@misc{ref1809zoological1,
    author = "---",
    title = "Zoological Philosophy",
    year = "1809",
    howpublished = "Translated into English by H. Elliott, 1914. Macmillan \& Co., New York",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {---, 1809, Zoological Philosophy. Translated into English by H. Elliott, 1914. Macmillan \& Co., New York.}"
}

@article{lankester1894acquired,
    author = "LANKESTER, E. RAY",
    title = "Acquired Characters",
    year = "1894",
    journal = "Nature",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1038/051102b0",
    doi = "10.1038/051102b0",
    number = "1309",
    pages = "102-103",
    volume = "51"
}

@article{judd1911darwin,
    author = "JUDD, JOHN W.",
    title = "Darwin and the Transmission of Acquired Characters",
    year = "1911",
    journal = "Nature",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1038/085474c0",
    doi = "10.1038/085474c0",
    number = "2154",
    openalex = "W2012102056",
    pages = "474-475",
    volume = "85"
}

@article{parkyn1911darwin,
    author = "PARKYN, E. A.",
    title = "Darwin and the Transmission of Acquired Characters",
    year = "1911",
    journal = "Nature",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1038/085474b0",
    doi = "10.1038/085474b0",
    number = "2154",
    openalex = "W2007758394",
    pages = "474-474",
    volume = "85"
}

@article{redfield1924acquired,
    author = "Redfield, Casper L.",
    title = "Acquired Characters",
    year = "1924",
    journal = "Science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.59.1525.277.b",
    doi = "10.1126/science.59.1525.277.b",
    number = "1525",
    pages = "277-278",
    volume = "59"
}

@article{glass1946the,
    author = "Glass, Bentley",
    title = "The Early History of the Idea of the Inheritance of Acquired Characters and of Pangenesis. Conway Zirkle",
    year = "1946",
    journal = "The Quarterly Review of Biology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1086/395464",
    doi = "10.1086/395464",
    number = "4",
    pages = "378-379",
    volume = "21"
}

@article{zirkel1946the3,
    author = "Zirkel, C",
    title = "The early history of the idea of acquired characters and of pangenesis",
    year = "1946",
    journal = "Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, v. 35, p. 91-151",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Zirkel, C., 1946, The early history of the idea of acquired characters and of pangenesis: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, v. 35, p. 91-151.}"
}

@article{zirkle1946the,
    author = "Zirkle, Conway",
    title = "The Early History of the Idea of the Inheritance of Acquired Characters and of Pangenesis",
    year = "1946",
    journal = "Transactions of the American Philosophical Society",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/1005592",
    doi = "10.2307/1005592",
    number = "2",
    pages = "91",
    volume = "35"
}

@book{mckinney1971lamarck2,
    author = "McKinney, H. L",
    title = "Lamarck to Darwin",
    year = "1971",
    publisher = "Contributions to Evolutionary Biology, 1809-1859: Lawrence, Kansas, Coronado Press",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {McKinney, H. L., 1971, Lamarck to Darwin: Contributions to Evolutionary Biology, 1809-1859: Lawrence, Kansas, Coronado Press.}"
}

@book{openalexw1593551567,
    author = "Bowler, Peter J.",
    title = "Evolution the history of an idea",
    year = "1984",
    abstract = "List of Illustrations Preface to the Third Edition Preface to the First Edition 1. The Idea of Evolution: Its Scope and Implications The Old Worldview and the New The Possibilities of Change The Nature of Science The Historian's Problems 2. The Pre-evolutionary Worldview Human History Theories of the Earth The Meaning of Fossils Natural Theology The New Natural History The Problem of Generation 3. Evolution in the Enlightenment Human Nature The Origin of Society The History of the Earth The Chain of Being The New Classification The New Theories of Generation The Materialists The First Transmutationists 4. Nature and Society, 1800-1859 The Invention of Progress The Framework of Science Georges Cuvier: Fossils and the History of Life Catastrophism and Natural Theology in Britain The Philosophical Naturalists Radical Science The Principle of Uniformity The Vestiges of Creation 5. The Development of Darwin's Theory Darwin's Early Career The Crucial Years: 1836-1839 Development of the Theory, 1840-1859 Wallace and Publication of the Theory 6. The Reception of Darwin's Theory The Foundations of Darwinism The Scientific Debate Darwinism and Design Human Origins Evolution and Progress 7. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Scientific Evolutionism, 1875-1925 Reconstructing the History of Life The Age of the Earth Neo-Lamarckism Orthogenesis Neo-Darwinism Mendelism and the Mutation Theory 8. Evolution, Society, and Culture, 1875-1925 The Missing Link The Origins of Culture and Society Evolution and Race Social Evolutionism Biological Determinism Neo-Lamarckism and Society Evolution and Philosophy Evolution and Religion 9. The Evolutionary Synthesis Population Genetics The Modern Synthesis The Origin of Life Wider Implications of the Synthesis 10. Modern Debates and Developments The History of Life Human Origins Sociobiology and Ultra-Darwinism Opponents of Ultra-Darwinism Anti-Darwinians Darwinism not Scientific? Creationism Bibliography Index",
    openalex = "W1593551567"
}

@book{openalexw1600651929,
    author = "Ospovat, Dov",
    title = "The Development of Darwin's Theory: Natural History, Natural Theology, and Natural Selection, 1838–1859",
    year = "1994",
    abstract = "List of illustrations Preface Acknowledgements Note on manuscript citations Introduction: Darwin and his fellow naturalists 1. Darwin and the biology of the 1830s: some parallels 2. Darwin before Malthus 3. Natural selection and perfect adaptation, 1838-1844 4. Part II of Darwin's work on species 5. Natural history after Cuvier: the branching conception of nature 6. Darwin and the branching conception 7. Classification and the 'principle of divergence' 8. The principle of divergence and the transformation of Darwin's theory 9. Natural selection and 'natural improvement' Conclusion: the development of Darwin's theory as a social progress Notes Bibliography Index.",
    url = "https://openalex.org/W1600651929",
    openalex = "W1600651929"
}

@book{openalexw598543105,
    author = "Hannaford, Ivan",
    title = "Race: The History of an Idea in the West",
    year = "1995",
    abstract = "In Race: The History of an Idea in the West Ivan Hannaford guides readers through a dangerous engagement with an idea that so permeates Western thinking that we expect to find it, active or dormant, as an organizing principle in all societies. But, Hannaford shows, race is not a universal idea-not even in the West. It is an idea with a definite pedigree, and Hannaford traces that confused pedigree from Hesiod to the Holocaust and beyond. Hannaford begins by examining the ideas of race supposedly held in the ancient world, contrasting them with the complex social, philosophical, political, and scientific ideas actually held at the time. Through the medieval, Renaissance, and early modern periods he critically examines precursors in history, science, and philosophy. Hannaford distinguishes those cultures' ideas of social inclusion, rank, and role from modern ones based on race. But he also finds the first traces of the modern ideas of race in the proto-sciences of late medieval cabalism and hermeticism. Following that trail forward, he describes the establishment of the modern scientific and philosophical notions of race in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and shows how those notions became popular and pervasive, even among those who claim to be nonracist. At the same time, Hannaford sets out an alternative to a race-based notion of humanity. In his examination of ancient Greece, he finds in what was then a dazzling new idea, politics, a theory of how to bring a purposeful oneness to a society composed of diverse families, tribes, and interests. This idea of politics has a history, too, and its presence has waxed and waned through the ages. At a time when new controversies have again raised the question of whether race and social destiny are ineluctably joined as partners, Race: The History of an Idea in the West reveals that one of the partners is a phantom-medieval astrology and physiognomy disguised by pseudoscientific thought. And Race raises a difficult practical question: What price do we place on our political traditions, institutions, and civic arrangements? This ambitious volume reexamines old questions in new ways that will stimulate a wide readership.",
    openalex = "W598543105"
}

@article{doi101353jhi20000014,
    author = "Claeys, Grégory",
    title = {The "Survival of the Fittest" and the Origins of Social Darwinism},
    year = "2000",
    journal = "Journal of the History of Ideas",
    abstract = {In late September 1838 a young man, aged 29, a former medical student and amateur naturalist, who had spent several years in the South Pacific studying plant and animal life, but who remained puzzled as to why "favourable variants" of each species survived while "unfavourable variants" were destroyed, sat perusing a book, as he later recalled, "for amusement." 1 The work which provoked Charles Darwin was T. R. Malthus's Essay on Population (1798), which he later claimed first suggested to him the idea that "on the whole the best fitted live." This idea Darwin would popularize through the notion of the "struggle for existence," a phrase which he famously claimed to use as a "metaphor" but which meant simply "the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms." 2 That application resulted in the publication [End Page 223] of the Origin of Species in 1859, an occasion hailed as "the greatest event of Queen Victoria's reign," 3 even "by far the most important... in the history of the modern West." 4 It is well known, too, that Darwin's appreciation of Malthus was not unique even among naturalists. The year before the Origin of Species appeared another young man, Alfred Russel Wallace, aged 25, encountered the very same book. "There suddenly," he later recalled, flashed upon him "the idea of the survival of the fittest." 5 We know Wallace today, thus, as the codiscoverer of theory of natural selection, who presented a paper jointly with Darwin at the Linnean Society on that momentous evening of 1 July 1858 to mark their brilliant achievement. 6},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1353/jhi.2000.0014",
    doi = "10.1353/jhi.2000.0014",
    openalex = "W2159298138",
    references = "darwin2009the, doi1010079781349054527, doi101007bf00125744, doi101086201464, doi1023071846724, doi1023071863359, doi102307588281, doi1031389781487579609, doi1043249781003191889, doi1097839781512816976, openalexw2032875823, openalexw649766170"
}

@article{doi1018900012962391121,
    author = "Egerton, Frank N.",
    title = "History of Ecological Sciences, Part 34: A Changing Economy of Nature",
    year = "2009",
    journal = "Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America",
    abstract = "Click here for all previous articles in the History of the Ecological Sciences series by F. N. Egerton In 1749, when Linnaeus believed in unchanging species, he developed a static economy of nature concept, in which the organisms in nature interact with each other according to a designed plan (Egerton 2007). Later, he lost confidence that species never change, but did not rethink the economy of nature from his new perspective. After him, others did. A curious example was Scottish naturalist Rev. John Fleming (1785–1857), who discussed the limitations of Linnaeus' concept in his Philosophy of Zoology 1822, “but [Fleming's] commitment to natural theology and his ultra-conservatism in theoretical matters prevented him from constructing a coherent vision of nature's operations to replace the lost world of Linnaeus” (Rehbock 1985:137, England 2004). The focus here is on naturalists who were more theoretically daring than Fleming. Is it coincidental that the theories of Erasmus Darwin and Lamarck about species changing over time arose in the midst of the French Revolution, with which both sympathized? Before the Revolution, Lamarck had not accepted Buffon's belief that species degenerate as they spread from their original home into new areas (Corsi 1988:46). Is it coincidental that the fiercest opponent of evolutionary theories was Cuvier, who hated the Revolution? There are no known statements from Darwin or Lamarck saying they developed their theories because they approved of the Revolution, nor any from Cuvier saying he opposed evolutionary theories because he hated the Revolution. During the 1930s and 1940s, in similarly politically charged environments, in Germany there was Aryan science (good) and Jewish science (bad), and in the Soviet Union, communist science (good) and capitalist science (bad). In the 1790s and early 1800s naturalists expressed no such explicit connections between political and scientific thinking. Nevertheless, the correlations between their political sympathies and their biological thoughts are striking. There is, however, an irony here. E. Darwin and Lamarck saw only gradual change in nature. It was Cuvier who spoke of revolutions or catastrophes in nature. It is reasonable to assume that Darwin and Lamarck favored gradual political change, which is how the French Revolution began. Neither of them approved of the guillotining of Lavoisier, leader of the revolution in chemistry, in 1794. The Reign of Terror, 1793–1794, could be blamed on paranoia caused by threatening enemies of revolution at home and abroad. However, Cuvier was not one to split hairs. To him, the entire Revolution was a disaster, partially corrected by Napoleon's coup d'état in 1799, and fully corrected by the Restoration of 1815. For Darwin and Lamarck, political change came from the constant striving of many people; for Cuvier, there were occasional catastrophic revolutions of unspecified cause. One might imagine they were caused by God if one wished, but certainly not caused by striving individuals. Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Lamarck (1744–1829) was the youngest son of a minor nobleman who was a military officer. He followed in his father's footsteps, and while serving in frontier forts during peacetime, 1763–1768, he began studying the French flora (Packard 1901:11–14, Landrieu 1909:28–29, Burlingame 1973:584). An accident led to his resignation from the army, and he went to Paris and studied medicine for four years. However, he became more interested in botany, chemistry, meteorology (Delange 1997), and conchology. He collected an important herbarium (Aymonin 1981, Jolinon and Raynal-Roques 1997), and his Flore française (three volumes, 1779) attracted favorable attention. It was very popular, partly because it introduced into botany the now indispensable keying method of identification, in which one makes choices from general to progressively more specific options until (if followed correctly) one reaches the match between one's specimen and the species name (Landrieu 1909:28–32, Adams 1969:120–121, Stafleu 1971:399, Corsi 1988:40–46, Laurent 1997:163–266, Spary 2000:81, Magnin-Gonze 2004:157, Drouin 2008:119–123). Lamarck in 1821. Packard 1901:facing 180. It is revealing to compare Lamarck's interests, publications, and moderate successes with his very successful younger contemporaries, Humboldt and Cuvier. Lamarck's interests were about as broad as Humboldt's, and he published a substantial body of works, though not on Humboldt's scale. However, whereas Humboldt went from success to success, Lamarck's successes came from systematic publications describing plants and animals. Humboldt was a correlationist (Egerton 2009b), which was not controversial. Humboldt spoke of laws of nature, but his laws were usually so limited in scope that they were seldom, if ever, challenged. Lamarck was a theoretician, which proved to be very controversial. Lamarck was, like Humboldt, a diligent collector of data, and he even said that “All knowledge that is not the product of observation is altogether without foundation and truly illusory” (Wheeler and Barbour 1933:v). However, the gap between Lamarck's data and theories was usually so wide that few of his peers thought his evidence provided adequate support for his theories. Cuvier, who also diligently collected data, restricted his research to comparative anatomy, especially of living and fossil mammals, and he did not develop any theory about the cause of catastrophes (Adams 1969:138–164, Ruse 1979:12–15, 37–38, Mayr 1982:363–371, Bowler 1989:112–118, Packer 2000). Like Humboldt, and unlike Lamarck, Cuvier was also very successful in science and in society (Outram 1976, 1978, 1986, Gillispie 2004, Taquet 2006). Buffon had gotten Lamarck elected to the Académie royale des Sciences in 1779. In 1793, at the former Jardin des Plantes, a Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle was established, and its professors quickly learned to place their teachings in a revolutionary context (Burkhardt 1970, Spary 2000:215–221). Others had priority for the botanical positions, and Lamarck was made professor of “insects and worms,” which he redefined under the name “animaux sans vertèbres.” Lamarck's last support for the stability of species was published in 1794, and his first support for species changing was in 1800 (Burkhardt 1977:94–95). The shift in his thinking only began in 1799, and it came from his thinking about geology and paleontology (Burkhardt 1972). He began developing his theory of geology in February 1799, and it was published in 1802 as Hydrogéologie (English 1964). Two important features of his theory and book were beliefs in uniformitarianism and in a very old earth (Carozzi 1964, Gohau 1997). He could have gotten both ideas from James Hutton's Theory of the Earth (1795), but apparently he was only influenced by French authors (Landrieu 1909:262–287, Burkhardt 1977:105–112). He claimed (Lamarck 1964:91) that only living organisms create chemical compounds, that all rocks and minerals are organic remains, and that all compounds eventually decay into simple elements (Stafleu 1971:413–415). All of these claims were based on observations, but were over-generalized. His uniformitarianism was forward looking, but his chemical notions were at odds with the prevailing chemical knowledge of the time, and the book had little, if any, influence (Goux 1997). In 1802 Lamarck also first published his theory of how species change, in the “Discours d'ouverture” to his Systéme des animaux sans vertebras (translated into English in Lamarck 1984:407–433), though his most detailed account of it is in his Philosophie zoologique (1809; in English, 1914 in English, 1984). Meanwhile, Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) had come to Paris in 1795 and gave a talk on fossil and living elephants in 1796. He, like Lamarck, was the son of a retired army officer, but his interest in nature had developed while he was still a boy, and after college, while working as a tutor, he had studied zoology alone (Coleman 1964:6–11, Bourdier 1971, Outram 1984, Packer 2000, Taquet 2006). His talk on elephants was rather brief, but he was the first to argue that there were two living and two fossil species of elephants, using drawings of their skulls and teeth in his presentation (published in 1798 and 1799; see Smith 1993:21; English translation in Rudwick 1997:13–24). Cuvier believed that the fossil elephants had become extinct. Despite his belief in the extinction of species and their replacement by others, he also believed in the balance of nature (Bourdier 1971:525–526). Cuvier at middle age. After a painting by Mme Lizinka de Mirbel, engraved by Richomme. The question of extinction was one of the influences that pushed Lamarck into believing in the change of species over time (Hodge 1971, Burlingame 1973:592, Burkhardt 1977:130). He rejected the idea that fossils represent extinct species and instead postulated that fossils represent living species before they changed their form, with modern descendants no longer resembling their ancestors. He also assumed that the simplest forms of life arise by spontaneous generation, reopening a debate that Spallanzani had presumably settled in 1765 (Egerton 2008). Lamarck also believed in the balance of nature (Egerton 1968:227– 228, 1973:338, La Vegata 1990a:216–226), and seems not to have worried about how it could be preserved while all species were evolving into something else. However, since he believed that spontaneous generation was always occurring, any species that became extinct could be replaced by evolution of simpler forms into the species that had disappeared (Ruse 1979:5–12, Mayr 1982:343– 360, Bowler 1989:82–88). He opposed Cuvier's idea of catastrophic revolutions in nature in which species became extinct and were replace by others, and his Systéme des animaux sans vertèbres 1802 showed that 41 species of shelled mollusks that were found as fossils were still living, casting doubt on Cuvier's claim of mass extinctions (Burkhardt 1977:128–131). Since he believed that organisms respond quickly to environmental changes, he concentrated on physiology and neglected ecology. His conclusion contained a part of the truth—some species do evolve into new species. However, since Lamarck had overestimated the adaptability of species to new environmental demands, his theory of evolution, unlike Darwin's, led to a worse rather than a better understanding of population biology. (Egerton 1968:229) …Darwinism has not played an important part, if any, in the birth of scientific ecology; on the contrary, it is becoming more and more evident that the Lamarckian theory of direct adaptation has left, from its very origins, a deep and lasting impression on the new discipline. Fossil fish Chaeton pinnatus. Volta 1796. It may be more accurate to state that Lamarck's work is indirectly relevant to the history of ecology (Matagne 1999:119–124). Darwin (not Lamarck) convinced almost all biologists that evolution occurs, but he convinced only a minority that natural selection was the main mechanism. Many biologists became neo-Lamarckians, who believed in the inheritance of acquired traits (Mayr 1982:526–527, Bowler 1983:75–98, 1989:257–268). French botanists and zoologists in the later 1800s accepted the possibility of some change in species from acclimatization, which might reflect some influence of Lamarck and Darwin (Matagne 1997, Osborne 1997). Darwin became somewhat of a Lamarckian in the later editions of The Origin, when he was pushed into acknowledging that natural selection and sexual selection might not be the only causes of species change (Vorzimmer 1970:40, 90, 98, Hodge and Radick 2003:228). Probably few neo-Lamarckians outside France actually read Lamarck to understand his theory, and if they had, what did he write that would have influenced ecological thinking? Jean-Michel Dutuit (1997) found precursors of the idea of ecosystem in Lamarck's writings, but Lamarck did not develop that idea and neither did neo-Lamarckians. What Acot apparently had in mind is the fact that many early founders of a formal science of ecology were neo-Lamarckians, but that does not demonstrate that Lamarck made a significant positive contribution to understanding the economy of nature and the founding of a formal ecological science. We know that those who founded the formal science did read Darwin, even when they rejected natural selection, and there is much in his writings that relates to ecology. Darwin's later opinions upon adaptation, as upon the causes of variation, and upon the inheritance of acquired characters, did not differ essentially from those of Lamarck. More important than this, for Lamarck was a prophet, not an investigator, they are in accord with the first results of the application of exact ecological methods to the question of the origin of new forms in natural habitats (Clements 1909:151). Clements mischaracterization of Lamarck seems to indicate a lack of acquaintance with Lamarck's works. Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle (1778–1841) was a Genevan who became one of the foremost botanists in Europe (Pilet 1971, Magnin-Gonze 2004:165, Drouin 2008). He first went to Paris in 1796 to study science and medicine. He looked forward to discussing botany with Lamarck, only to discover that Lamarck was absorbed with chemistry and meteorology (Burkhardt 1977:95, Candolle 2004:91). Candolle to in the of but in 1798 he went to Paris and for a he to a of Lamarck's Flore française but he was not by Lamarck's theory of species changing 1997). Candolle botany in but in the de a of natural history for him and he home We have that Humboldt had a for a science of in (Egerton 2009b), but his account was to his of with made with his Candolle provided a more general in his which became the for a very in English by who de All the plants of a those of a are at one with The first which by in a by the of to other the the replace those which last for a the more of the which species more would Augustin-Pyramus de Candolle was not the first to in one with is an of Linnaeus' Egerton de Candolle first its might he have developed The of on the of had into French by Pierre who had to de and de Candolle was with that Drouin In Candolle went to was the many he his of and with and his ideas were on de of the concept of population as a in understanding in by In Linnaeus had that each species had with a and played a in nature. Candolle that the of a species is with its but his for the was no longer its for the but that a traits it to in a The for for each species of could be with to would in restricted those with in articles do not always have an important but de Candolle gave a to his (Corsi was in but found it (Adams 2000, 2004, Rudwick 2004). of becoming a he became and the of the that that science to of (three volumes, He, like Lamarck, was a though his ideas on it came from James rejected both Lamarck's theory of species change and Cuvier's but he to most fossil species are no longer He did like Cuvier's idea of saying that some species became extinct and were replaced by others without how the others thought they arose but not by In his at Lamarck's theory and provided his for species extinction (Coleman Corsi which was to de In very from the of plants is but a of the species are such as else. In so as the of such is not to it in species to the main He the evidence that Linnaeus and de Candolle had collected on by and of species was but could also be by that by and other of the the of mammals, and that their could be to lack of and that and of could be though could also be a of for some species He rejected the that could how had from the to the It to that species were in and at because there were many areas from which species of plants and their accepted neither Lamarck's belief that fossil species had into the living species, nor Cuvier's belief that catastrophes species over a wide of their to a which could only be in a of time in any of the and the as without the of any into their former has the than the in he these species all others in is the the and causes the of and what is the of saying the balance is the in the the which have an of the balance of To there is no balance but a in which one John it may usually be that the of some one species is followed and by the of is not always the partly because many species in on the of and partly because many of are by one and the species. In the former a of have the as for when many and some or the of the may only cause a and almost of each of those species of and In the other one on others of almost as for English not only as and but also and the of any one of these last may cause all such general to more upon the species in and the balance may be he is by an between species of environments, as when or on which is more that from into a between and those of deep when any is with as a of and plants as the of that it to the of any new species, or the of one always be by the or the of some other species. His example was not in an with all the it could one could not without some and they do not for is The and even on which these would be would be a part and an of the of change about by the new The plants on which the in of the of the species, would more to and to some so that the would The of these would other and with so that the of these last would be The of the would a to some fish which they had and these in their would and upon their Many the and of which are by would when the were by the and the fish on which the would in their be the of a of the both of the and might be by the of one new species in the and the caused indirectly might all of the living and be almost The of however, from upon of species. He that in or might a species from a and cause in the A new would eventually be that has become an important in the and of natural He also that replaced a natural with an of like the had by and as Fleming had when the of a species, that species also disappeared these direct of they had introduced into that of species In than the few and introduced to the of had to over and the population of species have as a and had Jean would especially in and and thought other species would be He with those who this, since the natural spread of any other species would have the In his of species, upon the of extinction and a species of plants and and more than a would be if one were and each that only one species would be replaced in Europe in and might by before a new species of was replaced in he was that no new species had in Europe time did not any new into on the economy of nature, but his though not as as had in (Egerton with in one before had expressed as as he the of natural His account or in to a of the of which He much on the of than had Lamarck, and influenced by Linnaeus' concept of the economy of nature, and the extinction of species were important for was a who on a of biological 2000, 2004, 2004). He a but read and became a of him to a belief in evolution, on Lamarck's In on the theory of in the and as its upon he that plants have the of to and the could only have after had for them to He published theory of population from the general of that was actually a of on and one on it was a at the time to book in general but there was no as to who of population the influence of his belief in evolution, but he did not the two before and biologists read writings, as they read on the of an by in the of are in each of the to and to other from of the to with is there be to for the the on the contrary, much of there a of The he between to with and of is but what In Darwin would natural selection, but in that of the and the of the and this, he apparently that the in the more species to the He thought that the of to body and might indicate he to he thought population the evolution of and that to a in conclusion is with his previous and he thought it was by the in of from to and English, though he did not any data on these to than was attracted to some of the that Darwin was, but he data to his to a theoretical (Egerton in the first of the 1800s Linnaeus' rather static economy of nature concept into a The of a on geology is not one would to ecological but Darwin found Darwin also was influenced by writings is For their Muséum and de",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9623-91.1.21",
    doi = "10.1890/0012-9623-91.1.21",
    openalex = "W2031450902",
    references = "doi101017s0007087400011572"
}

@incollection{burkhardt2011lamarck,
    author = "Burkhardt, Richard W.",
    title = "Lamarck, Cuvier, and Darwin on Animal Behavior and Acquired Characters",
    year = "2011",
    booktitle = "Transformations of Lamarckism",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262015141.003.0004",
    doi = "10.7551/mitpress/9780262015141.003.0004",
    openalex = "W2494856936",
    pages = "33-44",
    references = "darwin2009the, doi101038023032c0, doi105962bhltitle59991, doi107208chicago97802261495160010001"
}

@article{crossref2011mutation,
    title = "Mutation: the history of an idea from Darwin to genomics",
    year = "2011",
    journal = "Choice Reviews Online",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.49-2047",
    doi = "10.5860/choice.49-2047",
    number = "04",
    openalex = "W623860434",
    pages = "49-2047-49-2047",
    volume = "49"
}

@article{doi101534genetics113151852,
    author = "Burkhardt, Richard W.",
    title = "Lamarck, Evolution, and the Inheritance of Acquired Characters",
    year = "2013",
    journal = "Genetics",
    abstract = {Scientists are not always remembered for the ideas they cherished most. In the case of the French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, his name since the end of the nineteenth century has been tightly linked to the idea of the inheritance of acquired characters. This was indeed an idea that he endorsed, but he did not claim it as his own nor did he give it much thought. He took pride instead in advancing the ideas that (1) nature produced successively all the different forms of life on earth, and (2) environmentally induced behavioral changes lead the way in species change. This article surveys Lamarck's ideas about organic change, identifies several ironies with respect to how his name is commonly remembered, and suggests that some historical justice might be done by using the adjective "Lamarckian" to denote something more (or other) than a belief in the inheritance of acquired characters.},
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.113.151852",
    doi = "10.1534/genetics.113.151852",
    openalex = "W2152000082",
    references = "openalexw135071171"
}

@article{doi1022201ceiich24485705e2015547762,
    author = "Jablonka, Eva and Lamm, Ehud",
    title = "Lamarck’s Two Legacies: A 21st-Century Perspective on Use-Disuse and the Inheritance of Acquired Characters",
    year = "2015",
    journal = "INTERdisciplina",
    abstract = "Abstract | Lamarck has left many legacies for future generations of biologists. His best known legacy was an explicit suggestion, developed in the Philosophie zoologique (PZ), that the effects of use and disuse (acquired characters) can be inherited and can drive species transformation.This suggestion was formulated as two laws, which we refer to as the law of biological plasticity and the law of phenotypic continuity. We put these laws in their historical context and distinguish between Lamarck’s key insights and later neo-Lamarckian interpretations of his ideas. We argue that Lamarck’s emphasis on the role played by the organization of living beings and his physiological model of reproduction are directly relevant to 21st-century concerns, and illustrate this by discussing intergenerational genomic continuity and cultural evolution.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.22201/ceiich.24485705e.2015.5.47762",
    doi = "10.22201/ceiich.24485705e.2015.5.47762",
    openalex = "W2258520602",
    references = "burkhardt2011lamarck, doi101086279202, doi101086399858, doi101086598822, doi101093oso97801951223430010001, doi1015159781400847266, doi1023073034541, doi1043249781315765471, doi105860choice185702, openalexw1932061758, openalexw2624262714"
}

@article{doi101093ijedyw182,
    author = "Liu, Yongsheng",
    title = "Darwinian evolution includes Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters",
    year = "2016",
    journal = "International Journal of Epidemiology",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw182",
    doi = "10.1093/ije/dyw182",
    openalex = "W2512546686",
    references = "doi101038023032c0"
}