rjohara.net

Search:  

Darwin-L Message Log 9: 176–210 — 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: 176-210 -- MAY 1994
-------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:176>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Tue May 24 00:04:53 1994

Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 01:05:06 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: May 24 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

MAY 24 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1794 (200 years ago today): WILLIAM WHEWELL is born at Lancaster, England.
The son of a carpenter, Whewell's precocious intellect will win him admittance
to the Heversham grammar school and then to Trinity College, Cambridge.  He
will be made a fellow of Trinity in 1817, and will remain there throughout his
career, rising to the mastership in 1841, and serving twice as vice-chancellor
of the University.  An extraordinarily polymathic philosopher, historian, and
scientist, Whewell will write extensively on physics, mathematics, theology,
ethics, meteorology, political economy, architecture, Classical literature,
mineralogy, geology, education, and the theory of science.  In 1837 he will
coin the term "palaetiology" for the sciences of historical causation, and he
will later recommend the palaetiological sciences as important elements of a
liberal education: "I have ventured to give reasons why the chemical sciences
(chemistry, mineralogy, electrochemistry) are not at the present time in a
condition which makes them important general elements of a liberal education.
But there is another class of sciences, the palaetiological sciences, which
from the largeness of their views and the exactness of the best portions of
their reasonings are well fitted to form part of that philosophical discipline
which a liberal education ought to include.  Of these sciences, I have
mentioned two, one depending mainly upon the study of language and the other
upon the sciences which deal with the material world.  These two sciences,
ethnography, or comparative philology, and geology, are among those
progressive sciences which may be most properly taken into a liberal education
as instructive instances of the wide and rich field of facts and reasonings
with which modern science deals, still retaining, in many of its steps, great
rigour of proof; and as an animating display also of the large and grand
vistas of time, succession, and causation, which are open to the speculative
powers of man."

1851: The English author, artist, and critic JOHN RUSKIN writes to his friend
Henry Acland: "You speak of the Flimsiness of your own faith.  Mine, which was
never strong, is being beaten into mere gold leaf, and flutters in weak rags
from the letter of its old forms; but the only letters it can hold by at all
are the old Evangelical formulae.  If only the Geologists would let me alone,
I could do very well, but those dreadful Hammers!  I hear the clink of them
at the end of every cadence of the Bible verses."

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
listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (152.13.44.19).

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:177>From ad201@freenet.carleton.ca  Tue May 24 06:39:41 1994

Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 07:40:11 -0400
From: ad201@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Phillipson)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: General histories

Bob O'Hara wrote May 22 about
General texts in the historical sciences
recommending

  Bowler, Peter J.  1992.  _The Norton History of the Environmental
  Sciences_.  New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

This is just one of a new range of histories published by Fontana
(paperbacks) in Britain and Norton in the USA.  Others include a good
history of chemistry by William Brock's and an unsatisfying one on
engineering by Donald Cardwell.  At least half a dozen titles have
been projected.  Bowler's is by far the best so far.

--
 |          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 |

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:178>From sag0001@v2.qub.ac.uk  Tue May 24 07:04:44 1994

Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 13:06:10 EDT
From: "n.whyte" <sag0001@v2.qub.ac.uk>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Conference on Irish Science

The Royal Society/British Society for the History of
               Science conference on
   THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND
          MEDICINE IN IRELAND, 1800-1950
to take place in Armagh, Northern Ireland, 28-29 October 1994
with the support of the Wellcome Trust, the Royal Irish
Academy, the Cultural Traditions Group (N.I.) and Armagh Together

    Historians of Ireland have generally paid little
attention to developments in science, technology and
medicine.  There have been important studies of institutions
such as the Armagh and Dunsink observatories and the
Geological Survey, but much of the work done on Irish
science, technology and medicine has been of an
uncoordinated nature that prevented the emergence of an
analytical framework for the field.
    This conference will bring together scholars from a wide
range of backgrounds with a view to putting this field of
study onto a firmer foundation.  It is hoped to facilitate
interactions that will allow the emergence of a recognition
that there has been a distinctly Irish dimension to the way
that technical knowledge and expertise has been developed
and applied here.  A proposal will be put forward in the
concluding discussion for the formation of an informal
society devoted to the history of science, technology and
medicine in Ireland, and for the establishment of a
newsletter devoted to the field.
    Issues to be discussed will include: how the different
cultural traditions in Ireland responded to the emergence of
modern science, engineering and medicine; colonial and
nationalist models of development; changing patterns of
state and private involvement; technical education and
technical organizations.
    Speakers will include Dr James Bennett (Cambridge) on
science and social policy in mid-19th century Ireland, Prof.
Richard Jarrell (York University, Toronto) on science and
agricultural education, Dr Hugh Torrens (Keele) on Irish
technology in British mines; Sir Bernard Crossland (QUB) and
Prof. Garrett Scaife (TCD) on technical education and the
application of technology, Sir Peter Froggatt (QUB) on
medical education, and many more.
    The conference will be held in the historic Royal School
in Armagh, the ecclesiastical capital of Ireland.  The
school is immediately opposite the Armagh observatory and
planetarium, and the observatory will be open for visits
during the conference.
    Registration will be from 10.30 to 11.30 a.m. on Friday
28th October 1994.  There will be a reception hosted by
Armagh District Council at 6.00 p.m. on Friday, followed by
a conference dinner.  On Saturday 29 October the session
will begin at 10.00 a.m., with a concluding discussion from
4.30-5.30 p.m.  A buffet lunch will be available at the
Royal School on both days (see registration form).
    It is hoped to provide a minibus service connecting with
Belfast City Airport and Belfast International (Aldergrove).
    Basic accommodation for the nights of the 27, 28 and 29
October will be available at the Benburb Centre, a few miles
away from Armagh, with transportation to and from the Royal
School provided by minibus.  Alternatively, a list of hotels
and guesthouses in Armagh can be supplied on request.   For
those remaining until the morning of Sunday 30 October, a
tour of Armagh and Navan Fort may be arranged if numbers are
sufficient.
REGISTRATION FORM
Name
....................................................
Address
..........................................
..........................................
..........................................
There is no registration fee, but there will be a flat fee
for morning and afternoon coffee, plus lunch, on both days;
please indicate your requirements below:
Coffee and lunch, 28 October,  #6.00        .........
Coffee and lunch, 29 October,  #6.00        .........
Conference dinner (including wine)  #11.00  .........
               Total food                   .........

Please indicate by ticking here if you require vegetarian
meals  .....................................[  ]
Accomodation

Basic bed and breakfast at the Benburb Centre is available is single or
twin rooms at  #12.00 and  #10.00 per night respectively.  Please
indicate your requirements below.  Note that to guarantee reservations
at Benburb THIS FORM MUST BE RETURNED WITH A DEPOSIT OF  #10.00 BY 16
SEPTEMBER.
Night of 27 October (please tick)......   ....[  ]
Night of 28 October ..........................[  ]
Night of 29 October ..........................[  ]
Please indicate if you would be willing to share a twin room .........[  ]

For those who would prefer to arrange their own
accommodation, please tick here if you would like a list of
hotels and guesthouses in Armagh..............[  ]
Total enclosed (Food + deposit if required):........
Please remit in Sterling, cheques or money orders payable to
The Queen's University of Belfast (SZPU).
Travel to Armagh
For those coming from within Ireland, Armagh is best reached
by car.  For those who wish to use the train service from
Dublin, and for those arriving at either Belfast City
Airport or Belfast International (Aldergrove), we are trying
to arrange transportation by minibus to Armagh.  Please tick
where appropriate if you would like to use the facilities
described below.
Thursday 27 October.  From Belfast International Airport
(Aldergrove): please indicate time of arrival...........
Friday 28 October.  From Belfast City Airport or Belfast
International; please indicate airport and time of arrival:
Saturday or Sunday from airports: please indicate airport
and time of departure......................................
For those who wish to stay until Sunday 30, please indicate
if you would be interested in a tour of Armagh and Navan
Fort ..............................................[  ]
Please return completed form by 14 October (by 16 September
if requesting accommodation at Benburb) to: Prof. P. J.
Bowler, Social Anthropology, The Queen's University of
Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN

Or by E-Mail to Nicholas Whyte, SAG0001@QUB.AC.UK

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:179>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca  Tue May 24 12:48:02 1994

Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 13:28:14 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca>
Subject: Re: Teaching phylogenies
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

i find one exercise very useful in teaching the principles of classification
that works well with students of many ages and abilities.  Take a selection
of nails, screws, and bolts from the local hardware store.  Give these to
students so that there are several of each type for some but few for others.
then ask them to derive a classification that groups them into species, ers.
genera, etc.  this idea by the way, i first experienced as a paleontology
student with Mike Risk and Gerd Westerman at McMaster.
bonnie Blackwell
bonn@nickel.laurentian.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:180>From leh1@Lehigh.EDU  Tue May 24 13:52:57 1994

Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 14:41:24 EDT
From: leh1@Lehigh.EDU (Lynn E. Hanninen)
Subject: help requested; zoo. rec.
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Hi!
Can anyone tell me where I can find zoo. rec. on-line, or a comparable
database?  I'm trying to find phylogeny info which includes Pan paniscus.
Anyone out their familiar with Pan paniscus?  Please contact me.
leh1@lehigh.edu

lynn

**************************
Lehigh office: rm. 221, CU #17
office phone #: (215) 758-3662
home phone #: (215) 758-1367

e-mail: leh1@lehigh.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:181>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca  Tue May 24 14:19:30 1994

Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 15:12:44 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca>
Subject: preservation
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

>Date: Tue, 10 May 1994 00:01:32 -0500 (CDT)
>From: "Jeanette H. Leete" <LEETE@macalstr.edu>
>Subject: National Historic Landmark in Wisconsin
>To: AWG
>
>Fowarded by Sarah Stoll, Association Editor
>
>By Joanne Kluessendorf, Dept of Geology, Univ. of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
>
>There is a new National Historic Landmark of which AWG members should be
>aware because it recognizes pioneering efforts in women's science education,
>particularly geology, as well as the contribution of amateur naturalists to
>nineteenth-century American geology and other sciences. Unfortunately, this
>new landmark is already in jeopardy and urgently needs the help of the AWG
>to survive.
>
>The Thomas A. Greene Memorial Museum and Collection was designated a National
>Historic Landmark in the History of Science by Secretary of the Inferior Bruce
>Babbitt at the recommendation of the National Park Service. This museum and
>collection document the geologic activities of Thomas A. Greene, an amateur
>naturalist from Milwaukee, who built this outstanding and irreplaceable
>collection of 13,000 minerals and 75,000 midwestern fossils during the late
>1800s. Greene's daughter, Mary Greene Upham, and son, Howard, donated the
>collection to Milwaukee-Downer College and erected a museum building
>specifically to house it in 1913. Because of their foresight, Greene's
>collection, still accompanied by his handwritten labels and stored in his
>original cabinets, is a unique intact late nineteenth-century amateur
>geological collection surviving in the U.S.
>
>A building built expressly to house a museum and collection was an unusual
>feature at most colleges and universities, and it became the focal point of
>science education, especially geology, at Milwaukee-Downer. For 80 years,
>women have curated the Greene Collection, even though curators at most other
>institutions were male throughout this period. At the Museum's dedication in
>1913, the first curator, Margaret Louise Campbell (University of Chicago,
>1912) noted that in the past, women were thought able "to memorize, but not
>reason, and, therefore, were mainly confined to languages, history, and
>kindred studies" whereas "Milwaukee-Downer was one of the first colleges
>that taught science on a large scale to her students."
>
>Milwaukee-Downer, a women's college, was a likely home for such an important
>collection and museum because of its progressive tradition in science
>education. This school was the result of a merger between two pioneering
>women's colleges: Milwaukee College (folmerly Milwaukee Female Seminary,
>Milwaukee Normal School and High School, Milwaukee Female College) and
>Downer College of Fox Lake, Wisconsin (formerly Wisconsin Female College).
>Geology was taught at these schools almost continuously for more than a
>century, beginning with the founding of the Milwaukee Female Seminary in
>1848 (which predates all of the eastern women's colleges with the exception
>of Mt. Holyoke). Lucy Parsons opened the Seminary to educate women not only
>"to adorn the higher circles of society, but to meet the varied and practical
>responsibilities of life." This school attracted the attention of Catherine
>Beecher, pioneering crusader for women's higher education and sister of
>abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe, who reshaped it according to her famous
>Beecher plan, which promoted that women's instruction be raised to a
>collegiate level in order to educate women for a profession. This is the only
>one of Beecher's many experimental schools to survive in any form. In the
>early 1850s, Milwaukee Female College founded a "cabinet of natural history,"
>and "Rockites" from the school's "Curiosity Society" collected fossil and
>mineral specimens for the cabinet and studied Wisconsin geology under the
>tutelage of early geologist Increase Lapham. The Greene Museum and Collection
>are the descendants of this cabinet. In 1874, when Milwaukee College
>introduced Ladies' Art and Science Class, a forerunner of adult continuing
>education, "female" had already been dropped from the school's name in the
>belief that there should be no difference in education based on gender.
>
>Despite its clear historical importance, however, this landmark is in imminent
>danger of destruction. When Milwaukee-Downer merged with Lawrence University
>in the 1960s, the Greene collection and museum were purchased with the rest of
>the campus by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UW-M). UW-M actively and
>persistently opposed the National Park Service's designation efforts. Now that
>landmark status has been granted, UW-M is ignoring the fact that both the
>museum and collection were designated as a single entity and, despite
>opposition from the Greene family, it insists on moving the collection into
>other facilities. However both the National Park Service and independent
>museum collections experts have informed the university that moving the
>collection out of the museum building for any reason will destroy its
>historical importance and seriously jeopardize its safety and usefulness.
>
>Help from AWG members is urgently needed to save the Greene museum and
>collection. We can't let the poor decisions of a few intractable university
>officials cheat us out of this important part of our heritage--one of the very
>few landmarks honoring women or science. If you are a Wisconsin resident,
>please contact all of your state officials; non-Wisconsin residents contact
>the Wisconsin governor (The Honorable Tommy Thompson, Office of the governor,
>State Capitol, P. 0. Box 7863, Madison, WI 53707). Tell them how important and
>unique this landmark is, remind them that the Greene collection and museum
>belong to the citizens of Wisconsin and the nation and are not the private
>property of a handful of university officials to do with as they please,
>and ask them to save the landmark by keping the museum and collection
>together. Specifically, urge them to:
>
>1) immediately stop the university from moving the Greene collection out of
>the Greene museum building, which will destroy this landmark, and insist that
>any items already moved be returned;
>
>2) establish an oversight board, consisting of experts in museum collections
>management and curation, in the history of science, and in the Greene
>collection itself, to develop long-term plans for operation, preservation and
>use of both the Greene museum and collection as a national historic landmark;
>and
>
>3) allow an outside support group to raise funds tar the museum', assist in
>its operation and participate in long-term planning. We must act NOW to save
>this unique landmark to our profession and to the hard-won progress women have
>made in the sciences-every letter counts!
>
>Jeanette H. Leete and Sean Hunt

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:182>From baumd@vms2.macc.wisc.edu  Tue May 24 16:38:30 1994

Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 16:38:30 -0500
From: ("David Baum") <baumd@vms2.macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Teaching phylogenies
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Bonnie Blackwell suggests the following exercise for teaching:

>Take a selection
>of nails, screws, and bolts from the local hardware store.  Give these to
>students so that there are several of each type for some but few for others.
>then ask them to derive a classification that groups them into species,
>genera, etc.

Such an excerise is okay as a starting-point, but misses the critical
difference between biology and hardware - namely, what used to be called
"naturalness."  Whereas different groups of students are likely to come up with
substantially different classifications of the hardware, systematists have
realized for centuries that different workers emphasizing different characters
come up with similar classications of organisms.  This, we now know, reflects
the divergent, hierarchical structure of the evolutionary process.  Taxa are
"systems" - groups of organisms united by their evolutionary history. The group
"bolts" is a "class" united by some arbitrarily chosen character or set of
characters.

        The exercise suggested by Bonnie Blackwell should be modified to
emphasize the differences beween the classifications derived by different
groups  of students.  Then it should be explained that the recognition of, say,
the order Caryophyllales (the plant order containing cacti, spinach, beet,
campions etc.) originally suggested based on morphological characters was
subsequently confirmed by plant chemistry and, more recently, by DNA-based
analyses. [but note: the fact that different data agree is not WHY
Caryophyllales is a taxon, but merely provides evidence that convinvces us that
it is]. In contrast, the group "bolts" is unlikely to be found by a chemist:
She/he would recognize a "genus," "brass objects," which would include some but
not all bolts and some but not all screws etc.

        I haven't yet introduced myself so here goes - I would describe myself
as a plant evolutionary biologist.  I mainly use molecular data (DNA sequences)
to infer plant phylogenies. I then use these to study the evolution of
pollination systems and their effects on floral evolution.  I am also
interested in conceptual issues in evolution and systematics (who isn't?),
particularly species concepts, adaptation, and "homology."  Nice to "meet"
you.

David Baum
Department of Botany
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: (608)262-6041
Fax:   (608)262-7509
BaumD@MACC.WISC.EDU

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:183>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca  Tue May 24 17:45:35 1994

Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 18:42:43 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca>
Subject: Re: Teaching phylogenies
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

I appreciate the added ideas presented by David Baum.  This exercise
was never intended to be other than a starting point.  It does however
get over some of the initial problem that many students know nothing
(or little) about species in the natural world.  The hardware has the
advantage that most of them have at least seen them before.

On another point raised by Baum, however, I must disagree.  Within human
and primate phylogenies, the chemical phylogeny currently is at odds
with the fossil evidence, especially with regards to timing, measures of
biochemical/genetic closeness, and in a few cases, heirarchial assignments.
Moreover, not all human paleontologists agree on the best phylogeny.
There have been frequent reassignments in the past few decades, partly
from the results of new fossil discoveries, but also as theories of
classification changed, as new geochronological data accumulated,
as discoveries were reexamined and "rediscovered" hidden in museums.
This leads me to believe that there is no "right" answer for classifications
merely one that is currently most acceptable given our current knowledge.

Bonn@nickel.laurentian.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:184>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Tue May 24 21:05:50 1994

Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 22:06:08 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: New book on history and computing (fwd from HUMANIST)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

This notice of a new book on historical research and computing just
appeared on HUMANIST.  It is presented here in a slightly abridged
form, and may be of interest to some Darwin-L members.

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

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

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 8, No. 0032. Tuesday, 24 May 1994.

Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 15:01:09 GMT
From: Donald Spaeth <DSPAETH@dish.gla.ac.uk>
Subject: Book announcement: AHC 1992 international conference

From: P.R.Denley@uk.ac.qmw

STORIA & MULTIMEDIA

edited by Francesca Bocchi & Peter Denley

Proceedings of the
Seventh International Congress of the Association for History & Computing
Bologna 29.8-2.9.1992

A single volume of approximately 860 pages containing 85 papers given
at the Congress, in Italian (48%), English (45%) and French (7%).
Publication date: May 1994. Available in the UK at the special price of
28.00 pounds including postage and packing.

Contents

1. General Subjects: Historical Research and New Structures for
Historiography
New technologies for public archives
Edition of sources using computers
Legal historiography and prosopography
Archaeology
Linguistics
Regional and territorial history
Historical demography
Economic history
Music

2. Methodology
Abstract source structures: data modelling
Hypertext and multimedia
Expert systems
Graphics and image processing

3. Educational Technologies
Teaching with the computer

STORIA & MULTIMEDIA can be ordered directly from the publisher, Grafis
Edizioni, Via 2 Giugno, 4, 40033 Casalecchio di Reno (Bologna), Italy,
price 70,000 Lire. It is also available within the UK at the special price
of 28.00 pounds including postage and packing, from the Humanities Computing
Centre, Queen Mary & Westfield College, University of London, Mile End Road,
London E1 4NS.

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:185>From @SIVM.SI.EDU:MNHAN125@SIVM.SI.EDU  Wed May 25 11:55:22 1994

Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 09:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: MNHAN125%SIVM.BITNET@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU
Subject: The Grey Squirrel, London, and sexual frustration
Apparently-To: <DARWIN-L@UKANAIX.CC.UKANS.EDU>

From: Gary
Subject: The Grey Squirrel, London, and sexual frustration

     On CNN Headline News yesterday (5/25), There was a brief but informative
report on the grey squirrel population in England. Apparently, according to
an official someone or other from a gov't bureau, the grey squirrels are
tearing the oak trees of London to shreds. Literally. Apparently, in their
pusuit of mates, the males mark off territories and religiously defend them
from other males (mostly younger ones). This leads, according to the official,
to a frenzy of sexual frustration in the young males, who then proceed to
strip the trees of their bark. They don't eat the bark, or use it in any way,
they just tear it off the trees.

     This has led to a program to control the squirrel population, which is
starting to do some real damage to the trees. the story ended with folks
arguing either side of the issue regarding a) the most comfortable way to end
a squirrel's life and b) balancing the need to control the damage with the
desires of people to continue feeding squirrels, etc. The reporter left this
conondrum tantalizingly unanswered.
     I don't mean to make the whole thing sound facetious, but the report
in general irked me. I'm not very familiar with squirrel behavior (I'm more
of a monkey man), but I am interested in evolutionary biology, and I spent
about 15 minutes trying to come up with an adaptive explanation for the
whole oak tree/sexual frustration thing. Is this for real? Has this been
posited as an explanation for this behavior? Is it unique to the grey
squirrel? Can we identify the frustration syndrome in other animals?

     Thinking about this led me to question a) does every behavior need to
have an efficient, adaptive explanation behind it, and b) would the report
have been different if an evolutionary biologist/sciurid expert had
contributed. I think this gets right back into the problem of education, and
making sure that the general public does not get a just-so explanation for
any given phenomena.

     However, this sex thing explanation may be correct for all I know. Anyone
have any ideas? If you ask me, young male squirrels and young male Homos would
appear to have more in common than I thought. The oak tree is the sciurid
equivalent to mosh pits and Pearl Jam.

                                                Gary
                                         MNHAN125@sivm.si.edu
                                        "Without data, all you are
                                         is another person with an
                                         opinion" - Anonymous

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:186>From MILLER@Butler.EDU  Wed May 25 13:41:04 1994

Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 13:40:59 -0500 (EST)
From: MILLER@Butler.EDU
Subject: teaching phylogenies
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

In response to Bonnie Blackwell and David Baum, another way to
start teaching phylogenies is with a group of imaginary animals
constructed by Joseph Camin "according to rules known only to
him."  I use cut out photocopies of the creatures and ask the
students to construct a phylogeny.  The animals are more
interesting than hardware and the students do not need any prior
knowledge to tackle the problem.  They become frustrated,
however, trying to make decisions about possible relationships,
which provides a good opening to discuss the kinds of information
that biologists would like to have to construct a phylogeny.
Because the animals were developed according to a set of rules,
there is some "naturalness" to the exercise and most students
come up with roughly similar classifications.  It is not as good
as working with real organisms, however.

Copies of the animals can be found in an article by Robert Sokal
entitled "Numerical Taxonomy" in Scientific American, vol. 215,
December, 1966.  I do not have a reference to the original
publication by Camin.

Richard W. Miller
Butler University
miller@butler.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:187>From arkeo4@uniwa.uwa.edu.au  Wed May 25 17:42:53 1994

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 06:36:17 +0800 (WST)
From: Dave Rindos <arkeo4@uniwa.uwa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: teaching phylogenies
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On Wed, 25 May 1994 MILLER@Butler.EDU wrote:

> In response to Bonnie Blackwell and David Baum, another way to
> start teaching phylogenies is with a group of imaginary animals
> constructed by Joseph Camin "according to rules known only to
> him."  I use cut out photocopies of the creatures and ask the
> students to construct a phylogeny.  . .

> Copies of the animals can be found in an article by Robert Sokal
> entitled "Numerical Taxonomy" in Scientific American, vol. 215,
> December, 1966.  I do not have a reference to the original
> publication by Camin.

I have used these "Caminicules" in laboratory exercises with good success
for a number of years.  The "angle" I use, however, is that the students
prepare TWO classifications.  First a phenetic one, then a phyletic one.
The exercise is done in such a manner that when they create the phenetic
classification they don't know they will be repeating the process with a
different set of rules later.  Following the phyletic classification, the
students "map" their phenetic classification on the phyletic one.  Hence,
they get some idea of of how and why non/pre-evolutionary taxonomies
appear compatable with evolutionary ones.

I assume I have a copy of the handout for this class laying around on
disk somewhere.  If you're interested, write me.

Dave
--
	Dave Rindos		  arkeo4@uniwa.uwa.edu.au
    20 Herdsmans Parade    Wembley   WA    6014    AUSTRALIA
    Ph:+61 9 387 6281 (GMT+8)  FAX:+61 9 386 2760 (USEST+13)
      [you may also reach me on rindos@perth.dialix.oz.au]

      >I'm in need of something clever or cute to put here<

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:188>From sarich@qal.berkeley.edu  Thu May 26 12:37:56 1994

From: Prof Vince Sarich <sarich@qal.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 10:38:11 -0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Phylogenies and paleontologists

Bonnie Blackwell writes:

<On another point raised by Baum, however, I must disagree.  Within human
and primate phylogenies, the chemical phylogeny currently is at odds with
the fossil evidence, especially with regards to timing, measures of
biochemical/genetic closeness, and in a few cases, hierarchical
assignments. Moreover, not all human paleontologists agree on the best
phylogeny. There have been frequent reassignments in the past few
decades, partly from the results of new fossil discoveries, but also as
theories of classification changed, as new geochronological data
accumulated, as discoveries were reexamined and "rediscovered" hidden in
museums. This leads me to believe that there is no "right" answer for
classifications merely one that is currently most acceptable given our
current knowledge.

Bonn@nickel.laurentian.ca>

Lots of issues here.

First.  It is of course true that there is disagreement on the timing of
various nodes in the primate tree.  It is also true that the consensus today
is much closer to the dates we suggested beginning back in the 60s than to
the dates various paleontologists were bruting about then.  For example, I
have in my hand a book entitled The Evolution of Man, written by David
Pilbeam, and published by Funk and Wagnalls in 1970. On page 83, there is
a diagram which has the human line splitting from that leading to the
large apes about 30 million years ago, with the chimp and gorilla lines
splitting about 25 million years ago.  And each line had a fossil on it:
Ramapithecus was the proto-hominid; Dryopithecus major was the proto-
gorilla; and D. africanus was the proto-chimpanzee.  On pages 80 and 83,
Pilbeam wrote:
Chimps and gorillas have always been referred to as very close
relatives; some workers would have them splitting as late as the
Pleistocene.  The fossil evidence, as I have shown, is rather against
this; once again it looks as though two species of living hominoids
have evolved their special hominoid features separately and in
parallel -- just like the gibbons.  Unless that is so, D. africanus and D.
major are lineages paralleling chimpanzee and gorilla, but much
earlier in time; this seems unlikely. .........

At the time of their divergence, the species leading to the three living
pongids seem to have been quadrupeds and did not resemble their
descendants.  This suggests that many of the similarities among
living apes are probably parallelisms -- a most important point.

Of course Pilbeam, prodded by the molecular data, soon thereafter
developed a working familiarity with Occam's Razor, and stopped talking
about parallelisms and ancient divergence times.  It took his mentor,
Elwyn Simons, at least another decade to manage this.  See Lewin's The
Bones of Contention for a very readable history of all this.

Simons and Pilbeam were the paleontological consensus of the time -- and
they were spectacularly wrong.

Second, and much more important, Blackwell seems to be accepting the
very strange notion that paleontologists are the best source of
phylogenetic information.  Where is the evidence for this? It seems to me
that one would be hard-put to provide one example of where the fossil
record has provided new or critical information concerning the
phylogenetic position of an extant primate. The best evidence (because
there is so much more of it) has always been the comparative anatomy of
living forms; more recently it has become clear that you can do even
better with their proteins and nucleic acids.

Where are the branching order disagreements concerning extant primates?
What is the evidence involved?

Finally, at least for now, what in the world do "theories of classification"
have to do with phylogenetic placements? Phylogenies have a clear goal:
to represent the actual, real-time, sequence of events linking the various
forms of interest. Classifications ....... no, time is too short to get into
that can of worms.

Vincent Sarich
sarich@qal.berkeley.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:189>From sarich@qal.berkeley.edu  Thu May 26 12:53:56 1994

From: Prof Vince Sarich <sarich@qal.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 10:54:11 -0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Emergence

A couple of weeks ago Gessler, Junger, and others initiated a dialogue on the
concept of emergence and its relevance to understanding various human
behaviors and institutions. I was struck, in following that discussion, by
the fact that the name Hayek appeared not at all. Yet certainly Hayek has been
the major recent expositor of the concept of emergence (even though he didn't
call it that) and its relevance for understanding human behavior and institu-
tions. I am also struck with how very few of my colleagues have even heard of
him, much less read anything by him. It appears that the same it true for
darwin-l subscribers. So what does everyone have against him?

Assuming there's anyone still around, I would very much appreciate some good
references on the concept of emergence (under whatever name) and its history.
An old (1944) Britannica article takes the name back to George Lewes in 1875
and says that this was a new name, not a new concept, but gives no earlier
references for the concept. I trust there must be many of you out there who
can save me some library time.

Vincent Sarich
sarich@qal.berkeley.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:190>From sarich@qal.berkeley.edu  Thu May 26 13:14:38 1994

From: Prof Vince Sarich <sarich@qal.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 11:14:54 -0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Tytler

One last brief query from me today. In Parliament of Whores, P J O'Rourke
quotes Alexander Tytler as writing:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist
until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out
of the public treasury.

Can anyone give me a source for this quote. The only book by Tytler in our
library doesn't have it.

Vincent Sarich
sarich@qal.berkeley.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:191>From LARRYS@psc.plymouth.edu  Thu May 26 13:29:10 1994

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 14:29:10 -0500 (EST)
From: LARRYS@psc.plymouth.edu
Subject: Re: teaching phylogenies
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: Plymouth State College, Plymouth NH

Re:  photocopy of creatures

I used a similar approach in historical geology with respect to the fishes.
I photocopied about 25 different fish from a variety of ancient and modern
groups and then had the students try to develop phylogenetic relationships
by pasting the fish on a large sheet in what they thought would be a good
phylogenetic relationship.  I would say that approach was only moderately
successful.  Part of the problem is that the photocopies often do not
have enough detail to enable the students to make decisions as to ancestral
and derived characteristics.  I should mention that at the same time I
did this, I had the students try to enter their data into MacClade and
to compare the MacClade cladogram with the one derived by simply looking at
the fish.  This was even less successful.  MacClade is fairly easy to use,
but apparently not easy enough.  Even though I showed the students what to
do, had a sheet with fairly complete directions, only about half got through
this part of the exercise.  It doesn't mean defeat though, as I think just
the aspect of trying to determine characters and character states is an
important aspect of the particular exercise.

Larry Spencer
Plymouth State College
larrys@psc.plymouth.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:192>From jel@christa.unh.edu  Thu May 26 20:24:18 1994

Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 21:24:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: John E Limber <jel@christa.unh.edu>
Subject: Re: Phylogenies and paleontologists
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

I second Sarich's comments on the relative importance of
fossil evidence; see for example Darwin's logic in suggesting an African
origin of humans.  As I recall this is based almost entirely on
morphological (the obvious), behavioral (e.g.we and chimps use tools), and
even immunological similarities (we get the same diseases). Does Darwin
anywhere rely on fossil evidence?

John Limber
Department of Psychology
University of New Hampshire, Durham NH 03824, USA

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:193>From abrown@independent.co.uk  Fri May 27 03:03:41 1994

From: Andrew Brown <abrown@independent.co.uk>
Subject: Re: The Grey Squirrel, London, and sexual frustration
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 21:09:08 +0100 (BST)

Speaking as a journalist living in London, I have to say that I have seen
a lot of grey squirrels; I have even seen a lot of sexual frustration. But
I have never seen or heard of anything like the behaviour described. I
would suspect CNN before I started looking for explanations.
Andrew Brown (in case my .sig fails to work again)

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:194>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca  Fri May 27 07:43:18 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 08:40:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca>
Subject: phylogenies
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On 9405.26, Sarich raised several issues.  I would like to reply with several
comments.

1. Are phylogenies not a form of classification (sensu lato)?  Does the process
of building phyologenies not begin with classication?  I think the disagreement
here is a matter of semantics.  I agree that phylogenies make many inferences
about evolutionary development.  I do think, however, that one is naive if
one believes that our theories (phylogenies) do not change as our scientific
paradigms (eg. the advent of cladistics) change.  Any phylogeny is the product
of current scientific beliefs.  If it remains unchanged for a long period,
then either it must either be very useful and robust (independent of paradigm)
or else science is not progressing very much during that period.

2. Since my work involves extinct primates, the problems of their phylogenetic
relationships are of paramount concern.  Nor can any phylogeny ignore the
fossil evidence.  It may not necessarily agree with all other information
derived from modern organisms.  The disagreements to which I refered were
among the Australopithecine and Homo lineage branches.

3. If a hypothesis is  useful, then it must predict outcomes.  Therefore,
if a phylogenetic classification constructed from biochemical data (or any
other source) has any utility, it must predict the evidence that will be found
using other data.  Therefore, if the biochemical data is not a good predictor
for the fossil evidence, then problems must exist in either the biochemical
interpretation or the geological/paleontological data.  Occam's razor
can not be used to justify ignoring data, merely to select the simplest
explanation that addresses ALL the issues.

4. Now that biochemical analyses are being completed on fossilized tissues
(i.e. genetic analysis of 35 Ma Magnolia chloroplasts), these data need to
be considered also when building phylogenies.

5. Biochemical data can only give you ideas about closeness.  There is
no implicit information  there regarding timing.  For example, for
35 My, the Magnolia has experienced little evolutionary change in its
DNA, while other lineages have experienced considerable changes.
Therefore, if the phyologeny is to have a time depth you must use
the fossil evidence to add that dimension, since the evolutionary pressure
on any protein in any lineage will be a function of its host's evolutionary
rate and a number of other factors that depend on the individual protein
under consideration.

Bonnie Blackwell
Bonn@nickel.laurentian.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:195>From BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca  Fri May 27 07:43:20 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 08:40:55 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bonnie Blackwell, (519)253-4232x2502" <BONN@nickel.laurentian.ca>
Subject: Darwin and fossils
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

In reply to Limber:

If the biographies of Darwin hold any truth, then Darwin did use lots
of fossil evidence to support his Origins.  Much of his evidence, however,
relied on fossil invertebrates.  According to one biography, it was seeing
fossil molluscs exposed high in the Andes, that started him thinking about
evolution in the first place.  While Wallace's theories were all based on
his observations of modern species, much of Darwin's theories were prompted
by fossil evidence.

Darwin did not ignore the fossil hominid evidence, he interpreted it
differently by assuming that information was missing from the fossil
record.

Bonnie Blackwell
bonn@nickel.laurentian.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:196>From margaret@ling.edinburgh.ac.uk  Fri May 27 07:55:12 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 94 13:41:31 BST
From: Margaret Winters <margaret@ling.edinburgh.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: World-wide William Whewell Party update
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Dear Bob,

Three of the four Darwin-L subscribers at the University of
Edinburgh met at a local wine bar to mark the anniversary on
Tuesday - there will be a photograph in the mail to you as soon
as 1. the roll of film gets finished 2. it gets developed 3. I
get organized.

A wonderful time was had by all!

Cheers,
Margaret Winters

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:197>From junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu  Fri May 27 08:02:09 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 94 07:59:29 EDT
From: junger@samsara.law.cwru.edu (Peter D. Junger)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Emergence

In message <199405261754.KAA05537@hammel.qal.berkeley.edu> Vincent Sarich
writes:

>A couple of weeks ago Gessler, Junger, and others initiated a dialogue on the
>concept of emergence and its relevance to understanding various human
>behaviors and institutions. I was struck, in following that discussion, by
>the fact that the name Hayek appeared not at all. Yet certainly Hayek has been
>the major recent expositor of the concept of emergence (even though he didn't
>call it that) and its relevance for understanding human behavior and institu-
>tions. I am also struck with how very few of my colleagues have even heard of
>him, much less read anything by him. It appears that the same it true for
>darwin-l subscribers. So what does everyone have against him?

I don't have anything against Hayek--he is certainly much to be
preferred over the schools of economists that now afflict our polity.  I
have not read him for several years, but as I recall it is always a
pleasure.  If I have the time perhaps I will him again this summer.  But
he is a systems mystic--even though he doesn't talk about systems in the
way that others of that persuasion do, he talks about entrepeneurs.

No here has really pursued the systems theorists' approaches to
emergence.  That might be an interesting topic, but it extensively
discussed in the lists dedicated to chaos theory (which I suppose one
could describe as the mathematics that underlies the historical
sciences, especially with its emphasis on systems' sensitivity to their
original conditions) and the Autopoesis list.  But then one would not
expect many references to Hayek, who is rather old hat, not very
rigorous, and probably seen as a polemicist more than an explicator.  If
we are going to move into those rather refined areas, the names that I
would expect to hear would be those of Marvin Minsky of the _Society of
Mind_ and Feigenbaum (that is I believe the name of the primary
mathematician of chaos theory) and Mandelbaum of the Mandelbaum Set and
Maturana and Varella of _Autopoesis_.

I suspect, however, that these discussions of emergencies are not really
of much concern to most of us.  They suggest that evolution is possible,
but do not tell us much, if anything, about the histories that we are
actually looking at.

But perhaps I should not generalize so broadly; I should think that the
mathematical ecologists in our midst (and I hope that there are some of
them here) would find chaos theory with its emergent bifurcations
central to their concerns.  But I doubt that mathematical ecologists
have much occasion to mention Hayeck.  Hayek is of interest to me
because I am a lawyer and an opponent of the pablamized Paretian
economics that too often is passed off as legal thought these days--and
because I love a good polemic.  I wouldn't, however, expect that many
here share my particular interests.

Peter D. Junger

Case Western Reserve University Law School, Cleveland, OH
Internet:  JUNGER@SAMSARA.LAW.CWRU.Edu -- Bitnet:  JUNGER@CWRU

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:198>From SAJAY%UMSVM.BITNET@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU  Fri May 27 08:31:40 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 08:27:27 -0600 (CST)
From: "Jay K. Johnson" <SAJAY%UMSVM.BITNET@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: language and culture text
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

I'm not a linguist but have been teaching a 300 level anthro
course on language and culture off and on for several years.
Last time my texts were -Aspects of Language and Culture- (Eastman),
-Sociolinguistics- (Trudgill), and -Cognitive Anthropology- (Tyler).
Tyler just went out of print and I'm thinking about redoing the course.
Any suggestions for new texts would be welcome.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:199>From ad201@freenet.carleton.ca  Fri May 27 09:09:13 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 10:09:22 -0400
From: ad201@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Donald Phillipson)
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Cultural emergence

Prof Vince Sarich <sarich@qal.Berkeley.EDU> asked 26 May 1994 about
Emergence...

>Assuming there's anyone still around, I would very much appreciate
>some good references on the concept of emergence (under whatever name)
>and its history. An old (1944) Britannica article takes the name back
>to George Lewes in 1875 and says that this was a new name, not a new
>concept, but gives no earlier references for the concept.

G.H. Lewes was central (with George Eliot and Herbert Spencer) among
Victorian promoters in the English-speaking world of Auguste Comte's
theory of Positivism, of which the general historical theme is
cultural emergence.  Human history has gone through three major
phases, first Superstition (man ruled by religio-mystical authority),
then Material Power (military and legal-political authority,
theory-based but interested) and nowadays Knowledge, i.e. objective
and disinterested sciences including social sciences.  The
characteristic disciplines of each successive age are Theology,
Physics and Sociology (Comte apparently coined this word.)

There are obvious affinities between these ideas and other theories of
human progress, e.g. Darwin and Marx.  Literature on the subject
ranges from Edmund Wilson's To the Finland Station to J.B. Bury's Idea
of Progress and more recent publications on the concept of progress.
I don't know any single crib I'd trust.

--
 |          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 |

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:200>From baumd@vms2.macc.wisc.edu  Fri May 27 09:44:33 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 08:49:54 -0600
From: ("David Baum") <baumd@vms2.macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Teaching phylogenies
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

I am sorry for not responding earlier to Bonnie Blackwell's reaction to my
comments on her suggested class exercise for the teaching of phylogenetic
principles.  I said:

"Whereas different groups of students are likely to come up with substantially
different classifications of the hardware, systematists have realized for
centuries that different workers emphasizing different characters come up
with similar classications of organisms."

"....it should be explained that the recognition of, say, the order
Caryophyllales (the plant order containing cacti, spinach, beet, campions
etc.) originally suggested based on morphological characters was
subsequently confirmed by plant chemistry and, more recently, by DNA-based
analyses. [but note: the fact that different data agree is not WHY
Caryophyllales is a taxon, but merely provides evidence that convinvces us
that it is]. In contrast, the group "bolts" is unlikely to be found by a
chemist:  She/he would recognize a "genus," "brass objects," which would
include some but not all bolts and some but not all screws."

To this Blackwell responded:

>... not all human paleontologists agree on the best phylogeny [of hominds].
>There have been frequent reassignments in the past few decades, partly
>From the results of new fossil discoveries, but also as theories of
>classification changed, as new geochronological data accumulated,
>as discoveries were reexamined and "rediscovered" hidden in museums.
>This leads me to believe that there is no "right" answer for classifications
>merely one that is currently most acceptable given our current knowledge.

Since then Vincent Sarich has responded to much of what Blackwell said and
ended with:

"Finally, at least for now, what in the world do "theories of classification"
have to do with phylogenetic placements? Phylogenies have a clear goal:
to represent the actual, real-time, sequence of events linking the various
forms of interest. Classifications ....... no, time is too short to get into
that can of worms."

I want to open the can of worms - briefly and then slam the lid back on!
Here are some points of view I happen to hold:

1) There is one true history to life
2) If taxa are defined based exclusively on history (as they should be -
the topic of another message) then taxon boundaries are objectively real
and there is one correct taxonomy for any given point in time
(notwithstanding arbitrary issues such as names and ranks).
3) The "taxa" recognized in systems of classifications are HYPOTHESES of
real taxa.
4) The ROUGH congruence among different sorts of evidence in suggesting
similar hypothesized taxa is evidence for the fact that taxa, as historical
entities, exist.

>From these points I hope it is clear that the fact that if, sometimes, the
classifcations suggested by different people using different evidence
differ, that does not justify the suggestion that taxa are arbitrary
classes like "screws."  For a start many taxonomists do not see taxa as
hypotheses of real things.  Instead they view them as repositories of
structured knowledge.  As a result, many taxonomic systems have been driven
by utilitarian or social adgendas rather than presumptions about
evolutionary history.  However, even if all the systematists working on
hominids were driven to represent history, that does not mean they will all
succeed, and therefore congruence among them is not guaranteed.  We cannot
know the true evolutionary chronicle, we can only estimate it from the data
at hand.  Like any estimation procedure it is not guaranteed to succeed.
Thus, even in the best of circumstances we can expect instability in our
systems of classifcation.

The reaction of Bonnie Blackwell suggests to me a good reason for NOT
teaching phylogenies using hardware or similar non-biological examples.  By
starting from classification and moving to phylogeny there is a tendency to
view the classification AS the phylogeny rather than as an approximation
thereof.  Instead it is perhaps better to have students START by generating
simulated phylogenies(e.g., evolving words with cladogenesis).  THEN ask
them how they could infer the course of this phylogeny given only the end
points.  THEN explain how such an inferred phylogeny can be represented as
a classification.  Has anybody tried such an approach?  Does it work?

At this point I have an embarassing admission to make - I have never taught
phylogeny, or at least not in the formal setting of a classroom.  I will be
doing so soon, though, so I have been thinking about these issues somewhat.
I am interested in hearing the various approaches people have been taking
and there success or otherwise.

David Baum
Department of Botany
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI 53706
Phone: (608)262-6041
Fax:   (608)262-7509
BaumD@MACC.WISC.EDU

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:201>From BENEDICT@VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU  Fri May 27 09:46:10 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 10:47:34 -0500 (EST)
From: BENEDICT@VAX.CS.HSCSYR.EDU
Subject: Re: phylogenies
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

  Bonnie Blackwell asks "Are phylogenies not a form of classification (sensu
lato)?"  I think the answer is no. A phylogeny is a hypothesis about
evolutionary relationships, and is commonly expressed as a tree. A
classification is a logical arrangement of the taxa included in that
hypothesis (and which presumably reflects it). It's quite possible to produce
a non-phylogenetic classification.  A (checklist) sequence is a
linear expression of the classification.  A given phylogeny generally supports
multiple classifications (depending on how one associates branches), and a
given classification generally supports multiple sequences (by branch
reversals and within group sequences). There's a paper touching on this issue
(with which I otherwise generally disagree) by Ernst Mayr & Walter Bock in
issue 1 of The Ibis for 1994.
  Her point 2) is the often forgotten aspect of "parsimony"
  In general phylogenetic hypotheses start at the present and work backwords
in time. So usefulness of hypotheses means they predict the characteristics of
common ancestors, and they summarize the common traits that define groups. I
think those are the only "outcomes" you can expect from them, but that's
potentially a lot.
  4) Yep!
  5) The question of rates still is open. Some molecular data (protein
electrophoresis, immunological distances) commonly give the impresssion that
rates vary wildly. Gene sequences sometimes do and sometimes don't, and may
depend on how transversions/transitions are weighted. DNA-DNA hybridization
seems to suggest relatively low variation in average rates of evolution within
major groups (classes, etc) but the possibility of large rate variation
between groups separated at higher taxonomic levels.  I think it's easy to
explain why the first happens (because a lot of "silent" variation is missed)
but reconciling the second two is still "work in progress."  For birds, it's
begining to look like there's a good correlation between the two measures, but
the weight of transitions to transversions seems to depend on the distances
involved. A constant average rate, of course, means individual protein/gene
rates don't have to be the same.

Paul DeBenedictis
SUNY Health Science Center at Syracuse

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:202>From graybeal@garnet.berkeley.edu  Fri May 27 13:39:38 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 11:39:37 -0700
From: graybeal@garnet.berkeley.edu
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Teaching phylogenies

I have been following the discussion about teaching phylogenies
with some interest, since this is one of the areas of biology that I
think is most important and fascinating.  In a recent posting David
Baum suggested that one teaching technique might be to use evolving
words, and asked if anyone had ever tried this.  I am a graduate
student at the Univ. of CA, Berkeley, and served as a teaching
assistant for David Wake's Evolution class last fall.  I gave two lectures
in the class on phylogenetics, the first about the conceptual aspects
of "tree thinking" (thank you Bob O'Hara), and the second about
methods of phylogenetic reconstruction.  To open the first lecture,
I described trees as "diagrams representing relationships of descent."
I then asked the students to participate in a demonstration of how
trees are formed by getting them to play a diverging version of the
kids' game known as "Telephone" (or at least that's what we called
it).  The game starts by someone whispering a word or phrase to the
person next to them, and continues by successive neighbors passing
this phrase down the line.  It usually ends in hilarity as the final person
announces what they "heard", which inevitably differs from what was
originally said.  In the case of my lecture, I created a tree-like structure
by using certain rows and columns of the students in their seats (I gave
the students involved a 3x5 card so that they could "see" the structure
of the tree; for example, who to hear the phrase from and who to pass it
to).  The result was actually better than I had hoped.  I started the
"evolution" by whispering the phrase "The water is wide; I cannot
cross over" (lines from a folk song).  We had apomorphies: one
"taxon" said "The water is wide; I can't cross it", and we even had a
synapomorphy: two sister "taxa" said "The water is wine," rather
than "wide."  Also, it did not take much time and proceeded without
disrupting the normal feel of class.  Clearly such a game only begins
to expose students to what phylogenies are all about, but it seemed to
get the general idea across, and also seemed to be something the students
enjoyed.

Anna Graybeal
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology
University of CA, Berkeley
graybeal@garnet.berkeley.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:203>From asap@u.washington.edu  Fri May 27 13:49:03 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 11:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andie Palmer <asap@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: language and culture text
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

With regard to Jay K. Johnson's request for 300 level texts in language
and culture:

I highly recommend Zdenek Salzmann's _Language, Culture, and Society:
An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology_ (1993) Westview Press.

The language and culture course at University of Washington is taught at
the 200 level, and this book is too detailed for a lower division survey
course, in my opinion, but I have been longing to try it out!

Also of interest:
	_Language in Use: Readings in Sociolinguistics_ (1984) Prentice-Hall,
	John Baugh and Joel Sherzer, Eds.

The article in the collection that generates the most class discussion is
Carol Brooks Gardner's _Passing By:  Street Remarks, Address Rights, and
the Urban Female_.  Gardner discusses the ambiguous position of women on
the street as members of a marked category, open to whistles and other
"breaches of civil inattention" even when those women attempt to remain
"in role."  A few of my students have told me that this article is the one
that made them appreciate the relevance of explanatory models in
sociolinguistics to their own life experiences. (Although not precisely in
those words, of course!)

The collection also includes classic articles by Hymes, Labov and
Trudgill, and an interesting piece on language choice by Susan Gall that
is pertinent to discussions of ethnic tensions in Eastern Europe.

Neither textbook is strong in the area of cognitive anthropology, but as you
are considering revamping the course, I think you might find these of
interest.

Best wishes,

Andie Palmer
(By way of introduction: an almost-finished PhD candidate in
sociolinguistics, who gets to teach quite a bit in the department
named below)
Department of Anthropology,
DH-05 University of Washington
Seattle, WA  98105
asap@u.washington.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:204>From DONNADIG@SBBIOVM.BITNET  Fri May 27 15:47:13 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 16:43:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Donna DiGiovanni <DONNADIG%SBBIOVM.BITNET@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Re: teaching phylogenies
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

If anyone is interested in the technical details surrounding the Caminalcules
and their taxonomy, they should see the following papers for more info:

Sokal, R.R.  1983.  A Phylogenetic Analysis of the Caminalcules. I. The Data
       Base. Systematic Zoology 32(2):159-184.

Sokal, R.R.  1983.  A Phylogenetic Analysis of the Caminalcules. II.
       Estimating the True Cladogram.  Syst. Zool. 32(2):185-201.

Sokal, R.R.  1983.  A Phylogenetic Analysis of the Caminalcules. III.
       Fossils and Classification.  Syst. Zool. 32(3):248-258.

Sokal, R.R.  1983.  A Phylogenetic Analysis of the Caminalcules. IV.
       Congruence and Character Stability.  Syst. Zool. 32(3):259-275.

Sokal, R.R., K.L. Fiala, and G. Hart.  1984.  OTU Stability and factors
       Determining Taxonomic Stability: Examples from the Caminalcules
       and the Leptopodomorpha.  Syst. Zool. 33(4):387-407.

Personally, I think the Caminalcules exercise is a good place to start
understanding phylogenies, as well as the inherent biases/pitfalls in
phylogenetic analyses.  They do seem to be very realistic for
invented animals.

  * - - - - - - - - - -  Donna DiGiovanni - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *
  | Dept. of Ecology & Evolution,     State University of New York      |
  | Stony Brook, NY 11794-5245                                          |
  |                                   DONNADIG@SBBIOVM.SUNYSB.EDU       |
  | "To compute or not to compute, that is the question........         |
  |  now, who took the manual again?... "                               |
  * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:205>From lgorbet@mail.unm.edu  Fri May 27 19:00:33 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 18:00:30 -0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: lgorbet@mail.unm.edu (Larry Gorbet)
Subject: Re: language and culture text

Jay Johnson asks

>I'm not a linguist but have been teaching a 300 level anthro
>course on language and culture off and on for several years.
...
>Any suggestions for new texts would be welcome.

Sure:  Nancy Bonvillain's _Language, Culture, and Communication:  The
Meaning of Messages_ (Prentice-Hall, 1993).  IMHO, both broader and deeper
coverage than just about any other lang. & culture *text*.

BTW, the Baugh & Sherzer collection (_Language in Use_, 1984) cited by
Andie Palmer is, I believe out-of-print.  It is a very nice collection (for
my purposes, at least), and I would be very pleased to see it available
again.

Larry Gorbet                         lgorbet@mail.unm.edu
Anthropology & Linguistics Depts.    (505) 883-7378
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM, U.S.A.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:206>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Fri May 27 20:48:21 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 21:48:13 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Whewell's World-Wide Palaetiologists' Party -- Thanks to all!
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Many thanks to Margaret Winters for her report on the Edinburgh realization
of William Whewell's World-Wide Palaetiologists' Party on May 24th.  I'm
looking forward to seeing the photograph!  I just wanted to extend my
appreciation to all who participated in this event around the world -- an
Internet first to be sure.  In addition to Margaret's party in Edinburgh
other palaetiologists held celebrations that I heard about in Cambridge,
Massachusetts; Madison, Wisconsin; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Wellington,
New Zealand.  I'd be delighted to hear from anyone else who joined in.

Three cheers for the Rev. Dr. Whewell and for the future of palaetiology!
We must do it all again for his 250th in the year 2044!

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:207>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Fri May 27 23:02:35 1994

Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 00:02:29 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Special teaching issue of Today in the Historical Sciences on its way
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

May 28th is the birthday of Louis Agassiz, and in recognition of our
current thread on teaching we will have a special issue of Today in the
Historical Sciences that includes the very famous teaching story of Louis
Agassiz and the fish.  It is a bit long for a single message, and it doesn't
specifically address the teaching of _historical_ phenomena, but it is
one of the most delightful teaching stories ever told, and anyone who has
never read it before is in for a treat.

The story was originally written by Samuel Scudder, one of Agassiz's students,
shortly after Agassiz's death, and is perhaps most accessible today in the
fine little volume _Louis Agassiz as a Teacher_, edited by Lane Cooper in
1945.  It was later taken up by Ezra Pound in his book _ABC of Reading_ as
an example of how literature should be taught, and then Pound's version of
the story was later commented on by the literary critic Robert Scholes in
an essay called "Is there a fish in this text?"  Darwin-L member Polly Winsor
also talks about the story in her recent book _Reading the Shape of Nature:
Comparative Zoology at the Agassiz Museum_ (Univ. Chicago Press, 1991).

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:208>From asap@u.washington.edu  Sat May 28 01:09:43 1994

Date: Fri, 27 May 1994 23:09:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andie Palmer <asap@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: language and culture text
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

More with regard to Jay K. Johnson's request for language and
culture textbooks:

Although I prefer Salzmann's text, I've used Bonvillain's (Larry Gorbet's
recommendation in an earlier post) in the past, and it DOES have a decent
section on ethnoscience.  There are some irritating typos in the charts,
diagrams, and in the Japanese examples (as my Japanese-speaking students
have pointed out) but I'm sure these will be corrected by the time the
second edition is printed.  As an Americanist (who works with Mohawk),
Bonvillain draws many examples from languages and conversational styles
found in Native North America, including Mohawk and Cree, as well as the
more generally cited Southwest languages.  I heartily appreciate this
emphasis!

Happy choosing.  It's nice to have some reasonable texts out this year to
supplement the reading packets.  I'm sorry to hear from Larry Gorbet that
Baugh and Sherzer is out-of-print.  Thanks for the info, I guess I'll be
doing some looking myself.  More suggestions, Darwin folk?

Andie Palmer
Department of Anthropology, DH-05
University of Washington
Seattle, WA  98195
asap@u.washington.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:209>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sat May 28 01:17:51 1994

Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 02:17:43 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: May 28 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

MAY 28 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1807: JEAN LOUIS RODOLPHE AGASSIZ is born at Motier-en-Vuly, Switzerland.
As a young naturalist in Europe, Agassiz will do foundational work in
paleontology and historical geology, and in his _Etudes sur les glaciers_
(Neuchatel, 1840) he will present the first comprehensive theory of the Ice
Age.  Following his emigration to the United States in 1846 he will establish
the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, and later contribute
to the founding of the United States National Academy of Sciences.  Agassiz's
skill as a teacher will become the stuff of legend, and many years after his
death the rhetorician Lane Cooper will publish a collection of reminiscences
by his students, _Louis Agassiz as a Teacher_ (Ithaca, 1945), which will
include a classic account of the professor's technique, originally written
by Samuel Scudder in 1874:

    It was more than fifteen years ago [from 1874] that I entered the
  laboratory of Professor Agassiz, and told him I had enrolled my name in
  the Scientific School as a student of natural history.  He asked me a
  few questions about my object in coming, my antecedents generally, the
  mode in which I afterwards proposed to use the knowledge I might
  acquire, and, finally, whether I wished to study any special branch.
  To the latter I replied that, while I wished to be well grounded in
  all departments of zoology, I purposed to devote myself specially to
  insects.

    "When do you wish to begin?" he asked.

    "Now," I replied.

    This seemed to please him, and with an energetic "Very well!" he
  reached from a shelf a huge jar of specimens in yellow alcohol.

    "Take this fish," said he, "and look at it; we call it a haemulon;
  by and by I will ask you what you have seen."

    With that he left me, but in a moment returned with explicit
  instructions as to the care of the object entrusted to me.

    "No man is fit to be a naturalist," said he, "who does not know how
  to take care of specimens."

    I was to keep the fish before me in a tin tray, and occasionally
  moisten the surface with alcohol from the jar, always taking care to
  replace the stopper tightly.  Those were not the days of ground-glass
  stoppers and elegantly shaped exhibition jars; all the old students will
  recall the huge besmeared corks, half eaten by insects, and begrimed
  with cellar dust.  Entomology was a cleaner science than ichthyology,
  but the example of the Professor, who had unhesitatingly plunged to the
  bottom of the jar to produce the fish, was infectious; and though this
  alcohol has "a very ancient and fishlike smell," I really dared not show
  any aversion within these sacred precincts, and treated the alcohol as
  though it were pure water.  Still I was conscious of a passing feeling
  of disappointment, for gazing at a fish did not commend itself to an
  ardent entomologist.  My friends at home, too, were annoyed, when they
  discovered that no amount of eau-de-Cologne would drown the perfume
  which haunted me like a shadow.

    In ten minutes I had seen all that could be seen in that fish, and
  started in search of the Professor -- who had, however, left the Museum;
  and when I returned, after lingering over some of the odd animals stored
  in the upper apartment, my specimen was dry all over.  I dashed the
  fluid over the fish as if to resuscitate the beast from a fainting-fit,
  and looked with anxiety for a return of the normal sloppy appearance.
  This little excitement over, nothing was to be done but to return to a
  steadfast gaze at my mute companion.  Half an hour passed -- an hour --
  another hour --; the fish began to look loathsome.  I turned it over and
  around; looked it in the face -- ghastly; from behind, beneath, above,
  sideways, at three-quarter' view -- just as ghastly.  I was in despair;
  at an early hour I concluded that lunch was necessary; so with infinite
  relief, the fish was carefully replaced in the jar, and for an hour I
  was free.

    On my return, I learned that Professor Agassiz had been at the Museum,
  but had gone, and would not return for several hours.  My fellow-
  students were too busy to be disturbed by continued conversation.
  Slowly I drew forth that hideous fish, and with a deep feeling of
  desperation again looked at it.  I might not use a magnifying-glass;
  instruments of all kinds were interdicted.  My two hands, my two eyes,
  and the fish: it seemed a most limited field.  I pushed my finger down
  its throat to feel how sharp the teeth were.  I began to count the
  scales in the different rows, until I was convinced that that was
  nonsense.  At last a happy thought struck me -- I would draw the fish;
  and now with surprise I began to discover new features in the creature.
  Just then the Professor returned.

    "That is right," said he: a pencil is one of the best of eyes.  I am
  glad to notice, too, that you keep your specimen wet, and your bottle
  corked."

    With these encouraging words, he added:

    "Well, what is it like?"

    He listened attentively to my brief rehearsal of the structure of
  parts whose names were still unknown to me: the fringed gill-arches and
  movable operculum; the pores of the head, fleshy lips and lidless eyes;
  the lateral line, the spinous fins and forked tail; the compressed and
  arched body.  When I had finished, he waited as if expecting more, and
  then, with an air of disappointment:

    "You have not looked very carefully; why," he continued more
  earnestly, "you haven't even seen one of the most conspicuous features
  of the animal, which is as plainly before your eyes as the fish itself;
  look again, look again!" and he left me to my misery.

    I was piqued; I was mortified.  Still more of that wretched fish!  But
  now I set myself to my task with a will, and discovered one new thing
  after another, until I saw how just the Professor's criticism had been.
  The afternoon passed quickly; and when, toward its close, the Professor
  inquired:

    "Do you see it yet?"

    "No," I replied, "I am certain I do not, but I see how little I saw
  before."

    "That is next best," said he, earnestly, "but I won't hear you now;
  put away your fish and go home; perhaps you will be ready with a better
  answer in the morning.  I will examine you before you look at the fish."

    This was disconcerting.  Not only must I think of my fish all night,
  studying, without the object before me, what this unknown but most
  visible feature might be; but also, without reviewing my new
  discoveries, I must give an exact account of them the next day.  I had
  a bad memory; so I walked home by Charles River in a distracted state,
  with my two perplexities.

    The cordial greeting from the Professor the next morning was
  reassuring; here was a man who seemed to be quite as anxious as I that
  I should see for myself what he saw.

    "Do you perhaps mean," I asked, "that the fish has symmetrical sides
  with paired organs?"

    His thoroughly pleased "Of course! of course!" repaid the wakeful
  hours of the previous night.  After he had discoursed most happily and
  enthusiastically -- as he always did -- upon the importance of this
  point, I ventured to ask what I should do next.

    "Oh, look at your fish!" he said, and left me again to my own devices.
  In a little more than an hour he returned, and heard my new catalogue.

    "That is good, that is good!" he repeated; "but that is not all; go
  on"; and so for three long days he placed that fish before my eyes,
  forbidding me to look at anything else, or to use any artificial aid.
  "Look, look, look," was his repeated injunction.

    This was the best entomological lesson I ever had -- a lesson whose
  influence has extended to the details of every subsequent study; a
  legacy the Professor has left to me, as he has left it to many others,
  of inestimable value, which we could not buy, with which we cannot part.

    A year afterward, some of us were amusing ourselves with chalking
  outlandish beasts on the Museum blackboard.  We drew prancing
  starfishes; frogs in mortal combat; hydra-headed worms; stately
  crawfishes, standing on their tails, bearing aloft umbrellas; and
  grotesque fishes with gaping mouths and staring eyes.  The Professor
  came in shortly after, and was as amused as any at our experiments.
  He looked at the fishes.

    "Haemulons, every one of them," he said; "Mr. Scudder drew them."

    True; and to this day, if I attempt a fish, I can draw nothing but
  haemulons.

    The fourth day, a second fish of the same group was placed beside the
  first, and I was bidden to point out the resemblances and differences
  between the two; another and another followed, until the entire family
  lay before me, and a whole legion of jars covered the table and
  surrounding shelves; the odor had become a pleasant perfume; and even
  now, the sight of an old, six-inch, worm-eaten cork brings fragrant
  memories.

    The whole group of haemulons was thus brought in review; and, whether
  engaged upon the dissection of the internal organs, the preparation and
  examination of the bony framework, or the description of the various
  parts, Agassiz's training in the method of observing facts and their
  orderly arrangement was ever accompanied by the urgent exhortation not
  to be content with them.

    "Facts are stupid things," he would say, "until brought into
  connection with some general law."

    At the end of eight months, it was almost with reluctance that I left
  these friends and turned to insects; but what I had gained by this
  outside experience has been of greater value than the years of later
  investigation in my favorite groups.

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
listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (152.13.44.19).

_______________________________________________________________________________

<9:210>From dacox@ne21dnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV  Sat May 28 07:13:16 1994

From: dacox@ne21dnelnc.cr.usgs.GOV (Dale A. Cox)
Subject: Agassiz
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 7:11:12 CDT

Bob O'Hara,

   I enjoyed the "Today in History" sketch on Agassiz.  Wonderful!  Do you have
any more information about Scudder, the naturalist mentioned in the sketch?

Dale A. Cox
dacox@ne21dnelnc.cr.usgs.gov

_______________________________________________________________________________
Darwin-L Message Log 9: 176-210 -- May 1994                                 End

© RJO 1995–2016