Comments on: How do we know it was Owen? http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2008/07/20080719/ The Friends of Charles Darwin blog Sat, 03 Dec 2011 00:32:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Sophie Ladefoged http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2008/07/20080719/comment-page-1/#comment-624 Sophie Ladefoged Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:47:30 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2008/07/19/#comment-624 Hello, I'm a student at a higher institude of education in Denmark, and I'm doing a paper om Charles Darwin. I came across your website while browsing for info on Owen. I have a very good book on Darwin called "Som at tilstå et mord" (like admitting to a murder) written by Hanne Strager. Here it it stated that even though the review was anonymous, everyone was sure it was written by Owen. The reason for this is the fact that the review includes many references to "Englands ever so talented anatomist Richard Owen". At least this is what the book says (loosely translated). It's very new, published this year, and Strager is a cand.scient in biology. So the argument she gives is that the referencres to himself proves that he wrote it. Just thought I would let you know :) - Sophie Hello,

I’m a student at a higher institude of education in Denmark, and I’m doing a paper om Charles Darwin. I came across your website while browsing for info on Owen. I have a very good book on Darwin called “Som at tilstå et mord” (like admitting to a murder) written by Hanne Strager.
Here it it stated that even though the review was anonymous, everyone was sure it was written by Owen. The reason for this is the fact that the review includes many references to “Englands ever so talented anatomist Richard Owen”.
At least this is what the book says (loosely translated). It’s very new, published this year, and Strager is a cand.scient in biology. So the argument she gives is that the referencres to himself proves that he wrote it.

Just thought I would let you know :)

- Sophie

]]> By: Richard Carter, FCD http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2008/07/20080719/comment-page-1/#comment-214 Richard Carter, FCD Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:19:18 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2008/07/19/#comment-214 Thanks, Rececca, very interesting. Of course, an alternative explanation for the similar wording might be that Owen was plagiarising the anonymous review author (or vice versa, depending on publication date). But somehow I doubt it. Occam's Razor, and all that! Thanks, Rececca, very interesting.

Of course, an alternative explanation for the similar wording might be that Owen was plagiarising the anonymous review author (or vice versa, depending on publication date). But somehow I doubt it. Occam’s Razor, and all that!

]]> By: Rebecca Greenberg http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2008/07/20080719/comment-page-1/#comment-213 Rebecca Greenberg Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:24:04 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2008/07/19/#comment-213 Hello - Well, it was me who asked the question last year and after a year of research on Richard Owen, I think I may have found the only "smoking gun." The most compelling evidence that Owen wrote the review is that Owen uses a very similar turn of phrase, “common mistake of confounding the propositions, of species being the result of a continuously operating secondary cause, and the mode of operation of such creative cause,” in his 1860 work "Paleontology", as the reviewer does when accusing Darwin of “the fundamental mistake…of confounding the questions, of species being the result of a secondary cause or law, and of the nature of the that creative law.". Not a confession, but this might be as close as it gets, considering this is a pretty dusty old topic! Hello – Well, it was me who asked the question last year and after a year of research on Richard Owen, I think I may have found the only “smoking gun.” The most compelling evidence that Owen wrote the review is that Owen uses a very similar turn of phrase, “common mistake of confounding the propositions, of species being the result of a continuously operating secondary cause, and the mode of operation of such creative cause,” in his 1860 work “Paleontology”, as the reviewer does when accusing Darwin of “the fundamental mistake…of confounding the questions, of species being the result of a secondary cause or law, and of the nature of the that creative law.”.
Not a confession, but this might be as close as it gets, considering this is a pretty dusty old topic!

]]>