rjohara.net

Search:  

Darwin-L Message Log 21: 1–18 — May 1995

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 1995. 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 21: 1-18 -- MAY 1995
-----------------------------------------

DARWIN-L
A Network Discussion Group on the
History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu is an international network discussion group on
the history and theory of the historical sciences.  Darwin-L was established
in September 1993 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 academic professionals in these fields.
Darwin-L is not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles
Darwin but instead addresses the entire range of historical sciences from an
interdisciplinary perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical
linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology,
systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical
anthropology, historical geography, and related "palaetiological" fields.

This log contains the public messages posted to Darwin-L during May 1995.
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 some administrative messages and personal messages 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 archives of Darwin-L by
listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, and is also available on the Darwin-L gopher at
rjohara.uncg.edu.  For instructions on how to retrieve copies of this and other
log files, and for additional information about Darwin-L, send the e-mail
message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, or connect to the
Darwin-L gopher at rjohara.uncg.edu.

Darwin-L is administered by Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu), Center for
Critical Inquiry in the Liberal Arts and Department of Biology, University of
North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A., and it
is supported by the Center for Critical Inquiry, University of North Carolina
at Greensboro, and the Department of History and the Academic Computing Center,
University of Kansas.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:1>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Mon May  1 00:04:11 1995

Date: Mon, 01 May 1995 01:04:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: List owner's monthly greeting
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Greetings to all Darwin-L subscribers.  On the first of every month I send
out a short note on the status of our group, along with a reminder of basic
commands.

Darwin-L is an international discussion group for professionals in the
historical sciences.  It is not devoted to any particular discipline, such
as evolutionary biology, but rather endeavors to promote interdisciplinary
comparisons among all the historical sciences.  Darwin-L was established in
September 1993, and we now have over 600 members from more than 30 countries.
I am grateful to all of our members for their continuing interest and their
many contributions.

Darwin-L is occasionally a "high-volume" discussion group.  Subscribers
who feel burdened from time to time by their Darwin-L mail may wish to take
advantage of the digest option described below.

Because different mail systems work differently, not all subscribers can
see the e-mail address of the original sender of each message in the message
header (some people only see "Darwin-L" as the source).  Please include your
name and e-mail address at the end of every message you post so that everyone
can identify you and reply privately if appropriate.  Remember also that in
most cases when you type "reply" in response to a message from Darwin-L your
reply is sent to the group as a whole, rather than to the original sender.

The following are the most frequently used listserv commands that Darwin-L
members may wish to know.  All of these commands should be sent as regular
e-mail messages to the listserv address (listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu),
not to the address of the group as a whole (Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu).
In each case leave the subject line of the message blank and include no
extraneous text, as the command will be read and processed by the listserv
program rather than by a person.  To join the group send the message:

     SUBSCRIBE DARWIN-L <Your Name>

     For example: SUBSCRIBE DARWIN-L John Smith

To cancel your subscription send the message:

     UNSUBSCRIBE DARWIN-L

If you feel burdened by the volume of mail you receive from Darwin-L you
may instruct the listserv program to deliver mail to you in digest format
(one message per day consisting of the whole day's posts bundled together).
To receive your mail in digest format send the message:

     SET DARWIN-L MAIL DIGEST

To change your subscription from digest format back to one-at-a-time
delivery send the message:

     SET DARWIN-L MAIL ACK

To temporarily suspend mail delivery (when you go on vacation, for example)
send the message:

     SET DARWIN-L MAIL POSTPONE

To resume regular delivery send either the DIGEST or ACK messages above.

For a comprehensive introduction to Darwin-L with notes on our scope and
on network etiquette, and a summary of all available commands, send the
message:

     INFO DARWIN-L

To post a public message to the group as a whole simply send it as regular
e-mail to the group's address (Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu).

I thank you all for your continuing interest in Darwin-L and in the
interdisciplinary study of the historical sciences.

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:2>From mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca  Tue May  2 19:18:10 1995

From: Mary P Winsor <mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: stuff
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu (Darin Brunson)
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 20:17:22 -0400 (EDT)

Darin, sincere apologies, I meant to answer fully, but still
haven't found the time to do that, and what I should have
done was at least answer briefly.  I meant to send you my
"Lessons of History" paper, did I omit to do that too, or
did you get it?
   It has been a while since I've looked at Ridley, but I
remember being exasperated at some of the way he talked
about Agassiz, as though people 100 years ago needed to be
cladists or not, but I recall he had some good reason to
take up history, since transformed cladists were pointing to
the likes of Agassiz as evidence of independence of taxonomy
and phylogeny.  I have a few pages in first chapter of my
Reading the Shape of Nature, which no reviewer has said a
word about - I don't know if anyone thinks it is wrong, or
trivial, but I thought it was new and important - showing
that Agassiz was a more extreme idealist than people have
realized.
   But I was very sympathetic to Ridley's intentions, I
think tc is philosophically naive and scientifically
pernicious. but I haven't the philosophical equipment to
argue this well.
   I am working at the moment on Gilmour's "Taxonomy and
Philosophy" article in New Systematics.  I feel considerably
handicapped being only a historian, but I tend to agree with
Mayr that his ideas were both wrong and harmful.
   You saw the Darwin-list posts after yours, with
references to the Mayr-"Darwinian" controversy.  I checked
up Ghiselin's article Syst. Zool. 34 (1985):460-2; he gives
some good long quotes that supply a fuller picture of
Darwin's opinion.
   I couldn't quite understand from what you said of
Eldredge (you gave no citation) how allopatric vs sympatric
speciation was relevant to the Darwin-as-proto-Mayrian
debate.
   Again, sorry for my silence, thanks for nudging me.
   Polly

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:3>From echandho@osf1.gmu.edu  Wed May  3 16:12:13 1995

Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 17:12:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: "EILEEN P. CHANDHOKE" <echandho@osf1.gmu.edu>
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Darwin and Spinsters?

     I am a science librarian at George Mason University in Northern
Virginia and recently had the following question posed to me for research.
I am not a Darwin scholar, but know enough about his works and theories to
answer many questions.  However, I have not been able to find an answer
to this one.  The question consists of an ecological argument about the
cascade effect of spinsters, cats, bumble bees, red clover and honey. Did
this originate from Darwin and if so, where does he make the statement?
	In the Origin, the relationship between red clover and humble-bees
is noted, as is that between cats and field mice and between mice and
bumble bees.  There is discussion of the importance of bumble bees for
the fertilization of red clover (and some doubt, which Darwin evidently
rejected) as to whether field mice actually attack bumble bee nests, but
nothing more.  Also in the Origin, Darwin writes that the honey bee does not
fertilize or use the nectar of the red clover.  That seems to suggest that
the greater prevalence of honey bee honey where spinsters keep their cats
would not arise from the presence of red clover.
	I have found scientific literature on bumble bees and honey bees
and the fertilization of red clover.  However I cannot figure how the
"spinsters" figure in to all this.  This research is being done for an
author who has used this ecological argument in his paper.  He has not
been able to find an answer - even after extensive research.  I would
appreciate any help anyone can give me on this question!!  You can respond
direct to me at my e-mail address.  Thanks in advance!

Eileen Chandhoke
echandho@osf1.gmu.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:4>From mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca  Sat May  6 09:08:46 1995

From: Mary P Winsor <mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca>
Subject: apology from a spinster
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu (bulletin board)
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 10:08:00 -0400 (EDT)

To members of the Darwin List, from Polly Winsor

My apologies for sending to you all what was meant to be a private
note to Darin Brunson, but since our conversation began on this list,
maybe some of you didn't mind listening in.

I enjoyed the interdisciplinary exchanges that Bob O'Hara is so
skillful at promoting, so maybe I can best make my apology substantial
by commenting on today's other posting -no, I can't answer the
question, but I hope if the good librarian gets an answer she will
share the gist of it with those of us whose curiosity was aroused.

She is referring to the attractive and familiar story Darwin uses in
chapter 3 of the Origin to remind us of the "complex relations of all
plants and animals throughout nature" -most of which we are ignorant
of, or forget even if we know them, because you need those relations
to explain that Natural Selection can create adaptation not just to
climate but to other species, and it was those adaptations (missletoe
to the oak tree it grows on, woodpecker's tongue to insect grub in
tree) that seemed beyond the power of Lamarck's theory.

(And all of this illustrates the revolutionary power of Darwin's
methodology, looking at present as key to the past)

So who would expect that presence of cats could determine rarity of
a flower, yet so it may be! says Darwin.  Note another clever step
of his argument - all he needs to show is that, as he says, "it is
credible"
I have with me here the sixth edition, but I don't recall the first
being much different.
To build the story, he says "Humble-bees alone visit red clover, as
other bees cannot reach the nectar"  [some British naturalists have
a real dislike of the Americanism "bumble-bee]  Mice destroy
humble-bee combs, and of course the number of cats affect the number
of mice.

No spinsters for the cats, just "towns".  No honey, just the
implied irrelevance of honeybees.

So the question is, who elaborated the tale? out of the blue I
would guess one of the great popularizers, T.H.Huxley, his grandson
Julian, or J.B.S. Haldane, but I don't know.

I would be glad to be told about "cascade," which I thought was a
term for an embryological series of events; it is in ecology too?

Polly Winsor   mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:5>From FGLEACH@MUSIC.TRANSY.EDU  Tue May  9 15:30:46 1995

Date: Tue, 09 May 95 16:29:09 EDT
From: "GLEACH,FREDERIC W." <FGLEACH@MUSIC.TRANSY.EDU>
To: <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: "quick" evolution examples?

Darwiners:

I know it's a bad time of year for many of us, but thought you might be able
to help.  A colleague of mine posed the following question, and I thought
posing it to this list would be the best way to answer it.

>I would like to find a reference or two for examples of cases where
>evolution (in terms of adaptive metabolism, or something that resembles
>it so I can apply it to hypothesize about arsenic) has taken no more than a
>few thousand years. Can you think of anything?

Responses may be sent to me (FGLEACH@MUSIC.TRANSY.EDU) or to the
list--but I need them within the next couple of weeks, as I will then be
leaving here.  Thanks in advance!

Fred

Frederic W. Gleach
Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology
Transylvania University

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:6>From jaustin@netcon.smc.edu  Tue May  9 17:22:03 1995

From: Jan Austin <jaustin@netcon.smc.edu>
Subject: Re: Simultaneous Discovery, Science
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Tue, 9 May 95 14:22:06 PDT

> For a lecture welcoming our sophomores into the History and Science
> concentration at Harvard, I am interested in collecting examples of
> simultaneous discoveries in science (like Darwin-Wallace, the microscope,
> etc). You can reach me directly at: lkoerner@fas.harvard.edu
> Sincerely,
> Lisbet Koerner
> Assistant Professor
> Department of the History of Science
> Harvard University

Hello,

I saw your request on the Darwin-l list and I would be very interested in
any listing that you might compile along those lines.  I think
simultaneous discoveries are most interesting particularly when viewed in
terms of social events and technological developments.  Any information
you would be comfortable sharing would be most appreciated.

Thanks,
                    Jan Austin
                    Santa Moncia College

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:7>From staddon@psych.duke.edu  Thu May 11 07:10:57 1995

Date: Thu, 11 May 95 08:10:54 EDT
From: staddon@psych.duke.edu (John Staddon)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Simultaneous Discovery, Science

Re: Simultaneous discoveries.  A modest example that is
interesting because of the number of simultaneous discoverers is
the Marginal Value Theorem in behavioral ecology.  Rick Charnov
is credited with the basic discovery (which is an application of
marginal-utility theory from economics to behavioral ecology),
but I think that four or five other people also had the idea
independently.  Mathematical formalisms like this seem often to
be discovered independently.  I guess the different forms of wave
mechanics proposed by de Broglie, Heisenberg and someone else --
but not know to be identical for several years -- is another,
famous example.

John Staddon

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:8>From LCOOK@fs2.scg.man.ac.uk  Thu May 11 08:28:02 1995

From: Laurence Martin Cook <LCOOK@fs2.scg.man.ac.uk>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 14:26:40 GMT+1
Subject: Re: short-term evolution

Subject: "quick" evolution examples?

>I would like to find a reference or two for examples of cases where
>evolution (in terms of adaptive metabolism, or something that resembles
>it so I can apply it to hypothesize about arsenic) has taken no more than a
>few thousand years. Can you think of anything?

The case of heavy metal tolerance by plants to spoil tips would seem
to fit both the requirement of short duration (few mine deposits are
more than 2000 years old) and adaptive metabolism related to aresnic.
But what do you mean by evolution?  Sewall Wright described the
"elementary evolutionary process" as change in gene frequency. On
this basis, you have a good example of evolution.  If you are looking
for species formation, that is something else.

Laurence M. Cook
The Manchester Museum
University of Manchester
Manchester M13 9PL

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:9>From jsl@rockvax.rockefeller.edu  Thu May 11 08:53:54 1995

To: "GLEACH,FREDERIC W." <FGLEACH@MUSIC.TRANSY.EDU>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: "quick" evolution examples? -- what phyletic range?
Date: Thu, 11 May 95 09:57:50 -0400
From: Joshua Lederberg <jsl@rockvax.rockefeller.edu>

<<<<<<
>I would like to find a reference or two for examples of cases where
>evolution (in terms of adaptive metabolism, or something that resembles
>it so I can apply it to hypothesize about arsenic) has taken no more than a
>few thousand years. Can you think of anything?
>>>>>>

Bacteria?  Viruses?

Before I dig out detailed references, what kinds of organisms will
you accept.  Model experiments in bacteria, say resistance to
streptomycin by modification of ribosome structure -- easily
demonstrated overnight in lab.  In natural populations, antibiotic
resistance becomes a dangerous nuisance in time scales of years to
a decade.  I am sure I can dig out specific instances of arsenic
adaptation as well.  For viruses, HIV-resistance to AZT

Insects?:
Much same as above, insecticide resistance: months to years in lab,
years to decades ex vitro.  Many examples.

Higher plants:  pesticide resistance, a few scattered examples
likewise.

Mammals:
Very likely this has been looked for with rodenticides.
Rabbits: in Australia, adjustment to myxoma virus infection in years
to decades.

Humans:
Some numbers of metabolic polymorphisms are known, not much in detail
about rates of evolutionary change.  Canonical example is Hb-S
(sickle cell hemoglobin trait), with shifts in gene frequency in
response to malarious environments are measured in millenia to tens
of millenia.

Human "adaptation" to arsenic is depicted in the mythical story of
Mithridates.

-------
Appended are a couple of sample references:

Authors
  Misenheimer TM.  Lund M.  Baker EM.  Suttie JW.
Institution
  Department of Biochemistry, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences,
  University of Wisconsin-Madison 53706.
Title
  Biochemical basis of warfarin and bromadiolone resistance in the house
  mouse, Mus musculus domesticus.
Source
  Biochemical Pharmacology.  47(4):673-8, 1994 Feb 11.
Abstract
  Danish mice (Mus musculus domesticus) genetically resistant to the
  anticoagulant action of two 4-hydroxycoumarins, warfarin and bromadiolone,
  were examined to determine their mechanism of resistance. The hepatic
  vitamin K epoxide reductase in the bromadiolone-resistant mice and in one
  phenotype of warfarin-resistant mice was highly insensitive to in vitro
  inhibition by warfarin and bromadiolone. The kinetic constants for the
  epoxide reductase from bromadiolone-resistant mice were also altered. The
  Vmax for this enzyme was decreased by 40%, and the Km for the reaction
  reductant, dithiothreitol, was 70% lower than that of normal mice. This
  phenotype of Danish resistant mice appears to have a resistance mechanism
  that is similar to that reported for a Welsh strain of warfarin-resistant
  rats. The other phenotype of Danish resistant mice had a hepatic epoxide
  reductase that was only slightly less sensitive to warfarin inhibition
  than normal. The mechanism of warfarin resistance in these mice is not
  apparent from the available data.

Authors
  Lee ST.  Tarn C.  Wang CY.
Institution
  Laboratory of Molecular Parasitology, Institute of Biomedical Sciences,
  Taipei, Taiwan.
Title
  Characterization of sequence changes in kinetoplast DNA maxicircles of
  drug-resistant Leishmania.
Source
  Molecular & Biochemical Parasitology.  56(2):197-207, 1992 Dec.
Abstract
  We have compared kinetoplast DNA maxicircles of tunicamycin- and
  arsenite-resistant variants of repeatedly cloned Leishmania mexicana
  amazonensis showing DNA amplification with wild-type and
  arsenite-resistant variants of the same lineage that do not show DNA
  amplification. DNA restriction patterns and the degree of
  cross-hybridization between maxicircle DNA fragments of parasites
  displaying DNA amplification and those of parasites without amplification
  were examined. In addition, the nucleotide sequence of the cytochrome b
  (Cyb) gene from the coding region was compared between these two groups of
  parasites. Extensive changes were found in the nucleotide sequences and
  the amino acid sequences of the cytochrome gene of the maxicircles of
  variants with DNA amplification. The Cyb genes from both groups had much
  shorter open reading frames than the same gene from Leishmania tarentolae
  and Trypanosoma brucei. The simultaneous changes in maxicircles and
  minicircles of these variants suggest that they may confer the advantage
  of maintaining viable mitochondrial function under selective pressure.

Authors
  Jarcho S.
Title
  Medical numismatic notes. VII. Mithridates IV.
Source
  Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine.  48(8):1059-64, 1972 Sep.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:10>From schoenem@QAL.Berkeley.EDU  Thu May 11 16:41:16 1995

Date: Thu, 11 May 1995 14:44:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Schoenemann <schoenem@qal.Berkeley.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: "quick" evolution examples?

On Thu, 11 May 1995, GLEACH,FREDERIC W. wrote:

> >I would like to find a reference or two for examples of cases where
> >evolution (in terms of adaptive metabolism, or something that resembles
> >it so I can apply it to hypothesize about arsenic) has taken no more than a
> >few thousand years. Can you think of anything?

The classic example occurred with sickle-cell anemia.  The allele which
causes this disease is found at highest concentration in areas where
malaria is endemic.  Because of the details of the life cycle of the
malarial parasite (Plasmodium falciparum), malaria is found primarily in
agricultural areas.  Agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa only goes back
about 3000 years or so.  The implication is that this allele has a very
recent history.

This is covered in most physical anthropology textbooks, e.g.,

Relethford, J. (1990). _The Human Species: An Introduction to Biological
Anthropology_.  London, Mayfield Publishing Company.

I believe the original idea of the interaction of culture-change
(agriculture) and biological adaptation comes from:

Livingstone, F. B. (1958). "Anthropological implications of sickle cell
gene distribution in West Africa." _American Anthropologist_, v.60:533-562.

-Tom

P. Thomas Schoenemann
Department of Anthropology
University of California, Berkeley
(schoenem@qal.berkeley.edu)

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:11>From gew400@coombs.anu.edu.au  Fri May 12 02:16:55 1995

Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 17:22:35 +1000
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: gew400@coombs.anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: apology from a spinster

One of the more educated members of our departent brought this poem to
notice when I circulated Polly Winsor's message on spinsters and 'humble
bees'. The poem is by A.D. Hope and is in "A Late Picking: Poems 1965-1975"
Angus and Robertsons 1975pp. 23-25

Clover Honey

Father first noticed it: "Upon my Sam,
This soil breeds spinsters! Five miles round, I swear,
Live twenty old maids_not that I give a damn,
But Mary and Susan here might have a care.

"Daughters are perishable goods at best:
At worst _Yes, dear, I do know when to stop_
But twenty at church today! Who wopuld have guessed
So rich a shire could raise that blighted crop?"

Susan just giggled; I totted up father's count:
"Nineteen is what I make it, not twenty, Dad!"
"You've missed our gruesome help here, Sarah Blount,
"Haven't you, girl? Admit it!"_ and so I had.

"By God!"_ he flourished his carvers in the air_
"She makes my flesh creep. No one asks my advice
Of course; but how your mother puts up with her
Passes my_yes, dear!yes, another slice?"

Susan and I discussed it later in bed.
"Father was horrid to laugh; he doesn't know!
If I don't marry," said Sue, "I'd rather be dead."
I laughed too: "Well, we've both some years to go."

But for all that I brooded on their lives;
Imagined them as young girls like me or Sue;
Tried to imagine them happy mothers and wives
And wondered what went wrong_ though mostly I knew.

Rumour, in country places, rarely leaves
misfortune a shift or nakedness a clout.
At Tea-cup Time, when gossip brings home her sheaves,
The skeletons rattle in closets for miles about.

Miss Tabitha and Miss Mildy at the Grange
had been too high and mighty, people said;
Miss Prue had beauty, but no one thought it strange:
Papa had lost his money. The suitors fled.

Miss Martha had offers too. They had to wait _
A bed-ridden mother_ and as is often the case,
When free to marry, she found it was too late;
Miss Claire's club-foot cancelled that angel face.

Poor, gay Miss Belle never got her man to church;
There was Miss Madeleine, too_ but never mind,
Too simple, too yielding: he left her in the lurch.
It's an old story, and people are so unkind.

Miss Sophie was unatttreactive from the start;
Miss Tetty, of course had always been a shrew;
But why Miss Constance with her loving heart
Had never married, not even our gossips knew.

Eighteen is an uncompromising age.
Old maids, fag-ends of living, cat-fanciers,
I thought of them with mounting pity and rage
And blamed the order of the universe.

My father's friend_ he lived near us in Kent_
A Mr Darwin, used to visit our house,
And when I raged at him in protest, sent
A twinkle at me from his beetle brows:

"Yes, yes, poor things!" he said, "You have a heart
That does you credit, my dear. But let me say
That the great chain of being has found a part
In Nature's scheme evn for them to play.

You mentioned cats, I think. Each keeps a cat?"
"Good God!" I said "they have them by the score!"
"Indeed? Of course, I'm not surprised at that;
But cats catch mice_ Well, it's what cats are for.

"Their mistresses at night will put them out
To hunt for field-mice_You begin to see
My drift, perhaps, since as you know, no doubt,
The field-mouse preys upon the bumble-bee.

These hirsute bees, and they alone contrive
To fertilize the dark-red clover blooms;
Although it is their smaller cousins who hive
The clover-honey that loads our Kentish combs.

So when we find_ what does the Bible say?_
A land flowing with milk and honey, we do
Not doubt, we naturalists, that there we may
Expect to find old maids a-plenty too.

"The state of single blessedness, you see,
Is not without its talent: indeed, you might
Call spinsters partners of the honey bee
Bringer of life's best gifts, sweetness and light."

Times change; old maids now in these parts are rare.
That would have made Mr Darwin smile, because
I hear old farmers here in Kent declare
The honey-flow is nothing like it was.

I did not marry, myself. As I recall
I have never had reason to complain of that.
Susan was wed, poor Sue, three times in all;
But now we live together. We keep a cat.

I apologise that I have not learned the conventions for italics etc. on
this program. Hence some inaccuracies in this transcription. Alec Hope is
one of the most loved members of this university.

Gehan Wijeyewardene gew400@coombs.anu.edu.au

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:12>From ncse@crl.com  Mon May 15 13:07:19 1995

Date: Mon, 15 May 1995 11:06:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Eugenie C. Scott" <ncse@crl.com>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: "quick" evolution examples?

Dear Dr. Gleach,

There are a couple of possible responses to your question, depending on
what you mean by evolution.  If you mean the old, synthetic theory "change
in gene frequencies through time" then there is plenty: pesticide
resistence in insects, etc.  If you mean a more useful definition of
evolution, involving at least speciation (the formation of reproductively
isolated groups), then there are somewhat fewer examples, though still
some.  Polyploidy in plants provides most of them, but I find plant
examples aren't as attractive to most nonscientists as animals.

Consider the discussions of semispecies, sibling species, partial
speciation, etc. in such books  as Dobzhansky, Ayala, Stebbins and
Valentine, *Evolution* (an oldie but a goodie), especially the
Drosophila semispecies stuff where hybrids contain sterile males -- a
first step to speciation.  Check p 192, ff, on D. willistoni.

Dobzhanzky and Pavlovski took two stocks of Orinoco basin fruit flies and
keep them separate for five years and found they had diverged
sufficiently that the males were sterile.  Nature 23:289 (1971).

An article on D. pseudoobscura claims to find an isolate in the middle
of evolving into a new species: Prakash, 1972, Genetics, 72:143-155.
This is discussed in Michael Ruse's book, *Darwinism Defended*.

Another classic is the fly (not drosophila, but another genus) that feeds
on either apples or thornapples.  The shift to apples was about 150 years
ago, and since then there has been speciation (infertile hybrids) between
the insects preferring one food source vs. the other.  See Sci. Am, Feb.
1989, p. 22 "A Breed Apart".

Check cichlid fish in Lake Malawi: Owen et al, Proc. Roy soc. B.
240:(1299):519-553 (1990).

Mice in laboratories have been found to be sterile when backcrossed to
wild types from which they were derived.  See Matsuda et al, Genetic
basis of XY chromosome dissociation and male sterility in interspecific
hybrids.  Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci 88:4850 ff (1991).

I also heard of a story of a pair of wallabies that in 1916 escaped from
an Oahu zoo and founded a population that has survived and been
successful.  Supposedly they are no longer able to interbreed with
Australian wallabies, but I don't have a reference.  Can anyone help?

Hope this helps.

Eugenie C. Scott
*****************************************************************
                   SUPPORT SCIENCE EDUCATION!

                        Eugenie C. Scott
                              NCSE
                         925 Kearney Street
                     El Cerrito, CA 94530-2810
                          510-526-1674
                        FAX: 510-526-1675
                         1-800-290-6006
                          ncse@crl.com
*****************************************************************

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:13>From ad201@freenet.carleton.ca  Thu May 18 07:03:52 1995

Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 08:03:47 -0400
From: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald Phillipson)
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Rapid evolution

Frederick Gleach (?) asked May 11 for cases of rapid evolution.  Is not
Jonathan Wiener's The Beak of the Finch... evolution in Our Time (1994)
about precisely this (rapid speciation under local environmental changes
in the Galapagos.)

 |          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 |

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:14>From ncse@crl.com  Thu May 18 11:55:18 1995

Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 09:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Eugenie C. Scott" <ncse@crl.com>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Simultaneous Discovery, Neutralism

Re: simultaneous discoveries.

Does anyone know more detail on the development of neutralism theory?
Kimura as well as King and Jukes are given equal billing in a number of
sources, and there seems to be something of a rivalry there over
precedence.  Perhaps some of the molecular types on this list may
enlighten me.

ECS

*****************************************************************
                   SUPPORT SCIENCE EDUCATION!

                        Eugenie C. Scott
                              NCSE
                         925 Kearney Street
                     El Cerrito, CA 94530-2810
                          510-526-1674
                        FAX: 510-526-1675
                         1-800-290-6006
                          ncse@crl.com
*****************************************************************

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:15>From ncse@crl.com  Mon May 22 12:12:54 1995

Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 10:10:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Eugenie C. Scott" <ncse@crl.com>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Rapid evolution

On Sat, 20 May 1995, Donald Phillipson wrote:

> Frederick Gleach (?) asked May 11 for cases of rapid evolution.  Is not
> Jonathan Wiener's The Beak of the Finch... evolution in Our Time (1994)
> about precisely this (rapid speciation under local environmental changes
> in the Galapagos.)

I do not believe that speciation has been observed in the Galapagos
finches, just the process of natural selection (hardly a "just"!) I'm
happy t be corrected on this point if someone more familiar with these
data can do so.  But this brings up the question of what do we mean by
"evolution?"  If we mean the processes that are involved in producing the
variation that distinguishes popuations, which may later (through the
process of speciation) become new species, then natural selection equals
evolution, genetic drift equals evolution, genetic recombination equals
evolution, crossing over equals evoltuion, etc., etc., etc.  This isn't
very helpful.

The old "changes in gene frequencies through times" definiton that many
of us grew up on also is not very useful, since (as in the case of the
peppered moth) changes can shift back and forth without producing
anything "different."  Gene frequencies change all the time.  Big deal.
We should stop telling students that evolution = changes in gene
frequencies.  "Cumulative" changes in gene frequencies helps a little,
but I don't think it really comunicates what evolution is about.

If we are correct to understand the history of life as resulting in a
hierarchical branching of units (species, genera, families, what have
you), then questions about "proof of evlution" such as that asked should
refer to speciation events, rather than just changing gene frequencies.  I
prefer to think of evolution occurring with the formation of new species,
which are not brought about directly by natural selection or other
processes, of course, but by isolation mechanisms on populations that
after a time can no longer exchange genes: are reprductively isolated.

Eugenie

*****************************************************************
                   SUPPORT SCIENCE EDUCATION!

                        Eugenie C. Scott
                              NCSE
                         925 Kearney Street
                     El Cerrito, CA 94530-2810
                          510-526-1674
                        FAX: 510-526-1675
                         1-800-290-6006
                          ncse@crl.com
*****************************************************************

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:16>From jsl@rockvax.rockefeller.edu  Tue May 23 22:21:50 1995

Subject: A new subject- which came first: "Are we naturally social"
To: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 May 95 23:25:46 -0400
From: Joshua Lederberg <jsl@rockvax.rockefeller.edu>

<<<<<<
To: SOCETH list
i was writing a paper on Rousseau tonight, and i thought this may
be an interesting topic. is there a state of nature?  are we first
individuals, uneffected by society?  or are we naturally social?
From: "Michael K. Bietz" <biet0004@maroon.tc.umn.edu>
>>>>>>

(I share this also with the DARWIN list)
-------
The short answer is co-evolution, of the biological substratum, and
of the social institutions -- which have their own history/evolution.

Consider language as the paradigm, and you can take it from there.

Many evolutionists in recent years have laid special emphasis on
the evolution of behaviors related to social interaction, and there
is no other way the "Naked Ape" could have survived against better
armed predators.

Cf, i.a.,

CN QH450/M751/v.16
Aa Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca
Ab Feldman, Marcus William
TI Cultural transmission and evolution: a quantitative approach.
CL 388 p.
PP Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
DA 1981.

CN GN365.9/L959
Aa Lumsden, Charles J
Ab Wilson, Edward Osborne
TI Genes, mind, and culture: the coevolutionary process.
CL 428 p.
PP Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
DA 1981.

CN QL775/W7471
Aa Wilson, Edward Osborne
TI Sociobiology: the abridged edition.
CL 366 p.
PP Cambridge MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
DA 1980.

CN QL737/P9/E34
Aa Eimerl, Sarel
Ab DeVore, Irven
Ac Life (Chicago)
TI The primates.
CL 200 p.
PP New York: Time, Inc.
DA 1965.
-------------

Reply-to: (J. Lederberg)lederberg@rockvax.rockefeller.edu
--------

Dr. Joshua Lederberg
Suite 400 (Founders Hall)
The Rockefeller University
1230 York Avenue
New York, NY   10021-6399

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:17>From charbel@ufba.br  Wed May 24 05:47:44 1995

Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 07:39:25 -0300 (GRNLNDST)
From: Charbel Nino El-Mani <charbel@ufba.br>
To: senddarwin-L <Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: jurassic intelligence (fwd)

This is a message I have sent to another discussion group, but I think it
addresses some issues I would also like to discuss within Darwin-L.

Charbel Nino El-Hani
Charbel@ufba.br

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 24 May 1995 07:35:42 -0300 (GRNLNDST)
From: Charbel Nino El-Mani <charbel@sunrnp.ufba.br>
To: skeptic <skeptic@jhuvm.hcf.jhu.edu>
Subject: jurassic intelligence

I can see no use in discussing something we have no evidence for and some
against. We can stay here talkng forever...
Instead, I suggest we turn the question to a more interesting issue: the
evolution of intelligence in extant animals, like man and dolphins. About
this I can say that, for me at least, tools are not necessary
consequences of the evolution of intelligence, but rather factors
contributing to it. Probably both. But I would like to emphasize that the
capacity of combining different symbolical signs in one only message is a
better evidence that something we can call intelligence ha arisen
(that is to say, language, which is not only made up of symbolical signs,
but specially of a syntax which allows us to say diverse things with the
same basic repertoire of signs). On the other hand, the capacity of
fine manipulation of tools, related for instance with the structure of
human hand, can be seen as a major factor in tthe evolution of brain. But
can we see this particular path of evolution as a sufficient reason to
deny the possible evolution of some other kinds of intelligence, not
necesarily related to making tools? I don't think so.

Charbel Nino El-Hani
Institute of Biology, Federal University of Bahia.
Charbel@ufba.br

_______________________________________________________________________________

<21:18>From bouckaer@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au  Mon May 29 04:53:09 1995

Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 17:35:44 +0800 (WST)
From: Hugo Bouckaert <bouckaer@csuvax1.csu.murdoch.edu.au>
Subject: Re: jurassic intelligence (fwd)
To: Charbel Nino El-Mani <charbel@ufba.br>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>

A book by Derek Bickerton "Language & Species" (1990 University of
Chicago Press) looks into many of these issues. He basically asserts that
intelligence is mediated via two different kinds of representational
systems: the first is species-specific and highly functionally adapted to
the species' requirements in its environment; the second is unique to
humans (although developed to some degree in primates) and is an
adaptable symbolic representational system, finding its expressionin
language. Unlike the first representational system, thesecond
representational system is able to form independent models and
constructions of the world, because thinking is no longer sensory
dependent but can make use of the "internalised" symbolic representation
of the world (involving concepts, categories as well as a lexicon and
syntax). The secondary representational system then allows us to develop
models that are no longer in line with the maximisation ofsurvival and
reproductive success,so that certain belief models may induce us to live
a life of celibacy, or to commit suicide as a form of political protest
for example. I think in many ways Bickerton hits the nail on the
head,although there may be much more to say about how the secondary
representational system works in particular social contexts.

Hugo Bouckaert
Murdoch University
Bouckaer@csuvax1.murdoch.edu.au

_______________________________________________________________________________
Darwin-L Message Log 21: 1-18 -- May 1995                                   End

© RJO 1995–2016