Darwin-L Message Log 9: 141–175 — May 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 May 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 9: 141-175 -- MAY 1994 ------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:141>From email@example.com Tue May 10 01:05:46 1994 Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 16:03:30 +1000 From: John Wilkins <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: eumemics, history of historical sciences To: email@example.com The term 'meme' as a cultural analogue to 'gene' is of course Richard Dawkins'. As I understand it, it refers to a cultural artefact or practice that is, in Toulmin's phrase, 'a transmit', and which undergoes selective and other evolutionary change *independently of* gene frequencies and the biological like. 'Eumemics', by analogy, refers therefore to intentional biassing of the transmission process to produce a desired outcome. In other fields it is known as 'social engineering' or censorship or political education. I hope this is useful John Wilkins - Manager, Publishing, Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton, Victoria 3168 [Melbourne] Australia Internet: firstname.lastname@example.org Tel: (+613) 905 6009; fax: 905 6029 ====Monash neither knows, nor approves, of what I say==== _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:142>From GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU Tue May 10 08:35:04 1994 Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 08:35:18 -0600 (CST) From: GGALE@VAX1.UMKC.EDU Subject: Time in 'parallel' universes To: email@example.com Peter Junger asks an interesting question: >What earthly meaning can "at the same time" have in two different universes?< Of course it can't have an "earthly" meaning :-), but it might be given SOME sort of meaning (and, indeed, has been so given). Leibniz' worlds are parallel in the sense of possibility. Counterpart periods in the evolution of individual worlds are usually called "junctures", and may be compared across arbitrarily large numbers of separate and distinct worldlines using fairly straightforward logical analyses. Universes parallel in quantum 'spaces', according to Mukhanov, generate interferance (both constructive and destructive). It is possible that some inter-universe counting (= timing) measure could be developed; indeed, it is plausible that some method will be imagined. Of course these sorts of cases are wildly, extravagantly speculative. But that's what theoretical physicists and philosophers are paid to do, wildly and extravagantly speculate. Many of these issues are discussed in "Cosmological Fecundity: Theories of Multiple Universes", _Physical Cosmology and Philosophy_, J. Leslie (ed) (1990, Macmillan) and "Multiple Universes" in _Ency. of Cosmology_, N. Heatherington (ed) (1990, Garland). George firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:143>From email@example.com Tue May 10 08:52:15 1994 Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 08:18:37 -0500 From: firstname.lastname@example.org To: "Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu"@WUGATE.wustl.edu Subject: Hx cladisitcs re: plant syst. Jeremy Creighton Ahouse recently inquired (9 May) about the apparent absence of contributions to cladistic theory by plant systematists, based on an article of Robin Craw. I have not read Craw's article, but if, upon reading the article, one must conclude that plant systematists have contributed little or nothing to cladistic theory, I must suggest that such is not the case. Researchers whose study focuses primarily on the evolutionary relation- ships of plants (plant systematists, sensu lato) have added and continue to add to the cladistic perspective, from completely new ideas, to refinements of existing ideas, to the critiquing of ideas, and to the question of what are the limitations of the cladistic method. Many plant systematists probably would prefer to think of themselves as evolutionary biologists who happen to study plants. Maybe the historical tendency to label scientists as botanists (including plant systematists) or non-botanists (as evidenced in the departmental organization of many universities, i.e., Botany Dept., Zoology Dept., etc.) is outdated, but I digress. Anyway, here is a very incomplete sampling of recent contributions to cladistics from the pens of "plant systematists" (with the exceptions of A. Larson and K. de Quieroz, whose primary reserach interests are not plants). In listing these, I do not necessarily agree with every- thing contained therein, and I apologize to the substantial number of plant systematists who have recently contributed something to the cladistic literature for not including YOUR work. Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. The Bryologist 88: 172-181. de Quieroz, K., M. J. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics 4: 317-338. Baum, D. A., A. Larson. 1991. Adaptation reviewed: a phylogenetic methodology for study character macroevolution. Syst. Zool. 40: 1-18. Rieseberg, L. H., D. E. Soltis. 1991. Phylogenetic consequences of cytoplasmic gene flow in plants. Evol. Trends in Plants 5: 65-84. Stevens, P. F. 1991. Character states, morphological variation, and phylogenetic analysis: a review. Syst. Bot. 16: 553-583. Davis, J. I., K. C. Nixon. 1992. Populations, genetic variation, and the delimitation of phylogenetic species. Syst. Biol. 41: 421-435. Davis, J. I. 1993. Character removal as a means for assessing stability of clades. Cladistics 9: 201-210. Lavin, M., M. Luckow. 1993. Origins and relationships of tropical North America in the context of the boreotropics hypothesis. Amer. J. Botany 80: 1-14. Rieseberg, L. H., L. Brouillet. 1994. Are many species paraphyletic? Taxon 43: 21-32. Obviously, workers from many fields have contributed to cladistic reasoning; my selected sampling of writings of "plant systematists" is of course in no way meant to ignore the important contributions of others. It is also important to recognize that contributions have come from all parts of the world, although the above citations have a decidedly North American bias (unintentional). Hasta luego for now, Neil Snow Ph.D. candidate, Washington University (St. Louis, Missouri) Snow@wustlb.wustl.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:144>From email@example.com Tue May 10 10:47:30 1994 Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 11:50:01 -0400 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: email@example.com (Jeremy Creighton Ahouse) Subject: Re: Hx cladisitcs re: plant syst. Neil, Thanks for the list of current (botanical) adherents and definers of cladistics. My question about the importance of plant sytematics was motivated by the same thing that gives rise to your list. Certainly there is lots of contemporary work. But to what extent are the "roots" of cladistics in plant systematics? (I am truly sorry for the pun... ouch) - Jeremy _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:145>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue May 10 11:49:54 1994 Date: Tue, 10 May 94 12:49:49 -0400 From: email@example.com To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Evolut'n Serial/Parallel Language/Thought Nick Gessler raises the question of whether our serial thought and language are indicative of a limitation of the "add-on strategy of natural selection" such that it cannot create parallel mechanisms or if there is rather a geniune advantage to a serial process. One idea about this is from Baars' theory of consciousness, where he proposes that consciousness functions as a sort of "global news agency" and evolved to permit specialized cognitive modules to share a single important message in the absence of specific inter-module connections. But why a SINGLE important message? Since the "message posting" modules have no way of knowing which other, if any, modules are interested in the message, having parallel "global workspaces" would not be advantageous or would require further "choosing" mechanisms (if not all modules were connected to each workspace, then the poster would need information about the likely "readers"; if all modules were connected to each workspace, then each module would need a mechanism for choosing which workspace to pay attention to next). Then there's the notion (Wm. Calvin et al.) that spoken language developed on a substrate of cortex specialized for the precise motor control of sequential acts (i.e. throwing rocks at Bambi). And also the unitary nature of the human voice---other than Tuvan throat singing and other monkish harmonic musical feats, speech is constrained to be the modulation of a single tone generator. Well, since this intriguing question has flushed me out of my lurker's blind, I should mention that I'm a recent (though by no means college-aged!) Masters graduate of the Cognitive & Neural Systems Dept. at Boston University currently working in the computer-assisted training field. I am interested in linguistics, evolution, and the history of scientific thought and have been quietly enjoying DARWIN-L for some time. Mark Turnbull email@example.com or firstname.lastname@example.org Baars, Bernard J.. A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge [England]; New York : Cambridge University Press, 1988. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:146>From email@example.com.Hawaii.Edu Tue May 10 12:57:33 1994 Date: Tue, 10 May 94 7:57:48 HST From: Ron Amundson <firstname.lastname@example.org.Hawaii.Edu> To: email@example.com Subject: Gale and job descriptions quoth George Gale: >Of course these sorts of cases are wildly, extravagantly speculative. But >that's what theoretical physicists and philosophers are paid to do, wildly >and extravagantly speculate. Where does one apply for a job like this? Ron Amundson Professor of Plodding Philosophy U. of Hawaii at Hilo _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:147>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue May 10 13:36:11 1994 Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 13:15:00 -0500 From: email@example.com To: "Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu"@WUGATE.wustl.edu Subject: Hx cladistics/plant syst. Jeremy: I would recommend the following article regarding the roots of cladisitic thinking among scientists who study plants: Donoghue, M. J., J. W. Kadereit. 1992. Walter Zimmerman and the growth of phylogenetic theory. Syst. Biol. 41: 74-85. It would be a good start on the topic. Thinking aloud here a bit... it seems that frequently when we try to successively approximate an origin (in this case the origin of cladistic thinking), the more elusive the origin becomes. Cladistic thinking has its roots in general evolutionary theory, which of course includes a mmyriad of topics governing pattern and process. In a similar vein, the harder we try to nail down concepts like gene, character, homology, species, etc., the harder it is to do so. This is in part because one can approach (for example) pattern and process from different angles (e.g., as a developmental biologist, a population geneticist, etc.) Pinning down the origins of cladistic thinking may prove to be similarly elusive, at least that is my hunch. Or, in cladistic lingo, maybe the origins of cladistic thinking are polyphyletic. I hope this reference helps. Hasta luego, Neil Snow@wustlb.wustl.edu _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:148>From BENEDICT@VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU Tue May 10 15:21:58 1994 Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 16:20:34 -0500 (EST) From: BENEDICT@VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU Subject: Re: Hx cladisitcs re: plant syst. To: firstname.lastname@example.org And of course Dr. Warren H. Wagner, for whom the Wagner methods are named, is a systematic botanist as well... Paul DeBenedictis SUNY Health Science Center at Syracuse _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:149>From email@example.com Wed May 11 05:33:47 1994 Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 06:34:08 -0400 (EDT) From: John E Limber <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: Evolut'n Serial/Parallel Language/Though To: email@example.com Gessler asks some questions that I, too, have wondered about. My own conjecture (Limber, 1982;1990) to the first part is that the serial nature of natural language results from the constraints imposed by vocal communication; syntax is essentially an interface between parallel/hierarchical cognitive processes and the linear nature of phonology. As this linguistic artifact became embedded into the nervous system via the "Baldwin effect", linearity had a secondary effect on consciousness and attention. This has been discussed extensively by Jaynes (1990) and Dennett(1991). Whether this could have gone another way calls for an even more advanced level of science fiction. We are stuck with both primary and secondary effects of vocal communication except for non-trivial artifacts like simulation and multivariate analyses. John Limber, Psychology, University of New Hampshire References Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston: Little, Brown & Company. Jaynes, J. (1990). Verbal hallucinations and preconscious mentality. In M. Spitzer & B. H. Maher (Eds.), Philosophy and Psychopathology (pp. 157-170). New York: Springer Verlag. Jaynes, J. (1990). The origin of consciousness in the breakdown of the bicameral mind (Second ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Limber, J. (1982). What can chimps tell us about the origins of language. In S. Kuczaj (Eds.), Language Development: Volume 2 (pp. 429-446). Hillsdale, NJ: L. E. Erlbaum. Limber, J. (1990). Language Evolved--So What's New? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 13, 742-743. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:150>From firstname.lastname@example.org Wed May 11 06:38:00 1994 From: email@example.com (Mary P Winsor) Subject: botanists on pre-clad To: firstname.lastname@example.org (bulletin board) Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 07:38:56 -0400 (EDT) As to contributions to the evolution of cladistics coming from botanists, I have no crisp formula, but as to the pre-cladistic years: as part of a project centered on the New Systematics (ed. Julian Huxley 1940) I looked into archives that showed a large committee of leading bot., zool., paleont in England 1938-9, led by J.S.L. Gilmour. With very few exceptions, the zoologists believed the function of taxonomy was to express phylogenetic relations, and the botanists believed taxonomy should be a science of resemblances leaving evolutionary questions for separate consideration. Gilmour did not so much invent as reflect this proto-phenetic leaning among botanists. I don't know if this split was peculiar to England or if North America or the European continent had a similar situation. Polly Winsor email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:151>From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu May 12 02:28:27 1994 Date: Thu, 12 May 94 17:28:47 EST From: email@example.com (Bob Makinson) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Evolut'n Serial/Parallel Language/Thought John Limber wrote: <<My own conjecture (Limber, 1982;1990) ... is that the serial nature of natural language results from the constraints imposed by vocal communication; syntax is essentially an interface between parallel/hierarchical cognitive processes and the linear nature of phonology.>> I am replying from total ignorance (I am a botanist), but this seems to make sense to me. I wonder however if there is a begged question in the discussion so far, i.e. the working assumption that the dominant vocal element is all there is to language. Are there not in actuality more-or-less developed parallel elements in interpersonal communication via non-vocal cues (gestures certainly, but also the cues of dress, posture, visual and vocal puns, third-party reactions, etc., that establish common or divergent assumptions and meanings between the communicants? Are tone and accent a serial element of vocal language, or parallel to the content, or are they altogether peripheral to this discussion? Non-verbal parallel elements, and their comprehensibility, obviously vary widely according to context. An almost indigestably rich example that comes to mind is Greenaway's recent film <<Prospero's Books>>. In short, in trying to follow this discussion, I am unclear where <<language>> stops. Bob Makinson email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:152>From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu May 12 03:52:21 1994 To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Evolut'n Serial/Parallel Language/Thought Date: Thu, 12 May 94 04:52:37 -0400 From: Sally Thomason <firstname.lastname@example.org> Bob Makinson asks about the nonverbal elements of human communication and their possible relevance to the question about the linearity of human language, and mentions things like cues of dress, posture, etc. Those things are certainly relevant to the question, but that's not all. There are quasi-linguistic nonverbal aspects of human communication, too, like head nods and finger signs and the like. But much more significantly, there are also NONvocal human languages -- namely, the sign languages of Deaf communities around the world. The study of American Sign Language, in particular, has been booming in linguistics in the last couple of decades, and the results challenge some of [what had seemed to be] the most obvious basics of human language. For purposes of this discussion, probably the most striking point is that ASL phonology may not be exclusively linear. That is: ASL *has* phonology, and it appears to be structured in ways that closely parallel the structures of vocal-language phonological systems, but the use of hand movements and space rather than the vocal mechanism eliminates built-in linearity. Linearity remains, but at least some specialists argue that there are *both* linear *and* simultaneous features in the system. ASL is not English, and it is not a manual "translation" of English. It's also not an invention; it's a natural human language (unlike, say, Esperanto), with native "speakers", and like any other language it undergoes changes, has dialect variation, and so forth. Not all native signers are deaf, either: hearing children of deaf parents sometimes have ASL as their first language. Here are a couple of recent references to work on ASL phonology: Wendy Sandler. 1989. PHONOLOGICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE SIGN. Dordrecht: Foris. (See the review article of this book by Diane Brentari in LANGUAGE 68:359-374, 1992.] Geoffrey R. Coulter, ed. 1992. PHONETICS AND PHONOLOGY: CURRENT ISSUES IN ASL PHONOLOGY 3. San Diego: Academic Press. [There's a review of this book by Linda Uyechi forthcoming in the June 1994 issue of LANGUAGE.] Sally Thomason email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:153>From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu May 12 10:57:07 1994 Date: Thu, 12 May 94 11:57:27 EDT From: email@example.com (R. Hilliard) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Evolution Serial/Parallel Language/Thought Gessler raises a fascinating topic. Here are a few musings inspired by the previous postings. We need to be clear what we mean by 'serial' -- what are we committing to when we use the term to describe the phenomenon? Do we mean linear (single dimensional), sequential (ordered), flat, temporal? Is the seriality of language a deep property of language or an accidental property of the surface? As Limber suggests phonology seems a pretty flat interface to a rich conceptual system. And Thomason reminds us that even the phonology of sign languages is surprisingly (though not totally) serial. Makinson rightly asks whether the signal is REALLY LINEAR when one considers tone, stress, etc. Some current theories (theories I don't keep up with!) suggest a highly non-linear, multi-dimensional character to phonological structure even at this 'superficial' level. I think what is left is temporality, which certainly looks like linearity in most cases; language is a rich, multi-hierarchical system with temporal constraints. Perhaps this temporality is local to whatever systems we use to parse language and perhaps music, too -- another phenomena that is richly dimensioned but temporally situated. What are the implications of 'seriality' (with above caveats) for other aspects of mind? Certainly awareness is temporally situated. But, once one moves beyond 'natural' systems like language and music, our constructed semiotic systems appear to quickly depart from seriality: e.g., in mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology models are frequently diagrammatic (i.e., non-linear, non-serial, non-flat) and can support sophisticated usage (e.g., reasoning with them). On the other hand, in software engineering/computer science for example, it's still a struggle to represent and reason about complex multi-threaded (e.g., parallel) systems -- so temporality seems close to the root of the problem. -- Rich Hilliard email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:154>From firstname.lastname@example.org Thu May 12 13:38:14 1994 Date: Thu, 12 May 94 12:38 MDT To: email@example.com From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Sherman Wilcox) Subject: Re: Evolut'n Serial/Parallel Language Limber and Gessler raise interesting questions and issues concerning the serial vs. parallel nature of language. Makinson and Thomason have added valuable information also to expand this discussion. I would just like to point out some issues that cross-cut this questions at various points. (1) As both Makinson and Thomason point out, it seems to me that the characterization of language as serial *versus* parallel is less clear than we might imagine, and depends on a priori conceptions of what "language" is (or, at least, a priori assumptions about how to go about studying language, which then lead us to find evidence in only certain areas of language, which then become the defining characteristics of LANGUAGE). I think, for example, this is what happens in a recent article by Burling (1993), and Barbara King (1993) correctly points out the problem in her comments. (2) Any coordinated neuromuscular activity is likely to be highly serial in its organization (Greenfield 1991). The gestures of speech are no exception, as the scientists at Haskins Labs have demonstrated (Fowler et al. 1980). Doreen Kimura (1993) maintains that the "linguistic" skills common to both speech and signing that are lateralized to the left cerebral hemisphere are really expressions of the same underlying ability to coordinate complex sequences of activity. (3) As Thomason notes, signed languages display a high degree of parallelism in their use of spatial syntax. I think of this as a matter of signal bandwidth. Hockett (1978) called it "dimensionality". It is important to keep in mind, when discussing signed versus spoken languages, that we are not talking about "gestural" versus "auditory" language: this is a mixing of types that is common in the literature. Both signed and spoken languages are *gestural*. One uses gestures that result in a largely acoustic signal, the other in largely optical signals. This leads me to ask: is it language or the acoustic vs. optic signal of transmission that we need to discuss? Was it serial communication that was selected, or a signal type? We must be careful not to conflate language with medium of transmission, and hence confuse *characteristics of one particular signal* with *characteristics of language*. (4) My colleagues and I have proposed a gestural explanation for the origin of language and syntax (Armstrong, Stokoe, & Wilcox 1994a and 1994b) which further bears on issues raised here, especially the claim by Limber that "syntax is essentially an interface between parallel/hierarchical cognitive processes and the linear nature of phonology". In our Current Anthropology article we claim that gesture holds the kernel of syntax, but (though this point is not explicitly made in the article) not in a way which depends on linear phonology. Our thesis, in both the book and the article, is that gesture (including visible gesture and auditory or phonetic gesture -- that is, gestures resulting in either optical or acoustic signals) played a critical role in the development not only of cognition (on this claim, we rely extensively on the work of Gerald Edelman, e.g., 1987) but also of language in the human species. This is not a new claim (many of the commentators of our Current Anthropology article have also written in support of this claim, while others like Lieberman see a more important role for speech). Sherman Wilcox Dept. of Linguistics University of New Mexico Albuquerque, NM 87131 email@example.com References Cited Armstrong, D.F., W.C. Stokoe, & S. Wilcox. 1994a. Signs of the origin of syntax. Current Anthropology, Fall issue (in press). Armstrong, D.F., W.C. Stokoe, & S. Wilcox. 1994b. Gesture and the nature of language. Cambridge University Press (in production). Burling, R. 1993. Primate calls, language, and non verbal communication. Current Anthropology 34: 25-37. Edelman, G.M. 1987. Neural Darwinism: the theory of neuronal group selection. NY: Basic Books. Fowler, C.A., P. Rubin, R.E. Remez, & M. Turvey. 1980. Implications for speech production of a general theory of action. In B. Butterworth (ed.), Language production. London: Academic Press. Greenfield, P.M. 1991. Language, tools and brain: the ontogeny and phylogeny of hierarchically organized sequential behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14: 531-595. Hockett, C.F. In search of Jove's brow. American Speech, 53(4): 243-313. Kimura, D. 1993. Neuromotor mechanisms in human communication. Oxford University Press. King, B.J. 1993. Comment on Burling. Current Anthropology 34: 40-41. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:155>From J.Carr@uts.EDU.AU Fri May 13 01:05:50 1994 From: "John Carr" <J.Carr@uts.EDU.AU> Date: Fri, 13 May 94 16:48:24 EST To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Serial Language [I originally sent this c3 days ago, but have found that it did not enter our our list] On Mon, 9 May 1994 G wrote: > why has natural language evolved an essentially serial >channel of cummunication, either as natural speech, or as sub-vocalized >thought in words? A number of people, including myself, have expressed >difficulty in describing complex, parallel interactions in what is basically >a serial, sentential language structure. 'G' seems to be ignoring the notion that 'evolution' works with whatever it has available:- in the case of natural human language, this means that the development of language is constrained by the nature of the human voice. Given that the voice is essentially a monophonic instrument, it has no option of being able to work with anything other than a serial communicative system, just as a trumpet or any other monophonic musical instrument just cannot make a chord (the speech organ is not an 'organ'!). 'G' comes close to answering his own question by noting the existence of non-verbal (including paralinguistic) features/channels of communication:- these allow communication to be 'symphonic'. That is, many one-note instruments operating simultaneously, and hence allowing of parallel- processing. I am more concerned however that 'G' may be operating from a popular but problematic view of how evolution works. Firstly, there is the attribution to evolution of agentic power, that is, the implication that 'Evolution' is somehow an entity which in itself can do something (and hence could have chosen to adhere to G's design preferences). This may simply be an artifact of human styles of speech, but sometimes people do seem to act as if 'evolution' is virtually a person capable of independent action. The second popular problematic is connected to the first. It is the notion that we have a "Mail-Order Universe", in which, if God does not meet requests anymore, then at least Evolution will. Accordingly, when we can see that one thing is better than another (as G is describing parallel communication as against serial) then Evolution should obviously meet our needs/preferences and begin an adaptation program immediately. Sadly, as we watch the rigors of child-birth, as we see the problems of oldage, and even as we try to come to terms with the fact that our voice can only make one sound at a time, then we come also to realise that Evolution - aloof god/demon that it might be - just continues with whatever works to allow 'it' to continue on. Survival of the fittest is definitely not survival of the most useful or the most whizz-bang!. If in doubt, just ask those who bought Beta-video rather than VHS. [The implication that G makes that thought may be serial rather than parallel is untested and I would contend just untrue - how could we operate our communicative symphony with up to 14 different channels simultaneously signalling unless thought was definitely characterised by co-processing, ie parallel form.] To you in serial form, John Carr Communication Studies University of Technology Sydney Sydney, Australia J.Carr@uts.edu.au _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:156>From email@example.com.Hawaii.Edu Fri May 13 03:40:26 1994 Date: Thu, 12 May 94 22:40:42 HST From: Ron Amundson <firstname.lastname@example.org.Hawaii.Edu> To: email@example.com Subject: "not in our genes" =/=> "didn't evolve" Dear List, Now that some we've burned off the more volatile levels of frenzy regarding the human evolution issue, let me gently comment on Vince Sarich's first post on the issue. I refer not to the more recent one in which he attributed contemporary overindulgence (his view, I take it) in so-called PC (political correctness) to modern society's lack of DC (Darwinian Correctness) <oops ... pretty flamey, that>. I'll address rather the message in which he endorsed the suspicion that Gould and Lewontin did not believe in the evolution of behavior. Bob Richardson and others have commented soundly on Gould and the matter of within- versus between-group variation. Bob also raised the possibility that G∧L would probably be able to accept cultural evolution. I think that the writings of Lewontin (in particular) support a more biological stance than this, though not one which would satisfy those of a strong DC commitment. What follows is my loose interpretation of Lewontin's approach; it is influenced by other readings. I have not attempted to document the ideas I ascribe to Lewontin in his own writings. I happen to agree with most of the points. It's probably more accurate to say that the following are _my_ views, and ones which I think I came to believe largely from reading Lewontin. Yeah, that's it! These are _MY_ ideas -- Lewontin had nothing to do with them (unless they're wrong). Prof. Sarich endorsed the earlier claims that Lewontin rejected the evolution of behavior by the simple citation of the title of a coauthored book, _Not In Our Genes_. This is far from sufficient support for that conclusion. First of all, as has been separately discussed on Darwin-L, the book title supports the "no-evolution-of-behavior" assessment _only_ when we assume a very genocentric version of the "evolution is variation in the gene pool" definition of the term "evolution." (Did we conclude that Dobzhansky 1937 is the source of this definition?) The fact that this conclusion seems (to some) to follow is additional evidence of the poverty of that "definition" of evolution. If we wish to derive "Didn't evolve" from "Not in our genes" (applied to particular behavioral traits) at least two premises are required. 1) Evolution is changes in the gene pool. 2) Any phenotypic trait which can evolve is specifically coded in the genome. As I understand Lewontin's attitude towards behavior and most other phenotypic traits, condition 2 is simply false. The relation between a genotype and a phenotype is not one of blueprint-matching. The _most_ a genotype can ever do is "specify" a range of phenotypic variation together with the environmental conditions under which the various phenotypes will develop. This is more correctly termed a "norm of reaction." I emphasize that this is the _most_ a genotype can do. Russell Gray, in "Death of the gene," (in P. W. Griffiths, ed., Trees of Life) argues that the norm of reaction is itself too crude a description to be accurate. Gray is working within the "developmental systems approach" along with Susan Oyama, Griffiths, and others. Griffiths supplied Darwin-L with a bibliography of the approach some months ago. Nowhere in my reading of Lewontin have I found him to argue that the norm of reaction of human behavior has not or cannot change. What he does argue is: 1) particular behaviors, tendencies (and other phenotypic properties) are not _coded_ in the genome, but are rather possibilities within the norm of reaction of the genome, and 2) the activity (behavior) of humans (and other organisms, including plants) changes the environment of those organisms, and so changes both the conditions under which the present norm of reaction is expressed and the conditions under which natural selection operates, and 3) when biologists specify deterministic "codings" of traits in genes, these specifications typically serve the ideological purpose of legitimizing the privileged status of those presently in power. Now, even if your political scruples (and beliefs in the "objectivity" of science) make you hesitate at 3), conditions 1) and 2) do not support the conclusion that "behavior does not evolve." Consider fingerprints. (Either Gould or Lewontin has used this case; I forget which and where. They cite a good "Just-So- Story" about fingerprints in _Spandrels_, but that's a different issue.) Human fingerprints clearly differ from those of other apes. But the specific pattern of each individual's fingerprint is not "coded" in the genes. Are your fingerprints "in your genes" or not? Your _particular_ fingerprints are surely not "coded"; at best your fingerpads' norm-of-ridge-reaction was "coded". (And "at best" is probably not "in fact.") So should we conclude that fingerprints _did not evolve_? Surely not. But neither should we conclude that your fingerprints are genetically determined, nor that they doom you to a life of crime and degradation. It is superficial to derive "It didn't evolve" from "It's not in the genes." Cheers, Ron Amundson firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:157>From email@example.com Fri May 13 07:54:59 1994 Date: 13 May 1994 08:56:21 U From: "p stevens" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Botanical cladistics To: email@example.com To follow up on Polly Winsor's comments, what I find striking about British botanists 1859-1940 (one could say to about 1980...) is how little their practice changes, and what problems they have with genealogy. J. D. Hooker, for example, was uncertain whether more than a bare majority of taxa (genera and above) had definite limits and an analogy for nature that he used is multidimensional (it is post 1859, and the only one I know of his using). Hooker was interested in ideas of progress and evolution. George Bentham, the other pillar of the botanical establishment there in the middle of the century, clearly stated that evolution meant that all taxa from variety up were equivalent, and that Darwin's work showed that disputes over ranking were thus immaterial. However, he thought that genealogies were largely undetectable and visualised the evolutionary tree from above - branches (genealogy) being unknown. All we see are massings of foliage more or less close to one another. Hence we are back to Linnaeus's comparison of nature to a geographical map (or to Whewell's as a more or less densely wooded landscape). There taxa join one another directly, and Hooker's dubiously distinct taxa find their proper place... In the United States, C. E. Bessey produced a number of "phylogenies" later in his life which are conceptually equivalent to a Linnaean landscape, although Bessey himself did not think so. Bessey focussed on the idea of progress (see his political views?); interestingly, his very first "phylogenies" are quite different from these later ones. German botanists in the late 1800s were more likely to produce diagrams that allowed for extinct ancestors, but there were also clearly interested in ideas of orthogenesis and parallelism. In Switzerland, Alphonse de Candolle basically gave up on the idea of being able to represent relationships, theye were far too complex and multidimensional. An Italian, Delpino, published some "phylogenies" in ca 1868, but these, too, owe much to maps. Paradoxically, in the whole of the 19thC, most botanical trees which have characters on them are best interpreted as representations of -keys-, not genealogical relationships. But I don't know that Zoologists were in that much better condition; certainly, T. H. Huxley and Hooker had quite a lot in common when it comes to higher-level classification. Peter Stevens. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:158>From firstname.lastname@example.org Fri May 13 18:08:36 1994 Date: 13 May 1994 19:08:53 U From: "p stevens" <email@example.com> Subject: Teaching History To: firstname.lastname@example.org About a week ago, a comment was made about the problems of teaching history. Having spent the last term trying to teach genealogies of plants, I have ended up the term rather frustrated. Although I suspect the problems involved in teaching organismic genealogies differ from group to group, and that trying to teach the history of a discipline (or human history) present somewhat different problems, I thought that airing some issues might be of interest. Some problems are: 1. The students are faintly familiar only with a few plants. These are temperate and in some sense the end-points of genealogies; certainly, many of their features are highly derived. In any event, the students don't know very much about them. (When I teach the history of systematics, students either know something about the history of science, or of current systematics). 2. Much of the genealogical framework within flowering plants is either missing, or decidedly problematical. 3. Molecular genealogies are unteachable, other than by rote... 4. Insofar as we have genalogies of plants, they are based on characters. I can teach such genealogies, and illustrate the characters (even if most of the plants in which I can demonstrate the characters are unfamiliar). But -organisms- evolve, and the characters are parts of these organisms. 5. History is not linear; the course is. Possible solutions: For 5. It is not too hard to demonstrate that the linear structure I impose on the course is artificial; I compare genealogies with mobiles, with the branches rotating with respoect to one another; any order in which you discuss the ornaments (groups) is thus at the whim of the teacher (or wind). For 1. Discuss a "representative", i.e. local, member of, say, the pea family first, so that the students have some idea of the context in which the set of character changes about to be discussed occur. For 4. I am toying with the idea (shunted to one side in discussions of the detection of phylogenies) of resurrecting ancestors, and drawing images of them (this will consist both of apomorphies and plesiomorphies, i.e., the unique features that were posessed by the common ancestor of the group + widespread features found in other plants). Then characters can be seen in the context of organisms, and the student can follow from-to sequences. For 2 and 3, perhaps time will solve all. Maybe this is all rather naive, but I would be interested in comments. Peter Stevens (email@example.com) _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:159>From CBLINDERMAN@vax.clarku.edu Sat May 14 09:33:49 1994 Date: Sat, 14 May 1994 10:34 EST From: CBLINDERMAN@vax.clarku.edu Subject: Teaching history backwards To: firstname.lastname@example.org To start with the present and work backwards in teaching history is a procedure T. H. Huxley followed in several of his historical (including paleontological) expeditions. For example, he introduces his 1868 talk "On a Piece of Chalk" [Collected Essays vol. VIII] by imagining a well dug at the feet of his Norwich audience, the well probing Albion chalk beds. "A great chapter of the history of the world is written in the chalk. Few passages in the history of man can be supported by such an overwhelming mass of direct and indirect evidence as that which testifies to the truth of the fragments of the history of the globe, which I hope to enable you to read, with your own eyes, to-night." And then he conducts his audience to Globigerinae _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:160>From email@example.com Sat May 14 21:15:23 1994 From: "Gessler, Nicholas (G) ANTHRO" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: DARWIN - postings <DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu> Subject: serial/parallel language/thought Date: Sat, 14 May 94 19:12:00 PDT Carr seems anxious to read between the lines and suggest that I "may be operating from a popular but problematic view of how evolution works." I don't believe this is the case having taught the subject more times than I care to remember. If I personified evolution, it was to make my post more readable. Neither do I plead guilty to seemingly "ignoring the notion that evolution works with whatever it has available" since I said something to the effect that it was an "add-on" process. Nor do I imply that "thought may be serial rather than parallel," or the reverse which Carr may have intended to write that "thought may be parallel rather than serial." Perhaps I should restate my question. In the evolving (sic) sciences it is generally recognized that natural language and natural thought are severely limited when it comes to describing and predicting the outcome of complex adaptive systems. In augmenting this natural deficiency, we have created computational models. In engineering these systems began with serial communication and processing, but we are finding that computational models have greater predictive power when they are embodied with massively parallel communication and processing. While it is certainly true that technological evolution is different from biological evolution, they share enough similarities to enable us to ask (and maybe answer) the question of how we evolved our present natural human language and cognitive structures. The formal question is how mutation and recombination can produce variation in serial vs. parallel modes of operation, and under what circumstances might their be a fitness advantage or selective disadvantage for each? If there is no way to produce parallel structures through mutation and recombination then selection will have no opportunity to work. But parallel structures are produced. Minsky in his SOCIETY OF MIND argues that thought consists of numerous contesting agents. One thrust in robotics is to populate the robot "brain" with numerous agents with some voting or tournament procedure to decide whose answer to a problem will be expressed by the robot. Is their any neurological evidence for such parallelism? If there is a way to produce parallel structures through mutation and recombination, we must ask why some conferred higher fitness on the organism and who others were selected against. It is certainly valid to ask why certain parallel modes, and certain serial modes, were either selected out or retained by the fitness they conferred. As Carr states, there is no need to suppose that a given functionality, like the ability to understand complex systems through parallel communication and cognitive modalities, would even confer a fitness advantage on its possessor. It seems that scientific or academic accomplishment actually results in a lower net reproductive success. But although there is no need to suppose this would happen, there is equally no necessity to dismiss the consideration of how selection may operate on such options. I did mention both linguistic and para-linguistic channels of communication, and Carr apparently agrees that this does constitute some sort of parallelism. That would imply that there is some selective disadvantage to non-parallelism. If so, would there not be a selective disadvantage to non-parallelism in natural language? Carr asserts that natural language is constrained by the human voice which "has no option of being able to work with anything other than a serial communicative system." Is there evidence to support this? A serial communication channel can dump information into a parallel processor -- the efficiency of that link depends upon the relative speeds of the two. Even if the phonetic structure is serial, must the grammatical structure of a natural language follow suit? But even the phonetics of language have parallel structures or channels such as those defined by sounds which are voiced/unvoiced. I don't think the question, or its answer, is as simple as it may first appear. Why ask it? For some of us interested in the fields of robotics, artificial life, and evolutionary biology, its answer directly bears on scientific epistemology and the role of computational models as representations of the external world. I don't have an answer, but I do appreciate hearing the discussions. If this message had been parallel processed, it would have been written and delivered an hour ago. ;-) Cheers, Nick Gessler UCLA Anthropology Artificial Life Group _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:161>From email@example.com Sun May 15 07:01:37 1994 Date: Sun, 15 May 1994 08:02:06 -0400 From: ad201@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Phillipson) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Serial/parallel language/thought Nick Gessler <email@example.com> of UCLA Anthropology Artificial Life Group contributed 14 May 94 > Perhaps I should restate my question. > >In the evolving (sic) sciences it is generally recognized that natural >language and natural thought are severely limited when it comes to >describing and predicting the outcome of complex adaptive systems. >In augmenting this natural deficiency, we have created computational >models. In engineering these systems began with serial communication >and processing, but we are finding that computational models have >greater predictive power when they are embodied with massively >parallel communication and processing. While it is certainly true >that technological evolution is different from biological evolution, >they share enough similarities to enable us to ask (and maybe answer) >the question of how we evolved our present natural human language and >cognitive structures. The formal question is how mutation and >recombination can produce variation in serial vs. parallel modes of >operation, and under what circumstances might their be a fitness >advantage or selective disadvantage for each? Reformulated (and please correct any errors below) it seems to me we (1) postulate (or more) evolution in at least four domains: -- biological species: source data millions of years -- intellectual disciplines: source data 300 years or 2500? -- technology: source data 1000 years or 10000? -- language: source data 2500 years + guesswork. (2) We postulate that these domains are similar enough to be comparable with respect to the object of our study. (3) Our object of study is "variation in serial vs. parallel modes of operation, and under what circumstances might their (sic) be a fitness advantage or selective disadvantage for each." Gessler's main problem seems to be one of experimental design, viz. how to control variables and select only one or a very few phenomena to investigate, of such a character that, even if we discovered something contrary to our expectations, it would be meaningful. My main problem would be clause (2). I do not know what data or behavior patterns in the four domains are supposed to be both specifically evolutionary and sufficiently similar to be meaningfully compared. The data seem to me very different, e.g. biological data (whether material species or genes) vis-a-vis technology (a sample of tools and machines of unknown representativeness, amplified by some intelligent guesswork. Clause (3) focusses on selective advantage; but I do not see that the four domains are sufficiently similar (as Clause (2) requires) with respect to selection for survival. For example, biological species compete for food and habitat with other species (in some some species, individuals compete with each other too: in others, not or less) and variation and competition together select for survival and new species. Technological competition may be similar (for our purposes) but I do not see in the domains of disciplines or languages either this type of inter-specific competition or its results. Another main criticism concerns the main object, viz. unguided emergence of serial and parallel processes in language or thought. I cannot see that this is soluble (in Peter Medawar's usage, viz. research as "the art of the soluble): while the question is interesting by itself, I cannot see that it is important to any particular discipline (e.g. linguistics, anthropology, history.) > For some of us interested in the fields >of robotics, artificial life, and evolutionary biology, its answer >directly bears on scientific epistemology and the role of >computational models as representations of the external world. Agreed for robotics and AL, but not necessarily biology: I don't think that the serial/parallel difference (in either structure or function) is a recognized category in biology. In AL and robotics, I do not see how the emergence of serial and parallel processes in language or thought relates to either disciplinary ideas or engineering improvements. (Agreed, nothing mental can be wholly irrelevant to robotics and AL, but I was hoping for something more explicit and concrete.) -- | Donald Phillipson, 4180 Boundary Rd., Carlsbad | | Springs, Ont., Canada K0A 1K0; tel: (613) 822-0734 | | "What I've always liked about science is its independence from | | authority"--Ontario Science Centre (name on file) 10 July 1981 | _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:162>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sun May 15 22:09:11 1994 Date: Sun, 15 May 1994 23:09:28 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: May 15 -- Today in the Historical Sciences To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro MAY 15 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES 1847: EDWIN RAY LANKESTER is born at London, England. The son of a medical doctor, Lankester will study zoology and geology at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, and will be appointed professor of zoology at University College, London, in 1872. A wide-ranging practitioner and theorist of the new evolutionary anatomy, he will coin a number of words, such as "homoplasy" and "blastopore", that will become standard terms in the field. In 1891 Lankester will be appointed Linacre Professor of Comparative Anatomy at Oxford, and then in 1898 director of the British Museum (Natural History). In his retirement he will write a number of popular books on natural history, including _Extinct Animals_ (1909) and _Diversions of a Naturalist_ (1915). 1862: "On May 15th, 1862," CHARLES DARWIN will write in his autobiography, "my little book on the _Fertilisation of Orchids_, which cost me ten months' work, was published: most of the facts had been slowly accumulated during several previous years." Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international network discussion group for professionals in the historical sciences. For more information about Darwin-L send the two-word message INFO DARWIN-L to email@example.com, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (18.104.22.168). _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:163>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sun May 15 23:24:50 1994 Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 00:25:06 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: Important interdiscplinary book available To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro I have mentioned the volume below a couple of times before as one of the most important interdisciplinary works in the historical sciences: Hoenigswald, Henry M., & Linda F. Wiener, eds. 1988. _Biological Metaphor and Cladistic Classification: An Interdisciplinary Perspective_. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. It contains fifteen papers on historical linguistics, systematics, and stemmatics by many well-known authors, including Rulon Wells, Anna Morpurgo Davies, Konrad Koerner, Jane Oppenheimer, Peter Crane, Michael Novacek, Don Cameron, Henry Hoenigswald, and Darwin-L member Peter Stevens. The new University of Pennsylvania Press catalog has this volume on sale for the amazing price of US$1.90. I highly recommend it to all Darwin-L members, and at this price you could buy an extra copy for your local library, too. The shipping charge is $2.50 for the first item and $.75 for each additional item, so one copy would total $4.40 and two copies would be $5.15. Would that all books could be gotten at this price. The address for the press is: University of Pennsylvania Press P.O. Box 4836 Hampden Station Baltimore, Maryland 21211 USA And the book is item #500 in their 1994 Spring Sale catalog. (Their phone number is 410-516-6948, but I don't believe they will take credit card orders for this small an amount.) If you are interested in the kind of interdisciplinary issues we discuss on Darwin-L, this volume would be a valuable addition to your library. Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner Robert J. O'Hara (email@example.com) Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology 100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:164>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Mon May 16 01:34:45 1994 Date: Mon, 16 May 1994 02:35:00 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: May 16 -- Today in the Historical Sciences To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro MAY 16 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES 1799: EBENEZER EMMONS is born at Middlefield, Massachusetts. Emmons will study natural history and medicine at Williams College and at the Berkshire Medical School, and will eventually succeed his teacher, Chester Dewey, as professor of natural history at Williams. One of the pioneers of American geology, Emmons will do more than any other person to establish in the 1830s and 1840s a geologic column for North America, independent of those being developed for England and continental Europe. His extensive field work in New York and western New England will form the basis for his _Manual of Mineralogy and Geology_ (Albany, 1826), and in 1832 he will move from Williams to the new Rensselaer School (later Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) in Troy, New York. Emmons's later career will be marred by a bitter controversy with James Hall and Louis Agassiz over the strata that he will call the Taconic System, and Emmons will depart New York for North Carolina in 1851 to take up a position as state geologist. He will die in North Carolina in 1863, a casualty of the American Civil War. Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international network discussion group for professionals in the historical sciences. For more information about Darwin-L send the two-word message INFO DARWIN-L to email@example.com, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (22.214.171.124). _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:165>From firstname.lastname@example.org Tue May 17 07:08:38 1994 To: email@example.com From: Erast Parmasto <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 17 May 94 14:51:11 +0200 (EET) Subject: Teaching Genealogies of Plants Subject: Teaching Genealogies of Plants Peter Stevens wrote (13 May 1994 19:08:53 U): < Having spent the last term trying to teach genealogies of plants, < I have ended up the term rather frustrated... It is really tricky to teach genealogies, i e relations of objects students have not seen / do not know. It is almost senseless. In Estonia, until some few years ago we had to teach students following very strictly prescribed schedule of courses compulsory for all (200 or more) universities. Happily this system has gone, but we have not yet thrown the baby out with the bath water. In first semester, ALL biology students have to learn anatomy and morphology of plants; during the first summer semester, they (incl. physiologists, molecular biologists, etc.) have to learn to recognize / identify species of animals (3 weeks in a field station), plants (3 weeks), and fungi (1 week). - Happily about 40 % of Estonia is covered with forests; 15 % is peatland and (high) bogs, and no signs "Private forest. Trespassers will be punished and/or shot dead" anywhere. After this (or in the first term) there is a course on methodology of sciences ("What is science"), from 1991 compulsory for botanists and optional for other biology students. AFTER this a course "Theory and methods of taxonomy" follows with practical works in a computer class-room. Thanks to the course "What is science," students hold it quite normal that < Much of the genealogical framework within flowering plants is < either missing, or decidedly problematical. Surely not all but the best students will understand, that taxonomy (and genealogies) is a set of scientific hypotheses, and there is a lot of unsolved problems for them ahead. This is science. - Erast <email@example.com> Erast Parmasto, Tartu, Estonia _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:166>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Tue May 17 11:17:17 1994 Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 12:17:33 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: World-wide Palaetiologists' Party! (May 24th) To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro NEXT TUESDAY (May 24th) will be a major aniversary in the historical sciences, to wit: the 200th anniversary of the birth of WILLIAM WHEWELL, one of the intellectual patrons of Darwin-L for his writing on the conceptual relations among the sciences of historical reconstruction, and for his coining of the term "palaetiology" which is Darwin-L's theme (even if we can't pronounce it). In honor of Dr. Whewell's birthday, Darwin-L will sponsor what may be an *Internet first*: a world-wide, distributed, real-life (rather than "virtual") PALAETIOLOGISTS' PARTY! Here's your chance to get together with some other folks at your local institution, and maybe even meet some people that you don't know from other departments. Linguists having lunch with geologists; zoologists having lunch with historians; just imagine it! And besides, any excuse for a party is a good one! Here's how the grand scheme will work. I will very shortly post an invitation blank, which will say something about Whewell, palaetiology, and the world- wide party, and which will contain a space for local information to be added. You can add a local time and place, and either e-mail the invitation to your friends and colleagues, or print a copy and send it around your office, department, or other locale. For example, I plan to invite a group of folks from UNCG to lunch in one of our university dining rooms, so I will print out a copy of the general invitation and then add the local time and place to it so all my local colleagues will know where to go. All of us around the world will be using the same invitation, so it will be one gigantic distributed party! I leave it to the individual participants to set the tone for their local instantiations of this global event: anything from two people sitting in an office raising a glass in memory of Dr. Whewell, to a day-long banquet. (If you have a day-long banquet let me know; I may come visit.) ;-) The term is over in most places, and it's time to take a break. Why not do it with your fellow palaetiologists? We now have about 575 members, and there's a very good chance that there is someone out there among our number from your very own institution that you haven't met, but that shares your interest in the historical sciences. To find out who you might invite you can retrieve a copy of our current subscriber list by sending the message: REVIEW DARWIN-L to email@example.com, and it will be automatically sent to you by return e-mail. The list will be sorted (believe it or not) in alphabetical order by e-mail-address-spelled-backwards. (I don't write the software; I just use it, and that not very well.) Thus all our Canadian members (about 32) will come first because their addresses end in ".ca"; our South African members (4) come next with addresses ending in ".za"; then our Belgian members (also 4) with ".be"; and so on to ".nz" for our 10 New Zealand members. Our group has members from about 30 countries, so this can indeed be a world-wide celebration! Watch for the invitation to follow. Palaetiologists of the world unite! Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner Robert J. O'Hara (firstname.lastname@example.org) Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology 100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:167>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Tue May 17 20:59:18 1994 Date: Tue, 17 May 1994 21:51:58 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: William Whewell's World-Wide Palaetiologists' Party To: email@example.com Organization: University of NC at Greensboro Here's the blank invitation to William Whewell's world-wide palaetiologists' party -- an Internet first! This is what you can do: (1) Cut along the dashed line below, and fill in the time and place of your local party in the spaces provided. (2) Either print the invitation out or send it via e-mail to any friends and colleagues you wish to invite. The invitation will print most succesfully if it is put into a mono-spaced font, such as Courier on the Macintosh (it was designed for 12-point Courier on 8.5 x 11" paper). To find out who else from your own institution subscribes to Darwin-L send the message INFO DARWIN-L to firstname.lastname@example.org. I hope this will be a chance for some of our subscribers who haven't met before to do so. (3) Just for fun, send a copy (in print or by e-mail) to me; I'd be delighted to know how many people joined in with us. My postal address is Robert J. O'Hara, 100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 USA. E-mail: email@example.com. (4) Have fun on the 24th in remembrance of Dr. Whewell! (Perhaps I will send a copy of the invitation to the current Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, who would be Whewell's present-day successor, and see whether he would care to join us.) ;-) ------- cut here --------------------------------- cut here ------ * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * WILLIAM WHEWELL'S WORLD-WIDE PALAETIOLOGISTS' PARTY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * CELEBRATED AROUND THE WORLD ON 24 MAY 1994 The 200TH ANNIVERSARY of the Birth of WILLIAM WHEWELL Polymathic Scientist, Historian, Philosopher, and Educator Friend of the HISTORICAL SCIENCES and Coiner of the Term PALAETIOLOGY: "As we may look back towards the first condition of our planet, we may in like manner turn our thoughts towards the first condition of the solar system, and try whether we can discern any traces of an order of things antecedent to that which is now established; and if we find, as some great mathematicians have conceived, in- dications of an earlier state in which the planets were not yet gathered into their present forms, we have, in pursuit of this train of research, a palaetiological portion of Astronomy. Again, as we may inquire how languages, and how man, have been diffused over the earth's surface from place to place, we may make the like inquiry with regard to the races of plants and animals, founding our inferences upon the existing geographical distribution of the animal and vegetable kingdoms: and thus the Geography of Plants and of Animals also becomes a portion of Palaetiology. Again, as we can in some measure trace the progress of Arts from nation to nation and from age to age, we can also pursue a similar inves- tigation with respect to the progress of Mythology, of Poetry, of Government, of Law....It is not an arbitrary and useless proceed- ing to construct such a Class of sciences. For wide and various as their subjects are, it will be found that they have all certain principles, maxims, and rules of procedure in common; and thus may reflect light upon each other by being treated together." William Whewell, 1847 The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, second edition LOCAL TIME AND PLACE: SPONSORED BY DARWIN-L An International Network Discussion Group on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences (gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu for more information, or send the message INFO DARWIN-L to firstname.lastname@example.org) AND BY YOUR LOCAL HOST: * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:168>From KIMLER@social.chass.ncsu.edu Thu May 19 13:37:41 1994 From: KIMLER@social.chass.ncsu.edu To: email@example.com Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 14:37:35 EST5EDT Subject: Re: oral and written language Forgive me for going back to something from 2 weeks ago, but finals and orals have to be given even in the days of the Info-Hypeway, and I just browsed through May's discussions on oral and written language. On May 4 [?], Donald Phillipson provided an intriguing note on what he called "the far greater reverence for print" in North America, compared to Britain. He formed the hypothesis (never tested) that it had to do with the frontier schoolmarm (or at least her image in popular culture.) Bearing alone the burden of a whole village's connection with the rest of world culture, the frontier schoolmarm naturally felt safer relying on "objective" print rather than personal memory as the basis of her curriculum. One of the consequences is that it is normal in N. America to seek to pronounce every written letter in such words as forehead, laboratory, library, police, etc., which the British would most often pronounce as "forrid, laboratry, libry, pleece" etc. Marc Picard's response made a good point, that there is a tendency for literate people to forget that [language] is (still) first and foremost an oral phenomenon. ... The fundamentals of language, i.e. semantics, syntax, morphology and phonology, are definitely not learned from books and magazines. But this is obscuring the intriguing part of Donald's remarks. I, too, can think of examples of American pronunciations that seem to be derived from having learned the words from text, without experience, and consequently the letters are sounded out as if English had uniform rules of spelling-to-pronunciation. For instance: 1) "Edinburgh" pronounced with a "g" at the end, rather than "uh" [sorry, but this keyboard will not provide standard phonetic symbols, so bear with me for sounds]. Any number of British words would be examples, as perplexed Americans wonder where all the letter- sounds went ["Gloucester" as gloster, "Worcester" as wouster, "Magdalene" as mawdlin, "gunwale" as gunnul, "boatswain" as bosun] and labor to sound them out. 2) Here in North Carolina, there are numerous examples of towns with names derived from England and from other languages; most commonly they have a pronunciation based on a "literal" reading of letters rather than the presumably original sounds. The converse makes the same point: you may have noticed that DARWIN-L comes out of Greensboro, where the spelling has adapted to old pronunciation. 3) "clerk" not pronounced as British "clark"; this extends to my students transferring American prononunciation to James Clerk Maxwell's name. They read his name before they ever heard a pronunciation; if not, they'll spell it "Clark." 4) "primer" [the book] rhyming with timer rather than dimmer 5) my student "Sean", pronounced See-Ann These look trivial, but I'm wondering if someone has examined the effect on American-English of widepread literacy and self-education yet isolation from a continuous oral knowledge for certain words. Is there a way to distinguish "drift" [= they just change] in pronunciations from a particular social cause of change? Is the transformation of British to American pronunciations the subject of some standard theory that I'm too naive to know? A couple of Oxford friends have assured me that most educated-class pronunciations that seem out-of-touch with spelling to Americans are an intentional set of in-group, coded pronunciations to surely distinguish class in England: you have to be a member of the oral tradition to get it right. Even if that was just good pub nonsense, it does raise the point the linguists on the list have been making: language distinctions are full of social and political meanings. Can one add a social mechanism like Phillipson's? And just for a comparison, and to agree with Picard that the oral is primary, a small pleasure of this season of reading student papers is to search for high-percentage misspellings that can be related to local pronunciation: 1) any word ending in -ist [scientist, biologist, etc.] will not have an "s" added for plural, since the pronunciation does not differ between -ist and -ists. 2) "perform" will be "preform" to match the pronunciation pruh-form. I assume this is how spellings evolve, but I note the same expectation that spelling ought to follow pronunciation with fixed rules. Where did readers of English get that idea? -- William Kimler Dept. of History North Carolina State University firstname.lastname@example.org _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:169>From email@example.com Thu May 19 18:54:52 1994 Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 09:56:03 +1000 To: firstname.lastname@example.org From: michaels@SciFac.su.OZ.AU Subject: Freud, Schliemann and archaeology >I would like some help in a project underway to explore Freud's interests in >archaeology, and the importance to his work (and self-identity) of Schliemann >and his writings. One thing, amongst many, intrigues me: Freud's use of >mythical figures in his medical case studies. This use is often very striking. >Consider, for example, this brief passage from his Fragment of an Analysis of >a Case of Hysteria (1905). Freud introduces one of his interpretations with >the comment that he 'had no choice but to follow the example of those >discoverers whose good fortune it is to bring to the light of day after their >long burial the priceless though mutilated relics of antiquity'. The reference >is one of many in his works to archaeology and the classical past. Freud >proceeds: When Dora stayed with the K.'s she used to share a bedroom with Frau K., and the husband used to be quartered elsewhere. She had been the wife's confidante and adviser in all the difficulties of her married life. There was nothing they had not talked about. Medea had been quite content that Creusa should make friends with her two children; and she certainly did nothing to interfere with the relations between the girl and the children's father. Without breaking the narrative for pause or parenthesis, Freud substitutes Medea for Mrs K. and Creusa for Dora. It seems to him quite appropriate that a mythical figure and a member of the Viennese bourgeoisie should sit together in the same case study.Freud collected voraciously in archaeological objects, mainly Egyptian (his collection comprised 3000 objects), and perhaps for a man who surrounded himself with so many representations from the past, who daily stroked and spoke to a cast of marble and bronze figurines, traffic across time and myth came easily. But it was, to say the least, unconventional to bring the past alive in this way in medical case reports? Or was it? I would like to know.. Freud's teacher J.-M. Charcot, for example, does not resort to such references. While it was not uncommon for nineteenth-century psychiatric case studies to made reference to and quote profusely from literature, partly to underscore their status as learned and humane works (cf. Helen Small's recent article in History of the Human Sciences), both the manner of Freud's citations and their nature are, I think, unusual. The fact that Schliemann employs this narrative technique in works of his which Freud read and admired prompts the thought that Freud might have been influenced in this respect by Schliemann. But my hypothesis fails, or at least tetters, if this was more common in medical and psychiatric case histories than I assume. Can anyone help? Thanks in advance Responses to Michael Shortland Unit for History & Philosophy of Science University of Sydney email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:170>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sun May 22 21:52:39 1994 Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 22:52:57 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: Teaching phylogenies To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro Peter Stevens expressed his frustration a few days ago with teaching plant genealogies/phylogenies. I share his frustration, and have given a fair amount of thought to how basic ideas in systematics should be taught, but I don't have many useful insights to offer. I feel as though we really just haven't figured out how to do it yet, but this may just be an expression of my own perpetual dissatisfaction with my teaching. One of the problems Peter mentioned is that many beginning students have a very limited knowledge of the basic facts of diversity. Most natural historians started as bird watchers or butterfly collectors or plant hunters, and so often have years of experience with identification, geographical distribution, groups-within-groups, etc., before they learn any of the technicalities of evolution. My experience with introductory students is that very few have this basic experience with the phenomena, so trying to teach about how species originate or how they are related to one another phylogenetically is very hard, since they don't really have even a rough-and-ready idea of what species are. (I should say that the students I am thinking of here are American college freshmen, not necessarily with special interests in the sciences. I have been teaching an introductory course on Darwin and the _Origin_ for a couple of years, and have encoutnered these problems primarily in that course. The course isn't so much an introductory course on evolution as it is a course in critical reasoning and writing that uses Darwin as a framework. I'm sure there are different problems at different levels.) I like very much the Estonian system that Erast Parmasto described, where every beginning student is required to spend several weeks in field work, identifying plants and animals, before continuing on to conceptual and theoretical issues. I'm sure there are many American institutions where this is done, but it certainly is not done at every institution. We have I think an excessive fascination with laboratory apparatus and experimentation, and need to spend more time exposing students to basic outdoor phenomena and to collections. We are too often put in the position of someone who has to teach, say, contemporary African politics, but who has students that think maybe Guatemala is part of Africa. In systematics we seem to be in a transitional phase with respect to teaching. A great many advances have been made in the field in the last thirty years, but these are trickling irregularly into the basic teaching literature. It is a very important area to think about, and like Peter I would welcome any thoughts and practical teaching suggestions from other Darwin-L members. Can the historical linguists offer any insights, I wonder? Are there any special tricks or techniques that are used to present, say, the history of Indo-European in a few lectures for a group of first-year students? I should say that in teaching Darwin's evolutionary tree in the _Origin_ I have found the linguistic analogy to be very successful -- they seem to get the contrast between Greek (persisting for many years but not splitting up into many daughter languages) and Latin (splitting up geographically into the present-day Romance languages, and itself becoming pseudo-extict), and how the history of species that Darwin is trying to illustrate in his diagram is very much the same thing. Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner Robert J. O'Hara (email@example.com) Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology 100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:171>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sun May 22 22:38:18 1994 Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 23:38:35 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: General texts in the historical sciences To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro Lynn Nyhart asked a few days ago if there were any general histories of the historical sciences that are somewhat more up to date than Toulmin and Goodfield's classic _The Discovery of Time_. I'd be most grateful to hear a summary of the responses she got, if any. I just came across one on our library's new book shelf, even though it is now apparently a couple years old. It's by the very skilled and prolific Peter Bowler (it seems that whenever I read one of his books, two more appear in the mean time, all of them very good and useful for teaching.) The new one is: Bowler, Peter J. 1992. _The Norton History of the Environmental Sciences_. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. The title is rather misleading, I think, and perhaps was a concession to current fashion. It isn't a history of conservation biology and ecology at all (which is what I expected from the title) but rather a quite comprehensive history of natural history from the Greeks to the present, covering geology, systematics, evolution, etc. (No historical philology, alas.) From a quick glance, it looks like it covers much of the same ground that Toulmin and Goodfield cover. Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner Robert J. O'Hara (email@example.com) Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology 100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:172>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Sun May 22 23:46:18 1994 Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 00:46:36 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: World-wide William Whewell Party update To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro It's not too late to plan your own William Whewell Palaetiologists' Party for Tuesday, May 24th. It needn't be a fancy affair, and celebrations on any scale are welcome. I have already heard of gatherings taking place in New Zealand and Massachusetts, as well as my own in North Carolina. It will be _the_ social event of the season, an Internet first, and you will have to wait another hundred years for the next opportunity -- don't miss out! I have set up a special directory on the Darwin-L gopher (rjohara.uncg.edu) with information about the party and a copy of the general invitation. Join your fellow palaetiologists around the world, and offer a toast on Tuesday in memory of Dr. Whewell and to the future of the palaetiological sciences! Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner Robert J. O'Hara (email@example.com) Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology 100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A. _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:173>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Mon May 23 01:49:33 1994 Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 02:49:52 -0500 (EST) From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Subject: May 23 -- Today in the Historical Sciences To: firstname.lastname@example.org Organization: University of NC at Greensboro MAY 23 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES 1617: ELIAS ASHMOLE is born at Lichfield, England. The child of humble parents, Ashmole will study at the Lichfield Grammar School and then move to London, where he will receive training in the law. As a result of several fortunate political and social connections he will make while in London, Ashmole will receive a royal appointment in the College of Arms, eventually becoming a leading authority on the history of heraldry, and a significant collector of antiquities. His expanding interests will lead him to the study of botany, medicine, alchemy, and astrology, and he will be one of the founding members of the Royal Society in 1660. Ashmole will offer his extensive personal collections of antiquities and natural history specimens to the University of Oxford in 1675, and the Ashmolean Museum, the first public museum in England, will open at Oxford in 1683. 1707: CARL LINNAEUS is born at Sodra, Smaland, Sweden. The son of a country parson, Linnaeus will rise to be one of the most prominent figures in the history of natural history. Following study in medicine and botany at the Universities of Lund and Uppsala, Linnaeus will first spend time travelling in Lapland, and then will move to Holland where he will receive his medical degree. While in Leiden he will publish the first edition of his masterwork, _Systema Naturae_ (1735), which he will revise and expand many times over the course of his life. In 1741 Linnaeus will be appointed professor of medicine at Uppsala, and through his many students and his voluminous writings on systematics and natural history, his influence will spread throughout Europe and the world. Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international network discussion group for professionals in the historical sciences. For more information about Darwin-L send the two-word message INFO DARWIN-L to email@example.com, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (126.96.36.199). _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:174>From maisel@Sdsc.Edu Mon May 23 02:04:09 1994 Date: Mon, 23 May 94 07:04:19 GMT From: maisel@Sdsc.Edu (Merry Maisel, 619-534-5127) Subject: RE: Teaching phylogenies To: firstname.lastname@example.org Bob O'Hara asks about methods of teaching phylogenies to students with little or no field experience. I am neither a biologist nor a linguist, but I would like to tell you how one teacher does just this, since I took his course a few years ago and profited from it. I'm a grad student in science studies, and I've been a science writer for many years, so I had more book experience than the students Bob deals with. Take that into account. But I probably had just as little field experience as any college freshman. I enjoyed the outdoors as a child and learned the names of some bugs and flowers, but have been basically a city person since, head in my shoes. So the course I took was a revelation. It was a one-quarter course called "The Species Question," taught by Ralph Lewin at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. On the first day, Lewin came in with a plastic grocery bag full of weeds. He spread them out on the table and said, "Sort these into species." There were only eight of us in the course, me and a bunch of SIO grad students, so this was manageable. We faced immediately what plant systematists faced _before_ they chose their careers. We were staring at the tangled bank, without a clue in our heads as to how to carry on. So, of course, we sorted the weeds into groups that looked more or less alike. Lewin would look at the sorting and say things like, "Fine, fine, that's a group all alike, now tell me which are the juveniles." Or, "Yes, this is all Sonchus, but is it all one species? How can you tell?" It seems that the only way you _can_ tell is by breaking a stem: one species has a milky sap, the other a clear. But none of us had thought of dissecting the specimens! What he showed us was exactly how a productive ignorance can feel. The rest of the course went a little differently. Each week we would be assigned something--fishes, butterflies, fruit bats, benthic critters-- sometimes species by species, sometimes in groups or families. We would each take our assignment, go to the library, and hunt up the taxonomic story, then write half a page (no more!) on the chief questions that the target object had raised for evolutionists. In this way we learned the variety of morphological, structural, visual, and behavioral questions that systematists had to think about. We learned the difference between field, museum, and laboratory. We learned the special problems of particular niches: if you were accustomed to identify something mainly by coloration, that wouldn't help you if the something were changed into, say, fish that lose their color on being brought to the surface. The important thing was to appreciate the complexity of the questions well before the modern synthesis. It gave one a real appreciation of both the power and the limitations of the genetic tools that are such final determiners today for so many (but not all) lineages. I don't know that this technique would work for a large class of first-year undergraduates, but maybe it could be modified? Anyway, it certainly worked for me. M. Maisel UCSD email@example.com _______________________________________________________________________________ <9:175>From firstname.lastname@example.org.Hawaii.Edu Mon May 23 20:45:32 1994 Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 15:45:51 -1000 (HST) From: Joel Bradshaw <email@example.com.Hawaii.Edu> Subject: Re: Teaching phylogenies To: firstname.lastname@example.org Bob O'Hara asked how historical linguists go about teaching phylogeny to first-year students. There are two groups of first-year students that come to mind here: one is undergraduates who take Intro to Linguistics, the other is grad students beginning the MA or PhD program in linguistics. Each group has different needs, capabilities, and interests. The major problem with the American undergraduate students is their depressing monolingualism. Monolinguals have little experience in trying to relate pieces of one language to pieces of another, the way most bilinguals do as a matter of course. So they have little prior awareness of linguistically homologous (or even analogous) structures. On the other hand, the problem with the many bilingual or multilingual graduate students we get from East Asia is that the two or more languages they know usually show no regular evidence of being related at all, except through massive borrowing, either from Chinese in olden times or English in modern times. Students who know English, Korean or Japanese, and a good deal of Sinitic vocabulary can easily grasp the regularities of borrowing, but have little reason to ponder about any common ancestry for the languages they know. This is very different from the context in Europe, parts of Africa, the Middle East, and India, and Austronesia (Indonesia, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia). As a result, few of the East Asian grad students in linguistics seem much interested in genetic linguistics. (But that could also have something to do with the current orthodoxies of mainstream linguistics.) References to differences between the highly speciated descendants of Latin and the relatively unspeciated descendants of Greek are not likely to mean much to the majority of students in either category here in the middle of the Pacific. However, the Polynesian languages are a textbook case of geographical speciation, relatively uncomplicated by such factors as heavy borrowing from neighboring languages and by the effects of language shift until European contact. Most of the local students have some passing familiarity with Hawaiian words. Familiar place names that they have never analyzed before are quite helpful examples to use. For instance, I started the historical portion of an intro class by relating the _utan_ of _orangutan_ ('inland/bush person' in Malay) to the _uka_ of the Kalihi Uka ('inland/upper Kalihi' in Hawaiian) police station. It went rapidly downhill from there as we looked at pairs of words with regular correspondences between homologous sounds in Malay and Hawaiian. A day or two later, after we had plowed through a small set of words in 4 Polynesian languages, we were able to reconstruct the ancestral (Proto-Polynesian) shape of the name of the state fish, the _humuhumu nukunuku-a-pua'a_ ('triggerfish nose-of-pig'), something like *sumusumu ngutungutu-a-puaka, if I remember right. Joel Bradshaw (email@example.com) Center for Korean Studies University of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA _______________________________________________________________________________ Darwin-L Message Log 9: 141-175 -- May 1994 End
© RJO 1995–2016