DOCSLIB.ORG

As a Classificatory Performance and Classification Design Model for Humanities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
As a Classificatory Performance and Classification Design Model for Humanities 75 Jiri Pika Knowledge Organization in Sciences – As a Classificatory Performance and Classification Design Model for Humanities Abstract The paper provides an overview of natural science classification scheme development with major control of classification criteria presented in the Linnaean taxonomy. Based on natural laws, the Linnaean taxonomy has been accepted worldwide. Unlike the indexing of the natural sciences items that follows the logic and systematics of natural laws – a real challenge still exists in classification of documents originating from human intellectual activity.Items, produced as a human output are a particular phenomenon and as such, follow no common rules. This lack of evident natural law as a basis for a common classification can be substituted by practices of facet classifications and Information Coding Classification (ICC) [1] that advances to the field of classifying literature. Their common feature is to analyse the information content with a set of categorical questions and to express the answers in exact terms, concepts and notations. The ensuing categorizations are certainly both concise and unequivocal: essentially Linnaean, or better! Introduction Among the numerous examples of knowledge organization in sciences, one case is particularly interesting, mainly from the documentary point of view (Umstätter 2009). Ever since the Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeuswasknighted to become Carl von Linné, in recognition of his classificatory work in 1761, we have learned that the natural arrangement of objects of intellectual and physical environment leads to knowledge. Linnaeus thus made a significant contribution to the development of documentary sciences, without being adequately appreciated in this area. How revolutionary his idea was, can be seen by the fact that his work “Systema Naturae” (1735) was listed on the “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” by the pope (Jahn 2000). His influence in the 18th century was so great that J.W.v. Goethe on 7. November 1816 wrote to his friend Carl Friedrich Zelter [2]: This day I have reread Linnaeus and I am shocked by this extraordinary man. I have learned so much from him, but not Botany. With the exception of Shakespeare and Spinoza, I know no one among the no longer living who has influenced me more strongly. Even his opponent, the director of the royal gardens in Paris, Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon had to accept the systematics of Linnaeus on royal behest in 1774. The systematic arrangement of living creatures by Linnaeus came as a result of the increasing travel activities of naturalists and their plant and animal descriptions. To name a few: Andrea Cesalpino described in his book “De Plantis” (1583) more than 1500 plants and Gaspard Bauhin in his “Pinax Theatri Botanici” (1623) described 6000 plant species. Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (Eléments de botanique ou method pour connaître les plantes) characterized nearly 7000 in 1694 and John Ray described over 18 000 by 1704 in “Historia plantarum” (1686-1704). To organize this vast amount of information, trying to cope with various classifications was at that time extremely important, especially for the purpose of 76 medicine and agriculture (Hansen, 1902). In particular, the use of different names for the same plant has led to dangerous misunderstandings. The rules, which Linné gives in his Philosophia Botanica for choosing the name, are masterful. He points out the absurdity of most of the old names and calls the botanists to choose their Nomina vera with the words: idiotae imposuere nomina absurda. Linnaeus in his “Philosophia Botanica” (1751) characterized other botanists as “Fructistae“, “Corollistae“, “Calycistae“ and several other classes of botanists [3] (Hansen 1902), depending on which part of the plant his botanist colleagues (Linnaeus1751, Rádl 1905) used to design their classifications. Whereas other botanists are classed as Fructistae, Corollistae, Calycistae, under the Sexualists [4] stands a solitary, proud “ego”, which is correct, since he is the sole inventor of the “sexual system”, but it bears a strong aftertaste of the most sovereign self-confidence (Hansen 1902). Linnaeus regarded himself [5] as “Sexualist” because he based his system on the classification of plant sex organs. Linnaeus made it clear that sexuality is a ubiquitous phenomenon of nature. This, at that time truly brilliant discovery, can be found in his thesis (1730) – an account of plant sexual reproduction: [6] “Praeludia Sponsaliorum Plantarum“ (=On the prelude to the wedding of plants). He relied on knowledge of Rudolph J. Camerarius (1665-1721), professor of medicine and director of the botanical garden in Tübingen, who had demonstrated by his publication (De sexu plantarum epistola 1694) that plants have sexuality. Nevertheless it was Nehemiah Grew (1641-1712), who had actually discovered this fact, but wasn’t able to prove it. Linnaeus considered this phenomenon highly anthropomorphic. When he repeatedly talks about the bridal bed, or in connection with the "Polyandria", he asserts that in a flower with 20 stamens and one stylus, there are '20 males or more in the same bed with the female', a state of affairs enjoyed by the poppy (Papaver) and the linden (Tilia). He opens his dissertation: “In spring, when the bright sun…The actual petals of a flower contribute nothing to generation, serving only as the bridal bed which the great Creator has so gloriously prepared, adorned with such precious bed-curtains, and perfumed with so many sweet scents, in order that the bride-groom and bride may therein celebrate their nuptials with the greater solemnity”) [7] Blunt (1971). The introduction of sexuality as classification criterion led to the theory of evolution expressed later by Darwin, and found its basic fundament exactly in this classification. So it is understandable that the "Systema Naturae" was banned by the Pope and placed on papal Indexes of Prohibited Books (The Index Librorum Prohibitorum).Linnaeus pointed out that science is established primarily by its classification system, which arranges the knowledge relations within the specific system. Today we would say: integrated into semiotic networks (Umstätter 2009). Although Linnaeus initially regarded his system as artificial - today it could be called constructivistic - it soon became evident that it was a natural one. His system depicted the natural evolution of living nature, because it applied the sexual kinship of 77 species as a classificatory criterion. Thus he transformed his system from a pure constructivism into an evolution model (Umstätter 2009). Linnaeus did not suppose that his classification of the plant kingdom in the book was natural, reflecting the logic of God’s creation. His sexual system, where species with the same number of stamens were treated in the same group, was convenient, but in his view artificial. Linnaeus believed in God’s creation, and that there were no deeper relationships to be expressed. He is frequently quoted to have said: "Deus creavit, Linnaeus disposuit” (“God created, Linnaeus organized”) [8] Linnaean taxonomy In 1727 Linnaeus became aware of a newspaper article, which reported on a public lecture by Sébastien Vaillant, the member of the Academy of Sciences and director of the royal garden in Paris, on the sexuality of plants. In it was the indication that the pollen of the plants have the same function as sperm. The sexualistic system of Linnaeus (Rádl 1905) became accepted despite the resistance of many botanists, because it was clear, consistent and provocative (Umstätter 2009). Thus, it could not have been ignored by the world of experts (Mayr 1982). Since then the newly discovered creatures could be classified and recognized again by a standardized procedure. Another important achievement of Linnaeus is the establishment of still-in-use standardized botanical nomenclature [9] (Paterlini 2007). In the "Genera Plantarum" (1737) he has determined the rules according to which the genera of plants should be named The name of a plant should be two-fold: a genus name equals to the human family name and a name of a species, as the name in daily life (nomina trivialia). The diagnosis depends on the associations in kinship circle of the respective species…. (Jahn 1985). Equally important were the terminology introduced by Linnaeus and his instructions about how to describe the plant species. He introduced and defined about 1000 botanical terms in "Fundamenta Botanica" by 1736. Crucial for the classification was the clear distinction of significant and insignificant characteristics. As insignificant Linnaeus recognized characteristics, such as color, odor and size, because it was obvious to him that these could vary easily even within one species. In contrast, the sexual system was largely a type- or species-consistent categorization. During his life Linnaeus realized ever more clearly that the species that he initially thought to be immutable can hybridize. Moreover, he observed some adaptation of plants to their environment and towards the end of his life he considered the origin of new species by hybridization to be quite feasible (Mallet 2007). Cladistics, Knowledge Organization and Phylogenetic Classification The question of what can be used in a classification as a division-criterion for categorization has proved crucial in Linnaeus’ work. The key idea in the cladistics is to let the classes branch according to their relationship. Whereas the development of 78 many library classifications for routine indexing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Antillean Plant of Beauty, a French Botanist, and a German Name: Naming Plants in the Early Modern Atlantic World
    Estonian Journal of Ecology, 2012, 61, 1, 37–50 doi: 10.3176/eco.2012.1.05 An Antillean plant of beauty, a French botanist, and a German name: naming plants in the Early Modern Atlantic world Laura Hollsten Faculty of Arts, Åbo Akademi University, 20500 Åbo, Finland; [email protected] Received 10 December 2010, revised 7 March 2011, accepted 27 June 2011 Abstract. This paper investigates the naming of plants in the work of the French botanist Charles Plumier (1646–1704). Plumier made three trips to the French Antilles between 1690 and 1697, was appointed royal botanist in 1693, and published his first work, Description des Plantes de l’Amérique, in the same year. Plumier was the first ‘modern’ botanist to describe the flora of the Caribbean in a time when natural history underwent significant qualitative changes as a result of the European expansion and transatlantic contacts. Plumier’s ambition was to replace the confusing multitude of names given to New World plants with a universal taxonomically based nomenclature. His modernity and scientific ethos manifest themselves in his neutral way of organizing the plants according to a taxonomic system and his use of a Latin nomenclature, often naming plants after well-known botanists. Through Plumier’s naming process, I argue, it is possible to highlight the colonial and Atlantic context of his work, his network as part of the scientific elite of his country, and his professionalism resulting from years of botanical studies. Key words: history of botany, early modern natural history, plant nomenclature. INTRODUCTION According to a story entitled ‘The Tree of Riches’, the French botanist Charles Plumier decided that he would like to travel the world and get rich (Pellowski, 1990).
    [Show full text]
  • The Discovery of Pulmonary Circulation: from Imhotep to William Harvey
    The discovery of pulmonary circulation: From Imhotep to William Harvey Mohamed ElMaghawry1,2 *, Alberto Zanatta2, and Fabio Zampieri2 1: Department of Cardiology, Aswan Heart Centre, Aswan, Egypt 2: Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Science, University of Padua, Padua, Italy * [email protected] Abstract In his quest to comprehend his existence, Man has long been exploring his outer world (macro- cosmos), as well as his inner world (micro-cosmos). In modern times, monmental advances in the fields of physics, chemistry, and other natural sciences have reflected on how we understand the anatomy and physiology of the human body and circulation. Yet, humanity took a long and winding road to reach what we acknowledge today as solid facts of cardiovascular physiology. In this article, we will review some of the milestones along this road. “The history of the pulmonary circulation provides a measure of Man’s thinking about himself and his place in the Universe.” (1) Alfred P. Fishman (1918-1990), president of American Physiological Society. The heart in ancient Egyptian medicine The ancient Egyptians considered the heart as the central organ of the body, both physiologically and spiritually. The earliest hieroglyphic depiction of the heart was as an organ with eight vessels attached to it (Figure 1A). After the third Dynasty, the heart was modified to a simpler jar-shape (Figure 1B) (2). The Smith papyrus (ca. 1600 BC) is the oldest known surgical treatise on trauma. It was named after Edwin Smith, the American Egyptologist who purchased the scroll in Luxor in 1862. Many historians believe that the text of the Smith papyrus was copied from a much older document originally written by Imhotep, the prominent high priest and physician of the Old Kingdom (ca.3000-2500 BC).
    [Show full text]
  • An Inordinate Disdain for Beetles
    An Inordinate Disdain for Beetles: Imagining the Insect in Colonial Aotearoa A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts in English By Lillian Duval University of Canterbury August 2020 Table of Contents: TABLE OF CONTENTS: ................................................................................................................................. 2 TABLE OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................................................................ 6 ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. 7 INTRODUCTION: INSECTOCENTRISM..................................................................................................................................... 8 LANGUAGE ........................................................................................................................................................... 11 ALICE AND THE GNAT IN CONTEXT ............................................................................................................................ 17 FOCUS OF THIS RESEARCH ....................................................................................................................................... 20 CHAPTER ONE: FRONTIER ENTOMOLOGY AND THE
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Life Magill’S Encyclopedia of Science
    MAGILLS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE PLANT LIFE MAGILLS ENCYCLOPEDIA OF SCIENCE PLANT LIFE Volume 4 Sustainable Forestry–Zygomycetes Indexes Editor Bryan D. Ness, Ph.D. Pacific Union College, Department of Biology Project Editor Christina J. Moose Salem Press, Inc. Pasadena, California Hackensack, New Jersey Editor in Chief: Dawn P. Dawson Managing Editor: Christina J. Moose Photograph Editor: Philip Bader Manuscript Editor: Elizabeth Ferry Slocum Production Editor: Joyce I. Buchea Assistant Editor: Andrea E. Miller Page Design and Graphics: James Hutson Research Supervisor: Jeffry Jensen Layout: William Zimmerman Acquisitions Editor: Mark Rehn Illustrator: Kimberly L. Dawson Kurnizki Copyright © 2003, by Salem Press, Inc. All rights in this book are reserved. No part of this work may be used or reproduced in any manner what- soever or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. For information address the publisher, Salem Press, Inc., P.O. Box 50062, Pasadena, California 91115. Some of the updated and revised essays in this work originally appeared in Magill’s Survey of Science: Life Science (1991), Magill’s Survey of Science: Life Science, Supplement (1998), Natural Resources (1998), Encyclopedia of Genetics (1999), Encyclopedia of Environmental Issues (2000), World Geography (2001), and Earth Science (2001). ∞ The paper used in these volumes conforms to the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, Z39.48-1992 (R1997). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Magill’s encyclopedia of science : plant life / edited by Bryan D.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Review of Systematic Biology and Nomenclature - Alessandro Minelli
    BIOLOGICAL SCIENCE FUNDAMENTALS AND SYSTEMATICS – Vol. II - Historical Review of Systematic Biology and Nomenclature - Alessandro Minelli HISTORICAL REVIEW OF SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY AND NOMENCLATURE Alessandro Minelli Department of Biology, Via U. Bassi 58B, I-35131, Padova,Italy Keywords: Aristotle, Belon, Cesalpino, Ray, Linnaeus, Owen, Lamarck, Darwin, von Baer, Haeckel, Sokal, Sneath, Hennig, Mayr, Simpson, species, taxa, phylogeny, phenetic school, phylogenetic school, cladistics, evolutionary school, nomenclature, natural history museums. Contents 1. The Origins 2. From Classical Antiquity to the Renaissance Encyclopedias 3. From the First Monographers to Linnaeus 4. Concepts and Definitions: Species, Homology, Analogy 5. The Impact of Evolutionary Theory 6. The Last Few Decades 7. Nomenclature 8. Natural History Collections Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary The oldest roots of biological systematics are found in folk taxonomies, which are nearly universally developed by humankind to cope with the diversity of the living world. The logical background to the first modern attempts to rationalize the classifications was provided by Aristotle's logic, as embodied in Cesalpino's 16th century classification of plants. Major advances were provided in the following century by Ray, who paved the way for the work of Linnaeus, the author of standard treatises still regarded as the starting point of modern classification and nomenclature. Important conceptual progress was due to the French comparative anatomists of the early 19th century UNESCO(Cuvier, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire) – andEOLSS to the first work in comparative embryology of von Baer. Biological systematics, however, was still searching for a unifying principle that could provide the foundation for a natural, rather than conventional, classification.SAMPLE This principle wasCHAPTERS provided by evolutionary theory: its effects on classification are already present in Lamarck, but their full deployment only happened in the 20th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Catalogue 294 Recent Acquisitions CATALOGUE 294 Catalogue 294
    ANTIQUARIAAT JUNK ANTIQUARIAAT Antiquariaat Junk Catalogue 294 1 Recent Acquisitions CATALOGUE CATALOGUE 294 Catalogue 294 Old & Rare Books Recent Acquisitions 2016 121 Levaillant Catalogue 294 Recent Acquisitions Antiquariaat Junk B.V. Allard Schierenberg and Jeanne van Bruggen Van Eeghenstraat 129, NL-1071 GA Amsterdam The Netherlands Telephone: +31-20-6763185 Telefax: +31-20-6751466 [email protected] www.antiquariaatjunk.com Natural History Booksellers since 1899 Please visit our website: www.antiquariaatjunk.com with thousands of colour pictures of fine Natural History books. You will also find more pictures of the items displayed in this catalogue. Items 14 & 26 sold Frontcover illustration: 88 Gessner Backcover illustration: 121 Levaillant GENERAL CONDITIONS OF SALE as filed with the registry of the District Court of Amsterdam on No- vember 20th, 1981 under number 263 / 1981 are applicable in extenso to all our offers, sales, and deliveries. THE PRICES in this catalogue are net and quoted in Euro. As a result of the EU single Market legisla- tion we are required to charge our EU customers 6% V.A.T., unless they possess a V.A.T. registration number. Postage additional, please do not send payment before receipt of the invoice. All books are sold as complete and in good condition, unless otherwise described. EXCHANGE RATES Without obligation: 1 Euro= 1.15 USD; 0.8 GBP; 124 JPY VISITORS ARE WELCOME between office hours: Monday - Friday 9.00 - 17.30 OUR V.A.T. NUMBER NL 0093.49479B01 134 Meyer 5 [1] AEMILIANUS, J. Naturalis de Ruminantibus historia Ioannis Aemy- liani... Venetiis, apaud Franciscum Zilettum, 1584.
    [Show full text]
  • Anfänge Und Ziele Der Vegetationsgeographie
    FID Biodiversitätsforschung Mitteilungen der Floristisch-Soziologischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Anfänge und Ziele der Vegetationsgeographie Schmithüsen, Josef 1957 Digitalisiert durch die Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main im Rahmen des DFG-geförderten Projekts FID Biodiversitätsforschung (BIOfid) Weitere Informationen Nähere Informationen zu diesem Werk finden Sie im: Suchportal der Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main. Bitte benutzen Sie beim Zitieren des vorliegenden Digitalisats den folgenden persistenten Identifikator: urn:nbn:de:hebis:30:4-89837 Anfänge und Ziele der Vegetationsgeographie *) von JOSEF SCHMITHÜSEN, Karlsruhe . 1 . Geobotanik und Vegetationsgeographie . Oft ist die Frage aufgeworfen worden , ob die Lehre von der Verbreitung der Lebewesen auf der Erde ( Biochorologie ) wissenschaftssystematisch zu der Biologie ( Botanik und Zoologie ) oder zu der Geographie zu rechnen sei . Tatsächlich werden seit je die Probleme der räumlichen Verteilung der Pflanzen und Tiere und ihrer Beziehungen zu der Umwelt sowohl von den Biologen als auch von den Geographen und oft in enger Zusammenarbeit von beiden erforscht . Die Ausgangspunkte und die Ziele der Betrachtung sind jedoch bei beiden grundsätzlich verschieden . Forschungsobjekt der Biologie ist das Leben mit seinen Formen , Vorgängen und Gesetzen , die neben anderen auch einen räumlichen Aspekt haben . Gegenstand der Geo¬ graphie ist die Erdoberfläche ( Geosphäre ) in ihrer Gliederung in Länder und Landschaften
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Review
    1 Historical Review INTRODUCTION This chapter presents a brief historical review of progress in the field of plant water relations because the authors feel that it is impossible to fully understand the present without some knowledge of the past. As the Danish philosopher Kierkegaarde wrote, "Life can only be understood backward, but it can only be lived forward," and this also is true of science. The present generation needs to be reminded that some generally accepted concepts have their origin in ideas of 17th or 18th century writers and although others were suggested many decades ago, they were neglected until recently. As might be expected, the importance of water to plant growth was recog- nized by prehistoric farmers because irrigation systems already existed in Egypt, Babylonia (modern Iraq), and China at the beginning of recorded history, and the first European explorers found extensive irrigation systems in both North and South America. However, irrigation was not used extensively in agriculture in the United States until after the middle of the 19th century and little research on plant water relations occurred until the 20th century. Early Research Although plant water relations appear to have been the first area of plant physiology to be studied, progress was slow from Aristotle who died in 322 B.C. to the middle of the 19th century. According to Aristotle, plants absorbed their food ready for use from the soil, and plant nutrition was controlled by a soul or vital principle that ailowed plants to absorb only those substances useful in 2 1. Historical Review growth. This idea only began to be questioned in the 17th century by Jung, van Helmont, Mariotte, and others, and it ~ersistedinto the 19th century.
    [Show full text]
  • La Vita E L'opera Botanica Di Andrea Cesalpino
    SCHEDA DI APPROFONDIMENTO · I N S I G H T La vita e l’opera botanica di Andrea Cesalpino The life and botanical work of Andrea Cesalpino ndrea Cesalpino (Fig. 6) nacque nel 1525 Aad Arezzo. Poco si conosce sulla sua vita negli anni della sua gioventù; secondo fonti at- tendibili si sarebbe trasferito presto a Pisa (forse nel 1545) per seguire i corsi di quella Università, dove si sarebbe laureato in medicina intorno al 1551. A Pisa seguì le lezioni di botanica medica k di Ghini, che era appunto «Lettore de’ Semplici» e quando quest’ultimo si trasferì a Bologna nel 1555, Cesalpino lo sostituì nell’insegnamento della «materia medica» e nella conduzione del- l’orto botanico pisano, di cui terrà la guida for- male fi no al 1558, come «Prefetto» dell’orto. Con lo spostamento dell’orto botanico dalla sede ori- ginaria (presso l’arsenale) alla zona di S. Marta venne affi data di nuovo a Cesalpino la «prefettu- ra» dell’Orto che terrà dal 1563 al 1583. Nomi- nato «Professore ordinario di medicina pratica», continuò nell’insegnamento fi no al 1591 quando venne chiamato a Roma da Papa Clemente VIII per assumere la carica di insegnante di medicina alla «Sapienza» e di archiatra pontifi cio, e qui restò fi no alla sua morte, avvenuta nel 1603 (Vi- viani 1917; 1927; Moggi 1981; 2006; 2008b). Durante il periodo pisano Cesalpino svolse una intensa attività di studioso, di ricercatore e di insegnante ed effettuò frequenti viaggi in tutta la Toscana per incrementare le sue conoscenze sul- la fl ora locale.
    [Show full text]
  • Nontrivial Collections
    NONTRIVIAL COLLECTIONS Igor Ya. Pavlinov Moscow Zoological Museum NONTRIVIAL COLLECTIONS 1. Two basic contexts 2. The origins: facts 3. The origins: philosophy 4. Interrelation of contexts 5. Quality and quantity 6. Digital collections 7. Nontriviality as a curatorial problem 8. Research museum collections are fundamentally nontrivial TWO BASIC CONTEXTS “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” Prince Hamlet There are no collections either trivial or nontrivial by themselves, but some contexts make them so. Igor Pavlinov TWO BASIC CONTEXTS There are two basic contexts that make research museum collections either trivial or nontrivial. Research museum collections: consist of museum objects => Museological context stored for conducting research => Scientific context TWO BASIC CONTEXTS MUSEUM NONTRIVIALITY of collections is closely connected to the nontriviality of certain curatorial tasks. They involve “museification” of the materials acquired and stored by museums, i.e. their preparation, preservation, registration, labeling, etc. TWO BASIC CONTEXTS SCIENTIFIC NONTRIVIALITY of collections is closely connected to the nontriviality of ideas and research tasks they allow to explore. Of course, these ideas and tasks, in their turn, appear to be nontrivial in certain general scientific contexts THE ORIGINS: FACTS Research museum collections were nontrivial in either context from their very beginning. This was because the previous research practice of the so called Herbal Epoch dealt with natural objects drawings and
    [Show full text]
  • Plants Found in the Middle Parts of the State Grow Here, Excepting the Alpine Flowers
    CULTIVATION BOTANY.— Wood grows here [Concord] with great rapidity; and it is supposed there is as much now as there was twenty years ago. Walden woods at the south, and other lots towards the southwest parts of the town, are the most extensive, covering several hundred acres of light-soil land. Much of the fuel, which is consumed, is, however brought from the neighbouring towns. The most common trees are the oak, pine, maple, elm, white birch, chestnut, walnut, &c., &c. Hemlock and spruce are very rare. The ornamental trees transplanted, in this as in most other towns, do not appear to have been placed with much regularity; but as they are, they contribute much to the comfort and beauty of the town. The elm, buttonwood, horse-chestnut, and fruit trees have very properly taken the place of sickly poplars, in ornamenting the dwellings. The large elm in front of the court-house, –the pride of the common,– is almost unrivalled in beauty. It is about “three score and ten,” but is still growing with youthful vigor and uniform rapidity. Dr. Jarvis, who is familiar with the botany of Concord, informs me, that “most of the plants found in the middle parts of the state grow here, excepting the alpine flowers. The extensive low lands produce abundantly the natural families of the aroideæ, typhæ, cyperoideæ, gramineæ, junci, corymbiferæ and unbelliferæ. These genera especially abound. There are also found, the juncus militaris (bayonet rush), on the borders of Fairhaven pond; cornus florida; lobelia carinalis (cardinal flower) abundant on the borders of the river; polygala cruciata, in the east parts of the town; nyssa villosa (swamp hornbeam) at the foot of Fairhaven hill.” The cicuta Americana (hemlock) grows abundant on the intervals.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory & Practice of Systematics Not Taxon-Specif
    Course Website: http://homepages.ucalgary.ca/~dsikes/courses.htm Check weekly for lecture updates, readings, etc. Course Content: Theory & Practice of Systematics Not taxon-specific Introduction 25 % alpha taxonomy to 75 % phylogenetics Biosystematics - Lecture 2 Introduction to Biological Systematics Lecture 2: Introduction to Biological Systematics Website, Course Outline Outline: The role and value of Systematics Readings (text…, reserve reading room) Taxonomy (! taxonomy) - in decline? Midterm & final exam Describing species Project Identification, Classification “Labs” - Fridays meet in BI 182 Collections, Conservation Beetle exercise Phylogenetics (" taxonomy) Debates (discussions of readings) Phylogeny 5 Questions - bonus Classification (?) Open office hours - make appointment Evolutionary processes / patterns Conservation Biosystematics Godfray (2002) Lecture 1: Introduction to biological systematics (value) Mayr, E.& P. D. Ashlock (1991) Principles of Systematic Zoology, 2nd • alpha taxonomy / phylogenetics Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., NY. pp. 1-8. [PDF] (descriptive taxonomy / phylogenetic tax.) *Godfray, H. C. J. (2002) Challenges for taxonomy. Nature 417: 17-19. - suffering from lack of prestige & resources Flowers et al. (2002) Does the decline in systematic biology matter? Chapter 4 of report to the House of Lords (UK). Select Committee on Science & Technology. [webpage] • Solutions? Lecture 2: Value of biosystematics continued; History of taxonomy • “web monographs” ? *Gould, S. J. 2000. Linnaeus's Luck? Natural History.
    [Show full text]