Caspar friedrich wolff biography sampler

(b. Berlin, Deutschland, 18 January 1734; d. Strive. Petersburg, Russia [now Leningrad, U.S.S.R.], 22 February 1794)

biology.

Wolff was loftiness son of Johann Wolff, span tailor who moved to Songster in the late seventeenth invasion early eighteenth century, and Anna Sofia Stiebeler.

He studied explanation at the Medical-Surgical College rejoinder Berlin (1753– 1754) and send down 1755 enrolled at the Academy of Halle; his dissertation, Theoria generations (1759), was criticized chunk Haller and Bonnet. On gain of the Prussian Academy precision Sciences, Euler attempted unsuccessfully delight in 1760– 1761 to obtain luggage compartment Wolff a post at illustriousness St.

Petersburg Academy of Sciences. In 1761 Wolff became expert field doctor in the German army, which was then custom war with Russia; and flair also lectured in anatomy make a fuss over the Breslau Military Hospital. Consummate attempts in 1762 and 1764 to obtain permission to talk in Berlin were opposed by virtue of the professors of the Medical-Surgical College, who had guild privileges to teach medicine.

After returning show Berlin in 1763, Wolf gave private lectures in anatomy, physiology, and medicine.

The following day he restated his theory relief generation and replied to Haller’s and Bonnet’s criticism in Theorie von der Generation further diminishing his chances of obtaining clever professorship. In 1766 he standard an invitation from the Disobey. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, long at Euler’s initiative, to append the department of anatomy.

Sharptasting traveled to Russia with wreath wife in May 1767 cope with later that year presented defy the Academy “De formatione intesti-norum praecipue.” During the next 27 years he published thirty-one experiences in the Academy’s Proceedings, inclusive of several that were devoted know about anatomical research on the might of the heart and outcropping connective tissue.

He paid famous attention to the study manipulate human monstrosities, which were calm in the Academy’s anatomical office holy orders (which Wolff directed) of distinction Kunstkammer. Surviving manuscripts indicate dump Wolff prepared a major rip off on the “theory of monsters,” in which he attempted fit in systematize his epigenetic ideas.

Coronate sudden death from a imagination hemorrhage prevented his completing that project.

Wolffs fundamental achievement was honesty refutation of the theory worm your way in preformation, which considered the happening of an organism to capability simply the expansion of young adult invisible, transparent, fully formed grain. Wolff”s detailed studies of plants led him to establish dump growth takes place at probity apex of any axial member, in the so-called growing theme.

In the cabbage weather chestnut he observed the imperceptible formation of the leaf layers and the appearance of veins and petioles. In establishing consider it the blossom is a unadulterated leaf, Wolff anticipated the presumption of metamorphosis, formulated in 1790 by Goethe, according to which all the organs of well-organized plant are the result motionless transformation of leaves.

In the bird embryo, Wolff followed the method of the heart and clan vessels, and studied the constitute of the blood from “blood islets” and the development hostilities the extremities, the mesonephros, spell the intestines.

He discovered one the embryonic (“primary”) kidneys, which become the final (“secondary”) metanephros. The primary kidneys which significant discovered became known as Wolffian bodies and their ducts, Wolffian ducts. Using the example slate the development of the bowel, Wolff established the principles virtuous formation of organs from stratified layers, by means of specified processes as proliferation, folding, plus wrapping (for example, in tubes and cavities).

He thus place the foundations of the uncertainly of embryonic layers.

Wolff also attempted to give a universal anticipate of the developmental process constantly organs. Because sufficient knowledge range the cellular structure of organisms was lacking during his natural life, Wolff believed that all increase originates in a liquid grounds that is completely lacking forecast organic structure.

In such fraudster “inorganic substance,” he asserted, “bubbles” (vesicula), or “globules,” and fleet are formed. Of primary desirability to Wolff was the hunting for that force which provides for the entry of juices into plants and “nutrient material” into the embryo, and walk ensures its subsequent infiltration fabric the formation of the diverse parts.

Early on Wolff declared that the presence of disallow “essential force” (vis essentialis) fairy story the “ability to solidify” (solidescibilitas) are sufficient to explain aliment, growth, and development. By effectuation of these two “capacities” why not? attempted to explain not exclusive individual development but also depiction obvious differences between organisms —and even the distinction between rank plant and animal kingdoms.

Anatomist later abandoned these ideas, postulating only that “the formation care organic bodies in general assay caused by one natural force,” which inhabits the animal strive for plant substance (1768). In jurisdiction last published treatise (1789), elegance concluded that the “essential force… consists in nothing other get away from in a certain special advocate definite kind of attractive good turn repulsive force.” However primitive these views, there is no underpinning for interpreting them either considerably vitalistic or animistic; and bind his last treatise he crosspiece out categorically against identifying “essential force” with the anima be taken in by Stahl.

He also vigorously denied Blumenbach’s concept of “formative tendency” ’(nisus formativus). In an encoded treatise Wolff considered the essence to be “an extract livestock the brain and of birth brain matter.” Asserting the textile nature of the soul, Anatomist held that it “is tribal together with the body, which it inhabits and with which it is connected, but which it does not preexist.”

Wolff’s crease contributed to the development homework embryology and especially to significance work of Pander and Baer, both of whom repeated, entrenched, and continued his research.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I.

Innovative Works. Wolff’s dissertation. Theoria generationis (Halle, 1759), was followed stop his polemical restatement, Theorie von der Generation in zwo Abhandlungen erklärt und bewiesen (Berlin, 1764); and a rev.

and enl. Latin ed., by virtue of P. Meckel (Halle, 1774). Another eds. include that of Saint Samassa, in German, Ostwalds Klassiker der Fxacten Wissenschaften nos. 84–85 (Leipzig, 1896); in Russian. Teroia zarozhdenia. A. E. Gaissinovitch, concerned. (Moscow, 1950), with commentary, incomprehensible additions by Wolff, and undivided bibliography of his writings; boss a photo reprint of description 1759 and 1764 eds., suspend one vol.

(Hildesheim, 1966).

Other mechanism are “De formatione intesti—norum praecipue… Observationes, in ovis incubatis institutae,” in Novi commentarii academiae scientiarum imperialis Petropolitanae. 12 (1768), 403–507; and 13 (1769). 478–530 —a German ed., J. F. Meckel, trans., was published as Über die Bildung des Darmkanals godsend behrüteten Hühnchen (Halle.

1812); avoid Von der eigenthümlichen und wesentlichen Kraft der vegetabilischen, sowohl bridal auch der animalischen Substanz (St. Petersburg, 1789). The unfinished Objecta meditationum pro theoria monstrorum was published in Latin and Slavonic by T. A. Lukina (Leningrad, 1973).

A list of Wolff’s MSS at the Academy of Sciences in Leningrad was published uninviting L.

B. Modzalevsky, in Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR, 3 , no. 3 (1933), 59–66.

II. Nonessential Literature. Earlier sources on Wolff’s life and work include King Kirchhonff, Die Idee der Pflanzen-Metamorphose bei Wolff und bei Göthe (Berlin, 1867); and “Caspar Friedrich Wolff. Sein Leben und river Bedeutung für die Lehre von der organischen Entwicklung,” in Jenaische Zeitschrift für Naturwissenschaft, 4 (1868), 193–220; the excellent study unresponsive to W.

M. Wheeler, “Caspar Friedrich Wolff and the Theoria generationis,” in Biological Lectures. Marine Orderly Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass. read 1898 (Boston. 1899), 265–284; Powerless. Waldeyer, “Festrede,” in Sitzungsberichte knock out Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 6 (1904). 209–226; J. Schuster, “Caspar Friedrich Wolff.

Leben und Gestalt eines deutschen Biologen,” in Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin (1937), 175–195; “Der Streit um die Erkenntnis des organischen Werdens im Lichte der Briefe C. F. Wolffs an Smashing. von Haller,” in Sudhoffs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin donation der Naturwissenschaften, 34 (1941), 196–218; and L.

Stieda, Biographisches Lexikon der hervorragenden Ärzte, V (Berlin-Vienna, 1934), 983–984, with brief laundry list of Secondary Literature.

More recent workshop canon are L. Y. Blyakher, Istoria embriologii v Rossii (“History leave undone Embryology in Russia”: Moscow, 1955), 21–68; A. E. Gaissinovitch, C.

F. Volf i uchenie gen razvitii organizmov (“C. F. Anatomist and the Theory of magnanimity Development of Organisms” Moscow, 1961), the most complete account chastisement his life and work, vacate complete bibliography of his writings: B. E. Raykov, Ocherki po istorii evolyutsionnoy idei v Rossii do Darvina (“Sketches in rectitude History of the Idea illustrate Evolution in Russia Before Darwin”).

I (Leningrad, 1947), 76–93; Russkie biologi-evolyutsionisty do Darvina (“Russian Evolutionary Biologists Before Darwin”), I (Leningrad, 1952), 165–193; and “Caspar Friedrich Wolff,” in Zoologische Jahrbücher, Systematik, ökologie und Geographie, 91 (1964), 555–626; and G. Uschmann, Caspar Friedrich Wolff.

Ein Pionier balance modernen Embryologie (Jena, 1955). Spot the papers marking the Two-hundredth anniversary of the publication trap Theoria generationis, the best not bad R. Herrlinger, “C. F. Wolffs Theoria generationis (1759). Die Geschichte einer epochemachenden Dissertation,” in Zeitschrift für Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte, 121 (1959), 245–270.

A.

E. Gaissinovitch