DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Station (UMBS)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Station (UMBS) Biological Station (UMBS) Biological Station (UMBS) College of Literature, Science, and the Arts Michigan Publishing Copyright © 2015 by the Regents of the University of Michigan The University of Michigan: An Encyclopedic Survey was first published beginning in 1942. For its 2017 Bicentennial, the University undertook the most significant updating of the Encyclopedia since the original, focusing on academic units. Entries from all versions are compiled in the Bicentennial digital and print-on-demand edition. This book was produced using Pressbooks.com, and PDF rendering was done by PrinceXML. Contents 1. Biological Station (UMBS) (1942) 1 George R. La Rue 2. Biological Station (UMBS) (1975) 15 3. Biological Station (UMBS) (2015) 19 David M. Gates [1] Biological Station (UMBS) (1942) George R. La Rue IN the spring of the year 1900 Professor Jacob E. Reighard of the Department of Zoology appeared before the Board of Regents to discuss the establishment of a biological station on the Great Lakes, to be under University control but maintained by the government. The Regents then asked President Angell to take the matter up with Senator James McMillan in the hope of obtaining favorable action by the government. Apparently the project came to naught. The idea was not entirely abandoned by the University, however, for in October, 1903, Professor John O. Reed included in his plan for the betterment of the Summer Session a suggestion that a biological station be established at some suitable place on the lakes of Michigan, “for the study of Botany and Zoölogy and for accommodation of persons desiring to do advanced work in those lines” (R.P., 1901-6, p. 270). But again no immediate action resulted. Authorization of the establishment of a biological station was finally secured and was recorded thus in the minutes of the Board of Regents for April 28, 1909: On motion of Regent Carey it was voted that a teaching or research 2 Biological Station (UMBS) station in Botany and Zoology at a total appropriation for equipment, salaries and other expense for 1909 not to exceed $2,000, should be established at the Bogardus Engineering Camp,1 provided at least twenty students should elect the course for the coming Summer Session. (R.P., 1906-10, p. 472.) During the summer of 1908 the University had acquired a tract of land of nearly fourteen hundred acres, on the south and east shores of Douglas Lake, Cheboygan County, partly by purchase and partly by gift from Charles and Hannah W. Bogardus, of Pellston (R.P., 1906-10, pp. 274-75, 348). According to Reighard, Colonel Bogardus and his wife had expressed the wish that scientific orkw be done on the site: With that remark, the biological station was conceived. Dean Cooley wanted still more land and thought that the founding of a biological station might lead Colonel and Mrs. Bogardus to offer it on the same favorable terms as before. He took the matter to the Board of Regents and, largely through the efforts of Regent Carey, they were persuaded to send a committee from Ann Arbor in the fall of 1908 to look over the proposed site. (Reighard, p. 5.) The personnel of that committee does not appear on the records of the Regents, nor is their report acknowledged or published. Reighard stated that he was not a member and that he did not know its membership, but that Frederick C. Newcombe of the Department of Botany represented the science of biology, and he believed that the secretary of the University and several Regents were members of the party. The committee recommended that the Regents found a biological station to be administered by the Summer Session. George P. Burns, of the Department of Botany, who may have been a member of the committee, strongly urged the establishment of a biological station. Although only fourteen of the required twenty students applied for admission, the Biological Station was permitted to go ahead under the directorship of Reighard and with Burns 1. This name later (Mar., 1916) was changed to Camp Davis. Biological Station (UMBS) (1942) 3 as the other member of the teaching staff and Miss Frances J. Dunbar as general assistant. For buildings the Station had one of the two small, old log buildings which had been hastily built about 1904 for use as a railroad grading camp. The surveying camp was located a third of a mile farther west on South Fishtail Bay of Douglas Lake. About six miles to the west and a little south was the village of Pellston, eight miles southeast was Topinabee, and thirteen miles northeast was Cheboygan. A plague of black flies delayed the opening of the session for a week, and this delay gave much-needed time for erecting the tents for living quarters and for installing shelves and windows in the log laboratory and a platform and a hand pump for the aquarium. Photographs taken at the time record these preparations and the barren appearance of the landscape, which had been repeatedly burned over. Gaunt black stubs twenty to fifty feet high were prominent features of the landscape, and huge pine stumps showed that a magnificent pine forest had been removed some thirty years earlier (1876 and 1877). The women students lived in tents pitched near the engineers’ dining tent on the hill behind the surveying camp. The men’s tents were pitched along the shore west of the log laboratory. The log laboratory had shelves for equipment, books, supplies, and specimens, also tables for classes, research, and officeork. w Those few tents, some of them borrowed, and the old log building used as a laboratory, with a small shed attached at the rear, a platform, a water tank, and a hand pump for the aquarium, constituted the physical plant. The fleet consisted of three rowboats. There were no automobiles nor trucks for transportation overland. Students and staff boarded at the dining tent operated by the Bogardus Engineering Camp. Since the Biological Station was still considered an experiment, at the close of the session the students were asked to report on the value of their work and their experiences during the summer. Without exception, these reports (in the Biological Station files) were enthusiastic in their praise of the character and quality of the instruction, of the type of courses offered, and of the value of the work accomplished in preparation for teaching and research. All placed high value 4 Biological Station (UMBS) on their experiences. Most of the students preferred living in tents to living in dormitories. Their suggestions in these letters had considerable weight with Director Reighard and with the administration in evaluating the Station as an experiment in biological education. Although the Station was considered to have been successful, there remained much uncertainty regarding its permanence and, particularly, its location. From 1913 to 1916 inclusive the very existence of the Station was endangered; it lacked the strong support of the Departments of Botany and Zoology. A majority of its staff and students came from other institutions. The comprehensive and vigorous report of Director Otto C. Glaser at the close of the session of 1916 brought it the needed support of the departments and strengthened the determination of the Summer Session authorities to continue its existence. Since that time the Station has been looked upon as an established part of the Summer Session and well past the experimental stage. The Station had been situated on Douglas Lake because the University owned the land and on that particular site because of its proximity to the Bogardus Engineering Camp and the availability of the log buildings. There had been no survey of the state to determine the best area for a biological field station, nor had the Bogardus tract been carefully surveyed for the best site. As early as 1911 parties from the Station had examined Burt Lake and had reported on its nonsuitability as a location. Adverse reports were made following examinations of Pine Lake in Charlevoix County in 1917 by members of the staff and of a tract south of Williamsburg in 1927 by members of the staff and Regents Beal and Hubbard. In later years much of the shore line of Douglas Lake was carefully examined, and reports were made on part of Section 29, Munro Township, lying at the northwest corner of the tract. Again and again the directors and their staffs examined Grapevine Point, about three-fourths of a mile north of the Engineering Camp, and brought that site to the attention of the Board of Regents. Plans were prepared for the development of a physical plant on that site, and repeated requests for funds for that purpose were presented to the Board. Biological Station (UMBS) (1942) 5 In turn, the Board, no less than twice, requested funds from the legislature for the development on Grapevine Point. Meanwhile, after the World War, the growth in the enrollment at the Biological Station had been rapid and continuous. Many small buildings had been erected on the narrowly limited original site, bounded on the front by the lake and on the side and back by the engineers’ base line and an old dry beach pool. Roads and streets had not been built and could not be cheaply constructed on the soft beach sand. A water supply under pressure, sanitary toilets, and other conveniences had not been provided. The old site was recognized as intolerable, and the need for expansion became greater year by year. In the fall of 1927 a party consisting of President Little, Secretary Smith, Regent Beal, Deans Huber, Kraus, and Dana, Professors Bartlett and Ruthven, and Directors La Rue and Johnston inspected the two camps on the Bogardus Tract and examined Grapevine Point as a site for the Biological Station.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • History of Genetics Book Collection Catalogue
    History of Genetics Book Collection Catalogue Below is a list of the History of Genetics Book Collection held at the John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK. For all enquires please contact Mike Ambrose [email protected] +44(0)1603 450630 Collection List Symposium der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Hygiene und Mikrobiologie Stuttgart Gustav Fischer 1978 A69516944 BOOK-HG HG œ.00 15/10/1996 5th international congress on tropical agriculture 28-31 July 1930 Brussels Imprimerie Industrielle et Finangiere 1930 A6645004483 œ.00 30/3/1994 7th International Chromosome Conference Oxford Oxford 1980 A32887511 BOOK-HG HG œ.00 20/2/1991 7th International Chromosome Conference Oxford Oxford 1980 A44688257 BOOK-HG HG œ.00 26/6/1992 17th international agricultural congress 1937 1937 A6646004482 œ.00 30/3/1994 19th century science a selection of original texts 155111165910402 œ14.95 13/2/2001 150 years of the State Nikitsky Botanical Garden bollection of scientific papers. vol.37 Moscow "Kolos" 1964 A41781244 BOOK-HG HG œ.00 15/10/1996 Haldane John Burdon Sanderson 1892-1964 A banned broadcast and other essays London Chatto and Windus 1946 A10697655 BOOK-HG HG œ.00 15/10/1996 Matsuura Hajime A bibliographical monograph on plant genetics (genic analysis) 1900-1929 Sapporo Hokkaido Imperial University 1933 A47059786 BOOK-HG HG œ.00 15/10/1996 Hoppe Alfred John A bibliography of the writings of Samuel Butler (author of "erewhon") and of writings about him with some letters from Samuel Butler to the Rev. F. G. Fleay, now first published London The Bookman's Journal
    [Show full text]
  • Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies
    culturing life culturing life How Cells Became Technologies hannah landecker Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England 2007 Copyright © 2007 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Landecker, Hannah. Culturing life : how cells became technologies / Hannah Landecker. p. cm. Includes bibliographical refrences (p. ). ISBN-13: 978-0-674-02328-4 (alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-674-02328-5 (alk. paper) 1. Cell culture. 2. Tissue culture. 3. Biotechnology. I. Title. QH585.2.L36 2006 571.6Ј38—dc22 2006049019 To my parents, Elizabeth A. Landecker and Thomas L. Landecker contents Acknowledgments viii Introduction: Technologies of Living Substance 1 1 Autonomy 28 2 Immortality 68 3 Mass Reproduction 107 4 HeLa 140 5 Hybridity 180 Epilogue: Cells Then and Now 219 Notes 239 Index 272 acknowledgments It is with great pleasure that I set out to recognize those who have aided, encouraged, shaped, and financed work on this book. Joseph Dumit, Michael M. J. Fischer, Evelynn Hammonds, and Evelyn Fox Keller read and engaged the first version of this work, and to them I extend my warmest thanks. Michael Fischer has been an extraor- dinary mentor and friend. I would like to thank Leo Marx for years of discussions on literature and writing and many walks across the Longfellow Bridge. Hugh W. Brock taught me to love biology— both the living things and the science—and his teaching has stayed with me well beyond my year in his laboratory. I had the good fortune to be part of rich intellectual communi- ties in Boston and Berlin, at MIT and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.
    [Show full text]
  • The Search for Molecular Mechanisms of Protoplasmic Streaming
    Dartmouth College Dartmouth Digital Commons Dartmouth Scholarship Faculty Work 1-1-2015 Explaining the "Pulse of Protoplasm": the search for molecular mechanisms of protoplasmic streaming Michael Dietrich Dartmouth College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/facoa Part of the Biology Commons Dartmouth Digital Commons Citation Dietrich, Michael, "Explaining the "Pulse of Protoplasm": the search for molecular mechanisms of protoplasmic streaming" (2015). Dartmouth Scholarship. 4. https://digitalcommons.dartmouth.edu/facoa/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Work at Dartmouth Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dartmouth Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Dartmouth Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Journal of Integrative JIPB Plant Biology Explaining the “Pulse of Protoplasm”: The search for molecular mechanisms of protoplasmic streaming Michael R. Dietrich* Department of Biological Sciences, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 03755, USA. History nisms proposed for protoplasmic streaming during the twentieth century. The revival of contraction is a result of a broader transition from1 colloidal chemistry to a macro- molecular approach to the chemistry of proteins, the recognition of the phenomena of shuttle streaming and the pulse of protoplasm, and the influential analogy between Michael R. Dietrich protoplasmic streaming and muscle contraction. *Correspondence: michael. [email protected] Keywords: Actin; cytoplasmic streaming; history of cell biology; protoplasm Citation: Dietrich MR (2015) Explaining the “Pulse of Protoplasm”: The Abstract Explanations for protoplasmic streaming began search for molecular mechanisms of protoplasmic streaming. J Integr with appeals to contraction in the eighteenth century and Plant Biol 57: 14–22 doi: 10.1111/jipb.12317 ended with appeals to contraction in the twentieth.
    [Show full text]
  • Assembling Life
    ASSEMBLING LIFE. Models, the cell, and the reformations of biological science, 1920-1960 Max Stadler Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine Imperial College, London University of London PhD dissertation 1 I certify that all the intellectual contents of this thesis are of my own, unless otherwise stated. London, October 2009 Max Stadler 2 Acknowledgments My thanks to: my friends and family; esp. my mother and Julia who didn't mind their son and brother becoming a not-so-useful member of society, helped me survive in the real world, and cheered me up when things ; my supervisor, Andrew Mendelsohn, for many hours of helping me sort out my thoughts and infinite levels of enthusiasm (and Germanisms-tolerance); my second supervisor, David Edgerton, for being the intellectual influence (I thought) he was; David Munns, despite his bad musical taste and humour, as a brother-in-arms against disciplines; Alex Oikonomou, for being a committed smoker; special thanks (I 'surmise') to Hermione Giffard, for making my out-of-the-suitcase life much easier, for opening my eyes in matters of Frank Whittle and machine tools, and for bothering to proof-read parts of this thesis; and thanks to all the rest of CHoSTM; thanks also, for taking time to read and respond to over-length drafts and chapters: Cornelius Borck; Stephen Casper; Michael Hagner; Rhodrie Hayward; Henning Schmidgen; Fabio de Sio; Sktili Sigurdsson; Pedro Ruiz Castell; Andrew Warwick; Abigail Woods; to Anne Harrington for having me at the History of Science Department, Harvard, and to Hans- Joerg Rheinberger for having me at the Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science in Berlin; thanks, finally, to all those who in some way or another encouraged, accompanied and/or enabled the creation and completion of this thing, especially: whoever invented the internet; Hanna Rose Shell; and the Hans Rausing Fund.
    [Show full text]