revise
Darwin's
They
concept beyond récognition,
but they did not want to reject it. Even so « exotic » views on
évolution
as symbiogenesis
were presented sometimes
as « a new
rédaction of Darwinism
». Facing with nomogenesis
and biogene
tics some Darwinians
admitted the merits of studies in this field, but
did not want to recognizethefailures
of the natural sélection theory.
2. The
Russian
science.
Darwin's
For example,
a zoologist
Wladimir Shimkevich
who
(1858-1923),
was one of the most active propagandists
of Darwinism,
expressed
for Berg's initiatives citing his preliminary communica
approval
tions 28, but after the édition of nomogenesis
he started to criticize it
«
because
attacked
too
the
Berg
strongly
Holy Scripture » of bio
29.
Another
follower
was also
Darwin's
Pavel
Serebrovsky
logy
interested in orthogenesis.
He claimed that the strong criticism of
bereaves Darwinism of a valuable
material giving itto
nomogenesis
anti-Darwinians.
However
he did not want to allow compromises
:
must
be
included
into
Darwinism
not
it30.
orthogenesis
destroying
3. The discussion
on orthogenesis
a political and ideolo
acquired
with
Darwinism
character
the
successes
of
Soviet
leaders.
gical
in
communism
Russian
the
same
which
occupied
biology
place
in ideology. As inquisitors threatened scientific concepts
occupied
looked care
by Holy Writ, so Soviet biologists and propagandists
of
in
for
déviations
from
the
Darwinism
fully
principies
any biolo
This
becomes
for
research.
typical
any polemic
style gradually
gical
was counterpoised
too
on the problems of évolution. Orthogenesis
that
is
it
had
not
to
the
officiai
ideology,
why
right to
sharply
28 - ВладимирМихайловичШимкевич,О закономерностяхбиологическихявлений,Экскур
сионное дело, 2-3 (1921),
214-240
(Wladimir
Shimkevich,
About regularities of biological
phenomena).
Новая фаза в развитии российского
Михайлович
29 - Владимир
Шимкевич,
антидарвини
: Сборник
зма, в кн. : Теория номогенеза. Новая фаза в развитии российского антидарвинизма
научно
(Москва
критических статей, ред. Б. М. Козо-Полнский
New phase in the Russian anti
иссл. институт, 1928), 1-26 (Wladimir Shimkevich,
Darwinism development).
в кн. : Теория
30 - Павел Владимирович
Дарвинизм и учение об ортогенезе,
Серебровский,
номогенеза. Новая фаза в развитии российского антидарвинизма.
Сборник критических статей,
научно-иссл. институт, 1928),
(Москва
ред. Б. М. Козо-Полнский
87-158 (Pavel Serebrovsky, Darwinism and orthogenesis doctrine).
Revue d'histoire des sciences j Tome 61 -2 | juillet-décembre
2008
381
Igor POPOV
after 1929,
existence.
Such a situation became
firmly established
/'.e. the year of « great turning point » (velikiy perelom) proclaimed
by Stalin. Such a turning point meant a complete
victory of socia
lism and extermination
of any capitalist elements in society.
with each other so
The last two reasons sometimes were connected
that
it
to
them. The
is
absolutely
impossible
sepárate
strongly,
scientific héritage of Russian histologist Alexey Zavarzin
(1886
demonstrates
a remarkable
of such a situation.
1945)
example
Zavarzin
conducted
a profound
research
on tissues of various
in the groups
animais, revealing numerous histological
parallelisms
of organisms, which did not have any relationship in the taxonomic
sense.
For example,
it would seem that the spinal chord of verte
brates and the abdominal
chord of insects had little in common.
However, itturned outthattheir
histological
patterns are identical :
both consist of white and grey matters, both have the pair arrange
ment of nerves, etc. Such studies ideally corresponded
orthogene
did not stress this fact. At the initial stage of his
sis, but Zavarzin
studies he tried to avoid absolutely
the analysis
évolution,
just
the
similarities
of
tissues.
an approach
However
such
describing
leads to idealistic morphology, which was also a heresy. Extending
his studies Zavarzin
revised his approach
claiming that the refusai
from evolutionary
was
a
mistake.
this mis
approach
Overcoming
take he conducted
a series of studies on « parallelisms
and evolu
tionary dynamics of tissues ». Citing Berg and other orthogeneticists
he developed
an idea that ail histological
in
patterns originated
accordance
with definite internai laws. However, at the same time,
Zavarzin
his conclusions
to
persistently did not wish to oppose
natural sélection theory, trying to formúlate compromises31.
Such a
scientific héritage made difficulties for historians and evolutionists.
The conférences
in honour of Zavarzin
sometimes
dis
provoked
cussions
anew. Studying the changes
of Zavarzin's
views Daniel
Alexandrov
to distinct
pointed out that « it is absolutely
impossible
internai logic of the conception
and the logic of
development
to criticism 32 ».
adaptation
31 - Алексей Алексеевич Заварзин,Трудыпо теориипараллелизтаи эволюционной
диналлики
тканей
: Наука, 1986) (Alexey Zavarzin,
Treatises on parallelism
and
(Ленинград
evolutionary dynamics of tissues).
32 - Даниил Александрович
Александров,
История отечественной эволюционной /порфологии
животных в конце XIX в. - первой трети XX в., Авт. канд. биол. наук. (Москва
: ИИЕТ,
1996) (Daniel Alexandrov, History ofthe Russian animal evolutionary morphology (rom
the end ofxixth century to 1930s, PhD thesis), 18.
382
Orthogenesis
versus Darwinism
: The Russian case
The criticism of orthogenesis was hardly related with the movement
of
synthesis » formation. Genetics
ieading to « the evolutionary
in
in
and
Russia
but
1920s,
population
progressed
nomogenesis
were suppressed
biogenetics
irrespect!vely of it. On the one hand,
numerous
critics did without genetics. On the other hand, some
founders of Russian genetics - especially
(1882
Yury Filipchenko
and
Vavilov
1930)
(1887-1943)
Nikolay
sympathized
orthogene
was enthusiastic
about nomo
sis. Even Dobzhansky
(1900-1975)
that time 33. The founderof modem Darwinism changed his
and Vavilov saved such enthusiasm,
opinion soon, but Filipchenko
himself
it
later. Filipchenko
was
not
obviously
expressed
though
relate
which
would
had not conducted
researches,
empirical
it.
His
but Vavilov did
directly with the arguments in orthogenesis,
»
series of variations
studies on « homological
ideally correspon
genesis
extensive
ded to the idea of directed évolution 34. FHe collected
material about cultured plants, and revealed a lot of parailel varia
in cereals the
tions among numerous species of them. For example,
ears could be branchy or not branchy, they could be bearded or not
bearded ; the colour of seeds could be white, yellow, red, grey,
Vavilov showed that it is possible to detect ail
black or deep-brown.
these kinds of variabiIity in each cereal species. Moreover, a similar
For
exists in plants that are not in direct relationship.
phenomenon
in
be
detected
of
the
rootform
could
the
identical
variants
example,
and tur
carrots (fam. Umbelliferae)
beets (fam. Chenopodiacea),
Some variants of variabiIity occur over the
nips (fam. Cruciferae).
whole plant world-gigantism,
dwarfism, fasciation, albinism. Such
from
facts were known earlier, and Vavilov cited his predecessors
had not emphasi
Darwin's time. Flowever, Vavilov's predecessors
zed these facts as an indication on regularities of the whole organic
variety.
In some cases Vavilov could predict the
forms. For example,
among pumpkins and
while
such forms were not
were known,
the discovery of lobate
Vavilov expected
were actually
found in the south-eastern
of new plant
discovery
melons the lobate forms
at watermelons.
and they
watermelons,
known
part of Russia.
Such
cases
in the Soviet
The birth of the genetic theory of évolution
33 - Theodosius
Dobrzhansky,
Union in 1920s, in Ernst Mayr, William Provine (eds.), The Evolutionary synthesis :
- London : Harvard Univ.
Perspectives on the unification of biology (Cambridge (Mass.)
Press, 1980), 229-242.
34 - Nikolay Vavilov, The
(1922), 47-89.
law of homological
series
in variation,
Journal of genetics,
12
2008
383
Igor POPOV
of prédiction reminded Russian scientists of how Mendeleev
pre
dicted discoveries
of new chemical
elements after the formulation
of the periodic law. That is why, at least in Russia, Vavilov was often
called the « Mendeleev
of biology » 35.
Berg noticed (1922) that Vavilov had formulated the idea of nomo
genesis even better than Berg himself. Vavilov paid the writings of
his opinions
Berg and Sobolev
great attention, but he expressed
and only rarely in his scientific publications.
In there he
cautiously
focused mainly on the problems of taxonomy and plant breeding,
on évolution.
In his correspondence
making only brief comments
with some colleagues,
however, Vavilov clearly expressed
support
of orthogenetic
heresies. To Sobolev
he wrote :
« Professor Berg informed me recently that in processes of the
studies of goniatites you elaborated the ¡deas which are analogous
to our conclusions from the studies of plants. I have read your book,
and your data on goniatites and the law of parailel development is
really close to generaiization that I named « the law of homologous
series
» 36. »
Vavilov was familiar with writings about « orthogene
Obviously,
sis » as well. For example,
in a letter to Cavriil S. Zaitsev
he
« orthogenetic
mentioned
rows » :
« What do conifers have in common with cereals, or pumpkin and
water-melon with wheat ? But their cycles of variability are similar
in many respects. There is also a huge abundance of such paralle
lisms both in mushrooms, and at animais. It is very easy to find them
in
any
detailed
on
monograph
some
large
group
and
even
on
genera. Reading « Mutationstheorie », scrutinizing closely the
mutations, we can see that asa matteroffactall ofthem proceed in
the
Such
an
form
of orthogenetic
rows
37. »
« orthogenetic
in Russia in
genetics » was suppressed
as any other except the « genetics » of Lysenko. Ortho
also went underground
for a long period. However
it was
1930-1940s
genesis
35 - For détails
see : Igor Popov, « Periodical
Systems » in biology (a historical Issue),
zur Ceschichte
und Théorie der Biologie,
9 (2002),
55-69.
Verhandlungen
Игорь
- Мос
Попов, Периодические систеты и периодический закон в биологии (Санкт-Петербург
ква : КМК, 2008)
law in biology.
(Igor Popov, Periodical
Systems and periodical
Moscow, 2008).
Saint-Petersburg
36 - From Sobolev, op. cit. in n. 16, 44.
37 - Письма
H. И. Вавилова
Г. С. Зайцеву, Природа, 4 (1977),
102-115.
(Letters of N. I.
Vavilov to G. S. Zaitsev, 104).
384
versus Darwinism
Orthogenesis
: The Russiari case
to develop
it. The most
not forgotten. Some dissidents continued
who
Liubishev
active among them was Alexander
(1890-1972),
but attracted
contributed
little to nomogenesis
and biogenetics,
attention to the problems they raised. He stated in favour of the
in 192 5 38, and then criticized
directed évolution
idea already
of biology over almost 50 years
Darwinism
and other concepts
did not escape
his criticism). Estimations of his
(even nomogenesis
are contradictory.
Some authors admire him. Numerous
of papers were
conférences
were organized and collections
for the criticism of
in honour of Liubishev.
His passion
with the capacity of the « coloured ear »
everything was compared
and with other extraordinary human gifts 39.
of Vladimir Nabokov
out that his criticism did not
other authors pointed
However,
the
new.
main part of the héritage of
Moreover,
produce anything
activity
spécial
edited
remained in letters and lectures not presented in scientific
This fact is only partly explained
by the heretical
publications.
character of his ideas. In the 1960s and later, there were some
and some of Liubishev's
to rise up from underground,
possibilities
in
the
académie
even
were
éditions, but they were
papers
published
and as substantial as one would expect 40. The
not as numerous
Liubishev
main part of Liubishev's
literature by his colleagues
studies
41.
was
presented
in the scientific
active in his struggle against Darwi
Liubishev became
especially
nism (he called it « selectogenesis
») after his officiai retirement in
38 - Александр АлександровичЛюбищев, Понятие эволюции и кризис эволюционизма,
Изв. Бюлл. НИИ при Пертск. гос.ун-те, 4/4 (1925), 1 37-153 (Alexander Liubishev, Notion
of évolution and crisis of evolutionism).
Тайный
39 - Михаил Давыдович
Любищева,
Вестник,
жребий профессора
Голубовский,
12/15 (2000), 42-47 (Mikhail Golubovsky, Secret lot of professor Liubishev).
: Наблюдения
и
40 - Александр
Любищев,
узоры на стёклах
Морозные
Александрович
23-26 (Alexander
Знание - сила, 7 (1973),
Liubishev, Frosty
биолога,
размышления
Алексан
and discussions
traceries on glass : Observations
by biologist). Александр
42-44 (ld., Notion of
Понятие
номогенеза,
Природа, 10 (1973),
дрович Любищев,
О постулатах
Любищев,
современного
Александр
:
в кн. : Проблеты эволюции, ред. H. Н. Воронцов, Том III (Новосибирск
of modem
31-57 (Id., About postulâtes
Александр
selectogenesis).
Наука, 1973),
К классификации
эволюционных
Любищев,
теорий, в кн. : Проблеты
: Наука, 1975), 206-221
(Id., То
эволюции, ред. H. Н. Воронцов, Том IV (Новосибирск
the classification of evolutionary théories).
41 - Сергей Викторович
парадоксы
Мейен, Юлий Анатольевич
Шрейдер, Биологические
А. А. Любищева,
Природа, 10 (1973), 38-42 (Sergey Meyen, Yuly Schreider, Biological
nomogenesis).
селектогенеза,
of A. A. Liubishev). Александр
Любищев,
Проблеты форты,
paradoxes
и эволюции организтов. Сборник статей, ред. Ц. В. Мейен, Ю. В. Чайковский
систетатики
: Наука, 1982) (Alexander
Liubishev, Problems of form, systematics and
(Москва
évolution
(Ленинград
of organisme). Павел Григорьевич
Светлов,
: Наука, 1982) (Pavel Svetlov, Alexander
Александр Александрович Любищев
Alexandrovich
Liubishev).
2008
385
Igor POPOV
1955 and up to his death in 1972. That time the deliverance
from
Stalinism
and Lysenkoism
took place
in Russia. The authorities
allowed
some liberalization,
which became apparent in biology. In
due
to
Liubishev's
part
activity, in part due to other authors nume
rous publications
on directed évolution
42. In 1977 the
appeared
was
and
43,
Berg's nomogenesis
republished
provoked a new burst
of discussions
as well as in 1920s.
The collections
of papers of
«
» classics
Zavarzin
and
other
inconvénient
Vavilov, Filipchenko,
were
also
edited that time.
view in form of
orthogenetic
directed évolution took place
« old-fashioned
» disciplines,
In parallel
some authors presented
new
The support of
spécial
concepts.
not only in the framework of classical
but the most modem ones as well 44.
The sources of such a renaissance
are diverse. Absolutely ail of new
enthusiasts
cited Berg. Liubishev
the second
in
occupied
place
citations. Sobolev
turned out to be almost forgotten. Only some
remember his concept now. The foreign
palaeontologists-geologists
authors of orthogenesis
are not well known and not so influential.
demonstrates
a significant
Only one of new modem
concepts
42 - МеркурийСергеевич Гиляров, Закономерности и направленная эволюция,Журнал
and directed
(Merkury Guiliarov, Regularices
Завадский, Томас Якобович Сутт, К вопросу о природе
эволюционного
ограничений
процесса, в кн. : История и теория эволюционного учения. 3
: ИИЕТ,
1973), 42-49 (Kirill Zavadsky, Tomas Sutt, То the question on
(Ленинград
Завадский, Александр
evolutionary constraints). Кирилл Михайлович
Борисович Геор
гиевский, К оценке эволюционных
взглядов Л. С. Берга, в кн. : Л. С. Берг. Труды по теории
: Наука, 1977), 7-42 (Kirill Zavadsky, Alexander Ceorgievsky, То the
évaluation of evolutionary concept by L. S. Berg).
Константин
О возможных
и осуществлённых
Беклемишев,
Владимирович
направле
ниях эволюции беспозвоночных.
(Konstantin
Журнал общей биологии, 2 (1974), 209-222
общей биологии, XXXI/2 (1970),
évolution). Кирилл Михайлович
179-189
About possible and realised directions in évolution).
Томас Якобович
Beklemishev,
: АН ЭССР, 1977) (Tomas
Сутт, Проблема направленности органической эволюции (Таллин
Sutt, РюЫет
ofdirectionality oforganic évolution). Сергей Викторович
Мейен, Может
ли быть победитель
в дискуссии о номогенезе
?, Природа, 9 (1979), 114-116 (Sergey
on nomogenesis
Meyen, Could exist a winner in discussion
?). Сергей Викторович
Мейен, Проблема
эволюции, в кн. : Проблемы теории эволюции. Итоги
направленности
: ВИНИТИ,
науки и техники, серия: Зоология позвоночных, 7 (Москва
1975), 66-119
(Sergey Meyen, Problem of the directionality of évolution). Юнир Абдуллович
Урман
о сходстве в живой природе, Природа, 9 (1979), 116-121 (Yunir Urmant
цев, Номогенез
on the similarities in living world).
sev, Nomogenesis
43 - Berg, op. cit. in п. 11.
44 - Леонид Иванович
в молекулярной
генома и
Корочкин,
Параллелизмы
организации
эволюции, в кн. : Молекулярные механизмы генетических процессов (Москва.
:
проблемы
in molecular
(Leonid Korochkin, Parallelisms
of
Наука, 1985), 132-146
organisation
genom and the problem of évolution). Эдуард Борисович
Ахназаров,
Контуры эволюции
: Недра, 2002) (Eduard Akhnazarov,
Contours of évolution). Елена
(Санкт-Петербург
Евгеньевна
Коваленко,
концепции Дарвина, в кн. : В тени дарвинизма :
Альтернатива
: Ясный день, 2003),
Альернативные
теории эволюции в XX веке (Санкт-Петербург
192-218 (Elena Kovalenko, Two alternatives within Darwin's original théory of évolution).
386
versus
Orthogenesis
Darwinism
: The
Russian
case
European influence, that ¡s the concept « contours of évolution » by
Eduard Akhnazarov
4S. This author claimed
that he
(1933-2001)
would like to reformulate in purely scientific terms the « phenome
non of man » of Teilhard de Chardin. Some authors claimed
reso
lutely, that they came to directed évolution
theoretical
influence, /'. e. they established
in process of empirical studies,
Darwinism
for alternative concepts.
idea irrespective of any
the facts contradicting
and then started to look
A number
of statements
in favour of nomogenesis-orthogenesis
increased
over last three decades
continuously
up to today. A
of socialism
in 1990s contributed
breakdown
greatly to this ten
of
or re-appearance
dency. Now the conditions for the appearance
« heresies » are much more favourabie
in Russia than earlier,
because
Darwinism
had lost the support of authorities. Neverthe
of Darwinism
is still strong. The
less, the position of the advocates
mismatch
of a paper with Darwinian
principies
quite often is
of the paper till now.
considered
as a reason for refusing publication
of directed évolution
on the
of Russian versions of modem
development
Influence
Darwinism
As is known, Russian scientists contributed greatly to the formation
of modem Darwinism.
traditions into
They introduced naturalisée
basis
of
the theory of
on
the
making generalizations
genetics,
natural sélection. The Russian scientists working abroad - Nikolay
and Theodosius
in Cermany
(1900-1981)
Timofeeff-Ressovsky
- achieved
in this
successes
in
the
the
USA
greatest
Dobzhansky
in their native
field. Some Russian scientists, who had remained
in the same time.
land, also created versions of modem Darwinism
treatises by
At the end of the 1930s and in the 1940s voluminous
Lukin
were
Efim
and
Ivan Schmalhausen
(1904-1999)
(1884-1963)
as a Russian part or Russian
issued 46, which are usually considered
45 - Akhnazarov, op. cit. in n. 44.
46 - Иван Иванович Шмальгаузен,
Организ/п как целое в индивидуалънот и исторшеско/п разви
: Изд. АН СССР, 1938) (Ivan Schmalhausen,
тии (Москва - Ленинград
Organism as a
Иван Иванович Шмальгаузен,
whole in individual and históricaI development).
Пути и
: Изд. АН СССР, 1939) (Id., Ways and
эволюционного процесса (Москва
законотерности
of evolutionary process). Иван Иванович
эволюции
Шмальгаузен,
факторы
: Изд. АН СССР, 1946) (Id., Factors of évolution). Ефим Иудович
Ленинград
в из/пенении организтов (Москва
Царвинизт и географические законотерности
regularities
-
(Москва
Лукин,
2008
387
Igor POPOV
version
of the synthetic theory, although the affinity of these works
« evolutionary
47.
synthesis » was sometimes
challenged
Lukin and Schmalhausen
stressed the role of modifications,
while
such a viewpoint
was considered
to be a hint of Lamarckism.
to the
at least Schmalhausen
déviations
from
Moreover,
expressed
« population
».
One
of
his
books
had
the
title
thinking
Organism as
a whole (1938), because
Schmalhausen
a
rather
preferred
organis
mocentric approach.
both Lukin and Schmalhausen
Nevertheless,
defended
natural sélection
strongly or even aggressively
theory
from any hints of heresies. In this respect they were very close to the
« architectsof evolutionary synthesis ». Such an ideology of biology
dominated
in Russia
as well as in the English speaking
world.
Polemics with orthogenesis was a significant part of some of the first
treatises representing modem
Darwinism.
Bern
George Simpson,
hard Rensch, Julián Huxley, and Ivan Schmalhausen
paid great
attention to the analysis
of facts cited by the advocates
of the
directed évolution
concept 48. Such an analysis was one of the
bases of Schmalhausen's
similar to
theory of stabilizing sélection
» 49. In the years that fol
Waddington's
concept of « canalization
of discrediting
seemed
to be
problem
orthogenesis
for
the
Darwinians.
After
cele
completely
English-speaking
the
of
Darwin's
The
10O-year anniversary
brating
Origin ofspecies
Ernst Mayr claimed
that the opponents
of « the evolutionary
syn
thesis » were so rare and so ignorant, that it was meaningless
to
lowed
solved
the
: Изд. АН СССР, 1940) (Efim Lukin, Darwinism andgeographical
Ленинград
regulari
ces in the changes of organisms).
47 - Эдуард Николаевич
От
к
Мирзоян,
теории зарождения
учению об организме как целом
в индивидуальном
и историческом
развитии, Эволюционные идеи в биологии, Труды Ленин
85/1 (1984), 9-21 (Eduard Mirzoian, From the
градского общества естествоиспытателей,
theory of génération to the concept of organism as a whole in individual and historical
Учение о /пакроэволюции. На путях к ново/пу
Вадим Иванович
development).
Назаров,
: Наука,
синтезу (Москва
a new synthesis).
1991 ) (Vadim Nazarov,
Concept
of macroevolution
: Towards
48 - Julián Huxley, Evolution : The modem synthesis (London : George Allen and Unwin,
Bernhard Rensch,
Die paláontologischen
1942).
in zoologischer
Evolutionsregeln
1-56. Id., Neure Problème der
Betrachtung, Biologia generalis, XVII/1 und 2 (1943),
: Transspeciphische
Evolution (Stuttgart : Enke, 1954). George Gay
Abstammungslehre
lord Simpson, Tempo and mode of évolution (New York : Columbia
University Press,
et la théorie synthétique de l'évolution,
1944). Id., L'orthogenèse
in Paléontologie
et
transformisme (Paris: Albin Michel, 1950), 123-168. Schmalhausen
(1946), op. cit. inn.
46.
49 - Conrad Waddington, Genetic assimilation of an acquired character, Evolution, 7 (1953),
118-126.
388
Orthogenesis
versus Darwinism
: The Russian case
were of the
spend time criticizing them 50. Russian Darwinians
with
related
directed
the
other opinion. They addressed
problems
last
minute
concessions.
and even made some
évolution concepts
in one of his last treatises still analyzed
Even Schmalhausen
and after resolute criticism admitted that
orthogenesis-autogenesis,
to evolve in certain directions play a significant role in
51. In the 1960s he continued to work intensively on the
problem of directionality, aiming to create a general theory unifying
and directed
of noosphere,
the concept
elements of cybernetics,
tendencies
évolution
évolution.
» made by the représentatives
of the next géné
The « concessions
even greater. They noted
were sometimes
ration of Darwinians
and convergences
could not be always
quite often, that parallelisms
For
of
and
sélection
similar
adaptation.
pressures
by
explained
fishes demóns
of Crossopterygii
the différent branches
example,
teeth in the
of integumentary
in the génération
trate parallelism
rhombic
sca
substitutions
of
of
head, formation
jaws,
stegocephal
etc.52.
in
of
round
les by
teeth,
ones, changes
rugosity patterns
These vague points were interpreted in spécial terms : « historically
tendencies
formed organization
», « common
», « evolutionary
«
of nature of
role
Schmalhausen
basis noted by
»,
morphogenetic
were
These
phenomena
organisms pointed out by Darwin », etc.
»
and
as
«
the factors causing independent
as
considered
similarity
it
However
was
the cases, which are still insufficiently explored.
évident
that
« phylogenetic development is a natural process having a definite
direction. The question of directionality in évolution in our litera
ture was bypassed the last time by silence. Idealistic treatments of
the phenomena of directionality of évolution, which were given by
the supporters of the theory of orthogenesis (Eimer) and related
concepts (Berg, 1922, Osborn, 1930, etc.) resulted in the négation
or ignoring of the facts of the directionality in évolution of différent
groups
53 ».
MA : Harvard University Press,
50 - Ernst Mayr, Animal species and évolution (Cambridge,
1963), 9.
: Наука, 1969) (Изд. 2,
51 - Иван Иванович Шмальгаузен,
Проблемы дарвинизма (Ленинград
Problems oí Darwinism, 145).
(Ivan Schmalhausen,
переработанное)
в эволюции кистепёрых
и конвергенции
52 - Эмилия Ивановна Воробьёва,
Параллелизмы
: Наука, 1980), 7-29 (Emilia
рыб, в кн. : Морфологические аспекты эволюции (Москва
fishes).
in the évolution of Sarcopterigian
Vorobiova, Parallelisms and convergences
53 - Guiliarov, op. cit. in n. 42, 9.
Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61 -2 1juillet-décembre
2008
389
Igor POPOV
Such
mean
while
look very ambiguous.
They
by active Darwinians
» instead of orthogenesis,
of « orthogenesis
the admission
it is difficult to catch a différence between them. It looks like
statements
either hidden support, or a manifestation of dogmatism and persis
the existence
of anything that
to recognize
tent unwillingness
restrains the theory of natural sélection.
The
indirect
influence
of directed
on modem
évolution
in the fate of Vavilov's
Russian
studies
on the law of
biology is apparent
series. Despite the affinity to nomogenesis
they were
homological
«
»
Vavilov's law
was often recalled 54 and it is
held in great respect.
At the same time the « architects
represented even in schoolbooks.
of the evolutionary
synthesis » did not pay much attention to it,
although they were well informed about it. For example, Mayr cited
of a spécial kind of taxonomic
Vavilov's studies as a démonstration
characters
: relative species are similar not in diagnostic characters,
noticed that
but in the typical variations as well5S.
Dobzhansky
Vavilov's
law could be traced in ladybeetles,
but he did not stress
this fact 56. In the years that followed
have been forgotten in English-speaking
were
to be only researches
considered
ture practices 57.
Vavilov's
studies
seemed
to
evolutionary
biology. They
to improve agricul
aiming
54 - Арчжил ЯкимовичИльин, О теоретическом значениизакона гомологическихрядов
Н. И. Вавилова,
Вопросы философии, 5 (1966), 85-92 (Archzhil llyin, About theoretical
of the law of homological
rows by N. I. Vavilov).
Леппик,
significance
Ельмар
Гомологические
и аналогические
ряды в эволюции типов цветков, Генетика, 5/5 (1969),
12-23 (Elmar Leppik, Homological
and analogical
serles in évolution of the kinds of
состояние и развитие основных
flowers). Пётр Михайлович
Жуковский,
Современное
идей Вавилова, Тр. по прикладной ботанике, генетики и селекции, 54/1 (1975), 229-238 (Piotr
M. Zhukovsky, Modem
condition
and development
of the main Vavilov's
ideas).
Развитие идей Вавилова
в современных
исследова
Владимир Филимонович
Дорофеев,
15-22 (Vladimir F. Dorofeev, Development
ниях, Вестник с.-х. Науки, 11 (1979),
of
Vavilov's ideas in modem researches). Борис Михайлович
Медников, Научное наследие
H. И. Вавилова
и общие проблемы
биологии,
Журнал общей биологии, 48/4 (1987),
435-444
Scientific héritage of Vavilov and general problems
of
(Boris Mednikov,
Закон гомологических
и
biology). Эмилия Ивановна
Воробьёва,
рядов Н. И. Вавилова
динамическая
(Emilia Voro
устойчивость,
Журнал общей биологии, 48/4 (1987), 444-445
series by N. I. Vavilov and dynamic stability).
biova, Law of homological
55 - Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the origin ofspecies
from the viewpoint of zoologist (New
York : Columbia
University Press, 1942).
56 - Theodosius
variation in lady beetles, American naturalist,
Dobrzhansky,
Geographical
67/709 (1933), 97-127.
Id., Cenetics and the origin of species (New York : Columbia
Univ. Press, 1937).
57 - Marc Adams, Sergei Chetverikov, The Kol'tsov Institute, and the evolutionary synthesis,
in Ernst Mayr, William Provine (eds.), The Evolutionary synthesis : Perspectives on the
unification of biology (Cambridge
(Mass.) - London : Harvard Univ. Press, 1980),
242-279.
390
Orthogenesis
versus Darwinism
: The Russian case
Some elements of orthogenesis
penetrated even the writings by the
most eminent Russian followers of the tradition of the « evolutio
nary synthesis ». So, Nikolay Vorontsov (1934-2000),
formulating
the postulâtes of the synthetic theory of évolution resolutely rejec
ted the idea of directed évolution,
but admitted and pointed out
« vectorization
» in évolution
instead 58. The substitution of termi
nology « solved » the problem. It is curious that Vorontsov took a
constraints », collecting
numerous
great interest in « evolutionary
of
them.
«
he
claimed
there
is
a
examples
So,
prohibition » to
inhabit freshwater for cartilaginous
the
while
are
fishes,
amphibians
not allowed
to inhabit sait water. His interest in such observations
Eduard Akhnazarov,
provoked the merriment of some opponents.
for example,
noted that the analysis of evolutionary
constraints by
Darwinians
means to score a goal to their own gâte. This situation
was especially
the examples
of « prohibitions »
amusing because
cited by Vorontsov were not successful.
The other Russian theorist
of Darwinism,
Leonid Tatarinov, pointed out this fact : cartilaginous
fishes living in freshwater exist, and some frogs tolérate a great
constraints better cor
salinity. Such facts of évolution overcoming
views propagandized
respond to Darwinian
actively by Vorontsov.
he was absolutely
intolérant of any criticism. He never
However,
agreed with any editorial comments on his writings. In the case of
constraints he persistently stressed his viewpoint,
maintaining that
such exceptions
were insignificant59.
Tatarinov himself did not
avoid the danger of « scoring a goal to his own gâte ». Such a
situation took place at the analysis of parallelisms,
which he was
interested
in.
this
called
Tatarinov
greatly
Discussing
phenomenon,
them the most complex
of
évolution.
He
noted
that
phenomena
« the causes
of the abundance
of parallelisms
in évolution
are
unclear.
With indefinite character
of the inherited variabiIity
it
would be more natural to expect originality of new features even in
a case of the adaptation of related organisais to similar conditions of
« as a rule, the majority of close
». However,
the environment
in a parallel way,
branches in ail groups of animais always develop
■Николай Николаевич Воронцов, Синтетическаятеория эволюции : её источники,
основныепостулатыи нерешённыепроблемы,ЖурналВсесоюзного
химического
общества
ит. Д. И. Менделеева, T. XXV/3 (1980), 295-316
(Nikolay Vorontsov, Synthetic theory of
évolution : Its sources, main postulâtes and unsolved problems).
- Николай Николаевич
Развитие эволюционных идей в биологии (Москва
: Изд.
Воронцов,
Отдел УНЦ ДО МГУ, Прогресс-Традиция,
ment ofthe evolutionary ideas in biology).
АБФ,
1999)
(Nikolay
Vorontsov,
Revue d'histoire des sciences | Tome 61 -2 ¡ juillet-décembre
Develop
2008
391
Igor POPOV
if these
had not originated
branches
60 ».
environment
new
absolutely
as a resuit of transition
to
Some of the Russian theorists of the recent period did not allow any
« heresy » to penetrate Darwinism
but still addressed
the problem
of directed évolution.
(who perso
So, Lev Khozatsky (1913-1992)
nified vertébrate morphology
for several générations
of zoologists
in Saint-Petersburg)
was a convinced
Darwinian
and communist,
In his archives a
but he spent a lot of time working on orthogenesis.
» was
thick packet of reprints and records entitled « directionality
found. He obviously searched for compromises
between the direc
ted évolution
concept and the « officiai » point of view. His com
in specifying evolutionary
trends (for example,
promise consisted
and naming them manifestations
of
the origin of vertebrates)
« directionality
» 61. Alexey Severtsov (the author of generalizing
treatises and manualson
evolutionary theory) was guided by similar
» was even greater. He wrote a mono
reasons. His « concession
under
the
title
of évolution (1991 ). But despite
graph
Directionality
the intriguing title this treatise does not contain any déviations from
an extremely orthodox Darwinian
scheme. Severtsov claimed that
this scheme is almost universally accepted
among biologists, while
« The
of
it
the rejection
was caused
by philosophical
arguments.
sélection
is not only the moving, but also the directing factor of
»
évolution 62. » In such a contextthe notion of « directed évolution
cornes close
to the notion of « évolution
». Such meaningless
« compromises
» demónstrate that even the most orthodox Darwi
nians were prepared to re-formulate
of orthogenesis.
language
the synthetic theory using the
60 - ЛеонидПетровичТатаринов,Морфологическая
иобщиевопросы
эволюция
териодонтов
фило
генетики
: Наука, 1976) (Leonid Tatarinov, Morphological
évolution ofterio
(Москва
donts and general problème of phylogenetics),
190.
61 - Лев Исакович Хозацкий, О некоторых
эволюции. Некоторые
сторонах направленности
Лыи. 1 (Ленинград
: Ленинградский
философские вопросы совре/пенного естествознания,
(Lev Khozatsky, About some aspects of
1973), 109-122
государственный
университет,
the directionality of évolution). Лев Исакович
О направленности
Хозацкий,
эволюции
наземных позвоночных,
Жизнь на древних континентах, её становление и развитие (Ленин
154-162
of évolution
of land
(Id., About the directionality
град : Наука, 1981),
vertebrates).
62 - Алексей Сергеевич
Северцов, Направленность
Severtsov, Directionality of évolution), 8.
: МГУ,
392
1990)
(Alexey
versus
Orthogenesis
Darwinism
Why orthogenesis
Russia ?
: The
appeared
Russian
case
and progressed
in
It ¡s considered
that the main particularity of the formation of
Russian evolutionary
biology consists in the fact, that Darwinism
Russian scientists
was accepted
rapturously, but with corrections.
tried to improve Darwin's theory. The main improving concerned
to be
which seemed
the concept
of the struggle for existence,
63. Even « Russian
Darwin's
unsuccessful
bulldog » Timiriazev
of the notion of « struggle » over 20 years
boasted of his avoidance
of the Darwinism
Such an attitude was explained
by
propaganda.
the vast expanse
of the Russian territory. Russians did not observe
nor the strong concurrence
neither high density of any population,
for resources and the struggle for existence, that is why they hardly
Cultural
that these factors were significant in évolution.
believed
of
traditions of such a people also did not contribute the welcome
of
Orthodox
Church and the ideology
the struggle propaganda.
to the capitalist
were strongly counterpoised
peasants'community
ideas on the progressive role of struggle. That is why Russian writers
discussing évolution tended to pay more attention to the mutual aid
» mechanisms.
The most remarkable
or other « non-aggressive
resuit of such atendency
represents a « Doctrine of the mutual aid »
by the leader of Russian anarchists prince Peter Kropotkin (1848
numerous cases of the collaboration
1921 ) 64. He collected
among
animais (like joint actions of ants) and claimed that these very cases
and served as an example to
represented the évolution mechanisms
humankind.
« Darwin without Malthus » suffered steep turns in
The movement
xxth century when Tsar Régime was destroyed. The ideology of the
materialism in 1920s
Orthodox Church was replaced for dialectical
in Russia as a
was still blamed
concept
very rapidly. Malthusian
The
but the ideology of struggle progressed.
capitalist viewpoint,
on
The
claim
of Russia had not prevented it anymore.
vast expanses
role of struggle in society was a significant part of
progressive
Stalinism
ideology.
63 - Daniel
Todes, Darwin's Malthusian metaphor and Russian evolutionary thought, 1859
Loran Graham, Science in Russia and the Soviet Union :
1917, Isis, 78 (1987), 537-551.
: Yanus, 1998).
A short story. Russian édition (Moscow
Взашпная потощъ как аактор эволюции, в кн. П. Кропоткин :
64 - Пётр Алексеевич
Кропоткин,
: Айрис пресс, 2002), 46-116 (первое издание, 1900) (Peter Kropotkin,
Анархия (Москва
Mutual aid : A factor of évolution).
2008
393
Igor POPOV
after
Kropotkin's ideas also suffered an « irrational » development
révolution. Anarchists actively participated
in the civil war. One of
- became a leader of Ukrainian
them - Nestor Makhno (1888-1934)
revolted peasants,
which represented
a significant military force.
He often recalled Kropotkin's ñame and ideas, while their activities
had nothing in common.
Makhno
became
a cruel military leader
tsarists and communists.
He
fighting against Germán occupants,
had not created any free communities,
and had not succeeded
in
his war for the freedom. Makhno
came off second-best,
escaped
from Russia, and died in émigration (in Paris). His activity resulted
in the fact that anarchism was associated
with the brigandage
and
the struggle against Soviet Russia. Makhno was a favourite object of
ridicule for Soviet propaganda.
However the anarchists-bandits
had
not discredited
» of the
He entered the « panthéon
Kropotkin.
Russian national heroes pointed out by Soviet leaders. Some streets
and other places in Moscow
and Saint-Petersburg
are still bearing
his name.
in Soviet hierarchy of the heroes
Kropotkin's
place
represents an analogy to the first circle of Dante inferno, /. e. the
place for worthy men, which were born long before the communist
As for
advent, and that is why could not corne into its bosom.
biologists, they hardly considered
seriously Kropotkin's concept.
Neither orthogeneticists,
nor their opponents
recalled it. The rela
tion of the Russian
directed
évolution
with anti
concepts
Malthusian
protest of xixth century seems to be weak. Only Berg's
was suppor
biography provokes such a suspicion, but orthogenesis
ted by dozens
of scientists
various
cultural
bac
representing
These scientists were not « a
kgrounds and biological
disciplines.
sect » or a school of one founder. The orthogenesists
often appeared
of each other. A modem renaissance
of orthogenesis
independently
was also not related with oíd debates on Malthus.
The same concerns other philosophical
or ideological
traditions. It
turned out that orthogenesis
does not fit well with any ideology
of directed
existing in Russia over last 100 years. The concepts
évolution
were blamed
by a majority vote under Tsar, under
under
and
communists-stalinists,
under
communists-liberals,
modem democracy.
It would seem that orthogenesis
resulted from
the activity of those persons,
which are always
dissatisfied
of
criticize
their colleagues.
Such persons
everything and always
but the majority
really existed among orthogeneticists
(Liubishev),
of them represent quite « normal » scientists. This means that the
motives of orthogenesis
are based on something else.
394
Orthogenesis
versus
Darwinism
: The
Russian
case
To explain the appearance
of orthogenesis
in Russia it is necessary
to point out that its essence
differed
hardly
significantly from the
and
American
directed
évolution
These
European
concepts.
over
the
in
last
150
various
concepts
appeared
regularly
years
social contexts. The common scientific argumentation
was the only
common
feature of them. Orthogenesis
was based on the criticism
and
the
of
the
:
analysis
theory
following phenomena
in
terms
of
on
constraints
convergences
inexplicable
adaptation,
of Darwin's
variation, évolution of non-adaptive
characters, the trends of évo
lution leading to extinction, the origin of novelties. These pheno
mena are difficult for investigation, that is why they relatively rarely
This means that ortho
became
an object of scientific exploration.
of
a
a
rare
kind
scientist.
Such a scientist has
geneticists represent
a
not only to be interested in these difficulties, but to overcome
In
xixth
reaction
of
his
as
well.
the
négative
colleagues
century
in Russia. Only a few of them were
were not numerous
with
évolution.
carried out
Mainly writers-propagandists
dealing
on Darwin's
that
time.
That
is
the polemics
why it is not
theory
in xixth
kind
of
not
that
a
rare
researcher
had
appeared
surprising
a
number
of
scientists
in
Russia
However
(unlike Europe).
century
During « old
grew up rapidly despite any political perturbations.
scientists
the quantity of scientific
régime », as well as during socialism
increased.
institutions
Increasing
population
continuously
increased its variety, that is why rare kinds of researchers appeared.
well with the appearance
of orthoge
Such a process corresponds
nesis in Russian
in 1910-1920s.
of orthogenesis
tradition during the period of a
The conservation
« final victory » of Darwinism
could be explained
by the fact that
«
New
York
Circle » 65
the
American
similar
to
the organization
in
Russia.
The
sense of
-did
notexist
Simpson
-Mayr, Dobzhansky,
ail
of
about
the
problems (noted in USA
complete solving
euphoria
as
well.
Unlike their American
did
not
exist
historians
66)
by some
were
still
Darwinians
Russian
filling, that they are
colleagues
The
protest against Lysenkoism, a
fighting against many enemies.
a necessity to ingratiate themselves
desire to defend Darwinism,
with authorities involved in polemics on évolution,
protest against
- ail this factors did not
« capitalist » and « fascist » sciences
activities in
65 - Joseph Caín, Common problems and coopérative solutions : Organizational
Isis, 84/75 (1993), 1-25.
evolutionary studies, 1937-1946,
66 - Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis,
Unifying biology : The evolutionary synthesis and evolutio
nary biology (Princeton : Princeton University Press, 1996).
Revue d'histoire des sciences ] Tome 61 -2 | juillet-décembre
2008
395
Igor POPOV
contribute the tendency to unifying biology, that is why the Soviet
theoretical biology represented rather mental ferment than a « syn
heresies
thesis ». Such ferment left some room for non-Darwinian
The most educated
of Russian Darwinians
orthogenesis.
that
the orthogenesis
is
concepts,
why Russian scientist
information on heresies even from an « offi
could get abundant
ciai » literature, unlike the readers of the modem treatises by the
« architects of the Evolutionary
the « archi
synthesis », because
including
discussed
tects » tended to ignore heresies.
So, being editor of the journal
Ernst Mayr « prohibited » even the word « orthogene
Evolution
he rejected
sis ». Moreover,
sometimes
even the papers of his
when they addressed
to the criticism of opponents,
advocates
67. Russian academi
because
he did not want to raise a discussion
cians acted otherwise : they attacked the « dissidents » publicly.
effect : instead of
These attacks often resulted in the converse
discrédit they attracted an attention and sympathy to the object of
» book by Vitaly Kor
in 1982 a « scandai
criticism. For example,
dium on évolution of biosphère was published (which had overlap
with orthogenesis)68.
Three
academicians
Dmitry Beliaev,
Leonid
Tatarinov
Guiliarov
and
Merkury
gathered together, wrote a
« crushing » review and published
it in the journal Priroda (Russian
«
» was hardly successful.
69.
Such
a
Moscow
circle
A
Nature)
review represents just a claim that any non-Darwinian
is
concept
in modem
allowed
science.
with
such
a
review
Facing
every
normal scientist dealing
with évolution
would
be interested in
book, which had required so strong
reading of such a designing
reaction
of the officiai science.
The review really provoked
a
the
book
attracted
more
its
author
had
discussion,
attention,
got a
of
a
brave
and
the
academicians
are
condem
scientist,
réputation
ned up to today because
they abused their position. Similar events
rather contributed
three decades.
the continuai
over last
progress of orthogenesis
It turned out that it was firmly established
in Russian
biology.
67 - Joseph Cain, Ernst Mayr as a community architect : Launching the society for the study
of évolution and the journal Evolution, Biology & philosophy, 9/3 (1994), 387-429.
68 - Виталий
Арнольдович
Кордюм,
Эволюция и биосфера (Киев : Наукова думка, 1982)
(Vitaly Kordium, Evolution and biosphère).
69 - Дмитрий
Константинович
Беляев, Меркурий Сергеевич
Гиляров, Леонид Петрович
« Эволюция
По поводу книги В. А. Кордюма
и биосфера
Татаринов,
», Природа, 1
(1985), 120-121 (Dmitry Beliaev, Merkury Guillarov, Leonid Tatarinov, About the book
« Evolution and biosphère by V. A. Kordium »).
396
versus
Orthogenesis
Darwinism
: The
Russian
case
Conclusion
« As though in some trends évolution proceeds
in a chosen direc
a
blind
inclination,
tion, following
ignoring any needs and not
» This viewpoint appeared
in
70.
able
to
other
pave any
ways
being
the process of the investigation of orchids. These plants have very
complex structures offlowers ;they require very spécifie conditions
It seems that the orchid
for pollination,
flowering and germination.
of attracting them.
flowers sometí mes frighten insects instead
and
such
However,
despite their seeming
strange plants evolved,
could
be satisfied by a
are
very enduring.
They
delicacy
they
minimal
amount
of water and very poor soil.
This case could serve a good illustration of the history of the idea of
in Russia. It did not provide any benefit to its
directed évolution
of directed évolu
on the contrary. However, concepts
advocates,
rather
in
but
were
also
tion not only survived
Russia,
developed
had
been
totally in
suppressed
intensively. It would seem that they
of
Russian
the late 1920s, but after the most evil years
biology (the
it turned out that
period of the power of Lysenko in 1930-1950s)
they still have an important influence on biologists. These concepts
in Russia even after the formation
greatly disturbed the Darwinians
Russia rea11y was the second native
of synthetic theory of évolution.
but it was the second native land for orthoge
land for Darwinism,
nesis as well.
Aknowledgements
for the com
I am very grateful to the professor George McGhee
on
ments on manuscript, correction of my English and discussions
theoretical morphology.
70 - Franz
der Pflanzen auf experimentelle
W. Neger, Biologie
(Stuttgart, 1914), cit. from Berg, op. cit. in n. 11, 176.
Grundlage
(Bionomie)
2008
397

Orthogenesis versus Darwinism : The Russian case

Transcription

Similar documents

VISITORS DAY N.O.R.S. LOL DOGS

if the leftovers` margaret qualley can survive the rapture, making a

Causal Effects in Nonexperimental Studies: Reevaluating the

Nested Analysis as a Mixed-Method Strategy for Comparative

TV Airtime RTVI

Russian Rhaspsody Daylily

Paul Troubetzkoy (1886 - Russian 1938) Borzoi, 1909 Bronze Artist

Exhibition–Bazaar of New Russian and West Literature

Ecole Production Center and Eralash Theater, Moscow, Russia