Jump to content

Talk:HMS Beagle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

[edit]

In case it's not obvious, Beagle is one of those early RN ships so famous that it should "own" the unmodified name. Stan 00:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) "made famous for the second voyage she made with Charles Darwin aboard." Does this mean that it was the second voyage with Charles Darwin, or it's second voyage total? Ambiguous!

We should have more than one sentence describing this second voyage. Townmouse 10:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that because the second voyage was what made this ship as famous as it is that the Summary should have a little more information in the Summary about the use of the of the ship by Darwin in the second trip. The name also makes it harder to find this posting. SwMcPeek (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be moved to its proper name

[edit]

This needs to be moved to its proper name. All of the other RN ships have the main ship name as a dab page, so this needs to be consistent. Dunc|☺ 12:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When I set up the naming rules, I specificially allowed for exceptions in the case of the most famous ships, which are this one and HMS Victory. The analogy is with Paris and London, which are both the names of many different places, but only the most perverse suggest that they should be qualified with some kind of disambiguator. So in a handful of cases, the ship naming convention yields to the more general WP convention of not adding a disambiguator to the most common possibiity for a topic. Stan 13:30, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Port Famine is Puerto Hambre (actually Punta Arenas (Chile)

[edit]

There is an error in the related first voyage. Port Famine is on Magellan Straignt (not on Beagle Channel).

ta. sorted. ...dave souza 22:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dining with officers

[edit]

Wait a minute: since when did captains not dine with officers? That's a very great change from customs only twenty years before, where it was expected that the wardroom invite the captain to dinner quite often, and for the captain to have officers and midshipsmen to dinner the rest of the time.

It was actually the captain's prerogative to go either way, but I'm thinking that it had more to do with social class - a vessel with such a small complement might not have had anybody that the captain considered "gentlemanly" enough to dine with regularly. (It would have been considered a hardship for a scion of a noble family to eat day after day with people lacking knowledge of classical authors, for instance.) The connected articles don't mention anything about dining arrangements as a motivation, so it would probably be judicious for this article not to try to bring it up, at least not without a very specific citation. Stan 14:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure the story that his rank would bar him from dining with his subordinates came from Darwin by Adrian Desmond and James Moor, but the book isn't to hand and a different emphasis appears in the foreword to Voyage of the Beagle, Charles Darwin, Penguin Books, London 1989 ISBN 0-14-043268-X, so this may have been misinterpretation by me and I'll modify it more to the Penguin version. ....dave souza: talk 21:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RMS

[edit]

Just something I'll offer for others to comment on... I've seen the ship under the name of RMS Beagle more often than I have as HMS Beagle, including scientific writings about Darwin. 88.107.72.23 21:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about this. The Voyage of the Beagle, at least the version Gutenberg has transcribed, refers consistently to HMS; there's no appearance of the term RMS, abbreviated or expanded. Royal Mail Ship says the term has only been in use since the 1840s, when Beagle was being taken out of service, and the first OED cite for the term is 1850. Plus, a hydrographic survey ship seems a very odd choice for carrying mail... Shimgray | talk | 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further... I could find a few reference to "His/Her Majesty's Ship Beagle", even "...survey ship Beagle", but no "...mail ship Beagle" or "RMS Beagle" in the archive of the Times. Shimgray | talk | 21:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

[edit]

Does anybody know what flag the HMS Beagle used? The topic shows the White Ensign, but this wasn't formal until 1864. BoH 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1840s picture shows red at the stern, and Red Ensign concurs that this was worn by ships ... sailing under independent command. I guess we could change it to Image:Civil Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg. Shimgray | talk | 20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting and informative: however the white ensign's effectively an RN logo, and to the casual reader a red ensign could imply a merchant ship An explanatory note would be needed, and this might best be done by adding the image under the infobox, with suitable description. Would it have been a blue ensign from 1864 - 1870? ;) ..dave souza, talk 23:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, the white ensign isn't standard for the RN before 1864 regardless - the flag flown would have changed depending on squadron. Either we do a lot of reworking of all these articles, or we just pick an anachronistic one and live with it... Shimgray | talk | 23:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spell me

[edit]

Dear & Kemp's Oxford Companion to Ships & the Sea have it "Fitzroy". Who's right? (Or is it a matter of variation...?) Trekphiler 06:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems that Dear & Kemp are wrong, though the name sometimes appears as one word in capitals then is (automatically?) rendered as Fitzroy. Here we've followed Charles Darwin's biographers Desmond & Moore and Browne in using FitzRoy, as Darwin did in his 1839 Journal and Remarks. However, "Voyages Vol 1" edited by ROBERT FITZ-ROY published at the same time uses Fitz-Roy, and Darwin's 1845 Journal of Researches uses Fitz Roy. To confuse things, the Bibliographical introduction by R. B. Freeman uses Fitzroy, so it's not uncommon. ... dave souza, talk 08:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then evidently, Dear & Kemp aren't wrong, just using a different variant, seeing how there doesn't seem to be consensus on it... Trekphiler (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Fitz. It is the Norman equivalent of the Scottish 'Mac' ('son of'). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.196 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First voyage of discovery?

[edit]

This edit seems to me incorrect, as it wasn't a voyage of discovery but a survey voyage, and the reason given "Pringle's voyage wasn't her first - she had already served at sea for five years" is also incorrect, she had been launched on the Thames, taken part in a a fleet review on the Thames that year, and then "lay in ordinary", out of active service until Pringle's voyage. So, have reverted it. It might help to make the heading "First survey voyage", then logically the same change would be applied for the headings to the second and third voyages. . . dave souza, talk 12:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"First survey voyage" would be fine by me. But the fleet review was a voyage and no doubt there were sea trials post-launch, so I still maintain "First voyage" without qualifier is incorrect. It's not a huge issue either way, happy to leave it a few days to see what conssensus might develop either way.
In passing, I have a reliable source (Mariner's Mirror) on design and costs for the beagle figurehead, but no explanation as to why (as in, who decided the ship would be named the Beagle and commissioned the figurehead?)I haven't added the material yet as the article structure doesn't immediately offer a place to describe vessel design. But any sourced theories on the name? Euryalus (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of the Beagle: Broken up in Japan circa 1890?

[edit]

Hello, I came accross this article from a period magazine (May 1900): Popular Science Monthly/Volume 57/May 1900/The Fate of the Beagle It seems to suggest that the Beagle spent it's last days in Japan, and NOT Paglesham Reach. I am no way an expert on these matters, is the Popular Science Monthly article reliable? Anyone care to take up the baton on this one? Pahazzard (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting story, unfortunately the author has been undone by the common practice of reusing ship names. The Beagle in Japan was not Darwin's Beagle, but a later HMS Beagle, launched in 1854, and sold to Japan in 1863. The fate of Darwin's Beagle is well attested to in the sources, and in the recent scholarly work by Prescott, as reported on here. The Rev. Law and his friend seem to have made the understandable error of assuming that the ship named Beagle in Japan could only be the Beagle that Darwin had sailed in. The Japanese authorities provided the information asked for correctly, but were not asked about this connection. Benea (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! that would explain it. Pahazzard (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replica

[edit]

The construction of the Chilean replica appears to be far enough along that a separate article should be created. This article is about Darwin's vessel and should be limited to that subject. See, for example, the treatment of another famous vessel, HMS Bounty, and a replica, Bounty (1960 ship). Kablammo (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support a spinoff article. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bushranger and example given. Mjroots (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support the creation too, Symcovington (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have (finally) acted on this, by deleting the section entirely, as the same content is at our article on the museum which erected the replica. I have linked that article in See also. Unfortunately, the museum's website and its links to this and other replicas are now dead. Kablammo (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Beagle

[edit]

The date given for the picture is wrong (and I think the picture is reversed). It may well be an accurate replication of the information given in the source as cited but it is not correct historically. The image was made round about 1830. It is printed in FitzRoy and King's Narrative. Signed Janet Browne — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.80.104.101 (talk) 06:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for commenting, I've tried looking through the Narrative vols. I and II, but couldn't find the same view. It's obviously not a pencil sketch, so I've changed the caption to read "HMS Beagle in the Straits of Magellan at Monte Sarmiento, illustration from The Popular Science Monthly, May 1900". It's on p. 87 of the book, with no apparent indication of which month it appeared or of the source the image is based on. If we can find the original, that info can be added, but it may be tricky getting an image (or scan) which is in the public domain or under a free license allowing us to use it. Will keep trying to find the source! Thanks again, . dave souza, talk 19:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is another (and better) copy of the image, and this is a copy of the source. Kablammo (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's very helpful. This seems to be the original, from Darwin, C. R. 1890. Journal of researches into the natural history and geology of the various countries visited by H.M.S. Beagle etc. London: John Murray. First Murray illustrated edition. p. ii. Will think over what to do about it, dave souza, talk 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. More detail at The Voyage of the Beagle#Second edition: changing ideas on evolution of Robert Taylor Pritchett, a colourful character who clearly merits a biography.[1][2] . . dave souza, talk 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on HMS Beagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on HMS Beagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HMS_Beagle&oldid=1213113607"