Chinese paleontology and the reception of Darwinism in early twentieth century

Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences xxx (2017) 1e9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/shpsc

Chinese paleontology and the reception of Darwinism in early twentieth century Xiaobo Yu Department of Biological Sciences, Kean University, Union, NJ, 07083, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 29 March 2017 Received in revised form 21 August 2017 Available online xxx

The paper examines the social, cultural and disciplinary factors that influenced the reception and appropriation of Darwinism by China’s first generation paleontologists. Darwinism was mixed with Social Darwinism when first introduced to China, and the co-option of Darwinian phrases for nationalistic awakening obscured the scientific essence of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. First generation Chinese paleontologists started their training in 1910se1920s. They quickly asserted their professional identity by successfully focusing on morphology, taxonomy and biostratigraphy. Surrounded by Western paleontologists with Lamarckian or orthogenetic leanings, early Chinese paleontologists enthusiastically embraced evolution and used fossils as factual evidence; yet not enough attention was given to mechanistic evolutionary studies. The 1940s saw the beginning of a new trend for early Chinese paleontologists to incorporate more biological and biogeographical components in their work, but external events such as the dominance of Lysenkoism in the 1950s made the Modern Synthesis pass by without being publicly noticed in Chinese paleontology. Characterized by the larger goal of using science for nation building and by the utilitarian approach favoring local sciences, the reception and appropriation of Darwinism by first generation Chinese paleontologists raise important questions for studying the indigenizing efforts of early Chinese scientists to appropriate Western scientific theories. Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Darwinism Social darwinism Nationalism Chinese paleontology Evolution Modern synthesis

1. Introduction The reception and creative adaptation of Darwinian ideas by China’s first generation paleontologists present an interesting case for studying the indigenizing efforts of early Chinese scientists to appropriate Western scientific theories. This paper examines the social, cultural and disciplinary context that influenced the reception and appropriation of Darwinism by China’s first generation paleontologists.1 Many authors (e.g., Schwartz, 1964; Kwok, 1965; Pusey, 1983, 2009; Elman, 2006; Schmalzer, 2008; Yang, 2013a, b; Shen, 2014; and; Wu, 2015) have shown that China’s unique social, cultural and historical conditions made the Chinese reception of Darwinian ideas different from that in any other countries. Glick (1972), Glick, Puig-Samper, & Ruiz (2001), Elshakry (2009, 2014), Ruse (2013), and Yang (2013a, b) have studied how cultural and social boundaries affect the transmission and spread of Darwinism E-mail address: [email protected]. As loosely defined in this paper, China’s first generation paleontologists generally received their college education in 1913e1937. These early paleontologists had the time to complete their advanced training overseas and to reach the prime of their career before 1949. Many became the founders or leading figures in their respective fields. This paper does not attempt to give a complete account of all the early Chinese paleontologists. Nor does it discuss issues primarily related to biostratigraphy, paleoanthropology or archeology in China. 1

in different countries. Fan (2004), Raj (2007), Yen (2012), Lightman, McOuat, and Stewart (2013), Yang (2013a,b), Shen (2014), Tsu and Elman (2014), and Wu (2015) have explored related historical themes such as the circulation, movement and construction of knowledge in the larger context of colonialism, imperialism, nationalism, industrialization, and science. Yen (2012) pointed out that in knowledge formation, ideas are socially and culturally constructed and are historically contingent. In the second half of the nineteenth century, China’s repeated defeats at the hand of Western powers and Japan made the Chinese anxious to borrow Western technology and Western learning for defense and self-strengthening. This, together with the lack of indigenous religious resistance to evolution and the lack of a scientific establishment, made early Darwinian ideas reach China under favorable conditions. Darwin’s Origin (1859) predated the earliest efforts to train Chinese geologists (including paleontologists) by 50 years. Shen (2014) showed how science and nation were always linked for Chinese geologists (including paleontologists) during China’s Republican period (1912e1949). Shen (2014) and Wu (2015) described how early Chinese geologists prioritized their work in response to China’s practical needs for mineral resources exploitation. By establishing China’s fossil record through their empirical work, early Chinese paleontologists filled in a

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.09.001 1369-8486/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Yu, X., Chinese paleontology and the reception of Darwinism in early twentieth century, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.09.001

2

X. Yu / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences xxx (2017) 1e9

virtually blank page in the history of life, and thus did a great service to promote evolution (i.e. the idea that evolution has occurred) as an intellectual concept and as part of a broader social ideology in China. While China’s first generation paleontologists wholeheartedly espoused Darwinism in the sense of descent with modification, not enough attention was paid to the question of evolutionary mechanisms. Yang Haiyan2 (2013b, p.202) described the approach toward Darwinism on the part of early Chinese biologists: “the general concepts and narratives of evolution were localized through their own investigating, collecting and excavating. Their work was viewed as an effort to nationalise science and build up their identity as Chinese scientists.” These words seem applicable to China’s first generation paleontologists as well. Historically, the development of Darwinism went through roughly three or four broadly defined stages (Mayr & Provine, 1980; Reif, Junker, & Hobfeld, 2000). The first stage (ca. 1859e1885) was characterized by Darwin’s own theory which emphasized natural selection while accepting both hard and soft (or Lamarckian) inheritance. The second stage (ca. 1986-1936) was sometimes subdivided into two parts. The earlier part was characterized both by Weisman’s refutation of Lamarckism and by new alternative models trying to bypass natural selection (e.g., Neo-Lamarckism, orthogenesis, and saltationism). The later part was characterized by the rapid development of population genetics. The third stage (ca. 1937e1950) was characterized by the emergence of the Modern Synthesis (also known as the New Synthesis) that reconciled natural selection with genetics and achieved a synthesis based on contributions from population geneticists, taxonomists and paleontologists (Mayr & Provine, 1980). With the Modern Synthesis, non-Darwinian speculations such as orthogenesis or Lamarckian inheritance were rejected as causal explanations of evolutionary phenomena.3 In this paper, I will first describe how Darwin and Darwinism reached China with little resistance, and how Darwinian ideas were appropriated and transformed into a powerful tool for nationalistic awakening in China. I will next describe the institutional and disciplinary settings that influenced early Chinese paleontologists in their reception and appropriation of Darwinism. I will examine factors such as the training and early career path of first generation Chinese paleontologists, and the approaches toward Darwinism in the professional circle surrounding them. I will argue the following points in the hope of stimulating further study on this interesting topic: 1) the adaptive reception and appropriation of Darwinism by first generation Chinese paleontologists were shaped and characterized by the larger goal of nation building; 2) the pragmatic approach favoring “utilitarian research” helped first generation Chinese paleontologists to establish their identity as Chinese scientists while influencing them to favor the practical aspects in their research agenda; and 3) factors that may have constrained early Chinese paleontologists in their reception and appropriation of Darwinism, when examined from both intra-scientific and extrascientific perspectives, can serve as sites of historical insight shedding light on the indigenizing efforts of early Chinese scientists to appropriate Western scientific theories.

the First Opium War (1839e1842), some reformed-minded Qing officials headed by Li Hongzhang and Zeng Guofan started the “SelfStrengthening Movement” (ca. 1861e1895) to promote the adoption of Western technology for China’s defense (Shen, 2014; Spence, 2012).4 The spirit of the movement was summed up as “keeping Chinese learning for fundamental substance and using Western learning for utilitarian application.” This, together with the colonialist-imperialist global expansionist scheme of the West, accelerated China’s early efforts to transplant modern Western science onto its soil (Elman, 2006; Fan, 2004; Wright, 1998; Wu, 2015). It also set the tone for science in China to be viewed primarily through utilitarian lens. The first documented reference to Darwin in a Chinese publication was the translation of Lyell’s Elements of Geology, completed in 1873 by Hua Hengfang5 and D. J. MacGowan (Elman, 2006; Shen, 2014; Wu, 2015; Yang, 2013a, b). Wright (1998), Montgomery (2000), Elshakry (2009, 2014) and Sarukkai (2013) have discussed translation as a process of knowledge formation, together with the unique issues in transferring scientific ideas across linguistic, cultural and epistemological boundaries. Wu (2015, p.86) noted that “In the Chinese translation, the grand edifice (of Lyell’s theory) disappeared; instead, one finds only plodding details without an overarching theory.” However, Wu pointed out that early translations by Hua, MacGowen and others were successful as cultural intermediaries and opened a space for the future spread of science in China. In nineteenth century Western countries, Darwin’s theory met with varying degrees of social and religious push-back as well as reservations from part of the scientific establishment (Bowler, 1976; Glick, 1972; Ruse, 2013). When Lyell’s Elements of Geology was first translated, China had no modern scientific community, and there were no paleontologists, morphologists or naturalists6 to react to Darwinian ideas from a scientific perspective. Until the first generation of Chinese paleontologists came onto the scene in 1920s, Chinese fossils were mostly procured or collected by Western explorers or missionaries from Europe and America, such as P. A. David, R. Pumpelly, F. von Richthofen, B. Széchenyi, K. A. Haberer, B. Willis, and E. Blackwelder. The fossils were sent to Europe and America for study by Western paleontologists such as J. S. Newberry, R. Owen, E. Koken, C. D. Walcott, and H. Woodward (Lucas, 2001; Peng, 2007; Schmalzer, 2008; Shen, 2014; Yen, 2012; Zhou, 2011, pp. 606e613). In contrast to the case in nineteenth century Western countries, Darwinism met little or no indigenous religious resistance when first reaching China. Despite limited missionary activities dating back to China’s Yuan and Ming dynasties, China remained secular in its fundamental social and cultural fabrics. Instead of the Western belief in God’s creation and the fixity of species, belief in the fluidity of cosmic changes was deeply rooted in ancient Chinese philosophies and cultural traditions (Schmalzer, 2008; Yang, 2013a, b). Thus, Darwin’s ideas failed to generate vehement debates when first reaching a limited Chinese readership (Elman, 2006; Yang, 2013a, b).

2. China’s first encounter with Darwin and evolutionary ideas Yang (2013a) summarized China’s early encounter with Darwin and the appropriation of Darwinian ideas. After China’s defeat in

2 Except for a few cases in the Acknowledgement section, when Chinese full names are used in this paper, family names precede given names. 3 This paper does not consider developments such as “the paleobiological revolution” (Sepkoski, 2009) that took place after the Modern Synthesis.

4 The movement accelerated early Chinese efforts to build modern shipyards and arsenals, to open Western-style schools offering foreign language and rudimentary science courses, and to translate books in science, engineering and other fields (Fan, 2004; Wu, 2015; Yang, 2013a). 5 In the preface, Hua described how the crude translation process caused great stress and confusion and how his dreams became haunted by the “scaly creatures” and “the bones of fantastic beasts” in Lyell’s book (Shen, 2014; Yang, 1988, p. 38). 6 Fan (2004, pp. 104e105) noted that China at the time did not have a discipline or coherent scholarly tradition equivalent to Western notions of “natural history,” “botany,” or “zoology.”

Please cite this article in press as: Yu, X., Chinese paleontology and the reception of Darwinism in early twentieth century, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.09.001

X. Yu / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences xxx (2017) 1e9

3. Social and cultural appropriation of Darwinian ideas in China After China’s unexpected defeat in the First Sino-Japanese war (1894e1895), a new generation of reformers began to dig deeper into the root cause of China’s defeat (Pusey, 2009; Spence, 2012; Yang, 2013a, b). In this time of crisis, Yan Fu became famous by introducing Western ideas from Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer, Adam Smith, John Miller and others. Following a series of precursor newspaper articles, Yan in 1898 published his “paraphrastic and heavily annotated translation” of Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics (Schwartz, 1964; Pusey, 1983; Schmalzer, 2008, p. 21; Yang, 2013a, b). In order to alert the Chinese to the risk of “national and racial extinction,” Yan Fu used Darwin’s “natural selection” and “struggle for existence” by focusing on the competition between groups or species (or “races”) instead of that between individuals. Thus, Yan Fu presented to the Chinese not Darwinism per se, but a particular brand of Social Darwinism (Schwartz, 1964; Pusey, 1983, 2009; Schmalzer, 2008; Becquemont, 2011; Yang, 2013a, b), or what Bowler (2009) would call “Spencerian social Lamarckism.” Yan Fu entitled his eclectic translation “Tianyan lun” e approximately meaning “On evolution” (Schwartz, 1964; Yang, 2013a, b). The term “tianyan” literally means “heavenly or cosmic change,” but it soon gave way to newer terms borrowed from Japanese translations. The new terms for evolution became either “yanhua” (meaning “unfolding change”) or more commonly “jinhua” (meaning “advancing or progressive change”) (Montgomery, 2000; Schmalzer, 2008; Pusey, 2009; Yang, 2013a, b). Thus, the original idea contained in the term “evolution” took on new characteristics when it was appropriated into another culture in the process of translation (Elshakry, 2014; Sarukkai, 2013). The new term “jinhua” forged a direct link (both linguistically and conceptually) between evolution and progress, and made evolution a convenient tool for both Chinese reformers and revolutionaries (Pusey, 2009). Following Yan Fu’s translation, and especially through the popular newspaper essays by Liang Qichao and others (Yang, 2013a, b), the phrase “struggle for existence” used metaphorically by Darwin (Becquemont, 2011; Bowler, 2009) was skillfully fused (linguistically as well as conceptually) with the phase “survival of the fittest.” Together, the two phrases morphed into a widely known Chinese couplet “yousheng liebai, shizhe shengcun” (the superior win, the inferior lose; and the fit survive) (Schwartz, 1964, p. 259). The catchphrase, instead of being used to justify imperialist power play or laissez-faire competition as in many other countries (Becquemont, 2011; Glick, 1972), became the rallying cry to stir the Chinese into action for self-strengthening and national salvation. In 1903, the first Chinese translation of the Origin appeared, but it was incomplete with only the first five chapters. Ma Junwu,7 the young translator, used Darwin’s words to warn his fellow countrymen in a 1903 newspaper commentary.8 In 1919, Ma published a

7 Ma was one of the few early twentieth-century scholar-translators with Western science degrees (in metallurgy and agricultural chemistry). 8 Ma wrote: “Darwin said: ‘species slightly inferior will surely be conquered by those slightly superior. . Natural selection always preserves the best of the species.’ I hope that my most beloved compatriots often review these words from Darwin.” (Wen, 2013, pp. 105e106)) [Unless otherwise noted, all translations from quoted Chinese text are mine.]. 9 Ma’s 1903 and 1919 translations were based on a Japanese edition and used classical or literary written Chinese. Subsequent translators such as Ye Duzhuang (an agriculturist) found significant errors in Ma’s translations. The first complete translation of the Origin using modern vernacular Chinese was published in 1955, with a revised translation by Ye in 1995 (Zhou, Ye, & Fang, 1955/1995). Another translation by entomologist Xie Yunzhen quickly followed (Xie, 1955). Subsequent translations include two by paleontologists - one by Shu Degan in 2001 based on the sixth edition, and the other by Miao Desui in 2013 based on the second edition.

3

revised and complete translation of the Origin.9 Other translated Western works quickly followed to populate the intellectual and cultural vacuum, such as Bergson’s Creative Evolution, Haeckel’s Die Weltratsel and Die Lebenswunder, Marx’s Communist Manifesto, and Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid. Thus, Darwinism was introduced to China as part of general Western learning. It was mixed with Social Darwinism and became a tool for nationalistic awakening. As noted by the renowned scholar and reformer Hu Shi, Darwinian ideas “spread like a prairie fire, setting ablaze the hearts and blood of many young people. Technical terms like ‘evolution’ and ‘natural selection’ became common in journalistic prose, and slogans on the lips of patriotic young heroes” (Grieder, 1970, pp. 26e27). The popularity of Darwinism as a tool for nationalistic awakening formed an inseparable part of the social and cultural context in which China’s first generation paleontologists came to know Darwin and Darwinism in their formative age.10

4. Late start in training China’s first generation paleontologists The first attempt to teach college-level geology in China started in 1909 at the Imperial University of Peking (known as Peking University since 1912). In 1913, Peking University discontinued geology classes for lack of students, and arrangement was made for geological training to be taken over by a special school organized by Zhang Hongzhao (H. T. Chang; 1877e1951) and Ding Wenjiang (V. K. Ting; 1887e1936).11 Known as the Geological School (1913e 1916), the new school represents China’s first effort to train modern geologists for geological prospecting and mineral resource exploitation. The School recruited its first (and only) cohort of 27 students in 1913 (Shen, 2014). The main burden of teaching was shared by a small group of Chinese faculty including Ding, Zhang, Weng Wenhao (W. H. Wong; 1889e1971)12 and others, supplemented by Westerners such as Friedrich Solger, Johan Gunnar Andersson and F. R. Tegengren.13 In 1914, Ding started to teach China’s first collegelevel course in paleontology. In 1916, the School graduated 22 students, and 13 of them were immediately hired by the newlyfounded Geological Survey of China (with Ding as its Director14). This group included China’s first few domestically-trained paleontologists.15 In 1917, Peking University resumed its geology department, and became the main pipeline for training Chinese

10 An example can be seen in the diary of Yang Zhongjian, China’s first vertebrate paleontologist (Shen, 2014; Yu et al., 2017). Commenting on China’s plight at the age of 15, Yang wrote on December 1, 1912: “Alas, the small cannot resist the big, and the weak cannot resist the strong. The universal rule of evolution dictates that the superior win and the inferior lose. In the twentieth-century world, the strong survive and the weak perish e this is the infallible law.” 11 Zhang and Ding (together with Weng Wenhao who joined them later) are regarded as China’s early pioneers for developing modern geology. Zhang received a bachelor degree in geology from the University of Tokyo (1911); Ding held a dual degree in geology and zoology from the University of Glasgow (1911) (Furth, 1970; Shen, 2014). 12 Weng was the first Chinese geologist with a Western Ph. D. degree (from the Catholic University of Leuven, 1912). 13 Solger worked in China as a mining engineer between 1909 and 1914; he also taught briefly first at Peking University and then at the Geological School (Shen, 2014; Wu, 2015). Andersson came to China in 1914 as a mining advisor. He discovered the neolithic Yangshao culture relics and took part in discovering the hominid teeth belonging to Peking Man (Schmalzer, 2008; Shen, 2014; Yen, 2012). Tegengren’s work in China was reported in Cheng & Chen (1966). Golas (2000) cited Tegengren‘s early works including those on Chinese mining methods. 14 Weng Wenhao led the Survey in 1922e1937 following Ding’s resignation. 15 These include Tan Xichou (H. C. Tan; 1892e1952), Xie Jiarong (C. Y. Hsieh; 1898e1966) and Zhou Zanheng (T.H. Chow; 1893e1967). To facilitate literature search, the Pinyin names of early Chinese paleontologists and other scientists are followed by their previously used non-Pinyin names.

Please cite this article in press as: Yu, X., Chinese paleontology and the reception of Darwinism in early twentieth century, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.09.001

4

X. Yu / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences xxx (2017) 1e9

geologists and paleontologists. In 1920, the Geology Department graduated 8 students, including one paleontologist.16 In 1920, paleontological training at Peking University took a major step forward, when Amadeus W. Grabau (1870e1946)17 and Li Siguang (J. S. Lee; 1889e1971)18 joined the faculty at the invitation of Ding (Furth, 1970; Mazur, 2004; Shen, 2014; Wu, 2015). Grabau taught paleontology, historical geology and comparative stratigraphy. In his dual role as a professor at Peking University and the Chief Paleontologist at the Geological Survey, Grabau played a major part in building up invertebrate paleontology in China and in training and mentoring first generation Chinese paleontologists (Sun, 1947, 2016; Johnson, 1985; Yang, 1988, pp. 341e357). With Grabau and Li, geological training at Peking University shifted its emphasis from metallurgy and mining engineering to historical and physical geology (Yang, 1988, p. 68). In 1922, the Geological Society of China was founded, and 12 of its 26 founding members were either paleontologists or otherwise engaged in paleontological work. In the same year, with the help of Grabau and Andersson, Ding launched Acta Palaeontologica Sinica as China’s major outlet for publishing paleontological research. In 1923, Peking University established its paleontology program, and 4 paleontologists19 were among the 1923 cohort of geology graduates. In a 1924 speech on the training of Chinese geologists (including paleontologists), Ding praised the strong emphasis on field work at Peking University and stated that geological training at Peking University “could compare favorably” with Western universities and mining schools (Furth, 1970, p. 50; Shen, 2014). However, Ding also commented on the complete lack of “serious” courses in biology as a major drawback. He noted that unless students made this up by additional study, it would be difficult to understand the fundamental principles of historical geology (Furth, 1970; Yang, 1988, p. 80). Between 1924 and 1937, Peking University graduated another dozen or so early Chinese paleontologists.20 Referring to the first generation Chinese geologists as a whole (including paleontologists), Shen (2014) aptly summed up their career development path and their sense of identity: “They all honed their geological expertise in eastern China, engaged directly with foreign research through the Geological Society or advanced study overseas, and shared an identity as part of China’s scientific elite” (p. 157). 5. Rapid growth of early Chinese paleontology Early Chinese paleontology witnessed a period of rapid growth in the 1920s-1930s. In 1928, the Geological Survey formally established its Paleontology Laboratory. In 1928, a separate National Research Institute of Geology was formed in Nanjing (Shen, 2014; Yang, 1988; Zhou, 2011) with its own Stratigraphy and

16 Sun Yunzhu (Y. C. Sun; 1895e1979), known as “the star of the 1920 graduating class” (Shen, 2014). 17 Grabau studied stratigraphy and paleontology (mainly fossil corals and gastropods). Before coming to China, Grabau had published extensively, including a two-volume textbook in geology and a book on the phylogeny of gastropods. 18 Li received a Master degree in geology (1918) and subsequently a Ph.D. (1927) from the University of Birmingham (Shen, 2014). Li was mainly interested in “geomechanics” and Quaternary glaciation; he also worked on fusulinid foraminifera and Carboniferous-Permian stratigraphy. 19 The 1923 group include Tian Qijuan (C. C. Tien; 1899e1975); Yang Zhongjian (Young Chung-chien; 1887e1979), Zhang Xizhi (Chang Hsi-chih; 1898e1966), and Zhao Yazeng (Y. T. Chao; 1899e1929). 20 These include Yu Jianzhang (Yu Chien-chang; 1899e1980) and Yue Senxun (Yueh Sen-hsun or S. S. Yoh; 1899e1989) in 1924; Xu Jie (C. Hsu; 1901e1989) in 1925; Si Xingjian (H. C. Ssu or H. C. Sze; 1901e1964) in 1926; Pei Wenzhong (Pei Wen-chung; 1904e1982) in 1927; Huang Jiqing (T. K. Huang; 1904e1995) and Zhu Sen (S. Chu; 1902e1942) in 1928; Ji Rongsen (Chi Yungshen; 1907e1942) in 1930; Zhao Jinke (C. K. Chao; 1906e1987) in 1932; and Lu Yanhao (Lu Yen-Hao; 1913e 2000) in 1937.

Paleontology Laboratory. In 1929, the Geological Survey (jointly with the Peking Union Medical College) established the Cenozoic Research Laboratory, which focused on Peking Man excavations and investigations at Zhoukoudian as well as on geological and paleontological studies of the Tertiary and Quaternary periods (Shen, 2014; Yen, 2012). In 1929, the Paleontological Society of China was founded. In December 1929, Pei Wenzhong discovered the first complete skull of Peking man at Zhoukoudian,21 an event that made the Cenozoic Laboratory famous overnight and brought Chinese paleontology and paleoanthropology into the spotlight of global attention (Schmalzer, 2008; Shen, 2014; Yen, 2012). In addition to regional prospecting and mineral resource exploitations for the Survey, early Chinese paleontologists often joined Western paleontologists for field work and related research in China. For instance, in 1916e1917, Zhou Zanheng accompanied paleobotanist T. G. Halle to collect plant fossils. In 1921, Yuan Fuli (1893e 1987) joined Andersson in discovering and excavating Yangshao cultural relics in Henan. In 1927e1932, Yuan took part in Sven Hedin’s joint Sino-Swedish Expedition and discovered important fossils such as the Cretaceous coral Yuanophyllum and the dicynodont therapsid fossils. Sun Yunzhu assisted Grabau both in teaching and research at Peking University and at the Survey. In 1922e1923, Tan Xichou went with Andersson and Otto Zdansky on separate trips and collected large numbers of vertebrate and invertebrate fossils in Shandong. The large sauropod dinosaur (Euhelopus) they excavated represents the first scientifically studied dinosaur from China. Similarly, In 1929e1936, Yang Zhongjian, Pei Wenzhong, Bian Meinian (Bien M. N.; 1908e2002), and Jia Lanpo (Chia L. P.; 1908e 2001) worked closely with Western paleontologists and anthropologists at Zhoukoudian. In 1930e1936, Yang made numerous field trips with P. Teihard de Chadin, G. Barbour, C. L. Camp, R. W. Chaney and others. Yang also joined the Central Asiatic Expedition (known in Chinese as the Sino-US Scientific Expedition) and the Sino-French Scientific Expedition for field work in Mongolia and Xinjiang. Yang’s work on faunal and geological studies related to Zhoukoudian and his later discoveries of Lufengosaurus (China’s first dinosaur with a complete skeleton) and mammal-like reptilians moved vertebrate paleontology to the forefront of public attention (Lucas, 2001; Yu, Chen, & Ren, 2017; Zhou, 2011). In Acta Paleontologica Sinica, Chinese paleontologists authored or co-authored monographs on the excavation of hominid remains and associated fauna, on Yangshao culture relics, on invertebrate fossils including corals, brachiopods, mollucs, trilobites, grapholites and fusulinids, on fossil plants, and on rodents and reptiles.22 In 1942, Yang Zhongjian reflected on the achievements of this early period: “Discoveries of rare and remarkable ancient animals increased in number day by day, and new fossil localities continued to show up as time went by - all this not only caught the attention of Chinese and Western scholars, but also aroused public interest among the general population” (1947b, p. 136). In 1936, Xie Jiarong

21

This was followed by Jia Lanpo’s discovery of 3 Peking Man skulls in 1936. The journal consisted of 4 Series and appeared in English at irregular intervals, with Series A for paleobotany, B for invertebrate paleontology, C for vertebrate paleontology, and D for paleoanthropology and Paleolithic artifact study (Pan, 1996; Shen, 2014; Yang, 1988). In 1922e1938, 5 authors published 9 monographs in Series A and 3 were Chinese. 18 authors published 46 monographs in Series B, and 15 authors were Chinese. In 1924e1947, 17 authors published 51 monographs in Series C, and 3 authors were Chinese. In 1923e1943, 7 authors published 16 monographs in Series D, and one author was Chinese (Pan, 1996). Among the notable publications, Zhou Zanheng’s 1923 paper on the Cretaceous fossil plants made him China’s first paleontologist to publish in paleobotany, Sun Yunzhu’s 1924 paper on the Cambrian fauna of northern China made him the first Chinese to publish a monograph on fossil invertebrates, and Yang Zhongjian’s 1927 paper on fossil rodents from north China made him China’s first vertebrate paleontologist (Sun, 2005; Zhou, 2011). 22

Please cite this article in press as: Yu, X., Chinese paleontology and the reception of Darwinism in early twentieth century, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.09.001

X. Yu / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences xxx (2017) 1e9

commented on the popularity of paleontology (perhaps not without some detectable sentiment as he was then focusing on economic geology). Xie wrote: “the atmosphere in geological study was changed. Colleagues in geology all started to take pride in talking about sea and land changes or about biological evolution, and they started to feel that studies on coal mines and mineral beds are too shallow to be worth mentioning.” (Zhang, 2005, p. 42, p.42). 6. Approaches to Darwinism in the professional circle of early Chinese paleontologists When China’s first generation paleontologists started their training and early career, Darwinism was in the earlier part of the second stage in its development.23 Darwinism was being challenged by new findings of genetics and alternative models were being proposed to bypass natural selection as the mechanism of evolution (Yang, 2013b). It was also a time when the distinction between Darwinism and Social Darwinism was more blurred than today, and when many nowadays discredited beliefs such as scientism, Neo-Lamarckism, and eugenics had wide acceptance in China, as in other parts of the world (Kwok, 1965; Pusey, 1983; Schneider, 2003; Yang, 2013a, b). Among the teachers and mentors of early Chinese paleontologists, Ding Wenjian, Weng Wenhao and Grabau left some record regarding their understanding of Darwinism at the time. In a 1919 article entitled Eugenics and Genealogy (Zhu, 2010, pp. 3e34), Ding tried to explain what was believed to be the scientific basis of eugenics (Furth, 1970). Ding pointed out that survival of the fittest depends on the environmental context, and he criticized Spencer’s Lamarckian objection to natural selection. In a 1923 speech on natural sciences (Huang & Pan, 1989, p. 125), Weng commented on the hypothetical nature of Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Weng said: “The struggle for existence within the same species cannot be denied. But can variations be inherited? Can occasional success in the struggle for existence be kept up and reinforced in posterity? These cannot be verified.” Weng went on to praise De Vries’ work on plant mutations as “a step forward in explaining the evolution of species.” While showing timely understanding of some post-Darwinian development, Weng did not elaborate his specific views on the mechanisms of evolution. Grabau appeared to be the first Western paleontologist to expose Chinese students to evolutionary theory in the context of stratigraphy and paleontology. Mazur (2004, p. 237) noted Grabau’s belief in Hyatt’s orthogenetic theory of evolution. In his paper commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of Darwin’s Origin, Grabau (1920, pp. 67e68) stated that “variations are not fortuitous but controlled by law” and that “record of mollusk shells through millions of years suggests evolution by orthogenesis.” Grabau emphasized that changes in the progressive development of the shell-building mollusk are orderly, along definite lines and by minute gradations, while study of the shells of successive geological periods reveals the same rule. In a public lecture series on evolution24 at Peking University (1920e1921), Grabau used gastropod fossils as an example to show that variations are directional (orthogenetic variation). Grabau stated that Darwinians were wrong in believing variations are random because they payed attention only to living organisms and ignored organisms of the past. In the section on inheritance, Grabau summed up the work of Weismann, Mendel, de Vries and Morgan, but he insisted that the

23

See Section 1. Introduction for a summary of the developmental stages. Two of Grabau’s students took notes of the translated lectures and later turned the notes into a short book published in Chinese under Grabau’s name (Grabau,1924). 24

5

inheritance of acquired characters was correct based on studies on cephalopod fossils (Grabau, 1924; Sun, 2016).25 Sepkoski (2009, p. 18) provided the proper context for understanding the approaches of Grabau and other Western paleontologists working in China at the time. Sepkoski commented that for more than one hundred years after Darwin, the majority of working paleontologists tended toward an agnostic position e meaning that “their work did not attempt to make any comment or contribution to the theory.”26 Sepkoski noted that those nineteenth- and early twentieth-century paleontologists who did pursue larger interpretive questions “tended to subscribe to non-Darwinian, directional evolutionary models like Lamarckism and orthogenesis.” While it is sometimes difficult to characterize the position of some particular paleontologists, Western paleontologists and anthropologists working or visiting in China often shared a belief in the Central Asia origin of mammals and humans (Yen, 2012, 2014).27 Subscribers to this theory tended to emphasize the role of environmental changes in human evolution and often revealed a leaning toward Lamarckian interpretations. They either had little interest in the mechanism of natural selection (i.e. they took an agnostic position sensu Sepkoski), or believed in the Lamarckian inheritance at one time or another, or held orthogenetic views in different forms.28 In addition, a dualistic acceptance of Darwinism and Neo-Lamarckism can be found in Teilhard de Chadin and others. Simpson (1964, p. 228) wrote: “As to the mechanism of evolution, .Teilhard accepted both Darwinism and NeoLamarckism as partial factors. He called Darwinism evolution by chance . and therefore considered the nonchance NeoLamarckian factors more important”.29 It is difficult to gauge to what extent the views of their Western colleagues may have influenced first generation Chinese paleontologists, many of whom also pursued advanced studies or conducted research with Western paleontologists abroad.30 To most early Chinese paleontologists, evolution and progress were inseparably linked. Fossils were viewed as direct evidence for evolution as a fact (i.e. “evolution occurred”), and spectacular discoveries such as Peking Man and China’s first complete dinosaur fossil (Lufengosaurus) boosted both national pride and the image of fossils as truth keepers of the evolutionary past. The publications of early

25 Sun (2016, p. 354) praised Grabau (1924) as “the most comprehensive book on the theory of evolution” since 1912, but noted the limited impact of the book because of “the difficulties in translation and the excessively vernacular style of the book.” Sun reported Grabau’s espousal of “orthogenetic variation” and the inheritance of acquired characters (p. 353) without pointing out Grabau’s deviation from genuine Darwinian views. 26 I am indebted to Luo Zhexi for bringing this important point to my attention. 27 These include A. W. Grabau, G. B. Barbour, W. Granger, R. C. Andrews, H. F. Osborn, S. Hedin, P. Teilhard de Chadin, J. G. Andersson, D. Black, A. O. Zdansky, B. Bohlin, H. Breuil, F. Weidenreich, and others. Grabau, for instance, wrote several articles advocating the Central Asia theory, and some of these were translated into Chinese and appeared in popular science journals (Yen, 2014, p. 605). 28 Simpson (1964, p. 199) criticized Teilhard de Chadin’s “noogenesis” and Osborn’s “aristogenesis” as different forms of orthogenesis. Yen (2012, p. 109) considered Osborn’s view on the adaptation by human ancestors Lamarckian. Bowler (1986, p.208) noted that Weidenreich had been an open supporter of Lamarckism in the 1920s, and that his later works on human evolution revealed a “commitment to a form of linear progressionism.” Schmalzer (2008, p. 258) commented on Weidenreich’s “explicit commitment to orthogenesis.” 29 This tendency toward a dualistic acceptance of Darwinism and NeoLamarckism may have subtly influenced some Chinese scientists for different reasons. This may have led to different positions regarding whether some Chinese scientists should be characterized as Darwinians or Neo-Lamarckians (Schneider, 2003; contra Dikotter, 1992). 30 Yen (2014, pp. 608-607) noted that Chinese paleontologists accepted the Central Asia theory of human origin because “they thought it represented the most plausible evolutionary mechanism known at the time and because it was strongly supported by the leading scientists in the field.”

Please cite this article in press as: Yu, X., Chinese paleontology and the reception of Darwinism in early twentieth century, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.09.001

6

X. Yu / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences xxx (2017) 1e9

Chinese paleontologists were dominated by topics on descriptive morphology, taxonomy and biostratigraphy, and contained little or no discussion on the mechanisms of natural selection or the specific patterns of evolution as the unique domain of paleontology.31

7. Reception of Darwinism by early Chinese paleontologists and constraining factors The adaptive reception and appropriation of Darwinism by early Chinese paleontologists were characterized by the link between their enthusiastic reception of Darwinism and the higher goal of using science for nation building. A parallel situation can be seen between early Chinese paleontologists and other early Chinese scientists. Yang Haiyan (2013b, p. 202) wrote that early Chinese biologists “focused on their own specialties to unearth the potential of evolutionary theory, they barely touched the question of evolutionary mechanism.” Yang noted that for early Chinese biologists, while Darwinian slogans backed up their aspiration of saving China through science, they primarily viewed their work “as an effort to nationalise science and build up their identity as Chinese scientists.” A subtle example can be seen in Grabau (1924), which was composed by geologist Zhao Guobin (1899e1934) and paleontologist Yang Zhongjian in their student days. In the Introduction, Grabau stated a two-fold purpose, i.e., to present the developmental stages of the earth and its inhabitants, and to call attention to the many laws governing these developmental stages. However, Zhao professed an additional layer of dual goals in the note-taker’s Preface, i.e., to promote natural science in China, and to make the people from his home province Shaanxi to shake off Confucius and embrace science. For early Chinese paleontologists, the small percentage of publications on evolution often targeted the general readership, and did not get into detailed theoretical discussion. The belief in the crucial role of science in society made many early Chinese scientists to write for science popularization (Fan, 2013, p. 217),32 but theoretical issues of evolution were not on the public mind. For early Chinese paleontologists, the sentiments for nationalizing or Sinicizing science subtly impacted their reception and appropriation of Darwinism. Sinicizing science involved having more and more Chinese scientists working on Chinese materials. This, together with the dire need to catch up with what Western scientists had achieved in their own countries in the preceding century, made many early Chinese scientists favor local sciences (e.g., botany, zoology, taxonomy and paleontology) over universal sciences (e.g., chemistry, physics and theoretical biology).33 For instance, both Ding Wenjiang (Zhu, 2010, p. 231) and Yang Zhongjian (1947b) commented on the necessity of catch-up

31 This is indicated by the publication listings contained in Yang (1957), Tan (1985), Huang & He (1990), Pan (1996), and other sources. 32 As an example, Yang Zhongjian listed about 250 publications for the period of 1926e1949. His general books included titles such as “A general exposition of paleontology,” “Methods in paleontological study,” and “Living things of the past.” His general articles touched on topics such as analogy and homology, Peking Man and evolution, the emphasis on taxonomy in Chinese biology, the definition of species, and the relationship between biology and paleontology (Yang, 1947b, 1957, 1983; Yu et al., 2017). No direct reference to theoretical issues in evolution can be found. 33 Chemist and science organizer Ren Hongjun (Jen Hung-chun; 1886e1961) believed that Chinese scientists had a double duty: without making full use of local materials for scientific treatment (the first duty), they could not contribute to science advancement in general (the second duty) (Yang, 1988, p. 88). Schneider (2003) mentioned how early Chinese biologists favored local sciences (taxonomy, zoology and botany) applicable to Chinese materials over universal sciences such as physics and chemistry, which address more theoretical issues with little or less geographical or historical constraint.

taxonomy in China because in Western countries such work had been going on for more than two centuries. Ding particularly praised biologist Bing Zhi (Ping Chi; 1886e1965) for his own selfsacrifice in focusing on taxonomy instead of experimental biology. While describing new taxa and discovering the history of life as revealed by Chinese fossils fell under local sciences, research on theoretical issues of Darwinism would fall under universal sciences with less immediate value to the larger goal of using science for nation building. Consequently, historical geology (including paleontology) in China’s Republican era “concentrated on the description of new discoveries, the division of biotic sequences and stratigraphic correlation,” and Chinese geologists (including paleontologists) lagged behind “in research on systematic biology and on the evolution of morphological function and organic community.” (Yang, 1988). Record shows that early Chinese paleontologists such as Yang Zhongjian were well aware of this and other constraining factors. Yang (1947a) remarked that collecting isolated fossil materials as an adjunct to geological work represented the early stage in the development of paleontology. He noted that paleontologists in other countries had all been paying attention to new directions by considering questions such as the group or population size, the living environment, or the growth pattern and variation of each species. After commenting on the shortage of resources for Chinese paleontologists, Yang stated that these questions cannot be addressed without large quantities of specimens. Yang concluded: “If we stay at this early stage, what can be achieved at most would be the naming of a few new genera and species, with no hope of making new achievements in stratigraphy and paleontology.”34 In 1943, Yang (1947b, pp. 154e157) also commented on the institutional separation between biologists and paleontologists,35 which, together with the predominantly geological training background, also played a role in impacting the manner in which Darwinism was received and appropriated by early Chinese paleontologists. The reception and appropriation of Darwinism by early Chinese paleontologists were also affected by external social and political events. Ruse (2013, p. 20) stated that the war conflicts between 1937 and 1949 made science in China suffer in general, but that they “affected evolutionary studies in particular.” During the third stage in the development of Darwinism, while the Modern Synthesis was taking shape in Western institutions, most Chinese paleontologists were relocated to China’s Southwest and were operating under war conditions. They had neither the resources nor the proper environment to address the deeper evolutionary meaning of their fossil findings or to pay attention to the emerging theoretical developments abroad. However, the 1940s did see the beginning of a new trend among younger Chinese paleontologists to incorporate more biological or biogeographic components in their work. For instance, Lu Yanhao published a paper in 1940 discussing the ontogeny and phylogeny of redlichiid trilobites. In 1947, Wang Hongzhen (H. C. Wang, 1916e2010) studied the

34 Tamborini (2015) discussed German paleontology and its relationship to statistics. For Chinese paleontology, obtaining large quantities of specimens would still leave open the question of research orientation: assuming large quantities of specimens were to become available for analysis, would Chinese paleontologists follow the German model to treat paleontology as a taxonomical discipline dealing with morphological data, or would they follow the American model to develop statistic treatment of data for studying the tempo and mode of evolution?. 35 The disciplinary isolation of paleontology from biology reflects a common situation at the time (Sepkoski & Ruse, 2009). For instance, German paleontologists complained about the lack of biological training, and the same was true of American paleontologists (Sepkoski, 2012; Tamborini, 2016). Reif (1993, p. 436) commented on how German paleontologists “had problems keeping up with the vastly increasing English literature on evolution, as their own main interests were in systematics, stratigraphy, and regional geology.”

Please cite this article in press as: Yu, X., Chinese paleontology and the reception of Darwinism in early twentieth century, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.09.001

X. Yu / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences xxx (2017) 1e9

structures and the paleogeographic and evolutionary aspects of tetracorals. In 1944 and 1952, Xu Ren (Hsu Jen; 1910e1992), a biology major turned into a paleobotanist, published on modern clumping bamboos as well as on Carboniferous fossil plants (Sun, 2005). Nevertheless, this emerging trend did not have a chance to bring early Chinese paleontology closer to biology or evolutionary study. Drastic political, social and institutional changes soon followed after 1949. In the 1950s, Lysenkoism and dialectic materialism were officially imposed on all teaching and research activities, and Mendelian genetics was completely suppressed (Schneider, 2003; Yang, 2013a).36 Chinese scientists were pressured to undergo thought reform and those who refused to criticize the Mendelian genetics or to espouse Lysenkoism were punished or were forced to leave China (Chakravarti, 2004; Xue, 2011). The few young Chinese paleontologists who had been recently exposed to the Modern Synthesis while studying abroad37 had absolutely no chance to pursue genuine evolutionary thinking in their work (Schneider, 2003). The hope for bringing Chinese paleontology closer to the emerging Modern Synthesis drifted further away from reality.38

2)

3)

8. Conclusions When placed in the larger context of the relationship between social, cultural, and biological evolution and Chinese nationalism, the adaptive reception and cultural translation of Darwinism by China’s first generation paleontologists offer a unique opportunity to examine how China’s early scientists and the public appropriated Western scientific knowledge.39 This study examined the underlying complex of “individuals, networks, institutions, and national and global contexts” (Yen, 2012, pp. 6e7) that influenced the reception and appropriation of Darwinism by early Chinese paleontologists. The following points can be offered in conclusion: 1) Paleontological training started late in China in the 1910s, when the attention of young Chinese students and intellectuals was much engrossed by pressing social, cultural and ideological issues of the time.40 The reception and appropriation of Darwinism by China’s first generation paleontologists were shaped and characterized by two interconnected overarching themes, i.e., the larger goal of using science for nation building, and the “utilitarian” approach favoring the applied aspects of science. Together, these two themes led to the sentiments for nationalizing or Sinisizing science in China, placing a premium on local

36 In the Afterword to her translation of Darwin’s Origin, Xie (1955) praised “the renouncement of Weismann and Morgan’s idealistic views of metaphysics” as making biology “to embark on the correct path of Darwinism and Michurin theory.” In the Afterword to the 1995 revised edition of Darwin’s Origin, Ye (Zhou et al., 1955/1995) wrote that China in 1955 was in a nationwide campaign to study “Darwinism” of the Soviet model, or the so-called “Michurin’s creative Darwinism.” 37 For instance, vertebrate paleontologist Zhou Mingzhen (Chow Min-chen; 1918e 1996) had studied and worked under G. L. Jepsen around 1950 and returned to China in 1952 (Lucas, 2001). 38 From 1949 to mid-1970s, Chinese paleontology developed in isolation from the West. When China reopened to the outside world in late 1970s, Chinese paleontologists emerged at the forefront in introducing new theories such as cladistics, punctuated equilibrium, and vacariance biogeography. As noted by Ruse (2013, p. 20), thanks to fabulous fossil discoveries, Chinese paleontology and evolutionary studies are thriving today. 39 I am indebted to Lucas Rieppel for making this and other important points in his reviewer’s comments. 40 Shen (2014a, p. 13) noted that “Geologists like Ding, Weng, Li, and Yang Zhongjian were all influential and outspoken public figures with their own styles of political activism.” Many early Chinese scientists entered heated social and cultural debates surrounding the New Cultural Movement (mid-1910s to 1920s) (Furth, 1970; Schneider, 2003).

4)

5)

7

sciences (e.g., botany, zoology, taxonomy and stratigraphy) and on having more and more Chinese scientists working on Chinese materials. The work and career aspirations of first generation Chinese paleontologists, including their adaptive reception and appropriation of Darwinism, were uniquely linked to their own sense of national identity (Shen, 2014). As a parallel to what Yang (2013b, p. 202) described regarding early Chinese biologists, early Chinese paleontologists localized the general concepts and narratives of evolution “through their own investigating, collecting and excavating,” and viewed their work “as an effort to nationalise science and build up their identity as Chinese scientists.” Considering the century-long interval between the starting points of paleontology in China and in the West, the achievements of early Chinese paleontologists (and geologists in general) in the first half of the twentieth century was a source of great national pride to all Chinese (Furth, 1970; Shen, 2014). The emphasis on “utilitarian” research can serve to illustrate part of the intellectual framework in which the early enthusiastic reception of evolutionary ideas in China was localized as part of a general desire to adopt useful technical ideas from the West. Yang (1988 p.87) pointed out that the applied aspects of geology attracted much interest because of the utilitarian role of Western knowledge in helping China to meet the needs for industrialization. Emphasizing the applied aspects in their work in local science gave first generation Chinese paleontologists the leverage to “build up their identity as Chinese scientists” (Yang, 2013b, p. 202). As noted by Shen (2014, pp. 177e178), rigorous field methods and empirical documentation helped early Chinese geologists (including paleontologists) “gain the respect of outsiders and gave them a sound basis on which to discuss matters of fact and interpretation. This slowed the activity of foreign explorers and enabled Chinese to weigh in on matters of general geological significance.” In contrast, pursuing theoretical studies on the mechanism of evolution or the pattern of evolution would be viewed as having less immediate value either for the larger goal of nation building or for pragmatic economic gains. From an intra-scientific perspective, the reception and appropriation of Darwinism by China’s first generation paleontologists, as well as the orientation of their research agenda, were impacted by factors such as the late start of their predominantly geological training, the pragmatic or resource constraints on early Chinese paleontologists, the disciplinary isolation of early Chinese paleontology from biology, the practical need to catch up with basic tasks of taxonomy and stratigraphy, the priority given to local sciences over universal sciences, and the overall agnostic approach of early twentieth century paleontologists (Sepkoski, 2009) including Western paleontologists working in China at the time. While first generation Chinese paleontologists enthusiastically espoused Darwinism and regarded the results of their work as evidence that evolution occurred, not enough attention was given to the theoretical aspects in the development of paleontology as an independent discipline (instead of as an adjunct to geology and stratigraphy). The reception and appropriation of Darwinism by China’s first generation paleontologists raise many important epistemic and historiographic issues. For instance, the effect of tending toward the applied or “utilitarian” aspects of science, the effect of favoring local sciences over universal sciences, the effect of the cultural popularity of Darwinism in shielding it from possible scientific scrutiny, the effect of the understudied tendency toward a dualistic reception of both Darwinism and NeoLamarckism, and the effect of the dominance of Lysenkoism in the 1950s can all serve as sites of historical insight holding

Please cite this article in press as: Yu, X., Chinese paleontology and the reception of Darwinism in early twentieth century, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.09.001

8

X. Yu / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences xxx (2017) 1e9

considerable potentials for shedding light on many unanswered questions.

Acknowledgements I thank Marco Tamborini for inviting me to contribute to the Special Issue, and for stimulating discussions. I thank Desui Miao, Zhexi Luo, and Thomas Maisel for providing useful information. My special thanks go to Ren Baoyi for providing access to valuable materials on Yang Zhongjian, and Grace Shen for inspiring conversations. Marco Tamborini, Zhexi Luo, Sue Gronewold, Desui Miao, and Xiaoming Wang read a previous version of the paper and made valuable suggestions. Lucas Rieppel and one anonymous reviewer made constructive comments and insightful suggestions that helped greatly to improve the quality of the paper. My colleagues at Kean University (Sue Gronewold and Brian Regal) deserve my special thanks for advice and support. My final thanks go to the Guest Editor (David Sepkoski) for his encouragement and guidance. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Dr. Yang Zhongjian (C. C. Young; 1887e1979), founder of Chinese vertebrate paleontology.

References Becquemont, D. (2011). Social Darwinism: From reality to myth and from myth to reality. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 42, 12e19. Bowler, P. J. (1976). Fossils and progress: Paleontology and the idea of progressive evolution in the nineteenth century. New York: Science History Publications. Bowler, P. J. (1986). Theories of human evolution: A century of debate, 1844e1944. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Bowler, P. J. (2009). Darwin’s originality. Science, 323(5911), 223e226. Chakravarti, A. (2004). Ching chun Li (1912e2003): A personal remembrance of a hero of genetics. American Journal of Human Genetics, 74(5), 789e792. Cheng, Y. Q., & Chen, M. X. (Eds.). (1996). Qian dizhi diaochasuo 1916e1950 de lishi huigu [Geological Survey of China (1916e1950): Historical review and achievement]. Beijing: Dizhi chubanshe (in Chinese, with English title and table of contents) Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London: John Murray. Dikötter, F. (1992). The discourse of race in modern China. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Elman, B. (2006). A cultural history of modern science in China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Elshakry, M. (2009). Global Darwin: Eastern enchantment. Nature, 462, 1200e1201. Elshakry, M. (2014). Reading Darwin in Arabic, 1860-1950. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Fan, F. T. (2004). British naturalists in Qing China. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Fan, F. T. (2013). Circulating material objects: The international controversy over antiquities and fossils in twentieth-century China.” In B. Lightman, G. McOuat, & L. Stewart (Eds.), The circulation of knowledge between Britain, India and China: The early-modern world to the twentieth century (pp. 209e236) Leiden: Brill. Furth, C. (1970). Ting Wen-chiang: Science and China’s new culture. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Glick, T. F. (1972). The comparative reception of Darwinism. Austin: University of Texas Press. Glick, T. F., Puig-Samper, M. A., & Ruiz, R. (Eds.). (2001), Vol. 221. The reception of Darwinism in the iberian world: Spain, Spanish America and Brazil. Boston studies in the philosophy of scienceLondon: Kluwer Academic. Golas, P. J. (2000). Science and civilisation in China: Volume 5, chemistry and chemical technology, Part 13, mining. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grabau, A. W. (1920). Sixty years of Darwinism. Natural History, 20(1), 58e72. Grabau, A. W. (1924). Diqiu yu qi shengwu zhi Jinhua (The evolution of the Earth and its inhabitants). Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan (in Chinese) Grieder, J. B. (1970). Hu shih and the Chinese renaissance: Liberalism in the Chinese revolution, 1917-1937. In Harvard East Asian series (Vol. 46). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Huang, J. Q., & He, X. Y. (Eds.). (1990). Zhongguo xiandai dizixuejia zhuan (Biographies of modern Chinese geologists). Changsha: Hunan kexue jishu chubanshe (in Chinese) Huang, J. Q., & Pan, Y. T. (Eds.). (1989). Weng wenhao xuanji (selected works of Weng wenhao). Beijing: Yejin gongye chubanshe (in Chinese) Johnson, M. E. (1985). A. W. Grabau and the fruition of a new life in China. Journal of Geological Education, 33(2), 106e111. Kwok, D. W. Y. (1965). Scientism in Chinese thought, 1900e1950. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lightman, B., McOuat, G., & Stewart, L. (2013). The circulation of knowledge between Britain, India and China: The early-modern world to the twentieth century. Leiden: Brill. Lucas, S. G. (2001). Chinese fossil vertebrates. New York: Columbia University Press. Mayr, E., & Provine, W. B. (1980). The evolutionary synthesis: Perspectives on the unification of biology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mazur, A. (2004). A romance in natural history: The lives and works of Amadeus Grabau and Mary Antin. Syracuse: Garret. Montgomery, S. L. (2000). Science in translation: Movements of knowledge through cultures and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pan, J. (1996). Zhongguo gushengwuzhi yu Zhongguo gushengwuxue de fazhan (Palaeontologica Sinica and the development of paleontology in China). In Y. Q. Cheng, & M. X. Chen (Eds.), Qian dizhi diaochasuo 1916e1950 de lishi huigu [Geological Survey of China (1916e1950): Historical review and achievement] (pp. 39e43). Beijing: Dizhi chubanshe (in Chinese with English title and table of contents) Peng, S. C. (2007). Historical review of trilobite research in China. In J. Walch, D. G. Mikulic, E. Landing, & J. Kluessendorf (Eds.), Fabulous Fossilsd300 years of worldwide research on trilobites (pp. 171e191). Albany: New York State Museum. Pusey, J. (1983). China and charles Darwin. Cambridge: Harvard University Asia Center. Pusey, J. (2009). Global Darwin: Revolutionary road. Nature, 462, 162e163. Raj, K. (2007). Relocating modern science: Circulation and the construction of knowledge in south Asia and Europe, 1650-1900. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Reif, W. E. (1993). Afterword. In Schindewolf, O. H., Basic questions in paleontology: Geologic time, organic evolution, and biological systematics. In J. Schaefer, trans, & W. E. Reif (Eds.) (pp. 435e453). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reif, W. E., Junker, T., & Hoßfeld, U. (2000). The synthetic theory of evolution: General problems and the German contribution to the synthesis. Theory in Biosciences, 119(1), 41e91. Ruse, M. (Ed.). (2013). The Cambridge encyclopedia of Darwin and evolutionary thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sarukkai, S. (2013). Translation as method: Implications for history of science. In B. Lightman, G. McOuat, & L. Stewart (Eds.), The circulation of knowledge between Britain, India and China: The early-modern world to the twentieth century (pp. 311e329). Leiden: Brill. Schmalzer, S. (2008). The People’s Peking Man: Popular science and human identity in twentieth-century China. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press. Schneider, L. (2003). Biology and revolution in twentieth-century China. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Schwartz, B. (1964). In search of wealth and power: Yen Fu and the West. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University. Sepkoski, D. (2009). The emergence of paleobiology. In D. Sepkoski, & M. Ruse (Eds.), The paleobiological revolution: Essays on the growth of modern paleobiology (pp. 15e42). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sepkoski, D. (2012). Rereading the fossil record: The growth of paleobiology as an evolutionary discipline. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Sepkoski, D., & Ruse, M. (2009). The paleobiological revolution: Essays on the growth of modern paleontology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shen, G. Y. (2014). Unearthing the nation: Modern geology and nationalism in Republican China. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Simpson, G. G. (1964). This view of life: The world of an evolutionist. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. Spence, J. (2012). The search for modern China. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Sun, Q. G. (2005). The rise of Chinese palaeobotany, emphasizing the global context. In A. J. Bowden, C. V. Burek, & R. Wilding (Eds.), History of palaeobotany: Selected essays (pp. 293e298). London: Geological Society, Special Publications, 241. Sun, C. S. (2016). "Taxiang taoli fa xinzhi": Gelipu yu Beijing daxue dizhixi [The father of China’s paleontology: Amadeus W. Grabau and Department of Geology of Peking University]. Ziran kexueshi yanjiu (Studies in the History of Natural Sciences), 35(3) (in Chinese, with English abstract) Sun, Y. Z. (1947). Professor Amadeus william Grabau: Biographical note. Acta Geologica Sinica (English Edition), 27(1), 1e26. Tamborini, M. (2015). Paleontology and Darwin’s theory of evolution: The subversive role of statistics at the end of the 19th century. Journal of the History of Biology, 48(4), 575e612. Tamborini, M. (2016). “If the Americans can do it, so can we”: How dinosaur bones shaped German paleontology. History of Science, 54(3), 225e256. Tan, J. Z. (Ed.). (1985). Zhongguo xiandai shengwuxuejia zhuan (Biographies of modern Chinese biologists). Changsha: Hunan kexue jishu chubanshe (in Chinese) Tsu, J., & Elman, B. A. (2014). China Studies: Science and technology in modern China, 1880s-1940s. Leiden: Brill. Wen, M. G. (Ed.). (2013). Ma junwu zishu (anthology of Ma junwu). Hefei, Anhui: Anhui wenyi chubanshe (in Chinese) Wright, D. (1998). The translation of modern Western science in nineteenthcentury China, 1840-1895. Isis, 89(4), 653e673. Wu, S. X. (2015). Empires of coal: Fueling China’s entry into the modern world order, 1860-1920. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Xie, Y. Z. (1955). Wuzhong qiyuan (Origin of species). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe (in Chinese) Xue, B. G. (2011). Keyuan qianchen wangshi (Recollections of past events at the Academy of Sciences). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe (in Chinese) Yang, Z. J. (1947a). Sanshinian lai zhi Zhongguo gushengwuxue (Chinese paleontology over the past 30 years). Kexue, 29, 355e358 (in Chinese)

Please cite this article in press as: Yu, X., Chinese paleontology and the reception of Darwinism in early twentieth century, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.09.001

X. Yu / Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences xxx (2017) 1e9 Yang, Z. J. (1947b). Ziran luelun (Brief commentaries on nature). Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan (in Chinese) Yang, Z. J. (1957). Chongbian Jigushi mulu (revised publication list of Yang zhongjian) (publisher unknown; in Chinese) Yang, Z. J. (1983). Yang zhongjian huiyilu (the memoirs of Yang zhongjian). Beijing: Dizhi chubanshe (in Chinese) Yang, T. H. (1988). The development of geology in Republican China, 1912e1937. In J. Z. Bowers, J. W. Hess, & N. Sivin (Eds.), Science and medicine in twentiethcentury China: Research and education (pp. 65e90). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Center for Chinese Studies. Yang, H. Y. (2013a). Encountering Darwin and creating Darwinism in China. In M. Ruse (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of Darwin and evolutionary thought (pp. 250e257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yang, H. Y. (2013b). Knowledge across borders: The early communication of evolution in China. In B. Lightman, G. McOuat, & L. Stewart (Eds.), The circulation of knowledge between Britain, India and China: The early-modern world to the twentieth century (pp. 182e208). Leiden: Brill.

9

Yen, H. P. (2012). Constructing the Chinese: Paleoanthropology and anthropology in the Chinese frontier, 1920e1950. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Yen, H. P. (2014). Evolutionary asiacentrism, peking man, and the origins of sinocentric ethno-nationalism. Journal of the History of Biology, 47(4), 585e625. Yu, X. B., Chen, P. F., & Ren, B. Y. (2017). Dianji weiye chuanqi yisheng: Yang Zhongjian yuanshi nianpu ji jinian tuji (the legendary life and achievements of Yang zhongjian: A chronological sketch with commemorative photographs). Beijing: Kexue chubanshe (in Chinese) Zhang, J. C. (2005). Dizhixue yu minguo shehui, 1916-1950 (Geology and the Republican society, 1916-1950). Jinan: Shandong jiaoyu chubanshe (in Chinese) Zhou, Z. H. (2011). Shenmai didi de baozang: Zhongguo gushengwu bainian ji [Underground treasures - 100 years of Chinese paleontology]. Kexue yuekan (Science Monthly), 500 (in Chinese) Zhou, J. R., Ye, D. Z., & Fang, Z. X. (1955/1995). Wuzhong qiyuan (xiuding ban) [Origin of Species (revised translation edition)]. Beijing: Shangwu yinshuguan (in Chinese) Zhu, Z. (2010). Ding Wenjiang ji (collected works of ding Wenjiang). Guangzhou: Huacheng chubanshe (in Chinese)

Please cite this article in press as: Yu, X., Chinese paleontology and the reception of Darwinism in early twentieth century, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences (2017), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2017.09.001