Jean-Baptiste Lamarck

In 1801, he published ''Système des animaux sans vertèbres'', a major work on the classification of [[invertebrate]]s, a term which he coined.{{Cite web |title=Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) |url=https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html |access-date=2023-10-01 |website=ucmp.berkeley.edu}} In an 1802 publication, he became one of the first to use the term "[[biology]]" in its modern sense.[[#Coleman|Coleman (1977)]], pp. 1–2.{{refn|The term "biology" was also introduced independently by [[Thomas Beddoes]] (in 1799), by [[Karl Friedrich Burdach]] (in 1800) and by [[Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus]] (''Biologie oder Philosophie der lebenden Natur'', 1802).|group=Note}} Lamarck continued his work as a premier authority on [[invertebrate zoology]]. He is remembered, at least in [[malacology]], as a [[taxonomist]] of considerable stature.

In 1801, he published ''Système des animaux sans vertèbres'', a major work on the classification of [[invertebrate]]s, a term which he coined.{{Cite web |title=Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) |url=https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html |access-date=2023-10-01 |website=ucmp.berkeley.edu}} In an 1802 publication, he became one of the first to use the term "[[biology]]" in its modern sense.[[#Coleman|Coleman (1977)]], pp. 1–2.{{refn|The term "biology" was also introduced independently by [[Thomas Beddoes]] (in 1799), by [[Karl Friedrich Burdach]] (in 1800) and by [[Gottfried Reinhold Treviranus]] (''Biologie oder Philosophie der lebenden Natur'', 1802).|group=Note}} Lamarck continued his work as a premier authority on [[invertebrate zoology]]. He is remembered, at least in [[malacology]], as a [[taxonomist]] of considerable stature.

The modern era generally remembers Lamarck for a theory of [[inheritance of acquired characteristics]], called [[Lamarckism]] (accurately named after him), soft inheritance, or use/disuse theory,[[#Jurmain|Jurmain ''et al.'' (2011)]], pp. 27–39. which he described in his 1809 ''[[Philosophie zoologique]]''. Though, the idea of soft inheritance antedates him, and while it was a small element of his theory of evolution, in his time it was accepted by many natural historians. Lamarck's idea of use/disuse later aligned with Darwin's idea of natural selection and is believe to in part have inspired Darwin, who ended up contradicting [[Lamarckism]]. Lamarck's contribution to [[History of evolutionary thought|evolutionary theory]] consisted of the first truly cohesive theory of biological evolution,{{sfnp|Darwin|2001|p=44}} in which an alchemical complexifying force drove organisms up a ladder of complexity, and a second environmental force adapted them to local environments through ''use and disuse'' of characteristics, differentiating them from other organisms.[[#Gould2002|Gould (2002)]], p. 187. Scientists have debated whether advances in the field of [[transgenerational epigenetics]] mean that Lamarck was to an extent correct, or not.{{sfnp|Haig|2007|pp=415–428}}

The modern era generally remembers Lamarck for a theory of [[inheritance of acquired characteristics]], called [[Lamarckism]] (inaccurately named after him), soft inheritance, or use/disuse theory,[[#Jurmain|Jurmain ''et al.'' (2011)]], pp. 27–39. which he described in his 1809 ''[[Philosophie zoologique]]''. Though, the idea of soft inheritance antedates him, and while it was a small element of his theory of evolution, in his time it was accepted by many natural historians. Lamarck's idea of use/disuse later aligned with Darwin's idea of natural selection and is believe to in part have inspired Darwin, who ended up contradicting [[Lamarckism]]. Lamarck's contribution to [[History of evolutionary thought|evolutionary theory]] consisted of the first truly cohesive theory of biological evolution,{{sfnp|Darwin|2001|p=44}} in which an alchemical complexifying force drove organisms up a ladder of complexity, and a second environmental force adapted them to local environments through ''use and disuse'' of characteristics, differentiating them from other organisms.[[#Gould2002|Gould (2002)]], p. 187. Scientists have debated whether advances in the field of [[transgenerational epigenetics]] mean that Lamarck was to an extent correct, or not.{{sfnp|Haig|2007|pp=415–428}}

==Biography==

==Biography==