ENG409C.1001--Genetics, Ethics, Natural Selection and Extinction -- U OF NEVADA, FALL 2020

ENG409C.1001
James L’Angelle
University of Nevada, Reno
Dr. C. Chaput
04 October 2020

 
Genetics, Ethics, Natural Selection and Extinction

 
     The genre of modern day dinosaurs in film is nothing new. What was new in the Michael Crichton novel, “The Lost World,” adapted for the big screen by Steven Spielberg and produced as “Jurassic Park,” (1993) was the concept of genetic engineering to recreate the extinct creatures from millennia past. The billionaire John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) invites three scientists to his island showcase for a safety check where the newly hatched and fully grown dinosaurs serve to function as a theme park. The outcome is anything but a success and it is prefaced in a particular scene of the film where the scientists debate with Hammond on the ethics and dangers of the enterprise. The scene has come to be known as “The Lunch Debate.” 

      In that scene, the first to criticize Hammond is Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), a rather cynical mathematician who raises the specter of ethics in a forensic attack on the role of the scientists involved in developing the dinosaurs. Critical of genetic engineering, but also the part played by nature in condemning dinosaurs to extinction, Malcolm unravels Hammond’s plans to promote his island sanctuary as a tourist mecca in a scathing frontal assault; “Don't you see the danger, John, inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force ever seen on this planet. But you wield it like a kid who's found his dad's gun.”
     Hammond makes an attempt to defend himself by comparing what he is doing to, in effect, saving some endangered species from extinction, like the condors. Malcolm again takes the offense;
     “Hold on - - this is no species that was obliterated by deforestation or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot. Nature selected them for extinction.”
     Combining factual evidence with history, Malcolm has made a substantial forensic statement using the past, natural selection and recent events, deforestation and land reclamation, to prove his argument. Hammond turns to Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) hoping to defend his position. Sattler is a paleobotanist and bases her analysis on epideixis;
     “The question is - - how much can you know about an extinct ecosystem, and therefore, how could you assume you can control it? You have plants right here in this building, for example, that are poisonous. You picked them because they look pretty, but these are aggressive living things that have no idea what century they're living in…”
     Once again, the role of rhetoric takes center stage in the lunch debate but this time in the present, what is known as the “here and now.” Without referring to the dinosaurs, Sattler illustrates yet another erroneous assumption made by Hammond and his genetic engineers, which characterized in Malcolm’s words, “your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.” Bewildered by the barrage of reason, Hammond finally turns to the de facto leader of the safety commission, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), the paleontologist. Having exhausted two out of three rhetorical roles, Grant takes the deliberative approach;
     “Dinosaurs and man - - two species separated by 65 million years of evolution - - have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we have the faintest idea of what to expect?”
The past, present and future arguments from the scientists anticipate the failure of Hammond’s dream as the dinosaurs eventually run wild all over the island, feasting on whichever human was made available.
Certainly a more formal method might have been used to analyze the scene but the three Aristotelian components of forensic, epideictic and deliberative proved the best match. Each scientist used a different technique to challenge Hammond’s assertion, his defense of unethical methods for the sake of financial gain. Malcolm, Sattler and Grant exhibited, as well, ethos, pathos and logos in their challenges. Malcolm saw an ethical question, Sattler appealed to Hammond’s pathos and Grant’s citing evolution made a convincing logical extrapolation into what was on the horizon. Are their arguments convincing?
From the standpoint of their rhetoric, genetic engineering is dangerous, whether used for purely esoteric purposes or incorporated into a living, breathing theme park environment. If the view can hold that it is dangerous for the latter, it may well pose a threat for the former. Using modern Frankenstein techniques to bring back to life what nature has condemned to extinction has moral and evolutionary challenges that need to be addressed before the fact, not after. The lunch debate addressed those concerns in no uncertain terms that could be firmly established through rhetorical discourse.

Cited
Jurassic Park, (1970) “The Lunch Debate,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldD_4Puw6RM
Garver, Eugene. “Aristotle on the Kinds of Rhetoric.” Rhetorica: A Journal of the History of Rhetoric, vol. 27, no. 1, 2009, pp. 1–18. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/rh.2009.27.1.1. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.
WRÓBEL, SZYMON. “‘Logos, Ethos, Pathos’. Classical Rhetoric Revisited.” Polish Sociological Review, no. 191, 2015, pp. 401–421., www.jstor.org/stable/44113896. Accessed 4 Oct. 2020.

ANTHROPOGENUS --Definition by Artificial Intelligence--GOOGLE BARD EXPERIMENT

---

..

---

...

DRAFT 001:

The term "anthropogenus" is a neologism coined by Uli Westphal to describe the way in which elephants were depicted in European art and literature from the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of the Renaissance. During this period, there were very few elephants in Western Europe, so artists and writers had to rely on oral and written descriptions to reconstruct the animal's appearance. This led to a wide variety of depictions, many of which were highly fantastical.

Westphal's project, "Elephas Anthropogenus," collects and analyzes over 170 of these illustrations. He shows how the image of the elephant evolved over time, as artists incorporated new elements from their own cultures and imaginations. The result is a fascinating glimpse into the way in which our understanding of nature is shaped by our own cultural biases.

The term "anthropogenus" literally means "man-made." In the context of Westphal's project, it refers to the way in which the image of the elephant was "reinvented" by artists and writers who had no real knowledge of the animal. This process of reinventing nature is something that we still do today, as we continue to interpret the natural world through our own cultural lenses.

Here are some examples of how elephants were depicted in European art and literature during the Middle Ages:

• Elephants with wings. This was a common depiction of elephants in medieval art, and it is thought to have originated from the Physiologus, a collection of animal fables that was popular in the Middle Ages. The Physiologus describes the elephant as a "king of beasts" that is able to fly.
• Elephants with trunks that reach up to the sky. This depiction of elephants is also found in the Physiologus. It is thought to symbolize the elephant's ability to reach up to heaven.
• Elephants with castles on their backs. This depiction of elephants is found in the writings of Marco Polo, who claimed to have seen elephants with castles on their backs in India.

These are just a few examples of the many ways in which elephants were depicted in European art and literature during the Middle Ages. These depictions reveal a great deal about the way in which people in this period understood the natural world. They also show how our own cultural biases can shape the way we see nature.

DRAFT 002:

The term "anthropogenus" is a neologism coined by Uli Westphal to describe the way in which elephants were depicted in European art from the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of the Renaissance. During this period, there were very few elephants in Western Europe, so illustrators had to rely on oral and written descriptions to reconstruct the animal's appearance. This led to a wide variety of different depictions, some of which were quite fanciful.

Westphal's project "Elephas Anthropogenus" collects and analyzes these illustrations, showing how they reflect the changing cultural and religious attitudes towards elephants. He argues that these images are not simply inaccurate representations of the animal, but rather they are "reinventions" that reflect the human imagination.

The term "anthropogenus" is derived from the Greek words "anthropos" (meaning "man") and "genos" (meaning "kind"). It literally means "man-made kind." In the context of Westphal's project, it refers to the way in which elephants were depicted in European art as a product of human imagination, rather than as a realistic representation of the animal.

The term "anthropogenus" has been used by other scholars to describe the way in which other animals have been depicted in art and literature. For example, the scholar David Freedberg has used the term to describe the way in which lions were depicted in medieval art as symbols of Christ's victory over death.

The term "anthropogenus" can also be used in a more general sense to refer to the way in which we perceive and represent the natural world. Our understanding of nature is always mediated by our own cultural and historical biases. As a result, the way we depict nature is always a "human-made" product.

DRAFT 003:

The term anthropogenus is a neologism coined by the German artist and designer Uli Westphal to describe the way in which elephants were depicted in European art and literature from the fall of the Roman Empire to the end of the Renaissance. During this period, elephants were virtually unknown in Western Europe, and so artists had to rely on oral and written descriptions to reconstruct their appearance. This led to a wide variety of depictions, many of which were highly fanciful and inaccurate.

The term anthropogenus literally means "man-made" or "made by humans." In the context of elephants, it refers to the way in which human imagination and cultural bias influenced the way these animals were depicted. For example, many medieval artists depicted elephants with human-like features, such as faces, arms, and legs. This was likely due to the fact that elephants were seen as symbols of wisdom and power, and so artists wanted to emphasize their similarities to humans.

Westphal's project Elephas Anthropogenus collects and analyzes a wide variety of these elephant illustrations. By doing so, he demonstrates how our perception of nature is shaped by our own cultural and historical context.

Here are some of the most common features of anthropogenous elephants:

• Human-like features: Many anthropogenous elephants have faces, arms, and legs that resemble those of humans. This is likely due to the fact that elephants were seen as symbols of wisdom and power, and so artists wanted to emphasize their similarities to humans.
• Wings: Some anthropogenous elephants have wings. This is likely due to the fact that elephants were seen as creatures of the earth, and so artists wanted to give them the ability to fly.
• Armor: Some anthropogenous elephants have armor. This is likely due to the fact that elephants were seen as fierce and powerful creatures, and so artists wanted to make them appear even more formidable.
• Ethnic features: Some anthropogenous elephants have ethnic features, such as African features or Middle Eastern features. This is likely due to the fact that elephants were seen as exotic creatures, and so artists wanted to give them the appearance of being from different parts of the world.

The term anthropogenus is a reminder that our perception of nature is not always objective. The way we see animals is influenced by our own cultural and historical context, and this can lead to some very fanciful and inaccurate depictions.

(Image: Elephas anthropogenus - ScienceDirect)

Notes: Bard doesn't give data on "physiologus: "I'm designed solely to process and generate text, so I'm unable to assist you with that."

---

..

---

PHYLOGENESIS-- The Evolution of Plant Life-- W. CARRUTHERS, BOTANICAL DEPT., BRITISH MUSEUM 1876

---

The London Morning Post, 06 November 1876, Page 2.

---

THE EVOLUTION OF PLANT LIFE

     On Friday evening, Mr. W. Carruthers, F.R.S. (the keeper of the Botanical Department of the British Museum) gave a presidential address before the Geologists' Association, his subject being a comparison of the history of plant life preserved in the rocks so far as we know it, with the theory of the evolution of plant life as put forward by Haeckel. The origin of the existing organic forms has always been a question of interest. Until a comparatively recent period little diversity of opinion prevailed in regard to this matter amongst students of science in Europe. The position stated by Moses in the opening sentences of the Old Testament, in which all matter, organic and inorganic alike, is traced to the operation of an external and supernatural Creator, was universally adopted, though it was often misunderstood and misinterpreted by its expounders.  

In the beginning of this century Lamarck proposed his evolution theory, according to which all organisms are derived from some few simple original forms, which had come into existence by spontaneous generation out of inorganic nature. Although Lamarck's theory found few supporters it was comparatively neglected by men of science until Darwin, in 1859, published his "Origin of Species; by Means of Natural Selection," which, at least in this country, has wrought an almost complete change in opinion of our present life forms. His theory of development as applied to the vegetable kingdom may be thus briefly stated: - The characters of plants are transmitted to their descendents. New characters besides those inherited may arise in some of the descendents of a plant which were not possessed by the parent. When these new characters are transmitted to descendents, and are permanent, the plants possessing then become a variety.

Some plants have a special tendency toward variation; others are remarkably constant in their characters. No explanation has been given of the reason for these differences in the nature of plants or of the cause of the appearance of new characters. The differences are at first small. Their continuance depends on external causes. In course of time new characters appear, or the old become intensified, and in the struggle for existence the varieties only which possess the characters best fitted to resist the prejudicial influences that surround them are able to maintain their ground. The less fortunate varieties perish, and in this way of connecting links between the common descendents of the original stock are destroyed. These descendents becoming more pronounced in their characters are recognised as species. The only difference between a variety and a species is the amount of divergence and the constancy of the characters. 

Further, this in a greater degree is the only difference between a species and a genus. It is then concluded that all the forms now observed in the vegetable kingdom are due to the continual accumulations of differences in the genetic evolution of the existing plants from the one or the few original forms. It is held that the natural system of plants is the external expression of this phylogenesis, or genetic relationship, that the development of a plant from the embryonal cell to the perfect individual is a short and quick repetition of the genetic development of the tribe to which it belongs, and that the rocks of the earth reveal, so far as the record of life is preserved, the various steps by which the phylogenesis actually was accomplished. The lecturer asked attention to this last aspect of the subject, which specifically affects geologists. It deserves careful investigation, for if the theory of evolution be true, then the fossils which have come to our knowledge represent the extinct progenitors of existing plants, and on this account possess a higher interest to us than their comparative anatomy or systematic position can give them.

Reference was made to the imperfection of the geological record, but it was urged it was right to compare our knowledge of it as far as it goes with the theory. Where, then, is the phylogeny of the vegetable kingdom? The most rudimentary plants are either fungi or algae. The elementary fungal forms are believed by some to be the original stock of the vegetable kingdom, while others hold the primitive forms were algae. Carruthers argues against fungi being the earliest, on the grounds that they need organised food to grow on, and admits the probability that algae were the earliest. What is the testimony of the rocks as to the plants existing during the long early periods of the history? Mr. Carruthers showed that the vegetable markings preserved in the earliest rocks, are, though indistinct, referred to 16 species of algae.

But the nature of the plants which could flourish in the conditions under which these deep sea deposits were found, and the changes that have taken place in the primal strata since their deposition, prevent us expecting any extensive representation of these early floras. So far as the plant remains go they meet the requirements of the evolutionist who looks upon the algae as the primeval plants. In the phylogenesis of the vegetable kingdom we next come to the evolution of the fungi, lichens, mosses, and hepaticae, all of which are cellular plants. They came into existence, it is supposed, with the Devonian period-the beginning of the newer paleozoic series. As, however, no trace of any of these groups, except the mycelium of one or two species of fungi, has been detected in any of the paleozoic rocks they supply no evidence for or against the hypothetical account of their evolution.

But the later paleozoic rocks abound in plant remains. The first evidence of land plants on the globe are met with, as far as our knowledge at present goes, in the Devonian rocks. Here the three principal groups of vascular cryptograms appear together in highly differentiated forms. All of them - ferns, equisetaceae, and lycopodiaceae - possessed the same essential structure as their living representatives, and in all the subordinate points in which they differ it is in the possession of characters indicative of higher organisation, whether in the vegetative or reproductive organs, they are found in existing forms. The three orders appear together in the later paleozoic rocks, and that not in simpler or more generalised types, but with more varied and more complex structures than are found in the living representations. Thus, among ferns there is lost a remarkable group with a fundamental different stem structure, which was contemporaneous in the paleozoic ages with the type of ferns that have been represented all through the epochs,and are now abundant on the globe.

The equisetaceae were represented by a larger number of generic groups. Their stems were arborescent, the leaves large, and their first cones protected by special scales, but the spores being similar in size and form to those in the humbler living species, and being furnished with the bygrometric (hygrometric) elaters. The lycopodiaceae were also huge trees, and represented by several generic groups. The stem structure, which fundamentally agreeing, like those of the arborescent equisetaceae, with the living structure of the stems of their living representatives was more complex, being suited to their arborescent habits. But the flora of these later paleozoic rocks include higher elements than vascular cryptograms, for in the Devonian series we have coniferous plants, increasing greatly in number and variety in the carboniferous period; and in the calciferous sandstone at the very base of the carboniferous measures, there have been found an undoubted agiospermous plant.  

The step from the spore-producing cryptogram to the seed-bearing phanerogam is a very great one. No doubt there is a general external resemblance between a lycopod and a conifer, and many points of analogy between the development of the seed and the various stages through which lycopod passes from the germination of the spore to the growth of the fertilised archegonium. But like is here, as it is often elsewhere, an ill mark, for the resemblance is purely superficial. The minute tissues of the conifer, as well as the method in which they are arranged, differ entirely from anything either in the existing or extinct lycopods, which the production of a seed, even though it be without a protecting ovary or fruit, at once distinguishes the gymnosperm from the spore bearing cryptogram.

According to Haeckel the gymnosperm sprang out of the lycopodiaceae during the carboniferous, or possibly in the Devonin period. But undoubted coniferous wood was discovered by Hugh Miller in the lower Devonian rocks of Cromarty, and several anomalous woods have been described by Unger from the Thuringian rocks of the Devonian age which are referred by him to coniferae without any positive evidence except the absence from them of ductiferous tissue. Had these woods been of earlier age than Miller's Cromarty wood they might have been looked upon as one of those steps leading up to true coniferous structure, but they occur in beds of Upper Devonian age. The calciferous sandstones at the base of the carboniferous period contain numerous and fine specimens of coniferous wood. Some trees at this time had attained to an immense size. The first appearance of the gymnosperms is not in the form of a generalised type, but both the wood and the fruits present a remarkable variety of genera and species as highly differentiated as the existing forms.

In connection with this remarkable development of taxinere in the paleozoic rocks, it deserves to be noticed that this section of the coniferae are all dioecious, while in other groups the flowers are generally monoecious. The historyof monocotyledonous plants, as far as it is preserved in the rocks of the earth, is very curious. We have to take it up here, for the first true monocotylewdon is the stem and spike of an aroideous plant, of which one well-preserved specimen was discovered nearly 40 years ago by Dr. Paterson in the calciferous sandstones near Edinburgh. Four species monocotyledons have been found in the trias, seven in the lias, the same number in the oolite, 15 in the chalk, 97 in the eocene, 185 in the miocene, and two in the pliocene. 

We find, then, that the three groups of vascular cryptograms, and the seed-bearing gymnosperms appear together in the Devonian rocks, and that monocotyledons appear in the lowest beds of the immediately succeeding carboniferous system. Further, that these earliest plants are not generalised forms of the various tribes to which they belong, but that they are as highly specialised as any subsequent representatives of the particular tribe, and that wherever they differ from later plants it is the possession of more perfect organisation. It would be contrary to the theory of evolution to suppose that the highly organised cryptograms, the gymnosperms, and the monocotyledons were each developed at one step from the cellular plants which formed the only vegetation of the pre-Devonian periods. 

We find, then, that the three groups of vascular cryptograms, and the seed-bearing gymnosperms appear together in the Devonian rocks, and that monocotyledons appear in the lowest beds of the immediately succeeding carboniferous system. Further, that these earliest plants are not generalised forms of the various tribes to which they belong, but that they are as highly specialised as any subsequent representatives of the particular tribe, and that wherever they differ from later plants it is the possession of more perfect organisation. It would be contrary to the theory of evolution to suppose that the highly organised cryptograms, the gymnosperms, and the monocotyledons were each developed at one step from the cellular plants which formed the only vegetation of the pre-devonian periods. No doubt there is in the older paleozoic rocks a great absence of any records of land life.But the (...) of the vascular cryptograms and the (...) from the green seaweeds, through the  (....) must have been carried  on through a long succession of ages and by an innumerable series of gradual advancing steps; and yet we find not a single trace either of the early water forms or of their later and still more numerous dry land forms. The conditions that permitted the preservation of the fucoid in the Landivere rocks at Malvern, and of similar cellular organisms elsewhere, were at least favorable to the preservation of other forms. Mr. Carruthers dwelt at some length on the supposed evolution of the dicotyledons, and urged that there was no trace of steps leading from one form to another.

Mr. WOODWARD, F.R.S., proposed a vote of thanks and Professor MORRIS, in seconding it, referred to the amount of carbonaceous material in the Haronian and Lawrentian rocks, probably the result of decayed vegetable structures of which we have no traces preserved.

---

..

---

ANTHROPOGENESIS-- Thaumaturgy, Mythical Birds, Acquired Characters--ALES HRDLICKA 1929

---

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 05 May 1929, Sun · Page 2B

---

 Our Growing Knowledge of Man, Ales Hrdlicka

     AN ENDEAVOR to account for man's origin has been universal. Study of the myths and beliefs of different peoples shows that there was no tribe, no ethnic group, no religious unit, that did not have some theory, however crude, as to how man came into existence. And before science came in, once an idea became set in any group, it constituted a dogma which effectively stopped or greatly retarded further thought in that direction. Religious dogmas, being directly associated with the deities (revelations), became particularly powerful. Had it not been for the Biblical account, especially, current thoughts about men's origin and his knowledge of himself as well as that of the rest of the living nature, would have developed much earlier. 

     An analysis of the conceptions reached on the subject before the advent of the scientific period, shows that the numerous is forms group themselves into three main classes. They are: (1) wholly thaumaturgic, or (2) partly supernatural and partly natural. or (3) essentially natural. The first class of theories regard man's origin as due to purely supernatural agencies and means. without speculating as to the details. Many of the anthropogenesis of primitive tribes of today, together with those of some of the earlier Greeks, earlier Romans, and one of the versions of the Genesis. are or were of this nature. 

     The second class of views is subdivisible into two series. In the first, common to the Egyptians. all the Semitic peoples of Asia Minor. some of the Greeks the Hephaestus myths) and to the second version of the Genesis, man's body is made of earthly materials (clay, bone. blood. etc.), with the life and soul added supernaturally. In the second subclass of these beliefs, common to some of the American Indians and others, man originates supernaturally from subterranean or recently emerged mythical birds or other animal forms. 

     The third, naturalistic, or scientific category of theories may again be separated into two subclasses. The first, held by some of the early Greek and other philosophers, such as Aristotle. and and surviving largely to this day, teach a natural, evolutionary origin of the body, but believe in a distinct and higher origin of the "soul;" while the others claim an evolutionary origin of all man's attributes, physical and intellectual. The great difficulty in both these lines is the lack of a definition of the concept of "soul." Man has never known clearly and does not know yet just what is his "soul."

     From the earliest time this third-class of views as to man's origin differed from both preceding ones in being based on actual observation. In the beginnings, in the time of Anaximander and his followers, the observations were limited, imperfect and empirical: but men were gradually recognizing the close analogies between man and the rest of the organisms which surrounded him in the world. 

True scientific observations by learned men, however, and deductions on the problem of human origin began during the latter part of the Eighteenth Century, and hence long before Charles Darwin.

     Buffon, Erasmus Darwin, Goethe, Treviranus, Gall, Geoffrey St, Hilaire, and a good number of others headed eventually by Lamarck, and later Wallace, precede Charles Darwin; but it is the latter who, in 1871, in his "Descent of Man," gives the first comprehensive treatise on the subject. Buffon, Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles) and above all Lamarck, explained evolution by gradual inheritance of "acquired characters" or structural adaptations, brought forth by environmental conditions. For Charles Darwin and his close followers, the essential factor in evolution, human or animal, was "natural selection" or, as Herbert Spencer termed it, the "survival of the fittest," working with the normal variation of every organism and of every part. Organisms vary, they also increase in numbers; the numerical increase leads to competition and struggle for existence: and in this struggle the most "fit" and best adapted to their environment survive and advance the group in that direction.

---

...

---

ANTHROPOGENIE-- Amphioxus and Ascidia--ERNST HAECKEL 1905

---

Boston Evening Transcript, 31 May 1905, Wed · Page 20

---

The Evolution of Man. A Popular Scientific Study. By Ernst Haeckel. Two volumes. New York: G P. Putnam's Sons.

 PROFESSOR Haeckel's "Anthropogenie," which now appears in translation from the fifth German edition, has probably contributed more than any other of the author's works to the spread of his reputation among the general reading public of English-speaking countries. The book first appeared in 1874 in the midst of the great controversy over Darwinism and evolution, and being frankly polemical in method, probably did as much to influence popular opinion on these subjects as anything ever printed. It went through three editions in as many years and has remained ever since the best known statement of the views of a some what radical school of thought. 

     On the whole. however. the second volume. which takes up our human family tree, is likely to be most interesting to the average reader. This portion of the work is essentially a treatise on comparative anatomy so far as this is concerned with the question of man's ancestry. Somewhat less technical than the first volume, it touches on a wider range of common interests. and for these and other reasons is somewhat easier reading. The volume opens with an elaborate account of those two strange beings, Amphioxus and the Ascidia. which form the connecting link be-tween the animals with backbones and those without: and after a chapter on the geological history of animal life, passes on to the consideration of the modern relatives of our own line of ancestors since the beginning of things, and traces out in much detail the parallelism between the series of animal forms and the corresponding stages passed through by the embryos of the higher animals and man. Here the reader gets the reward of his toil over the first volume, since without it many of the author's most illuminating comparisons lose much of their point. Professor Haeckel recognises thirty 

distinct stages in the past history of the human race, each well represented by some living animal: and of these. eleven are invertebrate and nineteen vertebrate. From this list are conspicuously absent most of the creatures which the popular lecturer or writer on evolution is wont to cite as his ancestors. Especially has Professor Haeckel no patience with the popular idea that any creature even remotely resembling the jointed worms ever had any place in our line of decent. His general scheme is to make an animal of the type of the common fresh-water hydra the starting point from which have arisen all the higher animals from the sponges up. From this he carries our own line up to the vertebrates by way of the unjointed marine worms. the paradoxical Balanoglossus. the larval ascidian, Amphioxus, and the lampreys, to the true fishes of the shark and ray type. Thus he leaves on one side practically all the commonly known animals of woods and seaside and makes our ancestral tree less like a pine than like a juniper bush. The same arrangement appears among our nineteen vertebrate ancestors. The common bony fishes and the birds hive no part nor lot with us. We came up by way of the sturgeons and lung fishes, the tailed amphibians. and the primitive reptiles, to the egg-laying and pouched mammals, which in turn pass into the monkeys by way of the insectivera and lemurs. The entire series

therefore, includes almost no animal types which the man in the street ever sees. 

     The translator of a foreign work usually comes in for more kicks than half-pence; the reader forgetting, that in the case of a German scientific treatise, the marvel is, not that he does not do his work better, but that he does it at all. Mr. Joseph McCabe has at least done very much better than some other translators. of Haeckel. We note incidentally among minor blemishes an apparent uncertainty as to "shall" and "will." no doubt correlated with the translator's Scotch cognomen: the use of "sea urchin" as the popular equivalent of Echidna: and the confusing "articulation" for the segmentation of the embryo. The only really unsatisfactory portion of the translator's work. however, is the glossary. Here many of the definitions are at least misleading and not a few--caryokinesis. metabolism. plancton, for example—are flatly wrong. What profit is it to the way-faring man to be told that "sagittal" means "in the direction of an arrow (sagitta)." and nothing more! It is especially a pity that in a work otherwise so ;veil done, more pains should not have gone to this detail. No one who knows Professor Haeckel's other works need be told that in this also appears his usual zeal for slaying the slain...

Boston Evening Transcript, 31 May 1905, Wed · Page 20

---

..

---

ETHNOGENICS--The Principles of Sociology-- PROFESSOR FH GIDDINGS 1896

---

Boston Evening Transcript 20 Mar 1896, Fri • Page 6 

---

The Principles of Sociology. 

     This volume, by Professor Giddings, of Columbia College, was prepared with special reference to the needs of university students, and differs from previous treatises on sociology in two important respects: first, in its account of the differentiation of social phenomena from phenomena of all other kinds; second, in its exclusion of topics that are properly economic or political rather than sociological. The work consists of four books, as follows: Book I. "The Elements of Social Theory:" Book II. deals with "The Elements and Structure of Society." with four subdivisions treating, respectively. of "The Social Population," "The Social Mind," "The Social Composition" and "The Social Constitution:" Book III. has for its subject "The Historical Evolution of Society," also in four parts, which treat of four stages of progress, namely: "Zoogenic Association." "Anthropogenic Association," "Ethnogenic Association." "Demogenic Association." Book IV. deals with "Social Process, Law and Cause." The doctrine of the historical chapters is that association was the cause of the evolution of human qualities in the transition from animal to man, and not vice versa, and, in like manner, that the dense populations of modern times have been made possible by the civil form of association. The fourth book deals with the relation of volition in society. and the attempt to realize social ideas, to physical causation working through natural selection. Published by Macmillan & Co. 

Boston Evening Transcript 20 Mar 1896, Fri • Page 6 

---

TBA

---

welcome

 commcheck:5x5