Talk:Moritz Wagner (naturalist)

Geographical isolation &c.

1. WP is fundamentally based on reliable references from recognised authorities (as defined in WP editing advice pages). Text backed by such refs should not be altered without some consensus on Talk pages.

2. It is well established by a host of hist/sci publications that CD's account of the actual origin of spp had some weaknesses. Among these were an over-concentration on adaptation, and an assumption that adaptation would itself lead to speciation. The theory now is for species-splitting and adaptation to be seen as complementary aspects of evolution; species-splitting initiated mainly by geographical and other forms of barriers to interbreeding (barriers to gene flow).

3. Although Darwin noted the productivity of islands, mountain tops and other such habitats, and used geographical distribution as evidence for evolution, he did not list geographical separation as a major cause of speciation. Wagner did, and his work in North Africa (1836--1839) took place before CD's evolutionary ideas were published. But, in any event, the view of Wagner in the article accords with the references given.

4. Darwin, his genius and his limitations, are propounded at great length on a dozen WP pages. It is hardly possible to introduce minority views on Darwin in this small article on Wagner. All the same, I note on the Evolutionary synthesis page this summation: "Darwin did not offer a precise explanation of how new species arise" (also, see this). This is just a token to illustrate that the assessments in the Wagner article are in line with, and do not contradict, the content of the CD pages.

"In his entire correspondence with Wagner, Semper and Weismann it is quite evident that Darwin failed to understand how difficult a problem the acquisition of reproductive isolation is." Mayr, The growth of biological thought, p564.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No bias

The number of front-rank authorities who agree

1) that Wagner has priority on the geographical origin of species-splitting, and

2) that this discovery is most important

is a complete defence against any claim of bias. There is also no question that:

3) allopatric speciation is not the only mechanism, and

4) Wagner's overall views on evolution bear no scrutiny.

The article makes all this clear, though I admit one key sentence was an overstatement. It has been corrected. There is much in the article which identifies Wagner's many defects, and the article fully complies with WP guidelines on reliable sources. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bias, Geographic Isolation, Darwin's Contribution, etc.

I would like to offer that your account is still very one-sided, and not suitable for Wikipedia for that reason. We have just come out of the 20th Century, when Darwin's views were strongly misrepresented, and I think you should take account of newer historical and biological work in your assessment of Wagner. I do this in the spirit of academic discussion, in the hopes that you are not really one-sided, but have just read the wrong literature.

---Point 1 "The number of front-rank authorities who agree

1) that Wagner has priority on the geographical origin of species-splitting, and

2) that this discovery is most important is a complete defence against any claim of bias."

I simply reject this. Coyne & Orr do their history almost verbatim from Mayr 1982 (which can hardly be accepted any more to be either a good or a recent review of the matter). Furthermore, Mayr's own student, Frank Sulloway in 1979 completely debunked Mayr's view, and to my mind clearly reinstated Darwin's contributions on his understanding of reproductive isolation and geographic isolation. Mayr of course, ignores this, but also cited Sulloway in support of his own argument, as do Coyne & Orr. In my view, they both grossly misunderstand Sulloway's 1979 argument, which starts by stating the classic Mayr case for Wagner, before totally demolishing it. I queried this with Frank Sulloway himself last year, and he completely agreed with me.

I agree it is possible that Moritz Wagner's earlier published work on geographic isolation predates Darwin's own published work, but the importance of geographic isolation in species is hardly an innovation even by the 1830s. Leopold von Buch (which Darwin had read, and records in his notebook), and the swiss botanist de Candolle had both published on similar issues.

See for example, von Buch L. 1825. Physikalische Beschreibung der Canarischen Inseln. Königliche Akadamie der Wissenschaften, Berlin. pp. 132-133. Darwin read this -- see Kottler 1978, Gadow 1909, Glaubrecht 2004, Mayr 1942 etc. [Quotation and translation from Gadow 1909, p. 326] "Upon the continents the individuals of the genera by spreading far, form, through differences of the locality, food and soil, varieties which finally become constant as new species, since owing to the distances they could never be crossed with other varieties and thus be brought back to the main type. Next they may again, perhaps upon different roads, return to the old home where they find the old type likewise changed, both having become so different that they can interbreed no longer. Not so upon islands, where the individuals shut up in narrow valleys or within narrow districts, can always meet with one another and thereby destroy every new attempt towards the fixing of a new variety." Von Buchs's prophetic view seems to have escaped Lyell's and even Wagner's notice.

[Slightly shorter quotation and translation from Mayr 1942: 156] "The individuals of a genus spread out over the continents, move to far-distant places, form varieties (on account of differences of the localities, of the food, and the soil), which owing to their segregation [=geographical isolation-Mayr] cannot interbreed with other varieties and thus be returned to the main type. Finally these varieties become constant and turn into separate species. Later they may reach again the range of other varieties which have changed in a like manner, and the two will now no longer cross and thus behave as "two very different species."

---Point 2: "It is well established by a host of hist/sci publications that CD's account of the actual origin of spp had some weaknesses."

I think this is demonstrably untrue among historians. It is not a "minority view", these days, that Darwin was widely misunderstood by biologists because of Mayr's bowdlerized and whiggish history. For his time, and without any genetics, Darwin's 'Origin' is absolutely as good as it got, and included all the good ideas of Wagner's 1880s papers. Janet Browne, well known historian of Darwin, recently told me that it was old news that Mayr's view of Darwin was very, very wrong on his interpretation of Darwin. I would agree with you that many scientists, who do not read the history papers, tended in the past to accept Mayr and Coyne & Orr's arguments about Darwin, but this really should not be the case by now, given what historians of science have been writing, but biologists don't read history of science literature.

You obviously don't believe me, so as well as a perusal of Sulloway, I suggest you read carefully some or all of the following for why what you claim is extremely debatable at the very least.

Lovejoy, A. O. 1968. The argument for organic evolution before The Origin of Species, 1830-1858. Pp. 356-414 in B. Glass, O. Temkin, and W. L. Straus eds. Forerunners of Darwin: 1745-1859. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Ghiselin M. T. 1969. The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. Ghiselin's account, however, does accept that Darwin's view of species was wrong, although he argues that he did understand reproductive isolation. The reason is that he probably accepts Mayr's view of species as correct, which is no longer generally accepted at all.

Kottler, M. J. 1978. Charles Darwin's biological species concept and the theory of geographical speciation. The transmutation notebooks. Annals of Science 35:275-297. The whole paper, not just the abstract!

Ruse M. 1989. The Darwinian Paradigm. Essays on its History, Philosophy, and Religious Implications. (and other papers by Ruse)

Stamos D. N. 2006. Darwin and the Nature of Species. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

Sloan, P. R. 2009. Originating species. Darwin on the Species Problem. Pp. 67-86 in R. J. Richards, and M. Ruse eds. The Cambridge Companion to the Origin of Species. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ereshefsky M. Darwin's solution to the species problem. Synthèse xxx, 000. 2009. Available online: http://people.ucalgary.ca/~ereshefs/publications/Darwin's%20Solution.pdf

Mallet, J. 2010. Why was Darwin's view of species rejected by 20th Century biologists? Biology and Philosophy (in press, contains a survey of the historical literature). Available here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/revisionism.pdf

Also, here's a recent historian's comment (although it was triggered by another matter entirely:

"Mayr has repeatedly asserted that Darwin advocated the kind of arrangement that he chooses to call 'Darwinian'. ... There was a precedent for this mistake, and it serves to drive home the point. This was Mayr's notion that Darwin was inconsistent about species concepts, which I had corrected even earlier (Ghiselin 1969). As I explained in a passage that was suppressed by the editor of the journal, Mayr reached his conclusion by writing out what Darwin said on cards, and deciding that the statements on the cards were inconsistent. When the passages are read in context, however, the contradictions disappear. Likewise with Darwin's putative belief that categorical rank should be used to depict the amount of evolutionary change that has accompanied, say, the origin of birds, in a way that creates paraphyletic taxa. In some passages he seems to be saying that, but in others he argues against it. By citing the one but not the other, it is very easy to misrepresent what Darwin actually believed." -- Ghiselin, M. T. 2004. Mayr and Bock versus Darwin on genealogical classification. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 42:165-169.

---Point 3: Darwin's supposed weaknesses: "Among these were an over-concentration on adaptation, and an assumption that adaptation would itself lead to speciation. The theory now is for species-splitting and adaptation to be seen as complementary aspects of evolution; "

This is simply not true, as any perusal of recent biological literature about Darwin will tell you. For example, Orr H.A. Testing natural selection. Sci. Amer. [January], 44-51. 2009.

"species-splitting initiated mainly by geographical and other forms of barriers to interbreeding (barriers to gene flow)."

This is very debatable and much debated. Only Coyne & Orr still adhere to this view; most now accept a variety of speciation methods are likely. But even C&O would say that it's mainly natural selection coupled with some geographical isolation. If you read Darwin carefully and without prejudice, you will find this in Darwin 1859 as well -- see Sulloway 1979, again. Biologists really do not agree with your points any more, on the whole, about Darwin's "deficiencies."

Let me know if I can help you with any more references, though many are in Mallet 2010.

Eratosignis (talk) 21:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you so much for putting your case so fully. Clearly it's not right for the account to rest simply on Mayr and Coyne & Orr, and the account itself must be adjusted. It is necessary for WP articles to represent the state of play on any topic, and if there is debate that has to be fairly represented. A great deal depends on reliable secondary sources, which we are obliged by the rules of the game to follow; our error here has been to depend on too few authorities (but I had checked with our Speciation article, and found them among the 'Further reading', so had felt reassured).
Well, I'm going to read some of your suggestions. The next step is to decide how, exactly, the article needs to be adjusted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

But parts of your 1. point are not really correct: You wrote that: "I agree it is possible that Moritz Wagner's earlier published work on geographic isolation predates Darwin's own published work, but the importance of geographic isolation in species is hardly an innovation even by the 1830s. Leopold von Buch (which Darwin had read, and records in his notebook), and the swiss botanist de Candolle had both published on similar issues. See for example, von Buch L. 1825. Physikalische Beschreibung der Canarischen Inseln. Königliche Akadamie der Wissenschaften, Berlin. pp. 132-133. "

Anyway, Wagners first publication about geographic isolation is part of his book about Algeria which he published in 1841, so nearly in the time of the 1830s. Furthermore, he was a student of von Buch and he really often pointed out that von Buch firstly formulated the idea of a geographic speciation, but failed to give clear examples. And nevertheless, even mentioned by Sulloway, Wagner was not a Lamarckist. He often criticize Lamarcks view of evolution and was fully behind Darwin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.106.37.233 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Moritz Wagner (basketball) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is against move. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

---

Moritz Wagner → Moritz Wagner (explorer) – not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Joeykai (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. -- Dane ^talk 16:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support, move Moritz Wagner (basketball) to base name since he is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The explorer is primary topic by long term significance, as a significant figure in the development of evolution theory. He also predominates as common usage in book sources. The basketball player has some press coverage right now, during his career, but he's not one of the standout greats.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose No arguments given. Clearly a case of recentism. Wikipedia is not a sports database, unless you truly think that this basketball player will somehow be as historically important as Moritz Wagner. Neodop (talk) 16:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear primary topic in terms of long-term significance. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Moritz Wagner (basketball) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Moritz Wagner (basketball) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)