DOCSLIB.ORG

Ideas Made Glass: Blaschka Glass Models at Canterbury Museum

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ideas Made Glass: Blaschka Glass Models at Canterbury Museum Records of the Canterbury Museum, 2017 Vol. 31: 5–84 © Canterbury Museum 2017 5 Ideas made glass: Blaschka glass models at Canterbury Museum Matthew D Shaw1, Joanna Z Szczepanski1, Sarah F Murray1, Simon Hodge2 and Cor J Vink1 1Canterbury Museum, Rolleston Avenue, Christchurch 8013, New Zealand Emails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 2Department of Agricultural Sciences, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand Email: [email protected] In 1882, Canterbury Museum purchased a series of intricate glass models of invertebrates made by Dresden artisan Leopold Blaschka (1822–1895) and his son Rudolf Blaschka (1857–1939). This article considers both the historic context and scientific theories that are likely to have shaped this purchase. With museums around the world seeking to assemble encyclopaedic collections, the Blaschka models were a way of ensuring that even difficult to preserve aspects of the natural world could be displayed and used for education. The Museum’s founding director Julius von Haast (1822–1887) was particularly interested in communicating science to the Canterbury community. This article examines Haast’s purchase by comparing and contrasting Canterbury Museum’s Blaschka collection with two other collections (at University College Dublin and Otago Museum) as a way of exploring the possible influence of their scientific-educational context. This comparison provides evidence for the influence of several evolution-based theories as a preference bias for certain taxonomic categories amongst Canterbury Museum’s collection of Blaschka models. In order to make the Museum’s Blaschka models more accessible, this article concludes with a comprehensive illustrated catalogue of the collection. Keywords: Blaschka, collecting, evolutionary biology, glass models, invertebrates, Julius von Haast. Introduction In the latter half of the nineteenth century, behind the models deserves closer scrutiny intricate and expertly-crafted glass models made (Brill and Huber 2016). Blaschka models were their way into university and museum collections one of many foreign objects and specimens that around the world. Universities and museums were collected for Canterbury Museum by its were keen to collect, describe and to educate founding director Julius von Haast (1822–1887). people about the natural world. But not all This article examines previous research on animals could be dried, skinned or satisfactorily Blaschka models, describes the museological preserved in alcohol. Dresden based father and approach adopted by Haast and his connection son duo, Leopold and Rudolf Blaschka (1822– to scientific circles, and assesses whether 1895 and 1857–1939, respectively) produced particular scientific viewpoints and approaches thousands of glass models of invertebrate and may be reflected in the composition of Haast’s botanical specimens. Inspired by technical Blaschka order. drawings produced by leading biologists and live Museums of the 1880s were generally organisms, the Blaschka models were prized for intended to present comprehensive collections their fine detail. Although now revered for their depicting natural and human history. By craftsmanship and artistry, the scientific context viewing select examples of a wide range 6 Matthew Shaw, Joanna Szczepanski, Sarah Murray, Simon Hodge and Cor Vink of subjects, visitors would be able to draw mixture of techniques; sometimes the glass was conclusions about both culture and nature (Fyfe painted, sometimes enamelled and other times 2010). High value was placed on encyclopaedic coloured glass was used (Bertini et al 2016; collections showcasing material from around Brill 2016). The Blaschkas’ technical expertise is the world (Haacke 1882). Haast followed this admired both for its scientific accuracy and its encyclopaedic model, collecting a range of local artistry (Harvell 2016; Brill 2016). and overseas specimens, believing that foreign Canterbury Museum’s purchase of a series and rare material would increase Canterbury of glass invertebrate models was inspired by a Museum’s prestige and educational value. Based previous order of Blaschka models by Frederick on the resulting attendance numbers it seems the Wollaston Hutton (1836–1905) who was Christchurch public agreed with his approach Otago University Museum Curator until 1880. (Fyfe 2010). Although a date is not known for when this Apart from the drive for comprehensive order was made, these models were displayed coverage, there was also at this time the dramatic when that museum opened in 1877 (Hutton rise of evolutionary theory (Darwin 1859; 1878a; Crane 2015a). Correspondence between Haeckel 1874a) and of marine biology (Thomson Leopold Blaschka and Haast reveals that while 1878). Together these influences amounted the idea of purchasing models for Canterbury to a new importance for soft-bodied marine Museum was first mooted in 1879, an order invertebrates. However, these same animals also was not placed until 1882 and the models did represented a glaring gap in traditional museum not arrive until October 1883 (Blaschka 1879, exhibits. Displaying these as specimens was 1882; Press, 27 October, 1883: 3, 1 November, rarely an option since satisfactory preservation 1883: 3). Haast initially indicated that he wanted of form and pigmentation presented many to duplicate Hutton’s order but this did not difficulties in the 1880s (and still does today) eventuate. Leopold encouraged Haast to choose (Parker 1882; Lendenfeld 1885; Moore 1989). his own set; primarily as he did not recall the With an encyclopaedic vision in mind, Haast details of Hutton’s order (Blaschka 1879; Crane would have looked to fill this gap; and the 2015a). When Haast finally made his order in Blaschkas’ reputation among scientists would 1882, it was ultimately a larger one than Hutton have appealed to Haast’s educational goals. had made for Otago Museum and its overall By 1878, the Blaschkas produced 630 different composition was significantly different (see models (Ward 1878) that would later grow to Systematic Comparison). Unfortunately, the become a repertoire of over 700, including special list of what Haast ordered no longer survives. commissions (Ward 1888; Brill and Huber In later correspondence, Leopold indicated that 2016). Using a combination of flameworking, he substituted a few models and added some melting and bending glass with hand tools, the additional “worms and corals” free of charge Blaschkas captured the detail and essence of (Blaschka 1883). These were to be released in their zoological subjects (Sigwart 2008; Brill the Blaschkas’ next catalogue (Blaschka 1883). 2016; Harvell 2016). Some of the more complex These free samples appear to be the enlarged works delved into mixed media, blending real heads of the marine annelids Eunice norvegica, mollusc shells with glass bodies (see, for example, Nereis margaritacea and Phyllodoce parettii Canterbury Museum accession number (CMA) (CMA 1884.137.90, 1884.137.20, 1884.137.18), 1884.137.86) or simulating the dwelling tubes and a soft coral polyp (CMA 1884.137.136) (Fig. of annelids by coating these with sand (see 1). The relevant taxonomic nomenclature at the CMA 1884.137.22). Working primarily at low time of Haast’s order is found in the Ward (1878) temperatures, the Blaschkas manipulated glass catalogue and reflected in Canterbury Museum into layers, sometimes thinner than an eggshell catalogues. This is used here too as the most (Harvell 2016). Colours were added using a historically relevant and practical nomenclature Ideas made glass: Blaschka glass models at Canterbury Museum 7 A B C D Figure 1. Free Blaschka model samples. A, Eunice novegica (CMA 1884.137.90). B, Nereis margaritacea (CMA 1884.137.20). C, Phyllodoce parettii (CMA 1884.137.18). D, a soft coral polyp (CMA 1884.137.136). to use when comparing Blaschka collections. of the models (Reiling 1998, 2014; Hackethal Newspaper articles announcing the new 2008; Rossi-Wilcox 2008). While the models are acquisition note that the models were displayed generally interpreted as educational aids (Dyer in the Technological Room as examples of 2008; Sigwart 2008; Swinney 2008; Hackethal industrial art applied to science (Star, 16 2008; Reiling 2014), what particular aspects of February, 1882: 4). The articles clarified that zoology they were being used to teach has been in future the models would be catalogued largely neglected. Various authors have intimated taxonomically amongst relevant specimens that theories from this period did influence (Press, 27 October, 1883: 3, 1 November, 1883: Blaschka acquisitions (Reiling 1998; Swinney 3) and, as early as 1885, echinoderms and 2008; Brill and Huber 2016), but exploration of cuttlefish in spirits of wine were displayed with this topic is sparse. Blaschka models (Mosley 1885). By the time More specifically, Reiling (2014) relates the the first edition of the Guide to the Collection in production of one subset of Blaschka models the Canterbury Museum was printed in 1895, to the direct influence of Ernst Haeckel (1834– the Technological Room had been dismantled 1919) and two of his theories (biogenetic law and and the Blaschka models had been integrated colonial theory). Overall, however, exploration taxonomically among the zoological displays of what Blaschka models were being used to (Hutton 1895). teach, the underlying scientific motivations Most of the literature regarding Blaschka and how these factors may have influenced
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Karl Jordan: a Life in Systematics
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF Kristin Renee Johnson for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History of SciencePresented on July 21, 2003. Title: Karl Jordan: A Life in Systematics Abstract approved: Paul Lawrence Farber Karl Jordan (1861-1959) was an extraordinarily productive entomologist who influenced the development of systematics, entomology, and naturalists' theoretical framework as well as their practice. He has been a figure in existing accounts of the naturalist tradition between 1890 and 1940 that have defended the relative contribution of naturalists to the modem evolutionary synthesis. These accounts, while useful, have primarily examined the natural history of the period in view of how it led to developments in the 193 Os and 40s, removing pre-Synthesis naturalists like Jordan from their research programs, institutional contexts, and disciplinary homes, for the sake of synthesis narratives. This dissertation redresses this picture by examining a naturalist, who, although often cited as important in the synthesis, is more accurately viewed as a man working on the problems of an earlier period. This study examines the specific problems that concerned Jordan, as well as the dynamic institutional, international, theoretical and methodological context of entomology and natural history during his lifetime. It focuses upon how the context in which natural history has been done changed greatly during Jordan's life time, and discusses the role of these changes in both placing naturalists on the defensive among an array of new disciplines and attitudes in science, and providing them with new tools and justifications for doing natural history. One of the primary intents of this study is to demonstrate the many different motives and conditions through which naturalists came to and worked in natural history.
    [Show full text]
  • Peter Kropotkin and the Social Ecology of Science in Russia, Europe, and England, 1859-1922
    THE STRUGGLE FOR COEXISTENCE: PETER KROPOTKIN AND THE SOCIAL ECOLOGY OF SCIENCE IN RUSSIA, EUROPE, AND ENGLAND, 1859-1922 by ERIC M. JOHNSON A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (History) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) May 2019 © Eric M. Johnson, 2019 The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies for acceptance, the dissertation entitled: The Struggle for Coexistence: Peter Kropotkin and the Social Ecology of Science in Russia, Europe, and England, 1859-1922 Submitted by Eric M. Johnson in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Examining Committee: Alexei Kojevnikov, History Research Supervisor John Beatty, Philosophy Supervisory Committee Member Mark Leier, History Supervisory Committee Member Piers Hale, History External Examiner Joy Dixon, History University Examiner Lisa Sundstrom, Political Science University Examiner Jaleh Mansoor, Art History Exam Chair ii Abstract This dissertation critically examines the transnational history of evolutionary sociology during the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. Tracing the efforts of natural philosophers and political theorists, this dissertation explores competing frameworks at the intersection between the natural and human sciences – Social Darwinism at one pole and Socialist Darwinism at the other, the latter best articulated by Peter Alexeyevich Kropotkin’s Darwinian theory of mutual aid. These frameworks were conceptualized within different scientific cultures during a contentious period both in the life sciences as well as the sociopolitical environments of Russia, Europe, and England. This cross- pollination of scientific and sociopolitical discourse contributed to competing frameworks of knowledge construction in both the natural and human sciences.
    [Show full text]
  • Tiere Und Menschen Als Exoten : Exotisierende Sichtweisen Auf
    Tiere und Menschen als Exoten - Exotisierende Sichtweisen auf das „Andere“ in der Gründungs- und Entwicklungsphase der Zoos Von der Philosophischen Fakultät der Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover zur Erlangung eines Doktors der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) genehmigte Dissertation von Utz Anhalt, geboren am 19.3.1971 in Hannover Die Promotion wurde nach der mündlichen Doktorprüfung am 25.1.2007 von 15.00-17.00 mit Magna cum laude beendet: Erstprüfer war Prof. Dr. Ingolf Ahlers, Zweitprüfer Prof. Dr. Gert Schäfer, Prüfungsvorsitzende Prof. Dr. Barbara Duden. Inhaltsverzeichnis I. Einführung in die Thematik.................................................................................. S.1. I.1 Einleitung............................................................................................................... S.1-3 I.2 Exotismus / Eine Begriffsbestimmung................................................................... S.3-20 I.3 Thesen..................................................................................................................... S.20-23 I.4 Der Zugang in den Zoo von gestern / Methodik..................................................... S.23-35 I.5 Literatur und sonstige Quellen................................................................................ S.36-50 I.6 Das Tier als Fremdes............................................................................................... S.50-61 II. Was ist ein Zoo?....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Victor Jollos (1887-1941) [1]
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Victor Jollos (1887-1941) [1] By: Peirson, B. R. Erick Keywords: Dauermodifikationen [2] pure line experimental technique [3] Victor Jollos studied fruit flies and microorganisms in Europe and the US, and he introduced the concept of Dauermodifikationen in the early 1900s. The concept of Dauermodifikationen refers to environmentally-induced traits that are heritable for only a limited number of generations. Some scientists interpreted the results of Jollos's work on Paramecium [4] and Drosophila [5] as evidence for cytoplasmic inheritance. Jollos was forced to emigrate from Germany to the United States due to anti-semitic government policies in the early 1930s. Nevertheless, his work on Dauermodifikationen remained central to theoretical discourse among German zoologists concerning heredity, development, and evolution [6]. Jollos was born on 12 August 1887 in Odessa, Ukraine, then a part of Russia. Jollos's parents, Rosa Jurowsky and Gregor Jollos, emigrated to Germany while he was young, and Jollos attended high-school in Heidelberg and Berlin. As an undergraduate at the University of Berlin [7], Jollos studied with zoologist Max Hartmann, who studied reproduction in unicellular organisms. Jollos also studied with experimental embryologist and protozoologist Richard von Hertwig at the University of Munich [8] in Munich, Germany, where Jollos received his PhD in zoology in 1910. Jollos pursued protozoology, the study of single-celled eukaryotic organisms called protists, after the first taxonomic system for classifying Protozoa was constructed. Jollos's graduate mentor, Hertwig, founded on of the first German protozoological research institutes in Munich in 1885. While Jollos was a student, protozoologists began to publish in their own journals and train new researchers specifically in the field of protozoology.
    [Show full text]
  • Tiere Und Menschen Als Exoten - Exotisierende Sichtweisen Auf Das „Andere“ in Der Gründungs- Und Entwicklungsphase Der Zoos
    Tiere und Menschen als Exoten - Exotisierende Sichtweisen auf das „Andere“ in der Gründungs- und Entwicklungsphase der Zoos Von der Philosophischen Fakultät der Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover zur Erlangung eines Doktors der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) genehmigte Dissertation von Utz Anhalt, geboren am 19.3.1971 in Hannover Die Promotion wurde nach der mündlichen Doktorprüfung am 25.1.2007 von 15.00-17.00 mit Magna cum laude beendet: Erstprüfer war Prof. Dr. Ingolf Ahlers, Zweitprüfer Prof. Dr. Gert Schäfer, Prüfungsvorsitzende Prof. Dr. Barbara Duden. Inhaltsverzeichnis I. Einführung in die Thematik.................................................................................. S.1. I.1 Einleitung............................................................................................................... S.1-3 I.2 Exotismus / Eine Begriffsbestimmung................................................................... S.3-20 I.3 Thesen..................................................................................................................... S.20-23 I.4 Der Zugang in den Zoo von gestern / Methodik..................................................... S.23-35 I.5 Literatur und sonstige Quellen................................................................................ S.36-50 I.6 Das Tier als Fremdes............................................................................................... S.50-61 II. Was ist ein Zoo?....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annals of the History and Philosophy of Biology
    he name DGGTB (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Deutsche Gesellschaft für Theorie der Biologie; German Society for the History and Philosophy of BioT logy) refl ects recent history as well as German traditi- Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie on. The Society is a relatively late addition to a series of German societies of science and medicine that began with the „Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften“, Annals of the History founded in 1910 by Leipzig University‘s Karl Sudhoff (1853-1938), who wrote: „We want to establish a ‚German‘ society in order to gather Ger- and Philosophy of Biology man-speaking historians together in our special disciplines so that they form the core of an international society…“. Yet Sudhoff, at this Volume 11 (2006) time of burgeoning academic internationalism, was „quite willing“ to accommodate the wishes of a number of founding members and formerly Jahrbuch für „drop the word German in the title of the Society and have it merge Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie with an international society“. The founding and naming of the Society at that time derived from a specifi c set of histori- cal circumstances, and the same was true some 80 years later when in 1991, in the wake of German reunifi cation, the „Deutsche Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie“ was founded. From the start, the Society has been committed to bringing stu- dies in the history and philosophy of biology to a wide audience, using for this purpose its Jahrbuch für Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie. Parallel to the Jahrbuch, the Verhandlungen zur Geschichte und Theorie der Biologie has become the by now traditional medi- (2006) 11 Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Also As a Free Low Resolution
    The Nature of North Head: A naturalist’s guide. Second edition, free version with low resolution graphics Peter Macinnis Publication data Author: Macinnis P. (Peter) (1944 –). Title: The Nature of North Head: a naturalist’s guide. ASIN: B08HWJ557L Notes: Written explicitly as an e-book. Contains internal navigation and external links, which will not work in a print version. Contains illustrations. Target audience: curious Australian minds from mid-teens to mid-90s. Subjects: Australia, biology, geology, animals, plants. Copyright: photographs © Peter Macinnis, Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, 2020; all line art public domain. Thise needing copies of the photos need to contact the author to get better copies. All quotations are from public domain sources. Cover illustration: South Head from the Third Quarantine Cemetery. Peter Macinnis, 2020. Title page illustration: Helichrysum sp., Peter Macinnis, 2020. Dedication: For Christine, ever patient in reading and advising. A North Head companion These are my personal thoughts and footnotes, circling around a lovely place, North Head, at the entrance to Sydney Harbour. Less than 10 km from the central business district of a city of 5 million people, we have an island of wilderness with animals and plants that reflect what the area was before my mob invaded it in 1788. You can find a free web version of this e-book online, simply by using a secure tinyurl for the starter page: https://preview.tinyurl.com/nheadnat, or a less secure version: https://tinyurl.com/nheadnat. You can also get it directly at http://members.ozemail.com.au/~macinnis/nhead/index.htm.
    [Show full text]
  • Title and Contents
    Two Historical Investigations in Evolutionary Biology A Thesis SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Max W. Dresow IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE Dr. Emilie C. Snell-Rood October 2015 © Max Walter Dresow. 2015 Table of Contents The history of form and the forms of history: Stephen Jay Gould between D’Arcy Thompson and Charles Darwin…………………………………… 1 The problem of beginnings: “Mivart’s dilemma” and the direction of 19th century evolutionary studies.………………………………………………….65 Bibliography …………………………………………………………………………144 1. The history of form and the forms of history: Stephen Jay Gould between D’Arcy Thompson and Charles Darwin Max W. Dresow “Our greatest intellectual adventures often occur within ourselves—not in the restless search for new facts and new objects on the earth or in the stars, but from a need to expunge old prejudices and build new conceptual structures. No hunt can promise a sweeter reward, a more admirable goal, than the excitement of thoroughly revised understanding—the inward journey that thrills real scholars and scares the bejesus us out of the rest of us” (Gould 2001, p. 355). “Steve…was first and always a morphologist and developmentalist” (Eldredge 2013, p. 6). Introduction: Stephen Jay Gould and the science of form The story of Stephen Jay Gould’s evolutionary philosophy has yet to be fully told, because I suspect it cannot be fully told. For one thing, there is no univocal philosophy to which Gould’s name attaches (Ruse 1996, pp. 494-507, Thomas 2009). His views changed as he aged, not as a scaling-up of ancestral potentialities, but rather as a series of heterochronies involving both translocations and deletions.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Reptile Placentology II: Wilhelmhaacke￢ﾀﾙs 1885 Account
    Zoologischer Anzeiger 261 (2016) 66–69 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Zoologischer Anzeiger jou rnal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcz Short communication History of reptile placentology II: Wilhelm Haacke’s 1885 account of lizard viviparity Daniel G. Blackburn Dept. of Biology and Electron Microscopy Facility, Trinity College, Hartford, CT, USA a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: As viewed from a modern perspective, Wilhelm Haacke’s 19th century research on Australian lizards of Received 15 February 2016 the genus Tiliqua made significant contributions to our understanding of viviparity and placentation in Received in revised form 21 March 2016 squamate reptiles. He recognized the close structural relationship between the fetal membranes and the Accepted 21 March 2016 uterus through which maternal support of the embryos is accomplished. He also described the placental Available online 26 March 2016 vasculature, the vestigial nature of the eggshell, and the lack of an egg tooth in viviparous embryos, Corresponding Editor: Alexander Kupfer. and challenged the traditional concept of “ovoviviparity.” In recognizing that viviparity had evolved independently in reptiles and mammals, Haacke’s work foreshadowed the outpouring of research on Keywords: Viviparity comparative placentation of the past 50 years. Placenta © 2016 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved. History of science Reproduction Fetal membranes Oviduct 1. Introduction 2. Haacke’s career and contributions The German biologist Wilhelm Haacke (1855–1912) is a notable Johann Wilhelm Haacke (Fig. 1A) was a naturalist, teacher, and 19th century zoologist whose scientific contributions are not administrator who published broadly in the zoological and evo- widely recognized.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cultural History of Heredity III: 19Th and Early 20Th Centuries
    MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE Max Planck Institute for the History of Science 2005 PREPRINT 294 Conference A Cultural History of Heredity III: 19th and Early 20th Centuries Table of Contents Introduction Staffan Müller-Wille and Hans-Jörg Rheinberger 3 Mendel’s impact Raphael Falk 9 The Biometric Sense of Heredity: Statistics, Pangenesis and Positivism Theodore M. Porter 31 Sources of Johannsen´s Genotype Theory Nils Roll–Hansen 43 Inheritance of Acquired Characters: Heredity and Evolution in Late Nineteenth-Century Germany Wolfgang Lefèvre 53 Darwinism versus Evo–Devo: a late–nineteenth century debate Jeffrey H. Schwartz 67 Message in a Bottle: The Business of Vaccines and the Nature of Heredity after 1880 Andrew Mendelsohn 85 The Chromosomal Theory of Heredity and the Problem of Gender Equality in the Work of Theodor and Marcella Boveri Helga Satzinger 101 Hugo de Vries's transitions in research interest and method Ida H. Stamhuis 115 Herbert Spencer’s two editions of the Principles of Psychology: 1855 and 1870/72. Biological heredity and cultural inheritance Snait B. Gissis 137 Writing Heredity: Emile Zola’s Rougon-Macquart and Thomas Mann’s Buddenbrooks Ulrike Vedder 153 Heritage – Appropriation – Interpretation: The Debate on the Schiller Legacy in 1905 Stefan Willer 167 From pedigree to database. Genealogy and Human Heredity in Germany, 1890–1914 Bernd Gausemeier 179 Bismarck the Tomcat and Other Tales: Heredity and Alcoholism in the Medical Sphere, The Netherlands 1850–1900 Stephen Snelders, Frans J. Meijman and Toine Pieters 193 A Changing Landscape in the Medical Geography of ‘Hereditary’ Disease: Syphilis, Leprosy, and Tuberculosis in Hawai‘i (1863-1903) Philip K.
    [Show full text]
  • Amytornis Merrotsyi Mellor, 1913 (Maluridae)
    February 2014 83 Bird Notes The first specimen record of Short-tailed Grasswren Amytornis merrotsyi Mellor, 1913 (Maluridae) ANDREW BLACK INTRODUCTION grasswren lineage. Baxter and Paton (1998) In September and October 1912 A. L. (Les) reported ‘Striated Grasswrens’ from the Gawler Merrotsy took three skin specimens and two Ranges and they too proved to be Short-tailed clutches of eggs of a grasswren he had observed Grasswrens, now recognised as the subspecies A. near Yudnamutana in the North Flinders merrotsyi pedleri (Christidis, Horton and Norman Ranges (Parker 1982). John White Mellor (1913) 2008). recognised the grasswren as new and called it the Chestnut-mantled Grasswren, Amytornis Amongst archival documents in the South merrotsyi, separated from the Striated Grasswren, Australian Museum, Adelaide (SAMA) is a list Amytornis striatus by its chestnut crown and of birds, mammals and reptiles received from the mantle, lack of black moustachial stripe, shorter Gawler Ranges in the year 1873. The document tail and stronger feet. Its English name was named 33 bird species collected by Frederick unfortunate because Striated Grasswrens from William Andrews during probably his third more arid environments further north proved collecting excursion to the Gawler Ranges and to be even more rufous [though not more included one ‘Amytis striatus’. Since Andrews ‘chestnut’] over the crown and mantle and, by is not known to have collected within the range the time grasswrens were next reported from of the Striated Grasswren population on the within the Flinders Ranges by Close and Hatch southern margin of the Gawler Ranges, that (1971), Merrotsy’s grasswren had long been entry suggested that he might have collected a regarded as a Striated Grasswren of no special Short-tailed Grasswren.
    [Show full text]
  • The Century-And- A-Half Failure in the Quest for the Source of New Genetic Information
    Overviews The century-and- a-half failure in the quest for the source of new genetic information Jerry Bergman Courtesy TFE graphics Courtesy The major attempts to explain the source of new genetic information, including, Lamarckianism, pan- genesis, orthogenesis, creative evolution, hopeful monsters, panspermia, quantum evolution, and sym- biogenesis are reviewed. No theory has survived Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829) scientific scrutiny. The most widely accepted theory tree, the constant stretching would lengthen its neck and this today is mutations and natural selection (neo-Dar- trait would be passed on to its offspring.2 Also called the winism), a mechanism that is widely acknowledged ‘use and disuse hypothesis’, it postulated that the changes in as inadequate. anatomy that occurred during an animal’s lifetime could be passed on to its offspring. In other words, the theory teaches that evolution occurs due to ‘the inheritance of modified phenotypes’.3 Lamarckianism was a dominant theory of The major failure of evolution, even before Charles evolution for decades; in fact, even Darwin based his theory Darwin (1809–1882) proposed his theory to the world in partly on it, and used it to ‘explain’ human evolution: 1859, has always been the lack of a viable mechanism that ‘The early male progenitors of man were ... can produce new genetic information. It is well documented probably furnished with great canine teeth; but as that some animal types have lost in the struggle for life, and they gradually acquired the habit of using stones, thus have become extinct. Darwin, in his Origin of Species, clubs, or other weapons, for fighting with their en- presented much evidence for natural selection (survival of emies, they would have used their jaws and teeth the fittest) but ‘ironically never explains where new species less and less.
    [Show full text]