3.7 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fertilisation of Orchids | 7/9 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilisation_of_Orchids | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T08:30:38.882356+00:00 | kb-cron |
Although the book contradicted the prevailing natural theology and its teleological approach to design in nature, the Saturday Review thought that it would avoid the angry polemics aroused by On the Origin of Species. The Literary Churchman welcomed "Mr. Darwin's expression of admiration at the contrivances in orchids", only complaining that it was too indirect a way of saying "O Lord, how manifold are Thy works!" (Psalm 104:24) Darwin regarded these theological views as irritating misunderstandings, but wrote to Asa Gray describing his approach as a "flank movement on the enemy". By showing that the "wonderful contrivances" of the orchid have discoverable evolutionary histories, Darwin was countering claims by natural theologians that the organisms were examples of the perfect work of the Creator. There was considerable controversy surrounding Darwin's prediction that a moth would be found in Madagascar with a long proboscis matching the nectary of Angraecum sesquipedale. An anonymous article in the Edinburgh Review of October 1862 by George Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll, argued that Darwin's wording implied purpose, and concluded that "We know, too, that these purposes and ideas are not our own, but the ideas and purposes of Another." He considered Darwin's explanations the "most unsatisfactory conjectures", and raised obscure metaphysical objections while supporting a kind of creative evolutionism. Emma Darwin thought that although Argyll was "quite opposed" to Darwin's views, "he praises the Orchids in such an enthusiastic way that he will do it a good turn". Darwin was delighted to find that a well written article "smashing" Argyll's review was by one of Darwin's own nephews. Argyll went on in his 1867 book The Reign of Law to cleverly ridicule Darwin's ideas, particularly the prediction of a moth in Madagascar with a proboscis 10–11 inches (250–280 millimetres) long. He believed that adaptations showed divine purpose, not a mindless evolutionary arms race. In his response Creation by Law later that year, Alfred Russel Wallace produced a detailed explanation of how the nectary could have evolved through natural selection, and stated that he had carefully measured moths in the British Museum, finding that the proboscis of Macrosila cluentius from South America was 9+1⁄4 inches (230 mm) long, and the proboscis of Macrosila morganii from tropical Africa (since renamed Xanthopan morganii) was 7+1⁄2 inches (190 mm) long. An enquiry raised in 1873 was answered by Darwin's friend Hermann Müller, who stated that his brother Fritz Müller had caught a sphinx moth in Brazil with a proboscis nearly 10 inches (250 mm) long. Darwin's anticipation was fully met in 1903, when a subspecies of Xanthopan morganii was found in Madagascar with a proboscis about 12 inches (300 mm) long, and was named Xanthopan morganii praedicta to celebrate this verification of a testable prediction made by Darwin on the basis of his theory of natural selection.
== Influence == Michael Ghiselin has expressed the view that all studies of coevolution follow directly or indirectly from Darwin's orchid book, which was also the origin of all work on the evolution of extreme specialisation. Its publication led almost immediately to research by many other naturalists into specialisation and coevolution, in some cases analysing other taxa. In his autobiography, Darwin modestly recalled how this work had revived interest in Christian Konrad Sprengel's neglected ideas: