Pioneering Polymaths in
Ecology, Biogeography, and
Palaeoecology
John Birks
The Past is a Foreign Country – David Lowenthal 1985
Polymath
from Greek polymathes – ‘having learned so much’
‘a person whose expertise spans a significant
number of different subject areas’
First used in 17 th century but related term
polyhistor is an ancient term with similar meaning,
as is phrase universal genius
First applied to great scholars and thinkers of
the Renaissance who excelled at multiple
fields of the arts and sciences
Leonardo da Vinci
Galileo Galilei
Francis Bacon
Leon Battista Alberti
Michelangelo
Nicolaus Copernicus
Michael Servetus
“A man (sic) can do all things if he (sic) will”
Concept built on basic tenet of Renaissance
humanism – humans are empowered and
limitless in their capacities for development.
Led to notion that people should embrace all
knowledge and develop their capacities as fully
as possible.
Renaissance ideal
Renaissance period was a cultural movement in
14-17 th centuries. Began in Italy in late Middle
Ages and spread later to the rest of Europe.
A gentleman expected to speak several languages,
write poetry, play a musical instrument, etc.
‘Renaissance ideal’
University education was pivotal to achieving
polymath ability. Trained students in science,
philosophy, and theology. No specialisation.
The Renaissance ideal Baldassare Castiglione The Book of
the Courtier discusses polymathic traits, ‘sprezzatura’
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
detached, cool, nonchalant attitude
speaks well, sings, recites poetry
has proper hearing
is athletic
knows humanities and classics
paints and draws
not showy or boastful
many, many other skills
does or says things without effort
Being an accomplished athlete is integral part of education
and learning. Alberti was a Roman Catholic priest, architect,
painter, poet, scientist, mathematician, inventor, and
sculptor, as well as a skilled horseman and archer.
Contrast with Robert Heinlein (1973)
Time Enough for Love
“A human being should be able to change a diaper,
plan an invasion, butcher a hog, steer a ship,
design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts,
build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take
orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve
equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure,
program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, and die gallantly. Specialization is for
insects.”
Other terms related to polymath:
Renaissance man (or woman)
Homo Universalis
Uomo Universale – Universal Genius
Generalist – ‘Jack of all trades’
Multi-tasker (cf. Jack of all trades, master of none)
Often quoted that men cannot
multi-task – do not agree!
What has this to do with ecology, biogeography,
and palaeoecology and the EECRG?
Several connected ideas behind my interest in
polymaths
• Discussions about teaching and education, new
courses, increasing or decreasing specialisations, etc.
• Rare, endangered, and extinct species – is the
polymath extinct?
• Are we providing training and education for potential
polymaths?
• Increasing personal interest in history of my subjects
of palaeoecology, biogeography, and ecology
(symptom of old age!)
• Has progress in these subjects been made by
polymaths or specialists?
Who are the pioneering polymaths in our subjects?
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913)
Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919)
Charles Lyell (1797-1875)
My 16 candidates, 8 of whom* I have met
Hewett Cottrell Watson
(1804-1881)
Edward Forbes
(1815-1854)
Alexander von Humboldt
(1769-1859)
Robert Lloyd Praeger
(1865-1953)
Francis Galton
(1822-1911)
*Henry Gleason
(1882-1975)
*Robert H Whittaker
(1920-1980)
*G Evelyn Hutchinson
(1903-1991)
Clement Reid
(1853-1916)
Alfred Gabriel Nathorst
(1850-1921)
Maria Stopes
(1880-1958)
*G Frank Mitchell
(1912-1997)
*Nicholas J Shackleton
(1937-2006)
*John Imbrie
(1925-)
*Derek Ratcliffe
(1929-2005)
*Daniel Simberloff
(1942-)
Between them, my 16 have made contributions
not only to ecology, biogeography, palaeoecology or
Quaternary science, but also to
Deep-Time palaeobotany
Other obvious candidates:
*Stephen J Gould (1941-2002)
Edward O Wilson (1929-)
*Robert P McIntosh (?)
*Cajo ter Braak (1954-)
*Edward S Deevey (1914-1988)
*Michael CF Proctor (1929-)
*Robert M May (1938-)
George Sugihara (1950-)
*Mark Hill (1943-)
*Frank Oldfield (1936-)
Victor E Shelford (1877-1968)
Have made major contributions to many fields including
philosophy of science, mathematics, statistics,
limnology, archaeology, world economic theory,
bryophyte physiology, taxonomy, and literature as well
as ecology, palaeoecology, quantitative ecology, or
evolutionary ecology.
Plan to discuss my 16 pioneering polymaths in a
talk once a semester to try to answer for each
• who were they?
• what was their background/education?
• what were their major achievements?
• why should they be considered polymaths?
• why are many of their contributions forgotten or
ignored today?
• how did they become polymaths?
Some talks will be about one ‘mega’ polymath (e.g.
Humboldt, Ratcliffe), while others about two super
polymaths in related topics (e.g. Gleason &
Whittaker; Imbrie & Shackleton; Hutchinson &
Simberloff).
Alternate ecology and biogeography (autumn) with
palaeoecology and environmental history (spring).
I hope to learn a lot in my reading and research – a
journey through the history and development of our
subject.
Why discuss pioneering polymaths?
“The past is essential – and inescapable. Without
we would lack any identity, nothing would be
familiar, and the present would make no sense.
Yet the past is also a weighty burden that cripples
innovation and forecloses the future. ... Growing
awareness of an ever-expanding past coincides
with modern efforts to destroy, to forget, and to
make obsolete the legacy of all pasts.”
David Lowenthal (1985)
The Past is a Foreign Country
Hewett Cottrell Watson
Life and Relationships 1804-1881
Born in Firbeck near Rotherham, Yorkshire 9 May 1804
Died at Thames Ditton, Surrey (having lived there for
40 years) 27 July 1881
Contributed to
phrenology
botany
plant geography*
evolutionary theory
1839
Transformed Victorian wild-flower collecting in the
1830s into systematic botanical recording. Started
the great tradition of such recording in Britain and
Ireland that led to the Atlas of the British Flora
(Perring & Walters 1962) and New Atlas of the
British and Irish Flora (Preston et al. 2002), as well
as of just about all living organisms in Britain and
Ireland, all at 10 km grid square scale –
bryophytes, lichens, fungi, butterflies, moths,
gastropods, fish, amphibians and reptiles,
mammals, birds, woodlice, centipedes, etc.!
1846
1871
No ordinary sedate Victorian botanist!
Noted for his intellectual brilliance and
cantankerous and difficult personality.
Led an isolated and restricted life – never
married and travelled only once outside of
Britain to the Azores in 1842.
“a turbulent figure, a born controversialist,
a pungent critic, and a most enthusiastic
disturber of the peace”
Meikle (1949)
Given his personality, not surprising he never
received the academic recognition he deserved.
Applied unsuccessfully or withdrew his
applications for senior academic positions in
London (Kings College 1842), Belfast, and Dublin
(1846) and a senior position at Kew (1848).
Yet Watson was the widely acknowledged
authority on British botany and on the
distribution of plant species in the British Isles.
Despite his social isolation, had great command
of the scientific questions of the day, including the
importance of statistical methods in science, the
asymmetric lateralisation of brain function and
the transmutation of species in evolutionary
theory.
1836 – published ‘What is the use of the double
brain?’ which speculated about the differential
development of the two human cerebral
hemispheres
1844 – AL Wigan published his influential The
Duality of Mind and ignored Watson’s work
(Watson had clashed with Wigan!)
Watson published
11 botanical books
totalling over 4930 pages
29 papers on phrenology
310 papers* on botany
17 papers on climatology
6 papers on ecology
5 papers on plant evolution
4 papers on evolutionary
theory
(1832-1874)
(1829-1840)
(1830-1881)
(1833-1839)
(1833-1847)
(1834-1847)
(1845-1846)
* includes many starting “Correction of a mistake in ...”
Prolific, wide-ranging scholar but a difficult person
Eldest son of Holland Watson Justice of the
Peace, lawyer, and Mayor of Congleton in Cheshire.
Mother Harriet Watson(née Powell) died when
HCW was 15. Had 7 older sisters and 2 younger
brothers.
Terrible relationship with his father who was a
reactionary, right-wing conservative and
upstanding religious member of a fairly wealthy
conservative society. Anti-trade unions – formed
Stockport Volunteer Corps to break up meetings of
workers!
Watson was specially favoured in the family financially
as he was the first son in a family that followed
primogeniture, i.e. he inherited enough money to lead
an independent life. He should have been happy;
instead he was the unhappiest family member. He
hated his father and felt totally out of harmony with
his siblings – had almost no contact with them.
“I never knew an individual towards whom I felt such
a permanent and bitter antipathy as to my own father.
We were totally unsuited to each other. My mother, a
widely different character, died when I was fifteen, just
when my fear of my father was changing into dislike
and hatred. Ever since I have felt that my own mind
and of course my life were very injuriously affected by
him.”
Watson (1848)
Watson was the complete opposite to his father in
politics and thirst for new knowledge.
Mixed relationships with his mother – did not
trust her as she ‘sneaked’ on him to his strict
disciplinarian father.
Watson’s only companions in his youth were their
family gardener and Rev Dr Edward Stanley, rector
of the neighbouring parish of Alderley (later Bishop
of Norwich and President of the Linnean Society of
London). Stanley was a substitute father figure for
Watson.
Wrote of his friendship with the gardener
“this relationship probably contributed, in
connection with my mother’s taste for floriculture,
to give me a partiality for flowers; as a child at
home, and subsequently as a schoolboy, was the
chief amusement of my youth.”
Watson (1883)
And of Edward Stanley
“During my schooldays a boyish fancy for plants
and floriculture, which I had early inherited,
attracted the favourable notice of Dr Stanley,
whose opportune instruction and encouragement
gave a scientific direction to the taste. ... The
direction once given was never wholly lost, though
discouraged in my own home.”
Watson (1883)
Watson’s hope of becoming a botanist active in the
field were dashed when he was 15. He was hit on
his right knee by a cricket bat and his knee joint was
crushed. Never fully recovered full knee movement.
Saved him from being sent as an Army Officer to the
East India Company’s Regiment – his father’s sole
ambition for him.
This disability never really prevented HCW hiking or
climbing mountains in Scotland or Mount Pico in the
Azores. Probably main impact was emotional rather
than physical.
• Refused to go to Oxford to study classics and theology
• Forced by his father to train to be a lawyer in
Manchester in 1821
• Quit and moved to Liverpool in 1823
• Became interested in phrenology
• Went to Edinburgh University in 1828 to study
medicine
• Became friendly with Robert Graham (1786-1845),
Keeper of the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh from
1820. Major impact on Watson and on Scottish
botany and horticulture
• Entered an annual essay competition in 1831 with his
entry ‘Geographical Distribution of Plants’ (discussed
later)
Also became friends with George Combe and
joined the Edinburgh Phrenological Society
George Combe (1788-1858)
Watson inherited an estate in Derbyshire in 1828. Then
moved in 1833 south to Thames Ditton on the railway
near Kingston in Surrey, south of the River Thames and
not far from Kew in central London. Lived there until
his death in July 1881.
Visited his three sisters occasionally in London.
Joined the Linnean Society in 1834, but rarely attended
meetings.
Social recluse.
HC Watson and Phrenology 1833-1840
Phrenology – pseudoscience focused primarily on
measurements of the human skull
– based on concept that the brain is the
organ of the mind and that certain
brain areas have localised specific
functions or modules
Developed by German physician Franz
Joseph Gall (1758-1828). Very
popular in 19 th century 1810-1840
Main centre in Britain was Edinburgh.
Edinburgh Phrenological Society
founded in 1820
Gall 1805
Combe 1853
Fowler c. 1865
Now regarded as an obsolete mix of primitive neuroanatomy and moral philosophy. Phrenology was very
influential in 19 th century psychiatry and continues to
some extent in modern neuroscience and neuropsychology.
The Edinburgh Phrenological Society in 1826 had 120
members, over 30% with a medical background. By
1840, 28 phrenological societies in London with over
1000 members – medical doctors, social and asylum
reformers, intellectuals (astronomers, politicians,
authors, evolutionary biologists, geologists), etc.,
including HC Watson.
Phrenology involves observing and/or feeling the skull
to determine an individual’s psychological attributes.
The founder Gall believed that the brain was made up
of 27 ‘individual organs’ that determined personality,
with the first 19 ‘organs’ believed to exist in other
animals.
Phrenologists would run their fingertips and
palms over the skulls of their patients to feel
for enlargements or indentations. May take
measurements with a tape measure or a
craniometer (special type of caliper).
According to Gall, an enlarged organ meant that it
was used extensively by the patient. 27 areas varied
in function – sense of colour, likelihood of being
religious, or destructive, or combative. Could allegedly
judge a person’s personality and abilities!
Combe wrote The Constitution of Man considered in
relation to external objects (1828) – 19 th century
bible of naturalism. One of the best-selling books of
the century. Played a major part in 19 th century
British cultural history.
Sales of Constitution of Man (1828), Vestiges of the Natural
History of Creation (1844), and On the Origin of Species (1859)
Combe’s Constitution was published 31 years before
Darwin’s Origin. Generated huge controversy in
Victorian society, just as Darwin’s Origin did 30 years
later.
The Church of England
considered the book
heretical and demanded
its removal from
libraries. Combe was
considered an infidel.
HC Watson became Combe’s disciple when he went to
Edinburgh in 1828 to study medicine. Phrenology not
taught at Edinburgh University or its medical school,
but joined the Edinburgh Phrenological Society in
1829.
Did well in his course but quit medical school because
of poor health one semester before completing his
degree in 1832. Decided that he would never practice
medicine, even though he had been elected Senior
President of the Royal Medical Society.
Watson began in 1829 to
publish in The Phrenological
Journal (29 publications in
total). After leaving Edinburgh
in 1832, ceased to write
scientific articles on phrenology
but remained a staunch
advocate.
In 1836 published a major
review of phrenology in British
Isles
In 1837 became editor of The Phrenological Journal
hoping to raise its scientific standards.
Wrote lofty and very critical editorials (a blog of the
1830s!), but his criticism and ridicule of articles
submitted simply aroused anger in the authors and
in 1840 he resigned as editor.
Watson wrote in his resignation letter (9 August
1840) to the new editor Robert Cox that
“circulation will increase more in your hands
because you will give less offence.”
Watson abandoned phrenology in 1840 and
criticised it fiercely as pseudo-science or not even
any type of science in correspondence with Combe
until 1858 when Combe died.
Also wrote to Darwin about it.
“I have undertaken to
assassinate phrenology”
Last serious attempt to
defend phrenology was
W Mathieu Williams’s
1894 A Vindication of
Phrenology
Most interesting phrenological paper by Watson is
1833 ‘On the relation between cerebral development
and the tendency of particular pursuits; and on the
heads of botanists’ (Phrenological Journal 8: 97-108)
Watson wanted to contribute to the development of
phrenology as an aid in choosing a profession.
He ‘discovered’ that botanists who “confined themselves
to the relatively simple tasks of collecting, identifying
and classifying plants” have well-developed ‘organs’ for
individuality
size
locality
language
number
i.e. systematists!
Plant physiologists have large ‘organs’ for
causality
wit
Ecologists – not a known word then, but Watson
recognised a third (and highest) type of botanist
that knew about environment, plant societies, and
plant growth – have large ‘organs’ for
comparison
ideality or imagination
Watson considered some botanists (and he named
them) had particular brain ‘organs’ too small for
the projects they attempted and their publications
are correspondingly flawed!
In his own autobiographical sketch (1883), Watson’s
cranial characteristics showed he belonged to the
‘environment’ or ecology category.
Should not look too closely at Watson (1833). Only
had 12 botanists heads, but he concluded that “the
average of botanical heads is smaller than would be
found in those of several other sciences, as Geology,
Moral Philosophy, Natural Philosophy or Political
Economy.”
Basic data of Watson (1833) when analysed by Marti
Anderson’s non-parametric MANOVA show no
significant difference between sciences!
Also investigated in 1831-32 brain ‘organs’ of
vegetarians, ‘super-vegetarians’ (Victorian term for
vegans), and non-vegetarians at the time before the
creation of the Vegetarian Society in 1847.
Concluded some differences and generated much
controversy as the vegetarian movement was still
developing at that time.
The ‘organs’ that Watson thought were
well-developed (sensu Combe 1851)
in vegetarians were
secretiveness
cautiousness
individuality
causality
combativeness
2007
Phrenology in one form or another has never really
died out
• used to explain so-called superiority of certain
races
• used as an obstacle to anti-slavery movement in
southern USA
• is a personal service today in Michigan, Wisconsin,
and Minnesota and subject to sales tax (MVA)!
But Watson left it all behind in 1840 and
concentrated on botany instead
HC Watson and Botany 1830-1881
In 1831 won Gold Prize for his essay on
‘Geographical distribution of plants’ awarded by
Robert Graham in Edinburgh. Amazing essay by a 27year-old who had never studied botany seriously.
Greatly influenced by Humboldt’s (1816)
‘Prolegomena’ in Nova genera et species plantarum
and John Linley’s (1830) Introduction to the natural
system of botany.
Humboldt provided general laws; Linley provided
geographical ranges and the extent of each plant
family within a region. Watson brought them together
for the first time.
Watson’s essay is in two parts (copy at RBGE)
1. Divided world’s flora into six latitudinal zones
and described the now well-known parallel
between latitudinal and elevational ranges of
species.
• Arctic species of different continents more
similar than temperate species.
• Temperate species have a more northern
distribution on western oceanic coasts than on
eastern continental coasts due to differences
in temperature.
• Flora of eastern Asia resembles flora of eastern
North America.
• Flora of western Europe resembles flora of
western North America.
2. ‘Conditions of vegetation’ discussed temperature,
moisture, soil, and minor factors.
• Water was most important physiologically but
temperature had most influence on species
distributions. Water was clearly dominant factor
for aquatic and desert species
• Since many species grew in different kinds of
soil, then moisture, temperature, soil texture,
and organic content were more important that
soil chemical composition. Exceptions were
Ophrys orchids confined to chalk soils and Erica
vagans confined to serpentine soils
• Shade, animals, humans, wind, and disturbance
were ‘minor environmental factors’
Remember this was written in 1831 – 182 years ago!
Well before ecology and evolutionary biology or
biogeography were recognised as subjects.
Ecology 1866 Haeckel
Left Edinburgh in 1833 for Thames Ditton.
Had failed to form an Edinburgh botanical society.
One was founded in 1836 by a group of botany
students including Edward Forbes (founding father
of marine biology in Britain and victim of Watson’s
criticisms). Watson joined in autumn 1836. It
became the Botanical Society of Edinburgh, and
subsequently the Botanical Society of Scotland –
still alive and well.
Also in 1836 Botanical Society of London founded.
Originally called the Practical Botanists’ Society of
London – practical to refer to people who ‘got their
hands dirty’ as opposed to merely professing
botany. First scientific society in Britain to admit
women as members.
Watson joined BSL in 1840 and was instantly made
Vice-President (but never President!). Also curator
as it quickly became the Botanical Exchange Club –
exchanging specimens.
Replaced in 1947 by the Botanical Society of the
British Isles – also still alive and well.
Auction of the BSL herbaria in 1857
20 Bedford Street,
London – BSL HQ
In 1832 instead of taking his final medical exams he
wrote his first synthesis of the British flora – and
really started plant geography in Britain – Outlines of
the Geographical Distribution of British Plants (334 pp)
Much narrower in scope than his 1831 essay that had
primarily been a literature review of the world. The
1832 book was totally new, modelled in part on
Wahlenberg’s three
amazing regional floras
(1812-1814) Flora
Lapponica, De Vegetatione
et Climate in Helvetia
Septentionali, and Flora
Carpatorum.
Part 1 – general discussion
Part 2 – for each species, details of habitat,
elevational range, and world distribution
• listed what were likely to be introduced species,
mainly from ship ballast
• climate data for 530 localities for mean annual,
winter, spring, summer, and autumn temperatures,
hottest and coldest months, annual rainfall, and
elevation (very Humboldtian!)
• divided British vegetation into three broad regions,
each of which was divided into two elevational
zones. These 3×2=6 zones summarised for Britain
what he had in his essay on world flora and
vegetation.
I
II
III
Region
Zone
Indicator species limit
Woody
1 Agricultural
Wheat cultivation ceases
2 Upland
Coryllus avellana ends
3 Moorland
Carex bigelowii starts
4 Subalpine
Calluna vulgaris ceases
5 Alpine
Empetrum nigrum ceases
6 Snowy
No land!
Barren
Mossy
Became obsessed with 6 zones. Did not understand
the distinction between observable facts of nature
and empirical systems of convenience. Led to a
bitter dispute with Edward Forbes, early vegetation
historian, biogeographer, and founder of marine
biology in Britain, who proposed that there were five
zones not six!
1832-35 HCW became more interested in
elevational ranges and temperatures. Wanted to
relate distributions and climate. Found same species
occurred at different elevations on different
mountains.
“Absolute altitude is of little importance in the
geography of plants and therefore my attention is for
the most part limited to the observation of their
relative height in regard to each other.” Watson (1832a)
Upper limit (feet)
Species
Clova
Braemar
Fort William
Tongue
Erica cinerea
Ulex europaeus
2400
2200
2100
1730
1500
1350
280
350
Watson emphasised importance of ‘situation’, namely
slope (angle) and aspect (direction of slope)
“The influence of situation is well exemplified by the
fact that Empetrum nigrum, under the steep snow
rocks on the northern side of Ben Nevis fails 600 feet
below its height on the western side.”
Watson (1832b)
Wrote 7 articles based on his Humboldtian-type
studies. His 1833 paper on ‘Observations of the
affinities between plants and adjacent rocks’ (Magazine
of Natural History 6: 424-7) was so ahead of its time in
considering environmental complexes (and so almost
totally unknown) that Eville Gorham published a note
about it in Ecology in 1954, thereby helping to
prevent ‘ignorance creep’.
Watson emphasised “It is necessary that all
conditions of vegetation be studied in connection. He
who neglects any will so far fail in his generalisations.”
Presented six main conclusions.
1. Rank of importance of factors are temperature; moisture;
situation; mechanical and chemical properties of surface
soil; mechanical and chemical properties of underlying
bedrock.
2. Combined influence of these determines flora and
vegetation of counties (cf. 1831 essay).
3. Factors not always in equal ratio. When temperature is
best suited for a species, soil is of little importance. When
temperature is marginal, soil factors more important.
4. Temperature effects shown in flora of a county (regional
scale). Other conditions may not affect the flora of a large
area but other factors modify the vegetation (local scale).
5. Comparing species, some are more influenced by one
factor, others are influenced by other factors.
6. Influence of bedrock is so frequently hidden by other
conditions that the flora of a county is not obviously affected
by it, but vegetation of smaller areas may be influenced by
underlying geology.
In 1835 published Remarks on the Geographical
Distribution of British Plants; Chiefly in Connection
with Latitude, Elevation, and Climate (288 pp). No
new insights, but much new data.
1835-37 The New Botanist’s Guide to
the Localities of the Rarer Plants of
Britain; on the Plan of Turner and
Dillwyn’s Botanist Guide. Volume 1:
England and Wales, Volume 2:
Scotland and Adjacent Islands (674 pp)
Update of Turner and Dillwyn’s (1805)
The Botanist’s Guide Through England
and Wales (2 volumes)
Very detailed account of localities. Strong attack on
British botany at that time, hence The New Botanist’s
“British botany is in danger of degenerating into a
sort of outdoor (and indoor) game, with pretty
pictures, simplified texts, ferns, and portfolios, and
melodious twitterings from the pens of Mr Edwin
Lees and the gifted Miss Twamley – just the right
kind of thing for the poetic young man or the
refined young lady, with nothing technical or
scientific to mar the pleasures of a gentle sport.”
Watson (1835)
Watson forced his disturbing ideas and
argumentative character into the gentle activity of
British botany in 1832 and 1835 but this was just
the beginning!
In 1835 Watson emphasised that British botanists
could not even agree on how many species there are
– 1500 to 1636. Watson, ignoring doubtful claims,
counted 1400. Stace (2010) has 1421 native species.
Darwin liked Watson’s comments about species
number and repeated them in On the Origin of
Species.
Watson also estimated that every British county
contained 50% of the British flora and that a square
mile of a county generally contains half of the species
of a county – i.e. species-area relationship. Joseph
Hooker was amazed at this and told Darwin (28
September 1846) who was fascinated.
Watson followed this idea up in 1847 (not 1859 as
Rosenzweig says).
Rosenzweig 1995
Connor & McCoy (1979,
Am Nat) has correct
references to Watson
(1835, 1847).
Log species – log area plot
Arrhenius (1921)
or y =
axn
where y = number of species,
x = area, a = constant
Dony (1963) “Watson was as near the truth as
anyone has been or is likely to be.”
Watson was thrilled by
“the lofty peak of Pico,
rising high and sharp into
the deep blue sky, with a
wreath of white clouds”
(Mount Pico or Ponta da Pico)
Ulrich Thumult
In 1842 he was a botanist on naval expedition to
map the Azores. Captain Alexander Vidal (17921863) commanded the steamer Styx.
No Humboldt disciple could resist climbing Pico.
Major climb (2351 m).
Watson recorded upper elevation limits of many
plants – strawberries, figs, oranges, vines, apples,
yams (Caladium), Laurus, Myrica faya, Erica
scoparia, and Juniperus ?communis.
Upper vegetation Scirpus, Carex, Callitriche, Peplis
portula, Potamogeton natans, Calluna vulgaris,
Thymus caespititius, mosses, and lichens. Barren
peak at 2351 m.
Pico’s extinct crater was “a natural botanic garden
where the true flora of the Azores, above the
cultivated region, reigns undisturbed”
Watson (1843-47)
Visited four of the ten islands. Collected plants
including the new Campanula (Azorina) vidalii and
Myosotis azorica
Watson disappointed that he found fewer species than
expected (“scarcely 300”) given the range of
elevations and climates. Twelve genera endemic.
Compared Azores flora with that of Madeira
Thought Azores Vaccinium cylindraceum and Madeira
V. maderense to be varieties of same species.
Characteristic Watson
“Those botanists who delight in multiplying species on
paper, by describing extreme forms, in disregard of
intermediate and connecting links will doubtless keep
them distinct.”
(Watson 1843-47)
A ‘lumper’!
Frederick DuCane Godman (1834-1919) went to the
Azores in 1860s to collect plants and animals. Wrote
a collaborative Natural History of the Azores (1870).
Watson contributed a mere 175 page account of the
flora, now 478 species, with occurrences in Europe,
Madeira, Canary Islands, America and Africa. 40 were
endemic.
Used his data in an early island biogeographical
context to test Edward Forbes’s (past ‘friend’ and
constant combatant) hypothesis that Azores were
remnants of a former continental extension with
Europe. Falsified Forbes’s hypothesis – first such
hypothesis testing in island biogeography.
Also used his data to test Darwin’s ideas on origin of
species. Found some counter-evidence but
concluded that positive, supportive evidence for
Darwin’s ideas was stronger (Watson 1870).
In 1843 published The Geographical Distribution of
British Plants Part I (3 rd edition), 259 pp.
Decided it was too detailed, so started a simplified
version!
1847-59 and 1860-74 Cybele Britannica: or
British Plants and their Geographical Relations
(4 volumes, over 900 pp, plus 2 supplements
and 1 compendium in 1870 of 650 pp.)
Documents the distribution of British flora more
precisely than anywhere else – tradition continues to
the present day.
Mapped 18 provinces in volume 1; subdivided them
into 38 sub-regions, and 120 counties and vicecounties in volume 3.
Vice-counties were created to all be of about the same
area to allow comparison of species richness between
counties.
Watson’s vice-counties
alive and well today,
along with 40 in
Ireland and Channel
Islands.
Used today for plant
recording, especially
bryophytes and
lichens. Once a keen
vice-county ‘bagger’ of
new bryophyte
records!
For each species lists
• number of provinces (18)
• ranges of latitude, elevation, and mean annual
temperature
• geographic status
native
denizen (naturalised)
colonist (casual)
alien
incognita (needing confirmation, status unclear)
• habitat (15 types)
His distribution of five types of geographical status
was the first attempt to codify nativeness. Recently
recognised as a great pioneer in invasive biology.
Predecessor for Mark Hill et al.’s PLANTATT (2004)
and BRYOATT (2007).
Watson (1859)
Hill et al. (2004)
Watson’s Cybele Britannica also has important
chapters on
‘On orders, genera, and species’ including a
discussion of permanence of species
‘On the introduced species’
‘Physical geography and climate of Britain’
‘Altitudes of species’ and
‘General remarks’ which includes the first
phytogeographical analysis of the British flora and
of any country’s flora.
First serious attempt to put British plant geography
on an exact scientific basis. Replaced vague
generalisations with concrete facts. Analysed the
composition and character of the flora.
Bad reception – title was unpronouncable, no pictures
or poems, nothing to please the “botanical dabbler”,
nothing but facts, figures, statistics, names, and
numbers.
Anonymous hostile review in The Gardener’s
Chronicle (1859) edited by John Lindley (17991865) Professor of Botany, UCL. Acknowledged
Watson’s enormous labour but dismissed the
results as of no consequence.
“Instead of precise results we have elaborately learned
disquisitions, which really, when dissected, end in
nothing.”
Anon (1859)
(Identity revealed by Hooker to Darwin in 1859 who
subsequently told Watson. Watson responded with
severe sarcasm in the First Supplement)
A previous fierce 22-page review in 1854 was by
zoologist Rev John Fleming (1785-1857). Showed
Fleming was not a competent botanist but a good friend
of Edward Forbes!
“Cybele is scarcely more than a mechanical operation,
conducted, however, by one to whom the subject was
familiar in all its bearings.”
Fleming performed what he called his ‘Christian duty of
being a peacemaker’ by mentioning Forbes’s praise of
Watson but remained silent about Watson’s attack on
Forbes. If Watson read all this, he did not respond –
most out of character!
Watson “never recouped himself one penny of the cost
of paper, print, and binding” despite “[Contributing]
more to British botany than all the outpourings of
poetic-floristic flummery put together.”
Meikle (1949)
1873-74 Watson continued
to collect plant geographical
data and refine the
precision of his species
accounts. Published
Topographical Botany (740
pp) and was working on a
second edition when he
died in 1881. JG Baker
(1834-1920) and WW
Newbould (1819-1886)
published it in 1883.
On his death, JG Baker was left Watson’s house and
land, his books, letters, and herbarium collections.
Baker had persuaded Watson not to burn his herbarium
(now at Kew in Watson’s cupboard half-way up the
stairs in the Kew Herbarium). All his notes were burnt.
“After hurriedly writing Topographical Botany, while the
data still existed, I burnt (inter alia) a whole
wheelbarrow full of botanical correspondence. This was
done in order to spare my Executor the tedious trouble
in having to go through such a mass of letters and
papers in order to select such as might seem to him
needful to keep a while longer.”
Watson (7 April 1878)
Large leather-bound books in which all the vice-county
records were entered survived and are now in the Kew
library.
Watson, Darwin, and Evolutionary
Biology 1834-1881
Watson interested in plant evolution and corresponded
frequently with Darwin.
Reacted to Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology (1832) in
which Lyell discredit’s Lamarck’s transformation of
species. Watson was, even at an early age, convinced
evolution occurred but not as Lamarck proposed.
“Species in any sense or degree I look on as human
divisions, not creations of nature. The changes, proved
by geological evidence, to have occurred in organic
forms, and those now effecting by climate, elevation,
crop-breeding, etc. etc. strongly discountenance the
idea of absolute and permanent distinctions.” (7 Oct 1834)
In 1845 huge dispute between Watson and
Edward Forbes (1815-1854) ecologist,
botanist, marine zoologist, ‘bio-geologist’.
Died age 39.
Forbes in a lecture in 1845 synthesised what was
known about Quaternary flora in relation to modern
British flora and suggested that there were five
sources of British plants.
1. Irish region - ‘Asturian’ flora
2. South-west Devon - ‘Norman’ flora
3. Kentish flora - ‘French’ flora
4. Alpine or ‘Scandinavian’ flora
5. Central European – ‘Germanic’ flora
Published major monograph in 1846 ‘On the
connexion between the distribution of the existing
fauna and flora of the British Isles and the
geological changes which have affected their area,
especially during the epoch of the Northern Drift’
Watson furious – he had six regions, Forbes had
five! Accused Forbes of ignoring his work of
1832. Checked with Linnean Society Library and
found that Forbes had checked out his 1832 book
before his 1845 lecture. Forbes gave Watson
generous acknowledgement in his full 1846 paper,
but Watson was not satisfied.
Darwin was interested in Forbes’s ideas and they
corresponded. Darwin could not follow Forbes’s
arguments so he consulted Joseph Hooker. Hooker
too was sceptical.
“This fracas between the 2 geographers distresses
me, for they are almost only the 2 men who have
looked on British flora with the eyes of philosophers.
Watson in particular ranks in my opinion at the very
head of English botanists, whether for knowledge of
species or of their distribution.”
(3 Sept 1845)
“I have not seen Forbes since studying his paper &
really do not know what to say when I do, for most
unfortunately he does not seem to know the
Geographic Distrib. of the English plants.” (28 Sept 1845)
Darwin was friends with Forbes before this incident.
This conflict and his friendship inhibited Darwin from
contacting Watson directly until Forbes died in 1854.
“What makes Watson a renegade” (Hooker to Darwin, 27
June 1845)
Whilst Forbes was alive, Hooker acted as intermediary
between Darwin and Watson. Watson wrote “You take
with sufficient good temper the circumstance of a
botanist siding with the Enemy” (1849)
Darwin wrote to Hooker about Watson’s paper (184347) on the Azores – thought it was strange that there
were so few ‘peculiar’ species or forms and so few
species on the summits. Darwin wanted a comparison
with Madeira, Canary Islands, etc. Watson provided
all this in his 1870 chapter.
Watson studied hybridisation (e.g. Primula vulgaris,
P. elatior, P. veris) and species with dimorphic
‘unstable’ flowers.
In 1845 presented his ideas on
evolution in an extended review of
Robert Chambers (an evolutionary
phrenologist) Vestiges of the Natural
History of Creation (1844).
Watson’s review was in four parts!
Showed evolution was a reasonable interpretation of
Chamber’s evidence but Watson wrote “while the
species is kept up by some more fortunate or
favoured individuals, a vast number of individuals
die prematurely.”
Although Hooker saw Watson’s review and follow-up
articles, he apparently did not read them. He
reported to Darwin that Watson is “an avid believer in
Progressive development, as enunciated & upheld in
the already defunct ‘Vestiges’.” – Incorrect!
On 7 April 1847 Darwin asked Hooker for information
on “cases of varieties between two other varieties
being rare”. Hooker then asked Watson and Watson
sent him a 124-page account which Darwin
annotated for later use.
Watson had done garden experiments in 1841 with
88 plants of three Primula species. Looked greatly at
variation and hybridisation. Cultivated may varieties
in his garden to study – phenotypic variation.
Concluded to CC Babington “no eternally permanent
species exists.” (1845)
Charles Lyell in Principles of Geology (1830-33) cited
Watson and JS Henslow’s conclusions as evidence
that the existence of varieties in nature is no
evidence for the transmutation of species.
Watson knew about the fossil records and was
struggling in 1845 with an explanation for the facts
except transmutation.
“The supernatural alternative is the one generally
received by the vulgar, and admitted – tacitly, at
least – by men of science.”
“The stone tablets of Geology make transmutations
seem inevitable, I doubt if these tablets will ever
reveal how it happened.”
Darwin clearly respected Watson and in Darwin’s
huge manuscript on ‘Natural selection’ begun in May
1856, Watson was cited 27 times. The 692-page ms
not published until 1975 – victim of circumstances.
Alfred Russel Wallace sent Darwin his manuscript on
natural selection in 1858. Joint reading of their papers
at Linnean Society.
Darwin trimmed his ‘Natural selection’ into a 502page more readily publishable On the Origin of
Species (1859). Cited Watson 8 times and wrote “Mr
HC Watson, to whom I lie under deep obligation for
assistance of all kinds.”
Darwin sent Watson a copy of Origin. Watson
responded
“Once commenced to reading the ‘Origin’ I could
not rest till I had galloped through the whole. ...
You are the greatest Revolutionist in natural history
of this century, if not of all centuries.” (21 November
1859)
Despite living 18 km away from Darwin’s Downe
House, Watson never met Darwin. Declined an
invitation to discuss evolutionary ideas with Darwin
and Hooker in 1859 – Watson was too busy and did
not wish to travel. Watson very much a social
recluse.
Legacy
1. Started systematic plant
recording. BSBI, BBS, BLS,
Atlas Flora Europaeae, etc
mapping schemes
2.
Watsonian vice-counties
3.
Species-area relationships (Surrey)
4.
Hypothesis-testing in island biogeography
(Azores)
5.
Phytogeographical analyses, concept of multifactorial control of plants, appreciation of
geographical scales
6.
Many publications – 11 books, 370+ papers
7.
Contribution to invasion biology – different types
of geographic status
8.
Initiated ‘garden experiments’ and ‘experimental
taxonomy’
Because of his abrasive personality, only one
species named after him Eleocharis watsonii
(slender spike-rush) now called E. uniglumis
BSBI started its journal in 1949. By
a close vote (9 for, 7 against) it was
called Watsonia
Then in 2010, title changed to New
Journal of Botany at request of
publishers. No-one, they argued,
know who Watson was! Not
commercial or catchy enough.
Probably one of Britain’s greatest botanists
Very appropriate that a ‘blue plaque’ was unveiled
in 2012 to commemorate Watson’s birthplace in
Firbeck, near Rotherham.
One is left wondering how such a polymath and
workaholic could do so much and contribute
original ideas and data to so many fields. How was
it possible to do all this in the 1850s? Was his
difficult personality an advantage or disadvantage?
Watson was five years older than Darwin – both
had developed within the same scientific
environment
phrenology
evolutionism
Humboldt’s environmentalism
Lyell’s uniformitarianism
British naval exploration
Growth of scientific
institutions
Professionalisation of
science
Watson certainly as important in British botany as
William Hooker (1785-1865) and his son Joseph
Hooker (1817-1911)
William Hooker
(1841)
HC Watson (1846)
Joseph Hooker
(1870)
The Hooker’s association with Kew and moderately
pleasant personalities ensured that their work is
well-remembered.
Watson with no institute and a difficult personality
ensured that his work is barely remembered.
“intellectual truth should be held paramount over
all other considerations”
Watson (1883)
A view we will see repeated with other pioneering
polymaths – Gleason, Whittaker, Simberloff,
Ratcliffe, Imbrie, Shackleton – all of whom
changed our views on ecology, environment, and
the world, and how we should do science.