Few ideas in biology are regarded as more representing the state of the world than "species", and yet the original motivations for developing the notion in the 17th century were religious, in the work of Athanasius Kircher (c1602–1680), the Jesuit polymath. Prior to him, the use of the word "species" was interchangeable with "genus" in natural history. In order to accommodate all the "kinds" (species) of quadrupeds and birds on the Ark, in his tractate De Arca Noë, Kircher used several strategies, including eliminating those species that spontaneously generated (worms, insects and spiders), and those which were formed from hybridisation (such as giraffes, hyenas and several fabulous creatures). Kircher stands at the cusp of modern natural history evolving out of the bestiary tradition, and De Arca Noë was a serious attempt at natural history within the confines of his set problem, with many woodcuts of the organisms concerned. His work informed Bishop John Wilkins, the English polymath, as he constructed a classification of all possible concepts, and to this end he employed John Ray to draw up the lists of species in his Essay toward a real character and a philosophical language as part of the Universal Language Project. Ray was chided by his colleagues, and so he commenced an empirical list of species, in the course of which he presented the first truly biological conception of the term. I will then cover the subsequent history of the idea through to the Enlightenment, including the question of whether or not species were real or mere constructs of human thought.

1. Kircher and species

2. Kircher and species

3. The theological and
philosophical origins of the
concept of biological species
Kircher and species

4. The theological and
philosophical origins of the
concept of biological species
from Athanasius Kircher to John Ray
Kircher and species

5. The theological and
philosophical origins of the
concept of biological species
from Athanasius Kircher to John Ray
John Wilkins, the latter
School of Historical and Philosophical Studies
University of Melbourne
Kircher and species

6. Prior work… why do we have a concept of species?
Kircher and species

7. Outline
Kircher and species

8. Outline
1. The standard narrative
Kircher and species

9. Outline
1. The standard narrative
2. The prescientific notion of kinds
Kircher and species

10. Outline
1. The standard narrative
2. The prescientific notion of kinds
3. Kircher and the Ark
Kircher and species

11. Outline
1. The standard narrative
2. The prescientific notion of kinds
3. Kircher and the Ark
4. Ray and the Philosophical Language
Kircher and species

12. Outline
1. The standard narrative
2. The prescientific notion of kinds
3. Kircher and the Ark
4. Ray and the Philosophical Language
5. Biological species
Kircher and species

13. The Standard Narrative
Kircher and species

14. The Standard Narrative
There is a standard historical narrative about the concept of
species in biology and philosophy of biology:
Kircher and species

15. The Standard Narrative
There is a standard historical narrative about the concept of
species in biology and philosophy of biology:
๏
From Plato to before Darwin, everybody thought species were
Kircher and species

16. The Standard Narrative
There is a standard historical narrative about the concept of
species in biology and philosophy of biology:
๏
From Plato to before Darwin, everybody thought species were
๏
Fixed (unchanging)
Kircher and species

17. The Standard Narrative
There is a standard historical narrative about the concept of
species in biology and philosophy of biology:
๏
From Plato to before Darwin, everybody thought species were
๏
Fixed (unchanging)
๏
Essential (had a necessary common core of characters that
every member exhibited)
Kircher and species

18. The Standard Narrative
There is a standard historical narrative about the concept of
species in biology and philosophy of biology:
๏
From Plato to before Darwin, everybody thought species were
๏
Fixed (unchanging)
๏
Essential (had a necessary common core of characters that
every member exhibited)
๏
based on Greek philosophy and the Bible
Kircher and species

19. The Standard Narrative
There is a standard historical narrative about the concept of
species in biology and philosophy of biology:
๏
From Plato to before Darwin, everybody thought species were
๏
๏
Essential (had a necessary common core of characters that
every member exhibited)
๏
๏
Fixed (unchanging)
based on Greek philosophy and the Bible
Pre-Darwinians were “special creationists”
Kircher and species

20. The Standard Narrative
There is a standard historical narrative about the concept of
species in biology and philosophy of biology:
๏
From Plato to before Darwin, everybody thought species were
๏
Fixed (unchanging)
๏
Essential (had a necessary common core of characters that
every member exhibited)
๏
based on Greek philosophy and the Bible
๏
Pre-Darwinians were “special creationists”
๏
This narrative is bolstered by Darwin’s Origin of Species
from the 3rd edition onwards (“Historical Sketch”)
Kircher and species

21. E.g., Mayr’s narrative
Kircher and species

22. E.g., Mayr’s narrative
Kircher and species

23. E.g., Mayr’s narrative
Kircher and species

24. E.g., Mayr’s narrative
Kircher and species

25. E.g., Mayr’s narrative
Kircher and species

26. E.g., Mayr’s narrative
Kircher and species

27. E.g., Mayr’s narrative
Kircher and species

28. E.g., Mayr’s narrative
Kircher and species

29. E.g., Mayr’s narrative
Kircher and species

30. E.g., Mayr’s narrative
See Powers, Jack. "Finding Ernst Mayr’s
Plato." Studies in History and Philosophy of
Science Part C: Studies in History and
Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical
Sciences (forthcoming)
Kircher and species

31. The prescientific notion
of species
Kircher and species

32. The prescientific notion
of species
Species, the term
๏
Just an ordinary Latin word
๏
Used in technical and ordinary senses
Logical and philosophical uses
(appearances, predicates)
If a Latin writer wishes to talk about a
“kind”, they would use species or genus
๏
Which the translators of the Vulgate
did.
๏
Genus from gens (family or stock)
Cannot assume that because one writer
(Aristotle as translated) uses the term species
they apply it to “our” species.
Kircher and species

33. The prescientific notion
of species
Species, the term
๏
Just an ordinary Latin word
๏
Used in technical and ordinary senses
Logical and philosophical uses
(appearances, predicates)
If a Latin writer wishes to talk about a
“kind”, they would use species or genus
๏
Which the translators of the Vulgate
did.
๏
Genus from gens (family or stock)
Cannot assume that because one writer
(Aristotle as translated) uses the term species
they apply it to “our” species.
Species: The particular thing among
many to which the looks are turned;
hence, a particular sort, kind, or quality, a
species.
Genus: Of an assemblage of objects
(persons, animals, plants, inanimate or
abstract things) which are related or
belong together in consequence of a
resemblance in natural qualities; a race,
stock,class, sort, species, kind.
A Latin Dictionary. Founded on Andrews'
edition of Freund's Latin dictionary. revised,
enlarged, and in great part rewritten by
Charlton T. Lewis, Ph.D. and Charles Short,
LL.D. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1879.
Kircher and species

34. Kircher and the problem of
kinds
Early scientific revolution
Athanasius Kircher c.1602–1680
Jesuit polymath, Athanasius Kircher
published De Arca Noë in 1675
Needs to fit all the “kinds” (Latin: species)
on the Ark
c310 quadrupeds and several score bird
species on the Ark
Proposes thousands of species of animals
by hybridisation or spontaneously
generated
Kircher and species

35. The origins of species that
were not on the Ark
Hybrids and geographical varieties
๏
Idea found in Aristotle’s History
of Animals
๏
Repeated in Pliny’s Natural
History, and thence by all
educated Europeans
๏
The giraffe, for example, was
held to be a hybrid of the camel
and leopard (hence camelopard)
Kircher and species

36. Aristotle on hybrids
As a general rule, wild animals are at their wildest in Asia, their boldest in
Europe and most diverse in form in Libya [Africa]; in fact, there is an old saying.
‘Always something fresh in Libya.’
It would appear that in that country animals of diverse species [homophulê]
meet, on account of the rainless climate, at the watering places, and they pair
together; and that such pairs breed if they be nearly of the same size and have
periods of gestation of the same length. For they are tamed down in their
behaviour towards each other by extremity of thirst. ... Elsewhere also offspring
are born to heterogeneous pairs; thus in Cyrene the wolf and the bitch will
couple and breed; and the Laconian hound is a cross between the fox and the
dog. They say that the Indian dog is a cross between the tiger and the bitch, not
the first cross, but a cross in the third generation; for they say that the first
cross is a savage creature. They take the bitch to a lonely spot and tie her up—
and many are eaten, unless the beast is eager to mate. [History of Animals VIII.28
606b16–607a7]
Kircher and species

37. Pliny on hybrids
The noble appearance of the lion is more especially to be seen in that
species which has the neck and shoulders covered with a mane, which is
always acquired at the proper age by those produced from a lion; while, on
the other hand, those that are the offspring of the pard, are always without
this distinction. The female also has no mane. The sexual passions of these
animals are very violent, and render the male quite furious. This is especially
the case in Africa, where, in consequence of the great scarcity of water, the
wild beasts assemble in great numbers on the banks of a few rivers. This is
also the reason why so many curious varieties of animals are produced
there, the males and females of various species coupling promiscuously with
each other. Hence arose the saying, which was common in Greece even, that
“Africa is always producing something new.” [Natural History VIII 17.42]
Kircher and species

38. Abbott on hybrids
… this may be said of Africke in generall, that it bringeth forth store
of all sorts of wild Beasts, as Elephants, Lyons, Panthers, Tygers, and
the like: yea, according to the Proverbe, Africa semper aliquid
apportat novi; Often times new and strange shapes of Beasts are
brought forth there [Africa]: the reason whereof is, that the
Countrie being hott and full of Wildernesses, which haue in them
litle water, the Beastes of all sortes are enforced to meet at those
few watering places that be, where often times contrary kinds haue
conjunction the one with the other: so that there ariseth new
kinds of species, which take part of both. Such a one is the
Leopard, begotten of the Lyon and the Beast called the Pardu, and
somewhat resembling either of them. [A briefe description of the
whole world, 1599]
Kircher and species

39. Abbott on hybrids
Kircher and species

40. Abbott on hybrids
Rev. George Abbott was one of the
translators of the KJV
Kircher and species

41. Abbott on hybrids
Rev. George Abbott was one of the
translators of the KJV
๏
See God's Secretaries:The Making of the
King James Bible by Adam Nicolson
2005. Nicholson thinks this is a new
proto-evolutionary theory, being
unaware of the prior passages of
Aristotle and Pliny.
Kircher and species

42. Abbott on hybrids
Rev. George Abbott was one of the
translators of the KJV
๏
See God's Secretaries:The Making of the
King James Bible by Adam Nicolson
2005. Nicholson thinks this is a new
proto-evolutionary theory, being
unaware of the prior passages of
Aristotle and Pliny.
๏
The saying in Latin was cited by
Erasmus nearly a century earlier in his
Adages (III vii 10).
Kircher and species

43. Spontaneous generation
The standard view was that simple
organisms would generate spontaneously
(generatio equivoca), but also many
complex organisms too
๏
Augustine interpreted Genesis that
way (De Genesi ad Litteram)
๏
Great Chain of Being: no clear
boundary between living and
nonliving
๏
Kircher thought insects, worms,
molluscs would form spontaneously
Lull, Logica Nova, 1512
Kircher and species

44. Kircher’s explanatory target
So Kircher’s problem
reduced down to
accommodating the “large”
or “complex” animals on
the Ark
For this he needed to have
what in logic was called an
infimae species, the lowest
kind
Then he could calculate
the size and arrangements
on the Ark:
Kircher and species

45. Kircher and species

46. Kircher and species

47. Kircher and species

48. Kircher and species

49. Kircher and species

50. Kircher and species

51. Kircher and species

52. Kircher and species

53. Kircher and species

54. Kircher and species

55. So Kircher ended up with what we might call basic or
created kinds
Kircher and species

56. So Kircher ended up with what we might call basic or
created kinds
๏
And the term he used was, of course, species
Kircher and species

57. So Kircher ended up with what we might call basic or
created kinds
๏
And the term he used was, of course, species
๏
This, although theologically motivated (the Ark was
held to be historical because the Scripture was
veridical), was intended to be a matter of natural
history
Kircher and species

58. So Kircher ended up with what we might call basic or
created kinds
๏
And the term he used was, of course, species
๏
This, although theologically motivated (the Ark was
held to be historical because the Scripture was
veridical), was intended to be a matter of natural
history
๏
Part of the Counter-Reformation: allegory giving way
to literalism in response to Lutheran challenges
Kircher and species

59. So Kircher ended up with what we might call basic or
created kinds
๏
And the term he used was, of course, species
๏
This, although theologically motivated (the Ark was
held to be historical because the Scripture was
veridical), was intended to be a matter of natural
history
๏
๏
Part of the Counter-Reformation: allegory giving way
to literalism in response to Lutheran challenges
Kircher’s source was mostly likely Conrad Gesner
Kircher and species

60. Conrad Gesner
Publishes Historiae Animalium in
1551–1558
Uses woodcuts to describe many
species (including a number of
fabulous ones)
One famous image is done by
Albrecht Dürer; the rhinoceros
Kircher and species

61. Kircher and species

62. Kircher’s copy of Gesner’s rhino (Breidbach and Ghiselin 2006)
Kircher and species

63. What a real rhinoceros looks like (it always pays to check the sources)
Kircher and species

64. Clearly Kircher is trying to keep up with the
latest natural history in a period in which such
information is becoming unmanageable
๏
Most of his “species” are from Gesner,
particularly the birds
๏
However, he represents the fin de siècle of an
older tradition that spans the bestiary
tradition and modern natural history
Kircher and species

65. The invention of species
Naturalists used the term “species” in an ordinary way
from the 1500s (Gesner, Bauhin, Androvani)
Shortly before Kircher’s Arca Noë, Bp John Wilkins (no
close relation) wrote his Essay toward a real character
and a philosophical language (1668).
๏
Attempted to categorise all things in an artificial
language (The Universal Language Project)
๏
Included lists of species, drawn up by the botanist
John Ray
๏
Bp John Wilkins 1614–1672*
Forced all species into predetermined linguistic
categories
* No close relation
Kircher and species

66. Kircher and species

67. Kircher and species

68. Kircher and species

69. Kircher and species

70. Kircher and species

71. Kircher and species

72. John Ray and the first
biological concept of species
John Ray
1627–1705
Kircher and species

73. John Ray and the first
biological concept of species
Ray got a lot of criticism from other naturalists, and so he decided to
do empirically based taxonomy, writing the first complete Flora of a
region (Cambridgeshire)
John Ray
1627–1705
Kircher and species

74. John Ray and the first
biological concept of species
Ray got a lot of criticism from other naturalists, and so he decided to
do empirically based taxonomy, writing the first complete Flora of a
region (Cambridgeshire)
Later (1686) wrote that he needed a definition of the kinds/species to
justify his work
John Ray
1627–1705
Kircher and species

75. John Ray and the first
biological concept of species
Ray got a lot of criticism from other naturalists, and so he decided to
do empirically based taxonomy, writing the first complete Flora of a
region (Cambridgeshire)
Later (1686) wrote that he needed a definition of the kinds/species to
justify his work
In order that an inventory of plants may be begun and a
classification of them correctly established, we must try to
discover criteria of some sort for distinguishing what are called
“species”. After long and considerable investigation, no surer
criterion for determining species has occurred to me than the
distinguishing features that perpetuate themselves
in propagation from seed. Thus, no matter what variations
occur in the individuals or the species, if they spring from the
seed of one and the same plant, they are accidental variations
and not such as to distinguish a species ... Animals likewise that
differ specifically preserve their distinct species permanently;
one species never springs from the seed of another nor vice
versa.
Kircher and species
John Ray
1627–1705

76. After Ray
Kircher and species

77. After Ray
Ray’s was the first biological (i.e., specifically natural
historical) definition of species
Kircher and species

78. After Ray
Ray’s was the first biological (i.e., specifically natural
historical) definition of species
Ray was very devout and thought, as did Kircher, that
species were created (probable origin of special
creationism)
Kircher and species

79. After Ray
Ray’s was the first biological (i.e., specifically natural
historical) definition of species
Ray was very devout and thought, as did Kircher, that
species were created (probable origin of special
creationism)
Linnaeus (mid 18thC) adopted Ray’s creationism
Kircher and species

80. After Ray
Ray’s was the first biological (i.e., specifically natural
historical) definition of species
Ray was very devout and thought, as did Kircher, that
species were created (probable origin of special
creationism)
Linnaeus (mid 18thC) adopted Ray’s creationism
Buffon adopted Kircher’s notion of local varieties as
devolution from a premiere souche, or primary stock, in
the late 18thC [Still in use by modern creationists]
Kircher and species

81. Biologising species
Kircher and species

82. Biologising species
Used as a diagnostic criterion, assuming an underlying biological
(“physiological”) generative power.
Kircher and species

83. Biologising species
Used as a diagnostic criterion, assuming an underlying biological
(“physiological”) generative power.
๏
Adanson (1727–1806) and Jussieu (1748-1836) also focused on
distinguishing features, or “characters”.
Kircher and species

84. Biologising species
Used as a diagnostic criterion, assuming an underlying biological
(“physiological”) generative power.
๏
Adanson (1727–1806) and Jussieu (1748-1836) also focused on
distinguishing features, or “characters”.
Adopted by Linnaeus, Lamarck, and later by Cuvier:
Kircher and species

85. Biologising species
Used as a diagnostic criterion, assuming an underlying biological
(“physiological”) generative power.
๏
Adanson (1727–1806) and Jussieu (1748-1836) also focused on
distinguishing features, or “characters”.
Adopted by Linnaeus, Lamarck, and later by Cuvier:
๏
Lamarck 1809: “Any collection of like individuals which were
produced by others similar to themselves is called a species.”
Kircher and species

86. Biologising species
Used as a diagnostic criterion, assuming an underlying biological
(“physiological”) generative power.
๏
Adanson (1727–1806) and Jussieu (1748-1836) also focused on
distinguishing features, or “characters”.
Adopted by Linnaeus, Lamarck, and later by Cuvier:
๏
Lamarck 1809: “Any collection of like individuals which were
produced by others similar to themselves is called a species.”
๏
Cuvier 1812: “those individuals that originate from one another
or from common parents and those which resemble them as
much as one another.”
Kircher and species

87. Biologising species
Used as a diagnostic criterion, assuming an underlying biological
(“physiological”) generative power.
๏
Adanson (1727–1806) and Jussieu (1748-1836) also focused on
distinguishing features, or “characters”.
Adopted by Linnaeus, Lamarck, and later by Cuvier:
๏
Lamarck 1809: “Any collection of like individuals which were
produced by others similar to themselves is called a species.”
๏
Cuvier 1812: “those individuals that originate from one another
or from common parents and those which resemble them as
much as one another.”
The key concepts are resemblance and generation.
Kircher and species

88. Biologising species
Used as a diagnostic criterion, assuming an underlying biological
(“physiological”) generative power.
๏
Adanson (1727–1806) and Jussieu (1748-1836) also focused on
distinguishing features, or “characters”.
Adopted by Linnaeus, Lamarck, and later by Cuvier:
๏
Lamarck 1809: “Any collection of like individuals which were
produced by others similar to themselves is called a species.”
๏
Cuvier 1812: “those individuals that originate from one another
or from common parents and those which resemble them as
much as one another.”
The key concepts are resemblance and generation.
Species has a “life” after Ray, which leads to modern debates directly.
Kircher and species

89. Obligatory Darwin comment
Philosophers and historians of
biology are required by the Guild
Rules to mention Darwin
Was Mayr right? Did Darwin
change our notion of species?
No.
Thank you
Kircher and species

90. Fin
Kircher and species