rjohara.net

Search:  

Darwin-L Message Log 8: 31–70 — April 1994

Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

Darwin-L was an international discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences, active from 1993–1997. Darwin-L was established to promote the reintegration of a range of fields all of which are concerned with reconstructing the past from evidence in the present, and to encourage communication among scholars, scientists, and researchers in these fields. The group had more than 600 members from 35 countries, and produced a consistently high level of discussion over its several years of operation. Darwin-L was not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles Darwin, but instead addressed the entire range of historical sciences from an explicitly comparative perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology, systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical geography, historical anthropology, and related “palaetiological” fields.

This log contains public messages posted to the Darwin-L discussion group during April 1994. It has been lightly edited for format: message numbers have been added for ease of reference, message headers have been trimmed, some irregular lines have been reformatted, and error messages and personal messages accidentally posted to the group as a whole have been deleted. No genuine editorial changes have been made to the content of any of the posts. This log is provided for personal reference and research purposes only, and none of the material contained herein should be published or quoted without the permission of the original poster.

The master copy of this log is maintained in the Darwin-L Archives (rjohara.net/darwin) by Dr. Robert J. O’Hara. The Darwin-L Archives also contain additional information about the Darwin-L discussion group, the complete Today in the Historical Sciences calendar for every month of the year, a collection of recommended readings on the historical sciences, and an account of William Whewell’s concept of “palaetiology.”


-------------------------------------------
DARWIN-L MESSAGE LOG 8: 31-70 -- APRIL 1994
-------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:31>From edkupfer@MIT.EDU  Tue Apr 12 10:43:15 1994

From: edkupfer@MIT.EDU
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Darwin and Freud
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 94 11:43:07 EDT

For those interested in the relationship between Darwin and
Freud there's a couple of folks here at MIT who have done
considerable work in that area.  Frank Sullaway's book, BIOLOGIST
OF THE MIND treats the biological/natural history origins of
freud's work at length.  And, Bruce Mazlish has written a few
pieces on the connections between Marx, Darwin and Freud (he
has taught a class by the same title for a number of years.

Eric Kupferberg
Dibner Inst./MIT

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:32>From jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA  Tue Apr 12 10:55:29 1994

From: jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Jacobs Kenneth)
Subject: Hist/Philos of Sci mtgs?
To: DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 11:53:11 -0400 (EDT)

This is being cross-listed, so I apologize for the repeats.
*****************************************************************

	Over the past several months, repeated references have
been made on this list to up-coming (1994-1995, even '96) Meetings
dealing with themes in the history, philosophy, etc. of science (e.g., 4S
and others).  I never saved these references, not anticipating having the
needed funds.  Wholly unexpectedly, that situation has changed and I now find
myself in a position to go to meetings where I am not giving papers.
Thus I would be very grateful to anyone who could send me information
on any such events.

	My "normal science" realm is human biocultural evolution,
but I am increasingly drawn into readings, discussions, etc. dealing with
science as social product, the role of ideology in interpretation of "objective
fact" (e.g., human phylogeny and culture history), so a wide variety of
meetings are apt to be of interest to me.

Thanks in advance,

Ken Jacobs                           Voice: (514) 343-6490 [Office]
Assoc. Prof.                                (514) 685-2349 [Home]
Departement d'anthropologie          FAX:   (514) 343-2494
Universite de Montreal               e-mail:  jacobsk@ere.umontreal.ca
CP 6128 / Succ. Centre-Ville
Montreal PQ
H3C 3J7  Canada

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:33>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Tue Apr 12 15:02:56 1994

Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 15:02:56 -0500
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: sexual selection

I would like some informed feedback on a problem I am wrestling with in the
sociobiology of human reproduction. For those of you who are not into such
topics, I will be happy to carry on future discussions off the list.

Basic question: How much of human anatomy and behavior can be attributed to
sexual selection? Sociobiological arguments follow two streams at once that
appear to be to be contradictory.

On the one hand, they argue for a chimp-like promiscuous society in which males
are cheap (take that any way you will) and females are choosy. This should lead
to sexual selection for males. Hence, among other things, we see female
preferences for high status males.

On the other hand, females are competing for high status males and thus are
under sexual selection themselves to be sexy. Hence the evolution of breasts,
etc. Hence males express preferences for young, healthy, fertile females.

Are these scenerios mutually contradictory or can each sex select the other
simultaneously? I have come to several conclusions, but I am not satisfied with
them: For example: Male competition was important in proto-hominid society but
has not been since the evolution of the big brain and altricial infants.
Females are now competing with one another because males are investing more.
Male promiscuity is a social reality but is evolutionarily irrelevant. The
preferences expressed by one or both sexes for characteristics of a mate should
not be confused with actual behavior and do not correlate with reproductive
success.

Anyone want to take up these questions?

JOHN H. LANGDON                email   LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY          FAX  (317) 788-3569
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS     PHONE (317) 788-3447
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:34>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Tue Apr 12 20:35:18 1994

Date: Tue, 12 Apr 1994 21:35:00 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Hard rock and soft rock
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Just an explanatory note to follow Bonnie Blackwell's message on paleobotany
and paleontology.  Non-geologists might not be familiar with the geologists'
jargon "hard rock" geology and "soft rock" geology.  To a considerable extent
this distinction corresponds to the distinction we have talked about in
other fields between "structural" approaches and "historical" approaches to
a given subject.  Hard rock geologists study igneous and metamorphic rocks,
which are ordinarily not fossiliferous, and their work often has a structural
and geophysical emphasis.  Soft rock geologists study sedimentary rocks, the
primary fossil-bearing rocks, and their work usually has a strong historical,
paleontological, and stratigraphic emphasis.  The two domains certainly
interact, but it is an interesting distinction to consider.  Perhaps one of
our geological members could explain the different nuances of these terms
better than I have.

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:35>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca  Wed Apr 13 13:11:42 1994

Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 14:07:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca>
Subject: Re: sexual selection
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

but what about warfare as a method of selecting males in the middle ages.
knights and squires had considerable pressure on them from injury and
death, but achieved great status by successfully surviving intact.
they gained status, wealth, and the "best" brides socieity could offer.
i am not sure if this applies, but it occurred to me as i read your mail.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:36>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Wed Apr 13 20:00:28 1994

Date: Wed, 13 Apr 1994 21:00:15 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: _Utter Antiquity_ (new book)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Here's a book I just came across on our library's new book shelf; perhaps
it will be of interest to some here:

  Ferguson, Arthur B.  1993.  _Utter Antiquity: Perceptions of Prehistory
  in Renaissance England_.  Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.

On quick examination it appears to contain lots of interesting material
on very early comparative mythology, chronology, and philology.  The
opening runs like this:

  The purpose of this study is to explore the historical consciousness
  of Renaissance England as it sought to penetrate the mists of that most
  distant antiquity where history all but loses itself in myth and legend
  and where the historical imagination must serve, by default, the function
  of interpretation.  We now know a great deal about how English thinkers
  of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries perceived the documentable
  past, but we know relatively little about how they perceived the past that
  stretches beyond, except, of course, for the version preserved in the Bible.
  Such lack of knowledge is strange, too, because that very stretch of time
  meant a lot to people of that day.  In it, in the various gentile versions
  of it as well as the biblical, in what we should nowadays call "prehistory,"
  they sought the logical vanishing point for the perspective of history they
  were coming more and more to consider essential, not only to the completion
  of their picture of universal history but to their own orientation in an
  age of ever more evident change.  [p. 1]

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:37>From James.Maclaurin@vuw.ac.nz  Wed Apr 13 23:08:36 1994

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 16:13:04 +1200
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: James.Maclaurin@vuw.ac.nz (James Maclaurin)
Subject: Re: sexual selection

Concerning sexual selection, John Langdon writes...

>I have come to several conclusions, but I am not satisfied with
>them: For example: Male competition was important in proto-hominid society but
>has not been since the evolution of the big brain and altricial infants.

to which Bonnie Blackwell replies...

>but what about warfare as a method of selecting males in the middle ages.
>knights and squires had considerable pressure on them from injury and
>death, but achieved great status by successfully surviving intact.
>they gained status, wealth, and the "best" brides society could offer.
>i am not sure if this applies, but it occurred to me as I read your mail.

I agree with Blackwell that this is a case of Male competition (in some
sense of competition) but whether or not it counts as an important case of
sexual selection depends on several factors.

First, for sexual selection  to be important it has to be common. It has to
be something which affects many members of the population in question often
and for many generations. Knightly prowess in battle is something which
affects a relatively small portion of the population (assuming that knights
and their squires make up only a small percentage of the medieval
population). There are two ways in which this objection could be avoided.
It might be possible to show that an analogous phenomenon affected lucky or
successful foot soldiers. Alternatively one could try to establish that the
aristocracy constitutes a reproductively isolated population in which Male
competition was the basis of an important form of sexual selection.

Secondly, for sexual selection to operate it has to be selection for some
trait (eg. the size of a peacock's tail). So if knightly prowess is to be
an instance of sexual selection, there has to be some heritable
characteristic shared by all or most of the successful knights and squires.
My guess (I don't claim to have expert knowledge in this area) is that
there is unlikely to be a single such factor. Perhaps successful knights
and squires knew certain facts about the use of medieval weapons. Perhaps
they could afford the best armour. Maybe success in battle was largely a
matter of luck (which of course doesn't count as a trait at all). Of course
it could be that knightly prowess constitutes selection for more than one
trait, but given my first point this would have the effect of making
instances of selection for specific traits less common. In any case these
are the sort of questions that one would need to answer to determine
whether knightly prowess constitutes a form of sexual selection

James Maclaurin

Department of Philosophy
Victoria University of Wellington
P.O.Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand.
Telephone 04-472 1000 (ext. 8937),
email address:   jamesmac@matai.vuw.ac.nz
Mail from Mac by Eudora 1.3.1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:38>From wright@clark.net  Thu Apr 14 01:09:11 1994

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 02:09:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bob Wright <wright@clark.net>
Subject: Re: sexual selection
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

JOHN LANGDON writes, about sexual selection in humans:

> Are these scenerios mutually contradictory or can each sex select the other
> simultaneously?

I believe that sexual selection can indeed work in both directions
simultaneously--men competing for women and women competing for men. But
the evidence suggests that sexual selection has been more intense among
men. A key index of that intensity is the variation in reproductive
success within a given sex.  Since men can in principle have many
offspring per year, whereas women can't, that variation is potentially
much larger among men. And the anthropological record suggests that,
indeed, most societies, including many that seem roughly typical of the
social environment in which much human evolution took place, have been at
least mildly polygynous; some men have succeeded in monopolizing more than
one mate and producing many offspring, at the expense of other men who
were therefore left with no mate and no offspring. This is the driving
force behind sexual selection, and it is hard to imagine it reaching
comparable heights among females; virtually any young woman, after all,
can secure a mate for long enough to achieve reproduction.

> Females
> are now competing with one another because males are investing more.

The advent of male parental investment can indeed intensify competition
among females, and it presumably has in our species. Though, as I've
noted, just about any fertile woman can arrange to have offspring (thus
escaping the fate that afflicts a man who fails in the mating game),
having offspring who are well taken care of is another matter altogether.
This fact would seem to fuel sexual selection among women.  But again:
even given this source of competition, reproductive variation among men
seems to have fairly consistently been higher than among women, suggesting
that sexual selection has generally operated more strongly among men.

Bob Wright
Washington, DC

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:39>From coon@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU  Thu Apr 14 08:42:36 1994

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 08:42:54 EST
From: coon@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: sexual selection

At the risk of offending my anthropologist friends, I have argued that
the Yanomamo of South America practice sexual selection for violent and
aggressive behavior.  Its been some time since I looked at the material
but I recall that they were highly inbred compared to most peoples. Cross
cousin is the preferred marriage pattern but when a cousin is not available
they reclassify another close female relative as a fictive cousin.  Close
in this case can mean sister, aunt or even mother.  The more violent, i.e.
successful warrior, you are, the more wives you get.  Women compare head
scars inflicted by wifebeating husbands, the more scars you have, the
more he loves you.
************************************************
Roger (Brad) Coon            "Better to have one
COON@IPFWCVAX.BITNET          freedom too many,
COON@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU    than to have one
                              too few."

Politically incorrect and proud of it.
Niquimictitoc inana Bambi.
************************************************

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:40>From krusch@csd4.csd.uwm.edu  Thu Apr 14 09:33:48 1994

From: Kathryn M Rusch <krusch@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>
Subject: Who was Schlegel?
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 09:33:39 -0500 (CDT)

Does anyone have any information on Schlegel (Schloegel)?  I think he was a
nineteenth century German philosopher/naturalist.  Any references to his
work or any information about him would be appreciated.

Katie Rusch
e-mail krusch@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:41>From bsc4@columbia.edu  Thu Apr 14 11:04:46 1994

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 12:04:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Benjamin Stovall Cramer <bsc4@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Who was Schlegel?
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Emanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schlost as Schlegel.

--Monty Python--

(Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

Benjamin Cramer

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:42>From JLOESBE@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU  Thu Apr 14 11:07:27 1994

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 12:03:14 EDT
From: Jonathan Loesberg <JLOESBE@american.edu>
Organization: The American University
Subject: Re: Who was Schlegel?
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Friedrich Schlegel was a German Romantic philosopher. His dates were
1772-1829, so he is end of the 18th century, beginning of the 19th. He
was among a group of philosophers a generation younger than Kant who
extended Kant's idealism. He is most famous for his writing on aesthetics,
at least among literature professors, such as Lectures on the History of
Literature, and on the philosophy of history. I don't know of his naturalist
writing though.
Jonathan Loesberg

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:43>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Thu Apr 14 12:29:12 1994

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 12:29:12 -0500
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: sexual selection2

I thank the many people who have responded to my query about sexual selection
on and off the net. In fact, I have had so many replies that I fear I cannot
make personal response to all. They have been helpful in focusing my thinking
and some tackle some of the specific issues I an trying to address. I have seen
several restatements of the standard lines. I accept the theory but have qualms
about applying it to humans.

Bonnie Blackwell replies...
> >but what about warfare as a method of selecting males in the middle ages.

to which James Maclaurin replies . . .
> I agree with Blackwell that this is a case of Male competition (in some
> sense of competition) but whether or not it counts as an important case of
> sexual selection depends on several factors.

In addition to Maclaurin's critique of this, I add, what is the relationship
between such combat and mating? If losers lost simply because they were dead,
this is natural selection. It becomes sexual selection only if one can relate
it to mating preferences.

Likewise, Wright's response that we can expect males to have greater variance
in RS is reasonable. But his previous statement "the evidence suggests that
sexual selection has been more intense among men" does not automatically
follow, however many times I see it in print. High variance in RS among males
does not equal sexual selection, although it is a necessary condition.

What is the evidence that sexual selection of males has been an important force
shaping human evolution since the ape-human split? Dimorphism of body size has
diminished several times (continually?) since the Miocene. Evidence for sperm
competition is ambiguous, at best. About the only striking acquisitions of
human males that are likely to be explained by sexual selection have been (1)
beards and (2) a tendency to invest in long term pair-bonds. The second is a
significant change that appears to have come about in both sexes, but it
negates the argument that contemporary male competition centers on promiscuity.

In a very skeptical mood, how can we be certain that male behavior is not
simply a carry-over of proximate behaviors evolved in the Miocene that no
longer have evolutionary significance now that pair-bonding has become so much
more important?

Let me put it another way, and this is a challenge to all of human
sociobiology. Given that (1) the human brain has evolved a capacity for a great
range of behavior; and (2) that range includes making rational decisions in our
own best interest, when do we ascribe an apparently sensible behavior as an
adaptive evolved trait and when is it a non-evolved economic decision? A great
deal of promiscuous behavior can be explained as non-evolved pursuit of sexual
behavior (specific examples from the literature-- soliciting prostitutes and
masturbation). What are the grounds for arguing that these are evolved
reproductive strategies?

JOHN H. LANGDON                email   LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY          FAX  (317) 788-3569
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS     PHONE (317) 788-3447
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:44>From jsmith@epas.utoronto.ca  Thu Apr 14 15:11:21 1994

From: jsmith@epas.utoronto.ca (Julian Smith)
Subject: Re: Who was Schlegel?
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 1994 16:11:18 -0500 (EDT)

Dear Katie:

  This is an interesting request because there are several possible
  candidates; which one do you mean?  There is an August Wilhelm von
  Schlegel, b. September 8, 1767, d. May 12, 1845; he was one of the
  founders of German romanticism, and wrote _Vorlesungen uber schone
  Kunst und Literatur_, and many translations of Dante, Shakespeare,
  Petrarch and the like.  His younger brother Friedrich von Schlegel,
  b. Mar. 10, 1772, d. Jan. 12, 1829, also helped to develop romantic
  thought, publishing his _Dialogue on Poetry_ in 1800, _Geschichte
  der Poesie der Griechen und Romer_ in 1798, _Uber die Sprache und
  Weisheit der Indier_ in 1808, and many more.  There is a third
  Schlegel, a German microbiologist; but he is a twentieth century
  figure.  This is Hans Gunter Schlegel, b. Leipzig Oct. 24, 1924; he
  worked in the physiology and biochemistry of chemosynthetic and
  photosynthetic soil and water bacteria.  He is the author of
  _Anreicherungskultur und Mutantenauslese_ of 1965.

  Yours

Julian A. Smith
Institute for the History and Philosophy
of Science and Technology
University of Toronto

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:45>From azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu  Thu Apr 14 20:47:49 1994

Date: Thu, 14 Apr 94 20:47:47 CDT
From: "Asia "I work in mysterious ways" Lerner" <azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re:  sexual selection

  On the one hand, they argue for a chimp-like promiscuous society in which
  males are cheap (take that any way you will) and females are choosy. This
  should lead to sexual selection for males. Hence, among other things, we see
  female preferences for high status males.

  On the other hand, females are competing for high status males and thus are
  under sexual selection themselves to be sexy. Hence the evolution of breasts,
  etc. Hence males express preferences for young, healthy, fertile females.

This is somewhat oblique to the issue, but was a preference for young females
ever established by observation in chimp, or any other animal society? If
"fertile" designaes "estrus" than that must be tautologically correct.

Asia

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:46>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Fri Apr 15 09:29:17 1994

Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 09:29:17 -0500
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: sexual selection

In message <9404150147.AA28186@midway.uchicago.edu>  writes:

>> On the other hand, females are competing for high status males and thus are
>> under sexual selection themselves to be sexy. Hence males express
>> preferences for young, healthy, fertile females.
>
> This is somewhat oblique to the issue, but was a preference for young females
> ever established by observation in chimp, or any other animal society? If
> "fertile" designaes "estrus" than that must be tautologically correct.

Human male preference for "fertile" is inferred from the interest in youth,
beauty (in various interpretations), and health. Estrus is not a factor in this
equation. Goodall (1986) observed male chimps rejecting "adolescent" females in
spite of active solicitation by those females. She interpreted this as a
judgment by the male that the female had a low probability of fertility at that
age. The attraction that adolescent females have to mature human males may be
better compared to the harem-gathering strategies of certain other primates.
Those males intend to establish a long-term relationships with the females.

JOHN H. LANGDON                email   LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY          FAX  (317) 788-3569
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS     PHONE (317) 788-3447
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:47>From Arno.Wouters@phil.ruu.nl  Fri Apr 15 10:10:02 1994

Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 17:09:58 +0200
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: Arno Wouters <Arno.Wouters@phil.ruu.nl>
Subject: Re: Hist/Philos of Sci mtgs?

>	Over the past several months, repeated references have
>been made on this list to up-coming (1994-1995, even '96) Meetings
>dealing with themes in the history, philosophy, etc. of science (e.g., 4S
>and others).  I never saved these references, not anticipating having the
>needed funds.  Wholly unexpectedly, that situation has changed and I now find
>myself in a position to go to meetings where I am not giving papers.
>Thus I would be very grateful to anyone who could send me information
>on any such events.

George Gale has archived a number of conference announcement in the field
of history, philosophy and social studies of sciences at his "Science
Studies" gopher (kasey.umn.edu).

I have archived most conference announcements in the field of philosophy
(including philosophy of science) at the Utrecht University Philosophy
gopher (gopher.phil.ruu.nl).

Hope this helps!

Arno.

--
Arno Wouters
Dept. of Philosophy, Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
Phone: +31 30 53779;  Fax: +31 30 532816.
E-mail: Arno.Wouters@phil.ruu.nl

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:48>From ALVARD@DICKINSON.EDU  Fri Apr 15 12:58:05 1994

Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 12:56:57 est
From: Michael Alvard <ALVARD@dickinson.edu>
To: DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: mating

In regard to the discussion of male mate preferences:    It is true that
males in general should prefer young females over old because young females
are in general more "fertile".  But the issue is more complex than this.
Among humans, males can be playing a number of different strategies,
sometimes simultaneously, and optimal mate choice is expected to vary
accordingly.  If choosing a life-long partner (wife), males are expected to
choose females based on their reproductive value, which is the average number
of offspring that remain to be born to a female of age x..   Reproductive
value varies according to population but generally is maximum at some age
just after puberty.    If a male is playing , an opportunistic mating
strategy and seeks short term mating opportunities, he should choose females
that will maximize the probability that this one copulation will result in a
conception, i.e., female fertility rather than reproductive value should
guide the male's decisions. Fertility is the average number of offspring
produced at each particular age. The fertility curve and reproductive value
curve are not equivalent. Female fertility maxes later in age than does
reproductive value.  Thus, all other things being equal,  the prediction is
that males looking for a "one night stand" should prefer older females, while
males looking for wives should prefer younger women

In this context it is not contrary that a male chimp  rejects an adolescent
female's solicitation.  While she may be higher reproductive value,
adolescents are less fertile compared to a mature and tested female.

Michael Alvard, Ph.D.			Tel: (717) 245-1902
Department of Anthropology			FAX: (717) 245-1479
Dickinson College				E-mail: Alvard@Dickinson.edu
Carlisle, PA  17013

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:49>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Fri Apr 15 13:39:31 1994

Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 14:38:54 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: April 15 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

APRIL 15 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1772: ETIENNE GEOFFROY SAINT-HILAIRE is born at Etampes, France.  The youngest
of fourteen children, Geoffroy's precocious intellegence will win him many
early patrons in the church and at the College de Navarre in Paris, where he
will study with Brisson and Antoine de Jussieu.  His wide-ranging interests in
natural history will lead him to study mineralogy with Hauy, and to receive at
the age of twenty-one an appointment in zoology at the Jardin des Plantes
(later the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle) as successor to Lacepede.  Geoffroy
will become a close friend and colleague of Lamarck, and will be an important
member of the school of pre-Darwinian French evolutionists, devoting much
study to comparative vertebrate anatomy, the influence of the environment on
the variation of species, and the causes of teratologies.  From 1789 to 1801
he will serve as a naturalist on Napoleon's Egyptian campaign and will travel
up the Nile collecting natural history specimens, including mummified animals
in the pyramids that demonstrated there had been little change in some species
for at least three thousand years.  A bitter dispute with Georges Cuvier will
cloud Geoffroy's mature reputation, but his many publications both descriptive
and theoretical, including _Catalogue des mammiferes du Museum_ (Paris, 1803)
and _Recherches sur les grandes sauriens trouves a l'etat fossile (Paris,
1831), and the many students he will teach at the Museum over more than forty
years, will influence French natural history for decades after his death.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.
For more information about Darwin-L send the two-word message INFO DARWIN-L to
listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (152.13.44.19).

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:50>From azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu  Sat Apr 16 02:50:21 1994

Date: Sat, 16 Apr 94 02:50:19 CDT
From: "Asia "I work in mysterious ways" Lerner" <azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re:  mating

  In regard to the discussion of male mate preferences:    It is true that
  males in general should prefer young females over old because young females
  are in general more "fertile".

Supposition : the span of time within which permanent coupling and loss of
estrus was established is enough to embed the above types of behaviour in
the biological stratum.

    But the issue is more complex than this.
  Among humans, males can be playing a number of different strategies,
  sometimes simultaneously, and optimal mate choice is expected to vary
  accordingly.  If choosing a life-long partner (wife), males are expected to
  choose females based on their reproductive value, which is the average number
  of offspring that remain to be born to a female of age x..   Reproductive
  value varies according to population but generally is maximum at some age
  just after puberty.    If a male is playing , an opportunistic mating
  strategy and seeks short term mating opportunities, he should choose females
  that will maximize the probability that this one copulation will result in a
  conception, i.e., female fertility rather than reproductive value should
  guide the male's decisions.

  Fertility is the average number of offspring
  produced at each particular age. The fertility curve and reproductive value
  curve are not equivalent. Female fertility maxes later in age than does
  reproductive value.

Well, reproductive value would not wax in your story, only wane.

  Thus, all other things being equal,  the prediction is
  that males looking for a "one night stand" should prefer older females, while
  males looking for wives should prefer younger women

This prediction, of course, rests on the supposition that "fertility" or
"reproductive value" are the single overwhelming criteria for the human
male, which seems rather doubious. Anyhow, did anybody in fact observe
that "males looking for a one night stand" prefer older females than those
who are "looking for wives?"

  In this context it is not contrary that a male chimp  rejects an adolescent
  female's solicitation.  While she may be higher reproductive value,
  adolescents are less fertile compared to a mature and tested female.

Chimps, however, exibit harem behaviour, not "one night stand" behaviour.

Asia

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:51>From GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU  Sat Apr 16 12:38:04 1994

Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 12:37:56 -0600 (CST)
From: GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU
Subject: Science Studies archive address
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Arno Wouters, in an unusal event, mistyped the address of the Science Studies
archive. It is to be found on gopher kasey.umkc.edu. Among the many delights
and other stuff squirreled (?gophered?) away there, will be found most of
the info on most of the meetings of interest to folks in the science studies
community.

Well...at least all those that happened across my screen.

You're invited to browse, you never know WHAT you might find. There's even
a directory of fun stuff, including the FULL text of the Python's "Bruce"
song.

Regards,
George
ggale@vax1.umkc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:52>From ALVARD@DICKINSON.EDU  Sat Apr 16 16:02:26 1994

Date: Sat, 16 Apr 94 17:01:45 est
From: Michael Alvard <ALVARD@dickinson.edu>
To: DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: re:mating

In response to Asia's comments:

>This prediction, of course, rests on the supposition that "fertility" or
>"reproductive value" are the single overwhelming criteria for the human
>male, which seems rather dubious. Anyhow, did anybody in fact observe
>that "males looking for a one night stand" prefer older females than those
>who are "looking for wives?"

While reproductive value or fertility are not the singular overwhelming
criteria for human male mate choices, I would argue reproduce considerations,
in general, are.  Males, cross culturally, prefer women who are young and
healthy. Both are traits  that correlate with reprodcutive value. Chubbiness,
for example, is attractive in most traditional societies because it is a
reliable indicator of health and fertility.  Monique Borgerhoff-Mulder
examined brideprice and female reproductive value with the Kipsigis, a
traditional group of Kenya.  Kipsigis males must pay livestock to obtain
their wives. Borgerhoff-Mulder found that the higher the reproductive value
of the bride, the greater the price she and her family could demand. Other
factors also effected the price:  pregnancy, a prior birth, lower levels of
body fat, a physical handicap are all factors that lowered the price.

I do not know any studies that have examined whether males who seek short-
term copulations prefer older females. This prediction would be very
difficult to test because the effect may be hard to detect.  Since short-
terms matings are often low-cost for males, a male pursuing a short term
mating strategy loses little by accepting a less than optimal partner.

Michael Alvard, Ph.D.			Tel: (717) 245-1902
Department of Anthropology			FAX: (717) 245-1479
Dickinson College				E-mail: Alvard@Dickinson.edu
Carlisle, PA  17013

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:53>From Kim.Sterelny@vuw.ac.nz  Sat Apr 16 20:27:55 1994

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 13:27:48 +1200
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: Kim.Sterelny@vuw.ac.nz
Subject: Re: re:mating

Michael Alvard writes:

>While reproductive value or fertility are not the singular overwhelming
>criteria for human male mate choices, I would argue reproduce considerations,
>in general, are.  Males, cross culturally, prefer women who are young and
>healthy. Both are traits  that correlate with reprodcutive value. Chubbiness,
>for example, is attractive in most traditional societies because it is a
>reliable indicator of health and fertility.  Monique Borgerhoff-Mulder
>examined brideprice and female reproductive value with the Kipsigis, a
>traditional group of Kenya.  Kipsigis males must pay livestock to obtain
>their wives. Borgerhoff-Mulder found that the higher the reproductive value
>of the bride, the greater the price she and her family could demand. Other
>factors also effected the price:  pregnancy, a prior birth, lower levels of
>body fat, a physical handicap are all factors that lowered the price.
>
>I do not know any studies that have examined whether males who seek short-
>term copulations prefer older females. This prediction would be very
>difficult to test because the effect may be hard to detect.  Since short-
>terms matings are often low-cost for males, a male pursuing a short term
>mating strategy loses little by accepting a less than optimal partner.

Two comments: (i) it is often indeed claimed that "short-term matings are
low cost" to males, but I do not think at all obvious that this is true,
more particularly in those social structures in which human psychological
predispositions evolved. Cost is more than cost of sperm: it includes risk.
One such risk is disease; this may have beel less in small hunting and
gathering communities. But we are in no position to assume that the costs
of social retaliation (including just withdrawal of co-operation) would
have been small. It is certainly not small in many contempary communities;
there is little reason to suppose it would have been small in
paleocommunities (ii) the distinction between reproductive value and
fertility is surely well-taken. But I wonder if even fertility is not quite
the right explanation for chimp disinterest in adolescent females: the
problem with them may not lie in fertilty as such but rather in their
chances of raising offspring to independence.

Kim Sterelny
Philosophy, Wellington

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:54>From RMBURIAN@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU  Sun Apr 17 06:19:42 1994

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 94 07:14:04 EDT
From: "Richard M. Burian" <RMBURIAN@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject: HSS/PSA/4S meeting in October
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

     On Wednesday 13 April, Ken Jacobs asked for information on the
joint HSS-PSA-4S meeting.  Since the topic has come up again a couple
of times on the list, I shall send, below, a copy of the information
I sent him off list.  The invitation pertains, of course, to the sub-
scribers of this list as well as to the audience to whom this announce-
ment was originally directed.
Dick Burian

                Joint Meeting of 4S, HSS, and PSA

     Members of the ISHPSSB are invited to attend the joint
meetings of the History of Science Society, the Philosophy of
Science Association and the Society for Social Studies of
Science, to be held in New Orleans in October, 1994.  As of this
date, the program of the meetings is not available, but there
will be a number of sessions of direct interest to members of our
Society, including papers to be presented by ISHPSSB members.
The meetings will be held at the Clarion Hotel in New Orleans
from October 13-16.  Program chairs for the meeting are as
follows:  HSS _ Clark Elliott and Richard Kremer (their
respective addresses are University Archives, Harvard University
Library, Cambridge, MA 02138 and Department of History, Dartmouth
College, Hanover, NH 037550; PSA _ Richard Burian, Center for the
study of Science in Society, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0247; 4S _ Linda Layne,
STS Department, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY 12180-
3590.  The program deadlines of all three societies have passed,
so program information should be available fairly soon.  Further
information should be available from the offices of each of the
societies.  For HSS, this is HSS Secretariat, c/o Keith Benson,
Department of Medical History and Ethics, University of
Washington, SB-20, Seattle, WA 98195.  For PSA, this is PSA
Secretariat, c/o Peter Asquith, Department of Philosophy,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824; and 4S
Secretariat, c/o Wes Shrum, Department of Sociology, Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, LS 70803.  We hope to see many of
you there.
                                   Richard M. Burian

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:55>From carey@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu  Sun Apr 17 11:34:07 1994

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 12:33:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Arlen Carey <carey@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu>
Subject: Re: mating
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Lerner, in her critique of Alvard's comments, states:

>This prediction, of course, rests on the supposition that "fertility" or
>"reproductive value" are the single overwhelming criteria for the human
>male, which seems rather doubious.

The _assertion_ reflects a commonly-held misunderstanding of modern
Darwinian behavioral science.  Namely, Lerner assumes that proposed
evolutionarily-established mating strategies (or other behavioral
strategies/evolutionary psychologies if you like) are/need be consciously
recognized by their perpetrators in order for them to hold water.  This is
not what most evolutionists say (or mean) as far as I can tell.  Rather,
the darwinists argue that observed patterns of behavior indicate that
actors behave AS IF they were following a strategy.  Thus, at a basic
level anyhow, we need not worry about one's conscious mate selection
strategy, rather the question is 'what types of females are most often
selected by males as mates, those with greater or less reproductive
potential?'.  Viewed this way, I think the data will clearly demonstrate a
strong _de facto_ preference for females with greater reprod. potential,
regardless of the sophistries males may engage to "explain" their
behavior.  Likewise, to demonstrate lesser discrimination in picking mates
for a one-night-stand than for a long-term relationship investigations
should focus on the characteristics of the mates actually selected, rather
than on the preferences stated by the involved party.  E.g., a young male
may walk into a singles bar wanting to spend the night with a elle
mcpherson look-alike (young and healthy-looking--proximate cues of
reproductive viability/potential), but more often than not be willing so
settle for a one-time mate whose appearance diverges dramatically from the
initial preference.

For those interested in related notions of self-deception, I recommend
Lopreato's _Human Nature and Biocultural Evolution_ Allen & Unwin, 1984.

Also, some of you may be interested in a wonderful book I've just begun
reading by psychologist David Buss (1994) entitled _The Evolution of
Desire:  Strategies of Human Mating_.  This book promises to address
differences in female/male mating strategies and short/long-term
strategies.

Arlen Carey

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:56>From camerini@helix.UCSD.EDU  Sun Apr 17 14:51:34 1994

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 12:47:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jane Camerini <camerini@helix.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re: Schlegel
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

The Schlegel I know of is Hermann - but all I know about him is a book he
wrote *Essai sur al physiologie des serpens* Amsterdam, 1837.  It is an
interesting monograph, with plates and maps; I believe it was translated
into English shortly after publication.

I would like more information about him if anyone can provide some.

Jane Camerini
Science STudies Program 0104
UCSD
La Jolla CA 92093-0104

camerini@helix.ucsd.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:57>From ALVARD@DICKINSON.EDU  Sun Apr 17 15:11:22 1994

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 94 16:11:12 est
From: Michael Alvard <ALVARD@dickinson.edu>
To: DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: mating

I lost Kim Sterelny's posting in response to mine, but to summarize s/he
said:

  1.  Short-term matings are not always so low-cost especially in the social
  environments where humans evolved.

  2. A male chimp ignoring an adolescent female's solicitation may have more
  to do with the chances of the female raising the offspring to independence.

I agree with both statements, in general,  but only have time to respond to
the first; perhaps someone else can discuss the second.

Short-term matings are low cost *relative* to long-term matings, thus males
should be more choosy for the latter.  I do agree, however, that the social
costs to a philandering male *could be* quite high (retaliation and
withdrawal of cooperation, as Sterelny said). But this is not necessarily
so. In the paleocommunities Sterelny invisions, within-group cooperation
could be so important that depending on the contributions of the philandering
male to general subsistence, his short-term adventures with one's wife, or
daughter, or sister might be tolerated. There is anecdotal evidence to
support this.  Among the Mehinaku, a native South American group studied by
Thomas Gregor, extra-marital sex is common, and tolerated as long as it is
kept discrete.  Gregor  determined that husbands often knew their wives were
fooling around, but did not confront the man because often he was a friend,
or relative.  To bring it into the open would have caused social chaos and
the possible loss of an economic or social ally.

On the other side of the coin is the situation with the Yanomamo (another
Amazonian group), where murder and warfare over infidelity is a common cause
of death for males. Short-term matings can be quite costly.  Even among the
Yanomamo, however, close friends and males relatives (brothers and cousins)
often share females.  My guess is that the response of the cuckold depends on
the identity  of the transgresor.

Michael Alvard, Ph.D.				Tel: (717) 245-1902
Department of Anthropology			FAX: (717) 245-1479
Dickinson College				E-mail: Alvard@Dickinson.edu
Carlisle, PA  17013

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:58>From azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu  Sun Apr 17 15:18:48 1994

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 94 15:18:46 CDT
From: "Asia "I work in mysterious ways" Lerner" <azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: mating

  Lerner, in her critique of Alvard's comments, states:

  >This prediction, of course, rests on the supposition that "fertility" or
  >"reproductive value" are the single overwhelming criteria for the human
  >male, which seems rather doubious.

  The _assertion_ reflects a commonly-held misunderstanding of modern
  Darwinian behavioral science.  Namely, Lerner assumes that proposed
  evolutionarily-established mating strategies (or other behavioral
  strategies/evolutionary psychologies if you like) are/need be consciously
  recognized by their perpetrators in order for them to hold water.

This represents a common misunderstanding on the part of sociobiologists who
are very fond of assuming that people who object to their conclusions
do not know what they are talking about. I do not assume that the evolutionary
strategies need to be concsious. My comment refered to the fact that in order
to reach the conclusion that the first poster reached, you need to assume that
whatever mechanisms are present to ensure that a male chooses "a maximally
fertile female" are not contradicted by other mechanisms that promote other
criteria. Only if such contradictory mechanisms do not exist, or if they
are not sufficiently strong, can you make the prediction that males will
_exibit_ a behaviour that you associate with the evolutionary goal of
"choosing a fertile woman".

  This is
  not what most evolutionists say (or mean) as far as I can tell.  Rather,
  the darwinists argue that observed patterns of behavior indicate that
  actors behave AS IF they were following a strategy.  Thus, at a basic
  level anyhow, we need not worry about one's conscious mate selection
  strategy, rather the question is 'what types of females are most often
  selected by males as mates, those with greater or less reproductive
  potential?'.  Viewed this way, I think the data will clearly demonstrate a
  strong _de facto_ preference for females with greater reprod. potential,
  regardless of the sophistries males may engage to "explain" their
  behavior.

Kindly present that data.

  Likewise, to demonstrate lesser discrimination in picking mates
  for a one-night-stand than for a long-term relationship investigations
  should focus on the characteristics of the mates actually selected, rather
  than on the preferences stated by the involved party.  E.g., a young male
  may walk into a singles bar wanting to spend the night with a elle
  mcpherson look-alike (young and healthy-looking--proximate cues of
  reproductive viability/potential), but more often than not be willing so
  settle for a one-time mate whose appearance diverges dramatically from the
  initial preference.

The evolutionary theory is rather unnecessary to reach this common sense
conclusion. The above is equally true for women, so that nothing save the
sociobiological penchance to represent the sexes as psychological opposites
necessitates "males" rather than "humans" in the above passage.

Asia

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:59>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sun Apr 17 18:17:16 1994

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 19:16:16 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: _The Doctrine of Survivals_
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

There is a book called _The Doctrine of Survivals_ published around
1930 by Hodgen.  I got the impression somehow that this work is a minor
classic in historical anthropology.  Is that so?  Can anyone familiar with
the book tell us more about it and any influence it may have had?

Many thanks.

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:60>From WTUCKER@BOOTES.UNM.EDU  Sun Apr 17 20:03:04 1994

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 1994 19:02 MST
From: WTUCKER@BOOTES.UNM.EDU
Subject: mate choice
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

These references report studies supporting Alvard's contentions
regarding the differences in male and female mate choice.  The Buss
paper reviews the literature and reports new data.  The Kenrick paper
presents results from the studies Alvard discusses.  Buss' recent book,
which I have yet to read, should be the definitive source to date.

Kenrick, D. T., E. K. Sadalla, G. Groth, and M. R. Trost
1990    Evolution, Traits, and the Stages of Human Courtship:
Qualifying the Parental Investment Model.  Journal of Personality 58:
97-116.

Buss, D.M.
1987  Sex Differences in Human Mate Selection Criteria: An
Evolutionary Perspective.  chap. 14 in Sociobiology and Psychology:
Ideas, Issues, and Applications, C. Crawford, M. Smith, and D. Krebs
(eds.).  Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.  pp. 335-351.

W. Troy Tucker
Department of Anthropology
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
Wtucker@bootes.unm.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:61>From azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu  Sun Apr 17 21:12:42 1994

Date: Sun, 17 Apr 94 21:12:40 CDT
From: "Asia "I work in mysterious ways" Lerner" <azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: re:mating

  In response to Asia's comments:

  >This prediction, of course, rests on the supposition that "fertility" or
  >"reproductive value" are the single overwhelming criteria for the human
  >male, which seems rather dubious. Anyhow, did anybody in fact observe
  >that "males looking for a one night stand" prefer older females than those
  >who are "looking for wives?"

  While reproductive value or fertility are not the singular overwhelming
  criteria for human male mate choices, I would argue reproduce considerations,
  in general, are.

I am not sure how to interpret this answer. The second sentence seems to
contradict the first.

  Males, cross culturally, prefer women who are young and
  healthy.

Females also prefer men who are young and healthy - so I am not sure how
much can be deduced from this.

  Both are traits  that correlate with reprodcutive value. Chubbiness,
  for example, is attractive in most traditional societies because it is a
  reliable indicator of health and fertility.

Again, this is a vague statement - does "chubbiness" indeed a reliable
indicator? A woman can be extremely healthy without being "chubbie."
A woman can be chubbie and not healthy.
The minimum of body fat that a women needs in order to be fertile in no
way corresponds to "chubbieness", and of course "chubbieness" itself is
not a well defined state of things.

  Monique Borgerhoff-Mulder
  examined brideprice and female reproductive value with the Kipsigis, a
  traditional group of Kenya.  Kipsigis males must pay livestock to obtain
  their wives. Borgerhoff-Mulder found that the higher the reproductive value
  of the bride, the greater the price she and her family could demand. Other
  factors also effected the price:  pregnancy, a prior birth, lower levels of
  body fat, a physical handicap are all factors that lowered the price.

I'll look her up and comment afterwards.

  I do not know any studies that have examined whether males who seek short-
  term copulations prefer older females. This prediction would be very
  difficult to test because the effect may be hard to detect.

Why? I can easily imagine an experiment - say, you show a radomly selected
group of men a series of photographs of women and ask them to grade the
women according to their desirability as one-time partners. Or observe the
behaviour of men in a bar. One can quarell with both of those experiments,
to be sure, but I don't see why this is harder to research than any other
issue that deals with mate selection.

  Since short-
  terms matings are often low-cost for males, a male pursuing a short term
  mating strategy loses little by accepting a less than optimal partner.

This contradicts your previous supposition.

Asia

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:62>From Neve@ecol.ucl.ac.be  Mon Apr 18 04:54:34 1994

Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 11:56:39 +0200
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: Neve@ecol.ucl.ac.be
Subject: Two more Schlegels

On  14 Apr 1994 , Kathryn M Rusch <krusch@csd4.csd.uwm.edu> asked
"Who was Schlegel?"

Jonathan Loesberg <JLOESBE@american.edu> gave details on
Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829)

Julian Smith <jsmith@epas.utoronto.ca> gave details on
August Wilhelm von  Schlegel (1767-1845)
Friedrich von Schlegel (1772-1829)
and
Hans Gunter Schlegel ( b.1924)

When looking in "Biographies for Birdwatchers" (by Barbara and Richard
Mearns, published by Academic Press, 1988), I found information on two more
Shlegels, namely Gustaaf Schlegel (1840-1903), and Hermann Schlegel
(1804-1884).

Hermann Schlegel. German ornithologist who lived most of his life in the
Netherlands. Born in Altenburg, Saxony, he studied in Vienna, joined the
staff of the Leyden Museum in 1825 and was director from 1860 until his
death. He made a great contribution to ornithology, his most important
works dealing with the Dutch overseas possessions.

Gustaaf Schlegel, son of Hermann,  was an eminent sinologist who spent 18
years in China. He was a friend of Robert Swinhoe. Having learned Chinese
from the age of 9, Gustaaf Schlegel sailed to China in October 1857. After
a few months in Macao, he moved to Amoy where he spent the next three
years. There he devoted much of his spare time studying the Chinese secret
societies, and after he published the results of his research in 1861 the
Dutch and the British authorities benefited greatly from his work. After
Amoy he spent a year in Canton to study the local dialect. He then worked
in Jakarta for 10 years.
In 1869, for a dissertation on the customs and pastimes of the Chinese, he
earned the title of Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Jena.
Later he was given the chair  of the Chinese Languages - created specially
for him - at the University of Leyden, where he taught for the rest of his
life. He was the author of 256 publications related to the Chinese and
their dialects.

The choice then widens...
===========================================================
Gabriel NEVE                                  o   o
Unite d'Ecologie et de Biogeographie           \ /
Universite Catholique de Louvain           ***  Y  ***
Croix du Sud 5                            *   * I *   *
B-348 Louvain-la-Neuve                    *    *I*    *
Belgium                                   *    *I*    *
                                          *   * I *   *
EMAIL: NEVE@ECOL.UCL.AC.BE                 ***  I  ***
Fax  : +32/10/473490
Tel  : +32/10/473495
"The death of the butterfly is the one drawback to an
entomological career"
 - Margaret E. Fountaine (1892)
===========================================================

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:63>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Mon Apr 18 09:27:47 1994

Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 09:27:47 -0500
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, langdon@gandlf.uindy.edu
Subject: Re: mating

> This prediction, of course, rests on the supposition that "fertility" or
> "reproductive value" are the single overwhelming criteria for the human
> male, which seems rather doubious. Anyhow, did anybody in fact observe
> that "males looking for a one night stand" prefer older females than those
> who are "looking for wives?"

Very dubious. What other factors would consistently skew this prediction
concerning age and maturity? I can think of several, including males who are
not certain (or not honest about) which strategy they are playing. Then there
are males who are not playing a reproductive strategy at all-- just out for
pleasure. I personally think this explains far more sexual activity than
reproductive strategy does; but since it is not evolved, adaptationists are
blind to it.

> In this context it is not contrary that a male chimp  rejects an adolescent
> female's solicitation.  While she may be higher reproductive value,
> adolescents are less fertile compared to a mature and tested female.

This was my point.

> Chimps, however, exibit harem behaviour, not "one night stand" behaviour.

Your statement contradicts received wisdom. Are you referring to the
recruitment of females into a chimp band or to consortships? Chimp males are
consistently described as competitive and promiscuous within the band, seeking
sex only from estrus females. Consortships are alternative strategies, but
still not harem behavior.

Regards, John

JOHN H. LANGDON                email   LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY          FAX  (317) 788-3569
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS     PHONE (317) 788-3447
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:64>From krusch@csd4.csd.uwm.edu  Mon Apr 18 11:34:33 1994

From: Kathryn M Rusch <krusch@csd4.csd.uwm.edu>
Subject: Re: Schlegel
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 11:34:27 -0500 (CDT)

Thanks to all for the Shlegel-info.  As a new mom, I hope you don't mind a
collective thank you.  I would reply individually, but I'm usually typing
with one finger while holding a baby.  It's an evolutionary adaptation, but
my mom used to do it at a typewriter instead of a computer.  And my
grandmother (UW-Madison-1918!) could hold a baby while taking detailed notes
on English literature.  She was the most adept.  Thanks again to all.

Katie Rusch
krusch@csd4.csd.uwm.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:65>From fwg1@cornell.edu  Mon Apr 18 12:26:26 1994

Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 13:26:18 -0400
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: fwg1@cornell.edu (Frederic W. Gleach)
Subject: Re: _The Doctrine of Survivals_

Bob O'Hara asked about _The doctrine of survivals_.  The full citation is:

Hodgen, Margaret Trabue.  _The doctrine of survivals, a chapter in the
history of scientific method in the study of man_.  London: Allenson, 1936.

I have not read this work, but I regularly use her later work, _Early
anthropology in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries_, in several of my
classes, in which she has the following paragraph referenced to _The
doctrine . . . _:

"It was to refute Archbishop Whately and other degenerationists that Sir
Edward Burnett Tylor wrote his _Primitive culture_ (1871), reconsidered the
problem of similarities, and revived, in his doctrine of survivals, the
earlier concept of "remnants," "remainders," "seeds," "sparks," and
"footprints."  For these and other services he has been called the Father
of Anthropology." [Hodgen 1964:381-82]

Despite the title of this later book, she discusses in it issues in
anthropology (broadly defined) well into the nineteenth century, although
emphasizing the sixteenth and seventeenth, and many darwinists would
probably find it interesting.  Some of my colleagues who did their graduate
work in the 60s remember her earlier works being taught, but I've been able
to collect no details to date.  This may give a start, at least.
        Fred

*****************************************************************************
                        Frederic W. Gleach   (fwg1@cornell.edu)
                        Anthropology Department, Cornell University
                                        (607) 255-6779

I long ago decided that anything that could be finished in my lifetime was
necessarily too small an affair to engross my full interest.  --Ernest
Dewitt Burton
*****************************************************************************

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:66>From azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu  Mon Apr 18 12:50:27 1994

Date: Mon, 18 Apr 94 12:50:24 CDT
From: "Asia "I work in mysterious ways" Lerner" <azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: mating

John H. Langdon wrote:

  > This prediction, of course, rests on the supposition that "fertility" or
  > "reproductive value" are the single overwhelming criteria for the human
  > male, which seems rather doubious. Anyhow, did anybody in fact observe
  > that "males looking for a one night stand" prefer older females than those
  > who are "looking for wives?"

  Very dubious.

Yep.

  What other factors would consistently skew this prediction
  concerning age and maturity?

Personal tastes? In any case, I simply see no reason to believe that mate
selection is as finely psychologically tuned to the dynamics of "maximum
fertilization efficiency" as is sociobiologically supposed. In addition, I
would think that it would be quite difficult to imagine the existance of
two complitly disparate "attractiveness" mechanisms in humans, one of which
kicks in only in "one night" situations, while the other is effective for
long-term strategies. With the exception, of course, of the obvious relaxation
of selection criteria whatever they might be in case of short engagements,
and the fact that the perceptaion of easy availability becomes in itself
attractive. But appart from that, I would greatly doubt that if X is fond
of mature looking members of the opposite sex in long term relationships,
that he would not use the same criteria, but on an attenuated leveel, for
short-term selection.

  I can think of several, including males who are not
  certain (or not honest about) which strategy they are playing.

If you talking about a possibility of designing an experiment, than it does
not have to depend on self-report.

  Then there are
  males who are not playing a reproductive strategy at all-- just out for
  pleasure.

????? This is a mix up in levels - everybody is out for pleasure, of one
kind or another, the question is whether the pleasure-reward mechanism is
orchestrated, presumably by NS, in a way that it evokes a "maximum reproductive
efficiency" behaviour.

  I personally think this explains far more sexual activity than
  reproductive strategy does; but since it is not evolved, adaptationists are
  blind to it.

See above.

  > Chimps, however, exibit harem behaviour, not "one night stand" behaviour.

  Your statement contradicts received wisdom.

Hmmm. Let me check my sources again on this point.

Asia

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:67>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Mon Apr 18 16:04:34 1994

Date: Mon, 18 Apr 1994 16:04:34 -0500
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: mating

Responding to Asia:

[me:]> Then there are
> 	males who are not playing a reproductive strategy at all-- just out for
> 	pleasure.

[Asia:]>  This is a mix up in levels - everybody is out for pleasure, of one
> kind or another, the question is whether the pleasure-reward mechanism is
> orchestrated, presumably by NS, in a way that it evokes a "maximum
> reproductive efficiency" behaviour.

I assume that pleasure evolved long ago as a positive feedback for
fitness-enhancing behavior, such as copulation. [How long ago? Certainly at
least early vertebrate ancestry.] I assume you assume this too. Pleasure has
now taken on a life of its own, so to speak. What happens when an individual
finds a way to satisfy the pleasure program than circumvents normal
reproduction?

It would not necessarily be maladaptive, but it is likely to be non-adaptive.
Take an easy example, male masturbation. Several individuals (e.g., Smith;
Baker & Bellis) have interpreted this as adaptive in ridding the male
reproductive tract of old and less viable sperm and the like. Could it not be
equally interpreted as a short cut to the pleasure center? It may not be as
gratifying as the real thing, but it is simpler and safer. It is not even very
expensive if the male isn't copulating but the testes are generating sperm
anyway. Which explanation is more parsimonious?

Apply this to non-conceptive sex in bonobos. Female chimps can offer pleasure
to the males in return for temporary rise in status, social reassurance, food,
or what-have-you. We suppose the males don't know whether they are being turned
on by sex or by reproduction, and I suppose it does not matter.

Apply this to promiscuous human sex-- prostitution, adulterous flings,
one-night-stands, etc. Yes these are driven by pleasure and may result in
offspring; thus the adaptive value of the pleasure mechanism is confirmed. The
important point, however, is that if we recognize pleasure as a "common
currency" (as one writer put it) for a wide variety of actions, then it becomes
fruitless to perform an adaptive analysis of each of those actions as though
they evolved independently. If one or more of the behaviors appears to be
non-adaptive or worse, we don't need to seek a just-so-story to explain it. On
the basis of parsimony, I think it is better to describe much of human
sexuality as merely pleasure-seeking rather than a reproductive strategy.

JOHN H. LANGDON                email   LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY          FAX  (317) 788-3569
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS     PHONE (317) 788-3447
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:68>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Mon Apr 18 23:13:20 1994

Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 00:13:07 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Botanical systematics in Australia (fwd from TAXACOM)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Here's an announcement of an upcoming conference on botanical
systematics and the history of natural history in Australia that
may be of interest to some Darwin-L members.

Bob O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)

--begin forwarded message---------------

Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 12:41:56 +1000
From: TIM ENTWISLE <U6066923@UCSVC.UCS.UNIMELB.EDU.AU>
Subject: Systematic Botany and History Conference

___________________________________________________________________________

                        PRELIMINARY NOTICE

 ------------------1996 COMMEMORATIVE CONFERENCE--------------------------
 -----------------Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne------------------------

1996 is a significant year in the history of the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Melbourne. It marks the 150th anniversary of the foundation of the Gardens,
and the 100th anniversary of the death of Australia's greatest nineteenth
century scientist, Baron Ferdinand von Mueller.

As part of a year-long program of events the Royal Botanic Gardens,
Melbourne will host a Conference celebrating the contribution and influence
of Ferdinand von Mueller in Australian Science, and the future directions
of Australian botanical systematic studies.

The conference will include two parts:

1. THE SCIENTIFIC SAVANT IN NINETEENTH CENTURY AUSTRALIA: A CELEBRATION
OF THE LIFE, TIMES AND LEGACY OF FERDINAND VON MUELLER
22-24 September

Proposed Session Topic: Australia/overseas scientific links; Intercolonial
relations in science; The scientific botanic garden; Scientific explorations
in Australia; Darwinism in Australia; Philosophies of nature; Amateurs and
professionals in Australian science and government Science; Scientific
education.

2. BEYOND THE FLORAS
26-28 September

Proposed Session Topics:

The Future of Taxonomy
        Storage and use of taxonomic data
        Herbaria and living collections in the twenty-first century
        Current state of knowledge in Australian plant groups
Techniques and Developments of Importance to Systematic Botany
        Higher classifications and relationships
        Issues in nomenclature
        Sources of taxonomic data
Applications of Taxonomic Information
        Biogeography
        Ecology
        Conservation
        Industry - e.g. pharmaceuticals, agriculture, horticulture

FURTHER INFORMATION:    Dr Tim Entwisle (Convener)
                        1996 Commemorative Conference Committee
                        Royal Botanic Gardens
                        Birdwood Ave
                        South Yarra Vic. 3141
                        AUSTRALIA

                        Ph: +61-3-655 2300
                        FAX: +61-3-655 2350
                        Email: Entwisle@botany.unimelb.edu.au

________________________________________________________________

--end forwarded message-----------------

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:69>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Tue Apr 19 02:19:01 1994

Date: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 03:18:51 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: April 19 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

APRIL 19 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1882: CHARLES ROBERT DARWIN, the most celebrated naturalist of his age, dies
at Down House, his home, in Kent, England.  He will be buried in Westminster
Abbey, "a few feet from the grave of Sir Isaac Newton".  The son of a medical
doctor, Darwin contributed to almost every department of natural history in
many papers and in more than twenty books.  His most influential work, _On the
Origin of Species_ (London, 1859), explained the diversity and adaptation of
living things through the processes of descent and natural selection, and
brought systematics into the fold of the historical sciences: "The affinities
of all the beings of the same class have sometimes been represented by a great
tree.  I believe this simile largely speaks the truth.  The green and budding
twigs may represent existing species; and those produced during each former
year may represent the long succession of extinct species.  At each period of
growth all the growing twigs have tried to branch out on all sides, and to
overtop and kill the surrounding twigs and branches, in the same manner as
species and groups of species have tried to overmaster other species in the
great battle for life.  The limbs divided into great branches, and these into
lesser and lesser branches, were themselves once, when the tree was small,
budding twigs; and this connexion of the former and present buds by ramifying
branches may well represent the classification of all extinct and living
species in groups subordinate to groups.  Of the many twigs which flourished
when the tree was a mere bush, only two or three, now grown into great
branches, yet survive and bear all the other branches; so with the species
which lived during long-past geological periods, very few now have living and
modified descendants.  From the first growth of the tree, many a limb and
branch has decayed and dropped off; and these lost branches of various sizes
may represent those whole orders, families, and genera which have now no
living representatives, and which are known to us only from having been
found in a fossil state.  As we here and there see a thin straggling branch
springing from a fork low down in a tree, and which by some chance has been
favoured and is still alive in its summit, so we occasionally see an animal
like the Ornithorhynchus or Lepidosiren, which in some small degree connects
by its affinities two large branches of life, and which has apparently been
saved from fatal competition by having inhabited a protected station.  As
buds give rise by growth to fresh buds, and these, if vigorous, branch out
and overtop on all sides many a feebler branch, so by generation I believe it
has been with the great Tree of Life, which fills with its dead and broken
branches the crust of the earth, and covers the surface with its ever
branching and beautiful ramifications."

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.
For more information about Darwin-L send the two-word message INFO DARWIN-L to
listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (152.13.44.19).

_______________________________________________________________________________

<8:70>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Wed Apr 20 20:20:53 1994

Date: Wed, 20 Apr 1994 21:20:46 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: New list on historical archaeology (fwd from MUSEUM-L)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

An announcement of a new discussion group on historical archaeology that
may be of interest to some Darwin-L members.

Bob O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)

--begin forwarded message---------------

        **************ANNOUNCING A NEW DISCUSSION GROUP*********
                  ***** HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY ****

Historical archaeology (a field largely devoted to the archaeology of
European expansion, and the archaeology of recent periods) is a developing
discipline in several parts of the world. HISTARCH is designed to facilitate
communication between people interested in such topics as New World Colonial
archaeology, material culture studies, military sites archaeology, industrial
archaeology, and archaeological method and theory. We hope that contributors
will include both terrestrial and underwater researchers. We also encourage
contributions by specialists and students in related fields such as history,
ethnohistory, historical architecture, maritime studies, and art history. We
hope that users will find HISTARCH a convenient place to post announcements,
calls for papers, and reviews of current literature.

To subscribe to HISTARCH, send the following command to LISTSERV@ASUACAD or
LISTSERV@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU in the BODY of e-mail:

            SUBSCRIBE HISTARCH Your-first-name Your-last-name

For example SUBSCRIBE HISTARCH Hugo O'Connor

Owners: Anita Cohen-Williams (IACAGC@ASUACAD or IACAGC@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU)
        Jack S. Williams (ATJSW@ASUACAD or ATJSW@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU)

Anita Cohen-Williams; Reference Services; Hayden Library
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ  85287-1006
PHONE: (602) 965-4579              FAX: (602) 965-9169
BITNET: IACAGC@ASUACAD    INTERNET: IACAGC@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

--end forwarded message-----------------

_______________________________________________________________________________
Darwin-L Message Log 8 -- April 1994: 31-70                                 End

© RJO 1995–2018