1. Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 6th ed. (London: John Murray, 1872), 424.
2. On the history of the use of the word “evolution,” see especially Beer, Gillian, Darwin's Plots: Evolutionary Narrative in Darwin, George Eliot and Nineteenth-Century Fiction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 11; Richards, Robert J., “Evolution,” in Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, ed. Keller, Evelyn Fox and Lloyd, Elisabeth A. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 100.
3. Griffiths, Devin, The Age of Analogy: Science and Literature between the Darwins (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016), 51.
4. Wallace, Alfred Russel, “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely Form the Original Type,” Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 3–4 (1859): 62, 58.
5. Bowler, Peter J., The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 19.
6. Spencer, Herbert, The Principles of Biology, Vol. 1 (London: Williams and Norgate, 1864), 444.
7. Naomi Beck suggests that Spencer often failed to distinguish salient differences between Darwinian and Lamarckian accounts of evolutionary processes. Beck, Naomi, “The Origin and Political Thought: From Liberalism to Marxism,” in The Cambridge Companion to the “Origin of Species,” ed. Ruse, Michael and Richards, Robert J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 299.
8. Beer, Darwin's Plots, 172.
9. Darwin writes to Galton in response to Galton's “Hereditary Improvement” that “though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; & you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race” (Darwin, January 4, 1873). George Levine notes that Galton's work “impressed” Darwin (Levine, George, Darwin the Writer [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011], vi). In an earlier book, Levine also seeks to emphasize that Darwin responds to Galton by noting that “men did not differ much in intellect” (Levine, George, Darwin and the Novelists [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988], 182).
10. Wynter, Sylvia, “Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation—An Argument,” CR: The New Centennial Review 3, no. 3 (2003): 257–337, 319.
11. Diane Paul notes that “few professional historians believe either that Darwin's theory leads directly to these doctrines or that they are entirely unrelated” (Paul, Diane B., “Darwin, Social Darwinism and Eugenics,” in The Cambridge Companion to Darwin [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009], 214).
12. Farooq, Nihad, Undisciplined: Science, Ethnography, and Personhood in the Americas, 1830–1940 (New York: New York University Press, 2016), 44. Cannon Schmitt highlights that “Victorian science and empire are inextricable” at the same time as the theories that evolutionary scientists developed also could “disallow … the solidity necessary for easily held conviction as to their difference, superiority or right to rule” (Schmitt, Cannon, Darwin and the Memory of the Human: Evolution, Savages, and South America [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009], 11).
13. Elshakry, Marwa, Reading Darwin in Arabic, 1860–1950 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013), 225.