The book sets out a new understanding of Lamarck's evolutionary doctrine. Until the middle of the 19th century, the language of science did not have the concept of heredity, but there was a substitute concept of nature. Since the time of scholasticism, generic and specific characteristics have been considered as essential and, therefore, as true characteristics that describe the nature of the organism. Nature in this sense is contrasted with variable intraspecific characters, which can be classified in terms of whether they are capable of being transmitted from parents to children or not. The concept of heredity as a description of heritable variation was used by Darwin in his theory of natural selection. Lamarckian and Darwinian models of evolution therefore have different subject areas. By the end of the 19th century, the concept of nature (organism) disappeared from the language of science. As a result, the "key" for a satisfactory understanding of Lamarck's works was lost. The Lamarckian approach corresponds to the provisions of the physiological concept of heredity, which was in circulation at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries and has now been developed in the ideas of epigenetics and the new direction “Evo-Devo”.

* * *

The given introductory fragment of the book “Philosophy of Zoology” by Jean Baptiste Lamarck: a view from the 21st century (A. I. Shatalkin, 2009) provided by our book partner - the company liters.

Nature of the body and heredity

3.1. The concept of nature in the writings of Lamarck

3.1.1. Nature concept.

Thus, in the time of Lamarck, heredity was not isolated as an independent phenomenon, but was considered within the framework of broader concepts such as reproduction and nature. Let's take a closer look at the last concept. As far as can be judged from the writings of Lamarck, in his time heredity was seen as an inseparable property of the organism, something that constitutes its nature. The concept of nature had a double meaning. Firstly, this is the material world, everything that surrounds us, the entire world of things and phenomena that we perceive. Secondly, understanding nature as the cause and essence of things. This understanding comes from antiquity and now it can be said to have fallen out of use, judging by modern dictionaries. Its essence was clearly expressed by Benedict Spinoza (1632-1677). “There is no other cause of things than nature, which exists necessarily and acts due to an unchangeable, inevitable and immutable necessity” (Bayle, 1968, p. 18; Pierre Bayle, 1647-1706). And again (p. 21): “There is only one being and one nature, and this nature produces itself and by internal action gives birth to everything that is called creatures.”

Lamarck (1955, p. 441) in the introduction to the second part Philosophies of zoology identifies three aspects of the manifestation of nature. These are: “1) all existing physical bodies; 2) general and particular laws governing changes in state and position that these bodies can experience; 3) finally, a movement that exists among them in different forms, continuously maintained or reborn at its source and infinitely changeable in its manifestations, a movement from which follows the amazing order of things that this totality of objects reveals to us.” A very succinct definition.

Let's start with the third meaning, according to which nature is movement. THEM. Polyakov in the notes to Philosophies of zoology(Lamarck, 1955, pp. 904-905) expressed the opinion that Lamarck considered motion in isolation from matter. To confirm his thought, I.M. Polyakov quoted from the article “Ability” published in New Dictionary of Natural History Deterville. In order not to repeat ourselves, we will quote a similar statement by Lamarck (1959, p. 243) from Natural history of invertebrates: "… concerning nature, then neither movement, nor laws of all kinds that control its actions, nor time And space, which it has infinitely at its disposal, are not properties inherent in matter as such” (emphasis added by Lamarck). Or here's another interesting place from Analytical review of knowledge(1959, p. 615): "Movement is not something inherent to itself nature of the body: every body possessing movement acquired it in one way or another... Nevertheless, movement, understood in a broad sense, constantly exists in nature and its source is inexhaustible” (emphasis added). From the last statement it follows that Lamarck is far from metaphysically separating and contrasting matter and motion. When formally comparing this statement with others, it may seem that they are antinomic in content. Lamarck argued that the source of movement of any specific body can only be external, but since nature itself has nowhere to get movement except from itself, then nature, considered as a whole, is characterized by self-motion. The contradiction here is actually imaginary. Lamarck considers the category of motion within two different approaches – predicative (through properties) and constructive (through relationships). But we see the same thing in F. Engels, in whom I.M. Polyakov seeks support in his criticism of Lamarck's position. When Engels speaks Dialectics of nature that movement is a form of being (way of existence) of matter, then it characterizes matter from a constructive point of view, i.e. through relationships connecting specific bodies. A little further, Engels considers motion in a predicative manner “as an attribute inherent in matter.” Here matter is considered as a whole, and the general property of this whole will, according to Engels, be self-motion. Everything is like Lamarck.

Thus, movement, as Lamarck understood it, is inherent in nature; it determines the order, including, presumably, the hierarchical structure of objects. This means that movement creates everything in our world, including objects (bodies). As for the sources of movement, Lamarck saw them in the action of various forms of “fire” (see section 3.4.2).

The first meaning is the main one these days, and in this work we will not be interested in it. Actually, Lamarck was of little interest in nature in this sense. Moreover, in the sixth part of “The Natural History of Invertebrate Animals” (Lamarck, 1959, pp. 232-257; Lamarck, 1815), as well as in the second chapter of “The Analytical System of Positive Knowledge of Man” he (Lamarck, 1959, p. 360^ 05; see also comments by I.M. Polyakov: vol. 1, p. 904) specifically dwells on the identification of nature with the universe - an opinion that was erroneous from his point of view, but which was widespread among his contemporaries. According to Lamarck (1959, pp. 377-378), “Nature is an order of things consisting of objects alien to matter and accessible to our definition by observing bodies; an order which as a whole constitutes an efficient principle, indestructible in its essence, dependent in all its effects, and continually influencing all parts of the physical universe.” [Lamarck distinguishes between bodies and matter: the first are structured and therefore accessible to our analysis, the second is not; accordingly, matter, according to Lamarck, was created by the Almighty before bodies (structured matter); this structuredness is created by nature, creating bodies and gradually increasing their structural complexity.] On the contrary, “The Universe is nothing more than the totality of all physical and passive objects, i.e. the totality of all existing bodies and all types of matter"(p. 378; emphasis by Lamarck). Nature creates the universe and, “thus, nature consists of: 1. Movement, known to us only as the change of a moving body ... 2. Laws of all orders, constant and unchanging, which govern all movements, all changes undergone by bodies, and which bring into the universe , always changeable in its parts and always unchanged in its whole, inviolable order and harmony” (p. 379). Let us note that here Lamarck does not even mention nature, considered as a representation of the entire material world, i.e. the meaning that is fundamental in our time.

Some “thought that nature is God himself, and - a strange thing: they did not distinguish a work from its creator... If nature were a rational principle, it could desire, it could change laws, or, rather, it would not have laws at all . But this is not the case: in its actions, nature is subject to constant laws over which it has no power, so that, despite the fact that its means are infinitely varied and inexhaustible, they always act in the same way” (Lamarck, 1959, p. 608) .

This understanding of nature echoes the views of Buffon and, perhaps, from him Lamarck inherited the contemplation of Nature as a holistic entity living according to uniform laws. Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863-1945) expressed himself beautifully about this side of Buffon’s worldview, which is equally applicable to the characterization of Lamarck’s views: Buffon “... was a deep observer of nature, embraced all scientific knowledge... he was one of the few brilliant naturalists, one of those few people who truly scientifically contemplated the universe as a single whole” (Vernadsky, 1934, p. 11). True, Lamarck conceptually distinguished between the universe and nature. In his “Analytical Review of Human Knowledge,” first published in our country (translated into Russian from a manuscript), Lamarck (1959, pp. 609-610) specifically focused on the issue of distinguishing between the concepts of universe and nature: "... Universe– is a collection of beings (etres); A nature- a powerful principle, subject to laws, endowed by its very essence abilities and acting continuously." But this is exactly what V.I. drew attention to. Vernadsky in Buffon's view of nature. Let us note another important aspect in Lamarck’s definition – nature is endowed with abilities. Organisms have abilities (see section 3.4.2). Therefore, Lamarck here implicitly points to the nature of the organism.

In the formulations of Spinoza and Lamarck there is no direct indication of the essence of things as the most important component of their nature. Essence is certainly implied when Lamarck speaks of the laws governing “all the changes that bodies undergo.” In some ways, this is consistent with the way nature was understood a hundred years after Lamarck. Let us give another definition from the “Philosophical Dictionary” of the famous historian and philosopher Ernest Leopoldovich Radlov (1854-1928). Nature is “the essence of a thing, i.e. something developing in it according to its own laws; in this sense, nature is opposed to culture, art, education” (Radlov, 1913). In English this is the famous contrast between “nature” and “nurture”. Features associated with culture, art, education are random qualities for an object.

Definition of E.L. Radlov, recorded in the dictionary of the beginning of the last century, allows us to see in what direction the substantive meaning of the concept of nature was changing. For Lamarck, nature is the subject area of ​​action of natural laws, which find a dual expression: firstly, in the structure of this subject area (for example, in a system of organisms) and, secondly, in the structure (structure) of individual objects (in in this case organisms whose structure is expressed in the system and, therefore, at least partially determined by its laws - see appendix). In E.L. Radlov’s definition, the first aspect, which in the eyes of Lamarck and his contemporaries had the main, decisive significance, is not mentioned at all. There remains only the second aspect of consideration, which concerns the nature of the object. We still use the word “nature” when we want to emphasize the most essential aspects of objects or phenomena, for example, we say “the nature of life”, “the nature of man”, “the nature of eclipses”, etc. Here the understanding of nature, as something essential as opposed to accidental, is emasculated, since it is considered without connection with the first aspect.

We no longer perceive the natural characteristic of an object as an expression of the genetic connection of our object with the outside world, a connection that is often hidden from our eyes due to the underdevelopment of science. Lamarck (Lamarck, 1935, p. 20) formulated this position as follows: “The study of animals does not consist in mere acquaintance with all kinds of breeds and in determining the differences between them on the basis of establishing their particular characteristics; one must also reach the knowledge of the origin of their abilities, the reasons that cause and support their life; finally, the reasons for the strictly consistent complication of their organization and the development of their abilities.”

For many naturalists of the second half of the 19th century, this emasculated understanding of nature seemed an unnecessary complication. Here is how Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) defined the concept of nature (Huxley, 1888, p. 202): “The word “nature” in its strict sense denotes the phenomenal world, which was, is and will be.” This is how nature is understood today.

Let's return to the definition of E.L. Radlova. It is not only truncated. The concept of “the nature of an object” formulated by him without mentioning the first aspect, which focuses attention on the regular nature of the manifestation of nature in things, is deprived of objective content. How can one characterize the essence of an object if its organic connection with other objects is not indicated? Organisms are natural creatures; in them nature manifests its action. It was precisely based on these considerations that Lamarck could talk about the nature of organisms as an active active principle.

When discussing organisms, Lamarck considers the natural reasons for their existence from different points of view. In some cases, he is limited to discussing the nature of the organism, without focusing on the moment of its dependence on the laws that determine the taxonomic system to which the given organism belongs. However, most often by nature he means systemic relationships that determine the structure of diversity of the entire set of organisms, including this one. With a certain skill in reading “Philosophy of Zoology” it is not difficult to follow these semantic changes. Let us give some examples from the first part of “Philosophy of Zoology”.

“Observing nature, studying its works... trying to understand the order imposed in everything by nature, as well as its course, its laws, its infinitely varied means aimed at maintaining this order - this, in my opinion, is for us the opportunity to acquire our own disposal is the only positive knowledge" (Lamarck, 1935, p. 19)

“From this it is clear that if vertebrates differ so greatly in the state of their organization among themselves, it is precisely because nature began to fulfill its plan for them only with fish; that she advanced it somewhat forward in reptiles, brought it to a significant degree of perfection in birds, and finally completely completed it only in higher mammals” (ibid., pp. 131-132).

“By studying them [invertebrates], one can be convinced that in the consistent process of formation, their nature moved step by step from simpler to more complex” (ibid., p. 134).

Thus, the nature of an object, which reflects laws in its structure, can be contrasted with that which, although it distinguishes the object, is accidental for it. In Lamarck, this dilemma of the essential and the accidental was repeatedly emphasized when discussing the meaning of crossing. Only the essential is reproduced in a series of generations, i.e. genus-specific features. At the same time, Lamarck went further than his contemporaries and tried to explain why random traits cannot be reproduced in descendants, i.e. intraspecific differences. “However, during reproduction, the crossing of individuals,” says Lamarck (1935, pp. 205-206; 1955, pp. 357-358; the translation is partially given in our edition) – differing in some qualities and structures, serves as an inevitable obstacle to the constant reproduction of these qualities and these structures. That is why a person who has to experience the influence of so many circumstances, quality or damage[emphasis added], which he accidentally acquires, are not preserved and are not transmitted from generation to generation (see a similar statement by Lamarck in his lecture of 1802 (Lamarck, 1955, p. 73). If two individuals, having acquired certain features of form or certain defects, united only with each other, then they would reproduce the same characteristics; and if subsequent generations were limited to similar unions, the result would be a special and distinct race, however, constant crossings between individuals that do not have. identical features lead to the disappearance of all features acquired as a result of the specific action of circumstances.

Therefore, we can say with confidence that if the habitats of people were not isolated by distances, then crossings in the processes of reproduction would cause the rapid disappearance of the common characteristics that characterize different nations. (We present some excerpts from this interesting passage in the original (Lamarck, 1907, p. 223-224): “... Voilà ct qui empêche que dans l'homme, que est soumis à tant de circonstances diverses qui influent sur lui, les qualités ou les défectuosités accidentelles qu'il a été dans le cas d'acquérir se conservent et se propagent par la génération … généraux qui distinguent les différentes nations.”

In connection with the above excerpt, we note two interesting points. First, Lamarck explicitly says that defectuosites caused by accidental damage are not inherited. And in our manuals, Weisman’s famous experiments on the non-inheritance of injuries are still mentioned as a refutation of Lamarckism. Of course, a little further on Lamarck says that if defective individuals “combined only with each other, they would reproduce the same characteristics.” It is clear that we are talking here about physiologically reproducible features, and not injuries that are not based on physiological reactions. Secondly, the last sentence makes clear the important role of isolation in the formation of geographical races. Lamarck anticipated the idea of ​​allopatric morphogenesis, which was proposed and actively developed by Ernst Mayr (1963).

In comments on this and other similar statements (see, for example, Polyakov, 1955, p. 896), they usually talk about the absorbing influence of crossing - an idea that existed in the time of Lamarck and was overcome by the discoveries of Mendel. Another aspect is interesting for us here. According to Lamarck, only non-random acquisitions can be passed on through generations. How to distinguish them? Lamarck (1935, p. 205) gave the following criterion: “Any change in any organ, acquired by the use of this organ sufficient for its implementation, is further preserved through reproduction, unless this change is common to individuals who jointly participate during fertilization in their reproduction species" (emphasis added) A.Sh.).

3.1.2. Natural and random.

Both before and during Lamarck's time, hereditary traits that characterize dynasties, such as the large mandible of the Habsburg dynasty (Waller, 2003), were known. But they were not given much importance. Both natural (essential) and accidental are transmitted through generations. But then interest was concentrated on the essential, i.e. nature. The nature of an organism is always reproduced, while the random, as judged by external manifestations, is reproduced in some cases and not in others. But if something is reproduced, it is in accordance with some natural processes and due to the action of some natural causes specifically related to reproduction. If these processes and the causes that determine them have not changed, then in each cycle of reproduction they will produce similar organisms. Therefore, for biologists of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, there was no special problem of heredity. There was a problem of reproduction, which rested on the search for appropriate mechanisms for the reproduction of natural (essential) qualities. Essential qualities were consistently repeated (not inherited) over generations due to the action of the same reproduction mechanisms. These essential qualities differed from intraspecific differences, which in some cases were inherited (reproduced), in others not (not reproduced).

Consequently, the problem of reproduction is not limited to the problem of heredity in the interpretation that developed later in genetics. For example, if physiological reactions have changed under the influence of the environment, then they will be steadily reproduced over generations as long as the environment is in effect. And physiological reactions are different in that they will be repeated simultaneously in many members of a species exposed to new living conditions. It may be said that the concept of reproduction did not distinguish between hereditary and non-heritable reproducible changes. And it was genetics that drew attention to this, linking the first category of changes in the concept of heredity. Actually this is not true. Even before the emergence of genetics, science was able to speak with understanding about the essence of the differences between different categories of reproducible traits. Following Aristotle and Porphyry (1939), John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) in his Logic system(1865, p. 145, first English edition published in 1843) identified five predicabilia (predicate genders):

The categories of genus, species and difference do not require much explanation (see, for example, Simpson, 2006, p. 28). Genus-specific and differential characteristics are hereditary. As for the fourth category, it includes non-heritable common traits. Mill gives the following example (p. 151). “If the negro and the white differ in the same way (though to a lesser extent) as the horse and the camel, i.e. if their differences are inexhaustible and cannot be attributed to any common cause, then the logician recognizes them various types(in a logical sense - A.Sh.)…But if all their differences can be derived from climate and morals, or from some peculiarity in structure, then the black and the white, according to the logician, do not represent a species difference.” Mill uses several criteria to distinguish between species and intraspecific properties. And one of these criteria is the conditioning of characteristics by general climatic factors. According to Mill's classification, such characteristics should be considered features (in the logical sense, i.e., proper characteristics - proprium, as opposed to incidental, random - accidens).

Mill's system is based on the concept of class. Therefore, within the framework of this system, the compared objects are considered as timeless entities. We can say that they show only horizontal connections.

Genetics has introduced a new type of relationship into use - vertical, or genealogical relationships. Thanks to this, it was possible to differentiate and describe a new type of heritable characteristics identified in hybridological analysis. Thus, we are talking about comparing objects related by kinship. For such objects, Johansen introduced the concept of pure lines. In systematics, the analogue of pure lineages are strictly monophyletic groups (Hennig, 1966). Mill (1865, p. 151) noted this category of groups, but showed little interest in it. “The naturalist,” he said, “never recognizes organic beings as belonging to different species if it is supposed that they could have descended from the same trunk.” Vertical groups are united according to hereditary characteristics, and these characteristics cannot always be isolated in horizontal groups. That is why Johansen came up with the concept of pure lines, as the antithesis of Galton's approach, which tried to estimate heredity by calculating horizontal (similar) connections.

We can therefore conclude that in the history of the development of views on heredity, two concepts coexisted for some time. One of them - broader and historically the first - was based on the concept of reproduction. Not only generic characteristics are reproduced, but also those own characteristics that Mill identified as the category proprium. An example of this would be long-term modifications. Traits determined by the mutation process, which required the study of groups distinguished by vertical connections, were usually not considered by this concept. There was no need to introduce a special concept of heredity, since reproducible traits cannot be non-hereditary.

The second concept, which replaced the first, began to consider only certain forms of reproduction as truly inheritable. First of all, long-term modifications were classified as non-inheritable. According to the first approach, mammalian characteristics are equally reproduced, for example, in humans and mice. From the point of view of the second approach, it is necessary to prove that the genes responsible for maternal characteristics are identical in mice and humans. In the absence of such evidence, they cannot be compared. Therefore, the second approach, taken as a basis by genetics, limited itself to only the analysis of intraspecific similarities and differences.

From the above it follows that the phenomenon of heredity in its modern understanding began to be perceived by the scientific community only when it was realized that the result of reproduction is not only similarity in generations, but also dissimilarity, subject to certain patterns. It was to describe this dissimilarity, regular in its manifestations, that it was necessary to introduce the concept of heredity. Fertilization processes generally lead to the formation of an organism that combines, in one or another combination, the characteristics of the parents and more distant ancestors. Therefore, given that the reproduction of both structural options is impossible, different reproduction processes must operate here, determining organisms that are different in nature. In this case, the boundary between the essential and the accidental must be shifted. In the next section we will return to this interesting topic again, since the questions it raises are directly related to the development of the concept of “heredity”.

The understanding of nature as an essential principle, opposed to the random, comes from ancient times, and was most fully developed by Aristotle. Subsequently, it was widely practiced in scholasticism, from where it migrated to systematics, taking shape in it into a special direction, which in pre-Darwinian times had unquestioned authority and was called typology. The central postulate of typology is the recognition of an essential principle in objects and the possibility of categorizing properties from this point of view into essential (necessarily inherent in the object) and random. On this basis, K. Popper (1992) and after him E. Mayr (1971) designated the typology as essentialism. Essentialism in typology was expressed in the concept of a “natural system” - a classification of a special type, the taxa of which were supposed to be distinguished by essential properties. Groups, distinguished by essential properties, got the name childbirth Accordingly, typology was understood as a description and categorization of organisms in terms of their generic properties. In Aristotle's system, genera were contrasted with another category general concepts, which united randomly similar objects(see Attachment).

Let us summarize Lamarck's view of nature. Nature is the basis that determines the specificity of forms, expressed through taxonomic differences. It was in this vein that Lamarck understood nature. In some cases it provides an even broader understanding of nature. Firstly, in the spirit of his time, he considers minerals, along with plants and animals, to be works of nature. Secondly, Lamarck’s nature is the “reason” thanks to which the chain of being unfolds: “...nature is nothing more than the general immutable order established by this supreme Creator - a set of general and particular laws governing this order” (with .98). Thus, nature is both that which characterizes and distinguishes an organism from others from an essential point of view and that therefore can be described through taxonomic categories, and that which naturally determines the directions of possible variability and diversification of forms. Nature is a law imprinted in a system of organisms.

Lamarck, therefore, is not interested in random characters that lie outside the taxonomic continuum and outside taxonomic practice. His main interest is the problem of the formation and complication of an organization. To explain the natural complication of the organization, he looks for natural causes and finds them in an increase in the movement of fluids: “... this movement fluids have the ability to gradually increase the complexity of the organization by increasing the number of organs and the appearance of new functions to be performed, as new conditions associated with the way of life, or new habits acquired by individuals, strongly encourage this, causing the need for new functions and, consequently, new organs." We, of course, should not be confused by these speculative constructions. It is important for us to identify fundamental points associated with changes in the understanding of heredity in post-Darwinian times. The paradigm shift primarily affected the subject of study. Random characteristics from a typological point of view, which did not have any scientific significance in the eyes of Lamarck and his contemporaries, became the main object of attention of genetics and the basis for the formulation of a new concept of heredity.

3.2. The nature of the organism. Predicative characteristics of an organism

The nature of the organism has been interpreted and described in different ways. When describing it, constructive and predicative aspects were distinguished. In the first case, it was a question of understanding the organism as a constructive whole, i.e. understand what it is in terms of its structure and structure. The predictive aspect is associated with the assessment and comparison of organisms by characteristics. The characters characterizing organisms differ in varying degrees of generality. Taking this into account, since ancient times genus-specific characteristics have been identified and contrasted with intraspecific ones. Since the time of Aristotle, the latter have been classified either as random properties (accidens), the coincidence of which among members of a population has random causes, or as so-called proper characteristics (proprium), their similarity among members of a population is due to some common reasons.

The predicative aspect of describing organisms is associated not only with the assessment of general characteristics. Along with individual characteristics that “change” independently during the transition from one species to another, there are characteristics that form related complexes that change within certain limits as a single whole. Some idea of ​​such complexes is given by the concept of “family resemblance” by Ludwig Wittgenstein (Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein, 1889-1951), which naturally does not exhaust all possible cases.

Wittgenstein (1953) drew attention to the fact that many classes, especially classes of objects that are quite complex in structure, cannot be distinguished (defined) on the basis of any individual general properties. Such properties, inherent to all members of a class without exception, often simply do not exist. There is only what Wittgenstein calls “family resemblance”—“a complex network of similarities, overlapping and intersecting.” Explaining his term, Wittgenstein gives the following example. Members of one family can be characterized and distinguished from other families not on the basis of similarity in some common characteristics, but taking into account the entire set of properties inherent in a person. These include, in particular, facial features, eye color, hair, body composition, gait, temperament, etc. Each of these properties does not have the necessary diagnostic value, since it can characterize members of different families. However, together they form a holistic (typical) characteristic sufficient to distinguish one family from another (Bogomolov, 1973; Gryaznov, 1985).

Typical characteristic in Wittgenstein’s example, it appears in our consciousness purely intuitively, through figurative perception, due to the ability of our cognitive apparatus to “grasp” in the form of a gestalt (a holistic image) the most important elements of the relationship of signs. Type in this particular meaning is an intuitively realized idea of ​​the common basis that connects individual characteristics and can be identified by comparing different types. The perception of the general through the “image” (type) is practically the only classification technique that inspired confidence, which was used by the first taxonomists. As an illustration, let us refer to the opinion of the French botanist Michel Adanson. In the first volume Families Naturelles des Plantes(1763-1764) he characterizes his method as follows (quoted in: Nelson, 1979, p. 19).

“I considered it necessary to abandon the old misconception that predisposed in favor of (artificial) systems... In this intention, I examined each and every part of plants from roots to buds... First I did Full description each plant species, examining each part in detail in a separate article. As I came across new species, relative to those already discussed, I described them, omitting the similarities and noting only the differences. From the general impression received from the consideration of these descriptions, I felt that the plants themselves were naturally placed into classes and families, which could no longer be either artificial or arbitrary, since they were based not on one or a few parts, but on all parts, and the absence of a part (in a given species) was, as it were, replaced and balanced by the addition of another part, which, thus, seemed to restore balance.”

From the analysis of the characteristics used by Adanson, it is clear that he is talking mainly about signs. In his understanding, individual features do not have a stable meaning. They are too variable to be relied upon when constructing classifications. The entire set of properties must be taken into account. Only it has the necessary integrity, which is perceived by “impression”, i.e. through an intuitive awareness of the commonality of the compared plant species. Adanson's method, as an equilibrium method, was criticized by many authors, including his contemporaries, for example, A.-L. Jussier. It is worth saying here that the comparison of related complexes of characters as a classification method is significant only at certain, usually lower taxonomic levels.

Analogues of the principle of family resemblance are the principle of congregation E.S. Smirnov (Smirnov, 1926) and a similar rule put forward by Carnap (Carnap, 1928; Rudolf Carnap, 1891-1970), as well as Beckner’s principle of polytypicity (Beckner, 1959), or the principle of polytheticity (Sneath, 1962).

3.3. Structural characteristics of organisms.

Trying to characterize essence, Mill (1865) wrote: “Essence is self-sufficient; speaking about it, we do not need to put another name in the possessive form when naming it. A stone is not a stone of something; the moon is not the moon of anything, but simply the moon.” In this way, essence, according to Mill, differs from property. What, then, is the material substratum lying behind the essential concepts? Such a substrate, which has independent significance, is the structure of an object, determined through its constructive description. The structure allows a predicative description and in this case can act as an object, i.e. will satisfy Mill's requirement. To this we must add that the difference between a predicative description and a constructive one finds its expression in language. In a predicative description, when characterizing an object, one notes how it differs and in what ways it is similar to other objects. Formally, this description is expressed through predicates of the form: object A has a sign F. When we say that an object is characterized (differs) by the following type of structure, we do not mean the structure of the object itself, but also its predicative characteristic, namely, how it differs from structures of a similar kind. For example: structure A has a structure type F.

3.3.1.Relations as a logical apparatus for constructive description.

When constructively describing the structure of an object, we use relationships, i.e. multiplace predicates F n , where n>1 means the number of elements connected by the relationship. For example, when n=2 we are talking about the interaction of two elements, say a 1 and a 2. This interacting pair, if it shows autonomy, will represent a new object, which we denote by b. It follows that the object b exists due to the fact that on objects a i implemented relation F 2. This also means that the object's own properties b a i, are the result of the implementation of the relation F 2 and, therefore, are given by this relation. This also means that the object's own properties b, if they are not identical to the properties of the elements A, are the result of the implementation of the relation F 2 and, therefore, are given by this relation. The properties of a real object (individual) are largely determined by its design. In other words, objects connected by physical relations form a new object, often characterized new properties, which the original objects do not have (a commonly cited example is table salt, which differs in its properties from both chlorine and sodium).

Relations (interactions) that take place in the physical world should be distinguished from logical relations such as a> b, Where a And b represent numbers. One difference in logical relations is obvious. Their feasibility does not depend on the spatial composition (union) of objects connected by a relationship. If, for example, one person is taller than another, then this relationship will be satisfied regardless of how far these two people are from each other. Interactions in the real world are possible only with a certain proximity of objects. The relationships corresponding to these interactions can be called individual-forming, or constructive. They can be realized only on certain elements and subject to a certain combination of external conditions. Constructive attitude F n , as long as it lies at the base of the object b, more than all other characteristics, describes the essential aspect of a given object (see appendix).

Thus, the constructive aspect of the description is based on two key components - elements and the relationship that links these elements into a whole. In the physical world, the implementation of relationships is an energy-dependent process. Therefore, for a structure to have independent meaning, it must be independently determined as a whole through some more general processes. It cannot be ruled out that the relationship itself F n and objects a i , on which it is feasible, are selected arbitrarily. Phenomenologically, the key criterion for the autonomy of a structure, traditionally used in biology, is its functionality. We, therefore, single out the design of an object as having independent meaning if it is not the result of a random combination of its elements, but arises and develops thanks to natural processes, which, acting on the object, set its own dynamic component in it in the form of various interactions, the specifics of which, among other things, are precisely determined by the design features of the object.

Dynamic characteristics constitute the main content of the constructive description of objects. The study of dynamic aspects presupposes a sufficiently developed scientific foundation. Therefore, in the past, and even now in many cases, the constructive approach had to be reduced to the study of only the structure (morphology) of the object, leaving for later the analysis of the processes unfolding inside the structure. With a complete constructive study of objects, which involves a simultaneous analysis of the structure and processes associated with it, we are talking about a description of what is commonly called the organization of the object.

Descriptions of organisms in terms of their structure have been compiled for a long time. Without going into a detailed analysis of this too complex and diverse topic, we will limit ourselves to some examples. Let's start with the so-called theory of humors, which was related to hereditary diseases.

3.3.2. Humors.

According to ancient ideas, all diseases are associated with disturbances in the natural balance of the structural elements that form the body. In terms of medical description of human nature, the doctrine of the four humors, developed by Hippocrates (460-377 BC) and subsequently improved by the Roman physician Galen (Claudius Galen, 129-201), was very famous. In the teachings of ancient authors, all physical bodies were considered as consisting of primary elements (elements), of which, for example, in the system of Empedocles from Agrientum (490-430 BC) there were four: air, fire, earth and water. Their derivatives in the human body form its liquid environment in the form of special bodily juices - humors. In the human body, air corresponds to blood, water - phlegm (mucus), fire - yellow bile, earth - black bile. Humors determine human nature. U healthy person they are in balance. The normal ratio of humors, which determines health, was called the constitution. An excess of one of the humors is the cause of the corresponding disease. For example, consumption was believed to result from an imbalance in the distribution of phlegm and its excessive accumulation in the lungs. Excess phlegm settles and causes abscesses in the lungs. Ancient doctors, through direct observations, came to understand the key role of tumors in maintaining health. Humors are not only ways of spreading infection, through them the body carries out regulatory functions, maintaining the normal state of the body and ensuring the restoration of the norm in case of all kinds of deviations, including through illness in the recovery process.

Each primary element and, therefore, each humor is characterized by a certain pair of qualities. For blood it is hot moisture, for phlegm it is cold moisture, for yellow bile it is hot dryness, for black bile it is cold dryness. It was believed that all these qualities were influenced in a certain way by the heavenly bodies. For example, the sun generates heat, the moon generates humidity. Therefore, the state of the humors to some extent depends on the position of the luminaries relative to the earth. Another addiction that was given great importance since ancient times, the connection of humors with the food from which they are formed in the human body. Therefore, Hippocrates placed the art of medicine in direct dependence on the art of cooking and proper nutrition. In general, humoralists identified six unnatural factors, with the influence of which on the body they associated most diseases. These are (1) unfavorable climate (air), (2) unhealthy food and drink, (3) inharmonious combination of sleep and wakefulness, (4) exercise and rest, (5) problems with the excretion of what should be eliminated from the body through the skin ( sweat), genitourinary system and intestines, (6) passions. A predisposition to diseases exists, but in reality it can result in a disease only as a result of environmental factors, including as a consequence of an incorrect lifestyle, indulging in bad inclinations and other vices (sins). They are the ones who open the way to illness in the first place.

The doctrine of the four humors underlay the idea of ​​the existence of four temperaments, which correspond to four constitutional types. Excess blood determines sanguine people (from the Latin "sanguis" - blood), excess mucus - phlegmatic people (from the Greek "phlegma" - mucus), excess yellow bile - choleric people (from the Greek "chole" - bile), excess black bile - melancholic (from the Greek “melain chole” - black bile). On the connection between body structure and temperament, see: Kretschmer, 1924 (Ernst Kretschmer, 1888-1964). Kretschmer emphasized that, along with humoral factors (acting mainly through blood chemistry), the nervous system plays a great role in determining temperament.

Humors can be interpreted both as constructive elements and as the material expression of binding relationships. In any case, there is no clear distinction between elements and individual-forming relationships in the humoral models of the organism.

3.3.3. Solidists.

In opposition to the views of humoralists (humorists) were the so-called solidists (solidarists), who considered hard tissues, as determining the architecture of the body, its more important natural component (Meunier, 1926). Famous representatives of this trend in antiquity were supporters of materialistic views Democritus (not exactly 460-360 BC), Leucippus (5th century BC) and Epicurus (341-271 BC). Solidists (from the Latin “solidus” - dense) saw changes in structural elements, i.e. dense areas of the body that determine its structure, the main cause of disease. The existence of humors, often called fluids in solidist concepts of the 16th-18th centuries, was not disputed, but their role was secondary; they form a fluid medium surrounding fibers and other dense structures.

The views of the solidists were systematized by Herman Boerhaave (1668-1738), a Dutch scientist, a luminary in the field of medicine, who had worldwide fame. Burhaw, who considered humoral theories a relic of antiquity, taught in his Aphorisms (Aphorismi de cognoscendis et curandis morbis in usum doctrinae domesticae digesti, 1737) that the human body is composed of dense elements of fibrous composition (fibers), varying in size, ranging from visible to the naked eye to the smallest fibers of microscopic size (fibra minima), which are marginal and do not contain smaller fibers. These smallest fibers are capable of combining into a thin membrane, which can be rolled into a thin tube, representing the second size class of fibers; these in turn form a membrane and tubes of the next size class, etc. Fluids are able to move through the tubes formed in this way (see Frixione, 2004).

Fibers have the ability to undergo force stress, show elasticity and irritability (see Chapter 10). When these qualities are violated, for example, with atony, a disease develops that can be treated with stimulants and tonics. If the disease has solidist roots, then it will be characterized by a local focus of spread. But it follows from this that the effect on the body of the disease will be local. Therefore, the disease or predisposition to it cannot be transmitted from parents to offspring. This point of view was defended, in particular, by the French surgeon and physiologist Antoine Louis (1723-1792) - one of the designers of the guillotine, the “fame” of whose creator went, however, to Guillotin (Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, 1738-1814).

From a constructive point of view, in the solidist understanding of the organism, only the parts (elements) that form the whole are indicated. The idea of ​​a binding condition (relation) is absent in their models of the organism. In the 17th-18th centuries, solidism was supported by a number of major scientists: in addition to Burgaw, the outstanding Dutch chemist and physician Van Helmont (Jean-Baptiste van Helmont, 1579-1644), who became the head of the so-called fermentists, who attached great importance to enzymes in the matter of health, the creator theory of phlogiston by Georg Stahl in Germany, Boergaw's student, the Dutch physician Gerard van Swieten (1700-1772), who wrote comments on Aphorisms his teacher, a pioneer in the field of endocrinology, Bodu (Theophile de Bordeu, 1722-1776) in France, the creator of pathological anatomy of Morgagni (Giovanni Battista Morgagni, 1682-1771) in Italy. There were also those who tried to try on humorism with solidism, for example, the French doctor Philippe Hecquet (1661-1737), known from his books Traité des Dispenses du Carême, 1709 (the most revered book) and De la Digestion et des Maladies de l’Estomac, 1712, or the great German clinician Friedrich Hoffmann (1660-1742). The latter argued that “the heart and the dense moving parts of the body receive the ability to move and contract, strength, tone and elasticity from very small fluids located in the brain, nerves and the blood itself” (quoted in: Meunier, 1926, p. 141) . This point of view was supported by Boergaw, and through him by many biologists, including Lamarck, who saw in the interaction of fluids with undifferentiated fibers the source of structuring of the latter, leading to the formation of organs and their changes.

The Solidists of the 19th century, of whom the English physician Pritchard deserves special mention, were the first to develop new ideas about heredity. Nature (of an organism), in the meaning of constitution, appeared to them as a given relatively independent of external influences. Constitutional abnormalities, often transmitted from parents to children, are the cause of the disease or predisposition to it. Let us refer to the opinion of the famous Scottish physician Cullen (William Cullen, 1710-1790), who wrote “that most hereditary diseases depend not on the pathogenic origin, but on the particular conformation of the body structure transmitted from parents to descendants” (quoted by Lopez-Beltran, 1992, section 3.2.1, see also Rocca, 2007).

3.3.4. Buffon's views.

The views of physicians were largely related to their professional tasks and did not reflect the entire range of opinions. Therefore, to complete the picture, let us consider the views on the nature of the body of the two most influential representatives of scientific thought of the 18th century, Buffon and Linnaeus. Buffon's position is interesting because some of Lamarck's fundamental conclusions are often implicitly connected with it. In his Histoire naturelle Buffon outlined his understanding of the nature of life, the central element of which was the concept of organic molecules. Organic molecules (molécules organiques) form the basis of organisms and exist from eternity along with inorganic molecules. Combining in various combinations, they form an elementary living body. An analogy with a crystal, which grows according to its own rules, selectively including suitable molecules from the external environment and forming structures of a characteristic shape in the final state, will help to understand Buffon’s thought. Like crystals, organic molecules originating from different parts of the body are capable of complexing into organized bodies showing a specific internal form (moule interior). Next, the organized body grows according to the laws moule interior, selecting the necessary organic molecules from food for growth. This is how Buffon describes this process using the example of a plant and an animal (cited from: Lunkevich, 1960, vol. 2, p. 21): “Organic molecules, combining, form one or several small organized bodies, completely similar to that body, part which they now constitute, be it a bulb or an aphid. Once these small organized bodies have taken shape, they only lack the means to develop, and this happens when they get the opportunity to feed: small aphids leave the parent body and look for food on the leaves of plants; The bud separated from the bulb finds food in the soil.” To complete the picture, we will cite another interesting passage from the works of Buffon, as edited by V.V. Lunkevich (ibid., p. 22).

“Every part of the body of an animal or plant separates organic particles which it can no longer use: these particles are absolutely analogous to the part from which they are separated, for they were intended to nourish that particular part; as soon as the molecules separated from the body come together, they must form a small body, similar to the whole body, for each such particle is similar to the part from which it was sent; This is precisely how reproduction occurs in all organisms such as trees, grasses, polyps, aphids, etc., where one individual reproduces its own kind; Nature uses the same means for the reproduction of animals, which, in order to reproduce, need to be united with another individual, for the seminal fluids of both sexes contain all the molecules necessary for the reproduction of offspring; however, it is necessary something else for playback to actually happen - you need to mix these two liquids in place, suitable for the development of what should be the result, and such a place is the female’s uterus” (emphasized by V.V. Lunkevich). Thoughts are presented extremely clearly and intelligibly. And, apparently, this was one of the main reasons that made Buffon’s works the most widely read at that time.

Diverting from the topic of this chapter, let us note the following three points. Buffon adhered to the double seed hypothesis (dual seed theories, according to Boylan, 1984; double semen, double semence of other authors, see: Lopez-Beltran, 1992), which asserted the presence of seed in a woman (see more details and history of the issue in : Gaisinovich, 1988). Buffon sets forth one of the versions of the concept of representative particles, which was later independently considered by Charles Darwin (1941) in his theory of pangenesis. Organic molecules exist initially along with inorganic ones, i.e. can form under suitable conditions. It follows that, under certain conditions, they are capable of complexing into organized bodies, giving rise to the simplest living organisms. Buffon's theory of life thus lies at the basis of Lamarck's thesis about the possibility of multiple occurrences of life on Earth (see Chapter 4).

In the passages quoted, it is important for us to highlight Buffon's next thought. The nature of organized bodies (or organisms) is determined by the nature of organic molecules, but the composition of the latter depends on the father and mother. Moreover, organic molecules have an affinity, due to which they can differentially combine into different complexes. This is not the final answer yet. Elsewhere, Buffon says (quoted from: Lunkevich, 1960, vol. 2, p. 24): “In each species there is a common prototype ( prototype general) according to which each individual is formed." V.V. Lunkevich suggested that this prototype general answers moule interior. In fact, these concepts describe two different aspects of the body. A prototype is a typological (essentialist in the sense of Popper, 1992 and Mayr, 1971) description of an object through its inherent are common signs and properties, while moule interior is a constructive characteristic of an object associated only with it alone (see section 3.3.1.). Our famous historian of science, Ivan Ivanovich Kanaev (1893-1984), suggested that “the idea of ​​an “internal form” can, of course, not without obvious stretching, be interpreted as a guess about the genotype in modern meaning this word..." (1966, p. 97). The idea of ​​a matrix form of reproduction could hardly have been the property of those times, even in the form of the most general guess. But the idea of ​​connection, relationship, interaction has been understandable since ancient times. This is why the interpretation moule interior in this vein is quite natural.

Now we can clarify our conclusion: the nature of organized bodies is determined by the nature of organic molecules, but the composition of the latter in the part that represents the genus-specific characteristics of the organism was laid down at the emergence of the species, all other organic molecules representing intraspecific characteristics depend on the father and mother. Organic molecules are formed into an organized body with the help of moule interior– some analogue of an individual-forming relationship. Thus, the first level of complexity forms different complexes of organic molecules showing affinity. The second level of difficulty is determined moule interior, which determines the architecture and “life” of complexes of the first level of complexity within the whole. The nature of an organism as something stable is expressed through genus-species characteristics and their corresponding determinants, if we consider it necessary to talk about them. There is still little actual evidence of the existence of such determinants.

3.3.5. Linnaeus' views.

Linnaeus, as is known, developed an original system of plants by sex, which was based on a comparison of plants based on the leading structural elements of the flower, stamens and pistils. In taxonomy before Linnaeus, in his time and after him, the main classification techniques were the search for common distinguishing features and their assessment for congruence (confirmation of taxonomic conclusions by as many independent features as possible - see Patterson, 1982; Pavlinov, 2005). In the Linnaean system of sex, it is not the characters as such that are considered, but the complex “construction” that forms the flower. Of course, a flower can also be used as a private characteristic with which a certain group of plants will be correlated. But Linnaeus is not interested in this purely intensional aspect of consideration. He pays attention to the flower as constructive whole, which is characterized by a certain type of structure. As a result, Linnaeus places emphasis differently.

The importance of the structure of a flower is not its constancy (commonality). For a flower as a constructive whole, the characteristics of its transformations will be much more important, i.e. changes in the structure of a flower when moving from one group of plants to another. And since the flower is associated with the function of reproduction, through it we can find evidence constructive unity flora. And Linnaeus looks for a flower in spore plants and, not finding it, considers these plants to be secretogamous, having flowers that are simply not visible to the naked eye. Linnaeus goes further and tries to find constructive parallels in the processes of reproduction in animals and plants (see Baranov, 1955).

That Linnaeus was talking specifically about a constructive understanding of the flower is evidenced by Linnaeus’ attempts to draw analogies in the structural organization of the flower and the stem. Linnaeus in the monograph Metamorphosis plantarum(1755) derives the structural elements of the flower from the elements of the stem as follows (see Serebryakov, 1952): the calyx is the metamorphosed bark, the corolla is the metamorphosed phloem, the stamens correspond to the wood, the pistil is the pith. This is also evidenced by Linnaeus’ efforts to correctly decompose the structure of the flower into parts, i.e. to reconstruct what would later be called an archetype. The accepted selection of the main parts may be erroneous, which Linnaeus sees among botanists who classify plants according to differences in the structure of the calyx or corolla.

The constructive point of view in understanding the flower is close to that of Aristotle. For Aristotle You can know an object only by understanding how it works. Aristotle explains this idea with paradigmatic examples. Let's take a house for example. To build a house, you need to connect its constituent elements and parts in a certain way, for example, logs, boards and bricks. Therefore, constructive connections (connections that determine the structure and organization of an object) are an essential characteristic of a house, its essence. These structural connections determine the shape of the house. Therefore, shape is also an essential characteristic of a house. Similarly, from a constructive point of view, you can consider a flower. But there is one fundamental difference here, which Aristotle was also aware of. The idea of ​​a house, including its functional purpose, is in the head of the architect building the house. Therefore, Aristotle says that a house, like any artificial objects, does not have its own essence. On the contrary, the plant has its own essence. The “design” of a plant, including a flower, “is” in the plant itself (see appendix).

It is important to emphasize one more fundamental point. A common feature is an idea already formalized in our language about some property of reality. It has entered the dictionary and rarely changes further. On the contrary, the idea of ​​the structure of a rather complex object, such as an organism, is the result of scientific study. Therefore, the concept of the structure of the same flower, in contrast to the concept of a tree or berry-bearing plants, can and should change with the growth of our knowledge about the flower. Moreover, it will change both extensionally and intensionally. The flower did not arise out of nowhere; it has its own natural pre-flowering history. Let us recall that Linnaeus persistently searched and did not find a flower in the secretagogues at the morphological level available at that time. But if we move on to the genetic characteristics of the flower, in particular to the analysis of the homeobox MAD S-genes that determine the structure of the flower, then we will be able to trace the stages of flower formation at the genetic level. Different MADS-box genes determine the specificity of the floral meristem, the differential rate of cell reproduction, the structure of flower elements, male fertility and a number of other processes; there are genes that support flower architecture (for more details, see Shatalkin, 2007).

Linnaeus’s constructive view of the plant can be seen in his picture of the creation of plant diversity. IN Genera plantarum(1763) he explains it as follows (quoted from V.L. Komarov: Note 16, p. 306 in the book: Lamarck, 1935):

1. Creator first supplied the medullary plant being with the constitutive principles of a diverse cortical being, as a result of which as many different individuals arose as there are natural orders.

2. These class plants Omnipotent mixed with each other, as a result of which as many genera arose within the orders as there were plants from them.

3. These generic plants are mixed nature, which is why so many species of the same genus arose as there are now.

4. These types mixed happening, which is why as many varieties arise as are usually found.

Let us note that here Linnaeus clearly distinguishes random from non-random characteristics, the latter being determined by the Creator and Nature. Random characteristics determine intraspecific diversity.

3.4. Lamarck's point of view in understanding the nature of the organism

Let us now move on to an analysis of Lamarck's views. When considering nature, Lamarck, as was said, focused mainly on considering its role in establishing the “order of things.” Nature, in essence, is the order of things. This order is expressed through natural relations, the analysis of which is given in the second chapter of the Philosophy of Zoology. Lamarck (1935, p. 47) wrote: “The study natural relationships eliminates any voluntary action on our part... it points to the law of nature... it finally prevents them (naturalists - A.Sh.) deviate from the order of nature in which the emergence of bodies took place.” Lamarck perceived nature as a powerful evolutionary factor. This factor can manifest itself only through organisms. This is where Lamarck's confidence in the creative activity of the organism stems.

3.4.1. Manifestations of nature and taxonomic appearance.

As a taxonomist, Lamarck saw the manifestations of nature in the natural order of things, and every time he tried to focus on this. Here his point of view echoes the Aristotelian concept of essence. In his article "View", published in 1817 in the tenth volume of the second edition of Deterville's New Dictionary of Natural History ( Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, Deterville, 1816-1819: Espece, p. 441-451), Lamarck (1959, p. 301) defines the species as follows: “This name is usually given to any collection of existing similar individuals of the same (emphasis added, A.Sh), although we can observe only some of these individuals, we are never able to observe the whole aggregate of them at the same time.” Here he once again characterizes nature (p. 304): “Created and always effective order of things, in question, consists of movement, the source of which is inexhaustible, from laws different orders governing all kinds of movement of all kinds, from time And space, which have no limits, but can still be divided into measurable segments, as far as completed actions or their results are concerned. All this is what we call nature"(emphasis added).

Nature, as follows from the above formulations, manifests itself in the form; those. a species includes organisms that are similar in nature. Let's compare it with the Aristotelian understanding of species (Shatalkin, 1993, 1996). According to Aristotle, essence is inherent only in individual (specific) objects, but constitutes their specific feature, i.e. characterizes the largest (species) collection of objects that differ in essence from other similar collections of objects (see appendix). Lamarck's species reflect the essential qualities of organisms. Hence his call (Lamarck, 1959, p. 312): “The types of living bodies are the immediate and most important object of study. Genera, families, orders and even classes are nothing more than useful means that facilitate the knowledge of living bodies.”

It must be emphasized that Lamarck’s views on the problem of the ontological status of species and supraspecific taxa did not remain unchanged. In an earlier article under the same title "View", published in 1786 in the second volume Encyclopédie mehodique, Botanique(Russian translation - Lamarck, 1955, p. 779), Lamarck defines a species as follows: “... a species must consist of a collection of similar individuals that remain the same during reproduction. I mean similar to each other in respect of the main characters of the species, since the individuals belonging to this species often show accidental differences that determine the existence of varieties, and in some cases represent sexual differences ... ". This definition is interesting in that the second criterion of a species, along with the morphological one, is the ability of individuals to interbreed. According to the definition, a species is a really existing group, while “special groups of species, to which we have given the names of genera, families, orders and classes, are completely artificial divisions...” (ibid.). Later, Lamarck began to consider species as artificial divisions invented by man for the sake of convenience and clarity of viewing the existing diversity of organisms. Read in Philosophies of zoology(Lamarck, 1955, pp. 205-206): “It can also be argued that in reality nature did not create among its products either classes, orders, families, genera, or permanent species, but only individuals successively replacing each other and similar to those who produced them.” In a sense, Lamarck was right. Nature if you use it modern concepts, created only phyletic lines. Their time section, it would seem, can give us a picture of the distribution of groups according to the degree of similarity. But, as the history of the development of numeric taxonomy and other quantitative approximations has shown, there were too many different methods for determining similarity to hope for obtaining consistent results. But this is only evidence that we do not have objective methods for distinguishing taxa within the framework of horizontal classifications (in the understanding of Simpson (2005) and, therefore, these classifications themselves are only a creation of the mind. It must be admitted that Lamarck as a taxonomist was far ahead of his contemporaries. From him there is a direct road to Simpson and Hennig, who came up with their reforms of systematics in the form of evolutionary and phylogenetic approximations, respectively, one hundred and fifty years after Lamarck. We will return to this topic in Chapter 4.

With all this, it should be recognized that Lamarck attached decisive importance to external law-forming factors of Nature, as well as external conditions (in Lamarck, circumstances - circonstances). With regard to these circonstances, Lamarck was not particularly different from the greatest biological thinkers of the 18th century, who recognized the great influence of the environment on the constitution and structure. On the contrary, in the 19th century the leading role was given to internal factors, which subsequently formed the conceptual core of the definition of heredity.

But at the same time, Lamarck spoke about the importance of studying the internal structure of the body, i.e. on the study of organisms from a constructive point of view (p. 48): “In a serious study of relationships, one cannot limit oneself to one comparison of classes, families, and even species; such a study must also cover the constituent elements of individuals, and then, based on the comparison of homogeneous parts, it will open the right path to establishing either the identity of individuals of the same breed, or the differences characteristic of different breeds.” Here we are talking about purely taxonomic aspects of the study of relationships. But already on the next page Lamarck raises the question of searching for the main relationships and, consequently, the main organizational parts distinguished within the organism. Nature is thus expressed not only in the order of things (in the Natural System), but also in the order of the parts within the organism.

According to Lamarck (1935, p. 49), “The most important parts in which we should look for the main relations, are: in animals the parts necessary to preserve their life, and in plants - for their reproduction.” Here the famous Linnaean aphorism immediately comes to mind: the essence of a plant is in fruiting, i.e., as Linnaeus explains (1989, pp. 88, p. 58), in flower and fruit. Consequently, according to Linnaeus, the whole life of a plant is concentrated around the flower and fruit. We, of course, first of all, should be interested in the general biological meaning of Linnaeus’s statements, and less in the very fact of Lamarck’s acceptance of Linnaeus’ point of view. Essence for Linnaeus was an expression of the structural features of the plant. And this was a revolutionary departure from the representation of essence through genus-species relations, which systematics inherited from scholasticism. But also in Lamarck we find characteristics of a constructive plan. Discussing the nature of organic function, Lamarck (1955, p. 616) wrote: “... functions are always determined by the relations between the parts... and the fluids they contain, on the one hand, and those movements which result from these relations, on the other.”

Overall in Philosophies of zoology Lamarck bypassed the problem of the structural component of the body. He, however, paid a lot of attention to its relational component and, in particular, examined in detail the phenomenon of life. Life is an essential characteristic of the organism as a constructive whole; therefore, the nature of the organism must be fully manifested in it. In addition, from a broader perspective, Lamarck outlined his point of view on the nature of objects in physical and chemical works. In them, he discussed this problem as a natural philosopher, putting forward his understanding of how matter works. First, we will consider Lamarck's physicochemical views, and then we will touch on his ideas about the essence of life.

3.4.2. Lamarckian principles of the structure of matter.

As we said in section 1.3, Lamarck was especially interested in this problem and he actively studied it in the last decade of the 18th century, even entering into polemics with Lavoisier’s students. But, being occupied with a new field of study of invertebrates, he first postponed and then completely abandoned his early physicochemical hobbies. We consider this a good thing. The time of natural philosophical treatises has passed. And it was necessary to choose whether to become an experienced zoologist or an experienced (conducting experiments) chemist.

In the 90s of the 18th century, Lamarck published four physical and chemical works. The earliest of them is a two-volume Research on the causes of major physical phenomena and, in particular, the causes of combustion (Recherches sur les causes des principaux faits physiques, et particulièrement sur celles de la combustion, Paris: Maradan, 1794), published in the year of Lavoisier’s execution, was written 18 years earlier. In this and the next essay( Réfutation de la théorie pneumatique), published two years later, Lamarck criticized Lavoisier's new chemistry based on his own developments on the subject.

Here we will focus on his third work (Lamarck, 1797), in which his views on the structure of inorganic substances are most fully presented. We emphasize that we give our vision of Lamarck’s theory, which interests us not in itself, but as the key to understanding Lamarck’s views on the nature of objects, including the nature of organisms.

At the very beginning of his work, Lamarck considers the following principles ( principles), determining the existence and specificity of compounds (in total it has nine principles, which we reduce to six): (1) from which simple substances ( matieres simples) a compound is formed (composis) and (2) what constitutes its essence ( l'essence); (3) what are the common causes ( causes generales) that diversify existing connections? (4) what happens to a compound that undergoes a chemical reaction? (5) are there any principles(principles) or other pre-existing ones (préxistans) connections, which are included or excluded from compounds undergoing a chemical reaction? (6) can natural closeness(l’affinite), manifested in the nature of certain substances, to be a special (particuliere) force that forces these substances to combine; or does it only represent inclination(aptitude), which only allows and facilitates their combination.

In terms of explaining the first point, Lamarck speaks of elementary molecules ( molecule element), components of a simple substance (for example, rock crystal). Elementary molecules are indivisible and impenetrable. Lamarck does not further define the elementary molecule, indicating that this is not the subject of this treatise. But they can apparently be related to atoms, since they form a simple substance, from which compounds in turn are formed. Here is what Lamarck says about this (paragraph 28): “There are indeed certain elementary principles in nature, that is, certain types of simple substances, including indestructible, indivisible and impenetrable molecules, which, when combined with the molecules of other equally simple substances, can form essential molecules of various compounds that we know or can learn about.

Next, Lamarck introduces the concept of an essential molecule: “I call the essential molecule of a compound ( molecule essence), what other physicists call an integral molecule( molecule integrante). It is the smallest molecule, the size of which cannot be reduced without altering the nature of that substance” (p. 9, paragraph 3)... An essential molecule... is determined by the combination of a certain number of unitary principles existing together in certain proportions. So long as this molecule retains its nature, number, proportion, and distribution of the principles composing it, it remains of necessity the same” (paragraph 4).

Some authors (see, for example, Puzanov, 1947, pp. 11-12) suggested that Lamarckian principles reflect in a non-strict form the idea of ​​multiple relations, formulated in the form of a strict law by the English chemist and physician John Dalton (John Dalton, 1766-1844).

There are grounds for such conclusions. It is important to remember, however, that Lamarck built a speculative theory of Substance, and his principles are a fairly broad conceptual category, encompassing not only substance, but also relationships. In the same paragraph 28, regarding the above-mentioned principles in the meaning of simple substances (matieres simples), Lamarck notes: “But what are these principles, or simple substances, and what is their number in nature? “I will refrain from answering these two questions.” Therefore, we will refrain from commenting on this matter.

Judging by the examples presented, Lamarck's essential molecule corresponds not only to chemical elements such as sulfur and metals, but also to stones, chalk, and gypsum. In paragraph 30 (erroneously given in the original as paragraph 39), Lamarck unambiguously says that the essential molecule is formed from elementary molecules, which, combining in different proportions, determine the nature (natural qualities) of the former. Again, one should not relate elementary molecules to chemical elements. According to Lamarck, they number in the thousands, while Lavoisier, who wrote in his time, spoke of only 23 chemical elements.

Now regarding the principles. Lamarck discusses how many essential molecules there will be if they are formed according to two, three, four, etc. principles. The number and combination of principles or elementary molecules determine the variety of essential molecules available. In paragraph 31 Lamarck summarizes his point.

31. So now there is no doubt

1 °. That nature uses several kinds of principles or simple substances (matieres simples).

2°. That the essential molecule of any compound must be formed either by two, or three, or four, or perhaps more than four principles, combining together, and determining in that state the nature of the molecule.

3°. That the proportion of principles contained in each essential molecule, differing in the number of these principles and in their proportion, … makes it possible for a huge number of different compounds to exist, which observation confirms daily.

So, according to Lamarck, chemical objects consist of elements (principles) that determine their structure (p. 167). This enables him to speak “about the principles of platinum, gold, copper, zinc, the principles of diamond, most of the stony substances; finally, about the principles of flammable substances and substances that are immiscible in water, about the principles of all salty substances” (and. 39).

Along with elementary molecules, among the structuring principles Lamarck considers the “elements” of the ancients - earth (which gives the substance a glassy ( vitreuse) consistency), water (giving the substance an aqueous state), air (airy state), fire (flame) and light (p. 42). They can be correlated with the relationships (in modern terms) that determine the “behavior” of elementary molecules in a compound. How these principles operate can be understood from the example considered by Lamarck of “caloric (caloric) fire, which, when applied to a body, immediately penetrates its substance, first pushing apart aggregates of molecules, and then penetrating between their constituent elements, gradually worsening the connection of the latter between oneself and the ability to resist this (the ability to regulate)” (i. 48).

It is important to emphasize that even if these elements have a material nature in the form of some elements, then the latter are of a different order and cannot be compared with the elements of the compounds within which they operate. In other words, these elements do not designate chemical substances, they describe the nature of the interaction of the latter (chemical substances). Guided by this idea, Lamarck actively opposed the attempts of physicists and chemists to consider the elements as matter.

“Meanwhile,” said Lamarck (p. 140), “physicists, seeking explanations for numerous and infinitely varying phenomena, the existence of which is determined by circumstances, and not wanting to find out the true reasons for the diversity of phenomena... were forced to create, so to speak, in the imagination, as many special substances as they recognized the main changes in matter. From here the following special substances (matieres particulieres) were established,

phlogiston (phlogistique),

the principle of acidity (acidum pingue),

principle of flammability (du principe inflammable),

oxygen

etc. etc.,

which in fact are imaginary substances (matieres imaginaries), differing only in this from fire (feu) and existing thanks to hypotheses...". Lamarck repeats this conclusion in paragraph 168 (see section 1.3). Lamarck's original position is certainly correct. It is impossible to assign substantiality to the various manifestations of matter, i.e. see the material elements behind these manifestations. But at the same time Lamarck went to the other extreme. Phlogiston, acidity, and heat are for him only functional states of substances (relations, but not elements). Among the same functional states of matter, he, however, included the manifestations of true chemical elements, in particular all gases known at that time (such as nitrogen, hydrogen, oxygen) and carbon. "Oxygen (oxigen) pneumatic chemists - said Lamarck (I. 175 (4)) - is an abstract concept; it exists only in the imagination of those who invented it or who allow its existence...”

Lamarck can be recognized as the first relationist who came up with the idea of ​​the key role of relations in the processes of structuring of matter a hundred years before this idea of ​​the ontological primacy of relations (as the antithesis of the predicative definition of objects) became widespread and developed in the works of Heinrich Rickert (Heinrich Rickert, 1863- 1936), Ernst Cassirer (1874-1945), Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970) and others. The subject of their consideration were objects of physics, which they tried to describe exclusively in the concept of relation. Lamarck, as a biologist, did not exclude the predicative aspect from the analysis. Relational (constructive) and predicative descriptions are two inextricably linked characteristics of an object.

Lamarck assessed gases by analogy with phlogiston and heat as special states of matter resulting from the interaction of compounds with fire. In paragraph 183 he expressed this idea as follows: “Connections in which fixed fire presented in the form acidifique, are found in nature in three states: or dense; such as concrete salts, chalk lime, certain metal oxides, etc.,

or liquid; such as alkalis, acids, honey, etc..

or gas; such as fluoride(fluorique) gas, sulfur

(sulphureux) gas, nitrogenous gas, hydrochloric acid (muriatique) gas, methane (méphitique) gas, foggy (brumeux) gas, etc.".

Of all the elements, fire occupies a special place in Lamarck's views. Fire is one of the constitutive elements (elemens constitutifs) of objects (p. 162) and we need to understand how this is specifically expressed. First of all, Lamarck pointed out, the concept of fire describes real phenomena, as evidenced by the burn received from accidental contact with a flame. Fire, however, can exist in other states; There are a total of five forms of fire: feu fixé, feu carbonique, feu acidifique, feu calorique, feu éthéré. We talked about them in section 1.3 in connection with the problem of phlogiston. The key role is played by etheric fire, which represents the natural state of fire, existing independently of natural bodies. “... I gave fire, considered in its natural state, the name ethereal ( étheré) fire. This is how I characterize this substance” (n. 145).

"Ethereal ( étheré) fire (item 146) - is simple matter, a fluid in its essence, elastic, capable of being strongly compressed from a state of extreme rarefaction, invisible and imperceptible to our senses, free, tranquil, cold in its nature, and having the ability to easily permeate the masses of all bodies." Initially, Lamarck associated etheric fire with sound phenomena (p. 145). “Besides the fact that etheric fire, as it seems to me, is inherent in the matter of sound, I have suspicions that with its stronger modifications, it apparently amounts to:

1. Electric fluid.

2. Magnetic fluid" (p. 159).

Lamarck's opinion about the connection of ethereal fire with sound stems from the obvious sound phenomena accompanying strong fire (see i. 205) and associated with the fact that (i. 252) “air expands with sound when in contact with flame.” According to Lamarck, combustion is the transition of caloric fire into etheric fire: "calorie fire expands to be restored in the form of etheric fire” (pi. 212, 218; see also i. 251). The reverse process also takes place. “The friction of solids, and the disorder (chocs) multiplied by the particles of light, have the ability to compress the ubiquitous etheric fire and turn it into a caloric one” (and. 217).

Other forms of fire determine the specificity of substances and their changes during the transition from one state of fire to another.

In bodies, fire is in a condensed state in an inactive (feu fixé) or active form; when released from bodies, it begins to expand and in its natural existence (in the form of feu éthéré) remains in an extremely rarefied state (n. 56). In its active state, fixed fire (feu fixé) manifests itself in two extremes - the more condensed carbonic fire (feu carbonique) and the less condensed acid fire (feu acidifique). The nature of substances and their properties will depend on the ratio of these two forms of fire. Caloric (feu calorique) plays an important role in activating carbon fire. “The caloric fire, directed at the essential molecules of the compounds, penetrates the latter, destroys their connection (compatibility) with the fixed fire, which is released in the form carbon fire and burns these compounds” (paragraph 169). In other words, under the action of caloric fire, feu fixé is transformed into the active form feu fixé carbonique (item 235; see also item 169), this fire in turn begins to be released from the compound, turning into caloric fire(p. 236), which enters again into the substance, accelerating combustion (p. 239).

In a large group of substances, acid fire (feu acidifique) predominates: “I call feu fixé acidifique, or simply feu acidifique, such fire, which is an integral part of incomplete compounds, that is, compounds characterized by a weak combination of [constructive] principles, their incompleteness, ... and the compounds themselves have an increased tendency to decompose” (para. 239). Or elsewhere (n. 180): “acid fire is a form of fixed fire, which is less closely united in bodies than carbon fire, is less burdened (enchaine) with connections and compatibility.”

It seems that Lamarck is talking here about the principles of organization of the outer electron shell of elements, which in these substances (many non-metals) is incomplete and in which electrons, for greater stability, need additional bonds with third-party electrons, which are attracted when forming a chemical bond, for example in aqueous solutions during the formation of hydrates.

Caloric fire is associated with light, which can be judged by the different degrees of heating of the ball when exposed to sunlight at noon and in the evening; in the second case, the rays of the sun have to overcome a large thickness of the atmosphere (item 229).

Now we can more accurately formulate Lamarck’s ideas about matter. Matter consists of elements that Lamarck does not consider further. Combining in various combinations, these elements determine the characteristic features of essential molecules. This already introduces in an implicit form the idea of ​​an individual-forming relationship connecting sets of elements that differ in the number of the latter and their specific combination. But Lamarck goes further, trying to characterize these relationships in the concept of elements.

Another important question that occupied Lamarck was related to the sources of development. These sources must be the same for all of Nature, including humans. According to Lamarck, such a source of development is the ethereal (étheré) fire. Essential molecules, and with them all objects of the world, reside in a stream of etheric fire, which, penetrating matter, is capable of transforming into other specific forms of fire, in particular, into fixed fire, as well as into caloric fire, i.e. into the warmth. It is not entirely clear in what relation fixed fire and heat stand to each other. Cuvier, in a memorable speech dedicated to Lamarck, delivered on November 26, 1832, but published 150 years later (Cuvier, 1984), interpreted Lamarckian heat as a transitional state associated with the expansion of a fixed fire as it is released from bodies. Our interpretation, as can be seen, gives a more complex picture of the relationships between the different forms of fire.

Thus, according to Lamarck, external ethereal fire, penetrating matter, is transformed in it into other forms of fire, which can be considered as proper for a given type of body. These largely unclear ideas about the nature of bodies can now be correlated with some provisions of the physical theory of fields. External field flows are transformed in the body into fields specific to it, which in the history of the development of biology were expressed in such concepts, not always materialistic, as vital force, formative force (Blumenbach, Shaldrake, 1981), vital impulse (Bergson, 1914), biological ( embryonic, cellular) field (Gurvich, 1944) and a number of others (see Khaitun, 2005).

Lamarck's schematic representation of the structure of an object is shown in Fig. 3.1.

3.4.3. Lamarck's view of the essence of life.

Organisms are living bodies, and the state of life radically distinguishes objects of organic nature from inorganic bodies. At the same time, Lamarck said in Analytical review of knowledge(1959, p. 608) - “... life resembles to some extent nature - in that it is not a being at all, but an order of things, also possessing abilities, and by necessity exercising them until this order is maintained." In other words, there are laws that determine life itself, and this gives grounds to talk about the nature of organisms, which can be understood and explained through finding the corresponding laws of life.

Rice. 3.1. Lamarck's idea of ​​the structure of an object. Etheric fire, penetrating matter, passes into other forms of fire; the specificity of the latter is determined by the nature and ratio of the elements that make up the molecules, as well as the combination of the molecules themselves; in complex bodies, such as an organism, various forms of fire, when combined, are organized into fluids.

IN Philosophies of zoology Lamarck examined in detail the phenomenon of life from the predicative and constructive sides. Predicatively, Lamarck (1935, p. 84; see also 1955, p. 250) distinguished living bodies by their “capacity to nourish, develop, reproduce and by their doom to inevitable death.” From a constructive point of view, Lamarck (1955, p. 469) “expressed the essence of what amounts to life, in the following definition. Life in the parts of the body that possesses it is nothing more than the order and state of things that organic movements make possible in it; and these movements, which constitute active life, are the result of the action of the cause that causes and excites them.” Active life, Lamarck contrasted it with a passive state, the possibility of which in his time was written by Spallanzani, who managed to revive rotifers after repeatedly drying them.

In this definition, Lamarck emphasized two interdependent aspects of life - organic movement, which is possible only if a special state and a special order of the parts of the body are observed. Another factor is the need for an external push to make life spin, i.e. from passive to active. Logically, life, in Lamarck’s understanding, corresponds to a relationship in the broad sense of the word. Therefore, Lamarck (1959, p. 419) says that “life is by no means a special essence, nor a particular property of any type of matter, nor, even more so, a property inherent in any part of the body,” i.e. Lamarck takes a constructive point of view here.

Georges Cuvier La Regne animal(1817, p. 7) proposed a dynamic definition of life, in which he compared it to “a vortex, sometimes faster, sometimes slower, more complex or less complex, carrying identical molecules in the same direction. But every single molecule enters and leaves it, and this continues continuously, so that the form of living matter is more essential than the material... While this movement lasts, the body is alive... After death, the elements, its [body] components, are left to ordinary chemical means , quickly separate, as a result of which the body, once alive, decomposes. This means that the life flow prevented decomposition and kept the elements of the body in unity” (cited from Beklemishev, 1964, p. 22). “Life for Cuvier,” explains V.N. Beklemishev (p. 23), there is a morphoprocess; the essence of life is a form that lasts in the flow of exchange.” Or another metaphor (p. 22): “the shape of it [a living organism] is like the shape of a flame.” Cuvier's definition is close in meaning to how Lamarck characterized life. But for Lamarck, life is not just movement, but movement determined by the order and state of things, i.e. internal reasons. Cuvier did not highlight this point. Finally, Lamarck clarified and expanded his definition by formulating seven more signs of life. We will consider them in the edition given by Lamarck in (Lamarck, 1959). Since in this work Lamarck did not give a separate definition of life, he brought the number of signs characterizing it to ten.

1. Living bodies have “specific individuality, expressed in the nature of the combination, arrangement and state of various constituent molecules” (1959, p. 421). This “individuality is not reducible to the individuality of its constituent molecules” (1955, p. 453). In short, if we add water to water, we will still have water. But if we increase the number of organic molecules, we will get a new quality. The living body is a multi-level system. Structurally, it is determined by the composition and ordering of molecules (structural aspect) and their state (functional aspect).

2. Living bodies consist “of parts of two kinds: dense, but malleable and capable of containing fluids, and liquid – capable of serving as their contents.” IN Philosophies of zoology Lamarck (1955, p. 529) is more categorical: “... a necessary condition for the existence of life in a body is that the body must consist of parts... and of the fluids contained in them and capable of moving there.” This is an important characteristic of organisms, since many processes are possible only along the border of two environments. We will refer to this characteristic repeatedly. We also note that in solutions of hydrophilic colloids, the process of stratification, or exfoliation, is common, when the solution is divided into “a layer rich in colloidal substances and a liquid separated from it by a clearly defined boundary, almost free of colloids” (Oparin, 1957, p. 278).

3. “Internal, so-called life movements... necessary for the development of these bodies” (1959, p. 422). Life manifests itself in movement and without movement it is impossible. This is a very important point, according to it life can be characterized in terms of work, which we will talk about in section 3.7).

4. “The order and state of things, which, as long as they are preserved in parts, make life movements possible, and their fulfillment constitutes the phenomenon of life...”. Here it is important to pay attention to that aspect of life that is characterized through its internal state. This state can change, as discussed in the next paragraph.

5. “Losses and restorations, however, do not completely balance each other, as a result of which a successive series of changes in state occur in any body endowed with life, and this entails for each individual a transition from youth to old age and, in the future, its destruction...” We are obviously talking about the processes of assimilation and dissimilation. Internal state, autonomously changing depending on the predominance of first the processes of assimilation over dissimilation, then vice versa, distinguishes living systems from nonliving ones. In relation to the assessment of these conditions, they talk about the imbalance of metabolic processes as the most important characteristic of life. To maintain the system in a non-equilibrium state, constant energy supply is necessary. Bauer (1935) noted that in non-living nonequilibrium systems, energy sources can only be external. Living systems have their own energy sources to maintain metabolism. In our opinion, Lamarck was more accurate. According to him, life is possible only due to external energy sources, but the body converts external energy into the form it needs, making the energy source internal.

6. Life is determined by “needs, the satisfaction of which is necessary for self-preservation,” needs “force living bodies to assimilate foreign substances that serve for their nutrition, modified by them and converted into the substance of their own body.” This is a very important phenomenological characteristic. Needs and the possibility of satisfying them presuppose the presence of activity in organisms, which is often manifested in behavior in the broad sense of the word. Needs, when their satisfaction becomes problematic, act as an expression of internal imbalance, a violation of homeostasis. Therefore, they are an important element in the system of regulation of vital functions. Compensatory reactions associated with needs are often expressed in changes in the activity of the body. Now science has entered a new stage in the study of life activity.

The next two features concern such important characteristics of life as (7) development and (8) a specific method of reproduction. They are well known and do not need comments.

9. Abilities inherent only to living bodies. Abilities obviously must be considered in conjunction with needs (point 6). Few people paid attention to these two features of living bodies. Living bodies, according to Lamarck, differ from inanimate objects in that they have needs. These needs are satisfied through the active activity of the body, determined by its abilities. New needs may arise as a result of environmental changes. The corresponding abilities must adapt to these new needs, and therefore must change accordingly. This is where the specificity of life manifests itself, actively responding to the action of the environment and changing itself in order to adequately respond to external challenges. Inanimate objects react passively to the action of the environment.

The abilities of organisms are expressed in their activities, aimed at actively resisting external influences. The set of various responses possible within the framework of a given ability of the body to satisfy certain needs is usually referred to as the sphere of behavior. Consequently, life, among other things, manifests itself in behavior. Behavior is based on the ability of organisms to remember previously encountered life situations and use memory about past events to correct responses to current environmental changes. Consequently, we come to the question of the material nature of memory.

10. "famous" duration limit existence of individuals”, associated with the laws of the flow of life. The last feature is extremely important, which was once emphasized by Erwin Simonovich Bauer (Erwin Bauer, 1890-1937). A chemical substance, for example water, exists indefinitely, changing from one state to another depending on the prevailing conditions. On the contrary, a living body, even if optimal conditions are maintained, has a finite lifespan, defined for each species. “A living system acquires the ability for permanent existence only through reproduction” (Bauer, 1935, p. 117).

From these characteristics, Lamarck draws a number of consequences, of which we mention the following (Lamarck, 1959, p. 63; these consequences (there are nine in total) are numbered; we additionally use letters to distinguish the numbering of signs of life and the consequences arising from them): (a [ 1 ]) the presence of a stimulating cause capable of exciting the phenomenon of life; (b) living bodies “consist primarily of cellular tissue”; (c) “living bodies form the substance of their own body with the help of foreign substances, which they capture and absorb, then process, assimilate and assimilate, increasing, if possible, parts of their body and restoring more or less completely their losses. These are their basic needs”; (d) “All parts of the body... are in a constant state of change... changes... lead to the fact that the dense parts [of bodies] are constantly, although imperceptibly, restored, and in their main fluid elements appear suitable for the formation of various special substances, from of which the useful are secreted and used by the body, while others - the useless - are excreted out in the form of various secretions"; (e) “...life,...more and more favorable to the movement and movement of fluids, continuously acquires the means for further modification of cellular tissue, for transforming part of it into tubes, membranes, fibers and various organs resembling vessels... Thus, a gradual complication of organization is achieved” (p. 64).

If we take as a basis the multifactorial model of life of Yu.A. Captured, then from the large number of signs of life considered by Lamarck, it is easy to identify the leading ones. From the definition it follows that life is some continuous process occurring with the participation of certain (biological) structures. These structures are studied by morphology, and the processes occurring with the participation of structures are studied by physiology. Life processes are associated with a constant exchange of matter and energy with the environment (ecological aspect of life). Let us note that Lamarck clearly traces the idea of ​​the structural-procedural unity of life. We will talk about this in the next section, comparing Lamarck’s definition of life with the formulations of other authors. In the fifth paragraph, Lamarck speaks of the initial predominance of restoration (assimilation) processes over dissimilation, which leads to the growth and development of the young organism; subsequently, dissimilation processes increase until they become leading, characterizing the state of old age.

3.4.4. Cellular tissue as the most important component of life.

In paragraphs b and d, Lamarck talks about cellular tissue as the most important component of life. IN Philosophies of zoology The fifth chapter of the second part is devoted to cell tissue (tissue cellulaire). “Cellular tissue,” wrote Lamarck (1955, p. 511), “represents the basis in which all the organs of living bodies were gradually formed... the movement of fluids in this tissue is the means that nature uses to create and little by little develop through this tissue organs." “... each organ must be covered with cellular tissue either entirely or in its smallest parts...” (p. 514). The plant organization was formed from “cellular tissue in which, for some reason, nature failed to establish irritability” (p. 516). Lamarck mistakenly associated the presence of irritability in animals and its absence in plants with the presence of nitrogen-rich substances in the former, and its deficiency in the latter (see footnote on p. 516). We will return to the topic of irritability in Chapter 10.

Of course, Lamarck's ideas about the cell are speculative and are not connected with empirical observations that were made after his death. In addition to Lamarck, the outstanding German naturalist Lorenz Oken (1779-1851) spoke about cells as the environment (basis) of life before the creators of the cell theory, Theodor Schwann (1810-1882) and Matthias Jakob Schleiden (1804-1881). , as well as a French physician and physiologist, who was one of the first to declare the importance of osmotic phenomena for the life of Henry Dutrochet (Rene Joachim Henri Dutrochet, 1776-1847). Even earlier, cells (red blood cells, protozoan cells and bacteria) were described by Leeuwenhoek. The name "cell" (lat. cellula- small room, monastery cell) was proposed by the outstanding English naturalist Robert Hooke (1635-1703), who described the microscopic structure of cork in 1665. A similar structural pattern of a plug in the form of cavities and vesicles bounded by cell walls was described in 1671 by the English physician, botanist and physiologist, founder of palynology (spore-pollen analysis) Nehemiah Grew (1641-1712) and in 1675 by the Italian biologist and physician Marcello Malpighi ( Marcello Malphigi, 1628-1694). Lamarck's ideas about cells are certainly more meaningful. Its cells are not just hollow vesicles (see Fig. 3.2).

It is of interest to trace at what points Lamarck anticipated the provisions of modern cell theory. This is what Lamarck wrote in Analytical system of positive human knowledge(1959, p. 409): inorganic bodies “completely lack cellular tissue, which is the basis of internal organization...”. On the contrary, in the case of living bodies, nature begins to form from “inorganic bodies very small gelatinous bodies... Thin fluids, penetrating into these bodies, caused a slight increase in the spaces between their linked molecules, which turned these accumulations of gelatinous substance into cellular clusters. Soon after this, holes appeared in the walls of the small cells formed in them, they began to communicate with each other, and fluids penetrated inside them. It was in this way that these small gelatinous bodies were transformed into bodies composed of cellular tissue; in them it was already possible to distinguish the containing parts and the fluids contained in the latter, and they acquired the first features of organization” (1959, p. 418).

Rice. 3.2. Lamarck's idea of ​​cell structure.

Caloric and electrical fluid penetrating into the cell through pores in its membrane are the driving force behind intracellular interactions between colloids.

So, according to Lamarck, vital metabolic processes must take place inside cellular formations, which are microbubbles, “which are the basis of internal organization.” Cells are formed as a result of fragmentation and self-organization of gelatinous bodies, i.e. colloids. At this point there are parallels with the coacervate theory of the origin of life by A.I. Oparina (1957). Through the holes in these cellular vesicles, fluid movement is possible. Lamarck in Philosophies of zoology(1955, p. 491) identified two main types of fluids associated with life: caloric and electricity. In the spirit of his time, Lamarck spoke of caloric as the main cause of life. But “... Although caloric is indeed the cause of life, ... yet it alone could in no way cause and maintain the movements that are the main expression of life in its active state; What is also necessary, especially for animals, is the influence of the fluid, which is the causative agent of their inherent irritability. We have already seen that electricity has all the necessary properties of such a fluid-exciter...” And also on the same page: “In my opinion, caloric and electrical matter are quite sufficient so that in their totality they can form the main cause of life: the first - ... for the existence of life, the second - by the fact that it causes its movements (p. 492 ) in bodies of various kinds of excitations, forcing them to perform organic acts, which constitutes the activity of life.” Note that within general theory substances (see section 3.4.2) these two fluids are derivatives of external fluids, the various forms of which are associated with etheric fire.

The holes in Lamarckian cells can be correlated with integral proteins of the cell membrane that transport ions across the membrane. Cell membranes work on the principle of a capacitor, i.e. due to the separation of electrical charges by non-conducting membrane layers. The cell uses different energy sources to create transmembrane potentials, in particular, it can be light (active removal of sodium using bacteriorhodopsin in halobacteria), redox potential energy (sodium transport by cytochrome oxidase, quinone reductase), and finally, the use of pyrophosphates (Skulachev , 1989). The most important energy complexes are bacterial and vacuolar ATPases (F-ATPase and V-AT-Phase). Both form a protein “machine” in the membrane with a transmembrane channel, which, using the energy of ATP, pumps protons (H +) through this channel against their electrochemical gradient. F-AT-Phase and V-ATPase can, in some cases, act as synthases, synthesizing ATP from ADP and Pi through the reverse flow of protons along an electrochemical gradient. In all organisms, another, so-called P-type ATPase has been identified, which does not have synthase activity, in other words, it works only by pumping ions. P-type ATPases pump a large list of cations, including Na +, K +, Ca 2+, H +, Mg 2+, Cd 2+ and Cu 2+.

In animals, the most important role of P-type pumps is played by Na + -K + -ATPase, the number of which amounts to thousands in each cell. The Na + -K + pump pumps three Na + ions out of the cell due to phosphorylation and, during the next phase associated with dephosphorylation, pumps two K + ions into the cell, while expending the energy of hydrolysis of one ATP molecule (Cooper, 2000). The operation of this pump requires 25% of cellular ATP. As a result, the sodium concentration in the cytosol is approximately 10 mM versus 145 mM outside the cell, and the cellular potassium concentration reaches 140 mM versus 5 mM outside. Accordingly, the internal space of the cell is negatively charged, the external space has a positive charge.

Finally, a large class of membrane receptors is represented by ion channels, which are usually closed in an unexcited state and open when the receptor is exposed to ligands (for example, neurotransmitters - acetylcholine, dopamine, adrenaline, serotonin, etc.), mechanical stimuli (sound in the auditory organs, gravity in the organs of balance, pressure, touch, vibration, etc.) or as a result of changes in membrane potential. The excited channels open briefly to allow a flow of ions, including anions in some types of glutamate receptors. As a result, excitation is transferred to intracellular structures, which is what Lamarck actually assumed in the concept of an exciting electrical fluid passing through holes in the cell membrane (Fig. 3.2).

Finally, another powerful source of protons and free electrons has recently been identified. It turned out to be ordinary water, but in a special state that can be called “living” and which is determined by cell membranes.

Life could arise only by fencing itself off from the external environment, which plays a destructive role due to the reaction activity of natural water. Closed lipid spheres, within which metabolic networks were formed, made it possible to create their own internal living environment and develop homeostatic and regulatory mechanisms that ensure its constancy and stability. As a result of the formation of a stable internal environment, the role of random events in life processes decreases and at the same time the determinism of these processes increases. An important role in creating an autonomous intracellular environment is played by water, which, as it turns out, radically changes its properties in the immediate vicinity of hydrophilic surfaces and subject to a constant flow of energy in the form of radiation. The last condition is what Lamarck meant when he spoke about the role of fluids (energy flows) in the evolution of life.

An example of hydrophilic surfaces is cell membranes. They are based on phospholipids (diacylglycerol phosphomonoesters), bound into a special two-layer structure (bilayer). In a phospholipid molecule, there is an elongated tail part of two acyls and a compact head part of phosphate and an associated nitrogen residue. Phospholipids belong to the group of surfactants (from the English. ace- ive ge s: superficially active substances – also surfactants). Their molecules consist of a hydrophilic (water-soluble) polar part and a hydrophobic (insoluble) non-polar part. A famous example of surfactants that we encounter in Everyday life, are fatty acid salts found in soap that have a compact, negatively charged "head group" attached to a long, single-chain fatty "tail." In a soap film, these surfactants form a bilayer in which the head parts, interacting with electrically charged water molecules, adhere to each other, while the fatty, non-wettable tails stick out on either side of the film. It is important that the structure of the bonds in the molecules is such that, under certain conditions, the soap film curls into a bubble. In a soap bubble, the water is thus located between two layers of surfactants.

The cell membrane is constructed similarly to a soap film from two layers of surfactants, which are connected by nonpolar lipid tails. Accordingly, water-soluble phosphate headgroups are located on both sides of the cell membrane and water thus washes the membrane on both sides. Research recent years(Pollack, 2001; Voeikov, 2002; Pollack et al, 2009) it was shown that in the presence of a constant source of radiation energy (light, geothermal radiation and others), water washing hydrophilic surfaces radically changes its properties. In particular, a zone several hundred micrometers thick, free from dissolved substances (solute-exclusion zone), is formed around the membranes. V.L. Voeikov calls the water located in this zone borderline. When acting on border water with light, the thickness of the zone can increase. Regarding the mechanisms of formation and expansion border There is still a lot of unknown water layer. Of course, nanoirregularities on the membrane surface play a role, changing the structure of water dissociation into H + and OH - . In particular, the large distance between hydrogen atoms and oxygen was noted. The water dissociated in a special way from the layer closest to the membrane determines, but with less accuracy, the structure of the next layer, etc.

When receiving additional energy, protons can be knocked out of the boundary layer and concentrated in the outer layers of water. Moreover, this adjacent proton zone (unlike the boundary zone) has no restrictions on width, and the concentration of protons in it will increase. Accordingly, the boundary layer becomes negatively charged; the proton layer immediately adjacent to it will have a positive charge. Boundary water is thus a strong reducing agent. It accelerates the processes of condensation, polymerization and synthesis of organic substances. Under the influence of light and waves of other wavelengths, free electrons accumulate in the boundary water, capable of moving along and through the membrane - a process that in some ways resembles the movement of electrons on membranes during photosynthesis. As a result, a powerful source of protons and electrons is created, supported by external energy (light, geothermal radiation, etc.).

When forming an energy organization around membranes, the so-called principle of connecting like with like (like-likes-like) operates. Intracellular water may also be in a special phase state (Ling, 2001).

Thus, life, according to Lamarck, is supported by the action of three factors: flows of matter and energy (for Lamarck, caloric acted as an energy source), as well as the movement of electrical fluid. As far as I can judge, no one else except Lamarck spoke about the third, as it is now clear, most important reason for life. It is also important to pay attention to this point, emphasized by Lamarck: intraorganismal fluids depend on external sources of energy (Fig. 3.2), which is especially significant in the processes of energy accumulation in water washing the membrane.

Let us summarize Lamarck's position. Metabolic processes are a key feature of living systems. Three material conditions determine, according to Lamarck, metabolic activity and, consequently, life - the entry into the body of available energy, matter and electrical fluids.

In modern concepts, this is expressed in the classification of metabolic types of nutrition into three factors. Metabolic processes and, therefore, life itself are supported by the intake of 1) energy into the body, 2) carbon compounds from which the body is built, and 3) active electrons involved in various reactions.

The body is able to satisfy its energy needs either through solar radiation or through chemical energy obtained from the oxidation of various compounds. According to this difference, organisms are divided into phototrophs And chemotrophs(Greek "trophe" means food).

External energy entering the body must be converted into a form that is biochemically accessible to it. In chemical metabolism, the change in free energy is associated with the movement of electrons. In other words, the body's energy needs are met as a result of electron transfer. Another aspect of the metabolic activity of organisms is associated with their ability to store energy coming from outside. Two main ways of storing energy have been developed in the process of evolution. Both are associated with electron transitions in redox reactions, complemented in most cases by the conjugate movement of protons across membranes. In the first case, high-energy molecules are formed, the most important of which is adenosine 5′-triphosphate (ATP). The second method is associated with the accumulation of energy in electrochemical form in the form of an ion gradient between two membrane surfaces (cytoplasmic or intracellular). The movement of electrons on membranes is an essential element of respiratory (oxidative) and photosynthetic (reductive) processes.

Electron donors can be both organic and inorganic compounds. Among the latter, we note molecular hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur, ammonia, Mn 2+, Fe 2+, SO 4 2-. This should also include water that shows reducing properties during its photolytic decomposition in photosynthesis and in processes taking place in the peri-membrane zone. Organisms that use organic substances as electron donors are called organotrophs, those that use inorganic compounds - lithotrophs(Greek "litho" means stone).

Organisms can obtain the necessary carbon from inorganic substances or by oxidizing complex organic compounds (i.e., substances that contain C-H bonds). In the first case they talk about autotrophic, in the second about heterotrophic organisms.

Taking into account these three components, eight different combinations are possible, characterizing organisms according to metabolic types of nutrition (Kondratyeva, 1996). However, no more than six of them are realized in nature (five according to Madigan et al., 2000; seven according to Margulis et al., 1993; see also Hoek et al., 1996; Barnes, 1998).

In the fourth chapter of the second part Philosophies of zoology Lamarck examines another property of animal and plant life that can be associated with the cell. We are talking about Lamarck’s concept of “orgasm, or a kind of erethism” - “a state that the pliable internal parts of animals retain as long as they have life” (Lamarck, 1955, p. 494). Lamarck associated orgasm with a special type of sensitivity, which does not depend on the nervous system and which was called hidden by the physiologist Richerand (V. A. Richerand, 1779-1840). “Probably, without orgasm (hidden sensitivity) not a single vital function could be performed” (p. 496). This latent sensitivity can apparently be correlated with cellular sensitivity mediated by membrane receptors.

Orgasm is characteristic of both animals and plants. "I call animal orgasm– Lamarck wrote (p. 497) – that peculiar state of the pliable parts of a living animal, which determines a special voltage… This tension... constitutes what physiologists call tone parts." Regarding plants, Lamarck speaks with less certainty, but it can be assumed that he had in mind the state of turgor. In essence, the tone of animal parts should be correlated not with cellular sensitivity, as Lamarck assumed, but with a special state of protoplasm. In eukaryotes, cell tone is maintained by intracellular water pressure and cytoskeletal tension.

So, orgasm is the body’s ability to maintain tension and tone of its parts. Lamarck saw the cause of orgasm in the caloric produced by the body.

3.5. Holobiosis or genobiosis?

The Lamarckian approach to the phenomenon of life can be traced in modern concepts of holobiosis (see Yushkin, 2002), according to which life in the form of metabolism initially arose inside compartments delimited from the environment, first mineral, later phospholipid or inside coacervate drops. A proponent of the latter point of view, who did a lot for the development of the theory of the origin of life, was Alexander Ivanovich Oparin (1894-1980). Almost simultaneously with him and independently of him, John Haldane (John Burdon Sanderson Haldane, 1892-1964) came up with similar ideas. Both researchers proceeded from the assumption that life arose in a reducing, virtually oxygen-free atmosphere containing mainly hydrogen, methane and ammonia. Under such conditions, organic synthesis could occur, as the American researcher Miller later experimentally showed (Miller, 1953). Some researchers have raised reasonable objections regarding the possibility of accumulation in large volumes of methane and ammonia as a result of the polymerization of the former and the destruction of the latter under the influence of ultraviolet radiation. And without these substances, the synthesis of amino acids from nitrogen, carbon dioxide and water vapor is problematic.

According to the hypothesis of A.I. Oparin (1957) with an increase in the level of protein-like substances in the ancient prebiotic ocean, their concentration with the formation of colloidal (coacervate) drops is possible. Coacervation is the process of exfoliation of hydrophilic colloids (not necessarily protein) under suitable conditions. This process of exfoliation and aggregation of colloids was studied in detail by the Dutch chemist Bungenberg de Jong (1893-1977). Coacervates are similar to cells in that they are able to selectively assimilate necessary substances from the external environment, and, as a result, grow and divide once they reach a critical size. Coacervate droplets were separated from the medium by a hydrophobic shell, most likely lipid structures, which precisely have selective and directional permeability.

For holobiotic approximations, the main difficulty is to understand how proteins could arise from a mixture of amino acids and how they were replicated, given that proteins fold into globules above a certain critical size. Under suitable conditions, in water and in the presence of clay, pyrites or other minerals as catalysts (able to exclude water from surface irregularities), the formation of short peptides is possible. Long peptides, called protenoids, can be obtained by heating dry amino acids to a temperature of 150-180°C and removing water (Fox, Dose, 1977). These thermal peptides included D- and L-isomers of amino acids; lysine, glutamate and aspartate formed more than half of the peptide bonds, which is not typical for natural proteins; not all amino acid bonds turned out to be peptide bonds. Thanks to peptide bonds, the protein is able to fold into a spatial structure - the main condition for the functionality of the protein. Some peptides are able to catalyze their own condensation. Another unresolved problem is the origin of the simplest organism. It is believed that the transition from bacteria to humans was less profound than the transition from amino acids to bacteria.

An alternative approach, genobiosis, believes that the key feature of life is the matrix mode of reproduction. In other words, life arose with the appearance of the first gene (Morgan, 1927; Meller, 1937). The origins of this approach lie in the work of the American biochemist Leonard Troland (1889-1932). Troland (1914, 1917) proposed that life began with the spontaneous synthesis of catalytic molecules that were capable of catalyzing other molecules (heterocatalysis) and at the same time producing their own (self- or autocatalysis). Such catalytic molecules apparently correspond to RNA. A little later, the outstanding American geneticist, who worked in Soviet Russia before the Second World War, Herman Joseph Muller (1890-1967), put forward the idea of ​​“living genes” capable of mutating and evolving, from which, according to him, life began (reported at the Botanical Congress in 1926; published 1929). Eigen (see Eigen and Schuster, 1982), Dawkins (1993; Dawkins, 1982) did a lot to substantiate the concept of genobiosis, and among our scientists B.M. Mednikov (2005).

The structural components of RNA are more difficult to synthesize under prebiotic conditions than amino acids. Particularly difficult to synthesize is cytosine, which (along with ribose) is extremely unstable.

Cairns-Smith (1985; Cairns-Smith, 1990) pointed out that DNA and RNA function in conjunction with proteins in modern life. Therefore, nucleic acids could not have been the first replicators in the formation of life. According to Kearns-Smith, such an initial replicator could have been clay. Clay crystals are capable of reproducing their structure and, under suitable conditions, for example, during periodic drying of clay soils, they can be transported over long distances with the wind, giving rise to daughter clay deposits. If clays with a certain crystalline structure somehow change the natural processes occurring around them, for example, the movement of solutions, then similar processes will take place in places where daughter crystals are deposited, if conditions allow it. Clays are capable of catalyzing many reactions of organic synthesis, and this ability can change with various local disturbances in the structure of clays, which in some cases will be transferred to daughter clay deposits. If some clays catalyze the formation of an organic molecule that increases the rate at which they multiply and spread, then the corresponding clay crystals will function like genes. These “clay genes” catalyze a kind of phenotype and may also be subject to selection. Subsequently, according to Kearns-Smith, the activity of the “clay genes” could be supplemented by the action of nucleic acids, which gradually took over the function of producing the phenotype and could ultimately completely replace the “clay genes” (genetic capture theory).

In these constructions, favorably received by one of the most authoritative proponents of the gene-centric approach, Richard Dawkins (Dawkins, 2006), the most important point concerns the understanding of clay gene mutations. This is not about selecting natural types of clays; Rather, anomalies are selected that may arise from random disturbances in crystallization processes, for example, as a result of the occurrence of a crack, which will be transmitted to daughter crystals. Dawkins believes that this kind of microdefects on the surface of crystals during the replication of the latter can accumulate and form the material basis for storing genetic information like laser disks. Looking ahead, we will say that a more suitable biological analogue of laser discs, an accumulator and storer of information, is the cell membrane with its capabilities for differential excitation, distributed in time and space, of thousands of integral proteins.

3.6. Autopoiesis and reproduction

Concluding his analysis of the phenomenon of life, Lamarck (1959, p. 65) considered the question of what specific functions it manifests itself in. He identified two groups of vital functions in the body:

2. Reproduction and reproduction functions.

To preface the discussion, let us cite a remark made by Lamarck himself. In his opinion, life only manifests itself through functions (in this case, the functions of the first group), but is not equivalent to them. “They claim,” Lamarck explained (1959, pp. 64-65, footnote) “that life is a collection of functions, but this is a mistake; functions are nothing more than manifestations of an organization and its parts. Therefore, neither life nor the organization itself are and cannot be functions. Life is the cause (of functions), and organization is only a set of means that determine what the functions perform.” Life, according to Lamarck, is a cause that organizes living bodies in such a way that they acquire a function. Function, therefore, acts as a secondary phenomenon, while life in relation to function is primary. Formally, a function is a predicative characteristic of an organism. All together this means that life for Lamarck is a constructive concept.

The basis of the first group of functions, if we follow the Lamarckian definition of life given above and the fourth point, are life processes. Life from this point of view is expressed in metabolism in the broad sense of the word, including both behavior and this metabolism, i.e. the state of life through the second group of functions is transmitted and reproduced in a series of successive generations. Lamarck thus distinguishes between the phenomenon of life and the process of its reproduction. The motives for this are clear. If we consider the first group of functions as constituting the basis of life, then for life to continue, these vital functions must be transmitted over a number of generations. If we include reproduction in the concept of life, then we will not be able, without violating logic, to talk about the reproduction of life. In this case, the concept of reproduction will include the antinomic reproduction of oneself.

Therefore, Lamarck was right in separating vital functions from the function of their reproduction.

In a similar way, excluding the phenomenon of inheritance, the famous German biologist Max Hartmann (Maximilian Hartmann, 1876-1962) approached the description of life. In his classic manual Allgemeine Biology(1925) he (Hartmann, 1936, p. 21) connected life with “three groups of processes - metabolism and energy, phenomena of irritation and change of shape...”. Considering that life can only occur inside cells, Hartmann gives the following definition of living systems (p. 22). They are “systems of bodies consisting of one or many (often many thousands) cells, in which the already mentioned three groups of processes are present - stationary processes of metabolism and energy, physiological fluctuations of these stationary processes (irritation phenomena) and progressive processes of change of shape "

It is easy to understand why Hartmann excluded heredity from signs of life. If life occurs inside cells, then the reproduction of the latter constitutes a special aspect of the existence of organisms, which, moreover, is not unique to them. Thus, many minerals, like plants, grow in layers, often through a matrix growth mechanism. They are capable of dividing and giving new crystal forms, including those changed under the influence of the environment (Kearns-Smith, 1985; Yushkin, 2002).

Note that in Lamarck's definition of life, metabolic processes are considered more broadly and include not only the movement of matter and energy, but also the flow of fluids. Lamarck understands the phenomenon of irritability differently, believing that the processes traditionally considered under the name of irritability are fundamentally different in plants and animals. Essentially, Hartmann expresses the same idea, which we will talk about in Chapter 10. Lamarck speaks about processes of change of form in paragraph 5 of his definition.

So, in his definition, Lamarck spoke about the reproduction of vital functions. But functions do not exhaust the nature of the organism. An organism can be analyzed from the outside, by comparing its characteristics with those of other organisms (the predicative aspect of the study), and from the inside, through the study of its structure and functions as an autonomously existing object (the constructive aspect of the study). Lamarck did not isolate these aspects, but was more inclined to adhere to a constructive understanding of the organism.

In his division, Lamarck, for obvious reasons, did not take into account the fact that not only life processes (the first group of functions) are reproduced, but also the phenotype in all the diversity of its characteristic features. In genetics, the focus was on the hereditary transmission of traits, which was associated with the matrix method of reproduction. Genetics does not recognize the possibility and necessity of autonomous reproduction of vital functions. It is believed (see, for example, the criticisms of Wolpert - Wolpert, 2002) that the reproduction of proteins solves all issues of building an organism. If the cellular ingredients are synthesized, then this is enough for them to begin to function.

Not everyone shares this point of view. Life processes are not completely reducible to the transfer of structural features through the matrix apparatus for the very reason that they are given to the body in a ready-made form due to the continuity of cells. Let us recall the famous position of Rudolf Ludwig Karl Virchow, 1821-1902: omnis cellula e cellula - a cell arises only from a cell. This means that the material basis on which cellular life is reproduced is cellular life itself. The cell, as an operating living system, sets, in our opinion, through various conformational mechanisms the functional (corresponding to a non-equilibrium state) structure of the encoded amino acid sequences. In this case, the factors that determine reproduction can be decomposed into two components: associated, firstly, with the synthesis of necessary substances with the predominant participation of matrix processes and, secondly, with the functionalization of these substances, in accordance with the previous functional state of the cell. The importance of functional continuity was implicitly noted by many. Lamarck also spoke about it, for example, in the fifth paragraph of his definition of life, in which he dealt with the change in vital states of the body from infancy to old age. Therefore, we can talk about the structural and functional (organizational) components of reproduction, which are provided in the cell by different mechanisms. Is there evidence of autonomous reproduction of vital functions? In our opinion, long-term modifications indicate this possibility.

Consequently, we can rewrite the Lamarckian scheme for dividing vital functions in the following form:

1. Functions of nutrition, development and preservation of the individual.

2a. The function of reproducing an organization is associated with the forced transformation of synthesized structures into elements of an existing organization and endowing them with the functions of the first group.

2b. Structural (matrix) playback function.

The topic of categorization of vital functions was further developed in the works of the Chilean scientist Humberto Maturana and his student F.H. Varela (2001; Maturana, Varela, 1980), who spoke about two aspects of life - autopoiesis and reproduction. The concept of autopoiesis describes autonomous entities that are separated from their environment by selectively permeable boundaries or barriers, such as a membrane in the case of cells, and capable of metabolism, i.e. to biochemical processes that maintain and prolong their identity in changing environmental conditions (see Lazcano, 2000). In addition to cells and organisms, the biosphere is an autopoietic whole.

Autopoietic systems are structurally open, i.e. capable of passing elements of the external world into and through themselves, but are organizationally closed, i.e. able to limit the influence of the environment on their work. Kauffman (2000, p. 8; see also p. 72) called such systems autonomous active entities (agents), defining them as “physical systems, such as bacteria, that can act in nature for their own benefit ( behalf). All free-living cells and organisms are obviously autonomous agents." It seems to us that it would not be a big mistake if we expand Kaufman’s definition and see in a living organism an active object capable of acting at its own discretion.

Autopoiesis obviously corresponds to the first two groups of functions, 1 and 2a. The question arises: what is the relationship of autopoiesis to the matrix reproduction function (26)? A threefold answer is possible: either to see autopoiesis as a superstructure over the processes of reproduction, or to consider reproduction as a function of the exchange of matter and energy, or, finally, to consider autopoiesis and matrix reproduction as two independently arising phenomena that, thanks to membranes, were able to unite into a single system of life.

The first possibility excludes the autonomous activity of living systems and, therefore, is incompatible with the concept of autopoiesis. The second possibility presupposes such activity and therefore fully corresponds to Lamarck’s position. As an example, consider one of the recent definitions of life (Segre, Lancet, 2004, p. 104). According to these authors, life is connected with " open system, far from thermodynamic equilibrium, whose linker (connected) reactions are organized in such a way that they occur under homeostasis conditions and their result is self-reproduction.” To elaborate on this definition, the authors speak of a complex network of interactions in which each molecular species “may at the same time be a substrate, a product, and a catalyst in a variety of reactions” (Kauffman, 1993), the resulting “network of chemical transformations...showing a certain level of organization.” . With sufficiently complex networks, such an organization, considered “from a functional point of view, presupposes the existence of two fundamental properties: firstly, homeostasis, i.e. the ability of a system to maintain itself and maintain its internal order despite moderate fluctuations in environmental factors (Dyson, 1985); secondly, self-reproduction internally connected with the first condition, i.e. the possibility of replacing molecular species, which, due to the growth of the system in total size and mass, will find themselves in a state of increased dispersion. By dividing the process, this maintenance of molecular concentrations during growth will ultimately lead to duplication of the system."

In this definition, the focus is on an organizationally closed autocatalytic set of proteins capable of catalyzing their own production (see discussion of the problem of closure in a broader context in Zakhvatkin, 2003). Such sets were experimentally obtained for proteins (Lee et al., 1996) and DNA (Sievers and Kiedrowski, 1994). The closedness of the autocatalytic set means that the formation of any peptide from such a set is catalyzed by another member of this set. In such sets, molecules do not reproduce themselves, but the set itself as a whole reproduces itself(Kauffman et al, 2008). Let us emphasize that we are talking about non-matrix synthesis. In the case of proteins, examples of such non-template synthesis occurring in the cell are known (Calvin, 1969; Dyson, 1985; Kauffman, 1993).

In connection with the highlighted phrase, I cannot help but cite, following Kauffman et al., 2008, p. 28, one interesting thought of Kant (§ 65, pp. 398-399), expressed by him in Criticism of the power of judgment. We must pay tribute to the insight of Kant, who sensed such a difficult possibility: an object as a whole has the ability to reproduce itself, but its elements are deprived of this ability: “... an organic body is not only a machine, distinguished only by a driving force, it also has the formative force of self-reproduction, which it transmits to its elements, not having it; it, in fact, organizes them and this cannot be explained by the mechanical ability to move alone” (translation given in our edition; emphasis added).

The third possibility involves co-evolution and symbiosis of these two forms of life, i.e. joint evolution within the framework of a single whole of an autocatalytic system and a system with a matrix type of reproduction (Dyson, 1985; Kauffman, 1993). Then the question regarding what is primary - autopoiesis or matrix reproduction - can be removed as incorrectly formulated. Let us note that within the framework of the hypothesis of the symbiotic origin of life, autopoietic properties have their own content and cannot be deduced from the properties of the second system of molecules capable of replication.

The connecting link that could facilitate the symbiosis of these two dissimilar preforms of life could be the cell membrane, which shows affinity for both proteins and nucleic acids, forming protein-lipid and DNA-lipid complexes (Kuvichkin, 2000). Presumably, the development of cellular organization at the very initial stages proceeded through the use of so-called non-lamellar lipids, which give non-planar structures in water, including hexagonal in the form of a tube and micellar in the form of single-layer microspheres (Garab et al., 2000; Simidjiev et al., 2000) . Non-lamellar lipids (cardiolipin, monogalactosyldiglycerol, phosphatidylethanolamine) can be contrasted with lamellar (bilayer lipids), which form a bilayer in water. In many cell membranes, nonlamellar lipids make up large percentage from all lipids. For example, monogalactosyldiglycerol accounts for half of all lipids in the thylakoid membrane of chloroplasts (Simidjiev et al., 2000). The content of phosphatidylethanolamine and cardiolipin in the cell membrane of gram-negative bacteria reaches 70-80 and 5-10%, respectively. Such a large percentage indicates that nonlamellar lipids played a dominant role in the formation of the cell. They are also noted as key components of DNA-membrane interactions (Kuvichkin, 2000). In the presence of certain polar proteins and under their influence, structures of nonlamellar lipids can change their properties. For example, hexagonal lipid aggregates will disintegrate to form bilayer films. Such a film, in the presence of replicators and catalysts on its surface, will become concave, and this state can well be considered as an intermediate link in the formation of a cell as a result of the spontaneous closure of the “blastopore” (Blobel, 1980; see also an alternative point of view - Cavalier-Smith, 2001 ).

End of introductory fragment.

Unfortunately for the progress of our knowledge, we almost always go to extremes, both in our judgments and in our actions, and too often destroy one error only to immediately fall into another, the opposite.

Jean Baptiste de Lamarck “Philosophy of Zoology” 1959, vol. 2. p. 523.

Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov

ZOO MUSEUM

A.I. Shatalkin.“Zoological philosophy” of Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck: sight from the XXI century. Moscow: KMK Scientific Press Ltd. 2009.606 p., ref. 1128.40 figs.

In the book the new understanding of Lamarck evolutionary doctrine is stated. Up to the middle of the 19th century concept of heredity was not in the language of a science. Instead of this the concept of the nature was used. Generic and specific attributes since times of scholasticism were considered as essential and, hence, as the true attributes describing the nature of an organism. The nature was opposed to changeable intraspecific attributes which can be classified, whether they are transmitted from parents to children or not. The concept of a heredity as the description of inherited variability has been used by Darwin in his theory of natural selection. Lamarckian and Darwinian models of evolution, hence, have different domains of definition. By the end of the 19th century the concept of the nature of an organism has disappeared from the language of a science. As the result, “key” for satisfactory understanding of ideas of Lamarck have been lost. The Lamarckian approach corresponds to positions of the physiological concept of the heredity which are in use on the boundary XIX-XX of centuries and currently received development in ideas epigenetics and a new direction “Evo-Devo”.

The intellectual baggage we inherited from the Past should be reviewed from time to time. The creators of new scientific knowledge, having caught the progressive spirit of their era, often come up with ideas whose time has not yet come. The destiny of such ideas is, if not their partial oblivion, then a distorted perception, which then turns into a tradition. Returning to the actions of the best representatives of the past, we should first of all find out whether there are any hidden meanings in their creations that could not be fully perceived by their contemporaries, but with the change in the scientific picture of the world (the scientific context of ideas) and subsequent generations. It takes time and new scientific circumstances to make such ideas explicit.

Two hundred years ago, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck published the book “Philosophy of Zoology”. The outstanding creation of the French genius survived everything: initial rejection, subsequent distortion of key ideas, its temporary triumph, and, finally, new oblivion. The circumstances so developed that Lamarck and his followers, who once set the tone in biology, were essentially relegated to the margins of intellectual progress. Fate was not always favorable to Lamarck himself. And now, if they give due credit to Lamarck’s personality, they do it rather for formal reasons. What other attitude could there be towards a person who, in the eyes of the scientific community, lost the “intellectual battle” to Charles Darwin (1809-1882).

But if Lamarck’s name is still mentioned in any way, then a veil of silence is established regarding his followers. Therefore, we considered it necessary to reflect in this book the scientific contribution of the Lamarckians to the development of evolutionary ideas. Without knowledge of the historical and scientific context, it is difficult to understand how the formation and development of evolutionary ideas took place, and what motivated them. Thus, in historical reviews of the early development of ideas about hereditary units, they are usually limited to mentioning two or three names. In fact, the concept of living matter and hereditary units has been discussed by many. A variety of solutions were proposed, which were adjusted as new data became available and finally resulted in the concept of the gene. Not the least role in this process of formation of new concepts was played by the Lamarckists. The ideas about hereditary units of the same G. Spencer and E. Haeckel, convinced Lamarckists, were lively discussed and compared with other concepts by the scientific community in the second half of the 19th century.

Lamarck's ideas are usually assessed through the prism of Weismann's division into inherited and non-heritable traits. Accordingly, the key provisions of the Lamarckian doctrine were adjusted, including the famous 2nd law of Lamarck, from which in English and German translations Philosophy of Zoology the concept of “nature” simply dropped out, most likely as an unnecessary metaphysical complication. In the book we discuss Lamarck's division of the characteristics of an organism into natural (essential) and individual (random) and try to understand how this doctrine of his relates to the modern level of knowledge.

The author dedicates the book to the memory of his teacher, head of the Department of Entomology at Moscow University, Professor Evgeniy Sergeevich Smirnov (1898-1977). E.S. Smirnov remained an ardent supporter of Lamarck's evolutionary teachings until the end of his days. At the beginning of his scientific activity, E.S. Smirnov together with Yu.M. Vermeule and B.S. Kuzin published “Essays on the Theory of Evolution” (1924), in which they outlined their understanding of evolutionary problems. Later in the 50s E.S. Smirnov with his students S.I. Keleinikova, G.V. Samokhvalova and Z.F. Chuvakhina conducted a series of studies to study changes in traits in greenhouse aphids (Neomyzus circumflexus) when breeding it on different food plants (Smirnov, Keleinikova, 1950; Smirnov, Chuvakhina, 1952; Smirnov, Samokhvalova, 1955; Smirnov, 1957, 1961). Long-term modifications were studied in these experiments. They are not usually associated with heredity. But if not with heredity, then what can they be associated with, what range of phenomena do they reflect? This question remains unanswered, and here we will try to answer it. Leningrad scientist Georgy Khristoforovich Shaposhnikov (1915-1997) moved much further in his experiments on the adaptation of aphids to new food plants, but his results (1961, 1965; see also Shishkin, 1988; Rautian, 1993), like the results of E.S. . Smirnov, could not receive proper assessment within the framework of the genetic paradigm that existed at that time.

When I was a student at the Department of Entomology at Moscow University, under the guidance of Professor E.S. Smirnova also conducted several series of experiments on greenhouse aphids in order to study long-term modifications. My experiments were not a pure repetition of similar studies of the first half of the 20th century. New times have given impetus to new ideas. Therefore, in these experiments I became interested in the problems of intergenerational regulation, and I seriously began studying the theory of automatic regulation, control problems and other cybernetic approaches. Unfortunately, the time for such research was not suitable, and I, like E.S. himself once did. Smirnov, went into the field of systematics. But this early interest in the problems of heredity was now supported by the needs of my new specialty.

The fact is that traditional taxonomy (typology), which was engaged in the search for regularities in the structure of biological diversity, has largely exhausted its capabilities on the morphological basis available to it. Historically, it directed its main efforts to the search and identification of “main” groups as opposed to secondary ones that do not fit into the general outline of dependencies. Thus, the division into protostomes and deuterostomes is, of course, a typological simplification. In its time, however, this was an important scientific achievement, and taxonomy noted these two types (pure forms - Valentine, 1997) as worthy of attention. The typology treated evasive options as a secondary phenomenon. The reason for this is clear: morphologically, the aberrant groups were uninformative and therefore their position within the framework of the found typological patterns remained uncertain.

Current page: 1 (book has 14 pages in total)

Anatoly Shatalkin
“Philosophy of Zoology” by Jean Baptiste Lamarck: a view from the 21st century

Unfortunately for the progress of our knowledge, we almost always go to extremes, both in our judgments and in our actions, and too often destroy one error only to immediately fall into another, the opposite.

Jean Baptiste de Lamarck “Philosophy of Zoology” 1959, vol. 2. p. 523.

Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov

ZOO MUSEUM

A.I. Shatalkin.“Zoological philosophy” of Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck: sight from the XXI century. Moscow: KMK Scientific Press Ltd. 2009.606 p., ref. 1128.40 figs.

In the book the new understanding of Lamarck evolutionary doctrine is stated. Up to the middle of the 19th century concept of heredity was not in the language of a science. Instead of this the concept of the nature was used. Generic and specific attributes since times of scholasticism were considered as essential and, hence, as the true attributes describing the nature of an organism. The nature was opposed to changeable intraspecific attributes which can be classified, whether they are transmitted from parents to children or not. The concept of a heredity as the description of inherited variability has been used by Darwin in his theory of natural selection. Lamarckian and Darwinian models of evolution, hence, have different domains of definition. By the end of the 19th century the concept of the nature of an organism has disappeared from the language of a science. As the result, “key” for satisfactory understanding of ideas of Lamarck have been lost. The Lamarckian approach corresponds to positions of the physiological concept of the heredity which are in use on the boundary XIX-XX of centuries and currently received development in ideas epigenetics and a new direction “Evo-Devo”.

Preface

The intellectual baggage we inherited from the Past should be reviewed from time to time. The creators of new scientific knowledge, having caught the progressive spirit of their era, often come up with ideas whose time has not yet come. The destiny of such ideas is, if not their partial oblivion, then a distorted perception, which then turns into a tradition. Returning to the actions of the best representatives of the past, we should first of all find out whether there are any hidden meanings in their creations that could not be fully perceived by their contemporaries, but with the change in the scientific picture of the world (the scientific context of ideas) and subsequent generations. It takes time and new scientific circumstances to make such ideas explicit.

Two hundred years ago, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck published the book “Philosophy of Zoology”. The outstanding creation of the French genius survived everything: initial rejection, subsequent distortion of key ideas, its temporary triumph, and, finally, new oblivion. The circumstances so developed that Lamarck and his followers, who once set the tone in biology, were essentially relegated to the margins of intellectual progress. Fate was not always favorable to Lamarck himself. And now, if they give due credit to Lamarck’s personality, they do it rather for formal reasons. What other attitude could there be towards a person who, in the eyes of the scientific community, lost the “intellectual battle” to Charles Darwin (1809-1882).

But if Lamarck’s name is still mentioned in any way, then a veil of silence is established regarding his followers. Therefore, we considered it necessary to reflect in this book the scientific contribution of the Lamarckians to the development of evolutionary ideas. Without knowledge of the historical and scientific context, it is difficult to understand how the formation and development of evolutionary ideas took place, and what motivated them. Thus, in historical reviews of the early development of ideas about hereditary units, they are usually limited to mentioning two or three names. In fact, the concept of living matter and hereditary units has been discussed by many. A variety of solutions were proposed, which were adjusted as new data became available and finally resulted in the concept of the gene. Not the least role in this process of formation of new concepts was played by the Lamarckists. The ideas about hereditary units of the same G. Spencer and E. Haeckel, convinced Lamarckists, were lively discussed and compared with other concepts by the scientific community in the second half of the 19th century.

Lamarck's ideas are usually assessed through the prism of Weismann's division into inherited and non-heritable traits. Accordingly, the key provisions of the Lamarckian doctrine were adjusted, including the famous 2nd law of Lamarck, from which in English and German translations Philosophy of Zoology the concept of “nature” simply dropped out, most likely as an unnecessary metaphysical complication. In the book we discuss Lamarck's division of the characteristics of an organism into natural (essential) and individual (random) and try to understand how this doctrine of his relates to the modern level of knowledge.

The author dedicates the book to the memory of his teacher, head of the Department of Entomology at Moscow University, Professor Evgeniy Sergeevich Smirnov (1898-1977). E.S. Smirnov remained an ardent supporter of Lamarck's evolutionary teachings until the end of his days. At the beginning of his scientific activity, E.S. Smirnov together with Yu.M. Vermeule 1
Vermel Yuliy Matveevich (19007-1943?) – Soviet zoologist, his own views on the problem of evolution are set out in: Vermel, 1931.

And B.S. Kuzin 2
Boris Sergeevich Kuzin (1903-1973) – taxonomist (beetle specialist) and poet, in the 20s of the last century he worked at the Zoological Museum of Moscow University.

They published “Essays on the Theory of Evolution” (1924), in which they outlined their understanding of evolutionary problems. Later in the 50s E.S. Smirnov with his students S.I. Keleinikova, G.V. Samokhvalova and Z.F. Chuvakhina conducted a series of studies to study changes in traits in greenhouse aphids (Neomyzus circumflexus) when breeding it on different food plants (Smirnov, Keleinikova, 1950; Smirnov, Chuvakhina, 1952; Smirnov, Samokhvalova, 1955; Smirnov, 1957, 1961). Long-term modifications were studied in these experiments. They are not usually associated with heredity. But if not with heredity, then what can they be associated with, what range of phenomena do they reflect? This question remains unanswered, and here we will try to answer it. Leningrad scientist Georgy Khristoforovich Shaposhnikov (1915-1997) moved much further in his experiments on the adaptation of aphids to new food plants, but his results (1961, 1965; see also Shishkin, 1988; Rautian, 1993), like the results of E.S. . Smirnov, could not receive proper assessment within the framework of the genetic paradigm that existed at that time.

When I was a student at the Department of Entomology at Moscow University, under the guidance of Professor E.S. Smirnova also conducted several series of experiments on greenhouse aphids in order to study long-term modifications. My experiments were not a pure repetition of similar studies of the first half of the 20th century. New times have given impetus to new ideas. Therefore, in these experiments I became interested in the problems of intergenerational regulation, and I seriously began studying the theory of automatic regulation, control problems and other cybernetic approaches. Unfortunately, the time for such research was not suitable, and I, like E.S. himself once did. Smirnov, went into the field of systematics. But this early interest in the problems of heredity was now supported by the needs of my new specialty.

The fact is that traditional taxonomy (typology), which was engaged in the search for regularities in the structure of biological diversity, has largely exhausted its capabilities on the morphological basis available to it. Historically, it directed its main efforts to the search and identification of “main” groups as opposed to secondary ones that do not fit into the general outline of dependencies. Thus, the division into protostomes and deuterostomes is, of course, a typological simplification. In its time, however, this was an important scientific achievement, and taxonomy noted these two types (pure forms - Valentine, 1997) as worthy of attention. The typology treated evasive options as a secondary phenomenon. The reason for this is clear: morphologically, the aberrant groups were uninformative and therefore their position within the framework of the found typological patterns remained uncertain.

For phylogenetics, which seeks connections by descent, the typological approach has given nothing. For phylogenetics, both the types themselves and their aberrations were important. But while phylogenetics was developing on a morphological basis, its successes were not so great. The situation changed radically with the advent of molecular methods in taxonomy. Over its short history, molecular systematics has declared itself to be an unusually promising direction. The phylogenetic reconstructions she obtained were largely unexpected in their results. They led to a new understanding of the main stages of development of the organic world. Thanks to “molecules,” taxonomy was able to evaluate the entire variety of forms, including typologically obscure ones. In other words, in terms of comparison of molecules, aberrant forms are also informative, not differing in this respect from the “main” forms (types) of the distinguished typologies. Phylogenetic research is already being carried out at the level of studying genes. The time is not far when many problems that have occupied and are occupied by taxonomists will be solved by purely genetic methods.

Lamarck was a taxonomist. Therefore, he approached the analysis of evolutionary problems as a taxonomist, but not a geneticist. In his conclusions, he largely proceeded from the results of his study of natural varieties. As a taxonomist, he created a complete theory of the evolutionary development of nature, which had a completely finished form in terms of the study of organisms. As a taxonomist, Lamarck left without consideration the various ideas that existed among doctors about the hereditary transmission of traits, including hereditary diseases in humans. These ideas subsequently resulted in the concept of heredity in the second half of the 19th century. But for Lamarck, as a taxonomist, hereditary characteristics were classified as random and could not be used as the basis for considering evolutionary patterns.

In assessing evolutionary approximations, following Lamarck, I act as a taxonomist. My capabilities as a taxonomist, of course, cannot be compared in any way with the scientific baggage that Lamarck had at his disposal. Nowadays, systematics has gone far ahead and, most importantly, has become qualitatively different. She came close to the possibility of describing the morphotype from a genetic point of view. Already in the time of Lamarck there was an understanding of the extraordinary complexity of the predicative (feature) structure of organisms. And this was in conflict with genetic data: a complex phenotype was determined by a genotype that was quite simple in structure. 200 years after the publication of “Philosophy of Zoology,” genetics approached the analysis of the predicative structure of the genome. And it turned out to be as complex as the phenotype. Moreover, we are only now coming to understand that in some respects “the phenotype needs to be explained on the basis of its own sources” (Moss, 2008).

The ongoing paradigm shift in evolutionary biology is an important incentive to read again, but with new eyes, the works of our classics, including Philosophy of zoology Jean Baptiste Lamarck was the first book to provide a scientific analysis of evolution. Lamarck's creation is certainly much broader; not only evolutionary problems are considered. This is what the famous interdisciplinary scientist who worked on related problems of anthropology, psychology, epistemology and systems research, Gregory Batson, wrote about Lamarck’s main book 3
In Bateson's second book translated by us, his surname is spelled Bateson (2009).

(Bateson, 1972) - son of one of the founders of genetics, William Bateson: “The first two-thirds of the book is devoted to solving the problem of evolution and putting taxonomy on its head; the rest of the book is actually about comparative psychology, the science that he [Lamarck] founded. The mind was what he was really interested in. He used habit as one of the axiomatic phenomena in his theory of evolution and this, of course, also led him to the problem of comparative psychology." Having carefully read almost all the available works of the great scientist, you begin to understand that Lamarck was at the origins of most modern problems biology. This is what we will talk about in our book.

Lamarck's book was reprinted several times different countries. It was translated into English in 1914. German translations published in 1876 and 1909. That was the time of fascination with Lamarck’s ideas, and the publication of his main work in leading countries does not require explanation. But in the second half of the 20th century, Lamarck’s book was republished again: in English in 1984, in German in 1990. Introductory articles to the English edition were written by Burkhardt (1984) and Hull (1984). Buchardt is a famous biographer and expert on Lamarck’s work; we will refer to him repeatedly. Hull is a famous philosopher who specialized in problems of systematics and evolutionary teachings.

When reading Hull, one gets the impression that in Lamarck we are dealing with the creator of a false theory of heredity, completely rejected by science. A natural question arises. If Lamarck created an erroneous theory, and one that until recently scientists were afraid of being caught in Lamarckism, then why are they re-publishing Philosophy of zoology? The answer is simple. So far no one has proven conclusively that Lamarck's theory of the mechanisms of evolution is false. Lamarck's explanation of evolution is largely speculative. But in his time it could not have been different. Speculative concepts fade into history when they are replaced by theories based on experiment. This was the case with the theories of phlogiston after Lavoisier showed with precise experiments its fallacy. Lamarck opposed Lavoisier's supporters with his theory of matter, but his constructions, unfortunately, were just as speculative and had no chance of success.

Lamarck was not alone in constructing speculative concepts. In the second half of the 19th century, when the concept of heredity in its modern meaning was formulated, many outstanding minds began to make assumptions regarding the nature of the hereditary substance. Let us mention Herbert Spencer (with his physiological units), Charles Darwin (gemmules), Ernst Haeckel (plastidules), Hugo De Vries (pangenes), August Weismann (determinants and biophores). The concepts put forward by these and other, less well-known authors, except perhaps Charles Darwin’s theory of pangenesis, became a thing of the past, a thing of the past, when in the first half of the 20th century the gene theory, based on rigorous experiments, was formulated.

In contrast, for example, to Weismann’s speculative concept, which at one time fulfilled its heuristic role and now has only historical interest, Lamarck’s speculative constructions until recently had nothing to oppose except their naked negation. Science is only now approaching the experimental study of Lamarckian heredity. And until this happens, it’s too early to bet Philosophy of zoology on the historical shelf. She, in our opinion, is destined for a third birth.

At the end of this short introduction, a few words about my involvement in the name of Lamarck. Thanks to E.S. Smirnov, I became interested in Lamarck’s work literally from my student days. Subsequently, this interest only increased as I matured scientifically. Another connecting thread is the Moscow Society of Nature Explorers (MOIP). Lamarck was an honorary member of this oldest society in Russia (founded in 1805). This society holds its meetings in the building of the Zoological Museum of Moscow University, where I work. Many of our outstanding scientists who studied the life and work of Lamarck are the outstanding naturalist Karl Frantsevich Roulier (1814-1853), biogeographer Ivan Ivanovich Puzanov (1885-1971); entomologist and popularizer of science Nikolai Nikolaevich Plavilshchikov (1892-1962), my mentor Professor Evgeniy Sergeevich Smirnov, who published a commemorative article on the 150th anniversary of its publication Zoology philosophy(1959), botanist Sergei Sergeevich Stankov (1892-1962), were associated with the University and (or) the Society. Being also a member of the MOIP, I, as it were, took the baton from them and received preferences for historical research about my outstanding predecessor in the Society. Below are the results of these researches.

The author expresses sincere gratitude to the colleagues who provided assistance in the preparation of this book. I especially want to thank the director of our Museum, Olga Leonidovna Rossolimo. Her constant support and attention to the scientific needs of the Museum staff and at the same time her high demands created exceptional conditions for scientific creativity in the Museum, and in my case were of paramount importance at all stages of work on the book, from its conception to its implementation in the text. I received a lot of valuable and useful information from discussing the topic and content of the book with my work colleagues. To all of them and first of all A.V. Antropov, D.L. Ivanov, A.L. Ozerov, I.Ya. Pavlinov and A.V. I express my deep gratitude to Sviridov. In the course of preparing the materials for the book and working on it, I had to constantly seek help and advice from friends, and more often from unfamiliar specialists, from whom I invariably met with understanding and active participation. I am sincerely grateful to N.E. Vikhrev (Moscow), Yu.A. Zakhvatkin (TSHA, Moscow), R.N. Ivanovsky (Biofak, Moscow State University), V.V. Kuvichkin (Institute of Cell Biophysics RAS, Pushchino), V.V. Popov (Russian State Agrarian Correspondence University), V.P. Shcherbakova (Institute of Problems of Chemical Physics RAS, Chernogolovka), D.W. Deamer (Dept. of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, USA), R.S. Gupta (Dept., of Biochemistry, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada), H. Huber (Lehrstuhl ffir Mikrobiologie, Universitat Regensburg, Germany), D. Lancet (Department of Molecular Genetics, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel), L. Margulis ( Biology Dept., University of Massachusetts, USA), J.S. Mattick (University of Queensland, Australia), H. Meinhardt (Max-Planck-Institut fur Entwicklungsbiologie, Tubingen, Germany), B. Merz (Museum d’Histoire naturelle Geneve, Switzerland), P.F. Stevens (Arnold Arboretum and Gray Herbarium, Harvard University, USA), L. Van Speybroeck (Department of Philosophy and Moral Science, Ghent University, Belgium), J. Ziegler (Museum fur Naturkunde, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany).

Chapter 1
Jean Baptiste Lamarck and his time

1.1. Introduction

Lamarck (Jean-Baptiste-Pierre-Antoine de Monet de Lamarck, 1744-1829) 4
The following sources were used in compiling the biographical sketch: Cuvier, 1836; Komarov, 1925,1935; Karpov, 1935; Puzanov, 1947, 1959; Polyakov, 1955, 1959, 1962; Stankov, 1955; Smirnov, 1959; Lunkevich, 1960; Burkhardt, 1970, 1977; Stafleu, 1971; Corsi, 1988; Stevens, 1994.

He lived at a turning point for France and was a witness and active participant in the unprecedented rise of public life in the pre-revolutionary period of the activity of French encyclopedists, during the period of the Great French Revolution and Napoleonic rule. He also survived the fall of France that followed the collapse of Napoleon's aggressive policy. Once one of the leading powers of the World, setting the tone in public life, and scientifically ahead of all other countries, France lost in continuous wars both its intellectual potential and progressive impulses towards internal development. In science, this was most clearly manifested in the fate of Lamarck’s revolutionary works, which were consigned to oblivion for many years.

Lamarck was born on August 1, 1744 in the small town of Petit Basantin (Picardy, in northeastern France). He was the eleventh child in an impoverished but well-known noble family in military circles. The family's pedigree can be traced back to the beginning of the 16th century and traces its origins to the noble "de Monet" family. One of the representatives of the Etienne de Monet family married Marie de La Marque in 1622, after which the family name in this genealogical line becomes “de Monet de La Marque”. (The original spelling “de la Marque” was subsequently changed to “de la Magsk”, then to “de Lamarck” - Landrieu, 1909). Lamarck's father Philippe Jacques de Monet de Lamarck (1702-1759) married in 1727 Marie-Frangoise de Fontaines de Chuignolles, who also came from an old noble family known since the time of the Crusades hikes.

As a child, Lamarck was not in good health. Perhaps for this reason, and also because of the lack of money that went to support his older brothers who were pursuing a military career, he was sent by his father to study at the Jesuit school (college) in Amiens. At school, Lamarck received thorough training in logic, mathematics and physics, which were popular at that time and were taught at a fairly high level. While studying at school, Lamarck dreamed of a military career. Therefore, the school was a burden to him, and he was apparently pleased when he had to leave it after the school was closed in 1761. Having asked his mother’s permission, the failed “little abbot,” as Lamarck was jokingly called in the family, followed the example of his brothers in the same year joined the army. He took part in the Seven Years' War (1756–1763) and showed his best side in the battle against the Germans and British at Willinghausen. Lamarck received the rank of ensign and was later promoted to lieutenant. After the end of the war (in 1763), Lamarck served first in the garrison of Monaco (1763), then in Toulon (1764-1765), then (1766) in one of the Alpine forts (Fort de Mont-Dauphin), which was located in the upper reaches of the Durand River at an altitude of 1000 meters. In 1767, Lamarck found himself in Alsace, where he served in one of the forts (Fort d’Huningue).

Even in his youth, Lamarck was engrossed in Jean-Jacques Rousseau, from whom he inherited a love of botany. He subsequently met Rousseau and took part in his botanical excursions. While on military service in Provence, Lamarck became addicted to practical studies in botany. Under the guidance of a local pharmacist, he collected and identified plants. While in the Alpine fort of Provence, Lamarck actively collected Central Alpine plants for the herbarium.

During one of the training sessions, due to the fault of his garrison comrade, Lamarck developed inflammation of the cervical lymph glands, which subsequently became chronic. Lamarck's health forced him to resign in 1768. After a short stay in family estate he settles in Paris, where he successfully completes treatment with the famous doctor Jacques Rene Tenon (1724-1816), an outstanding surgeon who rebuilt the late XVII 1st century hospital service in France.

Lamarck Philosophy of Zoology. - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1955. - T. 1. - 965 p.

(fr. Philosophie zoologique) is one of the main works on zoology, written by Jean Baptiste Lamarck and published by him in 1809. The work is also seen as the first expression of the theory of evolution, known in history as Lamarckism.

"Evolutionary" theory

• Lamarck calls his work philosophy because it sets forth “a general body of rules and principles.” Lamarck himself does not use the word evolution, but he admits that nature created bodies sequentially - from simple forms to the most complex. The most contested thesis of Lamarck's evolutionism is precisely this concept of “progressive improvement.” He was prompted to such evolutionism (denial of the immutability of species) by the identification of intermediate forms of living beings, for example, the platypus and echidna.
• Lamarck is a resolute opponent of catastrophism, recognizing the gradual development of nature. He also recognizes the "involuntary generation" of the most primitive forms (ciliates), which develop through the "exercise of organs" which are consolidated by subsequent generations. Lamarck recognizes the possibility of the origin of some types of creatures from other primitive ones. So he believes that reptiles left fish.
• The driving forces of evolution are environmental changes that affect needs.
• Lamarck does not deny the existence of God, interpreting it in the spirit of deism.

Zoology

Based on Lamarck's purely biological merits, one should highlight his special interest in simple forms of life. Thus, for the first time, he divides all animals into vertebrates and invertebrates (previously, the basic criterion for distinguishing animals was the presence or absence of blood), and also distinguishes arachnids from insects. Defining animals, Lamarck insists on such an essential feature as irritability, considering the ability to move essential, since oysters and polyps are immobile. In total, Lamarck distinguishes 14 classes of animals from ciliates to mammals. It is interesting that he does not yet classify amphibians as a separate class, but calls pinnipeds amphibians.

14 classes of animals

1. Ciliates
2. Polyps
3. Radiant (Starfish)
4. Worms
5. Insects
6. Arachnids
7. Crustaceans
8. Leeches
9. Barnacles
10. Molluscs are “the highest invertebrate animals”
11. Reptiles
12. Birds
13. Mammals

The idea of ​​evolution, that is, the gradual change and development of the living world, is perhaps one of the most powerful and great ideas in the history of mankind. It gave the key to understanding the origin of the endless diversity of living beings and, ultimately, the emergence and formation of man himself as a biological species.

Today, any schoolchild, when asked who created the theory of evolution, will name Charles Darwin. Without detracting from the merits of the great English scientist, we note that the origins of the evolutionary idea can already be traced in the works of outstanding thinkers of antiquity. The baton was picked up by French encyclopedists of the 18th century. and, above all, Jean Baptiste Lamarck.

Lamarck's system of views was undoubtedly a huge step forward compared to the views that existed in his time. He was the first to turn the evolutionary idea into a coherent doctrine, which had a huge influence on the further development of biology.

However, at one time Lamarck was “silenced”. He died at the age of 85, blind. There was no one to look after the grave, and it was not preserved. In 1909, 100 years after the publication of Lamarck’s main work, Philosophy of Zoology, a monument to the creator of the first evolutionary theory was unveiled in Paris. The daughter’s words were engraved on the pedestal: “Posterity will admire you...”.

The first “evolutionary essay” published in the journal from the future book of the famous scientist and historian of science V. N. Soifer is dedicated to the great Lamarck and his concept of the evolution of living beings

“To observe nature, study its works, study general and particular relationships expressed in their properties, and finally, try to understand the order imposed in everything by nature, as well as its course, its laws, its infinitely varied means aimed at maintaining this order - in this, in my opinion, lies the opportunity for us to acquire at our disposal the only positive knowledge, the only one in addition to its undoubted usefulness; this is also the guarantee of the highest pleasures, most capable of rewarding us for the inevitable sorrows of life.”

Lamarck. Philosophy of Zoology, T. 1. M.;L., 1935, p. 12

The idea of ​​evolution, that is, the gradual change and development of the living world, is perhaps one of the most powerful and great ideas in the history of mankind. It gave the key to understanding the origin of the endless diversity of living beings and, ultimately, to the emergence and formation of man himself as a biological species. Today, any schoolchild, when asked about the creator of evolutionary theory, will name Charles Darwin. Without detracting from the merits of the great English scientist, it should be noted that the origins of the evolutionary idea can already be traced in the works of outstanding thinkers of antiquity. The baton was picked up by French scientists and encyclopedists of the 18th century, first of all, Jean Baptiste Lamarck, who was the first to translate the idea into a coherent evolutionary doctrine, which had a huge impact on the further development of biology. The first of a series of “evolutionary essays” published in our journal from the future book of the famous scientist and historian of science V.N. Soifer “Lamarckism, Darwinism, genetics and biological discussions in the first third of the twentieth century” is dedicated to the Lamarckian concept of the evolution of living beings.

In the works ancient Greek thinkers the idea of ​​self-development of the living world was of a natural-philosophical nature. For example, Xenophanes of Colophon (6th–5th centuries BC) and Democritus (c. 460–c. 370 BC) did not talk about changes in species and not about their sequential transformation into each other over a long period, but about spontaneous generation.

In the same way, Aristotle (384-322 BC), who believed that living organisms arose by the will of the Higher Powers, does not have a complete evolutionary idea of ​​​​the transition from simpler forms to more complex ones. In his opinion, the Supreme God maintains the established order, monitors the emergence of species and their timely death, but does not create them, like God in the Jewish religion. However, a step forward was his assumption about the gradual complication of the forms of living beings in nature. According to Aristotle, God is the mover, although not the creator. In this understanding of God, he disagreed with Plato, who viewed God precisely as a creator.

The treatises of medieval philosophers, often simply retelling the ideas of Greek thinkers, did not even contain the rudiments of evolutionary teaching in the sense of indicating the possibility of the origin of some animal or plant species from other species.

Only at the end of the 17th century. English scientists Ray and Willoughby formulated the definition of “species” and described the species of animals known to them, omitting any mention of fantastic creatures that invariably appeared in the tomes of the Middle Ages.

From Linnaeus to Mirabeau

The great taxonomist Swede Carl Linnaeus introduced an essentially precise method into the classification of living beings when he substantiated the need to use for these purposes “numeros et nomina” - “numbers and names” (for plants - the number of stamens and pistils of a flower, monoecy and dioecy etc.; for all living beings, the so-called binary nomenclature - a combination of generic and species names). Linnaeus divided all living things into classes, orders, genera, species and varieties in his seminal work Systema Naturae, first published in 1735; reprinted 12 times during the author’s lifetime. He processed all the material available at that time, which included all known species of animals and plants. Linnaeus himself gave the first descriptions of one and a half thousand plant species.

In essence, Linnaeus created a scientific classification of living things that remains unchanged in its main parts to this day. However, he did not pose the problem of the evolution of creatures, but completely agreed with the Bible that “we number as many species as were originally created” (“tot numeramus species, quat abinitio sunt creatae”). Towards the end of his life, Linnaeus somewhat modified his point of view, and admitted that God may have created such a number of forms that corresponds to the current number of genera, and then, by crossing with each other, modern species appeared, but this cautious recognition did not at all reject the role of the Creator.

From the middle of the 18th century. Many scientists tried to improve Linnaeus' classification, including the French Buffon, Bernard de Jussier and his son, Michel Adanson and others. Aristotle's idea of ​​the gradual replacement of some forms by others, now called the “ladder of beings,” became popular again. The widespread recognition of the idea of ​​gradualism was facilitated by the works of G. W. Leibniz (1646-1716), his “law of continuity.”

The idea of ​​the “ladder of beings” was presented in the most detail by the Swiss scientist Charles Bonnet (1720-1793) in his book “Contemplation of Nature.” He was an excellent naturalist, the first to give detailed description arthropods, polyps and worms. He discovered the phenomenon of parthenogenesis in aphids (the development of individuals from unfertilized female reproductive cells without the participation of males). He also studied the movement of juices along plant stems and tried to explain the functions of leaves.

In addition, Bonnet had the gift of an excellent storyteller; he mastered the word like a real writer. “Contemplation of Nature” was not his first book, and he tried to write it in such a fascinating language that it was an unprecedented success. In places the presentation turned into a hymn to the Creator, who created all kinds of matter so intelligently. At the base of the “ladder” - on the first step - he placed what he called “Finer Matters”. Then came fire, air, water, earth, sulfur, semi-metals, metals, salts, crystals, stones, slates, gypsum, talc, asbestos, and only then began a new flight of stairs - “Living Creatures” - from the simplest to the most complex, up to person. It is characteristic that Bonnet did not limit the staircase to man, but continued it, placing the “Ladder of the Worlds” above man, even higher – “Supernatural Beings” - members of the heavenly hierarchy, the ranks of angels (angels, archangels, etc.), completing the entire construction of the highest step - God. The book was translated into Italian, German, English languages. In 1789, the already elderly Bonnet was visited by the Russian writer N.M. Karamzin, who promised to translate the book into Russian, which was done later, however, without Karamzin’s participation. Bonnet's ideas found not only enthusiastic admirers, but also harsh critics, for example, Voltaire and Kant. Others found it necessary to transform the “ladder” into a tree (Pallas) or into a kind of network (C. Linnaeus, I. Hermann).

In the middle of the 18th century. treatises appeared in which the role of the Creator was denied and the belief was expressed that the development of nature could proceed through the internal interactions of “parts of the world” - atoms, molecules, leading to the gradual emergence of increasingly complex formations. At the end of the 18th century. Diderot, in “Thoughts on the Interpretation of Nature,” carefully attacked the authority of Holy Scripture.

P. Holbach was completely categorical, who in 1770, under the pseudonym Mirabeau, published the book “System of Nature,” in which the role of the Creator was rejected completely and without any doubts inherent in Diderot. Holbach's book was immediately banned. Many of the then rulers of minds rebelled against her, especially as it related to the atheistic views of the author, and Voltaire was the loudest of all. But the idea of ​​​​the variability of the living had already taken root and was fueled by the words (especially forbidden) of Holbach. And yet it was still not the idea of ​​the evolutionary development of living beings, as we understand it now.

Philosopher from Nature

For the first time, the idea of ​​the kinship of all organisms, their emergence due to gradual change and transformation into each other, was expressed in the introductory lecture to a zoology course in 1800 by Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier (or knight) de La Marck (1744-1829), whose name is enshrined in history as Jean Baptiste Lamarck. It took him 9 years to write and publish the huge two-volume work “Philosophy of Zoology” (1809). In it he systematically presented his views.

Unlike his predecessors, Lamarck did not simply distribute all organisms along the “ladder of creatures”, but considered that higher-ranking species descended from lower ones. Thus, he introduced the principle of historical continuity, or the principle of evolution, into the description of species. The staircase appeared in his work as a “movable” structure.

In the Philosophy of Zoology, Lamarck did not limit himself to presenting this idea as a bare diagram. He was an outstanding specialist, possessed a lot of information, not only about the species of animals and plants contemporary to him, but was also the recognized founder of invertebrate paleontology. By the time he formulated the idea of ​​​​the evolution of living beings, he was 56 years old. And therefore, his book was not the fruit of the immature thoughts of an excited young man, but contained “all the scientific material of its time,” as the outstanding Russian researcher of evolutionary theory Yu. A. Filipchenko emphasized.

Is it a coincidence that at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. Was Lamarck the creator of this doctrine? It was in the 18th century. After the works of Carl Linnaeus, the study of species diversity became systematic and popular. In about half a century (1748-1805), the number of described species increased 15 times, and by mid-19th V. – another 6.5 times, exceeding one hundred thousand!

A characteristic feature of the 18th century. It was also the case that during this century, not only information about different species was accumulated, but intensive theoretical work was underway to create systems for classifying living beings. At the beginning of the century, in quite respectable works, one could still find Aristotle’s system, dividing animals into those who have blood (in his opinion, viviparous and oviparous quadrupeds, fish and birds), and those who do not have blood (molluscs, crustaceans, craniodermals, insects). After Linnaeus, no one would have taken this seriously.

The main work on the classification of living beings was carried out in the second half of the 18th century. And at this time, Lamarck’s contribution to the division of animals into different systematic categories was enormous, although still not sufficiently recognized. In the spring of 1794, none other than Lamarck introduced the division of animals into vertebrates and invertebrates. This fact alone would be enough to write his name in golden letters in the annals of natural science.

In 1795, he was the first to divide invertebrates into mollusks, insects, worms, echinoderms and polyps, later expanding the class of echinoderms to include jellyfish and a number of other species (at that moment he renamed echinoderms to radiata). Lamarck isolated crustaceans in 1799, which at the same time Cuvier placed among insects. Then, in 1800, Lamarck identified arachnids as a special class, and in 1802, ringlets. In 1807, he gave a completely modern system of invertebrates, supplementing it with another innovation - separating ciliates into a special group, etc.

Of course, one must realize that all these additions and selections were not made with just the stroke of a pen and not on the basis of random insight. Behind each such proposal was a lot of work comparing the characteristics of different species, analyzing their external and internal structure, distribution, characteristics of reproduction, development, behavior, etc. Lamarck’s pen included several dozen volumes of works, starting from “Flora of France” in 3- volume edition of 1778 (4-volume edition of 1805 and 5-volume edition of 1815), “Encyclopedia of Botanical Methods” (1783-1789) - also in several volumes, books describing new plant species (editions of 1784, 1785, 1788, 1789, 1790. 1791), “Illustrated description of plant characteristics” (2 volumes of descriptions, 3 volumes of illustrations), etc., books on physics, chemistry, meteorology.

“Posterity will admire you!”

Surely, a significant role was also played by the fact that he was never the darling of fate, but rather, on the contrary - all his life he had to endure blows that would have knocked down a less powerful nature. The eleventh child in the family of a poor nobleman, he was sent to a Jesuit theological school to prepare for the priesthood, but as a sixteen-year-old youth, left without a father by this time, he decided to serve in the army, distinguished himself in battles against the British (the Seven Years' War was ending) and was promoted to to officers. After the war, he was in the army for another 5 years, but already during these years he became addicted to collecting plants. He had to say goodbye to military service against his will: suddenly Lamarck fell seriously ill (inflammation of the lymphatic system began), and it took a year for treatment.

After recovery, Lamarck was faced with a new complication: his pension as a military man was meager, and he was not trained in anything else. I had to go work for pennies in a banker's office. He found solace in music, the pursuit of which was so serious that at one time he thought about the possibility of earning his living by playing music.

However, Lamarck did not become a musician. Once again he accepted the challenge of fate and entered the medical faculty. In 4 years he completed it, receiving a medical degree. But even then he did not abandon his passion for collecting and identifying plants. He met Jean-Jacques Rousseau, also a passionate herbarium collector, and on his advice began preparing a huge book, “Flora of France.” In 1778, the book was published at the expense of the state, it made Lamarck widely known, and the 35-year-old botanist, until then unknown to anyone, was elected academician. This did not bring money, but the honor was great, and Lamarck decides to prefer the career of a doctor (and the wealth it brings) to the career of a scientist (naturally, which promises nothing but poverty).

He is quickly rising to the ranks of outstanding botanists. Diderot and D'Alembert invite him to collaborate as editor of the botanical section of the Encyclopedia. Lamarck devotes all his time to this enormous work, which took almost 10 years of his life. He took his first more or less tolerable position only 10 years after his election to academician: in 1789 he received a modest salary as the curator of the herbarium in the Royal Garden.

He did not confine himself only to the framework of a narrow specialty, which was well written about later by Georges Cuvier, who did not like him and spoiled his nerves a lot (Cuvier did not recognize the correctness of Lamarck’s idea of ​​evolution and developed his own hypothesis of the simultaneous changes of all living beings at once as a result of worldwide “catastrophes” and creation by God, instead of destroyed forms, of new creatures with a structure different from previously existing organisms). Despite his open antipathy towards Lamarck both during his life and after his death, Cuvier was forced to admit:

“During the 30 years that elapsed since the peace of 1763, not all of his time was spent on botany: during the long solitude to which his cramped situation condemned him, all the great questions that for centuries had captivated the attention of mankind took possession of his mind . He reflected on general questions of physics and chemistry, on atmospheric phenomena, on phenomena in living bodies, on the origin of the globe and its changes. Psychology, even high metaphysics, did not remain completely alien to him, and about all these subjects he formed certain, original ideas, formed by the power of his own mind...”

During the Great French Revolution, not only the old order was destroyed, not only was royal power overthrown, but almost all previously existing scientific institutions were closed. Lamarck was left without work. Soon, however, the “Museum of Natural History” was formed, where he was invited to work as a professor. But a new trouble awaited him: all three botanical departments were distributed among friends of the museum organizers, and the unemployed Lamarck had to go to the department of “Insects and Worms” for a piece of bread, that is, to radically change his specialization. However, this time he proved how strong his spirit is. He became not just a zoologist, but a brilliant specialist, the best zoologist of his time. It has already been said about the great contribution that the creator of invertebrate zoology left behind.

Since 1799, simultaneously with his work on the taxonomy of living beings, Lamarck agreed to take on another job: the French government decided to organize a network of meteorological stations throughout the country in order to predict the weather by collecting the necessary data. Even today, in the age of space and giant computers, with their memory and speed of calculations, this problem remains insufficiently successfully solved. What could one expect from forecasts at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries?! And yet, the eternal hard worker and enthusiast, Academician Lamarck, agreed to head the forecast service.

He had several weather stations around the country at his disposal. They were equipped with barometers, devices for measuring wind speed, precipitation, temperature and humidity. Thanks to the works of B. Franklin (1706-1790), the principles of meteorology had already been formulated, and nevertheless, the creation of the world's first effective weather service was a very risky business. But even from his time in the army, Lamarck was interested in physics and meteorology. Even his first scientific work was “A Treatise on the Fundamental Phenomena of the Atmosphere,” written and read publicly in 1776, but which remained unpublished. And although Lamarck began this work with ardor, the weather, as one would expect, did not want to obey the scientists’ calculations, and all the blame for the discrepancy between forecasts and realities fell on the head of poor Lamarck, the main enthusiast and organizer of a network of weather stations.

Ridicule and even accusations of charlatanism were heard not only from among the hot and noisy Parisian common people, but also from the lips of luminaries: Laplace’s reviews were imbued with sarcasm, numerous forecast errors were methodically discussed in the Journal of Physics (of course, the botanist took away their bread, so and the result!). Finally, in 1810, Napoleon created a real obstruction for Lamarck at a reception of scientists, declaring that studying meteorology “will dishonor your old age” (Buonaparte himself, probably, at that moment considered himself almost a saint: the bitter losses of the battles and the fiasco of 1812 were still ahead ).

Napoleon, who imagined himself the ruler of the world, shouted at the great scientist, and old Lamarck was unable to even insert words in his defense and, standing with a book outstretched in his hand, burst into tears. The emperor did not want to take the book, and only the adjutant accepted it. And this book in Lamarck’s hand was a work that brought great glory to France - “Philosophy of Zoology”!

At the end of his life, the scientist went blind. But even blind, he found the strength to continue scientific activity. He dictated new works to his daughters and published books. He made a huge contribution to the formation of comparative psychology, and in 1823 he published the results of studies of fossil shells.

He died on December 18, 1829, 85 years old. The heirs quickly sold his library, manuscripts, and collections. They did not have time to look after the grave, and it was not preserved. In 1909, 100 years after the publication of his main work, a monument to Lamarck was unveiled in Paris. The words of Lamarck’s daughter were engraved on the pedestal: “Posterity will admire you, they will avenge you, my father.”

First evolutionary

What are the ideas that Lamarck put forward in the Philosophy of Zoology?

The main one, as already mentioned, was the rejection of the principle of constancy of species - the preservation of unchanged characteristics in all creatures on earth: “I intend to challenge this assumption alone,” wrote Lamarck, “because the evidence drawn from observations clearly indicates that it is unfounded." In contrast, he proclaimed the evolution of living beings - the gradual complication of the structure of organisms, the specialization of their organs, the emergence of feelings in animals and, finally, the emergence of intelligence. This process, the scientist believed, was long: “In relation to living bodies, nature produced everything little by little and consistently: there is no longer any doubt about this.” The reason for the need for evolution is a change in the environment: “...breeds change in their parts as significant changes occur in the circumstances affecting them. Very many facts convince us that as the individuals of one of our species have to change location, climate, mode of life or habits, they are exposed to influences that little by little change the condition and proportion of their parts, their form, their abilities, even their organization... How many examples could I give from the animal and plant kingdoms to confirm this position.” True, it must be admitted that Lamarck’s idea of ​​the inheritance of acquired characteristics, as later studies showed, turned out to be exaggerated.

He structured his book in such a way that in the first part he outlined the basic principles of the new teaching, and in the second and third parts there were examples that supported these principles. Perhaps this was the reason for the rooting of one misconception - the opinion about the relatively weak evidence of his arguments. They say that Lamarck did nothing but proclaim the principles and did not support his assumptions with anything serious.

This opinion about the work is incorrect; it arises mainly due to the fact that critics did not take the trouble to read the author’s voluminous book to the end, but limited themselves mainly to its first part. But there were also examples given there. He talked about the gradual change in wheat cultivated by man, cabbage, and domestic animals. “And how many very different breeds have we obtained among your domestic chickens and pigeons by raising them in different conditions and in different countries,” he wrote. He also pointed out the changes in ducks and geese domesticated by humans, the rapid changes occurring in the bodies of birds caught in the wild and imprisoned in cages, and the huge variety of dog breeds: “Where can you find these Great Danes, greyhounds, poodles, bulldogs, lapdogs, etc. . d. – breeds that represent sharper differences among themselves than those that we accept as species...?” He also pointed to another powerful factor contributing to changes in characteristics - the crossing of organisms that differ in properties with each other: “... through crossing... all currently known breeds could consistently arise.”

Of course, when proposing a hypothesis about the evolution of living beings, Lamarck understood that it would be difficult to convince readers just by pointing out numerous cases, which is why he wrote about this at the beginning of the book: “... the power of old ideas over new ones, arising for the first time, favors... prejudice... As a result it turns out: no matter how much effort it takes to discover new truths in the study of nature, even greater difficulties lie in achieving their recognition.” Therefore, it was necessary to explain why organisms change and how changes are consolidated in generations. He believed that the whole point was the repetition of similar actions necessary for the exercise of organs (“Multiple repetition... strengthens, enlarges, develops and even creates the necessary organs”) and examines this assumption in detail using many examples (in the sections “Degradation and simplification of organization” and "The influence of external circumstances"). His conclusion is that “frequent use of an organ... increases the powers of that organ, develops the organ itself, and causes it to acquire a size and strength not found in animals that exercise it less.”

He also thinks about the question that has become central to biology a century later: how can changes take hold in subsequent generations? One cannot help but be amazed that at the beginning of the 19th century, when the problem of heredity had not yet been posed, Lamarck understood its importance and wrote down:

“Any change in any organ, a change caused by a fairly habitual use of this organ, is inherited by the younger generation, if only this change is inherent in both individuals who mutually contributed to the reproduction of their species during fertilization. This change is transmitted further and thus passes on to all descendants placed in the same conditions, but the latter already have to acquire it in the same way as it was acquired by their ancestors.”

Thus, Lamarck showed that he clearly understood the role of both partners taking part in the formation of the zygote. His belief in the role of repeated exercise in changing heredity turned out to be incorrect, however, he realized the importance of the process of introducing changes into the hereditary apparatus of organisms. Amazingly, Lamarck even gave the changed individuals a name - mutations, anticipating the introduction of the same term by de Vries a century later.

And yet, being ahead of his time in understanding the main thing - the recognition of the evolutionary process, he remained a man of the 18th century, which prevented him from giving a correct idea of ​​the laws governing the progress of the progressive development of living beings. However, he was far ahead of his contemporaries when he speculated about what the mechanism underlying the change in heredity could be (“After all... whatever the circumstances, they do not directly produce any change in the form and organization of animals”).

Lamarck states that irritation caused by long-term changes in the external environment affects parts of the cells in lower forms that do not have a nervous system, forces them to grow more or less, and if similar environmental changes persist long enough, the structure of the cells gradually changes. In animals with a nervous system, such long-term environmental changes primarily affect nervous system, which in turn affects the behavior of the animal, its habits and, as a result, “breeds change in their parts as significant changes occur in the circumstances affecting them.”

He describes the process of changes in the nature of plants as follows: “In plants, where there are no actions at all (hence, no habits in the proper sense of the word), major changes in external circumstances lead to no less significant differences in the development of their parts... But here everything happens by changing the nutrition of plants, in its processes of absorption and excretion, in the amount of heat, light, air and moisture they usually receive...”

Consistently pursuing this idea about changes in species under the influence of changes in the environment, Lamarck comes to the generalization that everything in nature arose through gradual complication (gradation, as he wrote) from the simplest to the most complex forms, believing that “... deep-rooted prejudices prevent us from recognizing that nature itself has the ability and by all means to give existence to so many different creatures, to continuously, albeit slowly, change their breeds and everywhere maintain the general order that we observe.”

He noted the process of increasing complexity not only external signs organisms, but also their behavior and even their ability to think. In the initial section of the book in “Preliminary Remarks,” he wrote that “in their source, the physical and the moral are undoubtedly the same,” and further developed this idea: “...nature has all the necessary means and abilities to independently produce everything that we are surprised at her. ...To form judgments..., to think - all this is not only the greatest miracle that the power of nature could achieve, but also a direct indication that nature, which does not create anything at once, spent a lot of time on it.”

Of all these statements, later materialists made in the 20th century. the conclusion is that Lamarck was at heart a materialist. Indeed, his admiration for the power of the forces of nature was sincere. But still, there is no reason to speak unequivocally about his atheistic thinking, since in other places in the same “Philosophy of Zoology” he demonstrated his commitment to the thesis that nature cannot be excluded from God’s creations.

Therefore, it is more correct, in our opinion, to talk about Lamarck’s desire to consistently pursue the idea that the creation of the world was God’s providence, but by creating living things, God provided him with the opportunity to develop, improve and prosper. “Of course, everything has existence only by the will of the Supreme Creator,” he writes at the beginning of the book and continues in the middle of it: “...for both animals and plants there is one single order, planted by the Supreme Creator of all things.

Nature itself is nothing more than a general and immutable order established by the Supreme Creator - a set of general and particular laws governing this order. Constantly using the means received from the Creator, nature gave and continues to constantly give being to its works; it continuously changes and renews them, and as a result, the natural order of living bodies is completely preserved.”

Lamarck's system of views was undoubtedly a step forward compared to the views that existed in his time. He himself understood this well. More than once in the book, he repeated that those who know the nature and types of organisms first-hand, and who are themselves involved in the classification of plants and animals, will understand his arguments and agree with his conclusions: “The facts I present are very numerous and reliable; the consequences drawn from them, in my opinion, are correct and inevitable; Thus, I am convinced that replacing them with better ones will not be easy.”

But something else happened. Lamarck fell silent. Many of those who worked in science simultaneously with him (like J. Cuvier) or after him read Lamarck’s work, but could not rise to the level of his thinking, or casually, without arguments and scientific polemics, tried to get rid of his outstanding idea about evolution of living things with absurd objections or even ridicule.

His theory of evolution as a whole was ahead of its time and, as one of the founders of Russian genetics Yu. A. Filipchenko noted: “Each fruit must ripen before it falls from the branch and becomes edible for humans - and this is just as true for each new ideas..., and at the time of the appearance of “Philosophy of Zoology” most minds were not yet prepared to perceive the evolutionary idea.”

An important role in the silence of Lamarck’s ideas was played by the position of those who, like Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), who was very prominent in scientific circles at that time, propagated their own hypotheses, opposite to Lamarck’s. Cuvier unshakably believed in the correctness of his hypothesis of worldwide catastrophes, according to which the Higher Power periodically changed the general structure of living beings on Earth, removing old forms and planting new ones.

The perception of the idea of ​​evolution could not but be influenced by a completely understandable transformation of public views. After the triumph of the encyclopedists, although they publicly held views on the inviolability of faith in God, but by their deeds propagated atheism, after the collapse of the French Revolution, which reflected the general disappointment with the behavior of the leaders of the revolution in 1789-1794, to power (naturally, not without the sympathy of the bulk of the people ) other forces have returned. In 1795, the Paris Commune was dissolved, the Jacobin Club was closed, brutal executions “in the name of the Revolution” stopped, in 1799 the Directory took power, and in 1814 the Empire was established again.

Conservative views again acquired an attractive force, and under these conditions, Lamarck’s work lost the support from the rulers of public policy, which he needed and thanks to which he would probably have found recognition more easily. Had his work appeared a quarter of a century earlier or a quarter of a century later, it would have been easier for him to become the focus of society's interests.

Literature

Karpov Vl. Lamarck, historical essay // Lamarck J. B. Philosophy of Zoology. M., 1911

Lamarck J. B. Philosophy of Zoology / Transl. from French S. V. Sapozhnikova. T. 1. M.; L., Biomedgiz., 1935. 330 pp.; T. 2. M.; L., Biomedgiz., 1937. 483 p.

Filipchenko Yu. A. Evolutionary idea in biology: Historical review of evolutionary teachings of the 19th century. Lomonosov Library. Ed. M. and S. Sabashnikov. 1928. 288 p.

The editors thank K.I. n. N. A. Kopaneva (Russian National Library, St. Petersburg), Ph.D. n. N. P. Kopanev (St. Petersburg branch of the RAS Archive), Ph.D. n. A. G. Kireychuk (Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow), O. Lantyukhov (L’Université Paris-Dauphine), B. S. Elepov (State Public Library for Science and Technology SB RAS, Novosibirsk) for help in preparing the illustrative material

More about this