Darwin-L Message Log 3: 60–107 — November 1993

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 November 1993. 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 3: 60-107 -- NOVEMBER 1993
-----------------------------------------------

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 public messages posted to Darwin-L during November 1993.
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.  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.

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:60>From mayerg@cs.uwp.edu  Mon Nov 15 12:21:43 1993

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 11:54:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Gregory Mayer <mayerg@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Haldane and beetles
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

	The story of Haldane's conclusions regarding the nature of the
Creator brings to mind another famous and possibly apocryphal story about
Haldane.  Like the story of the beetles, I heard this first as an
undergraduate or graduate student; unlike the story of the beetles, I do
not know of a published version of the story.  It may thus be a purely
oral tradition.  The story involves Haldane's discovery and quantitative
understanding of the theory of kin selection long before W.D. Hamilton's
formal development of the theory in 1964.  The story goes as follows:
	Haldane is reputed to have been in a pub one day when conversation
turned to the subject of for what someone might be willing to risk their
life.  The question arose whether someone should risk their life to save a
drowning man.  The question was put to Haldane, who, after a few moments
consideration, including some scribbling on the back of a napkin, replied
"No, but I would do it for two brothers or eight cousins."
	Two sibs or eight first cousins _is_ the break-even point in
Hamilton's theory when an act involves loss of life to the aid donor but
the saving of the lives of the aid recipients.  James Crow (_Basic Concepts
in Population, Quantitative, and Evolutionary Genetics_, Freeman, 1986)
notes that Haldane was aware of the principles of kin selection, but that
it was not developed until Hamilton.  The story might be an explanation,
perhaps even correct, for how Haldane came to appreciate kin selection.
If there is no published source for this story, then it is an oral
tradition passed on to students of evolution over several decades (Haldane
died in 1964), and across at least two continents.

Gregory C. Mayer
mayerg@cs.uwp.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:61>From azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu  Mon Nov 15 12:26:31 1993

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 12:30:01 CST
From: "asia z lerner" <azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re:  grad school

	Folks, I have a friend who is interested in pursuing grad studies in
	philosophy of biology (with major interests in ethology).  Can any of
	you recommend any programs which might cater to these interests?

There's the University of Chicago, with Robert Richards and William Wimsatt.

Asia

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:62>From ronald@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu  Mon Nov 15 15:03:52 1993

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 11:07:16 HST
From: Ron Amundson <ronald@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Haldane's cousins

The 2 brothers or 8 cousins story is told in S.J. Gould's "So
Cleverly Kind an Animal," which is in _Ever Since Darwin_.

Ron Amundson
ronald@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
ronald@uhunix.bitnet

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:63>From r_king@academic.cc.colorado.edu  Mon Nov 15 19:02:00 1993

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 18:03:57 MST
From: The Dread Pirate Robert <r_king@cc.colorado.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: RE: phenetics vs cladistics vs evol. class.

I'm an undergrad student majoring in history.  Mostly out of curiousity, I'd
like professional definitions for cladistics, evolutionary classification,
etc., as well.  Thanks.
	Robert King

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:64>From ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu  Mon Nov 15 19:37:16 1993

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 20:42:40 -0500
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu (Jeremy John Ahouse)
Subject: phenetics vs cladistics vs evol. ref

>I'm an undergrad student majoring in history.  Mostly out of curiousity, I'd
>like professional definitions for cladistics, evolutionary classification,
>etc., as well.  Thanks.
>
>    Robert King

    I think the folks who asked will find Elliot Sober's
_Reconstructing the Past_ helpful  (he doesn't in the end come down on the
side of cladistics, still his descriptions seem fair).  You might also want
to check out Mark Ridley's _Evolution and Classification_.

    - jeremy

    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
    Jeremy John Ahouse
    Biology Dept. & Center for Complex Systems
    Brandeis University
    Waltham, MA 02254-9110

    (617) 736-4954
    email: ahouse@hydra.rose.brandeis.edu
    Mail from Mac by Eudora 1.3.1 RIPEM/PGP accepted.

    "Si un hombre nunca se contradice, sera porque nunca dice nada"
      - Miguel de Unamuno

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:65>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Mon Nov 15 19:57:56 1993

Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 21:04:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Re: phenetics vs cladistics vs evol. class.
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Lynn Hanninen asks some large but important questions.  I don't know
whether I'll succeed in answering them briefly, but I'll give it a try.
Since they do require a bit of explanation I'll answer in installments over
a day or two, rather than all at once.

The first question is about the distinction between phenetics, cladistics,
and evolutionary classification.

The most important thing one has to do before dealing with this question is
to clearly distinguish between (1) classification and (2) phylogenetic
inference (reconstructing the evolutionary tree).  Failure to distinguish
between these two different activities has been a source of much confusion.
Phenetics and cladistics can be approaches to _either_ classification or
phylogeny reconstruction; "evolutionary classification" is (as the name
suggests) an approach to classification, not phylogeny reconstruction.

First let's talk about phylogenetic inference.

Suppose we have three species, A, B, and C.  They may be related in any one
of the following ways.  (It is important to understand that "relationship"
in this context means historical, genealogical relationship: relative
recency of common ancestry.  It is also important to understand that these
trees are "trees of history"; that is, the root represents an ancestor that
actually existed at sometime in the past.)

            /------- C             /------- C             /------- B
      /-----|                /-----|                /-----|
     /      \------- B      /      \------- A      /      \------- A
 ----|                  ----|                  ----|
     \                      \                      \
      \------------- A       \------------- B       \------------- C

Now since history only happened one way, the question is: Which of these
trees is the correct representation of the history of the species in
question?  A phenetic approach to the problem of phylogenetic inference
would say that the pair of species that are _most similar_ are the most
closely related.  Thus if B and C are more similar to one another than
either is to A, then B and C are more closely related to one another than
either is to A, and so the tree on the left represents the true phylogeny.
Advocates of this approach have proposed various ways of calculating
"overall similarity".

The cladistic approach to the problem is very different.  It decomposes the
phenetic notion of "overall similarity" into two parts: (1) _ancestral_ or
primitive similarity, and (2) _derived_ similarity.  The cladistic approach
to phylogenetic inference would say that the two species out of these three
that share the greatest number of _derived_ similarities are the most
closely related (ancestral similarities being irrelevant).  Thus if A and B
have more derived similarties in common with one another that either does
with C, then A and B are more closely related to one another than either is
to C.  The correct tree in that case would the one on the right.

Now what is the difference between ancestral and derived similarity?  That
is a topic I'll save for another installment, but I'll just say simply here
that a derived similarity (or derived character state) is an _innovation_,
and a ancestral similarity (or ancestral character state) is a _retention_.
("Ancestral character" and "derived character" are somewhat lax synonyms of
"ancestral character state" and "derived character state".)  More on the
ancestral/derived distinction later.

Let's now switch from phylogenetic inference to classification.  I should
state my own position clearly at this point: I regard the distinction
between phylogenetic inference and classification to be vitally important
because it allows systematists to ignore the whole subject of
classification, on which an enormous amount of ink has been wasted.
Consequently, I regard the discussion from this point on as moot: its value
lies only in helping us to understand some of the confused literature of
the past.  I am fully aware that there are people who don't share this
view, but I don't propose to debate them on this point.

Suppose we still have the same three species, A, B, and C, and we have
determined that this is the correct phylogeny:

                  /------- B
            /-----|
           /      \------- A
       ----|
           \
            \------------- C

The question facing someone interested in _classifying_ these three species
might run something like this.  (Notice that there is no dispute about the
phylogeny; that has already been established.)  Which of these is the best
classification for the three species?

    genus         genus         genus
     species A     species A     species B
     species B     species C     species C
    genus         genus         genus
     species C     species B     species A

(There are actually a great variety of other possibilities, especially if
we allow the rank to vary, including a genus for each species, one genus
for all three, separate families, etc., but this is a simplified example.)
Remember that all parties agree on what the phylogeny is, namely that A and
B are coordinate branches (sister clades).  A phenetic approach to
_classification_ would say that, since B and C are more similar to one
another than either is to A, then B and C should be grouped together into
the same genus, so the right-hand classification is best.  A cladistic
approach to _classification_ would say that all groups in the
classification must be whole branches (clades) in the tree, so the
left-hand classification is the best one, since it puts A and B in the same
genus.

The approach called "evolutionary classification", which has had Ernst Mayr
as its most vocal proponent, is something of a combination between the two.
It would say that the groups in the classification should be clades unless
there have been highly unequal rates of evolution in different branches, in
which case the branch that has undergone a lot of change should be singled
out and given higher rank (a family or order perhaps, rather than a genus).
Evolutionary classifications and phenetic classifications are often similar
as a result of this.  Consider the following as an example of a true
phylogeny (which it is) for three species:

                 /------- lungfish
           /-----|
          /      \------- cow
      ----|
          \
           \------------- goldfish

An advocate of phenetic classification might say that a goldfish and a
lungfish are more similar to one another than either is to the cow, and so
should be grouped together in the class Pisces.  An advocate of
evolutionary classification might come to more or less the same conclusion,
on the grounds that the cow's lineage has been highly modified since it
diverged from the lungfish's lineage, and so the cow has "left behind" the
two fish (as Pisces) and entered its own class, Mammalia.  An advocate of
cladistic classification, however, would say that while it is true that
overall the goldfish and the lungfish are more similar, the lungfish and
the cow are in fact a clade, and only clades should be recognized in a
classification, in this case perhaps as the group Choanata.

Cladistic _classification_ thus rejects the traditional taxon "Pisces", and
this example (among others such as the rejection of the traditional taxon
"Reptilia") caused many systematists to recoil from it.  The reason the
situation arises in the first place is that _classifications_ existed long
before evolution was accepted, and pre-evolutionary classifications were
by-and-large based on something like overall similarity; that is, they were
loosely phenetic.  Once the theory of descent was accepted it became
apparent that some of the pre-evolutionary _groups_ are in fact not
_clades_ (whole branches of the tree). If you read the discussion of
systematics in the _Origin of Species_ you can see this conflict becoming
apparent to Darwin as he attempts to reconcile established ideas of
classification with his new idea of "genealogical arrangement" (phylogeny).

But keep in mind that if phylogeny -- evolutionary history -- is what one
is interested in then one can disregard much of what has been said on the
subject of classification as a distinct enterprise.

Some general introductions to the issues discussed above are listed in the
file "biblio.clades" in the Darwin-L archives.  If you send the message GET
DARWIN-L BIBLIO.CLADES to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu a copy will be sent
to you.  More on Lynn's other questions in a later post.

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:66>From SHANKSN@ETSUSERV.EAST-TENN-ST.EDU  Tue Nov 16 08:13:26 1993

From: <SHANKSN@ETSUSERV.EAST-TENN-ST.EDU>
Organization:  East Tennessee State University
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 09:11:44 GMT-5
Subject: Re:  grad school

> Date sent:  Mon, 15 Nov 1993 15:01:43 -0600
> From: "asia z lerner" <azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
> Subject: Re: grad school
>
>   Folks, I have a friend who is interested in pursuing grad studies in
>   philosophy of biology (with major interests in ethology).  Can any of
>   you recommend any programs which might cater to these interests?
>
> There's the University of Chicago, with Robert Richards and William Wimsatt.
> Asia

Many thanks, I'll pass the advice along....Niall Shanks

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:67>From @KENTVM.KENT.EDU:KHERMANN@KENTVM.KENT.EDU  Tue Nov 16 09:51:10 1993

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 10:46:49 -0500 (EST)
From: "Kenneth W. Hermann" <KHERMANN%KENTVM.BITNET@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Information on George Maw
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Does anyone on the list have any background information on George Maw, a
rather obscure editor of the *Zoologist* in the 1860s.  I am curious to know
more about him because of the high regard which Darwin had for his review
of *The Origin of Species* for the Zoologist and the several letters they
exchanged concerning the issues Maw raised in that review.  I have not been
able to locate any additional information in either the *DNB* or *DSB*.  I
have our ILL staff diligently tracking down an obscure pamphlet of his.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Kenn Hermann
History Dept
Kent State Univ.
khermann@kentvm.kent.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:68>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Tue Nov 16 10:28:09 1993

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 11:35:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Re: Information on George Maw
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Regarding George Maw: The following comes from _Charles Darwin: A Companion_,
by R.B. Freeman (Wm. Dawson & Sons Ltd., 1978).  It's not much, but perhaps
a start.  This is a paraphrase:

  Maw, George.  1832-1912.  Geologist and botanist.  Of Benthall Green.
  July 1861 Maw reviewed the Origin in _Zoologist_.  Darwin to Lyell:
  "evidently a thoughtful man" (Life & Letters, 2:376).  Maw provided
  _Drosophyllum_ for Darwin's _Insectivorous Plants_.

Bob O'Hara
darwin@iris.uncg.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:69>From jlipps@ucmp1.Berkeley.EDU  Tue Nov 16 10:54:30 1993

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 08:59:35 PST
From: jlipps@ucmp1.Berkeley.EDU (Jere Lipps)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re:  phenetics vs cladistics vs evol. class.

David Lindberg has a real simple explanation in "Fossil Prokaryotes and
Protists", chapter 4 (Blackwell, 1992; edited by me).
Jere H. Lipps

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:70>From TQAF072%UTXVM.BITNET@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU  Tue Nov 16 11:33:20 1993

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 11:35 -0500 (CDT)
From: SShelton@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: taxidermy
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

I realize that this may seem to come from far, far left field. BUT...I am
chairing a session at the March Texas Association of Museums meeting in
Houston on the taxidermy/trophy mount dilemma (you can't use them, you can't
easily store them and you can't give them away), and I am also working on a
manuscript on grotesques. What I am looking for is earliest refences to, and
history of, taxidermy and suchlike preservation methods for natural history
specimens. I am interested in very specific techniques as well as in the
underlying philosophy and psychology (the latter is especially interesting
with regard to grotesques). Any/all help appreciated; resulting bibliography
will be posted. Many thanks.
Sally Shelton
Texas Memorial Museum
tqaf072@utxvm.cc.utexas.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:71>From maisel@Sdsc.Edu  Tue Nov 16 12:51:17 1993

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 18:54:33 GMT
From: maisel@Sdsc.Edu (Merry Maisel, 619-534-5127)
Subject: Beetled Browse
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

It's probably a nasty habit, like collecting matchbooks, but I save my copies
of _Natural History_ until Gould's collections of essays appear.  You should
know that he does not just thrust a year's worth of columns into a book, which
he could well do, given the way his stuff sells.  He makes very deliberate
choices and rearrangements.  I don't know if he will put his January column,
"A Special Fondness for Beetles," in the next collection, but I hope he does.
Then we shall all have, in more permanent form, a very nice consideration of
the problem of the little academic teehee passed from generation to generation.

As Gould points out in the column, the latest resurrection of the line from
Haldane was in a review of a meeting by one who attended, Robert May of Oxford,
published in _Nature_ in late 1989:

May began his article: "Haldane's best-remembered remark, that God has `an inordinate fondness for beetles," was elicited by Jowett's question, at high table at Balliol, as to what his studies had revealed about the deity."

This elicited a flurry of letters to _Nature_, one of which pointed out
that Jowett had died when Haldane was a year old and hence the conversation
at high table could not have taken place.  To this, May properly replied,
"Mundane constraints of time and space do not apply to stories about Oxford."

Gould makes the point that the best one-liners are often attributed to those,
already famous, who make a good story better.  (If you've ever had one of your
best lines appropriated in this way, you will know the frustration of being
unable to secure a proper attribution to yourself.)  And he discusses beetles
and how they are counted.  Great column.

Merry Maisel
science writer, San Diego Supercomputer Center
grad student, Science Studies, UC San Diego
maisel@sdsc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:72>From acvascon@ibase.br  Tue Nov 16 14:05:59 1993

From: acvascon@ibase.br
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 18:07:32 BDB
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Weights

  A very common feature in recent cladistics softwares is the
possibility of weighting characters according to the level of homoplasy
(Henning86, Paup 3.0, Pee-Wee). For classificatory purposes it's sometimes
a very good strategy, but what does it mean in biological sense?

  How can we perceive the difference of a character with a low or a higth
weight in the real world?

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:73>From mayerg@cs.uwp.edu  Tue Nov 16 14:39:55 1993

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 13:49:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Gregory Mayer <mayerg@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: phenetics vs cladistics vs evol. class.
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

	Bob O'Hara's first installment of his reply to Lynn Hanninen's
query is a clear exposition of many of the issues involved, and one with
with which I find myself in almost total agreement, especially on the
importance of distinguishing phylogenetic inference (=historical
reconstruction) from classification (=a set of names and their
definitions).  It is with some trepidation, therefore, that I venture
to suggest an amendment to his characterization of phenetics as a method
of phylogenetic inference.  (In fact, it might be better for those
encountering these issues for the first time to read O'Hara's full
exposition first before returning to my suggestion here.)
	My suggestion is that phenetics is best characterized as _not_
being a method of phylogenetic inference at all.  It is quite right to say
that phenetics is concerned with overall similarity.  But it is not
concerned with phylogenetic inference.  Let me illustrate this with two
lines from Sneath & Sokal's _Numerical Taxonomy_ (Freeman, San Francisco,
1973; the classic text of phenetics):
	Taxonomic relationships are evaluated purely on the basis of	resemblances existing _now_ in the material at hand. [p. 9,	emphasis in original]
	The separation of overall similarity (phenetics) from evolutionary	branching sequences (cladistics) is an important advance in	taxonomic thinking. [p. 10]
	The distinction between phenetics and phylogenetics is clearly
acknowledged, and phylogenetic intent is disavowed.  Part of my
trepidation in raising this issue is that phenetics has a complex history,
and its aims have shifted over time; I do not wish to rehash these
history-of-the-discipline matters.  And if this were my only quibble with
O'Hara, i.e. as to what it was the pheneticists actually wanted to do, I
would not bother to mention it.
	What I think _is_ worth mentioning is that phylogenetics is an
intention, not a technique.  What distinguishes a phylogenetic method from
a phenetic method is that a phylogenetic method produces an estimate of
history.  As O'Hara notes, history happened only one way, and there is
thus a "parametric" history to be inferred.  Some of our estimates of
this history will be good, and some will be bad, and one reason that an
estimate could be bad is that the method of inference is not very good.  I
think this is what O'Hara meant when he contrasted overall similarity with
an analysis based on the distinction between derived and ancestral
character states: he meant that, in general, overall similarity is not as
good a method of inference.  Methods of historical inference are justified
on the basis of their ability to reconstruct history.  Depending on the
historical process, and the data available, different methods may be best.
Given a particular historical process, someone might argue that, say,
single-linkage clustering of Jaccard coefficients of similarity gives the
best estimate of the history.  That single-linkage clustering and Jaccard
coefficients are used by pheneticists does not make the method phenetic;
it is phylogenetic because it is a method of inferring history.  Now it
might be a bad method, but that depends on the nature of the historical
process.
	A statistical analogy may make the point clearer.  One way to
estimate the mean of a distribution is to rank all the observations and
choose the value of the central observation as the estimate of the mean.
This is a method of inference.  If we have good reason for believing that
the distribution is symmetrical, then this is not a bad method (not the
best, but not bad).  If the distribution is not symmetrical, then this is
a bad method.  The method is better or worse depending on the nature of
the distribution.
	Let me conclude with an example where many biologists have argued
that overall similarity _is_ a good estimate of phylogeny.  Some molecular
evolutionists have concluded that, at the molecular level, evolution
proceeds at a constant rate at a given locus.  If this is true, and if
evolution is divergent, then the overall similarity at a locus _is_
proportional to the time since common ancestry, and an average-linkage
tree of the overall similarities will be a good estimate of the phylogeny.
The premises of the justification may be false, in which case the
technique will be bad as a method of historical inference.  Studies have
been done of exactly how untrue the premises must be before the method
fails.  But if the premises are true, then it will be a good method.
	Thus I endorse the clear distinction of phylogenetic inference and
classification.  But phenetics and evolutionary classification are both
about classification.  Within phylogenetics, many techniques are or have
been advocated; what makes them phylogenetic is that their proponents
intend them to be estimates of phylogenetic history.  We may judge a
technique as more or less successful, but they are phylogenetic nonetheless.

Gregory C. Mayer
mayerg@cs.uwp.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:74>From KIMLER@social.chass.ncsu.edu  Thu Nov 18 11:09:18 1993

From: KIMLER@social.chass.ncsu.edu
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 14:54:49 EST5EDT
Subject: Momentum

  There has been much discussion of the validity of biological
selectionist analogies and models for the historical treatment of
cultural change. I am interested in metaphors derived from physics.
  Early 19th-century Naturphilosophie and German theories of
history seem to draw on physical notions of polarity and the
resolution of tensions (explicitly found in Kant).  Herbert Spencer
used his own version of the new theory of conservation of energy,
calling it "persistence of force". From this he inferred a world of
matter and motion in a constant equilibration, producing a process in
the direction of increasing "heterogeneity" out of unstable
"homogeneity".
  What about momentum? The early evolutionary paleontologists
constructed a theory of phylogenetic inertia to explain trends.  Can
someone provide examples and/or references to the use of the notions
of momentum or inertia in constructing a model of cultural change?

William Kimler
Dept. History
North Carolina State University
KIMLER@NCSU.EDU

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:75>From eshaw@huh.harvard.edu  Thu Nov 18 11:42:08 1993

From: "Elizabeth Shaw" <eshaw@huh.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 16:34:15 EDT
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: more on maw

   George Maw (1832-1912) was an interesting fellow. He owned a pottery
in Shropshire - perhaps Darwin knew him through the family interests in
the business. When he had accumulated enough money Maw seemed to allow his
interests turn to natural history - in particular, to botany. He travelled
quite a bit in Europe & in N. Africa and eventually in 1886 published a
monograph of the genus Crocus. There are several obits of Maw; e. g., in
Kew Bulletin 1912:155.
   cheers   betsy shaw
Elizabeth A. Shaw
Harvard University Herbaria
22 Divinity Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
617-495-1939
FAX: 617-661-3751
eshaw@huh.harvard.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:76>From rxn106@cac.psu.edu  Thu Nov 18 14:12:26 1993

From: RICARDO NASSIF <rxn106@cac.psu.edu>
Subject: Darwin biographies
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1993 15:15:27 -0500 (EST)

Would someone in this list kindly post a brief list of C.
Darwin biographies? Ranking them would be great too.

Thanks.

.rn

ricardo nassif
rxn106@cac.psu.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:77>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Fri Nov 19 22:15:46 1993

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 23:23:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Momentum and other physical metaphors in history
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

I thought William Kimler's question about the notion of "momentum" in
history and the historical sciences was a fascinating one, and I regret
that I don't have anything to contribute in answer to it.  I hope others
will, and maybe William would consider posting some notes on early ideas
of phylogenetic "inertia."

The only vaguely related notion I could think of (another application of
a semi-physical concept to natural history) was the notion of historical
"polarity" advocated by the early Victorian naturalist Edward Forbes (1815-
1854).  What little I know of this idea comes from Janet Browne's book
_The Secular Ark: Studies in the History of Biogeography_ (Yale University
Press, 1983).  According to Browne, Forbes believed that taxa replaced one
another through time, such that when one was on the wane another was rising
to take its place:

  "Because this sequence of events described a maximum-minimum-maximum
  story, Forbes argued that the development of life proceeded in two
  divergent directions: 'The relation between the Palaeozoic and Neozoic
  life-assemblages is one of development in opposite directions, in other
  words, of Polarity.'"  (Browne, p. 153)

Browne reproduces some circular and hour-glass shaped diagrams Forbes used
to illustrate this notion of polarity.

I hope some other people may be able to follow this thread on the application
of physical ideas/terms/metaphors to the historical sciences.  Are there any
example in linguistics of concepts like force, polarity, or momentum?

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:78>From ronald@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu  Sat Nov 20 02:43:33 1993

Date: Fri, 19 Nov 93 22:47:01 HST
From: Ron Amundson <ronald@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Momentum and other physical metaphors in history

On Forbes and polarity, there's Phillip Rehbock's _The
Philosophical Naturalists_.  Also discusses Owen's use of
'polarity,' as I recall.  Those uses of polarity did not strike me
as closely related to physical (e.g. magnetic) polarity -- at
least at the shallow depth at which I understood them.

Ron Amundson
ronald@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
ronald@uhunix.bitnet

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:79>From CSM@macc.wisc.edu  Sat Nov 20 14:24:28 1993

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 93 14:26 CDT
From: Craig McConnell <CSM@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Momentum
To: DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

This is in response to Will Kimler's query of 18 November, "Can someone provide
examples and or references to the use of notions of momentum or inertia in
constructing a model of cultural change?"

I have a tangential response, which may impinge on his question.  This is more
a response to the question, "Where are the metaphors from physics in biology?"

I have noticed in my survey of the history of modern biology that references
to idealized Newtonian science get fewer and farther between the closer one
gets to the present.  Lamarck and Cuvier, for example, sound very Newtonian in
their emphasis on axiomatic science.  Schwann made nice comparisons between
the regular laws of the solar system and the regular laws of cellular
development.  As you get closer to (and pass by) Darwin, the language of
mechanism is still there, but the metaphors to force, law, etc. (a group that
would include momentum) fall out.  So Haeckel has his idea of a universal
theory of development that can be discerned in both the organic and inorganic
world, but he's imposing biology lingo on physics more often than not.
Weismann's criteria for a good theory of heredity includes a mechanistic
flavor, but it too is cast in biology lingo.

My tentative hypothesis at this stage is that the unfolding complexity of
biology begins to preclude simplistic comparisons to physics (I once heard a
brilliant lecturer ask, rhetorically I'm certain, "How could physicists _not_
figure out the orbit of a planet?  It's two objects in empty space!  Now
explain where life comes from:  _that's_ a problem!").  I would say a corollary
to this is that as biologists became more sophisticated in their thinking, they
found that organic metaphors were more convincing than physical ones.  (I just
read Frederick Churchill, "From Heredity Theory to Vererbung" _Isis_, 1987--he
argues that as biologists like Weismann and Hertwig got more savvy about
heredity, they relied less frequently on economic metaphors).

So my question for you is:  isn't it more likely that you'll find organic
metaphors for cultural change than momentum metaphors?

Craig S. McConnell, (608) 238-1352
Internet:  csm@macc.wisc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:80>From leh1@Lehigh.EDU  Sat Nov 20 15:41:31 1993

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1993 16:17:36 EST
From: leh1@Lehigh.EDU (Lynn E. Hanninen)
Subject: Re: phenetics vs cladistics vs evol. class.
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Hi!
I have 2 questions regarding cladistics.
Both questions arise from reading Mayr.

1) My understanding was that Mayr said there is no method in Cladistics for
going from phylogenetic reconstruction to classification.  Comments?

2) My understanding is that a major purpose of cladistics is to determine
-branch points.-  What EXACTLY is a branch point?  Is cladistics concerned
with determining branch points?

lynn (still trying)

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

e-mail: leh1@lehigh.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:81>From WILLS@macc.wisc.edu  Sat Nov 20 18:46:39 1993

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 93 18:48 CDT
From: Jeffrey Wills <WILLS@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Physical metaphors in linguistics
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

	I think the primary use of physical metaphors in linguistics comes from
an assumption that language (an animated abstract) tries to preserve a uniform
contour or density. If you check back to early messages on this list you will
find, I think, descriptions of language changing to correct an "imbalance" or
to fill a "gap".
	The principle "natura abhorret vacuum" may not arise from physics (I
know it as a line from Spinoza and I'm sure there are biological parallels),
but it does easily lead to other physical metaphors. In Linguistics, the
analysis of language as a system led to the study of different "functions"
within the system (Jakobson, who also uses the language of "poles" in poetics,
and members of the Prague School who study phonological features which have
positive or negative valences, as it were). In particular, I think of a man in
this tradition named Andre' Martinet who taught in Paris and then at Columbia.
Instead of the teleological terms familiar to the Prague School he describes
the tendency of language change to strive toward economy in reconciling two
opposite needs: toward efficiency in communication (as many units as possible,
as different from each other as possible) and minimum effort (as few units as
possible, as similar as possible). Success is measured in terms of distributing
functional yield or functional "load". This doesn't involve very fancy physics
but does use the language of mechanics.
	The best place to go might be Martinet's 1955 _Economies des changements
phonetiques_. In it he describes the "pressure" in the "chain" for maximum
differentiation and "equidistance". Remember that the physiological basis of
the production of sounds inherently involves motor movements which have energy,
frequency, height,vibration,inertia andother elements of physics. So within the
system (or the map of the physical mouth or other features) we can have "empty
holes" which are likely to be filled by new phonemes or whatever. Martinet
later went on to apply this to syntax as well. Chains can push or pull.
	In semantics, there is similarly talk of forming and filling vacuums
(or will you allow me vacua?). I note Geoffrey Hughes (_Words in Time_, 1988,
p. 12):
	"Certain areas of the vocabulary perennially generate specialization. As
the explicit terms for sexual activity become unacceptable and then taboo,
numerous general latinized words were drawn into the 'semantic vacuum'. Among
them were *rape* (1482), *consummation* (1530), *seduce* (1560), *erection*
(1594), . . . *orgasm* (1684), *intercourse* (1798), *climax* (1918),
*ejaculation* (1927)...."
	The idealized distribution of meanings (into which vacuums come and go)
was even measured by the psychologist G. K. Zipf. Perhaps not surpringly "the
different meanings of a word will tend to be equal to the square root of its
relative frequency" (1945 article in Journal of Gen. Psychology).

Jeffrey Wills
wills@macc.wisc.edu
Univ.of Wisc.-Madison

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:82>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sun Nov 21 13:31:05 1993

Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 14:39:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: November 21 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

NOVEMBER 21 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1881: AMI BOUE dies at Voslau, Austria.  Born in Hamburg, Germany, Boue had
declined to enter his family's shipping business and had instead emigrated to
Scotland at the age of twenty.  He studied geology, botany, and medicine at
the University of Edinburgh, and eventually returned to the Continent where he
participated in the founding of the Societe Geologique de France in 1830.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:83>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sun Nov 21 20:18:22 1993

Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 21:26:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Darwin's lost Galapagos fossils
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

This message comes from Jere Lipps who was having difficulty posting
it.  Please reply either to him or to the group as a whole.

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

----------

When Darwin sailed into the Galapagos, one of the ship's crewmen climbed
Cerro Brujo on San Cristobal and returned with some fossils.  Darwin
reported this (3d edition of Geological Observations, 1896, p. 130)
and used the occurrence of these fossils as evidence that the tuff cone
of Cerro Brujo had been uplifted, although he acknowledged that they
could have also been carried up to their height (of several hundred feet)
by the eruption.

In 1986, Carole Hickman and I together with several others collected many
fossils from Cerro Brujo.  We'd like to write up this occurrence and
have searched the Natural History Museum, London, Oxford U., Cambridge U.,
and the Geol. Soc. of London for the material Darwin wrote about.  No luck.
No one seems to know where the fossils are.  Does anyone out there have
any ideas?

Jere H. Lipps (jlipps@ucmp1.Berkeley.EDU)
Museum of Paleontology
UC Berkeley

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:84>From chladil@geo.geol.utas.edu.au  Sun Nov 21 21:07:03 1993

From: Mark Chladil <chladil@geo.geol.utas.edu.au>
Subject: beetles....thanks
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu (darwin-l)
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 14:10:29 EST

Thank you all who replied to my request re beetles, Haldane etc.

In summary see S.J. Gould in Natural History January 1993.
G.E. Hutchinson's 1958 Homage to Santa Rosalia is also a good read but
is not after all about Haldane, beetles or the Creator....

It was an interesting diversion from carabid taxonomy and communities.
Cheers
Mark

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:85>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Mon Nov 22 00:05:42 1993

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 01:13:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: November 22 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

NOVEMBER 22 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1787: RASMUS KRISTIAN RASK is born at Braendekilde, Denmark.  Following
two years of study in Iceland, Rask will publish _Undersogelse om det gamle
Nordiske eller Islandske Sprogs Oprindelse_ (_Investigation on the Origin
of the Old Norse or Icelandic Language_, 1818), which will demonstrate the
relationship of the Scandinavian languages to Latin and Greek.  He will later
bring the Celtic languages into the Indo-European family, and will recognize
that Basque and Finno-Ugaric are independent of this group.  Rask will master
more than 25 languages by the time of his death in 1832, and he will be
remembered as one of the founders of comparative Indo-European linguistics.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:86>From rxn106@cac.psu.edu  Mon Nov 22 09:05:34 1993

From: RICARDO NASSIF <rxn106@cac.psu.edu>
Subject: History of evolutionary thought
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 10:08:59 -0500 (EST)

First, I would like to thank whoever is in charge of the
"Today in historical...". These small pieces are very informative (at
least for the non-specialist) and I really look forward to receiving
it.

Second, I posted sometime ago a request for a list of Darwin
(and related) biographies but so far got no answer. It doesn't have to
include price, ISBN, etc: Just a simple list, if possible ranked in
terms of "quality" in someone's opinion. It would also be nice
mentioning if the item is in print.

Cheers & thanks.

.rn

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:87>From mayerg@cs.uwp.edu  Mon Nov 22 10:12:26 1993

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 09:42:51 -0600 (CST)
From: Gregory Mayer <mayerg@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: phenetics vs cladistics vs evol. class.
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

> 1) My understanding was that Mayr said there is no method in Cladistics for
> going from phylogenetic reconstruction to classification.  Comments?
	Sort of true.  Cladistic classifications reflect only recency of
common ancestry (as opposed to degree of divergence).  This imposes a
strong constraint on such classifications, if they are to be of the
traditional Linnaean style.  The constraint is that sister groups (i.e.
the pair of clades descending from a single common ancestor) must be of
the same rank.  Thus for a particular phylogeny, many possible
classifications will not satisfy this constraint, and thus will not be
cladistic.  However, many possible classifications _will_ satisfy this
constraint; there is thus no procedure that moves one ineluctably from a
tree to some single classification, which alone is cladistic.  The
cladist, while being constrained more than a pheneticist or evolutionary
classificationist (sorry for the barbarism, but evolutionist without some
reference to classification would not be right) would be, must still make
decisions as to which rank sister taxa should be, and which sister taxa
should be named (in a practical system, not all sister taxa can be named).
This is what Mayr meant by saying cladistics had no method.

> 2) My understanding is that a major purpose of cladistics is to determine
> -branch points.-  What EXACTLY is a branch point?  Is cladistics concerned
> with determining branch points?
	Evolutionary events are often divided into two sorts: anagenesis,
or changes within a single lineage, and cladogenesis, or the splitting of
a single lineage into two or more lineages.  Here's an example, which
might, in fact, be wrong, but it illustrates the point.  Ribbon snakes
occurred across the eastern part of the U.S.  During one of the climatic
vicissitudes of the Pleistocene, acceptable habitat became restricted to
the east (toward Florida) and the west (toward Texas), separating the
ribbon snakes into two geographic areas.  In the separate eastern and
western areas, evolution continued , but independently.  The snakes
changed a bit in their coloration and scales and probably other ways.
Thus anagenesis occurred in the isolated populations.  When the climate
ameliorated, snakes moved back into once-again favorable areas along the
Mississippi.  When eastern snakes and western snakes met, however, they
could no longer freely reproduce with one another.  They had become
separate species, i.e. independently evolving lineages.  Cladogenesis had
occurred.  The complex of events leading to the splitting of the ribbon
snake into two species, the eastern and western ribbon snakes, is what is
referred to as the branching point: the point (although, of course, in the
postulated example it was not a _point_ in time, but a sequence of events)
at which a single branch of the phylogenetic tree becomes two branches.
The goal of cladistics (as a branch of phylogenetics, as opposed to
classification) is to discover the sequence in which these branching
events occurred.

Gregory C. Mayer
mayerg@cs.uwp.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:88>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Mon Nov 22 10:49:00 1993

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 10:49:00 -0600
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: rxn106@cac.psu.edu, darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: History of evolutionary thought

In message <199311221509.AA19147@wilbur.cac.psu.edu>  writes:

> 	First, I would like to thank whoever is in charge of the
> "Today in historical...". These small pieces are very informative (at
> least for the non-specialist) and I really look forward to receiving
> it.
>
> 	Second, I posted sometime ago a request for a list of Darwin
> (and related) biographies but so far got no answer. It doesn't have to
> include price, ISBN, etc: Just a simple list, if possible ranked in
> terms of "quality" in someone's opinion. It would also be nice
> mentioning if the item is in print.

This is reproduced from a chapter in print. It is not comprehensive, but I hope
it helps.

from: JH Langdon and ME McGann, eds. 1993. The Natural History of Paradigms.
University of Indianapolis Press. (Forthcoming)

The Darwinian Revolution: A Selected Bibliography
	John H. Langdon
	Darwin left behind an extensive documentation of his thoughts, from his
notebooks which span more than two decades before he published the Origin, to
his autobiography. With the impact that Darwinism has had on science, society,
and nearly every other aspect of Western culture, historians of science have
examined and reexamined each clue for the cause and process of this critical
paradigm shift.
	The best source for Darwin's ideas are his own books, for Darwin wrote
vividly and clearly. The Voyage of the Beagle (1840-1843) recounts his trip of
exploration that stimulated much of his thinking about the origin, evolution,
and dispersion of species. The Origin of Species (1859) is his revolutionary
presentation of natural selection. In The Descent of Man and Selection in
Relation to Sex (1871), Darwin extends his theories to human evolution.
Biographies of Darwin are recorded by Darwin himself (Barlow, 1958) and most
recently by Desmond and Moore (1992). Other examinations of the development of
his thought come from Bowler (1990), Eiseley (1979), Gale (1982), Ghiselin
(1969), Mayr (1991), Moorhead (1969), and Ospovat (1981). Stone (1980) has
written a fictionalized account of his life.
	The intellectual, social, and political contexts have been documented
extensively. The scientific history of the period is recounted by Bowler (1984,
1989), Brachman (1980), Brooks (1984), Eiseley (1958), Grayson (1983), Irvine
(1955), Mayr (1972, 1982), and Ruse (1979). Desmond (1982, 1990) has linked the
popular discussion of evolution with radical social politics.
	More general accounts of the history of evolutionary biology, extending
into the 20th century include those of Bowler (1983), Edey and Johanson (1989),
and Mayr (1980).
	Barlow, Nora, ed. 1958. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. New York:
Norton.
	Bowler, Peter J. 1983. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian
Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
	__________ 1984. Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
	__________ 1989. The Invention of Progress: The Victorians and the Past.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
	__________ 1990. Charles Darwin, the Man and his Influence. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
	Brachman, Arnold C. 1980. A Delicate Arrangement: The Strange Case of
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace.New York: Times Books.
	Brooks, John Langdon 1984. Just before the Origin: Alfred Russel
Wallace's Theory of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.
	Darwin, Charles 1989. The Voyage of the Beagle. (1840-1843). Janet Brown
and Michael Neve, eds. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
	__________ 1982. The Origin of Species. (1859). J.W. Burrow, ed.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
	__________ 1981. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.
(1871). Princeton: University of Princeton Press.
	Desmond, Adrian 1982. Archetypes and Ancestors: Paleontology in
Victorian London 1850-1875. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
	__________ 1990. The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and
Reform in Radical London. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
	Desmond, Adrian, and James Moore 1992. Darwin. New York: Warner.
	Edey, Maitland A., and Donald C. Johanson 1989. Blueprints: Solving the
Mystery of Evolution. Boston: Little, Brown.
	Eisley, Loren 1958. Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men who
Discovered it. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co.
	__________ 1979. Darwin and the Mysterious Mr. X: New Light on the
Evolutionists. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Javonovich.
	Gale, Barry G. 1982. Evolution without Evidence: Charles Darwin and the
Origin of Species. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
	Ghiselin, Michael T. 1969. The Triumph of the Darwinian Method.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
	Grayson, Donald K. 1983. The Establishment of Human Antiquity. New York:
Academic Press.
	Greene, John C. 1992. From Aristotle to Darwin: reflections on Ernst
Mayr's interpretation in The Growth of Biological Thought. Journal of the
History of Biology 25(2):257-284.
	Irvine, William 1955. Apes, Angels, and Victorians: Darwin, Huxley, and
Evolution. New York: McGraw-Hill.
	Mayr, Ernst 1972. The nature of the Darwinian Revolution. Science
176:981-989.
	__________ 1980. The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the
Unification of Biology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
	__________ 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
	__________ 1991. One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of
Modern Evolutionary Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
	Moorehead, Alan 1969. Darwin and the Beagle. Harmondsworth, Middlesex:
Penguin.
	Ospovat, Dov 1981. The Development of Darwin's Theory: Natural History,
Natural Theology, and Natural Selection. New York: Cambridge University Press.
	Ruse, Michael 1979. The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and
Claw. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
	Stone, Irving 1980. The Origin: A Biographical Novel of Charles Darwin.
New York: Doubleday.

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:89>From mayerg@cs.uwp.edu  Mon Nov 22 11:47:50 1993

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 11:47:56 -0600 (CST)
From: Gregory Mayer <mayerg@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Momentum and other physical metaphors in history
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

> One that can be followed now is the
> drift towards using the plural "they" or "their" in the predicate of
> a sentence with a singular neuter subject: "everyone"; "each" and so
> on. The shift is a response to not depending on a masculine singular
> pronoun--and avoiding the clumsy his/her etc.

	I frequently use the "they/their" construction when referring to a
neuter singular subject.  I don't believe this is a recent development to
avoid the clumsy his/her, though.  My recollection is that this has been a
common form for many years where I grew up (New York).  Another "gap", the
lack of a distinct second person plural, has led to the usage in New York
of "yous" (often spelled "youse") and "you guys" (similar to Southern "you
all") when speaking to a group (of either or both sexes).
	Are these gaps what linguists call "imbalances" (a term used by
some in previous postings)?

Gregory C. Mayer
mayerg@cs.uwp.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:90>From leh1@Lehigh.EDU  Mon Nov 22 14:13:07 1993

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1993 15:11:33 EST
From: leh1@Lehigh.EDU (Lynn E. Hanninen)
Subject: Re: phenetics vs cladistics vs evol. class.
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Hi!

>  The cladist,... must still make decisions as to which rank
sister taxa should be, and which sister taxa should be named (in a
practical system, not all sister taxa can be named). This is what
Mayr meant by saying cladistics had no method.

I'm sorry, but I just don't understand all this about rank and
naming sister taxa (to tell the truth I still don't understand what
a taxon IS).

lynn (STILL trying)

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

e-mail: leh1@lehigh.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:91>From D.Oldroyd@unsw.edu.au  Mon Nov 22 21:42:34 1993

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 14:53:48 +1000
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: D.Oldroyd@unsw.edu.au
Subject: George Maw

    George Maw was a 19th-C industrialist who had a ceramic tile-making
factory in the Severn Valley.  His factory is now part of the museum
complex in the Ironbridge Gorge, and it is interesting to visit the place:
the cradle of the Industrial Revolution.
    Maw was an amateur naturalist/geologist and did some geological
work in North Wales.  I have looked at this in relation to a detailed study
of the history of ideas about the Precambrian in North Wales, which is
being published in 'Annals of Science' this month.
    I hope this information may be of some interest/use.
    David Oldroyd (University of New South Wales)
David Oldroyd,
School of Science and Technology Studies,
University of New South Wales

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:92>From ronald@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu  Tue Nov 23 00:16:09 1993

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 93 20:18:20 HST
From: Ron Amundson <ronald@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Request for Borges's "Chinese" classification

Sorry to bother the list about a minor matter, but I mistakenly
thought I'd saved the Borges (later Foucault) facetious
classification scheme which has been listed and discussed on
Darwin-L.  If anyone has it handy, I'd very much appreciate having
a copy posted to me.  I have to give a lecture on systematics
soon, and Borges sets the tone nicely, esp. since one of the
faculty involved in the group has proposed that all classification
schemes are arbitrary.

Thanks for any help.

Ron Amundson
ronald@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
ronald@uhunix.bitnet

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:93>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Tue Nov 23 15:42:51 1993

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 16:49:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: November 23 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

NOVEMBER 23 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1553/1616: PROSPERO ALPINI, botanist and physician, is born at Marostica,
Italy; he will die on this day in 1616 at Padua.  One of the first European
physicians to study plants in a non-medicinal context, Alpini will travel to
Egypt and Crete, and will publish the first description of the Egyptian flora,
_De Plantis Aegypti_ (1592).  In 1603 Alpini will assume the directorship of
the botanical garden at the University of Padua; his son, Alpino, will succeed
him in this position after Alpini's death.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:94>From mayerg@cs.uwp.edu  Tue Nov 23 16:03:15 1993

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 16:00:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Gregory Mayer <mayerg@cs.uwp.edu>
Subject: Books about Darwin
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

What follows is by no means a bibliography; it is merely a
selection of the books readily at hand to me that might get Ricardo Nassif
started on the history of evolutionary thought.  It lacks some very
important works: the _Life and Letters_, the new edition of the
correspondence from Cambridge, de Beer's biography, etc., etc.  Others may
be stimulated to add their favorites.

Appleman, P., ed. 1970. Darwin. Norton, New York.
   A "Norton Critical Edition", containing extracts from Darwin's works plus
a collection of comtemporary and modern commentary.

Brackman, A.C. 1980. A Delicate Arrangement. Times Books, New York.
   About Darwin and Wallace's joint announcement of natural selection; the
author feels Wallace was wronged.  Wallace didn't feel that way, nor do most
historians.  I believe David Kohn wrote a pretty damning review.  Out of
print.

Bowler, P.J. 1989. Evolution, the History of an Idea. 2nd ed. UC Press,
Berkeley.
   A widely regarded overview beginning well before Darwin, and up to the
present day.

Barlow, N., ed. 1967. Darwin and Henslow. The Growth of an Idea. John
Murray, London.
   Letters 1831-1860.

Darwin, C. 1958. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. Norton, New York.
   This is the unexpurgated version.

Darwin, C. 1980. Metaphysics, Materialism, and the Evolution of Mind. Univ.
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
   Notebooks, etc. transcribed and annotated by P.H. Barrett; see also
Gruber, below.

Desmond, A. and J. Moore. 1991. Darwin. Warner Books, New York.
   This much praised work has previously received criticism on our list for
being speculative and overly concerned with social and political issues.  I
have found it to be pretty standard, actually.  I was much amused by a
review (in _Isis_?) which thought the book paid insufficient attention to
sexual matters.

Eiseley, L. 1958. Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It.
Doubleday, New York.
   "popular and rather opinionated" fide Bowler (1989:14).

Farrington, B. 1966. What Darwin Really Said. Schocken Books, New York.
   A brief book by a classicist who didn't think much of Darwin. A typical
marginal annotation from my copy: "Rubbish!!"  Out of print.

Ghiselin, M. 1969. The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. UC Press, Berkeley.
   Argues for the importance of hypothetico-deductive methodology in
Darwin's work, and for the essential unity of its themes. Reissued by
University of Chicago I believe.

Gillespie, N.C. 1979. Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation. Univ. of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
   I haven't read it.

Greene, J.C. 1959. The Death of Adam. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, Iowa.
   "remains one of the most scholarly interpretations of the [Darwinian]
revolution" fide Bowler (1989).  Later reissued by New American Library, New
York; may now be out of print.

Greene, J.C. 1981. Science, Ideology, and World View. UC Press, Berkeley.
   A collection of Greene's essays.  Not strictly about Darwin, but close
enough to fit in this list.  Greene seems to think Spencer was more
thoroughgoingly Darwinistic than Darwin.

Gruber, H.E. 1981. Darwin on Man. 2nd ed. Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
   Subtitled "A psychological study of scientific creativity".  First
edition was published as a single volume with Darwin (1980) in 1974.

Howard, J. 1982. Darwin. Hill and Wang, New York.
   Very brief, mostly about Darwin's work, rather than life. Out of print.

Kohn, D., ed. 1985. The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton Univ. Press,
Princeton, N.J.
   A very large collection of essays at a reasonable price.

Mayr, E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought. Harvard Univ. Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
   A large book by one of the more important evolutionary biologists of this
century, covering much the same ground as Bowler, but including more on
systematics (to which Darwin made important contributions) and genetics (to
which he didn't).

Mayr, E. 1991. One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern
Evolutionary Thought. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass.
   Reworked versions of some of Mayr's previous essays joined into a single
work, with some new chapters.

Ruse, M. 1979. The Darwinian Revolution: Science Red in Tooth and Claw.
Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago.
   A widely regarded overview dealing with 19th century events.

Ruse, M. 1982. Darwinism Defended. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.
   The first two chapters are a nice 60 page overview of Darwin's life
and work, but most of the book is about modern scientific and political
controversies.

Gregory C. Mayer
mayerg@cs.uwp.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:95>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Tue Nov 23 22:01:38 1993

Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1993 23:09:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Computers in Historical Linguistics (fwd from LINGUIST)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

The following announcement of a conference on computer applications in
historical linguistics comes from the LINGUIST list; I thought it might be
of interest to some of the members of Darwin-L.  I'm convinced that historical
linguists could benefit from examining the wide range of software that is now
available in the systematics community for the reconstruction of evolutionary
trees.  There is no reason why programs such as PAUP and MacClade, widely
used by systematists interested in phylogenetic inference, could not be
applied to problems in the historical relationships of languages as well.
(They do seem to work reasonably well for the reconstruction of manuscript
stemmata.)  MacClade is perhaps the best of these programs for the novice,
and it is now commercially available:

  Maddison, Wayne P., & David R. Maddison.  1992.
  MacClade, Version 3.  Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer
  Associates.  (ISBN 0-87893-490-1)

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------

LINGUIST List:  Vol-4-973. Mon 22 Nov 1993. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 4.973 Conf: Round Table on Computer Applications in Historical Ling

Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 17:27:01 -0800
From: jblowe@garnet.berkeley.edu (John Brandon Lowe)
Subject: Round Table Program

 *********************************************************************
 * Round Table on Computer Applications in Historical Linguistics  *
 *                       *
 *   Third and final announcement and  tentative program   *
 *                       *
 *     December 8, 1993  10h00 to 18h00      *
 *   Professor's Lounge, Universite Libre, Brussels, Belguim   *
 *********************************************************************

The first in a series of round tables to discuss the application of computers
in historical linguistics will be held in conjunction with the 1993 Annual
Conference of the Linguistic Society of Belgium, devoted this year to "Sound
Change", to be held in Brussels from December 9-11, 1993.

For information about the conference itself, please contact Dr. D. Demolin
(ddemoli@ulb.ac.be).

If you are interested in attending the round table or wish to continue to
receive (or not receive) email about it and perhaps other mailings about
computational historical linguistics, please contact either:

 John B. Lowe           Martine Mazaudon
 University of California       C.N.R.S.
 Berkeley             Paris
 jblowe@garnet.berkeley.edu       ULTO006%FRORS31.bitnet
 1-510 643-9910 (voice)       33.1.45.80.96.73 (voice)
 1-510 643-9911 (fax)         33.1.45.80.59.83 (fax)

For the first such *informal* one-day gathering we invite anyone interested in
any aspect of this broad topic to attend.  The list of presentations and
demonstrations is tentative.  While the participants listed below are all
"confirmed", there may still be revisions or additions.  There is still time
for other presentations, though we would be able to confirm any time slots
until the round table itself.  We look forward to see you in Brussels!

PRESENTATIONS AND DEMONSTRATIONS
10h00 to 12h30 and 13h30 to 16h30 (approx.)

(Presenters: please plan to bring whatever software you have to demonstrate,
and let us know what hardware and presentation equipment you need.)

  Lee Hartman: IBM-compatible based program for testing sound change
   models, and a discussion of questions of notation.

  John Hewson: A computer-generated dictionary of Proto-Algonquian.

  Jean-Marie Hombert and Joel Brogniart: ALFA, Atlas Linguistique
   Fang -- a multi-media multi-media Macintosh database for linguistic
   atlas maps -- applied to Fang, Bantu, Cameroon.

  John Lowe and Martine Mazaudon: The Reconstruction Engine (RE), a
   program for checking correspondance rules and assembling cognate
   sets from individual dictionaries.

  John Lowe: Two etymological database projects: STEDT (the Sino-
   Tibetan Etymological Dictionary and Thesaurus) and CBOLD: (the
   Comparative Bantu Online Dictionary).

  Boyd Michailovsky: Using LEXWARE on a comparative database --
   application to Kiranti, Nepal.

  Ann Marynissen: Corpus-based research on noun inflexion in 13th
   century Middle Dutch.

  Robert Nicolai: MARIAMA, a data base for historical comparative
   linguistics, currently applied to Nilo-Saharan.

  Marc Thouvenot: GENOR, a spelling generator -- a means to retrieve
   lexical items with non standardized spelling from texts.

  Annelies Wouters: "An Atlas of Old-Netherlandic," an electronic
   database of Dutch place-names before 1225 A.D.

 ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION 17h00 to 18h00 (approx.)

  All interested parties are invited to discuss the day's events, to
  speculate about future developments, and to otherwise exchange ideas.
  In particular, the discussion will focus on desiderata for software in
  historical research.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:96>From p_stevens@nocmsmgw.harvard.edu  Wed Nov 24 06:29:20 1993

Date: 24 Nov 1993 07:29:31 U
From: "p stevens" <p_stevens@nocmsmgw.harvard.edu>
Subject: physics and history
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Taking up some points made this last weekend, I am not sure to what extent
Cuvier really bought into the idea that natural history and physics were that
close.  From Toby Appel's book, it seems that he felt that natural history was
preminently a discipline of description, and could not be reduced to
mathematics.  You could of course suggest the fairly recent dalliance of
systematics with Popperian philosophy was an attempt of history (that is, a
part of the systematic community) to ground itself in the philosophy that leans
towards the physical sciences.

Connections with crystallography seem much closer, and not simply in the work
of peole like Hauy, A.-P. de Candolle, and Whewell; even Theodor Schwann (in
his "Mikroscopische Untersuchungen...", I seem to remember) invokes a
comparison with crystals.  Maybe this linkage in more common in botanical (or
botanically-inclined) authors.

And don't forget chemistry, and the analogy between chemical affinity and
biological affinity...

Peter Stevens.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:97>From ZINJMAN@uog.pacific.edu  Sun Nov 28 02:52:02 1993

To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: ZINJMAN@uog.pacific.edu
Subject: Re: Austronesian affinities
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 93 00:55:47 PST

Does anyone know of any recent Big Picture works on historical
linguistics vis-a-vis the archaeological (and physical anthropological)
record that focus on the origin and dispersal of Austronesian speakers
ASIDE FROM (1) Bellwood's Scientific American (July 1991) and Blust's
(1988) Asian Perspectives articles??

Greetings from a new subscriber!

Gary Heathcote
Anthropology Lab
University of Guam, UOG Station
Mangilao, Guam 96923
e-mail: zinjman@uog.pacific.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:98>From fisk@midway.uchicago.edu  Sun Nov 28 11:13:20 1993

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 93 11:15:59 CST
From: magnus fiskesjo <fisk@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: hist of archaeology

Dear fellow readers of this list, I have just been informed of the existence
of this eminent list of yours, as a possible source of hints or advice on the
following problems:

It seems that John Locke was among the first Westerners to refer to
contemporary 'savages' in a scheme of universal history conceived as stages
of increasing Civilisation/Enlightenment. He is supposed to have written that
'in the beginning, all the world was America' (I am not sure where this was
written, but I think in 1687 or 1690, any reference to this is most welcomed).
Juxtaposing this with the views of human history and cultural diversity of
German thinkers such as J G Herder, it seems that the way Herder thought
everyone had their own culture as good as any Enlightened European (read:
French?) paved the way for archaeology - I am wondering whether Danes such as
Thomsen and Worsaae had read a lot of herder when they invented (read:applied
to museum collections) the three-age-system and archaeological stratigraphy
- if there had not been an urge to discover the roots of their Danish nation
inspired by Herderian thinking, and if they had not been inspired by the same
sort of thinking to regard even the makers of crude, ugly stone tools (ugh)
as glorious ancestors, instead of savages roaming in the dark a la Locke,
perhaps they would not have invented archaeology to the extent they did.
Any comments on this Locke-Enlightenment / Herder-Thomsen-Worsaae connection
are most welcome ...
Magnus Fiskesjo
U of Chicago

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:99>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sun Nov 28 13:07:23 1993

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 14:15:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: November 28 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

NOVEMBER 28 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1876: KARL ERNST VON BAER dies at Dorpat (now Tartu), Estonia.  Though he will
be best remembered for his work on embryology conducted while a professor at
the University of Konigsberg, von Baer ranged widely through natural history
and related fields.  Moving from Konigsberg to St. Petersburg in 1834, he held
various offices in the Russian Academy of Sciences, and contributed to the
founding of the Russian Geographical Society and the Russian Entomological
Society.  In addition to his many publications in comparative anatomy and
embryology, von Baer wrote extensively on anthropological, ethnographic,
and even archeological subjects, such as the manufacture of bronze and the
itinerary of Odysseus.

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:100>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sun Nov 28 21:07:18 1993

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 22:15:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Re: Austronesian affinities
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

I'm not a linguist and so can't really answer Gary Heathcote's question about
Austronesian language history, but I did come across this paper at one point,
and noted it down because it made some specific comparisons between language
history and biogeography:

  Terrell, John.  1981.  Linguistics and the peopling of the Pacific islands.
  Journal of the Polynesian Society, 90:225-258.

The paper has no abstract or I would type it in, but the subheading reads
"Challenging an established idea about the languages of Oceania shows the
value of biogeographical thinking for the study of island prehistory."  I'd
be interested to know from any of our linguists whether this paper was in
any way influential, or whether there are any other papers in historical
linguistics that make explicit comparisons to historical biogeography.

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:101>From Michael_Kenny@sfu.ca  Sun Nov 28 21:41:00 1993

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 93 19:44:25 -0800
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: Michael_Kenny@sfu.ca (Michael Kenny)
Subject: Re: hist of archaeology

I can't speak for Locke, but in the pages just after his infamous "cruel,
brutish, and short" comment about the quality of life in the State of
Nature, Thomas Hobbes refers to the natives of America as an example of
just that condition (not, however, specifying which peoples he was thinking
of). His other example of this deplorable condition is that of otherwise
civilized  peoples who have fallen into a state of civil war.

M. Kenny
Michael_Kenny@sfu.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:102>From GOLLAV@axe.humboldt.edu  Sun Nov 28 23:37:24 1993

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1993 21:40 PST
From: GOLLAV@axe.humboldt.edu
Subject: Language history and biogeography
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Bob O'Hara writes:

>  I'd be interested to know from any of our linguists ... whether there are
>  any other papers in historical linguistics that make explicit comparisons
>  to historical biogeography.

I can cite at least one other recent paper that attempts a correlation of
linguistic diversity with biogeographical areas:

Richard A. Rogers, Larry D. Martin & T. Dale Nicklas, "Ice-Age Geography
and the Distribution of Native North American Languages" Journal of
Biogeography 17.2 (March 1990), 131-143. [The authors argue that many
modern native North American language families have distributions remarkably
similar to those of the biogeographic zones that existed during the last
(Wisconsinan) glaciation.  Glacial ice appears to have been an important
isolating agent, leading to linguistic divergence.]

To date, this paper has had little influence on American Indian historical
linguistics.  My own impression is that Rogers et al. work on too broad a
canvas - i.e., all of North America over the last 10,000 years.  I suspect
that meaningful biogeogpahical correlations are possible with a few language
familes whose spread has occurred more recently - e.g., Athabaskan and Eskimo
- although the real correlations are between bioregions and the adaptive
strategies (only secondarily the languages) of specific migrating  peoples.
Thus, there seems little doubt that the Athabaskans migrated southward from
an Alaskan or Yukon starting point, beginning around 500 AD, through the
boreal forest areas of B.C., the Cascades, and the Rockies.  However, after
settling in to areas at the extremes or edges of this bioregion--Northwest
California, the southern Rockies in Colorado/New Mexico, the front range of
the Rockies adjacent to the Plains--a number of Athabaskan-speaking groups
moved out of the forest and took up quite different lifestyles in markedly
different environments. These included, for example, the acorn-gathering
Hupa of California, the steppe-herder Navajo, and the mounted bison-hunting
Sarsi and Plains Apache.  The lesson seems to be that, while some language
spreads are correlated with bioregions, languages (and cultures) can also
quickly and easily cross deep biogeographical boundaries. So the older and
more diversified a language family is, the less likely it will meaningfully
correlate with a bioregion.

--Victor Golla
  Humboldt State University
  gollav @ axe.humboldt.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:103>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Mon Nov 29 00:04:08 1993

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 01:12:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: November 29 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

NOVEMBER 29 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1627: JOHN RAY is born at Black Notley, Essex, England.  He will attend
Trinity College, Cambridge, and will become one of the leading naturalists
and antiquarians of his generation.  Ray's earliest works will be in botany,
and his catalog Cambridge plants, _Catalogus Plantarum Circa Cantabrigiam
Nascentium_ (1660), will set a standard for local floras.  He will be best
remembered for his influential volume on natural theology, _The Wisdom of God
Manifested in the Works of Creation_ (1691), but Ray will span the entire
range of historical inquiry from the creation of the world in _Miscellaneous
Discourses Concerning the Dissolution and Changes of the World Wherein the
Primitive Chaos and Creation, the General Deluge, Fountains, Formed Stones,
Sea-Shells Found in the Earth, Subterraneous Trees, Mountains, Earthquakes,
Vulcanoes, the Universal Conflagration and Further State, are Largely
Discussed and Examined_ (1692), to the history and geography of the English
language in _A Collection of English Words Not Generally Used, With Their
Significations and Original, in Two Alphabetical Catalogues, the One of Such
as are Proper to the Northern, the Other to the Southern Counties_ (second
edition, 1691).

Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.  For
information send the message INFO DARWIN-L to listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:104>From GA3704@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU  Mon Nov 29 12:21:42 1993

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 93 12:03:41 CST
From: "Margaret E. Winters" <GA3704@SIUCVMB.SIU.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: linguistic metaphors

I've just spent a very pleasant hour catching up on ten days worth
of Darwin-L (and putting off working on a paper!).  There were a
couple of postings on physical metaphors used in linguistics - and
particularly historical linguistics - that I would like to add to.

The term `polarity' has a couple of uses, both (come to think of
it) historical and non-), of which one is in terms of the influence
of negative (or affirmative) grammatical terms on the surrounding
sentence.  For example, the word `ever' is called a Negative Polarity
Item since it occurs with `not':
       He doen't ever let me know what he's doing
but not in an affirmative sentence
      *He ever lets me know...   (* for ungrammatical)
This is an over-simplification since such items often can occur as
well with conditionals:
       If he ever let me know...
certain words with negative semantics
       I'm sorry he ever got to do it
    but  *I'm glad he ever got to do it
etc.

It is also used historically to describe a situation in which
semantic opposites go through similar sound changes which are
regular for one of the items and very irregular for the other -
but occur there exactly because of the specific semantic relationship:
Latin CALIDUS lost the /i/ in the unstressed middle syllable in
what was a regular change (sorry - it means 'hot') while
its semantic opposite FRIGIDUS 'cold' also lost the /i/ in what
is an unusual context because of the nature of the surrounding
consonants.  At least in the area of Romance historical linguistics
this is called polarization (I think Y. Malkiel coined the usage).

In terms of force and momentum, the notion of Drift is indeed
very relevant.  It is not just a simple question of the spread
of a single lexical or grammatical item throughout a speech
community, however, but also the convergence, in a way, of a series
of grammatical changes which all result in one thing.  Sapir, who
wrote about it first, at least in 20th century linguistics, uses
the loss of case endings in English as a prime example, with one
longish section on WHOM becoming rarer and rarer - but within
the context of English becoming a language which marks meaning
through word order instead of case endings - unlike Old English or,
for that matter, modern German, which still has at least some
distinctive endings.

To respond to a recent question, I wouldn't use `imbalance' for
what is going on with they/them either for an inanimate or for
the third person singular to avoid gender - if anything it can
be seen as creating further imbalance (compared to the first person
where singular and plural are marked, although not compared to
the second person where they aren't).  On the other hand, the
use of `youze', `you all', `you guys' `you-uns', etc. are meant
to fix what would be called an imbalance in the pronoun system
where standard English doesn't mark singular versus plural in
the second person - but many speakers feel this as a problem and,
usually along regional lines, find a way of differentiating the
two.

Enough - I'd better get back to my paper!
            Best,
            Margaret Winters
            <ga3704@siucvmb.siu.edu>

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:105>From delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu  Mon Nov 29 15:57:00 1993

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 13:52:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott C DeLancey <delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Language history and biogeography
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On Sun, 28 Nov 1993 GOLLAV@axe.humboldt.edu wrote:

> I can cite at least one other recent paper that attempts a correlation of
> linguistic diversity with biogeographical areas:
>
> Richard A. Rogers, Larry D. Martin & T. Dale Nicklas, "Ice-Age Geography
> and the Distribution of Native North American Languages" Journal of
> Biogeography 17.2 (March 1990), 131-143. [The authors argue that many
> modern native North American language families have distributions remarkably
> similar to those of the biogeographic zones that existed during the last
> (Wisconsinan) glaciation.  Glacial ice appears to have been an important
> isolating agent, leading to linguistic divergence.]
>
> To date, this paper has had little influence on American Indian historical
> linguistics.  My own impression is that Rogers et al. work on too broad a
> canvas - i.e., all of North America over the last 10,000 years.

I think there's a more specific problem that affects the attractiveness
to linguists of this hypothesis.  The dates involved just don't jibe
with linguists' ideas about dating.  Rogers' hypothesis entails, for
example, that the Algonquian family began to diverge something like
10,000 years BP.  But Algonquian is not nearly as linguistically
divergent as linguists would expect in a 10,000-year-old family.  In
fact, many comparativists are openly dubious that after 10,000 years
of divergence there will be enough detectable resemblance remaining among
daughter languages to show common descent.
   This need not be a fatal objection to Rogers' hypothesis--linguists'
approaches to dating are notoriously impressionistic and imprecise, and
in any case we don't know enough about the sociolinguistics of dispersed
hunter-gatherer communities to know for certain that the expected rates
of linguistic divergence should always be comparable to those that we
see in larger-scale sedentary populations.  But the discrepancy between
Rogers' suggestions and linguists' normal expectations is pretty gross.

Scott DeLancey
Department of Linguistics
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:106>From V187EF4Y@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu  Mon Nov 29 19:13:00 1993

Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1993 20:19:13 -0500 (EST)
From: V187EF4Y@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Subject: Re: cladistics et al
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University at Buffalo

Bob O'Hara writes:

>Suppose we have three species, A, B, and C.  They may be related in any one
>of the following ways.  (It is important to understand that "relationship"
>in this context means historical, genealogical relationship: relative
>recency of common ancestry.  It is also important to understand that these
>trees are "trees of history"; that is, the root represents an ancestor that
>actually existed at sometime in the past.)

>            /------- C             /------- C             /------- B
>      /-----|                /-----|                /-----|
>     /      \------- B      /      \------- A      /      \------- A
> ----|                  ----|                  ----|
>     \                      \                      \
>      \------------- A       \------------- B       \------------- C

Actually, there's a fourth solution (if anyone's already pointed this out,
forgive me, I'm catching up on 3 weeks' mail):

         /------A
        /
  ------|-------B
        \
         \------C

The first three diagrams are usually the only ones used because it vastly
simplifies the algorithm, although there's nothing inherently more 'real'
about them.

-Pat Crowe, SUNY at Buffalo

_______________________________________________________________________________

<3:107>From RICHARDS@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU  Tue Nov 30 10:57:25 1993

Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1993 12:00:08 -0500 (EST)
From: "Bob Richardson, University of Cincinnati" <RICHARDS@UCBEH.SAN.UC.EDU>
Subject: Re: hist of archaeology
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

I have obviously missed something in my reading, but M. Kenny writes:

>I can't speak for Locke, but in the pages just after his infamous "cruel,
>brutish, and short" comment about the quality of life in the State of
>Nature, Thomas Hobbes refers to the natives of America as an example of
>just that condition (not, however, specifying which peoples he was thinking
>of). His other example of this deplorable condition is that of otherwise
>civilized  peoples who have fallen into a state of civil war.

Locke's picture of the state of nature is very different from Hobbes', since a
state of nature is portrayed as a state of perfect equality and freedom.
Equality is part of the problem, though, since without concentration of wealth
in property, permanent improvements are lacking.  His comment on the
"Americans" has much the same tenor as does Hobbes:

"There cannot be a clearer demonstration of anything, than several nations of
the Americans are of this, who are rich in land and poor in all the comforts of
life; whom nature having furnished as liberally as any other people, with the
materials of plenty, i.e. a fruitful soil, apt to produce in abundance, what
might serve for food, raiment, and delight; yet for want of improving it by
labor, have not one hundredth part of the conveniences we enjoy; and a king of
a large and fruitful territory there, feeds, lodges, and is clad worse than a
day-labourer in England" (Second Treatise on Government, section 41).

As a closing observation, Hobbes' allusion to civil war and its evils came in
1637-42, with conflicts between the parliament and the British monarchy; the
unimpeachable right of the monarch may have been in no small part due to the
persuasion of Cromwell, though Hobbes was equally happy with Charles II.

Robert Richardson
Richards@UCBEH.san.uc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________
Darwin-L Message Log 3: 61-107 -- November 1993                             End