sign in sign up
<<
Home , Butler Act, Civic Biology, Clarence Darrow, Rhea County Courthouse, Scopes Trial

Evolutionary Anthropology 16:126–131 (2007)

CROTCHETS & QUIDDITIES

The

‘‘People, this is no circus. There are no monkeys up here. This is a lawsuit, let us have order.’’ Court Officer Rice

KENNETH M. WEISS

In 1925, the Dayton businessmen Would he be willing to stand trial to were not happy. Nothing ever hap- test the law? He agreed, though he pened in their sleepy town of less than couldn’t remember whether he had 2 2,000 souls. They wondered what actually taught the sections they could do to get a little action or of Hunter (Fig. 2). They put ‘‘the Pro- maybe even a little notoriety, and the fessor’’ on trial for this offense, which money that came with it. Earlier in the carried a fine of between $100 and year, the state legislature had passed a $500. new law called the ; the To make the most of the occasion, townsmen seized an opportunity to they brought in a celebrity turn the law into manna from heaven. who had been a leader in the struggle of The Butler Act, passed by the Ten- religion against evolution, the former nessee legislature, stated ‘‘That it shall Presidential candidate and Secretary of be unlawful for any teacher in any of State, (Fig. 3). the Universities, Normals and all other That would ensure a conviction and public schools of the State which are would attract national media attention supported in whole or in part by the as well. In defending Scopes, the Ameri- public school funds of the State, to can Civil Liberties Union brought in a teach any theory that denies the story celebrity of their own, of the Divine Creation of man as (Fig. 3), probably the most famous law- Figure 1. John T. Scopes. From Tompkins.5 taught in the , and to teach yerofhisage,afighterforenlightened instead that man has descended from but unpopular causes, and already a a lower order of .’’ The stage known Bryan antagonist. As everyone was set for a real crowd pleaser! local girl had caught his eye. So he was In 1924, the young John T. Scopes around, playing tennis one afternoon, (1900–1970; Fig. 1), a freshly minted when he was approached by the town law major from the University of Ken- businessmen who wanted to bring tucky, was hired as football coach and some lively action to Dayton. Still per- physical science teacher at the Rhea spiring, he walked down to Robinson’s County, , high school.3 In drugstore to meet them. What they his first year, he also briefly taught wanted to know was whether he as a substitute when the regu- thought that biology could be taught lar biology teacher was ill. The follow- without including evolution. Scopes ing summer, Scopes stayed in Dayton said no. He had read Darwin as a child, rather than leaving town because a and ‘‘thought Darwin was right. It was the only plausible explanation of man’s long and tortuous journey to his present physical and mental develop- Ken Weiss is Evan Pugh Professor of ment.’’3 He acknowledged that his sub- Anthropology and Genetics at Penn State bing stint had included some review of University. biology, using the class textbook, Hunter’s ,4 which in- cluded discussions of evolution. V C 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc. By teaching this material, the insti- Figure 2. Hunter’s diagram of evolution. Note DOI 10.1002/evan.20144 Published online in Wiley InterScience gators said, Scopes was clearly in vio- the small circle at the top representing (www.interscience.wiley.com). lation of the new anti-evolution law. mammals. From Hunter.4 CROTCHETS & QUIDDITIES The Scopes Trial 127

edy’’ for the ‘‘improvement of the future race,’’ since we can’t kill the defectives, is selective breeding, pre- venting their intermarriage ‘‘and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.’’ On the other hand, there was Elizabeth Tuttle, who in 1667 was a person ‘‘of strong will, and of extreme intellectual vigor’’ and begat a long list of distinguished citi- zens, even including several university presidents. Good genes indeed! As Hunter4 pointedly noted, ‘‘The evi- dence and the moral speak for them- selves!’’ Surprisingly, what should have been Exhibit A, Civic Biology’s actual con- tent, was hardly mentioned in the trial at all. Nor did Scopes himself ever tes- tify until he responded to the verdict.1 This might seem strange, since the only issue actually on trial was whether he had taught a book that vio- lated the Butler Act. Besides the fact that he couldn’t remember if he’d Figure 3. Legal aid. The famous face-off of Darrow (left) and Bryan, at the trial. Source: public domain. actually taught the evolutionary parts of Hunter, Scopes was never called to testify because Darrow feared he knows, Darrow embarrassed poor faculty. His contacts included at least would be asked whether he was Bryan, ‘‘the idol of all Morondom,’’6 over one student of the prominent geneti- actually a biology teacher and that he his literal interpretations of the Bible. cist Thomas H Morgan and Civic Biol- might not stand up well under inter- The Scopes trial was made into a ogy became the leading text in its rogation about biology.8 play and a Hollywood movie, ‘‘Inherit field.8 the Wind,’’ which are still seen and Hunter attributed the gradually helped make a modern American advancing nature of life to Darwin’s 7 ‘‘THE ROCK OF AGES IS MORE legend. The trial is well-remembered ‘‘theory of evolution,’’ with adaptive as the image of a triumph of Science IMPORTANT THAN THE AGE at its core. He essen- 1 over Religion, rather than a narrow tially defined evolution as a steady pro- OF ROCKS’’ (Bryan) legal test, much less a trial explicitly gression from primitive to advanced. Clarence Darrow only showed up in staged as a publicity stunt for Dayton. He quickly applied that notion to Dayton after he read that Bryan1 had Nevertheless, the tactic succeeded, , asserting that we evolved signed on for the prosecution. It was because while ‘‘Most of the newspa- from ‘‘lower animals.’’ So if Scopes the only case Darrow ever took for no pers treated the whole case as a farce taught this kind of stuff, his fate would fee.6 He was determined to undermine instead of a tragedy ...they did give it seem to be sealed! Bryan, who headed the movement re- no end of publicity.’’6 But underlying In subsequent sections, Hunter said sponsible for fundamentalist anti-evo- the trial’s theatrics were issues of sub- there are five races, each dif- lution activities around the country, stance that are not as well remem- bered as its caricature in legend. To ferent in ‘‘instincts, social customs, including the Butler Act. Darrow’s see what those issues are, let’s look and, to a certain extent, in structure,’’ ‘‘only object, was to focus the attention first at what the students were actually and that these include ‘‘the highest of the country on the progamme of being taught. type of all, the Caucasians, repre- Mr. Bryan and the other fundamental- sented by the civilized white inhabi- ists in America .... Education was in tants of Europe and America.’’ He took danger from ...religious fanaticism.’’6 A PROPER CASE FOR THE a strongly eugenicist view of human From the beginning, it was clear PROSECUTION—OR nature, describing a few famous cases that this was a show trial. The weather taken from the leading book on eugen- was hot, the courthouse jammed (Fig. FOR THE DEFENSE? ics.9 These included one ‘‘Margaret, 4), journalists everywhere. The trial George W. Hunter, a teacher at New the mother of criminals,’’ and the Kal- was broadcast on radio and loud- York’s famous DeWitt Clinton High likak family that spawned countless speakers, and the pie`ce de re´sistance School, regularly consulted with ‘‘feeble-minded,’’ sexually immoral, was even held outside on the court- nearby Columbia University’s biology and drunkard descendants. The ‘‘rem- house lawn to accommodate the large, 128 Weiss CROTCHETS & QUIDDITIES

sented,10 and that’s when Darrow made enough for a verdict to be reached a famous monkey out of Bryan. The without extraneous interpretation. transcript shows a of legendary In a way, it didn’t matter. Bryan’s skill going after his witness the way testimony was widely publicized any- do, on highly selective particu- way and is what everyone remem- lars and with great rhetorical aplomb bers. But if the tables had been heavily dosed with satire.1 turned and the great orator had had Darrow raked Bryan over the coals his chance to put Darrow on the defending biblical literalism, chapter stand in the full light of publicity, and verse. Was really swallowed our view of the trial might be some- by a whale? Or was it a fish? Did what different. Joshua really lengthen a day by com- manding the sun to stand still? Did IF DARROW HAD TESTIFIED human races really all arise in the 4,200 years since Noah’s flood? Where We can’t know what Bryan would did Cain get his wife? But this wasn’t have asked, but we can obtain inklings quite the spontaneous grilling the because in fact, Bryan did, after a fash- legend seems to imply. In 1923, the ion, interrogate both Darrow and Dar- pump had been primed when, in the win. Bryan had raised a few of his Figure 4. , scene of Tribune, Darrow printed sim- points during the earlier haranguing the action.1 ilar questions for Bryan to answer in about expert witnesses, but had also response to comments Bryan had pre- prepared a summary statement that viously published there.6 he intended to read at the end of trial. sweltering crowd (Fig. 5). Reporters Although it had been agreed that The judge did not allow it, but shortly sent home excited daily bulletins. Darrow would go on the stand after before his death in Dayton five days af- More reports were wired overseas, Bryan, that never happened. The next ter the trial, the exhausted but Bryan said, than for any previous story day, the judge had had enough of the rebounding Bryan agreed to have his in the .1 The trial was circus and ordered Bryan’s testimony statement published.1 intentionally converted, or perverted, be stricken from the record as irrele- Much as Darrow had confronted as Bryan told Darrow it would be, vant to the narrow question of Bryan about the truth of the Bible, away from its narrow technical issues whether Scopes had violated the But- Bryan went after the truth of evolu- into a ‘‘fight to the death’’ between evo- ler Act. For similar reasons, he also tion. Darrow would have claimed lution and religion.6 disallowed several written statements some knowledge of evolutionary biol- Less well-known aspects of the trial on the evidence for evolution the ogy.11 ‘‘For a lawyer,’’ he later wrote, ‘‘I included thickets of legal dueling over defense had solicited from prominent was a fairly grounded scientist.’’6 He, the acceptability of expert witnesses. scientists. The Butler Act was clear like Scopes, had been fed Darwin even The prosecution said that since Scopes had taught man’s descent from lower animals, plain and simple, no details about evolutionary theory were rele- vant. The defense countered that, based on the wording of the Butler Act, Scopes could only be in violation if he taught the evolution of humans and denied the creation story in the Bi- ble. They asked whether the Bible was, in fact, incompatible with evolution. Indeed, which version or edition or translation counted as ‘‘the Bible’’ that Scopes could possibly be convicted of denying? Much of this jockeying was done with the jury excused, explicitly to set the stage for subsequent appeals. In the famous ‘‘monkey trial,’’ Dar- row eventually asked whether Bryan, as a Bible expert, would testify on some of these points. Bryan confidently agreed, so long as Darrow would then also testify. Judge Raulston con- Figure 5. Bryan testifies. Source: Image #2005-26202, Archive. CROTCHETS & QUIDDITIES The Scopes Trial 129 as a child. The arguments in the ad- And Darrow’s view? Bryan pointed Both sides were scoring points they missible-evidence part of the trial had out that in recently defending the mur- knew had little to do with the narrow shown uncertainties in evolutionary derer Richard Loeb in the famous Leo- question at issue in the trial. But if biology at the time, which many pold-Loeb trial, Darrow had said Bryan had been able to force Darrow viewed as a crisis for Darwinism. Loeb’s crime was ‘‘inherent in his orga- to defend not only the doubts among There was agreement that evolution nism’’ because he’d inherited a bad professionals about evolution, but also had occurred, but not about its con- seed passed through the ages from whether Hunter’s treatment of race nection to Darwin’s theory of natural some brute ancestor, a view Darrow and was the ‘‘evolution’’ that selection. Indeed, the issues were not claimed ‘‘not a biologist in the world’’ should be taught to high school stu- settled until some years after the trial, would disagree with. Darrow also dents, the squirming at the Scopes when the Modern Synthesis at least defended Loeb’s actions as done under trial might have been a bit more sym- united Mendelism and Darwinism the influence of the philosopher Frie- metrical. into a consistent evolutionary theory. drich Nietzsche’s Darwinian view that Bryan was a believer, to be sure, but Bryan characterized Darwinism as society should make accommodation he was not a totally thoughtless bibli- ‘‘merely an hypothesis’’ based on ‘‘mil- for the superior few, of which Loeb cal literalist, for which even funda- lions of guesses strung together.’’ Not thought he was one, at the harsh mentalists took him to task at the time. only had speciation never been expense of the pedestrian masses. He was a ‘‘day-age’’ creationist; he observed, but both sexual and natural Bryan bitterly attacked this ‘‘dogma allowed that in Genesis a ‘‘day’’ might selection had been widely abandoned of darkness and death,’’ which mean an age of unspecified length in by biologists as its mechanism. He asserted that we inherit fates fixed by earth history. He also acknowledged cited the leading geneticist William the laws of heredity, as ‘‘an insult to that the Bible could clearly be meta- Bateson’s doubts about the origin of reason [that] shocks the heart.’’1 Dar- phorical, as when it says that humans species, stating that ‘‘As to the nature winism justified rapacious selfishness, are the ‘‘salt of the earth.’’ In his pre- of this process of evolution, we have according to which the poor deserved pared but unread statement, Bryan many conjectures, but little positive their poverty. Bryan also opposed mil- even said that he’d not object to evolu- knowledge.’’1,5 What value, wrote itant imperialism, including the tion being taught, as long as it was not Bryan, is evolution if it can’t even human disaster of World War I (as extended to humans. His objections to explain the origin of species? Secretary of State, he had opposed the the teaching of evolution were societal Hunter described evolution as United States’ entry into the war). as well as biblical. He didn’t even think producing a steady trend toward in- Bryan also quoted Darwin’s statement the Butler Act should have a formal creasing complexity. His tree diagram that medical care preserves the weak penalty attached; moral conscience (Fig. 2) is hierarchical, showing sim- and harmfully interferes with Nature’s alone should guarantee adherence.2 pler species lower down than ‘‘higher way of improving the species. Bryan Moreover, Bryan spent a large amount types of life,’’ even though they exist wrote that only Christian love could of his energies defending ethics and today. This is in contrast to Darwin’s reform social ills, whereas the only equity for ordinary people. stress on divergence rather than hier- remedy for society that Darwinism left archy, in which all contemporary spe- was ‘‘scientific breeding,’’ or eugenics.1 cies are shown at the same level. Bryan When he had Bryan on the witness ‘‘THE ENEMIES OF lambasted Hunter’s figure for hiding stand, Darrow conveniently did not SCIENCE SEE THEIR CHANCE’’ humans within a tiny ‘‘mammal’’ circle mention Hunter’s eugenics. It would (Bateson, 19225) at the top of his tree of life (along with have undermined his case for the legit- the wolf, hyena, and the skunk, no imacy of evolution. Yet, only three The struggle continues to this day, less!), thus ignoring our dramatically months later, he used Hunter’s same of course. But I wonder if we can see unique nature. examples in blasting the falseness and signs that since Scopes the focus has Bryan, an ardent populist, noted abysmal lack of rigor in eugenics in a changed in a way that may even reflect that the courts had already established paper he must have been written an encouraging, if still incremental the legal right of schools not to teach quickly after the trial, with Hunter victory for science. Bryan defended things ‘‘inimical to the public welfare.’’ fresh in mind. He followed that up the what he accepted on faith as the ulti- Hunter’s book credited Darwin with next June, vigorously attacking the mate truth of the Bible, seeing it as the providing a theory that many viewed excesses of racial Darwinism,12,13 say- logical alternative to the unproven as underlying world progress.8 Bryan ing that since we have no knowledge of theory of evolution. In recent years, assailed the harshness of a doctrine what kind of human might be better fundamentalists have acknowledged that justified inequality as being the than what Nature has already evolved, the relevance of the rules of evidence true nature of things. Darwinism the Darwinian presumptuousness con- that, rather than blind faith, define sci- systematically destroyed students’ stituted a ‘‘eugenics cult.’’11 In effect, ence. They have at least been claiming faith, undermining the basis of social Darrow put Hunter’s evolution on to be doing ‘‘’’ them- morality and, by focusing on the past trial for reasons resembling Bryan’s, selves to prove Biblical truth or at least and future, diverted attention from but only after his campaign against the untruth of evolution. They have how people should live their lives fundamentalism in the trial was been doing this as scientists, circum- today. safely over. venting church-state separation in 130 Weiss CROTCHETS & QUIDDITIES the process, so that their view should Boy chairs in Dayton; Bryan College, a God to have started it all; to others evo- finally be included in the biology Christian school named after the fa- lution disproves religious claims. A curriculum. mous defender of the faith, is there, as few even allow the seeding of life on That claim was put to a recent test in is a museum in the courthouse where earth from outer space, reflected in the Pennsylvania and drew forth a model reenactments draw tourists every belief that there was life on Mars. decision on the point. Kitzmiller sued summer. The Butler Act remained on Since the 1930s, evolution has the Dover, Pennsylvania, Area School the books until challenged by a dis- been widely viewed as a genetic District, which had attempted to missed teacher in 1967. phenomenon. We routinely point include in its science The problem, then as now, is that in out, as Darwin did, that almost every curriculum. Presiding was Judge John a culture war, which is what this human trait varies at least somewhat E. Jones, a Christian, and even a Repub- largely is, the temptation may be to around the world, and that genes lican appointee. He wrote a thoughtful win and worry about the details later. play a role in that variation. Yet discussion of these issues that everyone There was much of this in Dayton. there are considerable differences of should read (www.pamd.uscourts.gov/ Bryan objected to what he felt Darwin- opinion about the relative impor- kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf). Despite ism allowed in terms of inequality, but tance of the various evolutionary his personal beliefs, he acted first and inequality of all sorts has been com- factors, in particular how stringent, foremost as a judge. His wonderfully patible with many Christians’ world pervasive, or specific natural selec- worded opinion correctly character- view. Darrow objected to eugenics, but tion is relative to chance, mutation, ized Intelligent Design as being not not at the trial, because he, too, gene duplication, and recombination. legitimately based on science, but wanted to win. There is persistent and often fervent instead yet another intrusive attempt But let’s look beyond the circus and disagreement, even among anthro- to force religion into the classroom. beyond the culture war, because things pologists, about the role of genes It is never time to relax our vigilance that were irrelevant to the case itself and evolution in such subjects as in defense of the facts of life. The effort are highly relevant to evolutionary behavior, whether races exist and, if to portray biblical fundamentalism as biology today. Even based on what they do, whether they have any bio- science continues and, strangely, may was known at the time, not all of us logical importance, or what those even be intensifying, as exemplified would have believed that students races evolved to be adapted ‘‘for.’’ by the Discovery Institute (www. should be given Hunter’s version. For Many of the issues have not changed discovery.org) and ‘‘Answers in Gene- example, Darwin had written of the much since Scopes’ time, including sis’’ (www.answersingenesis.org). vain nature of any effort to assign the relevance of Darwinism to social Fortunately, there are counter- humans to a few specific race catego- inequality or to the behavioral traits weights. The National Center for Sci- ries.15 Hunter’s views on race differen- that continue to attract interest. ence Education and its director, Euge- ces were certainly widespread, but If some of Hunter’s treatment was nie Scott, have been dedicated to keep- there had been vigorous debates about widely accepted in his time but would ing science in the science classroom. that among evolutionary biologists in be incorrect or even objectionable to This organization provides aids for the nineteenth century. Darwin’s and us today, what aspects of evolution as teaching evolution and responding to Wallace’s views were more subtle than we currently see it are sufficiently ir- fundamentalist assaults (see www. Hunter’s, though it must be admitted refutable that we would want them ncseweb.org and Scott’s book.4). One that both tended to give some superi- taught to our children? For example, can quibble with what they include or ority to Europeans. Elitist eugenics the intrusiveness shoe could easily be stress in their treatment of ‘‘evo- has been advocated in Western put on the other foot: a recent survey lution,’’ but they provide extensive thought at least since Plato’s Republic, of eminent evolutionary biologists material for a first line of defense but in many eyes had gained a scien- found that a small fraction accepted against the contemporary fundamen- tific rationale from evolutionary con- some form of theistic religion.16 How- talist challenge. cepts that traced back to Darwin’s fam- ever, more than 70% believed that reli- ily or even Darwin himself. Still, not gion is a sociobiologically adaptive everybody agreed, even at that time, illusion. It’s debatable whether this is SUMMING UP including both Bryan and Darrow. a matter of belief or factual science Scopes was found guilty in his show Evolution remains an elusive target. but, if it is the latter, it explicitly co- trial. Judge Raulston fined him $100, Each year I ask students to write opts religious truths in much the way but the fine was overturned on a tech- down, without consulting any sources, that literalists claim the Bible co-opts nicality and, after various appeals, the what ‘‘evolution’’ means to them. They biology. Should we quietly omit men- case was thrown out. Nothing came of give widely varying answers, and that’s tioning that, to avoid confrontation it directly. Unlike the myth that has also true among professionals. Some with religion, or is it the purpose of sci- grown around the trial, the news students stress a single earthly origin ence to confront the world as we see write-ups after the trial did not of life, others the origin of species it? Who decides? Just as important, describe it as a victory for science.8 from other species. Still others equate given the nature of American higher The reporters and cameramen went evolution with natural selection, some education, who are the teachers who home and Dayton, Tennessee, went invoking ruthless competition and will present it and how well are we pre- back to sleep. Today they build La-Z- ‘‘survival of the fittest.’’ Some allow a paring them for the job? CROTCHETS & QUIDDITIES The Scopes Trial 131

Our understanding of evolution is weiss_lab/index.shtml. I thank Abby 8 Larson EJ. 1997. Summer for the gods: the Scopes trial and America’s continuing debate dynamic, approximate, and always Bigham, Ellen Quillen, Ellen Weiss, over science and religion. New York: Basic Books. changing. Even in a culture war, we and especially John Fleagle and Anne 9 Davenport CB. 1911. Heredity in relation to should be on guard to keep it that way. Buchanan, for critically reading this eugenics. New York: Henry Holt. We should not allow ourselves to manuscript. 10 Weinberg A, Weinberg L. 1980. Clarence Dar- row: a sentimental rebel. New York: G.P. Put- respond in kind by being bullied into man’s. insisting on a too neatly packaged or REFERENCES 11 Joshi ST, editor. 2005. Closing arguments: simplistic, much less dogmatic view, Clarence Darrow on religion, law, and society. 1 even though expressing uncertainties Anonymous. 1925. The world’s most famous Athens: University Press. court trial: Tennessee evolution case. Cincinnati: 12 Darrow C. 1925. The Edwardses and the Juke- about our knowledge provides food National Book Company. ses. Am Mercury 6:147–157. 2 for our opponents. If our science is to Leinwand G. 2007. William Jennings Bryan: an 13 Darrow C. 1926. The eugenics cult. Am Mer- remain healthy, we should always be uncertain trumpet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Lit- cury 8:129–137. tlefield. 14 Scott EC. 2004. Evolution vs. : putting ourselves on trial. 3 Scopes JT, Presley J. 1967. Center of the storm: an introduction. Westport, CT: Greenwood memoirs of John T. Scopes. New York: Holt, Press. Rinehart, Winston. 15 Darwin C. 1871. The descent of man and 4 NOTES Hunter GW. 1914. A civic biology: presented in selection in relation to sex. : J. Mur- problems. New York: American Book Company. ray. Scans of Hunter’s pages that relate 5 Tompkins JR, editor. 1965. D-Days at Dayton: 16 Graffin G, Provine W. 2007. Evolution, reli- to evolution are available from me on reflections on the Scopes trial. Baton Rouge: Lou- gion and free will. Am Sci 95:294–297. request. I welcome comments on this isiana State University Press. 6 column: [email protected]. I have a Darrow C. 1932. The story of my life. New York: Scribner’s. feedback and supplemental material 7 Lawrence J, Lee RE. 1955. Inherit the wind. page at http://www.anthro.psu.edu/ New York: Random House. VC 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

MEETINGS OF INTEREST

September 3–7, 2007 October 28–31, 2007 March 25–29, 2008 2nd Congress of the European Federation for Geological Society of America Annual Meeting 68th Annual Meeting of the Society for Applied Primatology and Exposition Anthropology Prague, Czech Republic Denver, CO Memphis, TN For more information: http://www.unipv.it/ For more information: http:// For more information: http://www.sfaa.net/ webbio/efp/efp.htm www.geosociety.org/meetings/2007 sfaa2008.html March 26–30, 2008 September 14–16, 2007 November 28–December 2, 2007 73rd Annual Meeting of the Society for 9th Annual Conference of the British 106th American Association of Anthropologists American Archaeology Association for Biological Anthropology and Annual Meeting Vancouver, BC Osteoarcheology Washington, DC Reading, UK For more information: http://www.saa.org/ For more information: http://www.aaanet.org/ meetings/index.html For more information: http://www.babao.org.uk mtgs/mtgs.htm September 25, 2007 April 7–13, 2008 December 8–10, 2007 The 4th Stony Brook 77th Annual Meeting of the American Symposium: Diversity in Australopithecus Second International Society of Zoological Association of Physical Anthropologists Stony Brook, NY Sciences Symposium Columbus, OH Beijing, China For more information: http:// For more information: http://www.physanth.org/ www.stonybrook.edu/humanevolution For more information: http://www.globalzoology.org annmeet/ October 6, 2007 December 11–14, 2007 June 4–8, 2008 Evolutionary Anthropology at the Interface: A Gottinger Freilandtage: Primate Behavior and 20th Annual Meeting of the Human Behavior Celebration of Cliff Jolly’s Contributions to the Human Universals and Evolution Society Field Gottingen, Germany Kyoto, Japan New York, NY For more information: http://www.soziobio.uni- For more information: http://beep.c.u-tokyo.ac. For more information: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/ goettingen.de/welcome.html jp/~hbes2008/index.htm dept/anthro/programs/csho/JollyConference.html June 20–24, 2008 January 2–6, 2008 October 17–20, 2007 Annual Meeting of the Society Annual Meeting of the Society 67th Annual Meeting of the Society for the Study of Evolution, the American Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology of Vertebrate Paleontology of Naturalists, and the Society of Systematic San Antonio, TX Austin, TX Biologists For more information: http://www.sicb.org/ Minneapolis, MN For more information: http://www.vertpaleo.org/ meetings/2008/index/php3 future_meetings.htm For more information: http:// www.evolutionsociety.org/meetings.htm October 23–27, 2007 March 25–26, 2008 57th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Annual Meeting of the Paleoanthropology August 26–29, 2008 Human Genetics Society 20th International Congress of Zoology San Diego, Vancouver, BC Paris, France For more information: http://www.ashg.org/ For more information: http:// For more information: http:// genetics/ashg/2007/meeting/ www.paleoanthro.org/meeting.htm www.globalzoology.org/index-new/icz.htm