↓ Skip to main content

French Roots of French Neo-Lamarckisms, 1879–1985

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
French Roots of French Neo-Lamarckisms, 1879–1985
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, July 2010
DOI 10.1007/s10739-010-9240-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laurent Loison

Abstract

This essay attempts to describe the neo-Lamarckian atmosphere that was dominant in French biology for more than a century. Firstly, we demonstrate that there were not one but at least two French neo-Lamarckian traditions. This implies, therefore, that it is possible to propose a clear definition of a (neo)Lamarckian conception, and by using it, to distinguish these two traditions. We will see that these two conceptions were not dominant at the same time. The first French neo-Lamarckism (1879-1931) was structured by a very mechanic view of natural processes. The main representatives of this first period were scientists such as Alfred Giard (1846-1908), Gaston Bonnier (1853-1922) and Félix Le Dantec (1869-1917). The second Lamarckism - much more vitalist in its inspiration - started to develop under the supervision of people such as Albert Vandel (1894-1980) and Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895-1985). Secondly, this essay suggests that the philosophical inclinations of these neo-Lamarckisms reactivated a very ancient and strong dichotomy of French thought. One part of this dichotomy is a material, physicalist tradition, which started with René Descartes but developed extensively during the 18th and 19th centuries. The other is a spiritual and vitalist reaction to the first one, which also had a very long history, though it is most closely associated with the work of Henri Bergson. Through Claude Bernard, the first neo-Lamarckians tried to construct a mechanical and determinist form of evolutionary theory which was, in effect, a Cartesian theory. The second wave of neo-Lamarckians wanted to reconsider the autonomy and reactivity of life forms, in contrast to purely physical systems.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 5%
Belgium 1 5%
Spain 1 5%
Greece 1 5%
United States 1 5%
Unknown 17 77%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 18%
Other 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 1 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 45%
Philosophy 4 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 5%
Arts and Humanities 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 1 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 March 2018.
All research outputs
#7,451,942
of 22,782,096 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#182
of 484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,668
of 94,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,782,096 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 94,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.