Talk:Charles Darwin

Robert Edmond Grant

Bueller 007 added Robert Edmond Grant to the list of Darwin's academic advisors in the infobox and I reverted on the ground that it is not supported in the text. My reversion was reverted on the ground "completely supported by text if you actually read it". The text just says "He assisted Robert Edmond Grant's investigations of the anatomy and life cycle of marine invertebrates in the Firth of Forth". This does not support the designation of Grant as an academcic advisor in my view. Any other views? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

There's a lot more to it, outlined at Charles Darwin's education#Sealife homologies and monads, with several sources. Bueller argues that Grant "was important enough to be listed here. it's where Darwin made his first discoveries (which grant took credit for)." There's some merit in that, Gfrant was doing research for publication, Darwin succeeded Coldstream in assisting Grant and was taught a great deal about research, dissecting specimens add new concepts. When working together, Darwin made "one interesting little discovery", Grant apparently "gave notice" of this in a memo, the Plinian Society minutes record that Darwin "communicated to the Society" two discoveries, his first public presentation. Grant, in the Edinburgh Journal of Science for July 1827, acknowledged that "The merit of having first ascertained them to belong to that animal is due to my zealous young friend Mr Charles Darwin of Shrewsbury", the first time Darwin's name appeared in print, but he was not given credit in Grant's full study, and complained about this to his children many years later. I don't know if that makes Grant an academcic advisor, but certainly significant in CD's education and I'm inclined to name him in the lead, so have boldly done that. . . dave souza, talk 18:21, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

An addition to the infobox has to be justified by the text of this article, not another article, especially as it is an FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

It *is* justified in the article. The article already specifically says that he was supervised by Grant at Edinburgh. His supervisorship by Grant and their falling out is no secret. Discussed in Desmond & Moore, Browne, etc. Grant was just as formal a "supervisor" to Darwin as Henslow or Sedgwick was, and they're in the infobox. Either they all go in or none go in. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Please quote where the article specifically says that he was supervised by Grant at Edinburgh. All I can find is that he assisted Grant, as I said and quoted above. He almost certainly assisted other scholars as well, but that does not mean that they supervised him. Sedgwick and Henslow are supported as the article says they were Darwin's tutors. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Sentence ending in citation 56

Darwin describes snakes and lizards while in Patagonia. The sentence on page is materially incorrect. 2601:206:8782:2940:1CC3:6DF2:390:E7DA (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Exactly what is wrong with it? Errantios (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking at citation 56 it quotes "The absence of any species whatever in the whole class of Reptiles is a marked feature in the zoology of this country, as well as in that of the Falkland Islands. I do not ground this statement merely on my own observation, but I heard it from the Spanish inhabitants of the latter place, and from Jemmy Button with regard to Tierra del Fuego." That's in CD, 1834 P. 301 . . . dave souza, talk 09:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, exactly what problem are you pointing to? If the article is misquoting or it is mistaking what Darwin said, you can fix it. Errantios (talk) 10:42, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

These are the sources, the article sentence looks good to me, though I'm not sure of the boundaries of Paragonia. Any refinements can be discussed for clarification. . . dave souza, talk 21:24, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

I think the sentence is wrong. Darwin is quoted as saying that there are no reptiles in Tierra del Fuego, whereas our article says Patagonia. According to the maps in the respective articles, Tierra del Fuega is the southern tip of Patagonia. I suggest altering "In Patagonia, Darwin formed the incorrect belief that the territory was devoid of reptiles." to "Darwin incorrectly believed that Tierra del Fuego, an archipeligo at the southern end of Patagonia, was devoid of reptiles." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! My misunderstanding, and moving the sentence to the following paragraph makes the context much clearer. . .dave souza, talk 04:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

He read Lyell's second volume and accepted its description of "centres of creation" of species, but his discoveries and theorising challenged Lyell's ideas of smooth continuity and of extinction of species. In Tierra del Fuego, Darwin formed the incorrect belief that the archipelago was devoid of reptiles.[60] – done, thanks to IP who raised the question. . .dave souza, talk 04:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC) I had just read voyage of the beagle when I read this page for the first time. Sorry I wasn't more specific, but Darwin believed only Tierra del Diego had no endemic reptiles. Also, this is the first time I've used this function of wikipedia! Thanks for making the adjustment!

English vs. British

The page starts with "Charles Robert Darwin was an English naturalist, geologist, and biologist...", but I find "English" being vague and confusing, and I propose the change to "British". But my knowledge on the matter is limited, and I hope someone more knowledgeable can decide if the proposal is correct. Virolino (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

There have been many disruptive edits where person A goes to many articles changing "English" to "British", while person B does the opposite. Presumably "English" means English people while "British" means British people. I don't know which is "correct". Some previous discussions: Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 4#Sigh, the fist sentence + Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 6#Opening sentence + Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 11#'English Naturalist' + Talk:Charles Darwin/Archive 14#Nationality and citizenship, British?. Johnuniq (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

It is back and forth about whether to take the more specific term or not. take the more specific term or not. Charles Darwin was both English and British (much like one can be Californian and American). Darwin's ancestry is I think mostly from people born in England; his wife's mother was Welsh (and his great nephew Ralph Vaughan Williams was a thorough mix of of Welsh and English ancestry though is describe as "English" in his article). Erp (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Darwin and his parents were born and spent most of their lives in England. Darwin is English as David Hume and Adam Smith are Scottish. "English" is neither vague nor confusing. If a reader doesn't know that England was then and still is part of Britain (today the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), the reader needs to become better informed—see, right here, England. When Americans refer to Britain as "England", that is their own carelessness. Errantios (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't find "English" vague and confusing at all. In fact, it's more precise. He is both English AND British. Discussions of his ancestry mean little. A person is not their ancestry. HiLo48 (talk) 22:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. CD was both English AND British. . . dave souza, talk 00:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

• I've had a look for sources, most don't define Darwin as either "British" or "English", the exception is "Darwin Online: Biography". The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. Perhaps no one has influenced our knowledge of the natural world as much as English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882). so that's reasonable justification. (The English people article confusingly doesn't note that the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain extended to Northumbria including a major part of Scotland in the Early Middle Ages). Browne writes of Darwin's family; "Britain was becoming the first industrial nation: a nation of shopkeepers, according to Napoleon ... Dr. Darwin was solidly respectable, [his family] had been members of the English provincial gentry for generations." See Browne, Janet (1995). Charles Darwin: Voyaging. p. 6. So, both British and English. . . dave souza, talk 08:56, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

  As noted above, CD was both English AND British. Darwin Online: Biography is a source for English, if want to add British, we could look for another source. Browne p. 245 is a possibility, but the book can stay on the shelf for now. . . dave souza, talk 00:53, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Repeat sentence in introduction

Paragraph 3 of the introduction, this sentence appears twice:

"Darwin's work established evolutionary descent with modification as the dominant scientific explanation of natural diversification." ~2026-17348-8 (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it did. I've fixed it. Thanks for alerting us. HiLo48 (talk) 02:41, 9 January 2026 (UTC)