Darwin-L Message Log 7: 31–65 — March 1994

Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences

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

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

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

-------------------------------------------
DARWIN-L MESSAGE LOG 7: 66-95 -- MARCH 1994
-------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:66>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Fri Mar 18 23:32:37 1994

Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 00:32:33 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Hominid evolution and "species" (II)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Ken Jacobs proposed that one of the sources of confusion in the debates
about recent hominid evolution was a tendency toward what I call "group
thinking."  Kent Holsinger took exception to Ken's interpretation, but I
want to suggest that both Ken and Kent are really pointing to the same
problem, though they are arriving at it from different directions.  Kent
wrote:

  The question, is whether _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_ are related
  anagenetically or cladogenetically.  For those not familiar with the
  terms, let me explain. Imagine the following tree of relationships:

           A    B      C
            \  /      /
             \/      /
              D     /
               \   /
                \ /
                 E
                 |
                 |

  Species A and B share a more recent common ancestor with one another (D)
  than either shares with C (E).  Anagenesis is evolutionary change that
  happens *along* the branches, i.e., from E to C, E to D, D to A, or D to B.
  Cladogeneis is the process that leads to splitting of lineages, i.e., the
  process that takes the single lineage leading to E and splits it into two,
  one leading to A and B, the other to C.  Similarly, cladogenesis occurs at
  D producing two lineages.

  The multiregional hypothesis suggests that _H. erectus_ and _H. sapiens_
  are related anagenetically.  The single origin hypothesis suggests that
  they are related cladogenetically.  As I said in my early reply to Bayla
  Singer (though not in these words), I know of no case other than the origin
  of human beings where evolutionary biologists have postulated (in the last
  twenty years at least) an anagenetic relationship between two widely
  distributed species.

Kent's explanation here is exactly correct.  The problem as I see it,
though, is that at the population level the notions of cladogenesis and
anagenesis are somewhat ill-defined.  In other words, when we resolve a tree
like the one shown above down to a greater level of detail, it is not
entirely clear which populational events represent "branching" and which do
not.  It might be the case that some populations split off for a time
(cladogenesis), and then partially merge back in to other populations; there
might be a more or less complete cladogenetic event (a split) but there
might still be some occasional gene flow between the resulting lineages.
What anthropologists refer to as "_Homo erectus_" and "_Homo sapiens_" may
be related cladogenetically or anagenetically, but it may also be that the
historical interconnections between these two "species" is something of a
combination between the anagenesis and cladogenesis, especially at certain
time depths.

The new issue of _Systematic Biology_ that just arrived this week has a
very nice case study that illustrates these problems; folks interested in
the issue of species delimitation in the hominid case might find it very
interesting and helpful:

  Patton, J. L., & M. F. Smith.  1994.  Paraphyly, polyphyly, and the nature
  of species boundaries in pocket gophers (genus _Thomomys_).  _Systematic
  Biology_, 43(3):11-26.

From the abstract: "These molecular perspectives [described in the paper]
give somewhat conflicting views of polyphyly, paraphyly, and monophyly at
the population and species level due, in part, to probable differences in
times to monophyly, differential lineage sorting, retention of ancestral
polymorphisms, and/or episodes of asymmetrical introgressive hybridization.
As a consequence, strict adherence to any species concept in the objective
recognition of evolutionary units within this complex is difficult at
best."  (Sounds like _Homo_, yes?)

I have also written a theoretical piece that addresses many of the same
questions, and it might be of interest to the anthropologists who
are concerned with the conceptual roots of these problems as well:

  O'Hara, R. J.  1993.  Systematic generalization, historical fate, and
  the species problem.  _Systematic Biology_, 42(3):231-246.

This paper contains some nice diagrams (I like to think ;-) that might be
useful for people trying to picture the complexity of the tree when viewed
up close in the vicinity of a branch point.

Not wanting to leave our other historical scientists out of this discussion,
I hope that any brave linguists who have been following this thread can see
that what is being talked about here is the problem of when does one
language become two languages, how do we decide whether to populations of
speakers are speaking two different languages or two dialects of the same
language, are the similarities between two languages the result of borrowing
(introgression) or independent origin, etc.  Systematists have traditionally
worried a lot more about these questions, I think, with respect to species
than linguists ever have with respect to languages.  That is probably
because the original assumption of our field was that "species" were by
definition independent creations, and did not share ancestors in common.
The existence of "doubtful species" (as Darwin called them) was and is one
of the main pieces of evidence against independent creation and for the fact
of evolutionary history.

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:67>From CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu  Sat Mar 19 09:40:16 1994

Date: Sat, 19 Mar 94 09:38 CDT
From: Tom Cravens <CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Trees in historical linguistics
To: DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

I'll take Bob O'Hara's bait, and respond briefly to the observations about
tree relationships. What I'll say here should be preceded by "It seems
to me that...", and may not represent everyone's thinking. Also, for
economy's sake, I'll leave out the appropriate hedges.

Tree diagrams in historical linguistics can serve as convenient fictions
to illustrate after-the-fact relationships of relative linguistic likeness
among sister dialects, but the fiction can become inconvenient if we fall
into thinking that the "event" suggested by branching reflects real-
time historical development, and/or sudden geolinguistic discontinuities
in speech communities. That is, a tree can represent nicely that,
say, Catalan and Venetian are distinct speech types, and in that sense,
the tree represents reality. But it's not very useful for representing
actual history. It turns out that there is no point in time
at which (or period during which) we can report that Latin has split into
these and other varieties. Of course, this is partly due to lack of
documentation, that is, we don't have written texts of actual speech
running every few decades from Cicero to the present, but even if we did,
there is no reason to believe that these texts would reveal a definitive
period of split (in this example there are no catastrophic events such
as major migrations, shifts in language contact, etc.).

And if we look closely at the present, we also see that even the modern
distinction is not represented well by the vertical tree. We can certainly
see that Catalan and Venetian are quite different, but if we hike from
Barcelona to Venice, we can find no point at which the village-to-village
chain of mutual comprehensibility breaks down. Folks from village A have
no trouble whatsoever communicating with folks from village B, B with C,
and so on (as long as everyone involved is using the native speech of
the village, and not the imposed national languages).

In this case, it's not clear to me what positive purpose the tree serves,
other than that of a shorthand illustration of relative likeness; even if
we have enough branching to include every mini-community, the tree is
still illustrating discrete breaks where none can be found, both historically
and--in its spatial arrangement--synchronically. This is "Tyranny of the
Stammbaum" (Curtis Blaylock) in historical linguistics.

From what I've understood of the exchange among Ken Jacobs, Kent Holsinger
and Bob O'Hara, some of the same dangers seem to be lurking in tree
representation of hominid evolution. Have I understood correctly?

Thanks to Bob for DARWIN-L!
Tom Cravens
cravens@macc.wisc.edu
cravens@wiscmacc.bitnet

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:68>From T20MXS1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU  Sun Mar 20 04:02:29 1994

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 04:02 CST
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: mike salovesh <T20MXS1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU>
Subject: Time, TIME, Piltdown, and Java

It's interesting that the same day's digest of Darwin-L should carry
passing mention to "Piltdown Man" and a discussion of possible impli-
cations of new dates for the Java H. erectus.

I remember the visit of Kenneth P. Oakley to the US, not too long
after he helped provide definitive proof that Piltdown was a fraud.
Those of us who sat in on his course on pleistocene dating learned
something from interchanges between Oakley and Sherwood L. Washburn:
when a single new find (or the results of a new dating method on a
limited number of fossils of questionable provenance) seems to imply
that you must throw out everything you think you have learned from
studying a wide range of fossils dated by a diverse series of methods
the first thing you should do is DOUBT THE SINGLE FIND.  The next is
DOUBT THE DATE.  (That's why it made sense for Oakley to do the work
on Piltdown in the first place.)

Playing around with the implications of an unexpectedly early date
for Pithecanthropus/Java H. erectus is fun, of course.  But don't
throw out your old family tree yet--go with the preponderance of the
evidence until absolutely forced to abandon it.

But for heaven's sake don't ask me what the preponderance of the
evidence DEMANDS we conclude about where habilis, erectus, and
neandertal connect or don't connect to each other or to us.  I just
don't plan to answer anybody who asks me that for 100 years or so.

mike salovesh  anthropology northern illinois univ
<t20mxs1@niu.bitnet> OR <t20mxs1@mvs.cso.niu.edu>

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:69>From FINCKELM%ESUVM.BITNET@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU  Sun Mar 20 09:43:36 1994

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 09:42:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Elmer Finck <FINCKELM%ESUVM.BITNET@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Trees in historical linguistics
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Depending on the level or temporal scale you have the same problem in
organismic evolution, i.e., when does a new species begin?  If you study
populations over time it can be difficult to discern.  With fossils that
have time gaps between them it may be easier.
finckelm@esuvm  Elmer J. Finck

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:70>From SMD@utkvx.utk.edu  Sun Mar 20 12:40:38 1994

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 13:40:28 -0500 (EST)
From: "Steven M. Donnelly" <SMD@utkvx.utk.edu>
Subject: hominid fossils in TIME and the origin of modern humans
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

I've been following the discussion on the TIME article, the new dates for the
Javan Homo erectus fossils and the origin of modern humans with a great deal of
interest.  I would like to make a few points........

1: I find it interesting that in discussing the origins of modern humans a
few people talked about mutations, e.g. someone wanted to know why the same
mutation couldn't have arisen independently in several populations.  What I
find so interesting about explaining modern human origins in terms of
mutation(s) is that it says a great deal about how highly we think of ourselves
in comparison to other animals.  We're apparently so different from the other
animals that we must be the product of some really major mutation.  I've read
journal articles in which it was claimed that modern humans are the result of
a macromutation that resulted in a drastically re-organized and much improved
brain, the poor stupid Neandertals, couldn't compete and so they went extinct.
Serves them right too, for not being as clever as we are.

Proponents of the multiregional theory do not believe that modern human origins
can be explained in terms of a mutation, or mutations, that arose in one
population and then spread.  They believe that the differences between modern
humans and the earlier forms of Homo sapiens are the result of new combinations
of genes and changes in the frequencies of genes that were already present in
earlier populations.

2: Proponents of multiregional evolution also do not believe that the
transition from archaic to early modern Homo sapiens occurred at the same time
in all areas of the world, or that it happened independently in several
regions.  Franz Weidenreich, the first advocate of the multiregional theory,
believed that regional Homo erectus populations, for example populations in
China and Java, were tied together by gene flow. Gene flow is still an integral
part of the mulitregional theory.

3: Earlier, someone (I forget who) stated that he knew of no other example of a
widespread species evolving into another species throughout its range.  I can
think of three examples offhand.  All of them involve rodents.  My favorite
example involves a Plio-Pleistocene lineage of voles which was spread
throughout Europe, from northern Spain to the Ural mountains,  Within this
lineage are four 'chronospecies'; the transitions from one species to another
occurred over most of the species' range (references available on request).

4: Someone else (again, I can't recall the name) stated that Asian Homo erectus
possess a number of distinctive features which are not found anywhere else.
This is often cited as evidence that they must be a different species.  In
fact, these 'uniquely Asian features' are found in Homo erectus fossils from
other areas of the world, and they're also present in some early Homo sapiens
fossils.  There are no autapomorphic features found only in east Asian Homo
erectus.

5: Finally, I don't doubt that the dates of 1.8 and 1.6 Myr obtained by
Swisher et al. for the volcanic pumice (I think it was pumice) are accurate.
What is questionable is the relationship between the fossils and the dated
pumice.  First of all, the fossils themselves may have been redeposited from
more recent deposits.  Secondly, Swisher et al. state that the deposits from
which the volcanic samples were taken are conglomerates. The pumice could be
much older than the deposits that it was taken from. This is the main reason
that I'm still skeptical about these dates.

     Steven Donnelly

     Department of Anthropology
     University of Tennessee-Knoxville
     BITNET:    smd@utkvx
     INTERNET:  smd@utkvx.utk.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:71>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sun Mar 20 13:35:05 1994

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 14:35:06 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: March 20 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

MARCH 20 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1794 (200 years ago today): RENE-PRIMEVERE LESSON is born at Cabane-Caree,
Rochefort, France.  Lesson will receive little formal education as a child,
but he will develop a passion for natural history that will continue
throughout his life.  At the age of seventeen he will join the French navy as
a medical assistant, and he will rise through the medical ranks, eventually
becoming the chief naval pharmacist for his district.  In 1822 he will join
the _Coquille_ under the command of Duperrey and Dumont d'Urville, and will
begin a three-year collecting expedition around the world that will transform
him into one of the leading naturalist-explorers of his day.  The _Coquille_
will visit South America, Tahiti, the Moluccas, Australia, New Zealand, New
Guinea, Java, Mauritius, Reunion, and St. Helena, and on its return Lesson's
collections will be deposited in the natural history museum in Paris.  Lesson
will publish many reports on the expedition, including the _Zoologie du voyage
autour du monde, execute sur la corvette du Roi la Coquille_ (Paris, 1829).
A special interest in birds will lead to a series of additional publications
including the _Manuel d'ornithologie, ou description des genres et des
principales especes d'oiseaux_ (Paris, 1828), and _Les trochilidees, ou
colibris et les oiseaux-mouches_ (Paris, 1830-31).  He will die in his
native Rochefort in April of 1849.

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:72>From jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA  Sun Mar 20 15:38:58 1994

From: jacobsk@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Jacobs Kenneth)
Subject: Re: Donnelly on TIME, fossils, and human origins
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 16:38:37 -0500 (EST)

Bravo to Steven Donnelly for hitting the mark on two issues.First, blithely
assuming that mutations (macro-, or many, or both) had to have occurred and
the novel alleles to have spread for there to have arisen H. erectus is, I
think, a vestige of wishing that we were more different than we are.  As I
tried, without evident success, to say in a previous post, part of the trouble
we have in figuring out the finer points of human evolution often can be
traced back to a persistent trouble with the larger concept, to wit that we
are but very little modified versions of progressively (regressively?) less
modern-like antecedents.

	True too are his caveats about the "new" Indonesian dates.  It has
been known for nearly two decades (since Curtis et al.'s KAr work there) that
there were ca. 1.9 Mya volcanics to be found in the vicinities of nearly all
the Javanese "locales." The problem  _always_ has been linking with a high
degree of confidence the dated geological "object" (e.g., pumice chunk) to
the fossil one wanted to date.  Until there are serious, longterm excavations
during the course of which fossils are found in situ and can be related to
dateable strata, the dates of Javanese H. erectus are best considered unknown.
Someone brought up (a week or so ago) the parallel with the Turkana dating
hassles of the 1970s.  It would do well to remember this here.  With geologists
crawling all over the place every year, and with beautiful preservation of an
extraordinary sequence of volcanic horizons, and with dozens of hominid fossils
being found in situ, no one really knew, for the longest time, how old things
there really were.Does anyone recall when ER-1470 was proclaimed, without a
shred of doubt (it was said), to be _at least_ 2.6 My old?  How old is it
now?  And remember, that mistake was made under tightly controlled and very
high quality field conditions.

Ken Jacobs
jacobsk@ere.umontreal.ca

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:73>From princeh@husc.harvard.edu  Sun Mar 20 15:59:59 1994

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 16:23:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Patricia Princehouse <princeh@husc.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Time article
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On Fri, 18 Mar 1994, JOHN LANGDON In message wrote:

> Many other interesting questions arise from the new date. When
> did hominids leave Africa? The 2.0 Myr faunal date from 'Ubeidiya in
> Israel suddenly looks more plausible. What species first left Africa?
> Instead of erectus, we are now forced to consider something more along
> the lines of ergaster or habilis. We now have a new missing link between
> the early African Homo and Asian erectus. I think the question of where
> in Africa Homo arose is more open than ever. The Rift Valley dates now
> seem too recent. Very likely the focus on the Rift Valley has been only
> an artifact of sampling.

Yes, these are the really interesting questions. But they don't appear in
the Time article so they probably aren't the reason for the article.

	For people less acquainted with these issues, the Garland Press
1988 _The Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory_ Eds. Delson et
al, provides excellent discussion of the major issues including fossils,
genetics, evolutionary theory, Pleistocene art and more with beautiful
photos and drawings.

Patricia Princehouse
Princeh@harvard.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:74>From princeh@husc.harvard.edu  Sun Mar 20 18:40:51 1994

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 18:53:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Patricia Princehouse <princeh@husc.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: Time & drift
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On Fri, 18 Mar 1994, Kent Holsinger wrote:

> Just a minor point, but worth mentioning.
>
> Patricia Princehouse writes:
> > 1) one migrant per generation is enough to prevent speciation in
> >    animals generally
>
> That's not quite right.  Wright's classic result is that the exchange of
> one migrant per generation is sufficient to _limit_ genetic divergence
> between populations (not to prevent it completely) _only_ if the only process
> producing divergence is genetic drift.  Both points are important.

	Yes, they are certainly important points. I'm not saying that all
morphological and genetic change would be prevented but that it would be
limited enough to prevent speciation.  Obviously I can't prove it, and I'm
not knowledgeable about stochastic differential equations or good at
picturing things in 5 or 6 dimensional space as Wright was, but a lot of
people I know tend to think of 1 migrant per generation as generally (but
certainly not in every case) inhibiting speciation.

	As for drift, yes, I am assuming that drift would be the key
process in producing a new species. I'm using, with regard to erectus, the
idea that the only things which would have kept erectus from interbreeding
with sapiens would be:

a) if they never encountered each other but would have been able to
interbreed if they had (in which case erectus is a race of sapiens and
ergaster is probably sunk too) or

b) if they were genetically isolated by chromosome number or significant
inversions or similar type thing -things which are presumably acquired by
drift.

I picture speciation as always involving drift but not necessarily
involving different selection pressures from those acting on the parent
species (Different peaks can be created based on the same selection
pressures due to differences in the make up of the original population or
chance events along the way -1 vs 2 horned rhinos, etc). Some
multiregionalists claim that some uniform selection pressure acted on all
populations of humans (usually something to do with culture) to produce
the evolution of larger brains, shorter faces and other _H.s.s._ traits.
It seems more likely to me that this hypothetical uniform selection
pressure would have resulted in heterogeneity, not detailed convergence.

	Of course one can very reasonably take issue with any part or all
of what I have to say. But, that's my two cents' worth.

Patricia Princehouse
Princeh@harvard.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:75>From margaret@ling.edinburgh.ac.uk  Mon Mar 21 06:31:59 1994

From: Margaret Winters <margaret@ling.edinburgh.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 11:47:01 GMT
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: trees, historical linguistics and gradualness

Tom Cravens sums up very correctly the very limited use of trees
in historical linguistics (tree diagrams, that is - real tree
species is an entirely different question).  When we are talking
about specific linguistic units, however, and especially sounds,
this question of gradualness versus abruptness seems to me to
take on another dimension.  For many versions of the phoneme
(contrastive units of sounds within a given language), they can
either exist or not exist, but cannot be only partially in
existence, virtually by definition.  This is different from the
sounds of languages which change, according to evidence from
speech variation within a community in particular, very gradually,
with variation across lexical items, social register (formal versus
informal speech, etc.) and other factors.  What this comes to
(again by my interpretation which is certainly open to argument)
is that Tom's image of a continuum is very true for sound change,
especially if we abstract away from any sense of a straight line,
but is not true for structural change where we look at the
significant units, phonemes.  And phonemes by most accounts are
not just useful inventions of linguists to talk about organization
of language, but exist in psychologically real ways as human mental
categories.  A long introduction to a short question: do other kinds
of history (and specifically the history of species) make the same
differentiation between gradualness and abrupt change?

Margaret Winters
<margaret@ling.ed.ac.uk>

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:76>From kent@darwin.eeb.uconn.edu  Mon Mar 21 06:47:16 1994

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 07:48:33 EST
From: kent@darwin.eeb.uconn.edu (Kent Holsinger)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re:  hominid fossils in TIME and the origin of modern humans

Steve Donnelly writes:
>	3: Earlier, someone (I forget who) stated that he knew of no other
>	example of a widespread species evolving into another species
>	throughout its range.  I can think of three examples offhand.  All of
>	them involve rodents.  My favorite example involves a Plio-Pleistocene
>	lineage of voles which was spread throughout Europe, from northern
>	Spain to the Ural mountains,  Within this lineage are four
>	'chronospecies'; the transitions from one species to another
>	occurred over most of the species' range (references available on
>	request).

I was the person who knew of no other example, and I would be *very* interested
in seeing the references.

-- Kent E. Holsinger
Kent@Darwin.EEB.UConn.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:77>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU  Mon Mar 21 07:32:21 1994

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 07:32:21 -0600
From: "JOHN LANGDON"  <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: PILTDOWN

In message <01HA4J04Y8M8936TN1@vax.clarku.edu>  writes:

> I should like to know what Darwinians think about the recent identification
> of Arthur Keith as collaborative Piltdown hoaxer.  I think this
> identification is even less persuasive than my identification of Lewis
> Abbott.  Cordially, Charles Blinderman, Clark University

I agree. For the rest of the readership, I commend your ultimate solution:
         Blinderman, CS. 1986. The Piltdown problem solved. J. Irreproducible
             Results 31:2-6.
For those who don't buy conspiracy theories, try mine:
         Langdon, JH 1991. Misinterpreting Piltdown. Current Anthropology
             32(5):627-631.
But if you think there is a consensus, see
         Drawhorn, GM 1994. Piltdown: Evidence for Smith Woodward's complicity.
             Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop. (Suppl. 18):82.

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:78>From lgorbet@mail.unm.edu  Mon Mar 21 09:04:25 1994

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 08:04:20 -0700
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: lgorbet@mail.unm.edu
Subject: Re: trees, historical linguistics and gradualness

Margaret Winters seeks to qualify Tom Cravens' remarks on gradualness, saying

>When we are talking
>about specific linguistic units, ...and especially sounds,
>this question of gradualness versus abruptness seems to me to
>take on another dimension.  For many versions of the phoneme
>(contrastive units of sounds within a given language), they can
>either exist or not exist, but cannot be only partially in
>existence, virtually by definition.  This is different from the
>sounds of languages which change, according to evidence from
>speech variation within a community in particular, very gradually,
>with variation across lexical items, social register (formal versus
>informal speech, etc.) and other factors.  What this comes to
>(again by my interpretation which is certainly open to argument)
>is that Tom's image of a continuum is very true for sound change,
>especially if we abstract away from any sense of a straight line,
>but is not true for structural change where we look at the
>significant units, phonemes

This is not literally true, in some fairly non-controversial ways (and some
quite controversial ones too!).

First, the inventory of phonemes can vary within a community just as surely
as can their precise pronunciations.  In American English, for example,
there is a widespread change occurring which merges the vowels of the words
_caught_ and _cot_ (eliminating as a phoneme the vowel of the former, as it
is pronounced in most British English and much American, including my own
speech).  In any introductory linguistics class, I can be confident that
there will be students for whom the vowel of _caught_ ("open o") is a
member of a different phoneme from that of _cot_ and others for whom it is
not.

Moreover, in a single speaker's speech, two phonemes may exist in some
registers but only one in others.  Thus for me, in my native dialect of
Amer. English, the vowels of _pin_ and _pen_ do not contrast; but they do
in the more formal academic English that I generally use at the university.

And two sounds may contrast in some phonological environments and not
others.  Or may contrast only in a very small part of the vocabulary.  Or
most but not all.

I suspect analogies with biological evolutionary phenomena are fairly easy
to see.  To take but one example, for two populations, what percent of
their members must be how likely to be incapable of successful
interbreeding with those of the other for them to be separate species?  Or,
perhaps more to the point, given just two *individuals* from the two
populations, there may be a particular likelihood that a given offspring
will be viable and itself fertile---how small does it have to be...

Finally, Margaret correctly notes that

>phonemes by most accounts are
>not just useful inventions of linguists to talk about organization
>of language, but exist in psychologically real ways as human mental
>categories.

However, though this certainly *is* controversial, there are those of us
who believe that even the contrast between phonemes may, in a single
variety of a single speaker's speech, be fuzzy in certain instances (albeit
exceptional ones).  This might be manifested behaviorally, for example, by
inconsistent pronunciation or discrimination.  And would tend to occur
during acquisition, or during times of incipient change.

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:79>From princeh@husc.harvard.edu  Mon Mar 21 11:17:11 1994

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 12:13:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Patricia Princehouse <princeh@husc.harvard.edu>
Subject: Re: hominid fossils in TIME and the origin of modern humans
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On Mon, 21 Mar 1994, Kent Holsinger wrote:

> >	them involve rodents.  My favorite example involves a Plio-Pleistocene
> >	lineage of voles which was spread throughout Europe, from northern
> >	Spain to the Ural mountains,  Within this lineage are four
> >	'chronospecies'; the transitions from one species to another
> >	occurred over most of the species' range (references available on
> >	request).
>
> I was the person who knew of no other example, and I would be *very*
> interested in seeing the references.

Yes, please post them.

Thanks,

Patricia Princehouse
Princeh@husc.harvard.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:80>From SMD@utkvx.utk.edu  Mon Mar 21 22:03:22 1994

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 23:03:16 -0500 (EST)
From: "Steven M. Donnelly" <SMD@utkvx.utk.edu>
Subject: evolving rodents
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

As requested by popular demand the references regarding widespread phyletic
evolution in rodents are:

Chaline J and Laurin B  (1986)  Phyletic gradualism in a European
   Plio-Pleistocene Mimomys lineage (Arvicolidae, Rodentia).  Paleobiology
   12:203-216.

Freudenthal M  (1965)  Betrachtungen uber die Gattung Cricetodon.
   Koninklijke Akad Wetenschappen (B) 68:293-305.

Martin RA  (1970)  Line and grade in the extinct medius species group of
   Sigmodon.  Science 167:1504-1506.

Several years ago I made a cursory search of the literature looking for
examples of 'phyletic gradualism' or stasis in fossil lineages and was able
to find, without too much trouble, quite a few examples of 'gradualism'.
Most of these though, were from fossil samples taken from a limited
geographic area, e.g. forams from a single bore-hole, or bore-holes that
were near each other, Eocene primates from Wyoming, brachiopods from a single
formation.

The small number of examples of widespread phyletic evolution must be due
in part to the spotty fossil record.  Eocene primates didn't live only in
Wyoming, but their fossils happen to be abundant there today.  If I wanted to
study evolutionary trends in Australopithecus afarensis I'd be limited to
fossils from one restricted geographic area--Ethiopia and Tanzania--because
that's where the fossils come from.  Who knows how widespread A. afarensis
might really have been.  And if I show that, for example, the molars
increase significantly in size through time within the species as it's
represented by the fossils, I have no way of knowing what happened in other
areas in other populations.

     Steven Donnelly

     Department of Anthropology
     University of Tennessee-Knoxville
     BITNET:    smd@utkvx
     INTERNET:  smd@utkvx.utk.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:81>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Mon Mar 21 23:24:07 1994

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 00:24:01 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: February log available on Darwin-L gopher
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

The February message log is now available for retrieval from the Darwin-L
gopher (rjohara.uncg.edu).  These edited log files print very nicely in a
monospaced font, and if anyone is looking for a conversation piece for a
staff or student lounge, one of our monthly log files might be just the
thing.  All the network clutter (routing headers, etc.) has been removed
from them, and each message is numbered for ease of reference.

If you have not yet browsed the Darwin-L gopher you are cordially invited
to do so.  We not only have available the past logs of our discussions, but
also several bibliographies that have been posted to the list, as well as
an assortment of gopher links to other network resources in systematics,
evolutionary biology, linguistics, history, geology, and archeology.
Jonathan Lizee and Thomas Plunkett, Darwin-L subscribers at the University
of Connecticut, recently called my attention to their gopher site called
Archnet, which is devoted to the archeology of eastern North America, and
I am pleased to report that it is now accessible from the Darwin-L gopher
as well.

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:82>From schoenem@QAL.Berkeley.Edu  Tue Mar 22 02:30:32 1994

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 22:17:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Tom Schoenemann <schoenem@QAL.Berkeley.Edu>
Subject: Re: Donnelly on TIME, fossils, and human origins
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Regarding the possibility (or impossibility) of _H. erectus_ evolving
independently into _H. sapiens_, Chris Stringer and Peter Andrews (both
proponents of the "single origin" model, where _H. sapiens_ evolves first
in Africa ~150,000 years ago and replaces _H. erectus_ in the rest of the
world) listed the following "summary of suggested shared derived [i.e.,
unique] characteristics of _Homo sapiens_...":

In comparison to earlier _Homo_ species, _H. sapiens_ has:

1) a more gracile [i.e., more lightly built] skeleton,
2) a larger cranium
3) considerably reduced or absent supraorbital torus (i.e., "brow
	ridges") and external cranial buttressing
4) reduced size of the dentition and supporting architecture
5) orthognathous face (face tucked under the anterior cranium)
6) a mental eminence (i.e., chin)

(This is from: Stringer, C.B. and Andrews, P., 1988, "Genetic and fossil
evidence for the origin of modern humans," _Science_ v.239:1263-1268.)

Now, these authors note that 5 may be related to 4, which I consider
reasonable.  It has also been suggested that 6 is related to 4.
Furthermore, 1 and 3 are plausibly related to one another.  It is not hard
to see these as one related complex - related in the sense that they all
are likely results of increased behavioral complexity, increased control
over the external environment, and a concomitant decrease in the amount of
stress placed on the body.  Given that _H. erectus_ had a well developed
stone tool technology, and probably had mastered the use of fire, it does
not seem to me to be out of the question that a common selective sieve
would have been operating along the lines of:

[increasing control over the environment <-> increasing brain size] ->
decreasing robusticity (1,3,4,5,6 above).

The first part of this equation was probably operating no matter where a
population of _H. erectus_ was living, and thus the morphological
characteristics distinguishing _H. sapiens_ could, under this model, have
evolved independently.  The fact that agriculture was independently
invented at least twice indicates that similar complex behavioral
adaptations (in the non-biological sense of the word) can occur
independently given similar selective seives.

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:83>From dasher@netcom.com  Tue Mar 22 02:41:14 1994

Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 00:42:11 -0800
From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: dialect continua

Tom Cravens writes:
> . . .  We can certainly see that Catalan and Venetian are
> quite different, but if we hike from Barcelona to Venice,
> we can find no point at which the village-to-village chain
> of mutual comprehensibility breaks down.  . . .

I wish I could have a Romance (or German) grammar-book which,
besides the usual dimensions of person-number-tense-mood or
number-gender-case, could show the two geographic dimensions
of the dialect continuum.  Maybe hypertext will soon make
such a book feasible.

Such a book might require a new diaphonic notation, with a
single sign for French /y/ and corresponding Spanish /u/...

Anton Sherwood   *\\*   +1 415 267 0685   *\\*   DASher@netcom.com

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:84>From dasher@netcom.com  Thu Mar 24 02:03:07 1994

Date: Thu, 24 Mar 1994 00:04:06 -0800
From: dasher@netcom.com (Anton Sherwood)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: phone change vs phoneme change

Margaret Winters brings up an interesting point that I hadn't
thought of:  when and why does a quantitative change in how a
phoneme is expressed become a qualitative or structural change
in the number of phonemes distinguished?

Do two phonemes merge when the younger generation can no longer
tell them apart?  Seems unlikely; in general, children are more
adept than adults at imitating speech sounds (this is why to
speak without a foreign accent you must learn the language as
a child).

Could dialect borrowing be responsible?  Imagine that dialects
A and B distinguish ancestral phonemes 1 and 2 but in different
ways, such that to B-speakers, they sound alike in dialect A.
B-speakers borrowing vocabulary from A then give phonemes 1 and 2
the same pronunciation (3).  If A is prestigious, and B-imitating-A
later becomes dominant, this indirect merger could affect most of
the lexicon.

Larry Gorbet adds:
> And two sounds may contrast in some phonological environments
> and not others.

Vowel harmony being an obvious example, which led to the
distinction's being made throughout the vocabulary when the
environment was lost.

> Or may contrast only in a very small part of
> the vocabulary.

There is a borrowed word that, pronounced in the usual phonology
of my dialect (standard educated American), is homophonous with
an English word; for that word-pair alone, I divide a vowel
phoneme into two.  (I don't suppose my listeners notice.)
Naturally, at the moment I cannot remember what the word is.

> Or most but not all.

What would this mean?

Anton Sherwood   *\\*   +1 415 267 0685   *\\*   DASher@netcom.com

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:85>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Fri Mar 25 22:07:42 1994

Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1994 23:07:37 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: March 25 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

MARCH 25 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1712: NEHEMIAH GREW dies, probably in London, England.  A graduate of
Cambridge University and a physician, Grew was an active member of the
Royal Society and published the first comprehensive account of the Society's
collections, _Musaeum Regalis Societatis or a Catalogue and Description of the
Natural and Artificial Rarities Belonging to the Royal Society and Preserved
in Gresham College_ (London, 1681).  An early collaborator with Robert Hooke
in the use of the microscope, Grew specialized in the comparative examination
of plant structure, and coined the term "comparative anatomy" to describe his
mode of study, which he expounded in _The Anatomy of Vegetables Begun_
(London, 1672) and _The Comparative Anatomy of Trunks, Together With an
Account of Their Vegetation Grounded Thereupon_ (London, 1675).

1844 (150 years ago today): HEINRICH GUSTAV ADOLF ENGLER is born at Sagan,
Germany (now Zagan, Poland).  As a student in botany at the University of
Breslau, Engler will study the the large and complex genus _Saxifraga_ under
the tutelage of Heinrich Goeppert, and will soon come to accept evolution as
the necessary foundation of systematics.  He will take up an appointment in
systematic botany at the University of Kiel in 1878, and two years later will
establish the _Botanische Jahrbucher fur Systematik, Pflanzengeschichte und
Pflanzengeographie_ which will become the leading journal of its time in
botanical systematics and which Engler himself will edit for fifty years.  His
interest in historical biogeography will lead to the publication of  _Versuch
einer Entwicklungsgeschichte der Pflanzenwelt_ between 1878 and 1882, a work
that will present the first comprehensive account of plant evolution in the
Northern Hemisphere.  Engler will move to the University of Breslau in 1884,
and in collaboration with Karl A. E. Prantl he will begin his most influential
work, _Die naturlichen Pflanzenfamilien_, which will be published in 248
installments over a period of 28 years.  In 1889 Engler will be appointed
professor of botany and director of the botanical garden in Berlin, and he
will remain there for the rest of his career, publishing widely on systematics
and phytogeography and influencing an entire generation of botanical
systematists.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:86>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Fri Mar 25 23:39:35 1994

Date: Sat, 26 Mar 1994 00:39:31 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: NESTOR bibliography on archaeology and linguistics (fwd from CLASSICS)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

This notice of a bibliographic database on Classical archaeology
and Indo-European linguistics just appeared on the CLASSICS list.
I thought it might be of interest to some Darwin-L members.

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

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

                          NESTOR
                     (ISSN 0028-2812)

NESTOR is an international bibliography of pre-classical Greece
(Palaeolithic to Homer and beyond), eastern Mediterranean and southeastern
European prehistory, Homeric society, Indo-European linguistics, and
related fields.  It is published monthly from September to May by the
Program in Classical Archaeology, Indiana University, Bloomington.  Each
volume is accompanied by an Authors Index.  NESTOR is distributed in 30
countries world-wide.

Nestor is currently edited by Professor Karen D. Vitelli.

Suggestions from colleagues about titles for inclusion in the bibliography
are welcome.  Correspondence should be addressed to:

Snail-mail:
                NESTOR
                Program in Classical Archaeology
                Indiana University
                Bloomington, Indiana 47405
                U.S.A.

E-mail:  Nestor@ucs.indiana.edu OR Nestor@indiana

Subscription rates per volume (9 issues) for 1994 are as follows:

U.S. Individuals                $  6.50
U.S. Institutions               $ 11.50
Foreign Individuals (surface)   $  8.50
Foreign Individuals (air)       $ 13.50
Foreign Institutions            $ 14.00

Student rates (proof of student status necessary) for 1994 are as follows:

U.S. Students                   $  5.00
Foreign Students (surface)      $  7.00
Foreign Students (air)          $ 12.00

Checks should be made payable to Indiana University Foundation and mailed
to the address of Nestor (see above).

Volumes 1-4 (1957-1977) were edited by Emmett L. Bennett, Jr., and were
published by the Institute for Research in the Humanities, University of
Wisconsin.  Volumes 5-20 (1978-1993), as well as most issues of Volumes
1-4, are available from the Program ($8.50 per volume or $0.20 per page,
plus postage).  Complete copies of volumes 1-4 also are available from
University Microfilms at the following addresses:

University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
U.S.A.

University Microfilms, International
White Swan House
Godstone, Surrey RH9 8LW
United Kingdom

                                                        updated Jan 94

**********************************************************************

                    NESTOR AS A COMPUTER DATABASE

The Nestor bibliography (more than 30,000 entries) is now becoming
progressively available on diskette, as structured ASCII files (ready to
import to database programs), for both IBM/PC and Apple computers. This
conversion is sponsored by INSTAP.  Several recent volumes are at this
moment (Jan. '94) ready for distribution, and the remainder--back to the
first issue of 1957--will become available in the course of the next 18
months.  Diskettes, each containing three or more volumes (years) of
bibliography, will be announced in the monthly Nestor as they are ready.
In the future the Nestor ASCII files will also become available on the
Internet via FTP (watch for announcements on relevant BBS's).

Distribution:  Diskettes are distributed at the cost of materials and mailing.
For North American addresses, that cost now is $ 3.75/diskette; for
overseas addresses the cost is $ 6.00/diskette.  Orders must specify Apple
or IBM/PC version, and they should be accompanied by a check (in US $),
payable to INDIANA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION.  They should be
sent to the Nestor address:

                NESTOR
                Program in Classical Archaeology
                Indiana University
                Bloomington, Indiana 47405
                U.S.A.

We anticipate that 6 diskettes (the last 20 years of Nestor) will be ready
by the end of the academic year.  You may prepay for all, or any number of
them, and we will mail them to you as they become ready.

Overseas orders, please note:  we are working on various possibilities to
make payments in US $ easier and less expensive, and we hope to have a
solution to announce within a month or so (see also Nestor 20:9 [Dec.
1993] and 21:1 [Jan. 1994]).

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:87>From THOMASS@mmf.ruc.dk  Mon Mar 28 02:27:44 1994

From: "THOMAS SODERQVIST" <THOMASS@mmf.ruc.dk>
Organization:  Roskilde Universitetscenter
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 10:27:13 +0100
Subject: Re: inquiry: the history of botanical phylogenetics 1860-1890

To subscribers to Darwin-L:

I have a group of students who are writing about Eugenius Warming's
role in the history of botanical phylogenetics.  As you know Warming
is mainly known as the "father of ecology", but he was also among
the pioneers in fostering the use of descendence theory in botanical
systematics.  He constructed a phylogenetic classification of plants
rather similar to Eichler's system.

The history of the transition from natural classifications to
phylogenetic classifications in botany seems to be very badly covered
in the literature.  Is there anyone out there who is doing research
in this direction, and/or can recommend some secondary sources that
have escaped our notice so far.

Grateful for all help!

Thomas Soderqvist

Thomas Soderqvist
Unit of History of Science
Department of Life Sciences
Roskilde University
P.O. Box 260
DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark
fax:   + 45 46757721
phone: + 45 46757711, ext. 2714 (work)
       + 45 35372086 (home)
e-mail:thomass@ruc.dk

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:88>From delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu  Mon Mar 28 19:29:14 1994

Date: Mon, 28 Mar 1994 16:48:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott C DeLancey <delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: phone change vs phoneme change
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On Thu, 24 Mar 1994, Anton Sherwood wrote:

> Margaret Winters brings up an interesting point that I hadn't
> thought of:  when and why does a quantitative change in how a
> phoneme is expressed become a qualitative or structural change
> in the number of phonemes distinguished?
>
> Do two phonemes merge when the younger generation can no longer
> tell them apart?

Most likely they merge when an older generation stops bothering
to distinguish them.  Viz. the impending (or accomplished) merger
of the dental fricatives (the <th> sounds) with /t/ and /d/ in
various English dialects (e.g. some varieties of Irish and Eastern
US English).  The brake on this process is the awareness in the
communities where this is happening/has happened of a prestige
dialect in which they're still distinguished--but that brake's
not always present.  Lacking it, the only brake will be the
disapproval of the previous generation--one reason why where
sound change has been studied in progress (particularly by Labov)
it tends to be adolescents leading the process.

Scott DeLancey				delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu
Department of Linguistics
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:89>From sarich@qal.Berkeley.EDU  Tue Mar 29 17:29:42 1994

Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 15:25:50 -0800
From: Prof Vince Sarich <sarich@qal.Berkeley.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Evolution within Homo

Some thoughts on the discussion inspired by the Time article on human
evolution:

I second the doubts expressed by Donnelly and Jacobs as to the claimed
antiquity of the Javanese fossils.  I suggest that one should think about such
reports as one would think about, for example, the recent claim of
30,000-year-old humans in Brazil -- asking the simple question of how they got
there without leaving any trail along the way.  The answer, of course, is that
they couldnUt have -- it is a long way from Alaska to Brazil -- and did not.
Ditto from Africa to Java.

I also second the comments of Princehouse with respect to the Chinese
so-called Homo sapiens skull.  There is a lateral view of it on pg 55 of the 3
March 1994 issue of Nature, which makes is clear that (1) this is nothing
resembling anatomically modern Homo sapiens, and (2) it looks as though it is
as old as claimed.  Morphological dating still works quite nicely, just as it
did for the 1470 skull in the early 70s; that is, 1470 did not look as though
it were 2.8my old, and, lo and behold, it was not.  She also points out quite
correctly that the Javanese date makes <ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER as
far as the African vs multiple origins debate goes.

On that debate, however, I have a fair amount to say.  From an old
introduction to an article now in press:

I argue here that all the available data on Homo sapiens (genetic,
morphological, linguistic, cultural) are most readily interpreted within the
framework of a phylogenetic tree that links extant human populations over a
time span of no more than 15,000 to 20,000 years.  This is not to suggest that
some ur-population speaking an ur-language lived in a geographically restricted
Garden of Eden 20,000 years ago, expanding out of there to lead to what we have
today.  Indeed, the scenario envisioned here goes to quite the other extreme in
seeing our 'Garden of Eden' as the entire inhabited world of that period.  I
suggest that as recently as 15,000 to 20,000 years ago the human population was
something approaching <panmictic> at all levels, and that most of the
interpopulational differences we observe today, and in the recent past, have
accumulated since then.  The proposed <panmixis> is seen as driven by glacial
pulsations which would have necessitated large-scale movements of populations,
not only in areas <directly> affected by the glaciers themselves, but also in
those that suffered the secondary effects of shifting climatic zones and major
sea level changes.  It thus must have been essentially world-wide, and only
after populations had begun to settle down in more-or-less their current areas
could regional differentiation leading to what we see today have begun.  Thus
we would have had episodic, glacial cycle driven, regional (racial)
differentiation subsequent to the expansion of Homo out of Africa, and
concomitant episodic obliteration (<panmixis>) of most or all of the
regionality.  We then simply appear to be living in one of those episodes of
regional differentiation, with ours beginning with the last glacial retreat.
These episodes of developing regionality would have been characterized by
differential retention of portions of the existing (which would have been ,
just as today, substantial -- but basically intrapopulational) plus significant
in situ developments.  The degrees of past regionality achieved would then,
presumably, have been strongly correlated with the lengths of the
glacial/interglacial cycles involved, and thus potentially much greater than
that present today.

That is the model; what follows is its genesis, development, and testing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously this scenario renders the Garden of Eden/regional continuity
obsolete.  The article is entitled (admittedly immodestly) RACE AND LANGUAGE IN
PREHISTORY, and anyone who wants the current version can have it by e-mail or
hard copy for the asking.  It also explains (briefly) what is wrong with the
mitochondrial dates at both ends of the time scale at issue.

Vincent Sarich
Department of Anthropology
University of California at Berkeley

whoops! left out <argument> after <continuity> in the last paragraph.  Sorry
for the length.  I hope it will be worth it.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:90>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Wed Mar 30 19:53:40 1994

Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 20:55:05 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: AZTLAN -- New List on Pre-Columbian History (fwd from NEW-LIST)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Here's an announcement of a new list with an archeological and historical
emphasis that may be of interest to some Darwin-L subscribers.

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

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

Date: Fri, 25 Mar 1994 09:53:41 CST
From: Jim Cocks <JACOCK01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject: NEW: AZTLAN - Precolumbian History list

AZTLAN on LISTSERV@ULKYVM.BITNET   Pre-Columbian history - Americas
       or LISTSERV@ulkyvm.louisville.edu

   AZTLAN is an open, unmoderated forum for debate, discussion, and
   the exchange of information by students and scholars of the
   Pre-Columbian history of the Americas.  This is taken to mean the
   civilizations ranging from Mexico to Chile.  AZTLAN is ready to
   distribute newsletters from study groups, and to post announcements
   of meetings and calls for papers, short scholarly pieces, queries,
   and other items of interest.

   The list currently does not maintain a FTP directory.  Archives of
   AZTLAN and related files are stored in the AZTLAN FILELIST.
   To receive a list of files send the command INDEX AZTLAN to
   LISTSERV@ULKYVM  or listserv@ulkyvm.louisville.edu.

   AZTLAN is associated with The History Network, and co-operates
   fully with other lists similarly associated.

   To subscribe to AZTLAN, send the following command to LISTSERV@ULKYVM
   or LISTSERV@ulkyvm.louisvile.edu in the BODY of e-mail:

      SUBSCRIBE AZTLAN Your-first-name Your-last-name

   For example:  SUBSCRIBE AZTLAN Joe Shmoe

   Owner:  James Cocks  JACOCK01@ULKYVM.BITNET
                    or  jacock01@ulkyvm.louisville.edu

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:91>From mahaffy@dordt.edu  Wed Mar 30 21:28:46 1994

Subject: Summary of dolphin communication
To: Address Darwin list <Darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 21:31:11 -0600 (CST)
From: James Mahaffy <mahaffy@dordt.edu>

Back in Feb. there was some interest expressed in whale sounds.  In the
process of a project one of my students is doing in Zoology, I received
a number of sources (journals or books) that look like a good place to
start for anyone interested in the area. It is not my specialty so
address questions to the poster or marmam (which is the list that
responded to my question).

James Mahaffy

About five messages follow:


Date: Tue, 29 Mar 1994 19:26:31 -1000 (HST)
From: Matthias Hoffmann-Kuhnt <hokuhnt@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: Dolphin communication
To: James Mahaffy <mahaffy@dordt.edu>

Hi there,
as far as your questions are concerned:
1)cetacean behavior, mechanisms and functions. edited by Louis M Herman
2)dolphin societies, Ken Norris & Karen Pryor
3) Language and Communication, Comparetive perspectives, by Herb Roitblat,
Louis Herman & paul Nachtigall
4) Dolphin cognition and Behavor: a comparative Approach; by Schusterman
& Wood

if you have more questions, there is more...

aloha
Matthias Hoffmann-Kuhnt
Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Lab
Hawaii


From: Liz Slooten <CETOS@RIVENDELL.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject: Re: Dolphin communication

Dear James,
There are no decent books on dolphin communication.

Dawson, S.M. Clicks and Communication; The behavioural and social
contexts of Hector's dolphin vocalisations. Ethology 88:265-276 (1991).

There are refs therein that should be of interest.

Cheers,

Steve Dawson


From: Rachel.Smolker@um.cc.umich.edu
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 10:30:14 EST
Subject: dolphin communication

Hi - about dolphin communication literature.  Look in Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology over the past few years there have been papers by myself, Laela
Sayigh and P. Tyack on dolphin whistles.  Also in Canadian Journal of Zoology,
where Lindy Weilgart and other publish on sperm whales, pilot whales and John
Ford on Orca.

And so on.  Good luck...


Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 07:32:07 PST
From: Christopher Prince <ud953@freenet.victoria.bc.ca>
Subject: Dolphin communication

If you do find a nice book on dolphin communication, let me know.  I'm
afraid I'll have to agree with a previous posting, that there are no
relevant books dedicated to the topic.  However, I think that references
in the following, and subsequent material by the relevant authors should help:

Roitblat, Herbert L., Herman, Louis M. & Nachtigall, Paul E. (1993).  Language
and Communication: Comparative Perspectives.  Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.,
Hillsdale: NJ.

Herman, L. M. (Ed.) (1980). Cetacean behavior: Mechanisms and functions. New
York: Wiley Interscience.

Leatherwood, S. & Reeves, R. R. (1990). The Bottlenose Dolphin. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, Inc.

Pryor, K. and Norris, K. S. (1991). Dolphin Societies: Discoveries and
Puzzles.
Berkeley, CA:  University of California Press.

Ford, J. (1989).  Acoustic behavior of resident killer whales (Orcinus
orca) off
Vancouver Island, British Columbia.  Canadian J. of Zoology, 67, 727-745.

Cheers,

Chris Prince


Date: Wed, 30 Mar 94 05:46:05 PST
From: Ted Miller <TMILLER@UVVM.UVic.CA>
Subject: Dolphin signals

May I suggest Kenneth Norris' book, "Dolphin Days"?  It is a thoughtful,
personal and remarkably insightful account, with a great deal on dolphin
communication.  Also much background to basic work on dolphin communication
is provided, plus "harder-core" references.

Ted Miller
Biology Department
Univ. Victoria
Victoria, B.C. V8W 2Y2
Canada

--
James F. Mahaffy                   e-mail: mahaffy@dordt.edu
Biology Department                 phone: 712 722-6279
Dordt College                      FAX 712 722-1198
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:92>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Wed Mar 30 21:41:40 1994

Date: Wed, 30 Mar 1994 22:43:10 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Re: inquiry: the history of botanical phylogenetics 1860-1890
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Thomas Soderqvist asks about the history of early phylogenetic works in
botany, and about the work of Eugenius Warming in particular.  I don't know
any useful references on Warming, but there is a fine paper by Darwin-L
member Peter Stevens that could help with the general topic:

  Stevens, P. F.  1984.  Metaphors and typology in the development of
  botanical systematics 1690-1960, or the art of putting new wine in old
  bottles.  _Taxon_, 33:169-211.

Thomas remarks that the history of the transition to phylogenetic or
evolutionary systematics in botany in the years after Darwin has not been
terribly well studied.  A semi-serious response would be that there really
wasn't any transition at that time, and hence there isn't much to study.
The real impact of phylogeny/history on systematics has only occurred in the
last thirty years or so with the development of cladistic analysis.  This is
of course an exaggeration, but it does contain a kernel of truth, and it
is the reason for Peter's phrase "putting new [phylogenetic] wine in old
[taxonomic] bottles."  The impact of evolution on systematics is indeed a
very interesting historical subject.

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:93>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Thu Mar 31 12:52:43 1994

Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 13:53:54 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: List of natural history book dealers available on Darwin-L gopher
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

Geoff Read, a Darwin-L subscriber in Wellington, New Zealand, maintains an
excellent list of dealers in used and rare natural history books, and he has
kindly consented to have a copy placed on the Darwin-L gopher.  It is now
available there for all who wish to consult it, in the directory Darwin-L
files.  The Darwin-L gopher is located at rjohara.uncg.edu (152.13.44.19),
and it contains the logs of all of our Darwin-L discussions, as well as an
assortment of other resources of interest to students of the historical
sciences.

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:94>From mahaffy@dordt.edu  Thu Mar 31 16:02:37 1994

Subject: More on dolphin communication
To: Address Darwin list <Darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 16:06:13 -0600 (CST)
From: James Mahaffy <mahaffy@dordt.edu>

Linguists or those interested in animal communication. I got another
response on dolphin communication that might be of interest to some.

Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 10:34:10 -1000 (HST)
From: Stacy Braslau-Schneck <sbraslau@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: Dolphin communication
To: James Mahaffy <mahaffy@dordt.edu>

May I recommend _Language and Communication: Comparative Perspectives_ by
Roitblat, Herman, and Nachtigall, Lawrence Erlbaum, NJ; _Cetacean
Behavior_ by Herman; and _Dolphin Societies: Discoveries and Puzzles_ by
Ken Norris and Karen Pryor.

A lot of the work done on dolphins' comprehension of an artificial
language has been done here at Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Lab....
Many of them appear in psychology journals so a quick search of PsychLit
will be helpful.

The Caldwells and Peter Tyack have done much work on the vocalization of
dolphins as well.....

Stacy
sbraslau@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
--
James F. Mahaffy                   e-mail: mahaffy@dordt.edu
Biology Department                 phone: 712 722-6279
Dordt College                      FAX 712 722-1198
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250

_______________________________________________________________________________

<7:95>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Thu Mar 31 21:22:42 1994

Date: Thu, 31 Mar 1994 22:22:30 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Re: cladistics & distance data
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

A few days ago Paul DeBenedictis asked a couple of questions that deserved
answers but didn't elicit any at the time.  I thought I'd take a shot at
them briefly.

Paul asked: Can one estimate cladistic relationships from distance data?

As Paul correctly noted for those who aren't familiar with this topic in
systematics, there are two basic classes of data that systematists might
use: distance data and character data.  A character datum would be a
statement that taxon x has character state k.  A distance datum would be a
statement of that taxon x and taxon y are (say) 3.2 units apart.  Character
data is usually arranged in a table of taxa-by-characters, and distance data
is usually arranged in a table of taxa-by-taxa.

Paul phrases the question correctly when he asks whether distance data can
be used to _estimate_ cladistic relationships (the sequence of branching
events in the history of a clade).  It is best to think of phylogenetic
history as a complex branching sequence of events that we wish to estimate.
That being the case, I think the answer is certainly yes, distance data can
be used to estimate branching sequences, as can character data.  The
nuts-and-bolts question in any particular case is how well do distance
methods or character methods estimate any particular evolutionary chronicle.
I could estimate the phylogeny of a collection of taxa by first joining all
those whose names begin with "A", and then all those whose names begin with
"B", and so on down the alphabet.  This resulting tree would be an estimate
of the phylogeny of the taxa in question.  It would probably not be a very
good one, of course.  I have found that thinking about phylogenetic
inference the estimation of a sequence of events -- something that Greg
Mayer convinced me to do -- is very liberating, as it allows one to escape
some of the polemical rhetoric of the older (1960s and 1970s) systematic
literature, which was filled with accusations of "my method generates
testable hypotheses and yours doesn't", "distance approaches are worthless",
etc.  All these various approaches can give estimates of phylogeny; the
question is which estimates are better, and that is not easily answered as
it depends not just on theory but also the practice of each individual
investigator.

Since I answered Paul's first question as I did, my answer to his second
question -- "What makes a technique cladistic?" -- may not be surprising.
I have come around to the view that Greg Mayer has expressed here once or
twice (he taught me everything I know), that we should take the terms
"cladistic" and "phenetic" to refer to intentions rather than particular
procedures, types of data, or algorithms.  A technique is cladistic if it is
used for the purpose of estimating phylogeny.  Sibley's intention in his DNA
hybridization work is clearly to estimate phylogeny, and so he is using
distance data in a cladistic manner.  Now whether the phylogenetic estimates
he produces are good ones is a separate issue.  I have been critical of them
here before.  But the fact that they may be poor estimates in some cases
does not, in my view, make them non-cladistic.

A follow-up for the linguists: Were the techniques of "lexicostatistics" and
"glottochronology" that were popular in the 1960s distance techniques?  That
is, did the lexicostatisticians calculate "distance" values among languages,
and use these to reconstruct language history, rather than using individual
lexical items (linguistic character data)?  Is that also perhaps what
Greenberg does with his technique of "mass comparison"?

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.

_______________________________________________________________________________
Darwin-L Message Log 7: 66-95 -- March 1994                                 End