No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Click here for all previous articles in the History of the Ecological Sciences series by F. N. Egerton Beginning with the voyages of Captain James Cook in the later 1700s, both the British and the French governments had been sponsoring voyages of exploration, which were usually followed by publications on the discoveries, as seen in Darwin's voyage on the Beagle and Edward Forbes' voyage on the Beacon (Egerton 2010a, b). In 1838, after years of discussion, the United States Congress authorized a similar expedition, partly to provide information useful to whalers, and appropriated $150,000 to fund it. This expedition, which eventually cost $928,183, was an important event for the development of American science, including natural history (Dupree 1957:58–61, Poesch 1961, Reingold 1964:108–126, Tyler 1968, Stanton 1975, Hanley 1977:143–156, Viola and Margolis 1985, Bruce 1987:206–208, Moring 2002:111–123, Philbrick 2003). With six ships, it was the largest voyage of exploration ever organized. Its explorations included America's Pacific Coast and the Hawaiian Islands, though these investigations were small parts of a four-year circumnavigation of the world, June 1838–August 1842, covering 87,780 nautical miles. Heading the expedition was Lieutenant Charles Wilkes (1798–1877), who kept an iron grip on everyone's behavior and would be court-martialed for administering too many lashes when he disciplined crew members (Leonhart 1985, Sprague 1999). On the other hand, Wilkes led a successful expedition and spent much of the rest of his life (excepting Naval service during the Civil War) overseeing publication of 20 volumes of reports (1845–1876), including his own five-volume narrative plus atlas (1845), and his two other reports. Those narrative volumes were based upon all the journals that the officers and scientists kept. Like Captain Fitzroy of the Beagle, Wilkes was competent to measure magnetic variation and map coastlines, which he was first to do in Antarctica, a continent that the expedition discovered (Ehrenberg et al. 1985). Naturalists complained that Wilkes seldom gave them enough time to collect specimens, limited the number of specimens saved, and afterwards imposed restrictions on their reports. Congress was criticized afterwards for only appropriating $20,000 to publish just 100 copies per volume. Wilkes and three others had additional copies of their volumes printed privately (Bartlett 1940:630–633). There were 24 volumes planned plus several atlases; 20 volumes and 7 atlases appeared (Meisel 1924–1929, II:650–673, Haskell 1942:18–21). The letters and journal that Lieutenant William Reynolds (1815–1879) wrote during the voyage have only recently been published (Reynolds 1988, 2004) Titian Ramsay Peale after the expedition. Self-portrait, assisted by Rembrandt Peale. American Museum of Natural History, New York. (Porter 1986:131) Charles Pickering (1805–1878) was appointed naturalist; he spent much of his time studying plants and human biogeography (Eyde 1985:29–30, Watson 1985:59, Harmond 1997, Burchsted 1999). Pickering worked on a manuscript entitled “Geographical Distribution of Animals and Plants” for seven years and privately printed two parts of it in 1854 (Ewan 1969:117). Another naturalist was Titian Ramsay Peale, met in Part 33 (Egerton 2009:464), who collected and illustrated birds, mammals, and insects. Those tasks he performed well during the expedition. Should the traveler who has crossed the prairies of the Arkansaw and Missouri Rivers, ever visit Patagonia, he will find in that country many points of striking analogy to the interior of North America. The face of the country (pampas, being prairies under a different name) bears a strong resemblance; cavies take the place of hares. Larks (Sturnus militaris), like those of the north, are seen, having red instead of yellow breasts (Sturnus Ludovicianus), but alike in voice and habits. Every now and then, too, he will meet with subterranean “villages,” or little societies of Armadillos (Dasypus minutus, Desm.), whose social habits and abode are like the “Prairie Dog” (Artomys Ludovicianus, Ord), a species of Marmot, of the northern hemisphere. In those societies of Armadillos, there may be heard a kind of barking, like that produced by some of the German toy dogs—the same sound which has given to our Marmot the name of “Prairie Dog” by the French voyageurs. This cry in Patagonia was found to proceed from an Owl, so like that of the prairies of North America, that we fear it is not possible to convince all our readers that they are really different. The Patagonian Owl seldom or never alights on trees; it is only found in the pampas, and there inhabits the holes of the Armadillo. Its food, by dissection of the birds we shot, was found to be insects and lizards, both of which are abundant in that region. The most perfect harmony seemed to exist between the Owls and Armadillos, whose deserted holes only we suppose they take possession of, and there build their nests, and raise their brood undisturbed. They are found abroad during the day in the open pampas, under an unclouded sun; and when we were watching in the evening for their quadruped companions, which are much esteemed for the table, we found that the Owls had all retired to their holes; hence we conclude them to be, strictly speaking, diurnal. Musk parrots Prosopeia splendens and P. personata, by Titian R. Peale (1848: Plate 34). He thought the yellow-breasted bird was an immature P. splendens. Cassin 1858: Plate 20. This passage describes what ecologists now call ecological equivalents, in which different species play similar roles in similar ecosystems. After Peale wrote Volume 8 of the expedition report, Mammalia and Ornithology 1848, Wilkes submitted it to other naturalists for comment, and they reported that he had renamed species already known and had Latin misspellings (Stanton 1975:327–329, Porter 1985:130–134). Therefore, after most copies, in storage, burned, Wilkes refused to reprint them, and eventually turned over the specimens and information to John Cassin (1813–1869) of Philadelphia, America's leading ornithologist (Watson 1985:50–54, Porter 1986:130–134, Peck 1991, Mearns and Mearns 1992:130–136, Thorsen 1997, Sterling 1999b), who had published an illustrated book on the birds of the Far West (1852–1855, 1991). Cassin had access to the rich library and specimens of the Academy of Natural Sciences. Cassin redid the volume, using Pickering's journal, which Peale had not used. Cassin's Mammalogy and Ornithology (1858 + atlas, 1978) had a larger format, with 466 pages vs. Peale's 338 pages. Cassin's edition has 53 plates, 32 by Peale. However, Cassin's revision of Peale's accounts of Pacific petrels was unsatisfactory (Bourne 2008). Peale described six new species of porpoise, but there is little in either his or Cassin's volume useful to whalers. Peale's insect collection was lost when a ship, Peacock, sank, and no insect report was published. No satisfactory depository existed for the plant and animal specimens. Secretary of War Joel Poinsett established in Washington a private National Institute for the Promotion of Science to house collections (Haskell 1942:6–8, Dupree 1957:70–76), but it lacked sufficient financial and scientific support and faded away in 1844 (Kohlstedt 1971). The Peale Museum in Philadelphia was sold at auction in 1845 (Sellers 1980:307), and the Smithsonian Institution did not open the first wing of its building until 1849 (Oehser 1949:39, Hafertepe 1984). There was some loss and damage of expedition specimens before they were finally deposited in the Smithsonian, and they did not all arrive at the same time (Reingold and Rothenberg 1985). These specimens became part of the foundation of the U. S. National Museum, created by Assistant Secretary Spencer Fullerton Baird (1823–1887: Fig. 22b), who later became director of the museum (Dall 1915, Herber 1963, Allard 1970, Deiss 1980, Kastner 1986:17–29, Mearns and Mearns 1988:37–43, 1992:43–54, Rivinus and Youssef 1992, Evans 1993:30–35, Allard 1997, Barrow 1998:77–79, Jackson 1999). Baird had also brought his own substantial private collection of birds and mammals to the Smithsonian. Pickering was supposed to describe the fish, amphibians, and reptiles, but he became more interested in human racial biogeography and never described them. Louis Agassiz (1807–1873: Fig. 22a) at Harvard agreed to describe the fish, and his former apprentice, Charles Frédéric Girard (1822–1895), at the Smithsonian, agreed to describe the amphibians and reptiles (Sterling 1999c). Girard's volume (number 20) appeared in 1858, and he was one of three nominated for the Cuvier Prize at the Institute of France in 1861 (Jackson and Kimler 1999:517). The U.S. Navy had the government version published under Baird's name, not Girard's (Hanley 1977:150–151). Agassiz's modern biographer claimed that “Agassiz never wrote the report about the Wilkes Expedition fishes” (Lurie 1960:303). However, Watson (1985:66) found that Agassiz worked on the fishes for a decade and had a 2000-page manuscript by 1861, but the Civil War intervened, and it was never published. Agassiz did publish a “Synopsis of the Ichthyological Fauna of the Pacific Slope of North America, chiefly from the Collections Made by the U. S. Exploring Expedition” (1855). Joseph Drayton's 1470 field drawings of the fishes and some engraved plates still exist, and Watson (1985:67–68) published two drawings and one plate. The fish, the illustrations, and Agassiz's manuscript were sent to the Smithsonian in 1885, and in 1920 Henry Fowler studied the fish and illustrations (the manuscript was then mislaid but is now in the Smithsonian Archives), described 18 new species (Fowler and Beach 1924), summarized localities where collected, listed the 588 species in the collection, indicating 195 as new, and made outline drawings of 76 of them (Fowler 1940). Geckos or lizards (Girard 1858: Plate 18. [Blum p.193 or 200]). James Dwight Dana. Jaffe 1958. The collection of invertebrates was also fraught with difficulties. For the first time in scientific expeditions, coral reefs were to be studied by both a zoologist and a geologist (Sponsel 2009:253). Boston merchant and ship captain Joseph Pitty Couthouy (1808–1864) was the conchologist (Sponsel 2009:256–268), and he and Wilkes clashed about the number of specimens of any species that could be collected (Bayer 1985:71– 72); when Wilkes demanded he turn over his notebooks, Couthouy initially refused. While he was sick in December 1839, Wilkes banished him to Honolulu. After that, geologist James Dwight Dana (1813–1895) had to assume responsibility for coral specimens as well as structure of coral reefs and atolls (Jaffe 1958:266–278, Stanton 1971:550, 1975:323–325, Prendergast 1978:205– 206, Appleman 1985, McNamara 1997, Warren 1999). Dana later recalled reading, after the expedition reached Australia in November 1839, about Darwin's theory of coral formation and immediately accepted it as the best interpretation of his own findings (Appleman 1985:91, Stoddart 1994:26). After Dana arrived on Oahu on 30 September 40, he proposed to Couthouy that they collaborate on a coral reef report, showing him a manuscript of over 70 pages as a start (Sponsel 2009:275–276). Couthouy apparently agreed, then returned to Boston while Dana continued on the expedition's voyage. Meanwhile, Couthouy read before the Boston Society of Natural History on 15 December 1841 “Remarks upon Coral Formations in the Pacific” (published 1842). After Dana returned and read Couthoy's paper, he initiated a bitter dispute in scientific journals over priority and plagiarism (Sponsel 2009:281–292). But that was only an interlude before Dana published his expedition volumes. Besides his originally assigned volume 10 (1849, 756 pages) on geology (Haskell 1942:72–83), Dana also wrote Volume 7 on zoophytes (1848, 740 pages, atlas 1849, with 54 of 61 plates by Dana [Haskell 1942:53]) and Volumes 13–14 on the Crustacea (1852–1853, and collected and drew 94 of 96 plates in the atlas on Crustacea). His article “On an Isothermal Oceanic Chart, Illustrating the Geographical Distribution of Marine Animals” (1853) was important for arguing that northward or southward distributions of animals from the equator was limited by winter temperatures, not summer heat (Briggs and Humphries 2004:8–9). Actinia species. By Joseph Drayton, engraved by W. A. Wilmer. Dana 1849: Plate 1. Asa Gray (1810–1888) was appointed botanist to the expedition, but before leaving was appointed Professor of Botany at the University of Michigan (1838–1842, afterwards going to Harvard) and resigned from the expedition (Dupree 1959:66–70, 1972, Stafleu and Cowan 1976–1988, I:983–993, Keeney 1997, 1999a). He would reappear as author of Volume 15 and atlas of the expedition's report, Botany: Phanerogamia (1854, 777 pages and 100 plates) (Haskell 1942:83–88). He also wrote a second volume, never published (Haskell 1942:97). A poorly qualified plant collector, William Rich (b. 1800), then became botanist, and a British plant collector, William Dunlop Brackenridge (1810–1893), his horticultural assistant. During the 1800s Britain produced a series of outstanding plant collectors, such as David Douglas (1799–1834), who discovered about 7000 unknown species, mostly in America (McKelvey 1955:250–265, 299–341, 393–427, Thomas 1997). Brackenridge was another such collector, and he received a salary increase and promotion during the expedition (Peattie 1929, Eastwood 1945, Maloney 1945, Stafleu and Cowan 1976–1988,I:299, Eyde 1985:28–33, 1986). The largest collection of specimens from the expedition was 50,000 herbarium specimens, of 10,000 kinds. It became the nucleus of the National Herbarium, and live plants and seeds brought back became the basis for the U. S. Botanic Garden under Brackenridge (Eyde 1985:33–34, 40). Plants from Fiji and the Hawaiian Islands were especially interesting for unique species. When the expedition reached Fort Nisqually, Oregon Territory, Rich, Brackenridge, Dana, Peale, and others rode horses south to San Francisco, where they reconnected with the fleet. Rich and Brackenridge collected plants along the way. Brackenridge's partly published journal (1930–1931, 1945) helps reconstruct the journey (Eastwood 1945, Maloney 1945, McKelvey 1955:685–730, Beidleman 2006:99–109). Measuring trees in a “pine forest,” near Astoria, Oregon. Actually, Sitka spruce and Douglas fir. By Joseph Drayton, engraved by W. E. Tucker. Wilkes 1845:V, facing 116. After the expedition, Wilkes assigned botany to Rich, expecting two volumes of text and two of plates. By May 1845 Wilkes realized that the project was too big for one man and restricted Rich to plants of Fiji and the East Indies. In 1846 Rich turned in his manuscript and joined the Army headed for California in the Mexican-American War. Wilkes discovered that Rich's manuscript was incompetent and that the materials would have to be turned over to a qualified botanist. The ferns were assigned to Brackenridge (expedition Volume 16, 1854, and atlas, 1855). Ultimately, there were eight botanists who published descriptions of plants collected by Rich, Brackenridge, and Pickering (Bartlett 1940:628, Haskell 1942:89–92). The expedition had made a notable contribution to the advancement of natural history in America. Continuing overland explorations were not on the same scale as the ocean expedition in the 1840s, but those led by John Charles Frémont (1813–1890) attracted more attention than the former. He became known as “the pathfinder” (Chaffin 2002), but it would be more accurate to call him “pathmarker,” as Allan Nevins did in the title of his biography (1955), because Frémont was more of a describer and mapper; the expeditions he led were often into poorly known, rather than unknown territories, and those into unknown territories usually did not lead to new trails (Sterling 1997, Herr 1999). He attended the College of Charleston, 1829–1831, taught mathematics on a U.S. Navy ship, 1833–1835, then joined the U.S. Topographical Engineers to survey a railroad route from Charleston to Cincinnati. Proceeding through the Carolina mountains gave him a strong urge for wilderness exploration, strengthened by a later survey of Cherokee territory in those same mountains Nevins On he was appointed by the of Topographical Engineers as to Joseph a French and who was the of the 1970, Jackson and John Charles Academy of the in They worked so well during two that when they the between the and Missouri they in Washington at the of the of the U.S. Coast R. a and all three continued on a map of the just Frémont met Thomas of of and their in exploration led to a When Frémont to his it was at first for was and had Frémont sent to survey the Frémont was to have his own in the and summer of He botanist who had Frémont to botany during the explorations (McKelvey Stafleu and Cowan 1976–1988, and Frémont the Territory, to find still to his so they in became the same kind of to him that was to accepted their and Frémont became his for the it for For of his expeditions, Frémont led expeditions the first three of which were while the and were McKelvey a to of first expeditions the was but Beidleman and all Nevins an of own about his own with three not on natural David A describes first three Charles but German wrote a journal that a of the and expeditions than do own reports. Frémont Washington for his first expedition on May and reached Louis 20 His first expedition, of about included an he met on a in the Missouri was to and map the territory between the Missouri and in the that had been discovered by in the in the West to the and North in the and it was on the Oregon They reached on 7 (Jackson and then continued on along the of the for over until they reached a that Frémont be the in the which they on 15 the the was and the was A on one and was collected for a was thought to be the one he though now it is that he had (Jackson and They were back in Louis on and in Washington on His second expedition, the most for natural history the on the to the south into and the into Fort during Frémont two reports to who was well for an American in the a for and between the two of them, they wrote Congress authorized copies printed of the first report and copies of the second (1845), which included a reprint of the them authorized he may have been for the Wilkes reports to 100 copies per These reports made John and Frémont a Frémont did and describe he also reported along the and in the of the the seemed to describe the he for the and their of that it was Frémont did not take a botanist along on the first three expeditions, but collected plants and Cowan 1976–1988, Beidleman 2002), which he turned over to botanist John then at the College of New to describe 1968, Harmond 1997, Keeney and descriptions were included in reports (Jackson and In his first report, a of in his second report, he described its more illustrated and that was the same as (Jackson and It is one of illustrations of plants Frémont discovered that he in his facing Besides reports included of and of along with and and for his first two expeditions (Jackson and His expedition, became in he California a shot, then to a between Army and Navy and was court-martialed for Frémont resigned from the His narrative of the expedition appeared in his in Frémont Frémont facing Frémont In his from New to and in the were being railroad The of a railroad had been published in but it only became a in 1848, after the United States had the northern of in the War. When Congress to fund a Frémont expedition, found Louis to his exploration of a route from Louis to San He mostly from previous of these was Philadelphia Edward who his and to and new was and Frémont on 20 1848, leading his to the and and They were for 10 or more at and he lost 10 plus and The had all reached b
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.