In honour of Gerhard Winkel (1926–2009), the great environmental educator and founder of the Hanover Biology Centre, documented by Ulrich Kattmann on the occasion of his 70th birthday
1

In the cracks between the generously laid stone slabs of the garden terrace, a rich variety of flora was sprouting, comprising panicle grasses, bird’s-foot trefoil and chickweed. At the edges, seeds of the greater willowherb that had been blown there had sprouted, and the plants that had shot up were now in full bloom. Some were already releasing their hairy seeds into the light summer breeze, which carried them away like feathers. A black ground beetle scurried across the terrace and vanished into the tangle of herbs on the opposite side. The two gentlemen sat relaxed in the somewhat uncomfortable chairs at the wooden table beneath the old fruit trees, enjoying the warmth of the afternoon. The tranquillity was accompanied by a soft hum in the air, as numerous flying insects added to the atmosphere. Honeybees, with their distinctive buzzing, visited the flowers of the willowherb one after the other, whilst a few earth bumblebees flew towards the large throats of the garden foxglove.

Charles Darwin squinted into the sun, gazed up at the blue sky of the glorious midsummer’s day and tried to catch sight of the redstart, which had been singing its short verse for some time now from the very top of the pear tree, but spotted only a blue tit, which was flitting about in the branches, pecking at buds and letting out a bright, delicate trill. At last, he looked at his companion with a clear gaze and sighed: ‘
’ ‘When I look at this enchanting and idyllic scene, I really couldn’t care less how all these creatures and birds came into being.’ 2

Carl von Linné started up from his thoughts, looked at Darwin in astonishment, took a thoughtful puff on his pipe, followed the rising blue smoke with his eyes and finally remarked, still gazing upwards:
“What prevents you from admiring the Creator through nature?”

“Nature’s workings are clumsy, wasteful, amateurishly base and appallingly cruel.3 One might doubt this when faced with the peaceful sight of this garden or a magnificent landscape. And yet it is all too true that a ceaseless struggle rages in nature. Often this struggle is the lot of eggs and seeds, of seedlings, larvae and offspring, yet it is inevitably the lot of every creature in the course of its life or – more frequently – over longer periods, the lot of subsequent generations.”4

“One can also see it differently,” Linnaeus objected. “What appears cruel to us indicates that all creatures are dependent on one another: the almighty Creator has arranged everything on our globe in such a marvellous order that not a single one can be found that does not require the assistance of another. The globe itself, with its stones, ores and sands, derives its nourishment and sustenance from the elements. Plants, trees, herbs, grasses and mosses derive their growth from the globe, and animals, in turn, from the plants. In the end, these are transformed back into their original substances: the earth becomes food for the plants, the plants for the worms, the worms for the birds, and the birds often for the predators: In the end, the predator is in turn consumed by birds of prey, the birds of prey by worms, the worms by herbs, and the herbs by the earth: Yes, man, for whom everything must serve his needs, often becomes the food of the predator, the bird of prey, the predatory fish, the worm or the earth. Thus everything goes round in a circle.” 5

Darwin smiled indulgently; the twinkle in his eyes betrayed a hint of mockery:
“Now you almost remind me of William Paley’s remarks on the purposeful design of nature.” 6

“Charley, do you really believe that Carolus Linnaeus read William Paley’s natural theology?”
Linnaeus had now become fully engaged in the conversation, as revealed by his use of the familiar form of address, and his vanity had been stung, causing his habit of speaking of himself in the third person to come to the fore:
“No naturalist has made more observations in nature, none has had a more sound understanding of all three kingdoms of nature than he, none has written more works—more accurate, more systematic and based on his own experience—none has so thoroughly reformed an entire science and ushered in a new era.” 7

Darwin sensed that a dispute might arise and, as a precaution, sought to defuse the situation:
“Sir Carl, after much struggle, I have come to the conviction that struggle and competition govern nature. The most intense competition occurs amongst members of the same species who inhabit the same territory, require the same food and are exposed to the same dangers, just as can be observed in English society amongst people of different classes.”
Darwin had addressed Linnaeus by his title of nobility in order to flatter him, whilst being painfully aware that he himself had been denied the similar honour he had hoped for. Still keen to find a compromise, he continued:
“However, from the very beginning, ever since I started publishing my theory, I have emphasised unequivocally that I use the expression ‘struggle for existence’ only in a metaphorical sense, which – entirely in line with your thinking – encompasses the interdependence of living beings. One can therefore rightly say that two canine predators fight each other for food in times of scarcity; one might also say that a plant on the edge of the desert struggles against drought, although one could just as easily put it this way: it depends on moisture. The struggle for existence is therefore by no means waged solely with teeth and claws. It even encompasses beneficial relationships: since the seeds of mistletoe are dispersed by birds, its existence depends on them. Figuratively speaking, mistletoe competes with other fruit-bearing plants to persuade the birds to eat and scatter its seeds.” 8

“I can tolerate a struggle without weapons. It is more like a love-making game,” Linnaeus now scoffed (though he had little idea of what a sensitive aspect of Darwin’s theory he was touching upon). “Look at the dragonflies. As soon as a male spots his beloved, he seizes her by the neck with the pincers of his abdomen. She is forced to follow, and, in an attempt to push him away, she bends her abdomen beneath herself against the male’s chest, right where Venus has hidden his arrows of love, and is thus overcome by force, as it were, without force.9 It seems to me, however, that you are very much biased by the idea of struggle.”
At the last word, Darwin grimaced painfully, for nothing weighed more heavily on him in science than the accusation of bias. Yet Linnaeus continued undeterred:
“One ought to consider the benefit that nature brings forth everywhere. The mistletoe must produce sticky fruits that serve as food for the birds. The birds must clean their beaks of the sticky sap so that the seeds are reliably deposited on the next tree and can grow there in the light: thus, every creature is created not merely for its own sake, but almost more for the sake of others: the pig and the hedgehog plough the earth. Moles turn the earth so that grass and herbs may take root more easily. Cocks rouse us in the early morning; the cuckoo, the lark and, indeed, the redstart, during the day. The blackbird in the morning and in the evening. The nightingales sing to us at night. Every year, the fish must migrate from the safe depths of the sea to the perilous shores and swim up the rivers, so that they may be caught in droves by animals, birds and us. Silkworms spin long threads so that we may clothe ourselves. The honeybees, as they buzz around us here, labour so hard to gather the honey for our delighting palates. Even the sea, through the ebb and flow of the tides, must wash up heaps of snails, oysters and lobsters onto the shore, all for the benefit of humans and animals.10 Lady’s hair moss is soft and does not compact into a hard surface when one cuts a mat from the ground. Thus nature has given mankind everything in abundance and provided for him so well that he lacks nothing, and has even given him bedding in the barren wilderness. However, humankind must first discover many uses before it can secure them for itself. On my journey to Lapland, for example, I found forests full of large pines standing there quite uselessly, for nobody builds houses from them. The trees fall over and rot away. During my travels, I have come to realise that the entire economy of a country is based on knowledge of the natural bodies of the three kingdoms: ‘animals’, ‘plants’ and ‘minerals’. Without such knowledge, economists labour in vain to help the country prosper.” 11

Darwin thought for a while. The ways in which people make use of nature were familiar to him and he found them appealing. Yet the accusation of bias had struck a chord with him. At last he resolved to tackle the crux of the matter and, with due courtesy, confide his true thoughts to his interlocutor:
“For some time now, I have found no merit in the notion that nature has been perfectly and purposefully arranged from the very beginning.12 I am inclined to believe that the adaptations we admire in living beings are the result of long-standing processes in which they have become adapted to their respective environments and ways of life.”

“How is one to picture that?” interrupted Linnaeus. “How are all these marvellous adaptations supposed to come about?”

“That is truly a very difficult question to answer! The facts that have kept me scientifically orthodox for the longest time are precisely those concerning adaptation.13 I have now, however, been convinced by numerous observations that organisms are not perfectly adapted, but only just perfectly enough to be able to compete with their rivals. For the individuals of a species tend to differ from one another in slight variations.”14

Linnaeus frowned: “I, too, have noticed that species can be modified to a certain extent by environmental influences, so that many forms which had been described as species by other scientists were recognised by me as varieties, such as the form of the water star that forms when a puddle dries up, or the hornless cows, in which, however, I was able to detect remnants of the horns beneath the skin.15 Perhaps the various species within a genus originate from such variations or cross-breeds.16 But species cannot change without limit. Such notions spring from popular superstition. For example, I was told of a strange tree. It was said to be an apple tree that had one day been bewitched by a beggar troll woman. She had, it is said, picked an apple and, when the owner rebuked her, cursed the tree, declaring it would never bear apples again. When I arrived at the spot in question, I discovered that the tree in question was nothing other than a common elm.17 If species were capable of changing at will, nothing would be certain any more. A harmless sheep could instantly turn into a roaring lion. Such assumptions open the door to unreliable and harmful speculation. I speak only of what I have seen and examined. In my work, I have looked over the Creator’s shoulder. In this way, I have succeeded in organising the creatures into a valid system and thereby grasping their nature.”18

“‘God created the world, but Linnaeus organised it’—is that not what both his friends and enemies claim? You yourself seem to believe it,” replied Darwin, his gentle tone neutralising the mockery inherent in his words.
“I explain the relationship between living beings by common descent. The variation of species is unlimited. But I do not claim that a moss can turn into a magnolia or a mollusc into a human being.19 The transformation of species occurs slowly and in very small steps. You are right, it is a hypothesis, and it remained purely speculative until I was able to demonstrate the causes by which such a variation of species can come about. If you consider the mutual kinship of living organisms, their embryonic relationships, their geographical distribution, their geological succession and similar facts, you might well come to the conclusion that species were not created independently of one another, but are descended from other species, much like varieties. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, however well-founded it may be, would remain unsatisfactory until it is also demonstrated how the countless species inhabiting our Earth have changed. It is therefore of the utmost importance to gain a clear understanding of the means by which such changes and adaptations have been brought about. From the outset, I was convinced that knowledge of variation in domesticated species would provide the best and most reliable insight into this matter.20 In breeding, selection is made from among varieties that arise by chance. The great power of the principle of selective breeding is not hypothetical. It is, in fact, certain that several of our best livestock breeders have significantly altered their breeds of cattle and sheep. Breeders even believe that they can reshape the constitution of their animals almost at will.21 I have found differences amongst 15 breeds of domestic pigeon that correspond to those of three distinct genera and 15 distinct species. Even their red blood cells were differently shaped.”22

“Where do you get the audacity to compare human selection with the creations of nature? Here we have the human selector, and there? Who performs selection in nature? And who sets the breeding objectives, if we were to accept your hypothesis as possible?”

“There is absolutely no objective in the process I have posited. Among the variations between living beings, there will occasionally be some that are advantageous for some part of their organisation. Environmental conditions play no role in the occurrence of such variations. The variants therefore arise by chance, that is to say, without any specific direction. It simply so happens that they are useful. At least in some cases!”
Darwin spoke with great concentration, getting straight to the point:
“Individuals with advantageous variations will have a greater chance of surviving and passing on their new, slightly modified structure. The less well-adapted varieties and species, on the other hand, gradually die out. I call the process by which the relatively fittest survive in the struggle for existence ‘natural selection’. A living organism – such as mistletoe, for example – can in this way be adapted to a wide range of living conditions and environments, as natural selection accumulates these slight variations from generation to generation.”23

“I also see that it could very well happen that some species might multiply to such an extent that it would displace all others. Let us suppose, for example, that every tobacco plant were to produce 40,320 seeds a year and that there were no one to consume any of them; then such a plant would easily displace all others. But that is merely speculation. On reflection, I come to the conclusion that something of the sort cannot happen, because it would cause something created by the all-wise Creator to cease to exist; moreover, the proper order and balance would be disrupted. If you trace the chain of nature, you will see that animals were created primarily for the benefit of plants, and not – at least not primarily – plants for the benefit of animals. Indeed, I cannot even imagine how the world could survive unscathed if even a single species of animal were to be missing from it.24 Why should I not recognise the Creator’s foresight in his creatures?”

Darwin took a pinch of snuff to ease his tension. Religious discussions tired him.
“I cannot bring myself to believe that a benevolent and almighty God would have systematically and deliberately created parasitic wasps with the express intention that they should devour caterpillars alive from the inside. I would not hold God responsible for that.25 Nor would it comfort me if He had used natural selection as the means to achieve it.”

Linnaeus smiled at such narrow-mindedness. “Now you’re talking about something you admittedly know nothing about.”

“How right you are! I describe myself as an agnostic and do not presume to be able to say anything scientifically about God’s plans. It is not necessarily more humane to doubt God’s existence simply because this seems more rational. Perhaps reason is not the only instrument for discerning the truth. I do not know.26 But in science, there is no place for the assumption that God intervenes in natural processes. With divine intentions and directed evolution, belief in miracles enters science and obscures our understanding of natural causes and laws.27

“One really must not be content with convenient and pious answers in science. They explain nothing, but often merely conceal ignorance,” said Linnaeus, agreeing with his interlocutor’s final remark.
“During my journey through Lapland, I marvelled at the fact that the reindeer walks in such a way that its foot cracks with every step. When I asked the locals repeatedly, they all replied that the good Lord had created it that way. When I asked how the good Lord had created it so that it always cracked, they were at a loss with their theological wisdom. But not Linnaeus! I seized an ankle, pulled, bent and stretched it, squeezed it together, yet still heard no cracking. Finally, I discovered that the cracking came from the hooves, which are hollow on the inside. When the ren is standing still, the hooves are spread apart, but as soon as it lifts its foot, the shells of the hooves knock together and cause the cracking.28 ‘I have no doubt that the Almighty Creator made the world and that science has the task of exploring His thoughts.’

Darwin took another pinch of snuff. He inhaled it deeply and waited for the relaxing effect to set in. Disputes over religion always brought home to him the strained situation in his marriage. ‘What would I be without this wonderful woman?’ he thought. But religion stood between him and his devout wife Emma.
“I have always avoided writing about religion and confined myself to science. I feel no remorse, as would be appropriate had I committed some great sin. I believe that I acted correctly by always following science.29 I have always been cautious in expressing my views, so as not to offend those who think differently. Nor have I ever spoken as tastelessly as my boisterous German friend Ernst³⁰ or drooled like my bishop-devouring bulldog.”³¹

“You were apparently not in the best of company,” interjected Linnaeus.

“I couldn’t choose my contemporaries,” muttered Darwin.
“I needed allies, even if they didn’t properly understand my central hypothesis of selection.32 The political radicals may have embraced evolutionary ideas, but they discredited science. And, of course, my social standing as a landowner. I was constantly in danger of finding myself on the margins of society. Should I alienate serious scientists who had taken my side? At first, all academic posts were occupied by clerical minds. ‘A School full of bishops is the Devil’s flower garden.’33 The worst reservations about my hypothesis stemmed from the fear that it might degrade humanity. For a long time, I anxiously avoided commenting on the origin of humankind, even though I had long since given it careful thought. Thus, in my book on the question of species, I wrote only this one sentence: ‘Light will also shine upon humankind and its history!’³⁴ But the book’s critics immediately drew the heretical conclusion that, as a product of chance, humankind could not at the same time possess an immortal soul. The way in which the question of immortality was dragged into my theory and the clergy were incited against me, in order to leave me at their mercy, was despicable. They did not actually want to burn me at the stake, but as a precaution they had already gathered the wood and told the black-robed clergy how they were to seize me.35 I was accused of having placed humankind too close to the great apes. To this day, this is regarded as an affront to humanity – the greatest since Copernicus removed the Earth from the centre of the cosmos.”36

“Where does such sensitivity come from? Long before you, in my System of Nature, I placed humans in the same order as the apes.37 One need only look at the classic characteristics – the teeth, hands and fingers – to realise how closely we are related to baboons and other apes, or even an orangutan. To understand man’s natural characteristics, one should look to the apes.”38

“Anyone who understands a baboon will do more for knowledge than our greatest philosopher,”39 Darwin agreed emphatically.
“Her astute classification of humans has not gone down well with some researchers. Richardus, Rex anatomicorum,40 even went so far as to demand a separate subclass of mammals for humans, on the grounds that humans possess a unique lobe of the brain. Humans differ from a chimpanzee as much as the latter differs from a platypus. I would just like to know what a chimpanzee would say to that.⁴¹ This is merely a biased attempt to avoid the conclusion that humans probably descend from an ancient subgroup of great apes. One should observe an orangutan at the zoo, listen to its expressive cries of distress, witness its intelligence and emotions, its anger, its sulking and its acts of desperation. And then – as I did in Tierra del Fuego – they should look at a ‘savage’, naked and uncivilised, who makes no progress even though he would be capable of doing so. And then let that person dare to boast arrogantly once more of their superior status.42 It is absurd to speak of one living being being superior to another. Humans regard those animals with the most highly developed mental faculties as the highest. A honeybee would undoubtedly use the communal instincts for brood care as a criterion.43 The insects buzzing about here would hardly regard either of us as the crown of creation. We ought at least to be able to fly!”

“These tiny creatures could teach us a thing or two about respect. It is here, in these small creatures whom we despise, that we can find nature’s greatest masterpieces. We admire the keen eyes of lynxes, snakes and owls, which see in the dark, but few notice the eight eyes on a spider’s head or the eyes of horseflies and dragonflies, each of which has many tiny eyes within its larger eye. How marvellously the honeybee has organised its household. How a queen bee loves so many males! She alone has been granted by her Creator the privilege, which no other female enjoys, that the will of the males should be subject to hers. When will the time come that opens people’s eyes to the wonders of these tiny creatures above all else?” 44

“When I published my book on the effectiveness of earthworms, a subject I had studied seriously for over 40 years, it was regarded as the unworthy whim of an old man,”45 replied Darwin with a sceptical expression. “Although I regret this attitude, the idea that man is descended from some lower form of life will be extremely repugnant to many.46 In evolution there is no goal, no predetermined order, no self-sustaining equilibrium, and man is a product of chance descended from the great apes. 47 Even my dear friend Thomas, who would rather have had a monkey for a grandfather than the Bishop of Oxford, 48 found it hard to bear the proximity of humans and animals under these circumstances. He believed he was safeguarding human dignity by claiming that the gulf between civilised humans and animals was immense. ‘Descent or no descent, man is, after all, no beast.’ 49 ‘Note that my unusually tame bulldog was the only thing separating us civilised humans from animals by a gulf, with which he justified man’s special position in nature.’

Linnaeus doubted whether he had grasped the idea correctly. What need was there for a special position in a nature that was so perfectly organised? 50
“If we recognise that, in the economy of nature, every living creature is created not merely for itself but for others, we can also deduce from this a duty for humankind: that it must serve primarily with that aspect in which it surpasses other animals. Among four-legged animals, none has been endowed with a brain as large as that of man. We were not given a keen sense of hearing like the wild boar, yet we have learnt to hear more clearly through the ear trumpet. If, therefore, the brain and reason are the noblest gifts that God and nature have bestowed upon humankind, then we must also use them in the service of other creatures and fellow human beings, and thereby refine them.” 51

Darwin shifted restlessly in his chair. The longer the conversation went on, the more uncomfortable he felt. “One can certainly excuse humankind for taking some pride in seeing itself at the top of the entire organic ladder. The fact that he has arrived there through evolution, rather than having been placed there from the outset, may give him hope of having an even higher destiny in the distant future.” He hastened to add: “But hopes and fears are not the concern of science.” 52
For a moment, Darwin had been caught up in his contemporaries’ belief in progress. He knew that, according to his theory, there was no automatic progress, and it followed from it that humankind could also fail in its development. Therefore, the thought of future evolution could offer him no real comfort and no certain hope. Nor did he foresee what ideas and actions—unacceptable to him—would be associated with his words:
“If progress is to take place, the social conditions for it must be created. In the struggle for existence, every living being must assert its existence in the competition for resources. This also applies to humans. There must be open competition for all people, and the fittest must not be prevented by laws and customs from achieving the greatest success and raising the greatest number of offspring.” 53
Darwin rose laboriously from his garden chair and made an apologetic gesture:
“I am not cut out for long debates. I must lie down for a while. This conversation has tired me greatly.”

Linnaeus puffed thoughtfully on his pipe until he realised, with annoyance, that it had gone out.
“Man, know thyself,”54 he muttered, though it was unclear whether he was referring to Darwin, who was trudging deliberately towards the house.

The shadows of the treetops cast a dark pattern onto the floor of the terrace. A cross spider, in a rush punctuated by repeated pauses, was wrapping up the honeybee that had become entangled in its web. The broad bands of silky spun threads oozing from its abdomen looked like the shroud of a mummy. A song thrush smashed a ribbon snail against one of the patio slabs, shattering its shell. The shell fragments from previous prey lay scattered like smashed porcelain. A solitary earth bumblebee buzzed seemingly aimlessly in a zigzag pattern across the open space of the terrace, reached the flower heads stretching towards the sun as if by chance, and finally disappeared into the throat of a red foxglove.
The redstart was still singing tirelessly.

Notes and references
1. Charles Darwin and Carl von Linné lived a century apart (12 February 1809–19 April 1882 and 22 May 1707–10 January 1778 respectively). The sense of contemporaneity between these two great naturalists is established in the dialogue through the validity of their ideas. The dialogue consists largely of original quotations taken from the writings and notes of the two men (see bibliography). The entries in Darwin’s notebooks are quoted in accordance with the biography by Desmond and Moore (1994). Where the quoted statements differ in meaning from the German translations, the original texts have been consulted for the version presented here. In some places, the wording has been slightly adapted to suit the flow of the conversation. The idea of bringing the two men together for a conversation was inspired by the disputes between eminent scientists in Norbert Bischof’s book on the biological roots of human behaviour (1993).
The illustrations are by Wilfried Baalmann.
2. Darwin noted this remark whilst resting during a walk across the heath, when he had fallen asleep and awoke surrounded by a chorus of singing birds (Desmond/Moore, 528).
3. Desmond/Moore, 508.
4. Desmond/Moore, 509.
5. Linnaeus: Discourse on the Curiosities of Insects, 243.
6. Darwin had read the works of the theologian William Paley whilst studying theology at Cambridge. At the time, these were very much in keeping with Darwin’s rational worldview. In his *Natural Theology*, Paley paints a picture of a happy, harmonious and purposefully organised natural world.
7. Linnaeus: *Autobiography*, 234.
8. Darwin: *On the Origin of Species*, 101 ff.; 115.
9. Linnaeus: Discourse on the Curiosities of Insects, 256.
10. Linnaeus: Discourse on the Curiosities of Insects, 244 ff.
11. Linnaeus: A Voyage to Lapland, 57; 45; 52; 77; Autobiography, 207; 226 ff.
12. Darwin in a letter to the Boston zoologist Asa Gray (quoted in Altner 1981, 7).
13. Desmond/Moore, 728.
14. Desmond/Moore, 523.
15. Linnaeus: Travels in Lapland, 25; 73.
16. Cf. Ballauff 1954, 303.
17. Linnaeus: A Journey to Lapland, 14.
18. Linnaeus: Autobiography, 229. Linnaeus repeatedly expresses the idea of ‘having seen God from behind’ in his writings (cf. Mierau 1991, 304).
19. Desmond/Moore, 497.
20. Darwin: On the Origin of Species, 26f..
21. Darwin: On the Origin of Species, 59 f..
22. Desmond/Moore, 485.
23. This paragraph summarises Darwin’s views as set out in *On the Origin of Species* and the preliminary sketch on *The Variation of Species* (cf. Altner 1981, 25).
24. Linnaeus: *Politia naturae* (quoted in Ballauf, 1954, 307).
25. Desmond/Moore, 544. Research into ichneumon wasps played a significant role in dispelling the image of a harmonious, purposefully designed natural world. Knowledge of the ichneumon wasp contributes to the view of a non-moral nature, as Gould (1991) impressively demonstrates. This theme is also found in Linnaeus (On the Curiosities of Insects, 259).
26. Desmond/Moore, 713.
27. Desmond/Moore, 665.
28. Linnaeus: A Voyage to Lapland, 87.
29. Desmond/Moore, 715; 724. Darwin’s wife, Emma, played a crucial role in his life. Without her by his side, he felt insecure and uneasy. Emma looked after him during his many bouts of illness. Darwin therefore affectionately called her his ‘nurse’. He also gave her drafts of his writings for her review. As early as 1844, he entrusted her with his draft on the question of species. When, on reading about the gradual development of the eye through selection, she remarked, ‘A bold hypothesis’, Darwin rewrote the paragraph and from then on broke out in a cold sweat every time he thought about the evolution of the eye. The couple did not see eye to eye on matters of faith, as Emma firmly adhered to the literal meaning of biblical teachings. Although she feared for her husband’s salvation, she nevertheless respected his integrity and understood that he had no choice but to follow his convictions. In contrast to his followers Haeckel and Huxley, who defended the theory of evolution with religious fervour and dogmatism (see notes 30 and 31), Darwin kept his scientific statements ideologically open (cf. Altner 1966).
30. Ernst Haeckel, Professor of Zoology at Jena, who visited Darwin on several occasions. His uncompromising zeal impressed the Darwins just as much as his boisterous nature. Among his tasteless remarks was the conclusion he drew from the theological assertion that man is made in God’s image: that the Judeo-Christian God was a gaseous vertebrate (cf. Desmond/Moore, 612).
31. Thomas Henry Huxley, a professor of zoology in London, was known as ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’ because he championed the theory of evolution with such vigour and sharpness. Huxley used the theory of evolution as a means of removing clerical scientists from their posts and replacing them with like-minded individuals. Huxley and Haeckel were kindred spirits in both their uncompromising stance and their anti-clericalism (see notes 29 and 30; cf. Desmond/Moore, 566; 611 ff.).
32. For neither Huxley nor Haeckel did the theory of natural selection have the decisive significance that Darwin attributed to it (cf. Desmond/Moore, 556 ff.; 611 ff.). Like many others, they merely took up the idea of evolution and supported it with ‘facts’ which Darwin considered insufficient for his theory (see the quotation in the conversation relating to note 19).
33. The English proverb that Darwin quotes here is: ‘A bench of bishops is the devil’s flower garden’ (Desmond/Moore, 566; English ed. 501). ‘Bench’ refers to a ‘seat’ in the English House of Lords and therefore cannot be translated literally into German.
34. Darwin: On the Origin of Species, 676.
35. Desmond/Moore, 542.
36. Sigmund Freud described Darwin’s assertion of a kinship with apes as the second insult to humanity after Copernicus. (cf. Vollmer 1992). This assertion usually leaves it unclear why it was Darwin’s theory, and not Linnaeus’s earlier classification of humans alongside apes, that was perceived as an insult (cf. Kattmann 1994, 4 ff.).
37. Linnaeus: *Systema Naturae*, 1st ed. 1735; 10th ed. 1760, vol. 1, p. 20.
38. Linnaeus: A Journey to Lapland, 94.
39. Desmond/Moore, 279. Here, Darwin names Locke as a philosopher and metaphysics as a branch of knowledge.
40. Desmond/Moore, 536. The London zoologist Richard Owen was derisively referred to as ‘rex anatomicorum’. Owen had described and classified South American mammalian fossils. He was director of the Zoological Museum and was regarded as the foremost authority on the anatomy of vertebrates. As a representative of the clerical scientists, he was the target of Huxley’s attacks. Owen had not sided with Darwin, although he himself held evolutionary ideas, which he nevertheless wished to see embedded within the Creator’s plan.
41. Desmond/Moore, 513.
42. Desmond/Moore, 279 ff. Darwin made these notes after observing an orangutan at the zoo for the first time.
43. Desmond/Moore, 266.
44. Linnaeus: Discourse on the Curiosities of Insects, 247; 248; 250; 251 ff.
45. Desmond/Moore, 729; 734; 737.
46. Darwin: The Descent of Man, 700.
47. Desmond/Moore, 542.
48. Darwin alludes to the now legendary controversy between Thomas Henry Huxley and Samuel (‘Soapy Sam’) Wilberforce, the Bishop of Oxford, which took place during the first public debate on Darwin’s theory in 1860 at the “British Association” in Oxford (in Darwin’s absence). According to Huxley’s version of the story, the bishop had asked him ironically, “Was it actually his paternal or maternal line that he described as descending from the ape?” At this point, Huxley is said to have whispered: “The Lord has delivered him into my hands.” Huxley reported the following regarding his reply: “If, I said, I were asked whether I would rather have a wretched ape for a grandfather or a man of great influence, richly endowed by nature with every gift, who would, however, use those gifts and that influence to ridicule a weighty scientific question, then I would confess without hesitation that I would prefer the monkey’” (quoted from Taylor 1963, 162). According to Huxley, the audience then burst into laughter and was entirely on his side. Other accounts of the meeting, including those by Darwin’s friends, did not perceive such a success nor observe any triumphant demeanour on Huxley’s part, as he was unable to make himself heard and therefore barely reached his audience. The evolutionists’ triumph in Oxford bears all the hallmarks of a heroic legend (written by Huxley himself) (cf. Desmond/Moore 557–563; Gauld 1994).
49. In ‘Evidences as to man’s place in nature’ (1863), Huxley set out the classic formulation of the special position of humankind as postulated within the framework of biology. ‘We may therefore examine any system of organs we wish; a comparison of their various forms within the ape lineage leads to one and the same conclusion: that the anatomical differences which distinguish humans from gorillas and chimpanzees are not as great as those which separate the gorilla from the lower apes. ... At the same time, no one is as firmly convinced as I am that the gulf between civilised humans and animals is an immense one. No one is so certain that, whether or not humans are descended from animals, they are certainly not one of them.” Biological attempts to articulate a special status for humans appear to be the result of the notion of human kinship with apes. From an unbiased evolutionary biological perspective, the concept of a special status should be replaced by the notion of distinctiveness (cf. Kattmann 1974; 1994).
50. In the pre-Darwinian era, a biological justification for this special status based on a teleological understanding of nature was not sought (cf. Kattmann 1994, 4 ff.).
51. Linnaeus: Discourse on the Curiosities of Insects, 246 ff..
52. Darwin: The Descent of Man, 701.
53. Darwin: The Descent of Man, 700.
54. In the 10th edition of *Systema Naturae* (1760, Volume 1, p. 20), Linnaeus explains the phrase ‘Nosce te ipsum’, which had been added to the species name *Homo sapiens* as early as the 1st edition (1735): “Nosce te ipsum est primus sapientiae, dictumque Solonis, quondam scriptum litteris aureis supra Dianae templum.”

Bibliography
Altner, G. (1966). Charles Darwin and Ernst Haeckel. A comparison from a theological perspective. (Theological Studies 85), Zurich: EVZ.
Altner, G. (1981) (ed.). Darwinism. The History of a Theory. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Ballauff, T. (1954). The Science of Life. Volume 1. A History of Biology from Antiquity to the Romantic Period. Freiburg & Munich: Alber.
Bischof, N. (1993). The Oedipus Enigma. Munich: Piper (3rd ed.).
Darwin, C. (1859). On the Origin of Species. (Reprint based on the 1st edition, London: Penguin Classics 1985; German translation by Carl W. Neumann based on the 6th edition of 1872, Stuttgart: Reclam 1963).
Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man. Translated from the English by Viktor Carus (2nd ed. 1874, reprinted 1992, Dreieich: Weiss-Verlag).
Desmond, A., & Moore, J. (1994). Darwin. Reinbek: Rowohlt (original English edition 1991, London: Michael Joseph).
Gauld, C. F. (1994). The ballad of ‘Soapy Sam’ and ‘Darwin’s Bulldog’: A case study of the use of history in science education. St George Papers of Education 3. University of New South Wales, Australia.
Goerke, H. (1989). Carl von Linné. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft (2nd ed.).
Gould, S. J. (1991). Non-moral nature. In: How the Zebra Got Its Stripes. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch (30–43).
Huxley, T. H. (1863). Evidences as to man’s place in nature. Williams & Norgate, London (German ed.: Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature. Stuttgart: Fischer 1963).
Kattmann, U. (1994). The Concept of Man and Human Evolution. Biology Teaching 18 (200), 4–13.
Kattmann, U. (1974). Special Status or Distinctiveness. On the Place of Humans amongst Living Organisms. Praxis der Naturwissenschaften 23 (10), 253–264.
Linnaeus, C (1732). A Journey to Lapland. In: Linnaeus, 1991, 6–156.
Linnaeus, C (1739). Discourse on the Curiosities of Insects. Travels. In: Linnaeus, 1991, 243–264.
Linnaeus, C (1768). Carl Linnaeus (Autobiography). In: Linnaeus, 1991, 158–242.
Linnaeus, C. von (1735). Systema Naturae. Leiden. (10th ed. Halle & Magdeburg: 1760).
Linnaeus, C. von (1991). A Journey to Lapland and Other Writings. Leipzig: Reclam (4th ed.).
Mierau, S (1991). Afterword. In: Linnaeus, 1991, 6–156.
Taylor, G. R. (1963). The Science of Life. Munich & Zurich: Knaur.
Vollmer, G. (1992). The Fourth to Seventh Insults to Humanity – The Brain, Evolution and the Concept of Humanity. In: Biologie heute (400), 1–3; (401), 2–5.