Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. If Darwin wasn't the Beagle's Naturalist, why was he on Board?Harold L. Burstyn - 1975 - British Journal for the History of Science 8 (1):62-69.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • The Place of Man in the Development of Darwin's Theory of Transmutation: Part I. To July 1837.Sandra Herbert - 1974 - Journal of the History of Biology 7 (2):217 - 258.
    This argument has emphasized the professional character of Darwin's early activities, largely in order to balance the usual portrayal of the amateurishness of his early training and field of study. Arguing this way has revealed the interplay between Darwin's personal interests and his professional obligations, the latter being particularly important for the period from October 1836 to July 1837. In several instances, notably the treatment of his collections, the progress of his thought followed the professional lead directly. In the absence (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   13 citations  
  • “My appointment received the sanction of the Admiralty”: Why Charles Darwin really was the naturalist on HMS Beagle.John van Wyhe - 2013 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44 (3):316-326.
    For decades historians of science and science writers in general have maintained that Charles Darwin was not the ‘naturalist’ or ‘official naturalist’ during the 1831–1836 surveying voyage of HMS Beagle but instead Captain Robert FitzRoy’s ‘companion’, ‘gentleman companion’ or ‘dining companion’. That is, Darwin was primarily the captain’s social companion and only secondarily and unofficially naturalist. Instead, it is usually maintained, the ship’s surgeon Robert McCormick was the official naturalist because this was the default or official practice at the time. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation