Roulier, Karl Frantsevich
- ordinary professor of zoology at Moscow University, famous scientist; born February 8, 1814 in Nizhny Novgorod; his parents were French emigrants and did not have a fortune; At first R. was raised at home, and then his parents sent him to a small private boarding school. At the age of 16, R. entered the Moscow Branch of the Medical-Surgical Academy; distinguished by outstanding abilities, he completed his medical education at the Academy in a brilliant manner and was released from it in 1833 as a doctor of the 1st department, with the first silver medal. Having no funds, R. had to support himself with his own labor and therefore, when a vacancy presented itself, he entered the Riga Dragoon Regiment as a doctor, where he remained until 1836; here, even more than at the Academy, R. became convinced how practical medicine did not correspond to his character; therefore, in 1836, he gladly accepted the offer of G.I. Fischer von Waldheim, who was then the President of the Moscow Medical-Surgical Academy, to join the Academy as a tutor. From the very first time, his studies as a tutor under such an outstanding scientist as G.I. Fischer von Waldheim showed R. the extreme poverty of his knowledge in the field of natural history. But R. felt a great attraction to them and therefore began to study them with great energy. He began with a practical acquaintance with the outskirts of Moscow, then moved on to various regions of Russia and reached the history of zoology in Russia, for which he collected a significant amount of materials. However, along with practical work, R. did not forget the theoretical part of the natural historical sciences, studying it with particular interest.
Possessing a very lively temperament, an intelligent mindset, remarkable abilities and a love of work, R. quickly won general love and respect and was soon appointed an adjunct and separate teacher of mineralogy and zoology at the Medical-Surgical Academy. In 1837, R. passed the exams for the degree of Doctor of Medicine, defending his dissertation “On Hemorrhoids.” Around the same time, R. was entrusted with the management of the natural history cabinet of the Medical-Surgical Academy and the Museum of Moscow University. These new classes greatly contributed to R.’s familiarization with the natural historical sciences. In addition to teaching mineralogy and zoology at the Academy, R. for some time served as a teacher of natural history at the Moscow Cadet Corps, at the Alexandrinsky Orphan Institute and at the Moscow Orphanage.
In 1840, R. began lecturing on zoology at Moscow University. Already possessing considerable knowledge and experience in scientific pursuits, R. wished to become familiar with teaching natural sciences abroad and in 1841 he went to Germany, where he visited the most famous zoology and anatomy classrooms in Berlin and Koenigsberg, visited the universities of northern and central Germany and listened to lectures by professors Ehrenberg, Müller, Wagner, Siebold, Huschke, G. Rose, Mitscherlich, Savigny and other luminaries of the natural historical sciences. However, R. was dissatisfied with the teaching of these sciences at German Universities; the erudition of the famous professors amazed him, and he was amazed at the enormity of accumulated knowledge, but at the same time he noticed in the lectures and writings of these scientists almost complete absence a deeply conscious need to build zoology on purely scientific principles and to harmonize its various parts with each other in terms of purpose and method of processing and presentation. R. learned a lot from his journey, but the most useful thing for his future activities was that a passionate desire arose in him to elevate zoology to the level of science. He immediately, during the trip, expressed his thoughts in a small essay entitled: “Doubts in zoology as a science” (published in the same year in “Notes of the Fatherland”); In this work, R. expressed several thoughts concerning the concept of species, zooethics, and, most importantly, the logical plan of zoobiology. All subsequent scientific activity of R. was aimed at finding answers to these questions, which greatly interested his inquisitive mind.
Soon after returning from a trip abroad (in 1842), R. was appointed extraordinary, and in 1850 ordinary professor at Moscow University. Having begun his scientific career with paleontological works (“Geological excursions near Moscow” - in “Izvestia of Moscow. General. Test. Nature”), which earned the full approval of the famous Leopold von Buch, R. in recent years devoted all his works to the development of issues of general zoology. Not a single Russian University, except Moscow, taught general zoology in the sense in which Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Bronn understood it. Throughout his life, R. worked on the most difficult parts of this science, often achieving brilliant results, as, for example, in the question of “bird migration.” However, his most valuable and fruitful work was his creation of a plan for general zoology as an independent science. R. constantly expressed the results of his labors in his lectures, which were not a dry list of knowledge inherited from previous generations - the living key in them was modern science, giving newly discovered truths and pointing out to inquisitive minds the still unresolved mysteries of nature. R.'s lectures had a tremendous impact on listeners with the extraordinary skill with which he brought particulars into one general thing, the power of synthesis, the picturesqueness and poetry of presentation. R. enjoyed fame as a wonderful lecturer. His influence on young zoologists was very fruitful; they found in him not only a teacher, but a friend and leader. R. did not stop the beginner’s work with a cold, mocking word; on the contrary, he stimulated him to activity with warm sympathy and advice. Although R. was a doctor of medicine, he did not like practical work doctor; He was not involved in the medical sciences themselves, but with love and passion he touched on everything from the field of natural sciences that could find application in medicine. An example is his article on “ozone”, published in the “Bulletin of Natural Sciences” for 1838.
Last years R. devoted his life to applying his scientific knowledge to practical use. Realizing the importance of the utilitarian direction, he, together with his students, actively began to acclimatize useful animals in Russia in order to thereby increase the means of the Russian people in the fight against nature. One of R.’s favorite subjects of study was humanity. Classes on the publication of the "Bulletin of Natural Sciences", of which he was editor in 1854-1858, lecturing, work on the Acclimatization Committee, of which R. was the founder and director since 1856, duties as secretary of the Moscow Society of Natural Scientists, for which he consisted from 1840 to 1851, took up a lot of R.’s time and thus made it difficult for him to process the results and discoveries obtained. As a result, few of R.'s works were fully processed and published, but most of them consist of notes and begun but unfinished articles.
R. was a member of several Russian and foreign scientific societies and won an honorable place in science. His premature death did not give him the opportunity to complete many of the works he had planned; even his students were forced to work on the processing of the truths he had obtained.
R. died in Moscow from apoplexy on April 10, 1858; buried at the Non-Religious Cemetery on the Vvedensky Mountains.
From his published works we indicate the following: 1) Biographies of professors of the Medical-Surgical Academy and Moscow University: a) G.I. Fischer von Waldheim - in the anniversary “Act of the Society of Natural Scientists”; b) A.L. Lovetsky - in the "Bulletin" of the Moscow Society of Natural Scientists and in the "Speeches of Moscow University"; c) I. A. Dvigubsky - in the same place; 2) Speech “On the Animals of the Moscow Province”, delivered in 1845 at Moscow University; 3) "Naturhistorische Notiz über die Umgebung von Moscou" - "Bull. de la Soc. des Natur. de Moscou", 1844, III, 625; 4) "Voyage scientifique (Voyage de Kareline)" - "Bull. de la Soc. des Natur. de Moscou", 1840, III, 379); 5) “Aegoceras Pallasii, ein neuer russischer Zweihufer” - ibid., 1841, IV, 910; 6) "Les principales variations de Terebratula acuta dans l"Oolithe de Moscou" - ibid., 1844, IV, 889; 7) "Explications de la coupe géologique des environs de Moscou" - ibid., 1846, II, 444, IV , 359; 8) “Études progressives sur la géologie de Moscou” - ibid., 1849, I, 3; 9) “Etudes paléontologiques sur les environs de Moscou” - (in “Jubilaeum semisaecular. Doctoris Medicinae et Philosophiae Gotthelf Fischer de Waldheim ", 1847; 10) "The movement of fish against the flow of water" - in "Notes on Fishing" by S. T. Aksakov; 11) "Three discoveries in the natural history of the bee" - Supplement to the "Russian Messenger", 1856; 12 ) "About Cochin chickens" - in "Notes of the Acclimatization Committee", 1889, book 1; 13) "Plants that catch insects" - "Bulletin of Natural Sciences", 1855, vol. 2, p. 521 -616; 14) “Description of the Caucasian Tour” - in “News of the Test Society. Nature."; 15) Public lectures in 1852 "On the relationship of animals to external conditions", published together with lectures by other professors; 16) several articles in the "Bulletin of Natural Sciences"; several notes (including about a mammoth found near Moscow , etc.) published in the “Moscow Gazette”, in the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education”, in the “Notes of the Fatherland”, in the “Contemporary”, in the “Picturesque Review”, in the “Picturesque Encyclopedia”, in the “Journal of the Agricultural Society” and others. R. sometimes signed his articles with a pseudonym.
S. Shevyrev, Dictionary of professors of Moscow University, M. 1855, part 2, pp. 373-376; "Moscow Gazette" 1858, No. 49, p. 203; "Moscow Medical Newspaper" 1858, No. 16, p. 132; "Journal of the Society of Useful Information" 1858, No. 44, pp. 383-384 (article by N. Wagner); "Bulletin of Natural Sciences", 1858, No. 8, pp. 225-228 (article by S. Usov); "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education" 1853, vol. XCVIII, section VII, pp. 131-134; "Family Circle", 1859, No. 12, pp. 192-202 (article by N. Volokitin); “Memories of K. F. Rulier, his dying minutes”, M. 1858, Alexandra Barabina; Stepan Maslov, "Historical Review of the Imperial Moscow Society Agriculture", M. 1846; "K. F. Roulier and his predecessors in the department of zoology at Moscow University", essay by Anatoly Bogdanov, Moscow. 1885; "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education" 1886, part. 243, February, dept. 2nd, pp. 370-371; "Son of the Fatherland" 1858, No. 16, p. 473, "Northern Bee" 1858, No. 81, p. 380; "Moskovskie Vedomosti" 1858, Literary department, No. 64, p. 255; "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education", 1842, part 33, no. 22, pp. 21-42; "Moscow Necropolis, vol. III; G. Gennadi, Dictionary, vol. III, M. 1908, p. 280.
N. Rudin.
(Polovtsov)
Roulier, Karl Frantsevich
(April 8, 1814 - April 10, 1858) - Russian. naturalist, evolutionary biologist. In 1833 he graduated from Moscow. department of medical-surgical academies; from 1842 - prof. Moscow un-ta. Initially he worked as a geologist. and paleontologist. research of the Moscow Region Basin. Of particular interest are his works on theoretical issues of biology. R. developed ideas about the unity of the organism and the conditions of existence and proved the causal dependence of the evolution of living forms on changes in their habitat. Even before the publication of "The Origin of Species" (1859) by Charles Darwin, he pointed (1852) to the experience of breeding new breeds of animals and their acclimatization as the key to understanding driving forces evolution in natural conditions. R. emphasized that heredity is determined by historically established conditions, and variability is the process of adaptation of the organism to the conditions of existence. He resolutely opposed metaphysics. and teleological French views scientist J. Cuvier, rejected the doctrine of the immutability of the species and insisted on the need to create “zoobiology” as a science based on knowledge of the organism in the totality of its manifestations under certain conditions. . His works laid the foundation for the development of ecology and paleontology. research paved the way for the creation of evolutionary paleontology. R. was one of the first propagandists and popularizers of natural science knowledge. On his initiative, Moscow. The Society of Natural Scientists published in 1854-1860 the popular science magazine "Bulletin of Natural Sciences".
Works: Selected biological works, M., 1954 (there is a bibliography of R.’s works).
Lit.: Davitashvili L. Sh. and Mikulinsky S. R., K. F. Roulier - an outstanding Russian naturalist-evolutionist, in the book: Scientific Heritage, vol. 2, M., 1951 (pp. 529-69); Petrov V. S., Outstanding Russian biologist K. F. Roulier (1814-1858). His life, works and significance in the history of science, M., 1949; Raikov B.E., Russian evolutionary biologists before Darwin. Materials for the history of the Evolutionary Idea in Russia, vol. 3, M.-L., 1955 (the volume is dedicated to the life and work of K. F. Roulier); Mikulinsky S.R., From the history of biology in Russia in the 20-30s of the 19th century, in the book: Questions of the history of natural science and technology, vol. 1, M., 1956; him, K.F. Roulier and his doctrine of development organic world, M., 1957.
Roulier, Karl Frantsevich
(03/25/1814, Nizhny Novgorod (now Gorky) - 04/26/1858, Moscow; buried at the Vvedensky cemetery) - paleontologist and zoologist, evolutionist of the pre-Darwinian period, created a school of Russian zoologists-evolutionists, teacher (1840) and ordinary professor (1850) of the Moscow university, state councilor, secretary of the Moscow Society of Naturalists (1840-1851), founder and director of the Animal Acclimatization Committee at the Society of Agriculture; founder and editor of the journal "Vestn. Natural Sciences" (1854).
Born into a family of immigrants from France; He received his initial education at home and then in private boarding schools. In 1830 he entered the Moscow Medical-Surgical Academy, which he graduated with a silver medal in 1833, receiving the profession of a doctor; then he entered the service as a doctor in the Riga Dragoon Regiment, in which he served until 1836, and then was accepted as a tutor at the Moscow Medical-Surgical Academy; Having received the title of adjunct, he independently taught students mineralogy and zoology. In 1837 he defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Medicine. In addition to teaching at the academy, he was in charge of the academic office of natural history and the museum of Moscow University, and also gave lectures different time lessons at the Moscow Cadet Corps, at the Moscow Orphanage and the Alexandria Orphan Institute. IN At Moscow University in 1840 he began teaching zoology. From May 1 to September 1, 1841, he was abroad, visiting universities in Northern and Central Germany and Belgium and listening to lectures by Ernberg, Müller, Wasner, Siebold, and Huschka. In 1842 he was elected extraordinary professor, and in 1850 - ordinary. A brilliant speaker, an excellent lecturer and teacher, he enjoyed great respect and love among students.
Published about 100 scientific papers, articles, speeches and short notes. Conducted geological and paleontological excursions in the vicinity of Moscow. The main areas of his scientific work were geology, paleontology and zoology, each of which he enriched with new significant content. He studied Carboniferous, Jurassic, Tertiary and Quaternary deposits, with a detailed list of fossil remains contained in them; The Jurassic deposits were studied in the most detail, which he divided into four tiers. In his geological works he dealt with issues of geomorphology and described the activities of various exogenous processes that shape the relief of the Moscow region. His ideas about the nature of the relief, the distribution of the river network and the formation of valleys and many others played a certain role in understanding the physical and geographical features of the earth's surface and soil cover and were then developed in the works of D. N. Anuchin, V. V. Dokuchaev. Laid the foundations of paleogeography, biogeography and other areas physical geography. Paleontological studies are devoted to some protozoa, ammonites, mammoths, etc.; described a number of new species of invertebrates and vertebrates; examined the geographical distribution of animals, established the climates of past geological eras. Researched in the field of practical geology Construction Materials: limestones, sandstones, clays; studied the coals of the Moscow basin. In the history of science he is known mainly as a zoologist and evolutionary biologist of the pre-Darwinian period in Russia. The main goal of the study was to create a plan for general zoology as an organic whole, as an independent science; on the basis of his own geological, paleontological and zoological research and in-depth analysis of accumulated paleontological and biological material, he developed the doctrine of the evolution of the organic world; emphasized the leading importance of functions in changing the structure of organs and based his teaching on the inextricable connection of the organism with the environment: “Not a single organic being lives on its own: each is called to life and lives only insofar as it is in interaction with something relatively external to it peace." Applying the comparative method in the study, he pointed out that this is not enough, “the comparative method must, it is necessary to add the historical one.” He wrote biographies and assessed the scientific activities of A. L. Lovetsky, I. A. Dvigubsky, M. G. Pavlov, P. N. Strakhov, Fischer von Waldheim, N. G. Frolov, A. P. Bogdanov, I. J. Saint-Hilaire.
Almost a century and a half ago, a scientist who is rightfully considered one of the founders of environmental thought in Russia passed away. His life and work are directly connected with Moscow University. His activities and works are an integral part of Russian culture of the first half of the 19th century V. They will forever remain one of the brightest pages in the history of our science.
Karl Frantsevich Roulier was born on April 8 (20), 1814 in Nizhny Novgorod. His father, French by birth, was a shoemaker, and his mother was a midwife. The boy was raised first at home and then in inexpensive boarding schools.
In 1829, Karl moved to Moscow and at the same time turned to Alexander I with a request for admission to the Moscow Medical-Surgical Academy (MMHA). In those years, the academy was closely connected with Moscow University. Many university professors were simultaneously on the staff of the academy or gave lectures there. The connection between the students of these two Moscow universities was also very close. At the age of 15, having become a student at the academy, Roulier also communicated with professors and students of Moscow University, attended classes and lectures at the university.
Of the academy professors, G.I. had a great influence on Rouille. Fischer von Waldheim, and later A.L. Lovetsky, who taught a course at the Department of Zoology at Moscow University. During his studies, Roulier communicated a lot with university professors I.A. Dvigubsky, I.T. Glebov, M.A. Maksimovich, G.E. Shchurovsky and others. Possessing extensive medical knowledge acquired within the walls of the Academy, he, in addition, became a good botanist and zoologist.
Fischer von Waldheim was a major scientist who worked in the fields of zoology, geology, paleontology and comparative anatomy, the author of a major work on the entomofauna of Russia, and numerous descriptions of fossil animals. Under his influence, the young Roulier became interested in paleontology and spent almost ten years searching for and collecting the remains of fossil animals in the Moscow region. From Fischer he learned methods of zoological, paleontological and geological research, and the organization and management of museum work.
However, having mastered these methods, Roulier did not become a methodologist in the usual sense of the word, much less a follower of Fischer. He was occupied by the world of ideas, primarily evolutionary ones, reflecting the development of the organic world. However, one should not think that Roulier avoided or shied away from factual material. On the contrary, he devoted the first decade of his scientific activity to specific geological and paleontological research related to the search and collection of fossil animal remains. Geological and paleontological training, which he owed primarily to Fischer and Lovetsky, played a large role in his further work, in his development as an evolutionary ecologist.
Although Roulier studied with Fischer, he did not become his follower. Not wanting to follow the slogan “Naming, describing and classifying - this is the goal of science,” already in his first theoretical work he acted as a supporter of the study of the evolution of the organic world and an opponent of Cuvier’s doctrine of the immutability of species. For Roulier, establishing a fact was the beginning of the case, while for Fischer it was its completion. For Roulier, the main thing was to reveal the causes and patterns of phenomena and, therefore, to study the data that allows this to be done.
A.L. played a significant role in early geological and paleontological research. Lovetsky, whom Roulier subsequently replaced at the Department of Zoology at Moscow University. Lovetsky warned students against being carried away by “naked empiricism” and underestimating theory. Roulier attached special importance to his textbook on mineralogy and even memorized entire pages from it. Lovetsky’s textbook “A Brief Outline of the Natural History of Animals” also had a great influence on Roulier.
In the formation of a general biological worldview, K.F. Other professors also played a role. So, I.M. Dyadkovsky (I784–1841) taught that perception is based outside world lies the property of matter in one form or another to respond to external influences. In this regard, attention is drawn to Roulier's consonant thoughts on the origin and nature of instincts in animals, which resonate with his ecological approaches concerning the conditions of existence of animals in various environments.
Roulier's views were largely formed under the influence of M.G. Pavlova (1793–1840) and especially M.A. Maksimovich (1804–1873). Both paid great attention to methodological issues, with Maksimovich primarily as the author of textbooks on zoology and botany.
The article was published with the support of the WallpaperLider wallpaper store. Wallpaper, flooring, ceramic tiles, laminate, plumbing, as well as related products at competitive prices. You can view the full catalog of products, new items and sales, prices, news, contacts and delivery conditions on the website, which is located at: http://oboilider.ru/.
However, the greatest influence on Roulier was I.A. Dvigubsky, a recognized expert on the flora and fauna of the Moscow province (1772–1839). His works interested K.F. Roulier is primarily a reliable source of factual data. In his book about animals of the Moscow province (1845), Roulier emphasized the importance of Dvigubsky’s faunistic and floristic studies for understanding the nature of Russia. Dvigubsky in his work “A Word on the Current State of the Earth’s Surface” (1806) attached particular importance to the impact of plants, animals and human activity on nature, anticipating V.I. Vernadsky and other ecologists of later generations. Roulier himself was deeply interested in these data.
Having graduated from the Moscow Medical-Surgical Academy on August 18, 1833 with a silver medal and receiving the title of doctor, Roulier did not immediately find work in his specialty. In the end, he got a job as a junior doctor in the Riga Dragoon Regiment, but soon went to work at the Department of Natural History of the Moscow Moscow Art Academy, which was then headed by Fischer himself. But Fischer quickly resigned, and Roulier was appointed associate professor of this department.
In 1837, Roulier became a doctor of medicine, defending his dissertation on bleeding. His dissertation proposed to consider the disease depending on the living conditions of a person, i.e. the environmental aspect of the disease was discussed, although no one had used this word then. In 1837–1838 Rullier was entrusted with the management of the zoological and mineralogical offices of the Academy (MMHA), and shortly before that he was appointed curator of the Museum of Natural History of Moscow University and elected a full member of the Moscow Society of Natural Scientists (MOIP).
Having headed the department of zoology at Moscow University in 1840, at the age of 26, Roulier became one of the youngest heads of departments of those years, and when in 1842 he was elected extraordinary professor, then one of the youngest professors at Moscow University.
All subsequent years became the most fruitful in Roulier's life. He restructured teaching in his department, introducing regular practical classes in biology as mandatory. On his initiative, students mastered the microscope and chemical research methods, studied human anatomy and comparative anatomy using dry and wet preparations, and dissection of corpses. From the very beginning, Roulier widely adhered to demonstration method teaching, using the Moscow University Museum for this purpose. He also had talented students who later became outstanding scientists: N.A. Severtsov, A.P. Bogdanov, S.A. Usov and others.
In 1841, as a teacher at Moscow University, he went on a four-month business trip to visit leading universities in Germany and Holland and listen to lectures by famous professors I. Muller, R. Wagner, G. Rose, K. Sieboldt and others. Returning to Russia, back in way, he wrote the article “Doubts in Zoology as a Science” based on his impressions of this trip, which were deep and strong.
He published the article immediately upon his return. Developing these ideas, in 1842 he gave a speech at the Moscow Institute of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs: “ Overall plan Zoology", containing serious criticism of modern science. This report was never published and is preserved as handwritten drafts.
Working in paleontology, which he considered a part of zoology, Roulier methodologically combined geology with paleontology, zoology and botany, creating that powerful evolutionary basis that ultimately led to the development of comparative historical method and to numerous ideas about the evolution of the organic world. It is significant that Roulier expressed many of his evolutionary ideas long before the appearance of Darwin’s seminal book “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.”
Roulier's evolutionary approaches and ideas received another important development - ecological. Already in 1841, he put forward the development of the field of science about the connections between organisms and the environment as the most important task. The first general statements were followed by other, more specific ones, constituting an almost complete list of fundamental environmental problems. Unfortunately, at that time the conceptual and terminological apparatus of ecology simply did not exist. The word “ecology” itself appeared later, in 1866, in the works of E. Haeckel, with which the emergence of this science is usually associated.
Roulier was the first to determine ecological principle relationship between the organism and the environment. Thus, in his article “Where did the city swallow go” (1850) he wrote: “Not a single organic being lives on its own, each is called to life and lives only insofar as it is in interaction with the world external to it. This is the law of communication, or the duality of life principles, showing that each Living being gains the opportunity to live partly from himself, and partly from appearance.” As they say, it couldn't be said better!
In the absence of generally accepted terminology, K.F. Roulier was forced to use terms he himself invented, which later in most cases fell out of use or did not become generally accepted. Nevertheless, today many of them are read adequately modern concepts. Thus, considering relationships with the environment as “special” and “general” phenomena, he undoubtedly means the organismal and population-biocenotic levels, generally recognized in modern ecology.
Not being familiar with classical Darwinism, Roulier discusses the mechanism of the relationship of organisms with the environment from positions close to the principles expressed by Darwin, and from this point of view he is undoubtedly one of Darwin's predecessors.
Roulier left great legacy in the form of ecological ideas and approaches, special ecological thinking, which he called the comparative-historical method, and most importantly, students who actively developed this method and ecological-evolutionary ideas. Roulier himself attached great importance to the evolutionary-ecological aspects of variability, adaptability, migration, etc. He was the first to introduce the concept of “station” and paid special attention to how man influences nature. He was of particular interest in the possibilities and prospects for acclimatization of animals and some other problems that are currently considered applied.
Roulier believed that only a comprehensive and in-depth study of animals in connection with their living conditions, the study of evidence of living conditions and their changes in geological time, and not a simple description morphological features from rare, often incomplete museum specimens and taxonomy based on such descriptions can turn zoology into a genuine science. He considered the task of zoology not to establish new species, but to understand the patterns of development of organisms, to clarify the variability and historical continuity of forms. He considered it necessary to “completely study the organization of life and customs of an animal,” and called for studying the animal’s lifestyle, behavioral characteristics and, on this basis, the subtlest connections between the organism and the environment.
In his generalized work on the development of the animal world, he wrote: “There is no peace in nature, no stagnation, in nature there is universal continuous movement, and unconditional death is impossible. The smallest speck of dust, lying in the depths of the continent or waters, affects its surroundings and is under the opposite influence of it. In turn, animals are under the constant influence of the external mi-
ra, which is best proven by their different geographical distribution, decent (that is, corresponding) to the structure of each animal relative to environmental conditions, degeneration - as they move from one conditions to others, their complete degeneration ... "
This brief conclusion outlines the views of C. Roulier on evolutionary development animal world. Three important points are clearly emphasized here.
Firstly, that nature is a single whole, everything in it is connected to each other.
Secondly, nature is not a frozen, but an ever-living phenomenon; it is constantly moving and developing.
Third, Live nature, her animal world also develops under the influence of changing external conditions.
Thus, already in 1841 K.F. Roulier formulated the task of developing research that would currently be called ecological. In close connection with this task, he proposed a comprehensive study nervous system, instincts and behavior of animals. If Cuvier believed that animals were created initially by divine providence in accordance with the conditions in which they are destined to live, and the organ cannot perform any other functions other than those for which it was created, then Roulier wrote in 1841: “If, with On the one hand, the function depends on the organization of the tool, then no one will deny that, in turn, the function has an influence on the structure of the tool: the tool and the function, matter and life exist in a mutually close relationship.” Using the example of the hoopoe, he analyzed the ecological adaptations to existence in specific environmental conditions.
Roulier applied the comparative-historical method he developed when studying the structure and lifestyle of fossil organisms. Thus, he believed that belemnites should have served as food for sea lizards - ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, etc., whose contemporaries they were.
While exploring the lands near Moscow, Roulier became convinced that there were several periods in the development of the flora and fauna of this area, and they are evidenced by the difference in the world of animals and plants that were deposited successively in different layers of the earth.
This is how he describes it: “The beginning of the first period was preceded by the life of organic beings in the open, deep sea; the predominant animals were predominantly predatory fish, different from those living today in strange forms, and in hard, bone, angular scales, which protected them from external violence; the remains of these creatures are preserved in the deepest parts of our basin, in ancient red sandstone, in those layers to which only a very distant in rare cases you can get in.
This sea spilled over the entire Northern, Central and significant parts of Southern Russia, and Russia shared this fate with for the most part other Europe. The deposition of organic beings and mineral particles into the earth's strata from a sea of ancient red sandstone took place under the disturbing, turbulent action of external conditions, at least more turbulent than in all other periods: that is why the layers of red sandstone form uneven, wavy, broken surfaces.”
In total, he distinguished four periods and gave a detailed explanation to each of them. The final conclusion of the evolutionist was that the apparent disconnection between individual periods is in fact closely related and mutually consistent. In the beginning there was the sea with its inherent fauna, then rivers, dry land, the climate changed accordingly: from tropical to cold, as well as the fauna - from primitive animals to modern ones.
In the speech “On the Animals of the Moscow Province,” which Roulier delivered at Moscow University, unexpected and bold considerations were expressed, against which the reactionary science of the time took up arms. Unfortunately, this work on geological and paleontological research was never published. Only a handwritten plan has been preserved in the archives of the Moscow Institute of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs.
Being an educational scientist by nature, K.F. Roulier attached great importance to writing and preparing popular science articles. In 1854, he founded and until his death edited the journal “Bulletin of Natural Sciences”, in which he published a significant number of his own articles. These articles of his have high scientific value, because contain numerous ideas presented in a concise and accessible form. This heritage turned out to be very useful for modern and subsequent generations of scientists and served as a kind of starting point for further development ecology.
K.F. Roulier lived short life(44 years old, of which only 17 years of active work at Moscow University), and he would hardly have had time to present his ideas in detail in the form of thick volumes. He seemed to feel that he needed to hurry, so he published his texts in the form of short sketches or small articles, reflecting in them almost all the fundamental problems of ecology, although many of them did not receive modern terminological “design.”
Largely for this reason, K.F. Roulier was unknown to most foreign ecologists for a long time, which cannot be said about E. Haeckel, who gave, albeit later, a more clear definition of the content of ecology.
Meanwhile, Roulier’s irreconcilable evolutionary positions caused constant conflicts with the authorities, both secular and ecclesiastical. His life and work at Moscow University became increasingly uncomfortable, despite the support of the Moscow public.
On the night of April 9 to 10 (22), 1858, he died. And then it was almost forgotten by subsequent generations. We remembered K.F. Roulier only in the second half of the 20th century. in connection with the emergence of a “new” ecology, for the formation and development of which he did so much.
The services of Karl Frantsevich Roulier to Russian science have not yet received sufficient coverage and proper assessment. Meanwhile, Roulier worked a lot and fruitfully in three areas of natural science - zoology, paleontology and geology, each of which he enriched with new significant content.
In 1841, returning from a business trip abroad, Roulier was not just dissatisfied and disappointed. He came with a clear and firm positive program, developed for himself and his students in response to confusion and lack of system in science and its teaching abroad. Thinking about the content of such an article as “Doubts in Zoology as a Science,” you involuntarily pay attention to one feature of the young scientist. This trait, which manifested itself so early and was retained by him until the end of his life, is a tendency to make broad generalizations and to develop general problems of biology.
The then fashionable passion for taxonomy, which captured the overwhelming majority of zoologists, hardly affected Roulier. The way of life of animals, their relationships with the environment and other organisms, the influence of external conditions on the structure and behavior of animals - this is Roulier’s area of interest. From here naturally flowed his deep interest in changes in animals under the influence of the environment, in questions of variability of heredity. The materiality of nature and its real existence do not cause doubts in Roulier. All natural phenomena have their own history. Each of them arose at some point naturally, then it develops, changes, and gives rise to another phenomenon. All objects of nature are closely, inextricably linked with each other; change and development of one necessarily entails change and development of the other.
Roulier believes that the cornerstone of the science of plant and animal life is the “law of the effectiveness of life principles” put forward and developed by him (“the law of communication”, “the law of duality of causes”, etc.). All organisms obey this universal law, which Roulier is inclined to extend to inanimate nature. “Any phenomenon in an animal body can be caused by a cause of two kinds - either by the conditions of the structure and life of the animal itself, or by external conditions in the midst of which it lives. There can be no more reasons...” “Not a single organic being lives on its own: each is called to life and lives only insofar as it is in interaction with a world relatively external to it. This is the law of communication or the duality of life principles, showing that every living being receives the opportunity to live partly from itself, partly from appearance.”
The course of general zoology, which Roulier taught to students in the natural and mathematical departments, covered a very wide range of issues. It was a kind of encyclopedia of biological knowledge under the general heading “Systematics”, which included such sections as “Zoognosy”, “Zooethics” and “Zoobiology”.
Roulier begins his exposition of zoognosy with the formulation of his "the first basic genetic law". This is the “law of communication”, which has universal significance. Deciphering the first law, Roulier identifies a number of particular provisions that follow from it. 1. In the process of development of an animal from an egg (“an environment of indifference”), gradual complication, differentiation, and specialization of organs are observed. “This is the law of the separation or separation of tools...” 2. Each organ in its development goes through a number of stages, therefore, “... all animals, having essentially the same tools, must go through identical, successive rows relative to the development of the latter, and the longer, the more more numerous than they themselves stand at the highest point of the organization...” Each given state of a developing organ in higher animals can and should be the limit of its development in lower animals. But, as if anticipating a much later criticism of the “Basic Biogenetic Law” of Muller and Haeckel, Roulier immediately notes that in human embryonic development the situation is far from being so simple. At the moment when any organ in a human embryo is at the stage of a fish or a reptile, all other organs can be at completely different stages. Finally, two more particular laws are noted - an organ can underdevelop (“the law of delay and cessation of development”) and an organ cannot overdevelop (“the law of impossible overdevelopment”).
"The Second Basic Genetic Law"-- the law of convergence of homogeneous elements. Issues such as symmetry, the formation of cavities, and the centripetal anlage of organs are discussed here.
IN "The Third Basic Genetic Law" examines in detail the “law of balancing organs” using embryological, anatomical and physiological material. This is an old position about the relationship and correlation of organs.
The “applications” are very interesting. In one of them, Roulier demonstrates how, based on the law of balancing organs, it is possible to recreate the appearance of such a fossil animal as an ichthyosaur from one tooth and one vertebra. Another application is devoted to the surprising and elegant characteristics of the structure of the class of birds in connection with the way of life and the characteristics of the environment. If we exclude some very small details that are incorrect or outdated, this characteristic, due to its completeness, harmony and conciseness, can still serve as an example of an excellent monographic description.
Roulier also considers literally all problems of evolution. Let us now see how he depicts the actual course of evolution:
The first animals, without exception, lived in water, as is clearly indicated by the features of their structure. Roulier sees a very serious proof of the origin and initial development of life in the aquatic environment in the fact that “... the main law of the population of our planet by plants and animals is the same sequence in the gradual change of forms and the transition from one environment to another, which is followed by life - are still in their separate development.” Just as, says Roulier, how many insects and frogs go through the first stages of development in water, so the first animals initially lived in water, later being replaced by amphibians and land animals. “Here are two clear parallel series - one of prehistoric animals, the other represented by the development of modern animals. This is a genetic series. To them should be added a third, represented by fully developed modern animals, as creatures that have completed their transformation, and which are clearly marine, and, moreover, of a relatively lower form than the present ones.”
After the end of the cosmic, lifeless era of the Earth, when the temperature on its surface became below 60° Reaumur, the era of “prehistoric life” began, which can be divided into three periods.
In the first of them, the most ancient animals appeared “...exclusively marine, and, moreover, forms of a relatively lower level than those of today.” The latter circumstance is also indicated by the widespread sedentary lifestyle among them. These animals were distinguished by their low diversity, “...as now in the polar countries.”
Animals first period were relatively monotonous, which was caused by the uniformity of external conditions. “Similar conditions were caused by similar organic beings.” By the end of the period, there was a change and differentiation of physical conditions, which created the preconditions for an increase in the diversity of animals. At this time, for example, fish, along with the signs of their class, display signs of a more highly organized class - the “reptile” class. “Once upon a time, the historical appearance of organic beings on earth followed the same path of gradually increasing diversity that we now notice in the development of a plant or animal: the closer to the original time of the appearance of creatures, the closer to the first beginning of the existence of an individual being of our time - There is less diversity, the more similar all possible creatures are to each other, and obviously because all of them, both plants and animals, are formed from one, initially indifferent form - a cell. Development is the gradual emergence of diversity and opposites. In external phenomena, the gradual development of an object and its increasing diversity are identical.”
Has begun second period in the history of life on Earth. The uniformity of external conditions gave way to numerous local differences. More land appeared, and a variety of climates arose. “At the same time, new divisions of plants and animals appeared, gradually becoming more and more diverse as geographical location, and in the course of the seasons.”
In the second period, remains are discovered for the first time monocots. “In animals, not a single new basic form appeared, only the previous ones continued to exist, changing, of course, in species and often in genera, and appeared new class vertebrates are reptiles, prepared by the first period. The reptiles, in turn, broke up into new forms, which served as harbingers of the various orders of current reptiles that followed them (holoderms, or frogs, lizards, snakes and turtles), birds and animals.”
During the entire second period, the “separation” of new species and new groups from the class of reptiles was observed. The evolution of this class was traced by Roulier at that time in amazing detail. Of course, he also makes mistakes here, such as the unconditional recognition of “wing lizards” (Pterodactyli) as the ancestors of birds. But overall the picture drawn is very accurate.
Concluding the description of the second period, Roulier gives it a general characteristic: “Each geological period embraces a time of revolutions and transformations of forms, but this is especially true of the second, which transferred the marine organization of animals to land: this is mainly a period of transitional forms, reminding us of feudal a time in human history when some forms became obsolete and new ones were prepared, and when therefore phenomena had a wonderful combination of the outdated and the beginning to live.”
Third period, or “tertiary” was marked by a great event - at this time “... animals were shown for the first time, hitherto unknown and now no longer existing...”, which “... gradually turned into forms, now living." Along with the emergence of new genera, many genera have disappeared completely. In general, the “tertiary” time is characterized in the history of animals by a number of features. Species that had a very narrow distribution became extinct and disappeared from the face of the Earth. The species now existing belong to genera that were previously widespread. Modern genera were distributed further north than in our time. “At the end of the Tertiary era, when the climates disintegrated...”, the ice age began, which led to the mass extinction of a number of animals.
Roulier understood perfectly well that an idea of the evolution of the animal kingdom would not be complete without indicating the place occupied by man in it. In 1850, speaking on such a topic from the department of the Imperial Moscow University was, of course, more than risky. Nevertheless, Roulier found the courage to mention this too. In his lectures, he repeatedly remarks: “...if a person had lived then...”, thereby emphasizing its emergence in later times. After describing the “Tertiary” period and mentioning the onset of glaciation, Roulier directly points out that man appeared when living conditions became identical, or, in any case, close to modern ones. It would be difficult to demand a more detailed consideration of the issue from Roulier, especially since even for such vague hints he was subjected to serious persecution by official officials of science.
This is the general picture of the development of the animal kingdom, drawn by Roulier using the example of vertebrates.
(1814-1858)
K. F. Roulier is a remarkable biologist-thinker, a versatile scientist-encyclopedist, who wrote works on geology, paleontology and geography of the Moscow region, on zoology, faunistics and the theory of animal acclimatization. He enriched each of these sciences with new and valuable content. A brilliant lecturer, a talented professor at Moscow University, Roulier played an outstanding role in the formation of Russian geographical thought by creating the foundations new science– ecology and conveyed to his listeners his integral, deeply thought-out teaching about the relationships of animals with the organic and inorganic environment, which determine their geographical distribution. Although the term “ecology” itself was introduced into science by Haeckel in 1869, and certain questions concerning the relationship between organisms and the environment were raised before Roulier, there is no doubt that it was he who, for the first time in the history of world science, posed this problem in its entirety and he himself did a lot to solve it.
Of great methodological importance for the development of science was the correct general philosophical thesis persistently put forward by Roulier, that all natural phenomena are inextricably linked with each other and are in continuous general movement. “There is no peace in nature, no stagnation... The smallest speck of dust, lying in the depths of the continent or waters, affects the surroundings and is under the reverse influence of it...” wrote Roulier about a century and a half ago. “... There is a scientific path pilot study an object or phenomenon in its consistent development, not as solitary, isolated, but as necessarily connected with other, relatively external phenomena...” During the period of the general fascination of zoologists with museum, inevitably very superficial taxonomy of animals and distant travels - the pursuit of rich collections and “ new species,” Roulier persistently and consistently fought for in-depth study integral organisms and faunas in nature itself, in all the diversity of their connections with the physical and geographical environment.
Roulier’s kind of testament to future generations of naturalists is well known: “Instead of traveling to distant countries, which many so greedily rush to, lie down in a puddle, study in detail the creatures - plants and animals that inhabit it, in the gradual development and mutually incessantly intersecting relationships of organization and image life, and you will do incomparably more for science than many travelers who published superb descriptions and images of collected natural works... We consider it a task worthy of the first of the first scientific societies to assign the following topic for the scientific work of the first scientists: “To explore the three inches closest to explorer of the swamp in relation to plants and animals, and to study them in the gradual mutual development of organization and way of life in the midst of certain conditions!
K. F. Roulier studied with great enthusiasm the nature of the Moscow region, in particular its geology, paleontology, fauna and seasonal phenomena in the life of birds and animals. He tried to attract as many participants as possible to the study of his native land. All this was completely new for Russian society of that time.
He often reminded his listeners of Ovid’s saying “Nosce patriam tuam et postea viator eris” (“Know first your fatherland and then travel”) - and he himself set an example of tireless, versatile study of the region that was available to him, that is, the Moscow region. The same words are given as an epigraph in Roulier’s speech, published in 1845, “On the animals of the Moscow province, or on the main changes in primordial animals, historical and living, observed in the Moscow province,” containing a lot of valuable data and new ideas: “The surest remedy to get acquainted with the native fauna of Russia consists, of course, - Roulier said in this speech, - in compiling local collections of animals in various provinces. This direct responsibility lies with the curators of the museums of Russian universities... In this regard, as in general in the matter of education, Moscow University has always followed the modern trend. In our Museum you will find a whole department of domestic animals and, in particular, Moscow ones... The Moscow office has already presented to scientists such animals that no one expected to meet in our province...”
The indicated success in studying the fauna of the Moscow region was largely the work of K. F. Roulier himself. However, it was not faunal novelties in themselves that primarily interested him, although he perfectly understood the significance of “local animal collections” as a necessary stage of study. Identification of patterns of change in species and faunas in space and time is one of the topics that constantly attracted him; at the same time Roulier studied the significance of the geographical environment and economic activity society in the distribution of animals, the formation of their lifestyle, turning Special attention on adaptive seasonal phenomena (hibernation of mammals, migration of birds), issues of domestication, acclimatization, etc. On these issues, he published articles: “On the physical distribution of animals on earth”, “On periodic phenomena in animals” and a number of others.
Highly appreciating the role of agricultural practice in the knowledge of nature, Roulier repeatedly pointed out the value of Russian folk ideas about the influence of meteorological conditions on the course of biological processes and the need to carefully study the peasant “botanical and zoological calendar.” In the above-mentioned speech of 1845, Roulier said: “Over time, when periodic phenomena in plants and animals begin to be observed from this point of view, new facts, new considerations will be revealed, which we are now barely aware of. There is no doubt that our geographic Maps dotted with special lines showing simultaneity in various periodic phenomena, in the flowering various plants, in the arrival of famous birds, in the hibernation of animals, like already existing lines indicating a coincidence physical phenomena" Skillful application of the historical method, analysis of the mutual connection of phenomena - this is what Roulier brought to biogeography with his works. It is no coincidence that the first of the Moscow naturalists to move away from purely descriptive floristic works and open a period of botanical and geographical research was N. N. Kaufman, a professor at Moscow University, who considered himself a student of Roulier. During his tenure as secretary of the Moscow Society of Natural Scientists, Roulier also influenced the research of the remarkable traveler G. S. Karelin.
N. A. Severtsov, the best of Roulier's students and one of the greatest Russian geographers of the last century, learned the ideas of his teacher from his student days and consistently used them in his scientific work. Roulier's call for the study of organisms in connection with the physical-geographical environment was taken by N. A. Severtsov as an epigraph to a work that later became a classic - “Periodic phenomena in the life of animals, birds and reptiles Voronezh province"(1855). For the first time in world literature, many issues of geography and ecology of terrestrial vertebrates were resolved using large amounts of material. On the pages of this study, Severtsov repeatedly emphasized the guiding importance of Roulier's ideas and his direct participation in the processing of the material collected by his student. Severtsov's work on the Voronezh fauna was a wonderful school for him, ensuring the enormous success of his later travels to Central Asia.
The activities of Roulier, a leading scientist of his time, largely determined the direction of later zoological and geographical work not only by N. A. Severtsov, but also by an entire generation of Russian scientists. “Roulier's Line” through his students - A.P. Bogdanov, S.A. Usov, Ya.A. Borzenkova gained a foothold at Moscow University, and later in Russian science in general. “A true artist by nature, he brought his artistry both into his own teaching and into his teaching; He could never be precise with the clock, but with one lecture, with one minute of electrifying enthusiasm for the audience, he decided their future fate in science, with one well-aimed word he was able to plant a spark that everyone perceived and developed in themselves in their own way. And these sparks, to our happiness and pride, thanks to him, are already burning with a fertile flame on the bright horizon of our Russian science,” one of the newspapers of that time wrote in Roulier’s obituary.
Independent, original in his theoretical views, sensitive to every manifestation of disdain for national science, he spoke about Western European scientists: “The sun does not shine through one of their windows, and it does not rise in their west, but in the east, and from there it shines equally on everyone. We are not afraid of what comes to us, but why neglect what flows from us?
The ideological similarity of the philosophical views of Roulier and A. I. Herzen, Roulier's participation in the circle of radical youth, his persistent struggle with outdated theories, his bold criticism of the backward aspects of Western European science, and the development of evolutionary teaching attracted the attention of the authorities. In 1847, a period of persecution began against the outstanding scientist: he was prohibited from giving public lectures; his lectures at the university are subject to constant supervision by decision of the minister; a special order prohibits the publication of Roulier’s already published work “The Life of Animals in Relation to External Conditions.” The difficult conditions created broke Roulier early; he died of a cerebral hemorrhage very young - at the age of only 44 years old - and left relatively few published works. And he did not see them as the main task of his life; all his efforts were devoted to creating the foundations of a new advanced science. “Keep my direction...” was his will, expressed to his closest students shortly before his death.
Biographical information about Roulier is very scarce. He was born into the family of an artisan (shoemaker) on April 8, 1814 in Nizhny Novgorod [city. Gorky], received his initial education at home, and then, in his own words, “in private boarding schools of a poor hand.” In 1829, Roulier entered the Moscow Medical-Surgical Academy and upon completion of the course, in 1833, he was approved as a doctor of the first department and was awarded a silver medal for “excellent successes.” For some time he was forced to practice practical medicine, joining the Riga Dragoon Regiment as a junior doctor. In 1837, Roulier defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Medicine; The beginning of his connection with Moscow University, where he was at first the curator of the Zoological Museum, and with the Moscow Society of Natural Scientists dates back to the same year.
Roulier spent the summer of 1841 abroad, studying museums and the teaching of natural sciences in Germany and Belgium, from where he returned with great doubts about the value of zoology at that time as a science. These “doubts” led him to the creation of his strictly thought-out system of presentation of zoology, based on the recognition of historical changes and the adaptability of animals - on evolution.
In February 1842, he was approved as an extraordinary professor in the department of zoology and did not give up teaching until the day of his death. The name of K. F. Roulier as a scientist soon became famous far beyond the university. He was famous as a brilliant lecturer, an excellent popularizer of natural science, and enjoyed the constant love of his listeners. Roulier founded the Animal Acclimatization Committee and willingly took on many other tasks closely related to the demands of life; he gave, for example, a very good study for his time on the massive appearance of cutworm caterpillars that damaged winter crops “in the space of eighteen provinces” in 1846.
Roulier was the first of our naturalists to begin using questionnaires to collect material from nature lovers (about phenological phenomena, changes in the number of animals, etc.). Roulier wrote a number of geological and geographical essays on the Moscow region, some of them in the form of instructions for those wishing to take independent excursions for scientific purposes.
Throughout his short life, he was an ardent opponent of being confined within the framework of “academic” science, divorced from the people; hence his keen interest in public lectures and reports, his work in organizing and publishing the popular journal “Bulletin of Natural Sciences,” which published many of his excellent articles. In his speech “Something about the study of the natural bodies of one’s fatherland,” read at the ceremonial meeting of the Russian Society of Horticultural Lovers, Roulier called for a comprehensive study and development of the natural resources of Russia, including the entire diversity of plant forms, for the benefit of the people.
The son of the Russified French, a native of the central part of Russia, Roulier grew up and was brought up among the Russians, deeply loved his homeland, understood its nature: “our Russia lies wide, spread out like a hero. There's enough forest here to cover it with interest Apennine Peninsula; the steppe lay there, so much so that even the forest could not be seen; here the rivers rage and carry waters, forests, and ice; there is drought almost all year round; there is sandy steppe, there is feather grass, there is tundra; here you cannot pass through the forest and steppe, there you cannot land there by sea; and all this is for contentment, all this is for good. Be able to notice what will be born here and live freely, what is good for you and will save you, and what is better for you - the forest, or the steppe, or water, or dryness, then think about it. Widely in Russia between the six seas, your needs are varied, and the sources of natural comforts are also varied. Know what is suitable and necessary for you in every source of contentment in your fatherland; whichever of these you can choose, adapt to your needs; explore the means to do this, torture and torture, and do not stop before, as through experience you have learned that you took up the matter falsely. Then start again, and torture again, and know again.”
In the obituary written by N. P. Wagner (Moskovskie Vedomosti, 1858, No. 44), there are several lines that clearly reflect the main feature of K. F. Roulier as a scientist: “A dead fact had no price in his eyes; a fact without a thought for him was a letter without meaning, a hieroglyph without a solution. But he highly valued scientific data that revealed the cause and legality of phenomena.”
Bibliography
- Formozov A. N. Karl Frantsevich Roulier and the significance of his ideas for geography / A. N. Formozov // Domestic physical geographers and travelers. – Moscow: State educational and pedagogical publishing house of the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR, 1959. – P. 222-228.
Ordinary professor of zoology at Moscow University, famous scientist; born February 8, 1814 in Nizhny Novgorod; his parents were French emigrants and did not have a fortune; At first R. was raised at home, and then his parents sent him to a small private boarding school.
At the age of 16, R. entered the Moscow Branch of the Medical-Surgical Academy; Distinguished by his outstanding abilities, he completed his medical education at the Academy in a brilliant manner and was released from it in 1833 as a doctor of the 1st department, with the first silver medal.
Having no funds, R. had to support himself with his own labor and therefore, when a vacancy presented itself, he entered the Riga Dragoon Regiment as a doctor, where he remained until 1836; here, even more than at the Academy, R. became convinced how practical medicine did not correspond to his character; therefore, in 1836, he gladly accepted the offer of G.I. Fischer von Waldheim, who was then the President of the Moscow Medical-Surgical Academy, to join the Academy as a tutor.
From the very first time, his studies as a tutor under such an outstanding scientist as G.I. Fischer von Waldheim showed R. the extreme poverty of his knowledge in the field of natural history. But R. felt a great attraction to them and therefore began to study them with great energy.
He began with a practical acquaintance with the outskirts of Moscow, then moved on to various regions of Russia and reached the history of zoology in Russia, for which he collected a significant amount of materials.
However, along with practical work, R. did not forget the theoretical part of the natural historical sciences, studying it with particular interest.
Possessing a very lively temperament, an intelligent mindset, remarkable abilities and a love of work, R. quickly won general love and respect and was soon appointed an adjunct and separate teacher of mineralogy and zoology at the Medical-Surgical Academy.
In 1837, R. passed the exams for the degree of Doctor of Medicine, defending his dissertation “On Hemorrhoids.” Around the same time, R. was entrusted with the management of the natural history cabinet of the Medical-Surgical Academy and the Museum of Moscow University.
These new classes greatly contributed to R.’s familiarization with the natural historical sciences.
In addition to teaching mineralogy and zoology at the Academy, R. for some time served as a teacher of natural history at the Moscow Cadet Corps, at the Alexandrinsky Orphan Institute and at the Moscow Orphanage. In 1840, R. began lecturing on zoology at Moscow University.
Already possessing significant information and experience in scientific pursuits, R. wished to get acquainted with the teaching of natural sciences abroad and in 1841 he went to Germany, where he examined the famous zoology and anatomy classrooms in Berlin and Koenigsberg, visited universities in northern and central Germany and listened to lectures professors Ehrenberg, Müller, Wagner, Siebold, Huschke, G. Rose, Mitscherlich, Savigny and other luminaries of the natural historical sciences. However, R. was dissatisfied with the teaching of these sciences at German Universities; the erudition of the famous professors amazed him, and he was amazed at the enormity of accumulated knowledge, but at the same time he noticed in the lectures and writings of these scientists the almost complete absence of a deeply conscious need to build zoology on purely scientific principles and to harmonize its various parts with each other in terms of purpose and method of processing and presentation.
R. learned a lot from his journey, but the most useful thing for his future activities was that a passionate desire arose in him to elevate zoology to the level of science. He immediately, during the trip, expressed his thoughts in a small essay entitled: “Doubts in zoology as a science” (published in the same year in “Notes of the Fatherland”); In this work, R. expressed several thoughts concerning the concept of species, zooethics, and, most importantly, the logical plan of zoobiology.
All subsequent scientific activity of R. was aimed at finding answers to these questions, which greatly interested his inquisitive mind. Soon after returning from a trip abroad (in 1842), R. was appointed extraordinary, and in 1850 ordinary professor at Moscow University.
Having begun his scientific career with paleontological works (“Geological excursions near Moscow” - in “Izvestia of Moscow. General. Test. Nature”), which earned the full approval of the famous Leopold von Buch, R. in recent years devoted all his works to the development of issues of general zoology.
Not a single Russian University, except Moscow, taught general zoology in the sense in which Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Bronn understood it. Throughout his life, R. worked on the most difficult parts of this science, often achieving brilliant results, as, for example, in the question of “bird migration.” However, his most valuable and fruitful work was his creation of a plan for general zoology as an independent science. R. constantly expressed the results of his works in his lectures, which were not a dry list of knowledge inherited from previous generations - modern science was the living key in them, giving newly discovered truths and pointing out still unresolved mysteries of nature to inquisitive minds.
R.'s lectures had a tremendous impact on listeners with the extraordinary skill with which he brought particulars into one general thing, the power of synthesis, the picturesqueness and poetry of presentation.
R. enjoyed fame as a wonderful lecturer.
His influence on young zoologists was very fruitful; they found in him not only a teacher, but a friend and leader.
R. did not stop the beginner’s work with a cold, mocking word; on the contrary, he stimulated him to activity with warm sympathy and advice.
Although R. was a doctor of medicine, he did not like the practical work of a doctor; He was not involved in the medical sciences themselves, but with love and passion he touched on everything from the field of natural sciences that could find application in medicine.
An example is his article on “ozone,” published in the “Bulletin of Natural Sciences” for 1838. R. devoted the last years of his life to applying his scientific knowledge to practical use.
Realizing the importance of the utilitarian direction, he, together with his students, actively began to acclimatize useful animals in Russia in order to thereby increase the means of the Russian people in the fight against nature.
One of R.’s favorite subjects of study was humanity.
Classes on the publication of the "Bulletin of Natural Sciences", of which he was editor in 1854-1858, lecturing, work on the Acclimatization Committee, of which R. was the founder and director since 1856, duties as secretary of the Moscow Society of Natural Scientists, for which he consisted from 1840 to 1851, took up a lot of R.’s time and thus made it difficult for him to process the results and discoveries obtained.
As a result, few of R.'s works were fully processed and published, but most of them consist of notes and begun but unfinished articles.
R. was a member of several Russian and foreign scientific societies and won an honorable place in science. His premature death did not give him the opportunity to complete many of the works he had planned; even his students were forced to work on the processing of the truths he had obtained.
R. died in Moscow from apoplexy on April 10, 1858; buried at the Non-Religious Cemetery on the Vvedensky Mountains. From his published works we indicate the following: 1) Biographies of professors of the Medical-Surgical Academy and Moscow University: a) G.I. Fischer von Waldheim - in the anniversary “Act of the Society of Natural Scientists”; b) A.L. Lovetsky - in the "Bulletin" of the Moscow Society of Natural Scientists and in the "Speeches of Moscow University"; c) I. A. Dvigubsky - in the same place; 2) Speech “On the Animals of the Moscow Province”, delivered in 1845 at Moscow University; 3) "Naturhistorische Notiz uber die Umgebung von Moscou" - "Bull. de la Soc. des Natur. de Moscou", 1844, III, 625; 4) "Voyage scientifique (Voyage de Kareline)" - "Bull. de la Soc. des Natur. de Moscou", 1840, III, 379); 5) “Aegoceras Pallasii, ein neuer russischer Zweihufer” - ibid., 1841, IV, 910; 6) “Les principales variations de Terebratula acuta dans l” “Oolithe de Moscou” - ibid., 1844, IV, 889; 7) “Explications de la coupe geologique des environs de Moscow” - ibid., 1846, II, 444, IV, 359; 8) “Etudes progressives sur la geologie de Moscow” - ibid., 1849, I, 3; 9) “Etudes paleontologiques sur les environs de Moscou” - (in “Jubilaeum semisaecular. Doctoris Medicinae et Philosophiae Gotthelf Fischer de Waldheim”, 1847; 10) “The movement of a fish against the flow of water” - in “Notes on Fishing” by S. T Aksakova; 11) “Three discoveries in the natural history of the bee” - Appendix to the “Russian Bulletin”, 1856; 12) “About Cochin chickens” - in “Notes of the Acclimatization Committee”, 1889, book. 1st; 13) “Plants that catch insects” - “Bulletin of Natural Sciences”, 1855, vol. 2, pp. 521-616; 14) “Description of the Caucasian Tour” - in “News of the Society for Testing Natural Resources.”; 15) Public lectures in 1852 “On the relationship of animals to external conditions”, published together with lectures by other professors; 16) several articles in the "Bulletin of Natural Sciences"; several notes (including about a mammoth found near Moscow, etc.) were published in the Moscow Gazette, in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, in Otechestvennye Zapiski, in Sovremennik, in Zhivopisnoe Obozreniye, in “Picturesque Encyclopedia”, in the “Journal of the Society of Agriculture”, etc. R. sometimes signed his articles with a pseudonym.
S. Shevyrev, Dictionary of professors of Moscow University, M. 1855, part 2, pp. 373-376; "Moscow Gazette" 1858, No. 49, p. 203; "Moscow Medical Newspaper" 1858, No. 16, p. 132; "Journal of the Society of Useful Information" 1858, No. 44, pp. 383-384 (article by N. Wagner); "Bulletin of Natural Sciences", 1858, No. 8, pp. 225-228 (article by S. Usov); "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education" 1853, vol. XCVIII, section VII, pp. 131-134; "Family Circle", 1859, No. 12, pp. 192-202 (article by N. Volokitin); “Memories of K. F. Rulier, his dying minutes”, M. 1858, Alexandra Barabina;
Stepan Maslov, "Historical Review of the Imperial Moscow Society of Agriculture", M. 1846; "K. F. Roulier and his predecessors in the Department of Zoology at Moscow University", essay by Anatoly Bogdanov, Moscow. 1885; "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education" 1886, part 243, February, department. 2nd, pp. 370-371; "Son of the Fatherland" 1858, No. 16, p. 473, "Northern Bee" 1858, No. 81, p. 380; "Moskovskie Vedomosti" 1858, Literary department, No. 64, p. 255; "Journal of the Ministry of Public Education", 1842, part 33, no. 22, pp. 21-42; "Moscow Necropolis, vol. III; G. Gennadi, Dictionary, vol. III, M. 1908, p. 280. N. Rudin. (Polovtsov) Roulier, Karl Frantsevich (April 8, 1814 - April 10, 1858) - Russian natural scientist, evolutionary biologist.
In 1833 he graduated from Moscow. department of medical-surgical academies; from 1842 - prof. Moscow un-ta. Initially he worked as a geologist. and paleontologist. research of the Moscow Region Basin. Of particular interest are his works on theoretical issues of biology.
R. developed ideas about the unity of the organism and the conditions of existence and proved the causal dependence of the evolution of living forms on changes in their habitat.
Even before the publication of “The Origin of Species” (1859) by Charles Darwin, he pointed (1852) to the experience of breeding new breeds of animals and their acclimatization as the key to understanding the driving forces of evolution in natural conditions.
R. emphasized that heredity is determined by historically established conditions, and variability is the process of adaptation of the organism to the conditions of existence.
He resolutely opposed metaphysics. and teleological French views scientist J. Cuvier, rejected the doctrine of the immutability of the species and insisted on the need to create “zoobiology” as a science based on knowledge of the organism in the totality of its manifestations under certain conditions. . His works laid the foundation for the development of ecology and paleontology. research paved the way for the creation of evolutionary paleontology.
R. was one of the first propagandists and popularizers of natural science knowledge.
On his initiative, Moscow. The Society of Natural Scientists published in 1854-1860 the popular science magazine "Bulletin of Natural Sciences". Works: Selected biological works, M., 1954 (there is a bibliography of R.’s works). Lit.: Davitashvili L. Sh. and Mikulinsky S. R., K. F. Roulier - an outstanding Russian naturalist-evolutionist, in the book: Scientific Heritage, vol. 2, M., 1951 (pp. 529-69); Petrov V. S., Outstanding Russian biologist K. F. Roulier (1814-1858). His life, works and significance in the history of science, M., 1949; Raikov B.E., Russian evolutionary biologists before Darwin.
Materials for the history of the Evolutionary Idea in Russia, vol. 3, M.-L., 1955 (the volume is dedicated to the life and work of K. F. Roulier); Mikulinsky S.R., From the history of biology in Russia in the 20-30s of the 19th century, in the book: Questions of the history of natural science and technology, vol. 1, M., 1956; him, K.F. Roulier and his doctrine of the development of the organic world, M., 1957. Roulier, Karl Frantsevich (03/25/1814, Nizhny Novgorod (now Gorky) - 04/26/1858, Moscow; buried at the Vvedensky cemetery) - paleontologist and zoologist, evolutionist of the pre-Darwinian period, created a school of Russian zoologists-evolutionists, teacher (1840) and full professor (1850) at Moscow University, state councilor, secretary of the Moscow Society of Naturalists (1840-1851), founder and director of the Animal Acclimatization Committee at the Selsky Society farms; founder and editor of the journal "Vestn. Natural Sciences" (1854). Born into a family of immigrants from France; He received his initial education at home and then in private boarding schools.
In 1830 he entered the Moscow Medical-Surgical Academy, which he graduated with a silver medal in 1833, receiving the profession of a doctor; then he entered the service as a doctor in the Riga Dragoon Regiment, in which he served until 1836, and then was accepted as a tutor at the Moscow Medical-Surgical Academy; Having received the title of adjunct, he independently taught students mineralogy and zoology.
In 1837 he defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Medicine.
In addition to teaching at the academy, he headed the academic office of natural history and the museum of Moscow University, and also gave lessons at various times at the Moscow Cadet Corps, at the Moscow Orphanage and the Alexandria Orphan Institute.
At Moscow University in 1840 he began teaching zoology.
From May 1 to September 1, 1841, he was abroad, visiting universities in Northern and Central Germany and Belgium and listening to lectures by Ernberg, Müller, Wasner, Siebold, and Huschka. In 1842 he was elected extraordinary professor, and in 1850 - ordinary.
A brilliant speaker, an excellent lecturer and teacher, he enjoyed great respect and love among students.
Conducted geological and paleontological excursions in the vicinity of Moscow.
The main areas of his scientific work were geology, paleontology and zoology, each of which he enriched with new significant content.
He studied Carboniferous, Jurassic, Tertiary and Quaternary deposits, with a detailed list of fossil remains contained in them; The Jurassic deposits were studied in the most detail, which he divided into four tiers. In his geological works he dealt with issues of geomorphology and described the activities of various exogenous processes that shape the relief of the Moscow region.
His ideas about the nature of the relief, the distribution of the river network and the formation of valleys and many others played a certain role in understanding the physical and geographical features of the earth's surface and soil cover and were then developed in the works of D. N. Anuchin, V. V. Dokuchaev.
He laid the foundations of paleogeography, biogeography and other areas of physical geography.
Paleontological studies are devoted to some protozoa, ammonites, mammoths, etc.; described a number of new species of invertebrates and vertebrates; examined the geographical distribution of animals, established the climates of past geological eras. In the field of practical geology, he studied building materials: limestones, sandstones, clays; studied the coals of the Moscow basin.
In the history of science he is known mainly as a zoologist and evolutionary biologist of the pre-Darwinian period in Russia.
The main goal of the study was to create a plan for general zoology as an organic whole, as an independent science; on the basis of his own geological, paleontological and zoological research and in-depth analysis of accumulated paleontological and biological material, he developed the doctrine of the evolution of the organic world; emphasized the leading importance of functions in changing the structure of organs and based his teaching on the inextricable connection of the organism with the environment: “Not a single organic being lives on its own: each is called to life and lives only insofar as it is in interaction with something relatively external to it peace." Applying the comparative method in the study, he pointed out that this is not enough, “the comparative method must, it is necessary to add the historical one.” He wrote biographies and assessed the scientific activities of A. L. Lovetsky, I. A. Dvigubsky, M. G. Pavlov, P. N. Strakhov, Fischer von Waldheim, N. G. Frolov, A. P. Bogdanov, I. J. Saint-Hilaire. He created a school of evolutionary biologists, among them N.A. Severtsev, A.P. Bogdanov, S.A. Usov and others. It can be assumed that the great Russian paleontologist V.O. Kovalevsky, who occupied the department of geognosy and paleontology at Moscow University in 1881, had in the person of C. F. Roulier a brilliant predecessor, who largely prepared the basis for his work on evolutionary paleontology.