Charles Manning Child
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Charles Manning Child (1869-1954) [1]
Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Charles Manning Child (1869-1954) [1] By: Sunderland, Mary E. Keywords: Biography [2] Gradients [3] Born in Ypsilanti, Michigan, on 2 February 1869, Charles Manning Child [4] was the only surviving child of Mary Elizabeth and Charles Chauncey Child, a prosperous, old New England family. Growing up in Higganum, Connecticut, Child was interested in biology from an early age. He made extensive collections of plants and minerals on his family farm and went on to study biology at Wesleyan University [5], commuting from his family home. Child received his PhB in 1890 and MS in biology in 1892, and then went on to study in Leipzig [6] after his parents’ death. He worked for a short time in the psychology laboratory of Wilhelm Wundt [7], and then pursued studies in zoology under the supervision of Rudolf Leuckhart. His doctoral dissertation investigated morphological aspects of insect sense organs. Leuckhart emphasized the functional purpose of morphological structures and led many of his students to develop and defend the notion of teleology, including Child, who completed his PhD in 1894. The preformation [8]-epigenesis [9] controversy further fueled Child’s interest in early development and form. His career was devoted to finding the mechanisms that govern development and his working hypothesis posited a role for physiological factors. These factors were thought to play a key role in communication between protoplasmic units and were responsible for many processes in an organism’s life cycle. By the late 1890s, Child identified simple organisms as the best way to investigate these factors and life processes. -
Charles Manning Child
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES C HARLES MANNING C HILD 1869—1954 A Biographical Memoir by L Ibb I E H. HYMAN Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 1957 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES WASHINGTON D.C. CHARLES MANNING CHILD 1869-1954 BY LIBBIE H. HYMAN •HARE MANNING CHILD was descended on both sides from sound \^J New England stock. His mother, Mary Elizabeth Manning, belonged to the famous Manning family of New England founded by William Manning, who about 1634 migrated from England to Massachusetts, eventually settling at Cambridge where he left a large number of descendants. Mary Elizabeth's father, William Manning, an eighth-generation descendant of the original William, was a physician of a roving tendency, who practiced during the later years of his life in various towns in Michigan. Mary Elizabeth seems to have had some leaning toward biology, for she attended Mrs. Louis Agassiz's school and Louis Agassiz himself selected a little microscope for her. The Mannings had a manor house in Cambridge, and one of Child's earliest recollections is of being lost in the garden of his great-grandmother's house in Cambridge. The house is part of the Harvard campus now and Coolidge dormitory is built around three sides of it; it was Burgoyne's head- quarters during the Revolutionary War. Mary Elizabeth married Charles Chauncey Child of Higganum, Connecticut, where the Child family had lived for several genera- tions. The family was founded there by James Child, who in 1762 came from Rhode Island and established a shipbuilding business at Higganum. -
American Museum of Natural History
^Auseumo/^A, <^' \ 1869 THE LIBRARY » THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY ;Vol. XXV January I968 FROM THE DIRECTOR'S DESK January is traditionally a time of review and forecast, a time of taking inventory, evaluating the state of an individual, an organization, a nation, the world - and in these days, even the worlds beyond. The timing of such stocktaking is artificial, related solely to a date on a calendar, but it has become a custom and one that has some merit. In a busy complex such as the Museum, there is scarcely even enough time for thoughtful contemplation of the past, or for planning of the future - and yet, both are necessary for progress. What are our most important assets? What has made the Museum great, what makes it more and more significant to science and education - to Society? We have in our collections some 15 million specimens and artifacts, including many that are rare and irreplaceable. In our exhibits we have some of the v;orld's most spec- itacular natural history displays, and many more are under design for the near future. We have one of the great natural history libraries of the world. Surely these all make the Museum unique and obviously without the collections and the exhibits there would be no museum. But, it should be emphasized that the most important resources of the Museum have always been the people who have contributed their scholarship, their imagination and creativity, their energies, their service of adventure, their time, their financial support and enthusiastic interest to the enterprise that is the Museum. -
104 Loeb and Northrop’S Experimental Manipulation of Longevity Was Deeply Related to the Discourse on Immortality at That Time
Refiguring Old Age: Shaping Scientific Research on Senescence, 1900-1960 A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Hyung Wook Park Program in History of Science, Technology, and Medicine University of Minnesota IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Sally Gregory Kohlstedt and John M. Eyler July, 2009 © Hyung Wook Park, 2009 Acknowledgements In completing this project, I am indebted to many people. First of all, I am deeply grateful for my advisors, Professors Sally Gregory Kohlstedt and John M. Eyler. Their significance in my academic growth cannot be overstated. They have been great teachers and thoughtful mentors who showed me what is to become a historian of science and medicine. I also appreciate my dissertation committee chair and members, Professors Mark Borrello, Susan Jones, and Jennifer Gunn. Besides reading and commenting on my long dissertation, they have always been helpful whenever I sought their advice concerning my publications and presentations. I thank other scholars in our program, especially Professors Alan Shapiro, Robert Seidel, and Thomas Misa. Their classes, which I attended as a student or a teaching assistant, stimulated the growth of my scholarship. In addition, I should not omit my gratitude toward my fellow graduate student colleagues, including Sara Cammersi, Amy Fisher, Suzanne Fischer, Gina Rumore, Barbara Reiterer, Adrian Fischer, Nathan Crowe, Maggy Hofius, Don Opitz, and Nick Martin. They have been my encouraging and sincere friends. There are people outside of the University of Minnesota to whom I should express my thanks. I appreciate the archivists and librarians whom I met during my research travels from 2005 to 2007, including Willam Wallach at the University of Michigan, Clare Porter at the Nuffield Foundation, Nicholas Scheetz at Georgetown University, David Corson at Cornell University, Paul Anderson and Martha Riley at Washington University, and others whose name I do not remember. -
When Psychologists Were Naturalists: Questionnaires and Collecting Practices in Early American Psychology, 1880-1932
WHEN PSYCHOLOGISTS WERE NATURALISTS: QUESTIONNAIRES AND COLLECTING PRACTICES IN EARLY AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGY, 1880-1932 JACY L. YOUNG A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PSYCHOLOGY YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO December 2014 ©Jacy L. Young, 2014 ii Abstract This dissertation reshapes our understanding of the earliest years of American psychology by documenting the discipline’s methodological plurality from its very inception. In tracing the use of questionnaires over the first half century of the discipline’s existence as a science, I argue that a natural historical orientation, wherein collection, analysis, and categorization are central to the scientific enterprise, has been a persistent facet of the field. Manifested in a recurrent interest in collecting information on mental life, this natural historical perspective facilitated a moral economy of data, wherein the discipline’s affect-laden norms and values sanctified the objects and practices of mass data collection. This in turn lent itself to the adoption of statistical analyses as a central component of psychological science. Although, at first glance, falling outside of the bounds of the mechanically objective practices that characterized the new psychology’s laboratory endeavours, with their use of standardized instrumentation, projects with this orientation adhered to this form of objectivity in their own way. Seeking precise accounts of mental life, including information on its physical correlates, these enterprises engaged the public in collection practices in the field. Taking up subjects with widespread interest outside of purely scientific spheres – including child study, psychical matters, and dreaming – questionnaire projects had broad appeal.