Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T11:41:53.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutions and innovation: experimental zoology and the creation of the British Journal of Experimental Biology and the Society for Experimental Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2011

STEINDÓR J. ERLINGSSON
STEINDÓR J. ERLINGSSON*
Affiliation:
Svarthamrar 9, 112 Reykjavik, Iceland. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper throws light on the development of experimental zoology in Britain by focusing on the establishment of the British Journal of Experimental Biology (BJEB) and the Society for Experimental Biology (SEB) in 1923. The key actors in this story were Lancelot T. Hogben, Julian S. Huxley and Francis A.E. Crew, who started exploring the possibility of establishing an experimentally oriented zoological journal in 1922. In order to support the BJEB and further the cause of the experimental approach, Hogben, Crew, Huxley and their colleagues decided to found a society, which led to the formation of the SEB. From its inception the journal was plagued with difficulties that led to the merger of the BJEB and the Biological Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society in the autumn of 1925. Also discussed are the views that the leading proponents of experimental zoology in Britain in the 1920s expressed towards morphology and how their views further complicate the already much modified ‘revolt from morphology’ thesis.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 73 - 95
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A.V. Hill, ‘The present tendencies and the future compass of physiological science’, in idem, The Ethical Dilemma of Science and Other Writings, New York: Rockefeller Institute Press, 1960 (first published 1923), pp. 7–23, 16.

2 Prior to the rise of experimental zoology some naturalists had relied on experiments in their work, including Charles Darwin (Lynn K. Nyhart, ‘Natural history and the “new” biology’, in Nicholas Jardine, James A. Secord and Emma C. Spary (eds.), Cultures of Natural History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 426–443, 432–434) and Ernst Haeckel (Richards, Robert J., The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2008, pp. 185–188)Google Scholar.

3 Erlingsson, Steindór J., ‘The Plymouth laboratory and the institutionalisation of experimental zoology in Britain in the 1920s’, Journal of the History of Biology (2009) 42, pp. 151–183CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

4 Ashworth, J.H., ‘Modern zoology’, Science (1923) 58, pp. 231–236Google Scholar, 233. Robert J. Richards argues that Haeckel's experiments on siphonophores, which he performed in the late 1860s, ‘prefigured the comparable work of two of his students, Wilhelm Roux … and Hans Driech … some twenty years later’. Richards, op. cit. (2), p. 189.

5 Ashworth, op. cit. (4), pp. 231–232.

6 Ashworth, op. cit. (4), pp. 232–233.

7 Lancelot Hogben, ‘The origins of the society’, in M.A. Sleigh and J.F. Sutcliffe (eds.), The Origins and History of the Society for Experimental Biology, London: SEB, 1966, pp. 5–11, 5.

8 Bernard Thomason, ‘The New Botany in Britain circa 1870 to circa 1914’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester, 1987; Steindór J. Erlingsson, ‘The rise of experimental zoology in Britain: Hogben, Huxley, Crew and the Society for Experimental Biology’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Manchester, 2005, pp. 26–44.

9 Kraft, Alison, ‘Pragmatism, patronage and politics in English biology: the rise and fall of economic biology 1904–1920’, Journal of the History of Biology (2004) 37, pp. 213–258CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

10 Blackman, F.F., Blackman, V.H., Oliver, F.W., Tansley, A.G. and Keeble, Frederick, ‘The reconstruction of elementary botanical teaching’, New Phytologist (1917) 16, pp. 241–252Google Scholar, 245.

11 Erlingsson, op. cit. (8); idem, op. cit. (3); idem, ‘The costs of being a restless intellect: Julian Huxley's popular and scientific career in the 1920s’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and the Biomedical Sciences (2009) 40, pp. 101–108Google Scholar. Previous studies that have treated this issue include Mark Ridley, ‘Embryology and classical zoology in Great Britain’, in Timothy J. Horder, Jan Witkowski and Christopher C. Wylie (eds.), A History of Embryology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 35–67; Jan A. Witkowski, ‘Julian Huxley in the laboratory: embracing inquisitiveness and widespread curiosity’, in Kenneth Waters and Albert van Helden (eds.), Julian Huxley: Biologist and Statesman of Science, Houston: Rice University Press, 1992, pp. 79–103; Alberti, Samuel J.M.M., ‘Amateurs and professionals in one county: biology and natural history in late Victorian Yorkshire’, Journal of the History of Biology (2001) 34, pp. 115–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kraft, Alison and Alberti, Samuel J.M.M., ‘“Equal though different”: laboratories, museums and the institutional development of biology in late-Victorian northern England’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2003) 34, pp. 203–236Google Scholar; Kraft, op. cit. (9).

12 Jonathan Harwood, ‘The transformation of biology as a political process’, unpublished paper presented at the International Society for History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Biology, Seattle, 1997.

13 In 1966 the Society for Experimental Zoology published an essay that dealt in a broad manner with the history of the SEB from 1923 until 1966. Michael A. Sleigh, ‘Aspects of the history of the Society’, in Sleigh and Sutcliffe, op. cit. (7), pp. 12–32.

14 To date, J.B.S. Haldane has always been considered one of the founders of the SEB (George P. Wells, ‘The early days of the S.E.B.’, in P. Spencer Davis and N. Sunderland (eds.), Perspectives in Experimental Biology, vol. 1, London: Pergamon, 1976, pp. 1–6), which has its basis in Hogben's reminiscence of the early history of the SEB that was published in 1966 (Hogben, op. cit. (7); see also idem, Lancelot Hogben: Scientific Humanist, Woodbridge: Merlin, 1998, p. 79Google Scholar), and has since then been floating around in the literature (see, for example, Sarkar, Sahotra, ‘Lancelot Hogben, 1895–1975’, Genetics (1996) 142, pp. 655–660Google Scholar, 656; Tabery, James, ‘R.A. Fisher, Lancelot Hogben, and the origin(s) of genotype–environment interaction’, Journal of the History of Biology (2008) 41, pp. 717–761Google Scholar, 732). It is true that Haldane planned to stay with Crew, Hogben and Huxley in Edinburgh during the summer of 1922 (Crew to Huxley, May 1922, Julian S. Huxley Papers, Woodson Research Center, Fondren Library, Rice University, Texas (subsequently JHP, RU)), but something came up that terminated Haldane's interaction with them. The details of this episode are uncertain, but as Crew indicated in a letter from October 1922 the news that Huxley brought of Haldane was really ‘bad’ and made Crew sorry, for he argued that ‘we are losing hold of one who would have brought much reason to our circle.’ Nevertheless he observed that Haldane's ‘is a selfish point of view, no doubt, but it is a fact’ (Crew to Huxley, 9 October 1922, JHP, RU).

15 Huxley, Julian, ‘Metamorphosis of axolotl caused by thyroid-feeding’, Nature (1920) 104, p. 435CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Erlingsson, ‘The costs of being a restless intellect’, op. cit. (11), pp. 104–105; Squier, Susan Merill, Babies in Bottles: Twentieth-Century Visions of Reproductive Technology, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1994, pp. 35–39Google Scholar.

16 Hogben to Huxley, 7 January 1920, JHP, RU. Hogben to Huxley, 12 April 1920, JHP, RU. Hogben's research was published as a short note in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society in 1920. Huxley, Julian and Hogben, Lancelot, ‘Experiments on amphibian metamorphosis and pigment responses in relation to internal secretions’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Containing Papers of a Biological Character (1922) 93, pp. 268–293Google Scholar.

17 Hogben, Lancelot, ‘Francis Albert Eley Crew’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society (1974) 20, pp. 135–153Google Scholar; Dietrich, Michael R., ‘Of moths and men: Theo Lang and the persistence of Richard Goldschmidt's theory of homosexuality, 1916–1960’, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences (2000) 22, pp. 219–247Google Scholar.

18 Crew to Huxley, October 1923, JHP, RU. Huxley to Alister Hardy, 8 April 1920 and 18 July 1920; A. Hardy's Papers, Special Collections and Western Manuscripts, Oxford University. Sexton, E.W. and Huxley, Julian, ‘Intersexes in Gammarus chevreuxi and related forms’, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom (1921) 12, pp. 506–556Google Scholar.

19 Crew to Huxley, 5 April 1921 and 25 October 1921, JHP, RU. Crew to Huxley, 27 December 1921, JHP, RU. Crew to Huxley, 9 February 1923, JHP, RU. Crew, Francis and Huxley, Julian, ‘The relation of internal secretion to reproduction and growth in the domestic fowl, I: effect of thyroid feeding on growth-rate, feathering and egg production’, Veterinary Journal (1923) 79, pp. 343–352Google Scholar.

20 Crew to Huxley, 10 February 1922 and March 1922, JHP, RU.

21 Hogben to Huxley, 19 October 1923, JHP, RU. Hogben, op. cit. (17), p. 79. Hogben to Huxley, 31 October 1925, JHP, RU.

22 Hogben to Huxley, 25 June 1925, JHP, RU.

23 Crew to Huxley, 8 April 1922, JHP RU.

24 Crew to Huxley, 29 April 1922, JHP, RU.

25 Crew to Huxley, April 1923, JHP, RU. Crew to Huxley, 29 March 1923, JHP, RU.

26 Crew to Huxley, 8 April 1922, JHP, RU.

27 Crew to Huxley, 29 April 1922, JHP, RU. See also Hogben to Huxley, 10 September 1922, JHP, RU.

28 In November 1921, Huxley's paper on dedifferentiation in the Echinus larva was vetoed by the Proceedings of the Royal Society (Bourne to Huxley, November 1921, JHP, RU). Earlier that autumn Huxley sent two papers to Allen, E.J., the director of the Plymouth Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association (Erlingsson, op. cit. (3)), with the hope of having them published in the Journal of the Marine Biological AssociationGoogle Scholar. Allen vetoed both papers. In a letter from the end of February 1922, Allen ‘quite frankly’ advised Huxley ‘strongly not to publish either of them until you can work at the subjects again and get a larger amount of experimental data’ (Allen to Huxley, 28 February 1922, JHP, RU). In the coming years Huxley would continue to face difficulties with having some of his scientific papers published. Erlingsson, op. cit. (11), ‘The costs of being a restless intellect’, pp. 102–104.

29 Carr-Saunders to Huxley, 8 August 1922, JHP, RU.

30 Carr-Saunders to Huxley, 8 July 1922, JHP, RU. Carr-Saunders to Huxley, 8 August 1922, JHP, RU.

31 Crew to Huxley, 29 March 1923, JHP, RU.

32 Crew to Bidder, 12 May 1925, G.P. Bidder's Papers, Archive of the Marine Biological Association, Plymouth, PBD13 (subsequently MBA, PBD13).

33 Crew to Huxley, May 1923, JHP, RU. This group comprised the initial editorial board of the British Journal of Experimental Biology, in addition to Guy C. Robson, and the geneticist John W. Heslop-Harrison, of Armstrong College, Newcastle.

34 Hogben, op. cit. (7), p. 8.

35 Botanical papers were three in a total of twenty-eight in volume 1, three in twenty-eight in volume 2, one in nineteen in volume 3, one in thirty in volume 4, one in thirty-two in volume 5, and zero in thirty-two in volume 6.

36 Crew to Huxley, June 1923, JHP, RU.

37 Crew, F.A.E., Dakin, W.J., Harrison, J. Heslop, Hogben, Lancelot T., Huxley, Julian S., Johnstone, J., Marshall, F.H.A., Robson, Guy C., Carr-Saunders, A.M. and Thompson, J. Maclean, ‘The British Journal of Experimental Biology’, Science (1923) 58, p. 102Google Scholar; Crew, F.A.E., Dakin, W.J., Harrison, J. Heslop, Hogben, Lancelot T., Johnstone, J., Marshall, F.H.A., Robson, Guy C., Carr-Saunders, A.M. and Thompson, J. Maclean, ‘The British Journal of Experimental Biology’, Nature (1923) 112, pp. 133–134Google Scholar.

38 Crew et al., (1923) 112, op. cit. (37), author's emphasis.

39 Erlingsson, op. cit. (3).

40 Erlingsson, op. cit. (8), pp. 82–85; Lissman, H.W., ‘James Gray’, Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society (1978) 24, pp. 55–70Google Scholar.

41 Roughton, F.J.W., ‘Joseph Barcroft’, Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society (1948–1949) 6, pp. 315–345Google Scholar.

42 See, for example, Barcroft, J. and Barcroft, H., ‘The blood pigment of Arenicola’, Proceedings of the Royal Society. Series B (1924) 96, pp. 28–42Google Scholar.

43 ‘Cambridge Philosophical Society’; MBA, PBD13. Lissmann, op. cit. (40), p. 60. The first volume of the Biological Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society spanned the years 1923 to 1925 and nearly two thirds of its twenty-nine papers dealt with experimental zoology (Wells, op. cit. (14), pp. 2–3). On the editorial board of the Biological Proceedings were Professor H.R. Dean, Professor F.G. Hopkins, Professor A.C. Seward, Professor J.T. Wilson, J. Barcroft, J. Gray, T.C. Nicholas, and F.A. Potts.

44 Crew to Huxley, 4 October 1923, JHP, RU.

45 Crew to Huxley, 4 October and November 1923, JHP, RU; Hogben to Huxley, 19 October 1923, JHP, RU.

46 Hogben to Huxley, 31 October 1923, JHP, RU.

47 Hogben to Huxley, 15 November 1923, JHP, RU. The Liverpool quartet opposed holding a conference and especially Hogben's management of the project. As a result they did not attend the inaugural conference of the SEB. Carr-Saunders to Huxley, 27 October 1923, JHP, RU. Carr-Saunders to Huxley, 5 November 1923, JHP, RU. Carr-Saunders to Huxley, 2 February 1924, JHP, RU.

48 ‘Programs for the SEB meetings 1923–1928’; SEB Archive, Archive Management Systems, Reading: AMS 98409, C.Ref 6.

49 Hogben, op. cit. (7), p. 9.

50 Cock, A.G., ‘The Genetical Society in 1924: a near demise?’, Heredity (1979) 42, pp. 113–117Google Scholar, 113.

51 Bateson to Huxley, 10 February 1924, JHP, RU.

52 Hogben to Huxley, 16 February 1924, JHP, RU.

53 Cock, op. cit. (50), p. 116.

54 See Erlingsson, op. cit. (3).

55 Bidder to Huxley, 18 January 1924, JHP, RU.

56 Bidder to Huxley, 18 January 1924, JHP, RU. Linnean Society Minute Book 1919–1928, 24 January 1924, Linnean Society's Archive (subsequently LSA). Bidder to Huxley, 30 January 1924, JHP, RU.

57 Crew to Huxley, letter undated, JHP, RU, emphasis in original. Hogben to Huxley, 27 February 1924, JHP, RU.

58 Bidder to Huxley, 30 January, 5 February 1924, JHP, RU.

59 Linnean Society Minute Book 1919–1928, 16 October 1924, LSA. The failure to get his motion adopted might be a measure of the council members' fear that the LS would gradually be taken over by young biologists.

60 Crew to Huxley, letter undated, JHP, RU.

61 Crew to Huxley, letter undated, JHP, RU.

62 Hogben, Lancelot and Winton, Frank, An Introduction to Recent Advances in Comparative Physiology, London: V. Collins & Co., 1924, p. 2Google Scholar.

63 Crew to Huxley, letter undated, JHP, RU. Hogben to Huxley, 18 June 1924, JHP, RU.

64 Hogben and Winton, op. cit. (62), p. 2.

65 See Erlingsson, op. cit. (3), pp. 170–172.

66 Pantin, C.F.A., ‘On the physiology of amoeboid movement, II: the effect of temperature’, British Journal of Experimental Biology (1924) 1, pp. 519–539Google Scholar.

67 Hogben to Huxley, 18 June 1924, JHP, RU.

68 Crew to Bidder, 8 May 1925, MBA, PBD13.

69 Minute Book of the Council of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 4 May 1925. Cambridge Philosophical Society, Scientific Periodicals Library (subsequently CPS).

70 Crew to Bidder, 12 May 1925, MBA, PBD13.

71 Bidder to Crew, 18 May 1925, MBA, PBD13. ‘The Company of Biologists Ltd.’, MBA, PBD13.

72 Bidder to Crew, 18 May 1925, MBA, PBD13.

73 Huxley, Julian, ‘Further data on linkage in Gammarus chevreuxi; and its relation to cytology’, British Journal of Experimental Biology (1923) 1, pp. 79–96Google Scholar.

74 ‘Principles to govern the editor of the Journal’, MBA, PBD13.

75 Crew to Gates, 3 June 1925, RR Gates' papers, King's College Archive, RG1/2–3 (subsequently King's, RG1/2–3).

76 Crew to G.P. Bidder, 19 May 1925, MBA, PBD13.

77 Crew to Gates, 3 June 1925, King's, RG1/2–3. See also Crew to Bidder, 19 May 1925, MBA, PBD13.

78 Crew to Bidder, 19 May 1925, MBA, PBD13. For a further discussion of this issue see Erlingsson, op. cit. (11), pp. 102–104.

79 Bidder to Crew, 21 May 1925, MBA, PBD13.

80 Gray to Bidder, 3 June 1925, MBA, PBD13. Gray to Bidder, 16 June 1925, MBA, PBD13.

81 Bidder to Gray, 19 June 1925, MBA, PBD13.

82 Crew to Bidder, 10 June 1925, MBA, PBD13.

83 SEB Council Minute Book, 29 May 1925; SEB Archive, Archive Management Systems, Reading, AMS 98421, C.Ref 18 (subsequently SEB-18). SEB General Meeting Minute Book, 30 May 1925, SEB-18.

84 Crew to Bidder, 29 July 1925, MBA, PBD13. Gray took over the editorial control after the first issue was published (Bidder to Crew, 31 July 1925, MBA, PBD13).

85 Bidder to Crew, 8 November 1925, MBA, PBD13.

86 Minute Book of the Council of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 23 November 1925, CPS.

87 Saunders to Wells, 25 May 1931, SEB Archive, Archive Management Systems, Reading: AMS 98434, C.Ref 31.

88 Allen, Garland, Life Science in the Twentieth Century, New York: Wiley, 1975, pp. 9 and 35Google Scholar.

89 Maienschein, Jane, Rainger, Ronald and Benson, Keith R., ‘Introduction: were American morphologists in revolt?’, Journal of the History of Biology (1981) 14, pp. 83–87Google Scholar, 87. See also Maienschein, Jane, ‘Shifting assumptions in American biology: embryology, 1890–1910’, Journal of the History of Biology (1981) 14, pp. 89–113Google Scholar; Rainger, Ronald, ‘The continuation of the morphological tradition: American palaeontology, 1880–1910’, Journal of the History of Biology (1981) 14, pp. 129–158Google Scholar; Benson, Keith R., ‘Problems of individual development: descriptive embryological morphology in America at the turn of the century’, Journal of the History of Biology (1981) 14, pp. 115–28Google Scholar.

90 Maienschein, op. cit. (89), p. 91. See also idem, Transforming Traditions in American Biology, 1880–1915, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991, pp. 134–135Google Scholar.

91 Allen, Garland, ‘Morphology and twentieth-century biology: a response’, Journal of the History of Biology (1981) 14, pp. 159–176Google ScholarPubMed, 165 and 170. For a further discussion on this issue see idem, Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and His Science, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978Google Scholar; idem, ‘Mechanism, vitalism and organicism in late nineteenth and twentieth-century biology: the importance of historical context’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2005) 36, pp. 261–283Google Scholar; Pauly, Philip, ‘The appearance of academic biology in late nineteenth-century America’, Journal of the History of Biology (1984) 17, pp. 369–397Google Scholar; Rainger, Ronald, Benson, Keith R. and Maienschein, Jane (eds.), The American Development of Biology, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988Google Scholar; Nyhart, op. cit. (2); David Magnus, ‘Down the primrose path: competing epistemologies in early twentieth-century biology’, in Richard Creath and Jane Maienschein (eds.), Biology and Epistemology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 91–121; Kohler, Robert E., Landscapes and Labscapes: Exploring the Lab–Field Border in Biology, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2002Google Scholar.

92 Crew to Huxley, 8 April 1922, JHP, RU.

93 Crew to Huxley, 29 March 1923, JHP, RU.

94 Brigandt, Ingo, ‘Homology and heterochrony: the evolutionary embryologist Gavin Rylands de Beer (1899–1972)’, Journal of Experimental Zoology (Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution) (2006) 306B, pp. 317–328Google Scholar.

95 de Beer, G.R., ‘The evolution of the pituitary’, British Journal of Experimental Biology (1924) 1, pp. 271–291Google Scholar, 289.

96 Gray, James, ‘The role of water in the evolution of the terrestrial vertebrates’, British Journal of Experimental Biology (1928) 6, pp. 26–31, 31Google Scholar.

97 Goodrich, Edwin S., Studies on the Structure and Development of Vertebrates, London: Macmillan, 1930Google Scholar.

98 Jennings, Herbert S., ‘Biology and experimentation’, Science (1926) 64, pp. 97–105Google Scholar, 98.

99 Smith, G. Elliot, ‘The importance of morphology’, Nature (1930) 126, pp. 341–343Google Scholar, 342.

100 Gray, James, ‘Depreciated morphology’, Nature (1930) 126, pp. 567–568Google Scholar, 568.

101 Gray, op. cit. (100), p. 567.

102 Maienschein and Benson argue that some of the protagonists of the experimental method in the United States at the turn of the twentieth century spoke of the usefulness of descriptive methods (Benson, op. cit. (89), p. 125; Maienschein, op. cit. (89), p. 95).

103 Crew to Huxley, 8 April 1922, RU JHP. In addition to this it is worth noting that de Beer thanked Hogben and Huxley for their assistance (de Beer, op. cit. (95), p. 290).

104 Hogben, Lancelot, ‘The pigmentary effector system, IV: a further contribution to the role of pituitary secretion in amphibian colour response’, British Journal of Experimental Biology (1924) 1, pp. 249–270Google Scholar. See also Hogben, Lancelot and Winton, F.R., ‘Studies on the pituitary, I: the melanophore stimulant in posterior lobe extracts’, Biochemical Journal (1922) 16, pp. 619–630Google Scholar; idem, ‘Studies on the pituitary, II: the influence of hypophysectomy on the rate of carbon-dioxide production on frogs’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology (1923) 13, pp. 309–322Google Scholar.

105 Witkowski, op. cit. (11), pp. 82–84.

106 Richards, op. cit. (2), pp. 149–156.

107 Jenkinson, John Wilfred, Experimental Embryology, Oxford: Clarendon, 1909, pp. 12, 16, 13Google Scholar. Jenkins expressed similar views four years later in a book on vertebrate embryology. Jenkinson, John Wilfred, Vertebrate Embryology, Oxford: Clarendon, 1913, pp. 9–10Google Scholar.

108 Huxley's opposition to the biogenetic law is clearly revealed in a letter he received in 1924 from Walter Garstang, who was professor of zoology at the University of Leeds, following Huxley's visit to the university at the end of November that year. In the letter, Garstang, who was a fierce opponent of recapitulation (Hall, Brian K., ‘Balfour, Garstang and de Beer: the first century of evolutionary embryology’, American Zoologist (2000) 40, pp. 718–728Google Scholar, 723–725), observed that he was ‘really astonished at the coincidence of our views’ (Garstang to Huxley, 1 December 1924, JHP, RU).

109 Hogben, Lancelot, ‘Recapitulation and descent’, Nature (1920) 106, pp. 212–213Google Scholar; idem, The Nature of Living Matter, London: Kegan Paul, 1930, pp. 121–124Google Scholar.

110 Nicolas Rasmussen has argued similarly. Rasmussen, Nicolas, ‘The decline of recapitulationism in early twentieth-century biology: disciplinary conflict and consensus on the battleground of theory’, Journal of the History of Biology (1991) 24, pp. 51–89Google Scholar.

111 Jonathan Harwood, ‘Universities’, in Peter J. Bowler and John V. Pickstone (eds.), The Cambridge History of Science, vol. 6: The Modern Biological and Earth Sciences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 90–107, 90. For comparison see Nyhart, Lynn, Biology Takes Form: Animal Morpology and the German Universities, 1800–1900, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1995Google Scholar; and also her Modern Nature: The Rise of the Biological Perspective in Germany, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2009Google Scholar.

112 Erlingsson, op. cit. (3), pp. 167–168.

113 Hogben to Huxley, 25 June 1925, JHP, RU.

114 Erlingsson, op. cit. (3), pp. 172–174.

115 Harwood, op. cit. (111), p. 94.

116 Toby Appel, ‘Organizing biology: the American Society of Naturalists and its “affiliated societies”, 1883–1923’, in Rainger, Benson and Maienschein, op. cit. (91), pp. 87–120; Kraft, op. cit. (9).

117 The formation of the Company of Biologists meant that the SEB no longer had any direct control over the journal, even though the society used its profits to support it annually until the early 1930s. As the 1920s drew to an end, this was not viewed very favourably by some leading members of the society, leading to a serious crisis in the interaction of the company and the society in 1931 and 1933 which eventually came to a peaceful conclusion (G.P. Wells, ‘Discussions between the SEB and COB’, SEB Archive, Archive Management Systems, Reading, AMS 98434, C.Ref 31 (subsequently SEB, AMS-31).

118 Saunders to Wells, 5 December 1933, SEB, AMS-31.

119 J.T. Saunders, ‘Journal of Experimental Biology’, 7 November 1933, SEB, AMS-31.

120 Saunders, op. cit. (119).

121 Erlingsson, op. cit. (3).

122 Evans, Charles A.L., ‘The relation of physiology to other sciences’, Science (1928) 68, pp. 284–291, 287Google Scholar, author's emphasis.