Darwin-L Message Log 16: 1–23 — December 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 December 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 16: 1-23 -- DECEMBER 1994
----------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:1>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Thu Dec  1 00:12:12 1994

Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 01:11:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: List owner's monthly greeting
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

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

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

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

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

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

     SUBSCRIBE DARWIN-L <Your Name>

     For example: SUBSCRIBE DARWIN-L John Smith

To cancel your subscription send the message:

     UNSUBSCRIBE DARWIN-L

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

     SET DARWIN-L MAIL DIGEST

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

     SET DARWIN-L MAIL ACK

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

SET DARWIN-L MAIL POSTPONE

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

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

     INFO DARWIN-L

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

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

Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:2>From gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu  Thu Dec  1 12:15:47 1994

From: "Gessler, Nicholas (G)   ANTHRO" <gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu>
To: DARWIN - postings <DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: human energetics
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 10:15:00 PST

I'm interested in obtaining a book showing tables/graphs of human energy
consumption for different activities (e.g. walking, running), while carrying
different loads (e.g. 25, 50, 100 pounds), for different individuals (e.g.
sex, age, stature, weight), in different environments (e.g. slope, substrate,
temperature).  I'd like to work some of these energy costs in to a
multi-agent computer simulation of trade.  I would appreciate any suggestions
on a concise reference source.  Thanks...

Nick Gessler
UCLA - Anthropology
gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:3>From gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu  Thu Dec  1 12:24:14 1994

From: "Gessler, Nicholas (G)   ANTHRO" <gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu>
To: DARWIN - postings <DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Maturana on autopoesis
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 94 10:22:00 PST

I've recently had someone try to explain to me Maturana's "autopoetic" view
of evolution.  After repeated attempts at reading several key statements, it
sounds to me as though he's not saying anything new about macroevolution,
except that he is saying it in a newly invented (and seemingly convoluted and
cumbersome) language.  Would someone better acquainted than I am with his
work explain the significance of his "autopoesis" and its difference from the
"standard theory" of natural selection?  With thanks...

Nick Gessler
UCLA - Anthropology
gessler@anthro.sscnet.ucla.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:4>From em21@columbia.edu  Sat Dec  3 13:27:24 1994

Date: Sat, 3 Dec 94 14:27:20 EST
From: Eben Moglen <em21@columbia.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: talking drums

You suggestively wrote:

   Postscript: Ever since I first read Heimo Kremsmayer's brief review,
   I have wondered what might have befallen him in wartime Austria. Did
   he die in the war? Did he die in the holocaust? Did he escape and
   survive? Does anybody know of Internet resources for tracing what
   might have happened to Kremsmayer? Please reply to me directly if you do.

I am interested in these problems of historical tracing on the net.  I
would be grateful if you would share with me any responses shedding
light on searching methodologies.  Thanks very much.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Eben Moglen                       voice: 212-854-8382
 Professor of Law & Legal History    fax: 212-854-7946            moglen@
 Columbia Law School, 435 West 116th Street, NYC 10027          columbia.edu
                     PGP key: finger em21@columbia.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:5>From sainsbur@unixg.ubc.ca  Mon Dec  5 15:39:47 1994

Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 13:39:38 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Andrew Sainsbury <sainsbur@unixg.ubc.ca>
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Inquiry into 16th c. mural maps

This first post will also serve an an introduction. I am
currently studying the _Sala delle carte geografiche_ in
Florence's _Palazzo Vecchio_ which was decorated between the
1560s and the 1580s. As this room was the _studiolo_ of
Cosimo I, I am interested in how this cartographic re-pre-
sentation of the entire world (in this age of exploration)
may indicate a Renaissance conception of self within the "new"
(mem: circumnavigated in 1522) world.

Frank Lestringant's recently trans. _Mapping the Renaissance
World_ will provide some models for further inquiry and
understanding, but I am wondering if other members have any
expertise in this area, which includes the history of carto-
graphy, cosmology, cosmography, education, and exploration,
(as well as decoration, painting, and patronage).

Any information on possibly useful paradigms such as
Lestringant's, or other listservs on which to post this query,
will be greatly appreciated.

**********************************************************************
Michael Sainsbury               "The more mechanistic science becomes,
U of British Columbia / Canada         the more angels I shall paint."
sainsbur@unixg.ubc.ca / (604) 736-5620        - Sir Edward Burne-Jones

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:6>From SHANKSN@ETSUSERV.EAST-TENN-ST.EDU  Wed Dec  7 14:51:23 1994

From: "Niall Shanks" <SHANKSN@ETSUSERV.EAST-TENN-ST.EDU>
Organization:  East Tennessee State University
To: Darwin <Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>, hopos <HOPOS-L@ukcc.uky.edu>,
        HPSST <HPSST-L@QUCDN>, sci-tech-studies <sci-tech-studies@ucsd.edu>,
        philos-l<philos-l@liverpool.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 15:50:59 GMT-5
Subject: AD: Visiting Chair of Excellence

DO NOT REPLY TO THE LIST!!!  PLEASE REPLY TO ADDRESS BELOW!!!

EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY is seeking NOMINATIONS for an
individual to fill the "Wayne. G. Basler Chair of Excellence for the
Integration of the Arts, Rhetoric and Science."  This is a ONE-
semester appointment.  Each year we hope to bring an outstanding
scholar to ETSU in order to provide our students with an opportunity
to benefit from an interdisciplinary perspective on a theme of
interest.

The theme for academic year 95-96 can be found below.  The
successful nominee will be expected to spend ONE semester at ETSU
(renumeration will be at least $50,000).  The holder of the Chair will
be expected to teach ONE course in the format of a major lecture, as
well as to provide some public lectures of interest to the general
academic and local communities.  Precise duties and expectations
may be subject to negotiation.

We are loooking for someone to be appointed in Fall of `95 -- but due
to delays in advertizing, we will be willing to look at nominees who
would be willing to come in Spring of `96.

More than anything else, the nominee should be both a scholar of
note and an educator who is interested in, and capable of,
communicating ideas to students from mixed backgrounds and
varying degrees of preparedness.

                THEME FOR THE FIRST YEAR

[1] In the Proposal for the "Wayne. G. Basler Chair of Excellence
for the Integration of the Arts, Rhetoric and Science", it is stated
that the holder of the Chair of Excellence will bring to ETSU an
interdisciplinary vision and the ability to help integrate knowledge
and values spanning the sciences, rhetoric and the arts (Proposal,
p.3):

      The Chair will be occupied by an outstanding individual who
      has earned a national or international reputation for quality
      teaching, for scholarship, or for representing in his or her
      life or profession the ability to address issues and values
      from an interdisciplinary perspective.

[2] The theme is intended to form a "keel" of issues around which
the holder of the Chair can build an interdisciplinary structure.
Just as the superstructure of a ship does not always have to connect
directly back to the keel, so the holder of the Chair will be free to
discuss issues not directly mentioned in the theme.  It is hoped,
however, that the holder of the Chair will show how such issues
connect back -- albeit indirectly -- to the central issues of the
theme, for in so doing, the holder of the Chair will be able to give
our community -- and the students in particular -- a feel for the
interconnectedness of knowledge.

[3] THEME FOR YEAR ONE: REDESIGNING HUMANITY.

Scientists are becoming ever more knowledgeable about human
genetic constitution.  With this knowledge, a variety of technological
possibilities are opening up with respect to our ability to screen and
manipulate various features of the human genotype.  But this
research raises many questions concerning ethics and public policy.

Connected with these technological possibilities are issues
relating to our ability to control and manipulate various aspects of
the human condition from physical, behavioral and mental standpoints.
These issues raise questions about the ethics and politics of
scientific research.

The issue as to whether science should be in the business of
manipulating human kind has a long history extending back to the
19th century and the emergence of Eugenics movements aimed at
"improving" the human "stock".  This century has witnessed some of
the horrors associated with (ethically and scientifically) misguided
attempts to improve human kind (primarily through the elimination of
"undesirable types" by the Nazis and others).

But one does not have to travel abroad to see evidence of misguided
actions stemming from a desire to improve and "protect" the gene
pool.  It suffices to recall the forced sterilization programs which
were enforced by the Supreme Court as late as the 1920s.  The most
famous case being that of the enforced sterilization of Carrie Buck
-- a Virginia woman who had not scored favorably on the
Stanford-Binet IQ test.  In that case Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
wrote:

       We have seen more than once that public welfare may call upon
       the best citizens for their lives.  It would be strange if it
       could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the
       state for these lesser sacrifices...Three generations of
       imbeciles is enough. (Quoted in SJ Gould "The Mismeasure of
       Man", p. 335)

The issues here run deep.  How much of human nature is determined
by our genetic constitution and how much by environmental
influences?  And when we have determined how much is
"determined", what scope is left for a sense of human autonomy and
freedom?  For as philosopher John Earman has noted, "The more
precisely science locates man in nature, the more difficult it becomes
to sustain a sense of autonomy for human actions".

Such issues are of both academic and public importance, for here we
are at one of the central places where science, ethics, politics and
broader cultural issues become inextricably intertwined.  It is hoped
that the successful nominee will be able to shed light on these
matters.

DO NOT REPLY TO THE LIST!!!!!!

NOMINATIONS (including self-nomination) should be e-mailed to:

Dr. Niall Shanks

SHANKSN@ETSUSERV.EAST-TENN-ST.EDU

Nominations should include the name and address of the nominee (as
well as telephone # and email address if available).

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:7>From p_stevens@nocmsmgw.harvard.edu  Wed Dec 14 07:52:05 1994

Date: 14 Dec 1994 08:51:11 -0400
From: "p stevens" <p_stevens@nocmsmgw.harvard.edu>
Subject: botany and natural history
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

A call for help...

I am trying to tease apart the relationship between botany, zoology,
classification and natural history in the nineteenth century - for instance,
there are asymmetries such as the fact that a book with a title like "The
Natural History of America" can be entirely about animals, but almost never
entirely about plants.  Also why "botany" should in many people's minds have
been associated with (Linnaean) classification and/or women and/or children
(this is fairly easy to understand,. at least at one level).

In connection with this, I am trying to get information about the American
Nature Study Society, about which I know little else than its name.  Also, I
would like to know something about the circumstances surrounding the founding
of the journal, "The Plant World", in 1897, which was apparently a
semi-popular mouthpiece of the then fledgling Botanical Society of America.

Any help will be much appreciated - there are quite possibly some pretty
basic references that I have missed, but I have made no progress over the
last few months with the two specific problems just mentioned, hence this
message.

Peter Stevens.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:8>From bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu  Thu Dec 15 07:47:07 1994

Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 08:49:53 EDT
From: "Bonnie Blackwell, Dept of Geology, (718) 997-3332"
      <bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: RE: botany and natural history

Another question you might ask, is why should a book entitled the "natural
history of x" ignore the geology of an area?  i would remind you that
geology + climate => soils + vegetation => life forms

(=> means influences or controls)

i hope that you do not fall into the same trap that your 19th colleagues did.
b

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:9>From LKNYHART@macc.wisc.edu  Thu Dec 15 09:03:00 1994

Date: Thu, 15 Dec 94 09:02 CDT
From: Lynn K. Nyhart <LKNYHART@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: botany and natural history
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Peter Stevens asks some great questions about botany; their fundamental nature
shows just how impoverished our understanding of the history of botany is.  I
have no answers here, just a couple of thoughts.

First, it seems to me quite plausible that the connection of botany with women
and children on the one hand, and the possibility of writing a "Natural history
of N. America" without referring to plants, on the other, could be connected.
If botany was that much lower status than zoology (done by lower status people,
addressed to less elite audiences), then that might explain to some degree the
asymmetry you mentioned.  (It doesn't explain, of course, how that asymmetry
arose.)

Second, I wonder whether the word "botany" was so closely associated with
classification that doing other activities under its rubric was difficult.  I'm
thinking of an analogy with "anatomy," which at the turn of the 19thC (in
Germany, anyway--my territory) was closely associated with cutting up bodies,
and not with theorizing about them.  Similarly, botanists (and zoologists, too)
in the 1840s in Germany put a lot of effort into defining something they called
"scientific botany" that included plant morphology and physiology, thereby
"elevating" it (in their eyes) above mere classification.  Again, this doesn't
tell us how that tight linkage came about, but it suggests that it was difficult
to overcome.

I hope others with thoughts on the subject will also answer to the list; I find
this topic really interesting and worthy of more discussion. (I couldn't answer
directly to P. Stevens anyway, since he didn't include his email address at the
bottom of the message--please remember that some of us don't get the addresses
unless you put them in the message itself!)

Lynn Nyhart
lknyhart@macc.wisc.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:10>From LANGE@humnet.ucla.edu  Fri Dec 16 13:18:55 1994

From: "Marc Lange  Dodd 347  5-2291" <LANGE@humnet.ucla.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 1994 11:18:55 PST
Subject: Question: History of mycology

Perhaps one of you knows how I might find an answer to this
question -- I'd be very grateful. Apparently there
was (until around the very end of the 18th century) considerable
controversy over whether fungi are living creatures (never mind
whether plants, animals, or some third kind of living thing). As late
as 1784, Villemet held that they might best find a place in the
mineral kingdom, and many of the ancients (e.g., Pliny, Plutarch)
held them to be non-living. This view was apparently often associated
with the belief that they derive directly from thunder or earth or
moisture ("mill-dew"), while the view that they
are living was associated with the belief that they come from
something like seeds. What I want to know is what *reasons* were
given (at any stage in this long-running dispute) for believing the
fungi living (or non-living).

My reason for wondering (not that you asked!) is that I am interested
in all manner of questions regarding whether any scientific work
has been performed by the distinction between living and non-living,
and if so, what work that might be. In this connection, I have looked
occasionally at recent discussions regarding artificial life (so-
called), as well as ancient and medieval disputes over whether the
stars and planets are living creatures.

I would be very interested in any relevant suggestions. Thank you
very much.

Marc Lange
(Assistant Professor of Philosophy, UCLA)
lange@humnet.ucla.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:11>From RMBURIAN@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU  Fri Dec 16 16:35:29 1994

Date: Fri, 16 Dec 94 17:29:57 EST
From: "Richard M. Burian" <RMBURIAN@VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject: The boundary of living and non-living
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

   Marc Lange asked (starting from the history of mycology) about the
boundary of living and non-living.  Insofar as that is the question
underlying his query, it seems to me that it would be useful to look
at a series of sites where the issue comes up.  A classic example
would be debates over spontaneous generation (Spallanzani, Pasteur vs.
Pouchet, etc.); a 20th century example would be some of the debates
over the status of viruses.  I did not know of the issue vis-a-vis
the status of fungi and mildews; it will be very interesting to learn
something about the relevant history.  I will also be lurking to learn
more about the line that Peter Stevens and Lynn Nyhart opened up in the
history of botany.

Richard Burian       voice:  703 231-6760     rmburian@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu
Science Studies      fax:    703 231-7013               or
Virginia Tech                                 rmburian@vtvm1.bitnet
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0247

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:12>From p_stevens@nocmsmgw.harvard.edu  Sat Dec 17 12:53:27 1994

Date: 17 Dec 1994 13:52:53 -0400
From: "p stevens" <p_stevens@nocmsmgw.harvard.edu>
Subject: fungi, life and non-life
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Marc Lange writes about the debate over whenther fungi were living or
non-living.  The best early history of mycology of which I know is that by G,
C. Ainsworth, "Introduction to the history of mycology", Cambridge University
Press, 1978 - pp. 12-34, and there are lots of references.  A major issue was
also whether fungi were animals, plants, both, or neither, and an
appropriately-named Baron Otto von Munchausen claimed to have obtained
animalcules from germinating fungal spores.  For Linnaeus, fungi were almost
pure medulla, i.e., pure life, and were so little constrained by cortex, the
form-giving part of organisms, that they were protean in form and their
classification in chaos - and chaos was the name of a new kingdom Linnaeus
was thinking of recognising in which organisms devoid of medulla were to be
placed.

Peter Stevens.

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:13>From bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu  Wed Dec 21 14:36:10 1994

Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 15:39:23 EDT
From: "Bonnie Blackwell, Dept of Geology, (718) 997-3332"
      <bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: RE: The boundary of living and non-living

do not forget the Gaia hypothesis.  while not generally accepted by most
geologists, some at least are keeping an open mind on it.
b

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bonnie Blackwell,				bonn@qcvaxa.acc.qc.edu
Dept of Geology,                                (718) 997-3332
Queens College, City University of New York,    fax:  997-3349
Flushing, NY 11367-1597

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:14>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Thu Dec 22 19:12:42 1994

Date: Thu, 22 Dec 1994 20:12:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: New book on historiography (fwd from H-RHETOR)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

This announcement of a new book on historiography may perhaps be of
interest to some Darwin-L subscribers.

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

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

Date: Wed, 21 Dec 1994 11:28:42 -0700
From: h-rhetor <HATCHG@jkhbhrc.byu.edu>
Subject: New Book: Historiography Between Modernism and Postmodernism

From: PAPRZYCKI_M@gusher.pb.utexas.edu

Dear Netters,

Sorry for possible cross-posting but this is the only way to reach all
interested parties.

It is my pleasure to announce that Poznan Studies has published
its 41st volume:

HISTORIOGRAPHY BETWEEN MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM
Contributions to the Methodology of the Historical Research
Edited by Jerzy Topolski

Below, you will find its table of contents.  The summary of the book can
be found at the International Philosophical Preprint Exchange
(ftp Phil-Preprints.L.Chiba-U.ac.jp or gopher apa.oxy.edu).

For more information, contact

Katarzyna Paprzycka      paprzyck+@pitt.edu
Marcin Paprzycki         paprzycki_m@gusher.pb.utexas.edu
Leszek Nowak             epistemo@plpuam11.amu.edu.pl
___________________________________________________________________

HISTORIOGRAPHY BETWEEN MODERNISM AND POSTMODERNISM
Contributions to the Methodology of the Historical Research
Edited by Jerzy Topolski
Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities
Volume 41
Amsterdam/Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, ISBN 90-5183-721-6 or 90-5183-744-5
___________________________________________________________________

TABLE OF CONTENTS
___________________________________________________________________

  Jerzy Topolski
          A Non-Postmodernist Analysis of Historical Narratives

  Frank R. Ankersmit
          The Origins of Postmodernist Historiography

  David Carr
          Getting the Story Straight: Narrative and Historical
          Knowledge

  Wojciech Wrzosek
          The Problem of Cultural Imputation in History.  Cultures
          Versus History

  Jacques Tacq
          Causality as Virtual Finality

  Gwidon Zalejko
          Soviet Historiography as a "Normal Science"

  Henryk Mamzer and Janusz Ostoja-Zagorski
          Deconstruction of the Evolutionist Paradigm in Archaeology

  Nicole Lautier
          At the Crossroads of Epistemology and Psychology: Prospects
          of a Didactic of History

  Teresa Kostyrko
          Remarks on "Aesthetization" in Science on the Basis of
          History

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:15>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Fri Dec 23 00:25:54 1994

Date: Fri, 23 Dec 1994 01:25:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: December 23 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

DECEMBER 23 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1749: MARK CATESBY dies at London, England, aged 66.  Catesby was born in
Essex, England, and from 1712 to 1719 lived with his sister in the Virginia
colony.  The plants Catesby collected during his stay in America brought him
to the attention of a number of prominent naturalists, including Sir Hans
Sloane, and Catesby was commissioned to return to America specifically for
the purpose of natural history exploration and collecting.  From 1722 to 1726
he traveled through South Carolina, Florida, and the West Indies, and upon his
return he published the acclaimed _Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and
the Bahama Islands_ (1731-1743).  This work will be used later by Linnaeus
as the source for his descriptions of the North American bird fauna.

1810: EDWARD BLYTH is born at London, England.  Although his mother will
encourage him to enter the ministry, natural history will be Blyth's favorite
study from a young age.  While in his twenties, Blyth will publish a series
of important papers on organismal variation that Darwin will later study with
care, among them "An attempt to classify the 'varieties' of animals, with
observations on the marked seasonal and other changes which naturally take
place in various British species which do not constitute varieties" (_Magazine
of Natural History_, 8:40-53, 1835).  In 1841 Blyth will be appointed curator
to the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal and will move from England to India,
where will be remembered as one of the founders of Indian zoology.

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:16>From p_stevens@nocmsmgw.harvard.edu  Fri Dec 23 15:31:49 1994

Date: 23 Dec 1994 16:31:37 -0400
From: "p stevens" <p_stevens@nocmsmgw.harvard.edu>
Subject: botany as mindless classification
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

This comment takes up Lyn Nyhart's suggestion that botany was so closely
associated with classification that any other activity under its rubric was
difficult.

First, there is abundant evidence (which I am not going to rehearse) that by
the early 19thC "botanique proper" was equated with classification.

Second - and this is most important - classification/botany was either
associated with the "artificial" Linnaean system or with a fundamentally
incomprehensible natural system.  In both cases, the way was clear for
considerable stigma to become attached to the word "botany", and its
association with a rather mindless classificatory activity.

A. The Linnaean system was most prominently before the eyes of the public in
England, America, and France (to name only three countries, albeit important
ones) well into the 19thC; even in the 1840s medical students were being
taught what they needed to know about botany using the Linnaean system.

B. Plant names, even plant classifications, were (and are still) often called
"Linnaean"; the public usually heard of taxonomists when the latter came to
change names - often, it seemed, for no good reason.

C. Even the natural system in botany seemed to outsiders (and more insiders
than one might suppose) to be without any intrinsic interest; there was again
a divergence with zoology, where Cuvier - or at least what he stood for -
gave point to zoological classifications to an early 19thC mind.

D. The botanical natural system was not even stable.

At the risk of making this post a little long, a quotation from Samuel Taylor
Coleridge captures the mood, making points B, C, and D quite nicely (Bob
O'Hara put me on to this a long time ago, although I have only just followed
it up - again, this is all his fault).  It comes from the 3rd edition of "The
Rambler" - I haven't checked earlier editions.

After listing the names of the great botanists of the preceeding century and
a half, Coleridge went on:

"[W]hat is botany at this present hour?  Little more than an enormous
nomenclature; a huge catalogue, well arranged, and yearly and monthly
augmented, in various editions, each with its own scheme of technical memory
and its own conveniences of reference. A dictionary in which (to carry on the
metaphor) an Ainsworth arranges the contents by the initials; a Walker by the
endings; a Scapula by the radicals; and a Cominius by the similarity of the
uses and purposes. The terms system, method, science, are mere improprieties
of courtesy, when applied to a mass enlarging by endless appositions, but
without a nerve that oscillates, or a pulse that throbs, in sign of growth or
inward sympathy.  The innocent amusement, the healthful occupation, the
ornamental accomplishment of amateurs (most honorable indeed and deserving of
all praise as a preventive substitute for the stall, the kennel, and the
subscription-room), it has yet to expect the devotion and energies of the
philosopher" (Coleridge 1837: 3: 138-139).

Coleridge wanted a botany with laws, and he compared the parlous state of
classificatory botany with the much more flourishing state of zoology.
There, he thought, John Hunter, ably seconded by Georges Cuvier, had provided
laws, an explanation for and an understanding of the numerous facts and
phenomena which had threatened to stifle the discipline (ibid.: 145-147).
William Whewell effectively endorses Coleridge's point when he observed that
the "natural history method", botanical classification, was the epitome of
classificatory activities in the sciences; this classification was based on
simple likeness, and lacked any of the functional connotations that Cuvier
had integrated with zoological classificatory activities (Whewell Philosophy
1847: 1: 512).

Finally, in his inaugural lecture as professor of botany at King's College,
London (in 1843) Edward Forbes defended the discipline of botany not so much
for its own importance, but as a discipline that would itself discipline the
mind into the habit of making accurate observation - "the general scientific
method" - in all branches of science; he specifically defended the Linnaean
system as an identificatory and indexing tool.  Forbes had a difficult task,
since his audience had medical men in it, but he hardly presented
classification as a discipline of any scientific interest.

I knew that even in the early 19thC classificatory botany was not faring well
when those working on other botanical and zoological subjects made
comparisons. What I had not realised was that even then the natural system in
botany seemed to have little interest for those -outside- academia and the
professions.

PS.  In an earlier note I suggested the Linnaeus's kingdom, chaos, was to
include organisms made up of pure cortex - I should have said "medulla".

Peter Stevens -   p stevens@nocsmsmgw.harvard.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:17>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu  Sat Dec 24 00:31:59 1994

Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 01:31:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: December 24 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro

DECEMBER 24 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES

1856: HUGH MILLER dies at Portobello, Scotland, a suicide.  One of the great
geological writers of the early nineteenth century, Miller's graceful prose
earned fame for his many books, including _Scenes and Legends from the North
of Scotland_ (1835), _The Old Red Sandstone_ (1841), and also _Foot-Prints of
the Creator; Or, the Asterolepis of Stromness_ (1847): "We learn from human
history that nations are as certainly mortal as men.  They enjoy a greatly
longer term of existence, but they die at last; Rollin's History of Ancient
Nations is a history of the dead.  And we are taught by geological history, in
like manner, that _species_ are as mortal as individuals and nations, and that
even genera and families become extinct.  There is no _man_ upon the earth at
the present moment whose age greatly exceeds an hundred years; -- there is no
_nation_ now upon earth (if we perhaps except the long-lived Chinese) that
also flourished three thousand years ago; -- there is no _species_ now living
upon earth that dates beyond the times of the Tertiary deposits.  All bear the
stamp of death, -- individuals, -- nations, -- species; and we may scarce less
safely predicate, looking upon the past, that it is appointed for nations and
species to die, than that it is 'appointed for _man_ once to die.'"

1868: ETIENNE-JULES-ADOLPHE, DESMIER DE SAINT-SIMON, VICOMTE D'ARCHIAC drowns
in the Seine river in Paris, a suicide.  Following a short military career for
which he received a life-time pension, d'Archiac turned to geology and became
one of the leading stratigraphers in Europe.  In addition to many research
papers on paleontology and stratigraphic correlation, d'Archiac published a
nine-volume _Histoire des Progres de la Geologie_ from 1847 to 1860, and
served several times as president of the Societe Geologique de France.

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

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:18>From CHODGES@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU  Sat Dec 24 12:30:42 1994

Date: Sat, 24 Dec 1994 10:30:34 -0800 (PST)
From: CHODGES@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU
Subject: Re: botany and natural history
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

On Fri, 16 Dec 1994, Lynn K. Nyhart wrote:

> Peter Stevens asks some great questions about botany; their fundamental nature
> shows just how impoverished our understanding of the history of botany is.  I
> have no answers here, just a couple of thoughts.
>
> First, it seems to me quite plausible that the connection of botany with women
> and children on the one hand, and the possibility of writing a "Natural hsitory
> of N. America" without referring to plants, on the other, could be connected.
> If botany was that much lower status than zoology (done by lower status people,
> addressed to less elite audiences), then that might explain to some degree the
> asymmetry you mentioned.  (It doesn't explain, of course, how that asymmetry
> arose.)
>
> Second, I wonder whether the word "botany" was so closely associated with
> classification that doing other activities under its rubric was difficult.  I'm
> thinking of an analogy with "anatomy," which at the turn of the 19thC (in
> Germany, anyway--my territory) was closely associated with cutting up bodies,
> and not with theorizing about them.  Similarly, botanists (and zoologists, too)
> in the 1840s in Germany put a lot of effort into defining something they called
> "scientific botany" that included plant morphology and physiology, thereby
> "elevating" it (in their eyes) above mere classification.  Again, this doesn't
> tell us how that tight linkage came about, but it suggests that it was difficult
> to overcome.
>
> Lynn Nyhart
> lknyhart@macc.wisc.edu

   The history of botanical illustration may offer some insights.  In the
early 19th C in England there was a tremendous demand for accurate illustration
of the flood of botanical specimens sent from around the world.  A significant
amount of motivation for this was for commercial purposes.  For example, Aylmer
Bourke in *A description of the genus Pinus* (1803-1824) "sought to
promote the growth of 'deal timber' in Britain and to bring about the
improvement of the numerous ornamental plantations around the 'Noblemen
and Gentlemen's seats in this kingdom', which were composed largely of
the Scotch Fir.  He attributed this 'to the different species not having
been properly pointed out, a defect which is here endeavored to be
remedied'.  He went on to lament that, although new plants were being
'sought with avidity in distant regions', little had been done in
publishing accounts of the material that had already accumulated in
London's museums" (p. 7, in *Classic Natural History Prints: Plants*, by
Eve Robson and Norman Robson, Arch Cape Press).
   I see here a possible distinction between botanical illustration in
the private sphere (women and children) and the kind of botanical
illustration required for the public sphere (commercial and scientific-
men).  I suspect, too, that the history of botanical illustration may be
a good indicator of the status of progress of understanding plants.
(Geological illustration may be another example of this progress in
understanding- compare 19th C stratigraphic illustrations with modern
block diagrams.)  Status may play a role, but changing perception of the
natural world informed by scientific understanding must be considered as
well.

Charlie Hodges
chodges@oregon.uoregon.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:19>From emmeche@connect.nbi.dk  Tue Dec 27 09:57:21 1994

Date: Tue, 27 Dec 1994 16:57:36 +0100
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: emmeche@connect.nbi.dk (Claus Emmeche)
Subject: The word EMBRYOLOGY

Dear Darwin-list fellows,

Can someone tell me who coined the word "embryology"? Was it Darwin in the
_Origin_? Or was the term in use before 1859?

In the article "Development" by Jane Maienschein (in: W.F.Bynum, E.J.Browne
and Roy Porter, eds., _Macmillan Dictionary of the History of Science_,
London 1981 [paperback reprint 1989]), it is noted that

"Introducing the word 'embryology' to refer to the study of developmental
process, Darwin suggested it could hold the key to evolutionary
understanding. Individual development, or ontogeny, he hinted, might
parallel or give clues about evolutionary ancestry, or phylogeny."

Was Darwin really the first to use the term?

Sincerely,
Claus Emmeche

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:20>From IAP8EWH@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU  Wed Dec 28 16:20:12 1994

Date: Wed, 28 Dec 94 14:19 PST
To: DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: IAP8EWH@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU
Subject: living and nonliving

In belated response to Marc Lange's question about the boundary of
living and nonliving things, another example is fossils, which were
not generally agreed to be formerly alive until about the 18th century.
The distinction started to do scientific work in the early 19th century
after the discovery that (formerly living) fossils were more useful
than other (never living) aspects of rocks in determining the relative
age of sedimentary strata.  My sources are a couple of books by Martin
J. S. Rudwick: 'The meaning of fossils' and 'The great Devonian
controversy'.

Eric Holman, iap8ewh@mvs.oac.ucla.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:21>From charlie_urbanowicz@macgate.csuchico.edu  Thu Dec 29 10:39:55 1994

Date: Thu, 29 Dec 1994 08:41:09 -0800
From: Charlie Urbanowicz <charlie_urbanowicz@macgate.csuchico.edu>
Subject: RE: The word EMBRYOLOGY
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu

Dear Claus Emmeche:  RE "Embryology" - EXCELLENT 1967 book by T.H. Savory
entitled THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE has has section on the various "ologies" and
does list 1859 as the first time the word was introduced - but, doesn't refer
to CD.

Charlie [curbanowicz@oavax.csuchico.edu]

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:22>From hineline@helix.UCSD.EDU  Fri Dec 30 09:28:47 1994

From: hineline@helix.UCSD.EDU (Mark Hineline)
Subject: Whence "diversity"?
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 94 7:28:44 PST

When did biological diversity emerge as a clear property of
nature, as opposed to an affective truth (a "truism") felt
by most naturalists? Does it begin with Ernst Mayr?

Mark L. Hineline
hineline@helix.ucsd.edu

_______________________________________________________________________________

<16:23>From wcalvin@u.washington.edu  Fri Dec 30 17:36:40 1994

Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 15:36:35 -0800 (PST)
From: William Calvin <wcalvin@u.washington.edu>
To: Darwin List <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: Web page for Down House travel directions

It's at  http://weber.u.washington.edu/wcalvin/down_hse.html
for the moment, until the Natural History Museum gets its own Web page going.
Nothing new, mostly what I posted several months ago to the List.
   William H. Calvin
   University of Washington, NJ-15
   Seattle WA 98195 USA
   WCalvin@U.Washington.edu
   http://weber.u.washington.edu/wcalvin/

_______________________________________________________________________________
Darwin-L Message Log 16: 1-23 -- December 1994                              End