钢筋混凝土有限元分析中Darwin模型下的徐变计算

在现有徐主计算方法的基础上,提出了适用于Ｄａｒｗｉｎ模型的徐变计算方法。给出了混凝土未开裂和开裂时的徐变计算公式。实际工程算例表明,本文提出的方法是合理的。     

Further details concerning the Darwin–Wallace presentation to the Linnean Society in 1858, including its submission on 1 July,not 30 June

Evidence from the Linnean Society’s ledger of papers received in 1858 points to 1 July as the date of submission of the Darwin–Wallace papers for the famous meeting of the same evening. It has been widely assumed, and repeatedly stated, that the submission was on 30 June. but this article shows that this seems to be a wrong assumption. Acceptance of this later submission date also provides an explanation of the ‘oddities’ in the letter of transmittal. In turn, this reading implies further details about the separate roles of Hooker and Lyell in the crucial 13 days before the meeting.     

Female-limited polymorphism and its significance in Appias (Catophaga) nero corazonae Schröder and Treadaway, 1989 (Lepidoptera: Pieridae)

Diagnostic characters are presented for Appias nero corazonae, a pierid butterfly from the Sulu Archipelago, Philippines, that exhibits female-limited polymorphism. The potential significance of A. n. corazonae for genetic investigations into Darwinian transference, the hypothetical process whereby bright colouration first evolves in the males of a species and is later ‘transferred’ to the females, is discussed.     

Syndrome du jour: The historiography and moral implications of Diagnosing Darwin

Diagnosing Darwin's health problems has a long history. Innumerable diagnoses have been proffered in letters, articles, and a handful of dedicated books. Diagnostic speculation has exhibited contrasting somatogenic or psychogenic preferences. Psychogenic accounts dominated mid-century but were soon challenged by somatic explanations citing specific infectious or toxic aetiologies. This tension remains, although psychogenic accounts have tended to be swamped by an array of somatogenic diagnoses championed by biomedical specialists. As a whole, this parade of diagnoses has a striking syndrome du jour quality. Successive conjectures speak of the preoccupations and diagnostic fads of their particular age. Moreover, for many participants in this diagnostic game, unconscious presentism combined with self-serving projection, turning the question of what ailed Darwin into something of a Rorschach test. Never far from the surface was a sometimes-fraught tussle over the man's reputation, animated by the moral valences of the conjectures in play. In a broader sense, this diagnostic game has shaped biographical accounts of Darwin and his career in some significant ways.     

Scientific patronage in the age of Darwin: The curious case of William Boyd Dawkins

This essay examines the curious relationship between Charles Darwin and the palaeontologist William Boyd Dawkins (1837–1929). Dawkins was a beneficiary of Darwin's patronage and styled himself as a Darwinian to Darwin and the public, yet viciously attacked Darwin and his theory in anonymous reviews. This has confused historians who have misunderstood the exact nature of Dawkins's attitude towards evolution and his relationship to Darwin. The present study explains both the reasons for Dawkins's contradictory statements and his relationship with Darwin. I introduce Batesian mimicry as a conceptual framework to make sense of Dawkins's actions, suggesting that Dawkins mimicked a Darwinian persona in order to secure advancement in the world of Victorian science. Dawkins's pro-Darwinian stance, therefore, was a façade, an act of mimicry. I argue that Dawkins exploited Darwin for his patronage – which took the form of advice, support from Darwin's well-placed friends, and monetary assistance – while safely expressing his dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy in the form of anonymous reviews. This is, therefore, a case study in how scientific authority and power could be gained and maintained in Victorian science by professing allegiance to Darwin and Darwinism.     

理解达尔文革命

半个世纪以来,达尔文革命一直是西方科学史和科学哲学学者关注的重要主题之一.通过分析关于达尔文革命研究的三部风格迥异、结论相左的专著及其评论,描绘出不同版本的达尔文革命画面.这将有助于人们认识达尔文进化论的产生、发展和被接受的艰难历程,以及非达尔文思想在达尔文革命过程中的作用,深刻理解达尔文思想的革命性以及达尔文革命的曲折过程.同时,还从一个侧面揭示了西方达尔文革命史研究的基本趋向,即,从重视达尔文个人的思想发展及其影响,到考察达尔文时代英国科学共同体的影响和贡献,再到关注非达尔文思想在迭尔文革命中的作用.     

达尔文学说在20世纪中的演变

达尔文的天择说虽在19世纪中叶才提出,却在20世纪中大放异彩.但也因为著名的孟德尔遗传原理在1900年同时为三位科学家重新发现,造成达尔文原理中许多质疑.所以在20世纪中出现了许多学者对达尔文天择说发生不同的阐释.有的人坚持达尔文的基本概念,并且加以引伸扩大.也有些更多的学者提出许多不同的补充或修正.更有些学者对天择说加以曲解,以适合他们各自的认知与目的.凡此种种演变,值得做一回顾与整理.以便展望21世纪的生技发展的方向.     

重审自然选择原理的“共同发现”——“非达尔文革命”的视角

华莱士与达尔文共同发现了自然选择原理并引发达尔文革命已经成为我国公众理解进化论历史的常识之一,这种理解带有辉格史色彩,在皮特.鲍勒的非达尔文革命视角下可以也值得得到重新的审视。华莱士与其他有可能成为共同发现者的生物学家一样,其思路与达尔文存在本质差异,达尔文对华莱士事件的反应主要也是出于一种学术之外的考虑。19世纪进化论的主线是斯宾塞主义而不是达尔文主义,达尔文的自然选择理论是独树一帜的,并且是早熟的,澄清这一点有助于理解国外非达尔文产业的前沿动态。     

二维Landau-Lifshitz-Darwin耦合模型带小初值的整体光滑解

通过利用~Galerkin方法得到了周期边值问题的局部光滑解,然后在小初值的条件下对光滑解做关于时间的整体先验估计,得到了二维~Landau-Lifshitz-Darwin方程组在小初值条件下的整体光滑解.     

The early history of chance in evolution

Work throughout the history and philosophy of biology frequently employs ‘chance’, ‘unpredictability’, ‘probability’, and many similar terms. One common way of understanding how these concepts were introduced in evolution focuses on two central issues: the first use of statistical methods in evolution (Galton), and the first use of the concept of “objective chance” in evolution (Wright). I argue that while this approach has merit, it fails to fully capture interesting philosophical reflections on the role of chance expounded by two of Galton's students, Karl Pearson and W.F.R. Weldon. Considering a question more familiar from contemporary philosophy of biology—the relationship between our statistical theories of evolution and the processes in the world those theories describe—is, I claim, a more fruitful way to approach both these two historical actors and the broader development of chance in evolution.