Posted by: Anastasia | February 16, 2009

Biography of Charles Darwin

As we strive to better understand how history affects the present, it often helps to examine the historical figures themselves in more depth. AAS member and Biology major Tasida Fisher has written a biography of Charles Darwin that may provide some insight.

Of all the scientists who have ever lived, none are as divisive as Charles Darwin. Before Darwin, natural history was mostly an endless catalogue of disconnected facts. His theory was the lens that focused these facts into a true science. History has placed his mind in the same class as Newton and Galileo. Yet from the first publication of Origin of Species to today, his ideas have been violently opposed. Charles Darwin’s concept implies such a profound paradigm shift in the image of the human species that many still refuse to accept it. Ironically, while the name Darwin is associated with controversy, rebellion, and, among many people, blasphemy, the man behind the name was exceedingly prudent, methodical, and adverse to conflict. The idea that changed the world was the product not of a rebellious spirit, but of a privileged intellectual heritage, a fortuitous trip around the world, and over twenty years of quiet contemplation and fact collecting.

Charles Darwin was born into what biographer Cyril Aydon describes as a “golden childhood” in the upper class of English society on February 9, 1809 in the town of Shrewsbury (12-13). His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was a scientist, poet, and doctor, as well as a fellow to London’s Royal Society. His father, Robert, was the most prominent doctor in the country outside of London and also a member of the Royal Society. He was also the most influential person in Charles’s life. Charles’s son, Francis, wrote of the high regard Charles had for Robert:

    [H]e spoke of him frequently, generally prefacing an anecdote with some such phrase as, “My father, who was the wisest man I ever knew,” etc. It was astonishing how clearly he remembered his father’s opinions, so that he was able to quote some maxim or hint of his in many cases of illness. As a rule, he put small faith in doctors, and thus his unlimited belief in Dr. Darwin’s medical instinct and methods of treatment was all the more striking. (qtd. Nardo 12)

Though Charles’s mother died when he was eight, he and his younger sister Catherine had three older sisters to look after them, Marianne, Caroline, and Susan, as well as an older brother, Erasmus. The family’s wealth allowed Charles a leisurely and permissive life. In his youth, he took a strong interest in ornithology (the study of birds) and beetles, shooting and fishing, but took little interest in the classic formal education offered to him at the local boarding school.

In spite of the fact that Charles would never have to work for a living, Robert was determined that his son not lead an idle life. Charles showed potential as a physician accompanying his father on his rounds. At the age of 16, he was sent with his brother Erasmus to Edinburgh to study medicine. After realizing that his father’s wealth would be enough for a comfortable living, and after watching in horror two surgeries done without the benefit of chloroform (one upon a child), Charles abandoned interest in becoming a doctor. Ever avoiding confrontation, he did not tell his father about his aversion to medicine. Instead, he spent the following summer essentially hiding from his father at the estates of his uncle Josiah Wedgewood and a family friend, William Owen. The next academic year he returned to Edinburgh, but instead of studying medicine, he immersed himself in natural history. He allied himself with like-minded peers and professors. He studied marine life and taxidermy and joined the Plinian Society, a society of students dedicated to natural science.

Charles’s sisters divulged to Robert Darwin their brother’s qualms of joining the medical profession. That summer, the father confronted the son. He would not force Charles into a field he could not stomach. He would not, however, let his son be idle. Robert sent Charles to Cambridge University to study to become a country clergyman. This may seem like an odd choice for Robert to make, considering that he, like his father Erasmus before him, was an atheist. However, in 19th century Britain, many wealthy families essentially bought employment in the church for their sons. The declaration of belief in the doctrines of the church was seen as merely a formality, and the vocation would give Charles ample time to pursue his interest in nature; beetle collecting and bird watching were very common hobbies among the clergy.

Cambridge required all of its students to read Natural Theology, the book in which William Paley makes his infamous watchmaker argument. The argument is as follows: imagine one found a watch lying on the ground. How did the watch get there? A watch is much too intricate and complicated to have arisen by chance. The existence of the watch and its complexity implies a watchmaker. How much more intricate and complex is a worm, let alone a human being? The complexity of life implies a designer, and that designer is God. Paley catalogues in his book innumerable examples of creatures seemingly perfectly suited to their environments: the shape of a fish’s eye lens adapted to water’s refraction of light, the beak of a woodpecker, the migration of birds, the life-cycle of mistletoe, down feathers, marsupials’ pouches, and webbed feet, just to name a few. Darwin found the argument irresistibly elegant and read the book several times.

Fascination with Paley’s book was the most interest Darwin took in theology. His passion, as always, was in the natural sciences. He found a mentor in the Professor of Botany, Rev. John Steven Henslow. Darwin became a regular at the weekly open house Henslow held. He brought an intense curiosity to class that impressed Henslow and arrived early to set up the equipment Henslow needed for the lectures. As a friendship developed between the two, Darwin became known as “the man who walks with Henslow” for his almost daily long walks with the professor. His study at Cambridge also included the independent reading of two influential books. Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy by John Herchel inspired Darwin to aspire to making an original contribution to science. And A Personal Narrative of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America During the Years 1790-1804 by explorer Baron Alexander von Humboldt instilled in Darwin a desire to explore freshly discovered, exotic regions.

Humboldt’s description of the island of Tenerife especially impressed Darwin, and he resolved to organize a trip to study its natural history. In preparation for the trip, Darwin studied geology with a leading expert in the field, Adam Sedgwick. He travelled as an assistant to Sedgwick to an expedition in North Wales in August of 1831, the summer after he graduated.

The trip to Tenerife that he was preparing for would never materialize, however. An invitation to a much larger adventure was waiting in a letter from Henslow when Darwin returned home. A naturalist and companion to Captain Robert Fitzroy was needed for a trip to the southern tip of the Americas, and Henslow had heartily recommended Darwin to the position. This trip, of course, was the famous voyage of the Beagle, the five year round-the-world expedition that was the inspiration for Darwin’s life work.

During the voyage, Darwin read Principles of Geology, by Charles Lyell. Lyell argued that through small changes created over a long period of time by forces still at work today, large upheavals in the landscape are created. This view was revolutionary and unorthodox, and Darwin thoroughly documented evidence for Lyell’s theory along every leg of the journey. But while Darwin became convinced that Lyell’s theory was correct, neither Lyell nor Darwin thought at the time that the possibility of small changes accumulating into large changes applied to living things. Both were creationists. Lyell considered the arguments of evolutionist Jean Lamarck to be an “idle dispute” because mechanisms (unspecified by Lyell) that prevent a creature from deviating too far from the parental type were believed to be sufficiently strong to prevent any change in the species (Weiner 28). Darwin, who had been raised by his sisters in the Christian faith and had studied to become a man of God, essentially adopted the view of the majority of naturalists of the day, which was that God created all of the species from dust.

The observations that Darwin made during the voyage slowly and quietly challenged his orthodox view of species. At Port Desire on the east coast of South America, he found a field of flat terrain covered with the sea shells (Aydon 87). In the Andes Mountains, the kinds of plants and animals found on the eastern side of the range were different from those found on the western side (Aydon 95). At the Galapagos Islands, the biological diversity was astounding. Creatures such as tortoises with eight-foot-wide shells, four-foot long black iguanas, and hoards of diverse, naïve little black birds were found exclusively on these islands. The locals told him that they were able to tell which island a turtle came from by its scales and shell. Mockingbirds, too, seemed to vary from island to island. And birds from these islands all showed similarity to those on the nearest continent, South America, while species on Cape Verde resembled African species, even though physically Cape Verde and the Galapagos archipelago were similar.

Yet Darwin did not begin to seriously contemplate the implications of his observations until late in the voyage. When he collected birds from the Galapagos, he did not bother to mark which specimens came from which islands. He was still a creationist, believing that any differences appearing in similar birds among the islands would merely be varieties of the same species. Animals were created in accordance with environment they would inhabit, and each island was nearly identical to the next in climate, altitude, and size. The first indication that Darwin doubted the immutability of species appeared in an entry in his diary, months after his visit to the Galapagos Islands:

    When I recollect the fact, that . . . the Spaniards can at once pronounce from which Island any tortoise may have been brought: When I see these Islands in sight of each other. . .tenanted by these birds but slightly differing in structure and filling the same place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties. The only fact of a similar kind of which I am aware is the constant asserted difference between the wolf-like Fox of East and West Falkland Islands. If there is the slightest foundation for these remarks, the Zoology of Archipelagoes will be well worth examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of species. (qtd. De Beer 82)

During the last leg of the voyage, Darwin wrote to his family,

    I look forward with no little anxiety to the time when Professor Henslow . . . shall decide on the . . .merits of my notes. If he shakes his head in a disapproving manner, I shall then know that I had better give up on science, for science will have given up on me. For I have worked with every grain of energy that I possess. (qtd. Aydon 103)

He needn’t have worried. Throughout the trip, Darwin sent letters filled with his biological and geological observations and crates filled with carefully preserved samples of animals and plants to his old friend and mentor. Henslow, in turn, relayed Darwin’s contributions to the academic community in England. Darwin returned to port in October of 1836 a famous man in prime position to start an eminent career in science. The Zoological Society of London received his collection of fossils and trophies, which soon produced interesting findings. The naïve, black little birds from Galapagos that Darwin thought to be wrens, warblers, blackbirds, and finches, were reported by leading ornithologist John Gould to be 14 separate species, all finches. Furthermore, all of these species were unique to the island (Aydon 120, Weiner 28). Richard Owen, the scientist that coined the word “dinosaur,” announced that the fossils Darwin collected from South America were remains of giant versions of species still living on that continent: a giant sloth, a giant armadillo, a giant llama, and a giant rodent. They were not, as Darwin had assumed, American versions of African species, such as the rhinoceros (Aydon 121, Weiner 29).

Darwin moved to London to be close to his collections.  He met the acquaintance of many prominent members of the academic community, including Charles Lyell. The author of the book that was so instrumental in Darwin’s geological surveys on the Beagle became a close friend and collaborator of Darwin’s. In London, Darwin put together a final draft of Journal of Researches into the Geology and Natural History of the Various Countries visited by HMS Beagle. It was in this book that Darwin first publicly, yet modestly, expressed doubt in the immutability of species. He found it curious that similar, yet distinct, species were found on separate sides of the Andes:

    [U]nless we suppose the same species to have been created in two different countries, we ought not to expect any closer similarity between the organic beings on opposite sides of the Andes, than on shores separated by a broad strait of the sea. . .The whole reasoning, of course, is founded on the assumption of the immutability of species. Otherwise changes might be considered as superinduced by different circumstances in the two regions during a length of time. (qtd. De Beer 85)

Privately, however, his doubts were more than modest. He began a notebook in the summer of 1837 titled “Transmutation of Species” (De Beer 86). He expected the fossils he found in South America to be the remains of animals found at similar latitudes in Africa (Weiner 29). They weren’t; they appeared to be predecessors of modern South American species. He expected islands at similar latitudes, sizes, and climates to hold approximately the same types of species. They didn’t; species on the Galapagos archipelago resembled species from South America rather than species from the island of Cape Verde. He expected all of the different types of birds he found on the Galapagos to be the archipelago’s versions of warblers, blackbirds, and wrens. They weren’t; each species was a finch, yet each species successfully mimicked a warbler, blackbird, or wren by the shape of its body, the build of its beak, its habits, and its diet. The pattern of species Darwin saw on his voyage around the world, where similar yet distinct species were found in neighboring areas, suggested a common ancestry, much as cousins with a family resemblance share a set of grandparents. He drew in his notebook a tree. The trunk represented a common ancestor to all living things. The trunk split into several limbs, and each limb split into twigs, each twig representing a living species. New species, he thought, arise from the divergence of one species into two.

The theory of evolution by divergence of species was not something new. Evolutionists before Darwin had come to the same conclusion. Charles had read the account of his own grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, as an undergraduate at Cambridge and found the idea unsatisfactory, adopting instead Paley’s analogy of the watchmaker. It took experiencing the evidence first hand on the Beagle to convince Darwin that species do, in fact, evolve. Yet Paley’s argument remained: the workings of life were too intricate to arise from chance. It was not enough for Darwin to gather evidence showing that life had changed over time; he needed to elucidate the mechanism behind this change.

From experience and from the works of others, Darwin knew that organisms that reproduce sexually vary, and that most of these variations are inheritable. Breeders of domestic animals controlled the traits of their animals by breeding only those with the desired traits. Darwin was convinced that this artificial selection created new domestic varieties, and that such a selection in nature taking place over a long period of time could create new species. What wasn’t clear was how Nature selected for varieties especially suited to their environments. A crucial piece of the puzzle came to Darwin in September of 1838 when he read An Essay on the Principle of Population by Rev. Thomas Malthus. Malthus argued that while populations increase exponentially, the ability to produce food increase only linearly. Therefore, there would always be more people than food, and the majority of humanity was doomed to poverty and starvation. Malthus used this principle to argue that society could not be improved. Darwin applied it to other species and reasoned that those who escaped starvation and lived to pass on their traits to offspring were the ones that differed slightly enough from the general population to gain a competitive edge. This, he argued, was the mechanism by which Nature improved species.

A month after Darwin read Malthus’s essay, he proposed to his cousin and childhood friend, Emma Wedgewood. On January 29, 1839, they married and settled in London. His marriage would be paramount to making his career possible, as his health deteriorated after his return to England and never recovered. Especially under stress, Darwin was subject to vomiting, headaches, palpitations, and listlessness. Emma provided to Charles steadfast companionship and physical care, as well as management of his personal and social life. This relieved much of the burden of Charles’s chronic illness and allowed him to concentrate on his scientific work (Ayden 292-93).

Still, Darwin’s health problems were a serious impediment on the progress of his work. Darwin accepted the office of Secretary of the Geological Society of London in February of 1839, and then relinquished the position three years later. It took him four years to write The Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, a book that he had put, in all, 20 months’ work (Ayden 152). This book went to the publisher in January of 1842. In the meantime, Emma gave birth to two children, a son named William and a daughter, Annie. Charles also investigated further his ideas on natural selection. He interrogated pigeon fanciers and dog breeders and wrote to a cousin, “if your half-bred African cat should die . . .I should be very much obliged for its carcase sent up. . .or ay cross-bred pigeons, fowl, duck, &c, &c, will be more acceptable than the finest haunch of venison” (qtd. Aydon 151). In May 1842, five and a half years after the Beagle, Darwin wrote a 35-page abstract of his theory.

Emma was expecting a third child, and the expanding family and Charles’s health required that the family move out of London and onto a country estate. They found one in the village Downe, and with financial help from Charles’s father, they established themselves on an 18 acre estate that became known as the Down House in September of 1942. Within a week Emma gave birth, but the child only lived three weeks.

Darwin published a third volume, Volcanic Islands, and continued to work on his theory of evolution by natural selection. By 1844, he was able to expand his 35-page sketch into a 230-page essay. He shared this essay with one person: his close friend and confidant, Joseph Hooker. He also wrote a letter to Emma, to be delivered in the event of his sudden death, arranging for its publication. He still, however, did not go public. That year, an anonymous author, later revealed to be journalist Robert Chambers, published Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. This book was popular with the public and notorious with the scientific and religious communities. Vestiges proposed a “Law of Development” to portray an evolution of both living and non-living matter into more complex and orderly entities. It intentionally undermined the premise of the authority of science, religion, and government. Its science was admittedly amateur, and nearly all scientists of high standing gave it a contemptuous review (Ayden 165-68). For all of the criticism it garnered, however, the book succeeded in breaking wide open the topic of the origin of species. Darwin wrote later in Origin

    [Vestiges], from its powerful and brilliant style, though displaying in the earlier editions little accurate knowledge and a great want of scientific caution, immediately had a very wide circulation. In my opinion it has done excellent service in this country in calling attention to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in the preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views. (14)

The scientific community’s reaction to Vestiges made it apparent to Darwin that he would have to present his own ideas on the origin of species grounded in solid scientific evidence and reasoning and with a heavy dose of diplomacy regarding certain subjects such as the origin of the human race, or risk being ostracized by the scientists he held in highest regard. He felt it was necessary to more firmly establish his authority as a seasoned naturalist and taxonomist before his views could be taken seriously, so Darwin took on the colossal project of cataloguing and classifying barnacles, nearly microscopic cone shaped crustaceans that attach themselves to rocks, boats, and other stationary objects at sea. He began his work in 1846, classifying a specimen he collected during his voyage on the Beagle (Weiner 38). He began contacting other scientists, requesting that their specimens be shipped to his home. He was soon receiving specimens from around the world, and this practical excursion into taxonomy further confirmed a critical thesis in his theory, that the distinction between species and variety is a blurry one:

    After describing a set of forms as distinct species, tearing up my MS., and making them one species, tearing that up and making them separate, and then making them one again (which has happened to me), I have gnashed my teeth, cursed species, and asked what sin I had committed to be so punished. (qtd. Weiner 39)

The barnacles summarily took over the Down house- now filled with five children- to such an extent that one of the boys asked his playmate, in all seriousness, “Where does your father do his barnacles?” (Aydon 173) The project took eight years to complete, and was tiring work. Six years in, Darwin claimed, “I hate a Barnacle as no man ever did before, not even a sailor in a slow-sailing ship” (qtd. Weiner 39).

The work paid off. His description and classification of 10,000 varieties of barnacles earned him the Royal Society’s Royal Medal, and his credentials as a zoologist were beyond reproach (Aydon 182-183). In 1854, he began working exclusively on his “big book.” He sent letters with his questions about variation to scientists, gardeners, game keepers, dog breeders, and whoever else may have possessed useful knowledge. He drafted his children, neighbors, and servants into gathering specimens. He kept exotic breeds of domestic birds, most famously pigeons, and examined the skeletons of several varieties.

In 1852, just prior to the conclusion of his work on barnacles, Darwin’s mind lighted upon another crucial piece of the evolutionary puzzle: the mechanism by which small differences between two varieties in the same ecosystem become larger and larger, eventually splitting the varieties into species. “I can remember the very spot in the road, whilst in my carriage, when to my joy the solution occurred to me,” Darwin wrote in his autobiography (qtd. De Beer 139-140). The more two varieties or closely related species diverge, the more specialized they become in their respective niches, and the less they compete with each other. The competition between the two, punishing the intermediates and generalists and rewarding the deviants and specialists, acts as a wedge widening the gap between varieties until they become species. This was how a single species of finch adapted into 14 widely diverse species that occupied the same group of islands on the Galapagos archipelago.

On June 18, 1858, Darwin received from a young scientist named Alfred Wallace a yet unpublished essay describing a theory essentially identical to Darwin’s. There was never any question of plagiarism. As often happens in science, two scientists working on the same problem came up with same solution simultaneously. This was an unwelcome development for Darwin, however. He felt that his work would not be ready for publication for at least a few years, but if he had any hope of claiming propriety on his work, he needed to publish immediately. After consulting with his colleagues, it was decided that Wallace and Darwin would jointly present their findings. On July 1, Hooker read Wallace’s paper and Darwin’s 1844 abstract at a meeting of the Linnaean Society of London. A little over a year later, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection was published.

Robert Chambers wrote Vestiges in a decidedly confrontational manner. In contrast, Darwin learned from Lyell a “sap and mine” strategy of winning over opponents: presenting the facts ahead of the conclusion and avoiding provocative statements (De Beer 154). This style, along with a sound theory, twenty years’ evidence gathered, and a well-grounded scientific reputation, won Darwin coverts to transmutation that Lamarck, Erasmus Darwin, and Chambers could not sway. After reading Origin, Joseph Hooker wrote to Darwin, “It is capitally written, and will be very successful. Lyell, with whom we are staying, is perfectly enchanted, and is absolutely gloating over it” (Aydon 211). The anatomist Thomas Huxley had written a particularly scathing review of Vestiges. In contrast, his response to Origin was, “how extremely stupid [of the rest of the scientific community] not to have thought of that” (De Beer 157). Huxley, who became known as “Darwin’s Bulldog,” wrote to Darwin, “Since I read Von Bar’s essays, nine years ago, no work on Natural History Science I have met with has made so great an impression upon me. . . Depend upon it you have earned the lasting gratitude of all thoughtful men. . . I am sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness.” Huxley lived up to this promise, famously defending Darwin’s book against Bishop Samuel Wilberforce at the 1860 meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Huxley also gave lectures throughout Britain promoting and defending Darwin’s theory.

The service of Huxley’s claw and beak proved to be necessary if Darwin’s ideas were to survive the certain backlash. Adam Sedgwick, the geologist that guided Darwin through his first geological expedition in North Wales, complained that Darwin’s theory was based too much on assumptions (Sedgwick 136) and excluded all moral considerations of man’s place in the Universe (139-40). Richard Owen, the zoologist that identified the fossils found by Darwin in South America, was another bitter opponent to Darwin’s theory. Robert Fitzroy publicly denounced Darwin’s ideas as anti-biblical (Aydon 222). In the opinion of American naturalist Louis Agassiz, Darwin’s book was, “a scientific mistake, untrue in its facts, unscientific in its method, and mischievous in its tendencies” (qtd. De Beer 168).

These “mischievous tendencies” were the kernel of the opposition to Darwin’s theories. Darwin’s contemporary supporters, at least the most distinguished and thoughtful among them, never claimed his theory to be unquestionable natural law. There were gaps in the theory, such as the inability to describe the mechanism by which variety is created and preserved within a population, and the lack of direct observation of one species diverging into two species unable to create fertile hybrids. Darwin’s promoters, however, maintained that the theory was compelling in the way it explained the fossil record and the distribution and attributes of species, and although the theory was not perfectly understood, it was the best, most useful, and most applicable explanation available. Although the status of best explanation available is usually enough to secure acceptance of a scientific theory, was not enough to immediately secure acceptance for the theory of evolution by natural selection. The theory’s handicap was not scientific, but political and social. Though Darwin never explicitly applied his principles to his own species in Origin, never once in that book made any comparison of a man to an ape, the implications of Darwin’s theory to the human race were clear to all, whether supporter or detractor. Sedgwick protested that Darwin’s theory reduced man to, “nothing better than the natural progeny of a beast, which has to live, to beget its likeness, and then die forever” (Sedgwick 140). By elucidating the law by which species are created, Darwin left in his theory no need for a Creator, and by removing the need for a Creator, he also removed Man from his place as the crown jewel of Creation. This had the potential to undermine not only the foundation of the Church, but the whole structure of society (Aydon 227). As one ruling class woman said, “Let us hope it is not true; and if it is true, let us hope it does not become widely known” (qtd. 227-28).

Of course, Darwin did not set out to undermine the foundation of society. He did not seek to become, as one member of the clergy described him, “the most dangerous man in England” (qtd. De Beer 161). He wrote in his biography of his motivation:

    [M]y love of natural history has been steady and ardent. This pure love has, however, been much aided by the ambition to be esteemed by my fellow naturalists. From my early youth I have had the strongest desire to understand . . . whatever I observed, that is to group all facts under some general laws. These causes combined have given me the patience to reflect . . . for any number of years over any unexplained problem. (qtd. Aydon 260)

And for all the controversy that his ideas created, it was these qualities that his contemporaries ultimately remembered about him. He received honorary degrees from the Universities of Cambridge, Breslau, and Bonn. He was elected to several academic societies around the world (Aydon 264-65). And when he died at the age of 73, newspapers around the world lamented his passing, and he was buried in Westminster Abbey. Darwin was a scientist of persistence, of patience, of child-like wonder. Although he was not the only scientist to have the idea, it was only a person that possessed his position, enthusiasm, and talent that could polish this idea as a stream that tumbles over a rough stone. And so, as his body was laid as one among the favorite sons of Britain, his work is revered among all the great works of science as one of those giant pillars in our understanding the world.

    Works Cited

    Aydon, Cyril. Charles Darwin: The Naturalist Who Started a Scientific Revolution. 2002. New York: Carroll & Graf, 2002.
    Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 1859. Ed. Charles W Eliot. Vol. 11. The Five-Foot Self of Books. New York: Collier, 1909.
    De Beer, Gavin. Charles Darwin. 1963. 1964 ed. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1964.
    Nardo, Don, ed. Charles Darwin. People Who Made History. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2000.
    Sedgwick, Adam. “A Critical Review of The Origin of Species.” Charles Darwin. Ed. Don Nardo. People Who Made History. San Diego: Greenhaven, 2000. 133-41. Rpt. of “Objections to Mr. Darwin’s Theory of the Origin of Species.” Spectator 7 Apr. 1860.
    Weiner, Johathan. The Beak of the Finch. 1994. New York: Vintage-Random, 1994.
Advertisements

Categories

%d bloggers like this: