Content uploaded by Lyall I. Anderson
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lyall I. Anderson on Jan 12, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of the History of Collections (2010) pp. 1–14
© The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1093/jhc/fhq006
Ch a r l e s Darwin’s principal research focus between
1846 and 1854 was the detailed study of living and
fossil ‘Cirripedes’. This resulted in a series of mono-
graphs of extant and fossil taxa published by the Ray
Society and the Palaeontographical Society respec-
tively.
1
Darwin’s interest in the topic began with
material he collected from South America on 8 Janu-
ary 1835. After an initial investigation of ‘the anoma-
lous Mr Arthrobalanus’, he quickly realized that the
taxonomy of the whole group required urgent, detailed
systematic attention.
2
Moreover, by developing a par-
ticular taxonomic specialism, Darwin was able to
expand his scientific reputation, moving furthermore
from his earlier predominantly geological works into
published zoology.
3
On 18 December 1847, Darwin
wrote to John Edward Gray at the British Museum
acknowledging
How much a monograph of this Order is wanted, you, who
know it far better than any man in England, are well aware.
In fact the whole of the species are in an almost complete
state of chaos: As Agassiz has remarked, a ‘Monograph of
the Cirripedia is now a pressing desideratum in Zoology’.
How far I am capable of this undertaking you must decide;
if I fail it shall not be for want of labour.
4
Hindered by long-term ill health and far removed
from the coast, Darwin had little prospect of collect-
ing fresh material himself. Instead he relied on a net-
work of well-placed collectors and museum contacts
to provide him with the raw material essential for his
continuing comparative studies. With this, he worked
up cirripede material collected on the Beagle voyage
and gained new insights from his dissection work.
Other collectors such as Robert Fitch of Norwich
provided Darwin with relevant fossil material.
5
Our study is based on a re-examination of Darwin’s
microscope slide preparations of extant species held
by the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge.
Darwin’s handwritten catalogue lists 286 slides and
mentions that even back in the 1850s, the five slides he
had sent to Thomas Huxley were yet to be returned!
6
Sydney Smith’s analysis of the collection in the 1960s
revealed at least thirty-nine missing slides, including
those sent to Huxley. Since then a further slide (156)
has gone missing from the collection. This gave us a
data set of 246 slides to investigate. As this paper deals
with a collection assembled in the mid-1800s, many of
the taxonomic names used in Darwin’s original hand-
written catalogue have changed. Where such revision
has taken place, the original name used on the slides is
followed by the current usage in brackets.
We explore the relevance of material sent to Dar-
win by the amateur natural historian Charles W.
Peach, a coastguard living in Cornwall between 1834
and 1849. He repeatedly visited the local shores to
collect barnacles – a ready opportunity denied to Dar-
win. On promotion to Comptroller (controller) of
the port of Peterhead, Aberdeenshire and a further
move to Wick, Caithness in 1853, Peach continued his
studies of marine life.
7
He also exploited his maritime
Charles W. Peach and Darwin’s barnacles
Lyall I. Anderson and Mathew Lowe
The University Museum of Zoology (Cambridge) holds Charles Darwin’s collection of microscope slide
dissections prepared during his studies of living barnacles. This collection was assembled through an
extensive network of museum contacts and amateur collectors. We examine in detail the role of one of
these collectors, Charles W. Peach, a coastguard in the Customs Service. Detailed study of the slide
collection reveals an internal chronology of manufacture against which timelines of Peach and Darwin’s
activities can be compared. Four distinct phases of slide fixative are recognized and subsequent
alterations to Darwin’s original collection can be demonstrated. The internal chronology also reveals that
Darwin dissected and mounted barnacles as he received material, rather than working systematically
through taxonomic groups. Aside from Peach, other suppliers of barnacles included Samuel Stutchbury,
Joseph Hooker and Robert Damon.
Journal of the History of Collections Advance Access published March 22, 2010
l y a l l i . a n d e r s o n a n d m a t h e w l o w e
2
contacts to obtain barnacles from sea traffic entering
ports.
8
Aside from his independent efforts, Peach par-
ticipated in scientific collecting expeditions such as
one to the Shetland Islands with the renowned Welsh
conchologist John Gwyn Jeffreys (1809-85) in 1864.
Prior to this, Peach had been elected as a correspond-
ing member of the Lerwick Literary and Scientific
Institution, further revealing his standing with his fel-
low natural historians in Caithness and the Northern
Isles.
9
Clues to missing correspondence
Only one letter between Peach and Darwin is pre-
served within the Cambridge University Library’s
Darwin Archive and the wider resource of the Darwin
Correspondence Project.
10
More may yet come to
light, and the story revealed here certainly suggests
that other letters once existed. The following letter
dated 1 May 1871 from the retired Peach, then resi-
dent in Edinburgh, notes that ‘It is very long since I
wrote you, so long ago, that I find I am growing old
(70) but thankful to say, except hearing, active, healthy
& strong & am always busy about natural history &
geology.’ In itself this points to a history of prior cor-
respondence. Peach then sought Darwin’s taxonomic
expertise as a recognized expert in living barnacles for
an informed identification:
I send with this a small box by ‘Pattern Post’ in which I have
put a piece of Gulf weed part of a mass sent over by the
captn of a vessel, now lying at W. Hartlepool. He got it in
32°N & 77° West on the 9
th
March last. I got it last Monday
[24 April 1871]. Although Gulf weed was plentiful, this was
in a small patch & looked so beautiful he got some of it &
kindly sent me a piece. I have never seen any like it . . . I’ve
tried ‘Lepas pectinata’ but do not get on well – I cannot
make it that – for if I remember right in the hundreds col-
lected by me in Cornwall & Shetland they differ & therefore
in my dilemma I have sent you a piece of the weed & ask you
to be good enough to decide.
The Cornish material must have been collected
between 1834 and 1849. After this, Peach moved to
Peterhead from Fowey. The Shetland collections prob-
ably refer to material obtained during the earlier Jef-
freys expedition. The ‘Pattern Post’ to which Peach
refers was a particular service of the Post Office provid-
ing an inexpensive means of sending light samples of
paper and linen between merchants and sellers. Peach’s
use of this particular postal service was no doubt
informed by his former working days in Customs.
Contribution to the monographs
In Darwin’s first monograph on Living Cirripedia, ref-
erence to ‘Mr Peach’ appears in the preface to the
work and in footnotes throughout the text. This sur-
name was uncommon in 1830s Cornwall and com-
bined with his other known activities in marine
zoology, we are confident that this was Charles W.
Peach. In the preface, we learn of the good working
relationship only hinted at in the 1871 letter. Darwin
records that:
I lie under obligation to so many naturalists, that I am, in
truth, at a loss how to express my gratitude. Mr Peach, over
and over again, sent me fresh specimens of several species
and more especially of Scalpellum vulgare, which were of
invaluable assistance to me in making out the singular sexual
relations in that species. Mr Peach, furthermore, made for
me observations on several living individuals.
11
Peach spent considerable time observing live fauna
in the field. Darwin would have needed to set up and
maintain an artificial seawater aquarium of his own to
gather similar data. One example of an important live
observation by Peach related to muscular contractions
in the stalk of pedunculates.
12
Further evidence of
Peach’s ‘field-based’ observations being used con-
cerns the goose barnacle Lepas anatifera: ‘Mr. Peach
has given me the particulars of two instances, in
which, after gales of wind, this species, of nearly full
size, adhering to apparently freshly broken-off Lami-
nariæ, has been cast upon the coast of England and
Scotland’.
13
In relation to Scalpellum vulgare (now recognized as
a junior synonym of Scalpellum scalpellum), Darwin
cited Peach’s work in Cornwall on how individuals of
this species often cluster together and grow off the
peduncle, or fleshy ‘stalk’ of others.
14
Later on he
reported Peach’s observations on the possible breed-
ing seasons of the species: ‘. . . and on February the
12th I received from Mr. Peach, from Cornwall, spec-
imens so very young that they must have become
attached during the first days of the month’
15
– per-
haps one of Darwin’s more unusual ‘birthday presents’
that day. A further comment reveals that packages
sent by Peach were not unusual at Down House: ‘I
have examined a great number of specimens from
c h a r l e s w . p e a c h a n d d a r w i n ’ s b a r n a c l e s
3
various localities, taken at different times of the
year,—some dozen specimens from Cornwall’, in
respect of which Darwin thanked Peach for his
‘unwearied kindness’.
16
In the second volume of his work on Living Cirripe-
dia, Darwin continued to cite Peach’s Cornish obser-
vations. These were now historic in nature as the
Peach household had travelled north to Caithness.
Darwin based his comments on their former discus-
sions when he discussed moulting frequency in the
Balanidae:
17
This frequency of exuviation, together with the durability
of the cast-off integuments, explains the astonishing masses
of exuviæ, which Mr. Peach assures me he annually has
observed off the coast of Cornwall; they are most abundant
in April and May, but he has seen quantities also in Septem-
ber; he could easily, as he tells me, have filled several quart-
measures with them. The specimens sent to me consisted
chiefly of Balanus balanoides, perforatus, and Chthamalus
stellatus.
And on the reproductive cycle in members of the
Verrucidae:
18
In specimens of V. Strömia collected by Mr. Peach for me,
in Cornwall, during the first week of April, there were
included two ovigerous lamellæ.
So what initially prompted Peach and Darwin to
enter into correspondence over barnacles? Their
homes were geographically remote and the two men
operated in different professional and social circles.
We suggest that the British Association for the
Advancement of Science played a vital role in forming
and sustaining their connection.
Peach’s early career
Peach joined the Customs Service in 1824 and was
posted to the North Norfolk coast.
19
Thereafter new
postings followed regularly every few years, a system
designed to prevent familiarity developing between
the officers and local smugglers. This enforced mobil-
ity was no doubt inconvenient, but it did help to
expose Peach to a wide range of shoreline locations,
natural history and geology. In effect, Peach’s travels,
were analogous to Darwin’s ‘Voyage’. As Peach moved
around the British coastline he developed a broad
overview of coastal life available to few others. Having
a profession that required him to operate routinely
out of doors was also advantageous to his collecting
activities. Archibald Geikie later indicated as much
during his address on the presentation to Peach of the
Neill Prize of the Royal Society of Edinburgh:
‘
His
enforced residence near the sea has been turned by
him to excellent account, for he has materially
increased our acquaintance with the marine fauna
which surrounds our islands.’
20
Peach’s various postings are revealed through
Coastguard records, the birth-certificates of his vari-
ous offspring, and census records.
21
For example, he
was at Lyme Regis in Dorset between late 1830 and
1831. This was at the time when Mary Anning (1799-
1847) was active in collecting and selling her fossil
finds from the Jurassic coastline.
22
Based at the har-
bour and patrolling the nearby shorelines, Peach
surely encountered her there. Indeed Peach was ‘so
constantly finding fossil remains that his enthusiasm
was greatly stirred’ whilst at Charmouth and Lyme.
23
He had already shown interest in fossil remains, assist-
ing in the discovery and excavation of fossil elephant
bones from near Cromer.
24
In late 1831, while Peach
was based in Dorset, Darwin set off on the voyage that
would furnish him with the collections to launch his
scientific career.
Peach’s early attempts at entering into natural his-
tory came a few years after his 1834 posting to Gorran
Haven in Cornwall. On 24 December 1838, he wrote
to Henry De la Beche indicating that he would ‘gladly
make a collection of specimens for the Ordnance
Museum.’
25
This relates to his discovery of fossil cri-
noids and corals in Cornish rocks which Adam Sedg-
wick had previously pronounced unfossiliferous.
Peach was seeking potential employment with the
recently formed Geological Survey of Great Britain of
which De la Beche was the first (and the then incum-
bent) Director. The Peach family’s direct association
with the Survey finally came about in the 1860s with
the appointment of Charles’s youngest son, Benjamin
Neave Peach, through the agency of De la Beche’s
successor, Sir Roderick Impey Murchison.
The British Association
A key outlet for much of Peach’s natural history
recording was provided by the meetings of the British
Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS).
These provided him with a national forum aside from
his work in local societies.
26
The annual BAAS events
may have introduced Peach to Darwin either directly
l y a l l i . a n d e r s o n a n d m a t h e w l o w e
4
or indirectly through acquaintances in common, or
through the subsequently published Reports. Peach’s
name first appears on the subscriber list for 1847, but
his participation in the meetings began much earlier.
27
To provide background to Darwin and Peach’s cor-
respondence, we set out a short chronology of the two
men’s attendance and participation in the Association
between 1838 and 1856 – the period during which
Darwin’s work on barnacles was conceived, developed
and finally published.
Darwin’s initial involvement with the BAAS
occurred whilst he was overseas onboard HMS Bea-
gle. At the 1833 meeting held in Cambridge, William
Buckland and William Clift (conservator of the
Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons)
publicized Darwin’s South American vertebrate fos-
sils in Section C (Geology and Geography). Overall,
Darwin’s involvement and attendance at BAAS meet-
ings was somewhat patchy compared to that of Peach.
For example, Newcastle hosted the 1838 Association
meeting and Darwin’s correspondence reveals his rea-
son for not attending:
Many thanks for your kind invitation to pay you a visit after
the Newcastle meeting; but I shall not go there; when one
only gets a months holidays in the year, one can’t give it up
to flatter and be flattered which seems the grand object of
the British Association . . .
28
The situation at Birmingham was somewhat differ-
ent. Prior to the 1839 meeting, Charles Lyell encour-
aged Darwin to attend.
29
Darwin’s scientific hero
seemingly swayed his opinion but another practical
reason for showing face was that he had been elected
as one of the vice-presidents.
30
Glasgow hosted the
1840 meeting, when Buckland, Murchison and De la
Beche joined a party of other geologists on a field
excursion to the Isle of Arran. Whether Peach partici-
pated in this event is unknown, but all of these
figures were important in his later development and
support. The 1841 meeting held at Plymouth, Devon,
was effectively on Peach’s home ground, and he
presented a paper in person to Section C (Geology
and Geography).
31
The following June the BAAS met at Manchester.
Peach spoke in the Zoological Section (D), relating
further observations he had made on the marine
faunas of the Cornish coast. Sedgwick, Murchison,
De la Beche and Buckland all attended the Geo-
logical Section and the related field excursion.
32
Darwin was now serving on a working committee of
the Association relating to matters of zoological
nomenclature.
The venue for the 1843 meeting was Cork in Ire-
land. Darwin wrote to Charles Lyell indicating that
the Section D (Zoology) was very good, but Section C
(Geology) was pretty poor.
33
Peach spoke here on
various shelled molluscs.
34
The subsequent minutes
of the meeting reveal that Peach’s ‘amateur’ natural
history researches were now recognized by contem-
porary ‘professional’ scientists. A committee was
appointed ‘. . . with £10. at their disposal for the pur-
pose of enabling Mr Peach to continue his researches
on the Marine Zoology of Cornwall and Devon, espe-
cially on the development and preservation of the
Radiata and Mollusca.’
35
This committee included,
amongst others, Professor Richard Owen and the
renowned marine zoologist Edward Forbes. Grants
awarded to assist in further research, were often more
attractive than prizes, since they added an additional
source of leisure-time income.
36
However, due to poor
attendance and a related low income from subscrip-
tions to the Cork meeting, a cut in the level of grants
took place that year, so Peach was fortunate to receive
what he did.
Peach’s recognition as a working man making valu-
able contributions to science was further emphasized
in 1844 when the BAAS met again in York, complet-
ing the circuit of venues initiated in 1831. The ‘jour-
nalist’ Robert Chambers reported on the proceedings,
mentioning Peach’s presence in Section D.
37
In par-
ticular he promoted Peach’s presentation of ‘a discov-
ery of a holothuria with twenty tentacula, a species of
the echinodermata, which Edward Forbes, in his book
on star-fishes, has said was never yet observed in the
British seas.’ Hill and Adamson took a ‘calotype’
image of Peach in his Coastguard uniform at this
event.
38
Darwin did not attend the York meeting in
1844, as is revealed by his correspondence with
Lyell.
39
The preceding February, George Johnston
(amongst others) founded the Ray Society. Sharing
many members in common with Section D of the
British Association, it held its inaugural meeting at
the BAAS event at York. Importantly, the Ray Soci-
ety aimed to publish natural history works which were
deemed commercially unviable and which would oth-
erwise never see the light of day.
40
It was through this
avenue that Darwin’s living cirripede monographs
were finally published.
c h a r l e s w . p e a c h a n d d a r w i n ’ s b a r n a c l e s
5
The BAAS returned to Cambridge in 1845, with
Adam Sedgwick in charge. Surprisingly, Darwin was
absent from this meeting. Writing to Ernst Dieffen-
bach, Darwin mentions his poor health and the immi-
nent birth of a child.
41
Peach presented specifically on
barnacles which he identified as Anatifa laevis, A. sul-
cata and A. fascicularis as well as Pollicipes scalpellum
(now Scalpellum scalpellum), with observations of the
habits of the latter in relation to forming attached
clusters.
42
He also presented observations on the bar-
nacle ‘Cineras vittata’, specimens of which he had col-
lected in Plymouth from the bottom of a vessel
unloading cargo from Africa. This was immediately
before Darwin began his concerted study, and we
wonder whether Peach’s paper focused Darwin’s
mind on the fact that others were actively researching
in the same field. Although not present at the meet-
ing, Darwin later read the Report of the Association
and perhaps established contact with Peach after this.
Darwin specifically names the subject of Peach’s paper
(Scalpellum) and Peach himself in the preface to his
first monograph, perhaps indicating that the latter
had magnanimously provided his findings on the
organism for the greater good of the science as a
whole. This would fit the general pattern of Peach’s
generosity throughout his life and in natural history
studies in particular.
43
Darwin attended the 1846 Association meeting in
Southampton that September. Lyell and Joseph
Hooker were both there, and the proximity of the
venue to Down House may also have been conven-
ient. Peach presented in Section D (Zoology), outlin-
ing his observations on the sea anemone Actinia
chrysanthellum (now Halcampa chrysanthellum). Peach
and Darwin’s particular interests in marine zoology
clearly overlapped at this time, and Darwin later com-
mented that although the papers were ‘all dull’ he met
many friends and made many new acquaintances.
This was the year that Prince Albert made his debut
at the meeting. Combined with Peach’s attendance in
1847 at Oxford, it explains the otherwise curious note
in a letter to De la Beche. Peach indicated that he was
planning to assemble a collection of marine inverte-
brates specifically for the Prince during the summer
of 1848.
44
This was not the only activity to occupy
Peach that summer. On 13 June he met Alfred, Lord
Tennyson in Cornwall. The latter was laid up in bed
after injuring his foot in an accident during his tour of
the county. Whilst confined to bed-rest, Tennyson
was treated to ‘zoophytes, corallines, a spider, strange
sights through the microscope’.
45
Peach continued his marine researches and reported
in both Section C and Section D at the 1849 Birming-
ham meeting.
46
Here he was part of an eight-man-
strong committee tasked with reporting ‘on the
registration of the periodic phenomena of plants and
animals’. Other committee members included Edwin
Lankester, Leonard Jenyns and Darwin’s Cambridge
mentor, John Stevens Henslow. Darwin and his wife
attended, and listened to Albany Hancock’s paper on
the barnacle Alcippe lampas (now Trypetesa lampas).
47
Hancock and Darwin’s subsequent correspondence is
more completely documented than that with Peach,
but it further demonstrates the BAAS’s importance as
a discussion forum for workers with shared interests.
The BAAS returned to Edinburgh in 1850. Here
Peach presented data from his new local patch, the
northern port of Peterhead.
48
A letter to De la Beche
dated 20 September 1850 records Peach as meeting
with Sedgwick and Hugh Miller in Edinburgh.
49
Peach had previously sent fossils to Miller from Corn-
wall, soon after the publication of the latter’s Old Red
Sandstone; the two men became firm friends and went
fossil collecting together.
50
Three days later, Peach
wrote again to De la Beche regarding an opening for a
fossil collector within the Geological Survey: his son
William was eager to apply for the position, but this
petition came to nothing.
51
Darwin moved on to the study of fossil barnacles
after 1850, a topic on which Peach had no material
contribution to make. Peach attended the 1851 meet-
ing in Ipswich and collected fossils during his time
there. About ten fossil bryozoans in the National
Museums Scotland collections originate from this
visit.
52
At least one bears the locality and date ‘Ipswich
1851’, written on light-blue paper stuck to the fossil.
Peach’s labelling of his fossil finds has been explored
elsewhere in relation to site availability and the chro-
nology of his collecting, but these fossils from Ipswich
represent the earliest known implementation of this
labelling style.
53
Peach’s presence at later Association meetings falls
beyond the scope of this study. However his topics
consistently reflect his changing collecting interests. In
the north of Scotland he devoted his attention to geol-
ogy and palaeontology, but still maintained some zoo-
logical interests. In 1855, Roderick Murchison
acknowledged Peach in his paper on the Durness
l y a l l i . a n d e r s o n a n d m a t h e w l o w e
6
Fig. 1. Eight of Darwin’s microscope slides from the Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge. Note the standardized paper labels affixed to the glass slides subsequent to their museum accession. Slides 1 and 19 exhibit Phase 1 fixative; slides 40 and 80 Phase 2 fixative
(gold size); slide 142 is secured by Phase 3 fixative; slides 17, 201 and 283 display the black asphalt fixative of Phase 4.
Limestone at the Glasgow meeting.
54
Peach later
reported his surprising discoveries of fossils from the
Durness Limestone to Sedgwick prior to Murchison
and Nicol’s visit on 18 August 1856.
55
Fossil-hunting
in the Middle Devonian Caithness flagstones both on
the mainland and latterly in Orkney led Peach into
continued correspondence with Sedgwick. A final
move to Edinburgh saw him embark on a study of the
local Carboniferous plant fossils unearthed by the min-
eral exploitative industries and railway construction.
56
The Museum of Zoology collections
Darwin’s collection of glass-mounted barnacle dissec-
tions is held by the Museum of Zoology, University of
Cambridge; the collection arrived on 20 February
1897 via Francis (Frank) Darwin, one of Charles Dar-
win’s sons. This donation parallels that of Charles
Darwin’s rock collection to the Geological Museum
by Francis’s brother, George on 22 January 1897.
57
Charles Darwin had retained these collections at
Down House during his lifetime. It was only after the
death of his wife Emma in October 1896 that the
house was cleared and his collections dispersed as per
his written instructions.
At first glance, the samples appear to be mounted
on microscope slides of standard dimensions (76 x 21
mm or 3 x 1 in). All bear standardized pre-printed
museum labels in the format ‘C. Darwin Coll. Mon.
x x x -idae, p. xx, Feb. 20 1897’ (Figs. 1-3). Information
on the Family to which each species belongs and the
page-number on which they appear in Darwin’s mon-
ographs, is handwritten in black ink. The original
museum accession catalogue entry states that:
The slides had greatly deteriorated, by the drying up of the
media in which they were mounted. It did not seem likely
that they would deteriorate further; and it was accordingly
thought better to leave them in the condition in which they
were received than to attempt to remount them.
58
Investigation of the Museum’s records for this
period suggests that the person most likely to have
processed the acquisition was the then Superintendent,
c h a r l e s w . p e a c h a n d d a r w i n ’ s b a r n a c l e s
7
Sidney Frederic Harmer (1862-1950): he may have
written this entry in the accession catalogue. The
Museum attendant responsible for preparing and
remounting specimens over the period 1880-1931 was
Ernest Lane.
Harmer’s statement seems at odds with the present-
day condition and appearance of the microscope
slides, suggesting that some may have been modified
subsequent to 1897. This may explain the state of
preservation of the collection today and could demon-
strate the likely history of the collection after its origi-
nal assembly by Darwin. This is a matter of importance
to scientists, since some of the collection is clearly not
as Darwin left it, indicating an inherent risk of taxo-
nomic error. More importantly, it allows us to detect
patterns in the way Darwin worked through material
as it arrived.
Firstly we must peel back any effects subsequent
to the collection’s arrival in the Museum of Zoology.
All of the slides bear the affixed paper label as
detailed above, but there are noticeably different
generations of mounting media or fixative, relating
to the collection’s initial construction and later
modification. By correlating the style of fixative used
(by colour) and the specimen-number of the slides
which demonstrate this style of fixative, an internal
chronology of manufacture can be assembled. Impor-
tantly, anomalies within this chronology indicate
where slide material was remounted subsequent to
its arrival in Cambridge in 1897.
Mounting media and a chronology of
production
This was a working collection, successively added to as
Darwin performed careful dissections of various bar-
nacles and prepared specimen-mounts. The accompa-
nying handwritten notebook gives the numerical order
in which Darwin did this. The Museum of Zoology
storage trays are arranged taxonomically, rather than
following Darwin’s original numerical ordering.
59
This systematic arrangement allows one to view runs
of genera and their included species, bringing an arti-
ficial order to the collection. However, in terms of the
Fig. 1. Eight of Darwin’s microscope slides from the Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge. Note the standardized paper labels affixed to the glass slides subsequent to their museum accession. Slides 1 and 19 exhibit Phase 1 fixative; slides 40 and 80 Phase 2 fixative
(gold size); slide 142 is secured by Phase 3 fixative; slides 17, 201 and 283 display the black asphalt fixative of Phase 4.
l y a l l i . a n d e r s o n a n d m a t h e w l o w e
8
grouping of specimen numbers and their respective
construction and fixative used, the original pattern of
order of manufacture is confused.
Close inspection reveals that Darwin’s original
specimen-mounts can still be differentiated in some
of the slides. In many cases, this consists of a relatively
thick and irregularly broken piece of plate-glass with
the specimen affixed, with a thin cover-slip over the
top. It seems likely that Darwin initially constructed
crude glass mounts of dissected specimens, prior to
fixing these to standardized microscope slide glasses
at a later date. More than one (and sometimes up to
four) separate cirripede dissections may be mounted
on each slide (see slides 29 and 32 as illustrated in Fig.
2). From the irregular nature of the glass of Darwin’s
original slide preparations, one immediately gains a
sense of a collection being assembled as research pro-
gressed with whatever materials were to hand at the
time. This is no ‘cabinet collection’ of carefully
mounted samples prepared for their overall aesthetic
beauty; they reveal the practical nature of Darwin’s
scientific data gathering from observation. The home
manufacture of specimen-mounts is also evident in
the later collections of Peach:
60
he routinely fixed Car-
boniferous fossil plants to irregular pieces of glass
before grinding them down by hand, affixing a cover
slip and examining them under his microscope.
Once in the Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, a fur-
ther process of standardization took place. This
involved the consistent style of paper labelling attached
to uniform-sized glass microscope slides. Occasionally
this Museum paper label overlies the fixative substance,
as on slide 201 in Fig. 1. This is important, since it
dates the ‘flow’ of the fixative in this case as having
taken place prior to 1897. A second scenario is demon-
strated by slide 29 (Fig 2): here the printed Museum
label was modified to accommodate the largest of the
three mounted specimens on this glass, hence provid-
ing further evidence that the standard-sized glass slides
were of Darwin’s construction – the museum labelling
had to be adapted to fit a pre-existing object.
Throughout the slide collection occur instances
where Darwin’s original labelling scheme (consisting
of small square or rectangular paper labels printed in
black ink) has been re-attached to the slides at a later
date. This is particularly obvious where fixative flow
Fig. 2. Eight microscope slides prepared from barnacle material sent from Cornwall by Charles Peach to Charles Darwin at Down House. From left to right: slides 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 47, 101 and 114.
c h a r l e s w . p e a c h a n d d a r w i n ’ s b a r n a c l e s
9
is overlain by a paper label without any disruption of
it, for example slide 21 in Fig. 2. Conversely some
paper labels show signs of previous discoloration from
the fixative and yet are no longer in contact with the
substance on the glass slide. Others still are slightly
torn, perhaps due to removal and reaffixing after a
new cover-slip was added to a slide post-1897; exam-
ples occur in slides 29 and 114 in Fig. 2. The use of a
single numbered label per glass slide (which may con-
tain up to four individual dissections of the same spe-
cies) provides correlative evidence that these
‘multi-mounts’ were manufactured by Darwin him-
self, rather than being the result of a later museum
treatment.
These initial observations of the slide collection
reveal certain aspects of its history, but a previously
uncharted chronology of the samples can be derived
from examining the fixative used to attach the dis-
sected sample and cover-slip to each glass slide. Prior
to the publication of his first barnacle monograph,
Darwin contributed an article to a Royal Navy manual,
outlining the correct use of microscopy onboard
ships.
61
Here he first mentioned ‘gold size’ as a suitable
fixative for slide manufacture. This shellac-based
adhesive is more commonly used when applying gold
leaf to objects. On one occasion whilst visiting a micro-
scope goods supplier in London, Darwin was per-
suaded to switch to the use of ‘Asphalte’ as a fixative in
place of his usual gold size;
62
from his correspondence,
we know that prior to 18 August 1851 he had solely
used gold size.
63
He may have used a combination of
fixatives after this date, but this observation might be
used roughly to chart how the collection of dissected
material was built up over time. It provides a timeline
independent to that revealed through the correspond-
ence as to the order in which Darwin received and dis-
sected individual species. Although he was engaged in
a systematic study, the barnacle material may have
demanded dissection and examination out of strict
taxonomic order as and when it arrived, depending on
how fresh it was or its state of preservation.
A finer resolution of slide construction chronology
is made possible through the recognition of at least
three distinguishable generations or ‘phases’ of gold
size fixative used. These are differentiated on the basis of
slight colour differences between phases, but internal
Fig. 2. Eight microscope slides prepared from barnacle material sent from Cornwall by Charles Peach to Charles Darwin at Down House. From left to right: slides 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 47, 101 and 114.
l y a l l i . a n d e r s o n a n d m a t h e w l o w e
10
consistency within a phase. The lowest-numbered
slides and hence the earliest constructed with refer-
ence to Darwin’s handwritten catalogue possess a dark
red-brown fixative which we assign to Phase 1. It is
further characterized by the occasional presence of
distinctive small, raised bumps on the fixative surface
around the outer edge of the glass cover-slip, as in
slide 1 (Fig 1). This feature is a relict of the specimen
mounting process, made by Darwin’s own hand: it
could have ensured the even distribution of the
mounting medium around the edge of the glass cover
slip, but equally, it might just represent a decorative
touch to the final product. Phase 1 is present in slides
1 through 33 with only a few easily accounted for
exceptions. Slides 3 and 12 in this sequence do not
possess the red-brown fixative, which is not surpris-
ing as they bear labelling which states why. A rela-
tively recent pencil note on the original label reads:
‘Remounted 21/4/74 A.J.S.’: these are the initials of
Alan J. Southward (1928-2007), considered ‘one of
the greatest marine biologists of his generation’.
64
Southward worked at the Marine Biological Associa-
tion in Plymouth and also undertook barnacle research.
The only other exceptions are slides 17 and 20 which
bear a very distinct shiny black asphalt fixative.
The second phase of gold size fixative is character-
ized by a light golden-yellow colour: see slides 40 and
80 (Fig. 1). We define this as Phase 2 and it character-
izes an almost complete sequence from slides 38 to 189,
although again with the occasional exception. Slides
142, 145, 152, 154, 155 have an orange-brown fixative,
distinct enough to be classed as a third grouping or
Phase 3, of which slide 142 is illustrated in Fig. 1.
The remaining slides are almost all mounted using a
shiny black asphalt fixative which we denote as Phase 4.
Exceptions here are slide 193 in the red-brown ‘dot-
ted’ fixative of Phase 1 and slides 199 and 200 in gold
size in Phase 2. These ‘high’ numbers may indicate
former construction of a slide with renumbering by
Darwin at a later date. Conversely, slide 169 is
mounted in Phase 4 black asphalt, suggesting that he
remounted some pre-existing slides post-August
1851. Slide 17 (Fig. 1) tells a similar tale with a pre-
existing Phase 1 fixative overlain in part by a Phase 4
one where a new dissection was added to a pre-existing
slide. An unfortunate physical property of the Phase 4
Fig. 3. Other ‘named’ slides in the
collection including samples supplied
by Samuel Stutchbury (slide 4),
Robert Damon (slide 11), and Joseph
Hooker from the James Clark Ross
Antarctic expedition (slide 62).
c h a r l e s w . p e a c h a n d d a r w i n ’ s b a r n a c l e s
11
fixative is that it has the potential to slowly ‘flow’ over
time.
65
This has caused some of the barnacle prepara-
tions to have become obscured by the fixative, an
effect described by Stott as the ‘Asphalte Curtain’.
Using our established chronology, flow of Phase 4
fixative must have occurred between 1852 and 1897 as
it is overlain by museum labels. Perhaps Darwin
inadvertently left these slides by a sunny window
in Down House which caused the asphalt to flow? In
addition to the barnacles, some of Darwin’s bryozoan
specimen-mounts also conform to these four fixative
phases (for example, slide 629, Alymicidium mytili
from Maldonado, is in a Phase 2 fixative).
Apart from the fixative phases, there are a few other
subtle differences apparent in the slide collection.
Amongst what appear to be uniform glass microscope
slides, at least two varieties are present – a heavier,
thicker glass slide and a thinner, lighter one; the former
also bears a slight bevel to the short edges of the glass.
This heavy glass slide is typified by slide 19 in the collec-
tion (Fig. 1) and displays Phase 1 fixative. Slide 2, how-
ever, consists of a thin glass slide, on to which a partial
piece of the bevel-edged heavier glass has been affixed at
a later date. Slide 283 (far right-hand side of Fig. 1) is a
unique example of a microscope slide mount constructed
from wood. This has a glass dissection mount attached
using the Phase 4 fixative. Such heterogeneity within
the collection further reinforces the suggestion that it
represents active research material compiled and added
to over an extended period of time.
Charles Peach specimens in the Darwin
collection
Eight microscope slides contain prepared dissections
of samples sent from Peach to Darwin (Fig. 2). These
are slides 21, 29, 30, 31, 32, 47, 101 and 114.
Undoubtedly far more raw material was sent to
Down House than was represented in the final col-
lection. This indicates the level of natural wastage
involved in securing the best examples of the
morphological features of various species through
dissection and study. There may also have been the
controlling consideration of expense and availability
of materials with which to make the slides. We can
use these to test some of the hypotheses concerning
the collection as derived from fixative phases, along-
side a time-line of Peach’s activities.
Slides 21 and 29 are mounted in the Phase 1 fixa-
tive. They were manufactured early in the course of
Darwin’s researches and while Peach was still resident
in Cornwall, which dates them to after December
1847, when Gray urged Darwin to begin his mono-
graphic treatment of the group and before 16 Novem-
ber 1849, when the Peach family moved north. Slides
30, 31 and 32 have a similar fixative chronology. Slide
47 consists of a small, thin fragment of glass with a
substantial cover-slip and a clear-yellow fixative. This
might be another sample which has been more recently
conserved, but since no date label accompanies it we
are unable to bring greater precision to it. Slide 101 is
of particular interest since it consists of two separate
dissected specimens, mounted under glass and
remounted together. Slide 114 bears Lepas fascicularis
from Cornwall. The original Phase 2 fixative is over-
lain by a clearer adhesive fixing a new cover slip in
place. The clear adhesive also overlaps the slide label,
as demonstrated in Fig. 2, therefore post-dating the
Museum labelling and indicating a relatively more
recent addition.
Other ‘named’ slides
It is remarkable that only a few other individual con-
tributors are named in Darwin’s handwritten cata-
logue. Either the donors of material became too
numerous for Darwin to mention individually, or
those he did mention were particularly important to
him. Perhaps these individuals could consistently be
relied upon for good-quality material? Numerically,
the most important of these was Samuel Stutchbury
(1798-1859), second curator of the Bristol Institution
for the Advancement of Science, Literature and the
Arts.
66
The following slides were constructed from
material he sent to Darwin (Phase 1: 1, 2, 4, 10, 23;
Phase 2: 84, 102, 113, 134, 141, 165, 166, 175; and
Phase 3: 155) (see Fig. 3). There are no examples
bearing Phase 4 fixative and this agrees with other
documented historic events. Stutchbury was based in
Bristol until 1850 after which time he left for Aus-
tralia to take up a post as a mineral surveyor in New
South Wales.
67
Another named donor is ‘Mr Damon of Wey-
mouth’. A likely candidate is Robert Damon snr
(1814-89): he was a famous fossil and mineral dealer
operating out of that town.
68
There is one named slide
(slide 11, Balanus balanoides var. aden) attributed to
l y a l l i . a n d e r s o n a n d m a t h e w l o w e
12
this source (Fig. 3), but potentially two others which
bear the locality information ‘Portland’ and ‘Swanage’
respectively. Damon published his Handbook to the
Geology of Weymouth and the Island of Portland in
1860. His son Robert F. Damon (born 1845) carried
on his father’s business but was too young to have
contributed to Darwin’s study. Four other slides (16,
17, 19 and 61) are labelled ‘Antarctic Expedition’:
with no other mention of which expedition this was,
the closest in time was that made by James Clark Ross
between 1839 and 1843. These were probably sent to
Darwin via Joseph Hooker who had sailed with Ross,
collected plants and worked on the expedition botany
subsequently. An example from this set is illustrated
in Fig. 3.
Of the 286 slides, only eleven represent material
collected during Darwin’s time onboard HMS
Beagle (roughly 3.8%), demonstrating that the
vast majority of the collection was assembled
after Darwin began his barnacle work in 1847. The
majority of these eleven slides are representatives
of what Darwin eventually named as Cryptophialus,
from Chile. Others originated from Cape Horn and
the Galapagos Islands and one slide in particular
is of interest as it can be closely tied to Darwin’s
zoology notes and specimen lists as transcribed
by Keynes.
69
Slide 18 in Darwin’s handwritten
catalogue still bears his original paper label and is
identified as Balanus fosculus; it was derived from a
Concholepas shell, dissected and mounted on a glass
slide.
Concluding remarks
This study demonstrates how a museum collection
may help augment a history of contact between
two figures where written correspondence is meagre
or known to be incomplete. By investigating the
construction of a collection against the timeline of
known activities of the donor and collector, insights
are gained into how a scientific work progressed.
The recognition of different fixatives used in Darwin’s
barnacle collection allows a framework to be pro-
duced to test theories as to subsequent modification
after incorporation in a museum collection. That
framework may also be integrated with timelines of
other historic figures relating to the collection in
order to verify when study specimens were exchanged
and received.
Addresses for correspondence
Lyall I. Anderson, Sedgwick Museum of Earth Sciences, Univer-
sity of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, c b 2 3e q .
lia23@cam.ac.uk
Mathew Lowe, University Museum of Zoology Cambridge, Down-
ing Street, Cambridge, c b 2 3e j .
mwl34@cam.ac.uk
Acknowledgements
The Palaeontographical Society’s invitation to Lyall Anderson to
deliver their Annual Lecture on 15 April 2009 inspired this study.
Lyall Anderson thanks Dr David Norman (Sedgwick Museum)
and Dr Michael A. Taylor (NMS) for their support and encourage-
ment. Both authors thank Russell Stebbings (Museum of Zoology)
for photographic assistance. Dr Adrian Friday (Museum of Zool-
ogy) helpfully discussed Darwin’s barnacles and their museum his-
tory. Dr Sarah E. Stewart (NMS) rediscovered Peach’s 1851
Ipswich bryozoans amidst unregistered museum collections. Mrs
Jean Peach and Mr Gary Peach (Newbury) provided us with family
insights into Charles Peach’s life and works.
Notes and references
1 See A. C. Love, ‘Darwin and Cirripedia prior to 1846: exploring
the origins of the barnacle research’, Journal of the History of
Biology 35 (2002), pp. 251-89; Rebecca Stott, Darwin and the
Barnacle (London, 2003).
2 S. Innes, ‘The anomalous “Mr Arthrobalanus”: Darwin’s
adaptationist approach to taxonomy’, in A. M. Pearn (ed.),
A Voyage around the World. Charles Darwin and the Beagle
Collections in the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 2009),
pp. 74-6.
3 C. R. Darwin, The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs
(London, 1842); C. R. Darwin, Geological Observations on
the Volcanic Islands visited during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle
(London, 1844); C. R. Darwin, Geological Observations on
South America (London, 1846).
4 F. Burkhardt and S. Smith, The Correspondence of Charles
Darwin, vol. i v : 1847-1850 (Cambridge, 1989), p. 99.
5 T. J. Trenn, ‘Charles Darwin, fossil cirripedes, and Robert
Fitch: presenting sixteen hitherto unpublished Darwin letters
of 1849 to 1851’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical
Society 118 (1974), pp. 471-91.
6 285 slides were reported by A. Friday ‘University Museum of
Zoology Cambridge: the Darwin collections’, in Pearn, op.
cit. (note 2), p. 285 and ‘nearly three hundred’ by Stott, op.
cit (note 1), p. 300. The last entry in Darwin’s handwritten
catalogue reads ‘285, 286. . .’ indicating a true total
of 286.
7 R. Nuttall, ‘“An outdoor man”: Charles Peach and the
luminosity of the sea’, Quekett Journal of Microscopy 39 (2004),
pp. 783-91.
8 C. W. Peach, ‘On the marine fauna of Cornwall’, Annual
Report of the British Association for the Advancement of
Science, Transactions of the Sections, 1845 (London, 1846),
pp. 65-6.
c h a r l e s w . p e a c h a n d d a r w i n ’ s b a r n a c l e s
13
9 Anonymous, ‘Notice of election to Lerwick Literary and
Scientific Institution’, John O’Groat Journal, 6 June 1861.
10 Letter held by the Darwin Archive (Cambridge University
Library) under the catalogue number CUL d a r 174.
11 C. R. Darwin, Living Cirripedia. A Monograph on the sub-class
Cirripedia, with Figures of all the Species. The Lepadidæ; or,
pedunculated Cirripedes, Ray Society (London 1851).
12 Ibid., p. 33.
13 Ibid., p. 77.
14 Ibid., p. 226.
15 Ibid., p. 230.
16 Ibid., p. 240.
17 C. R. Darwin, A Monograph on the sub-class Cirripedia, with
Figures of all the Species. The Balanidæ, (or sessile Cirripedes);
the Verrucidæ, etc. etc. etc., Ray Society (London, 1854), p.
157
18 Ibid., p. 511.
19 F. H. Davey, ‘Charles William Peach, A. L. S.’, Transactions of
the Royal Cornwall Polytechnic Society 1 (3) (1911), pp. 469–99.
20 A. Geikie, [Award of the Neill Prize to C. W. Peach],
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 8 (1875), pp.
509–12.
21 L. I. Anderson and M. A. Taylor, ‘Charles Peach, palaeobotany
and Scotland’, Geological Curator 8 (9) (2008), pp. 393–425.
22 H. Torrens, ‘Mary Anning (1799–1847) of Lyme; “the greatest
fossilist the world ever knew”’, British Journal for the History of
Science 28 (1995), p. 267.
23 See Davey, op. cit. (note 19), p. 7.
24 Anonymous, 1882 Charles W. Peach &c. National Library of
Scotland, Edinburgh, m s Ac 10073/6.
25 T. Sharpe and P. J. McCartney, The Papers of H. T. De la
Beche (1796-1855) in the National Museum of Wales. Geological
Series no. 17 Amgueddfeydd ac Orielau Genedlaethol Cymru/
National Museums and Galleries of Wales (Cardiff, 1998).
26 See Anderson and Taylor, op. cit. (note 21), pp. 411–14.
27 C. W. Peach, ‘An account of the fossil organic remains found
on the south-east coast of Cornwall, and in other parts of that
county’, Transactions of the Royal Geological Society of Cornwall
6 (1841), pp. 11–23; C. W. Peach, ‘On the geology of part of
the Parish of Gorran, in Cornwall’, Transactions of the Royal
Geological Society of Cornwall 6 (London, 1841), pp. 51–8.
28 F. Burkhardt and S. Smith, The Correspondence of Charles
Darwin, vol. v i i : 1858 – 1859 (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 468–70.
29 F. Burkhardt and S. Smith, The Correspondence of Charles
Darwin, vol. i i i : 1844 – 1846 (Cambridge, 1987), p. 95.
30 A. Desmond and J. Moore, Darwin (London, 1992), p. 367.
31 See Peach, op. cit. [An account] (note 27), pp. 11–23.
32 J. A. Secord, Victorian Sensation. The Extraordinary
Publication, Reception, and secret Authorship of Vestiges of the
Natural History of Creation (London, 2003), p. 210.
33 F. Burkhardt and S. Smith, The Correspondence of Charles
Darwin, vol. i i : 1837- 1843 (Cambridge, 1987), p. 387.
34 C. W. Peach, ‘On the nidus and growth of the Purpura
lapillus, and also on the Patella pellucida and P. laevis’, Annual
Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
Transactions of the Sections, 1842 (London, 1843), p. 66.
35 Anonymous, Annual Report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, Transactions of the Sections, 1843
(London, 1844), p. xxiv.
36 J. Morrell and A. Thackray, Gentlemen of Science. Early Years
of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford,
1981), p. 592.
37 R. Chambers, ‘The Scientific Meeting at York’, in Chamber’s
Edinburgh Journal new ser. no. 47 (1844), p. 323.
38 Scottish National Portrait Gallery, PGP h a 1761. Illustrated
in S. Stevenson, Facing the Light. The Photography of Hill and
Adamson (Edinburgh, 2002), p. 41.
39 Charles Darwin to Charles Lyell: http://www.darwinproject.
ac.uk/entry-773/ (letter no. 773; accessed 25 November 2009)
40 See Morell and Thackray, op. cit. (note 36), p. 310
41 Darwin Correspondence Project Database, http://www.
darwinproject.ac.uk/entry-854/ (letter no. 854; accessed 25
November 2009)
42 A paper presented at the 1845 Cambridge BAAS meeting.
C. W. Peach, ‘On the marine fauna of Cornwall’, Annual
Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
Transactions of the Sections, for 1845 (London, 1846),
p. 65-6.
43 See Anderson and Taylor, op. cit. (note 21), p. 418.
44 See Sharpe and McCartney, op. cit. (note 25), letter 1161 from
Charles W. Peach to Henry De la Beche, dated 22 April 1848,
from Fowey, Cornwall.
45 See C. Y. Lang and E. F. Shannon jnr., The Letters of Alfred
Lord Tennyson, vol. i: 1821-1850 (Oxford, 1982), p. 290.
46 C. W. Peach, ‘On the fossil geology of Cornwall’, Annual Report of
the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Transactions
of the Sections, 1849 (London, 1850), p. 63; C. W. Peach, ‘On the
luminosity of the sea on the Cornish coast’, Annual Report of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science, Transactions of
the Sections, 1849 (London, 1850), p. 80.
47 Stott, op. cit. (note 1), p. 129.
48 C. W. Peach, ‘List of zoophytes found in the vicinity of Peterhead,
N.B., with a notice of some new to the British list’, Annual
Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,
Transactions of the Sections, 1850 (London, 1851), p. 126.
49 See Sharpe and McCartney, op. cit. (note 25), letter 1163 from
Charles W. Peach to Henry De la Beche dated 20 September
1850 from the Customs House, Peterhead.
50 H. Miller, The Old Red Sandstone, or, new Walks in an old Field
(Edinburgh, 1841); Anderson and Taylor, op. cit (note 21),
p. 398; L. I. Anderson, ‘Hugh Miller: introducing palaeobotany
to a wider audience’, in A. J. Bowden, C. V. Burek and
R. Wilding (eds.), History of Palaeobotany. Selected Essays.
Geological Society of London, Special Publications 241
(London, 2005), pp. 63-90.
51 See Sharpe and McCartney, op. cit. (note 25), letter 1164 from
Charles W. Peach to Henry De la Beche dated 23 September
1850 from the Customs House, Peterhead.
52 See, for example, NMS.g. 2008.33.225 and G.2008.33.226.
53 Anderson and Taylor, op. cit. (note 21), p. 402.
54 R. I. Murchison, ‘On the relations of the crystalline rocks
of the North Highlands to the Old Red Sandstone of that
region, and on the recent discoveries of fossils in the former by
Mr Charles Peach’, Annual Report of the British Association for
l y a l l i . a n d e r s o n a n d m a t h e w l o w e
14
the Advancement of Science, Transactions of the Sections, for
1855, (London, 1856), pp. 85–7.
55 Letter in the Adam Sedgwick Archive, Cambridge University
Library, m s Add 7652 i i /L/31.
56 See Anderson and Taylor, op. cit. (note 21), pp. 402–10
57 See L. I. Anderson, ‘The Sedgwick Museum: Darwin’s
geological specimens’, in Pearn, op. cit. (note 2), pp. 68-71.
58 University Museum of Zoology accessions register (University
of Cambridge).
59 Illustrated in colour by Innes, op. cit. (note 2), p. 75.
60 See Anderson and Taylor, op. cit. (note 21), p. 409.
61 C. R. Darwin, ‘On the use of the microscope on board ship’,
within R. Owen, ‘Zoology’, in J. F. W. Herschel (ed.), A
Manual of Scientific Enquiry; prepared for the Use of Her
Majesty’s Navy: and adapted for Travellers in General (London,
1849), pp. 389–95.
62 See Stott, op. cit (note 1), p. 177.
63 F. Burkhardt and S. Smith, The Correspondence of Charles
Darwin, vol. v: 1851- 1855 (Cambridge, 1990), p. 387.
64 P. R. Dando, ‘Obituary: Alan J. Southward (1928-2007)’,
Nature 451 (2008), p. 28.
65 Four slides of Cryptophialus minutus in phase 4 fixative are
illustrated in colour by Innes, op. cit. (note 2), p. 75.
66 M. A. Taylor, ‘The plesiosaur’s birthplace: the Bristol
Institution and its contribution to vertebrate palaeontology’,
Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 112 (1994), pp.
179–96.
67 Ibid., p. 188.
68 Anonymous, ‘Obituary: Robert Damon, F.G.S.’, Geological
Magazine, Decade i i i , vol. 6, (1889), p. 336.
69 R. Keynes, Charles Darwin’s Zoology Notes and Specimen Lists
from H.M.S. Beagle (Cambridge, 2000), p. 274.
