An ancient cladogram 29 Apr 200918 Sep 2017 As I investigate the use of tree diagrams in the nineteenth century, I keep running across things that shouldn’t be there. One of them was this book: Herdman, William Abbott. 1885. A Phylogenetic Classification of Animals (For the Use of Students). London; Liverpool: Macmillan & Co.; Adam Holden. It’s on Archive.org, but they didn’t properly scan the figure on the foldout (a real problem of the electronic versions of old books is that they don’t scan the foldout figures. Imagine the Origin without the one figure). So I bought a copy. It’s a real revelation – he correctly uses “polyphyletic” in its modern sense on page 2. So below the fold is the figure and the caption, with a link to a larger version to download. Of interest is that Herdman is mixing phylogeny with grades – the vertical axis represents “advance in structure”, whatever that might mean. It’s not cladism yet… Large version Evolution History Species and systematics
Evolution Are species life forms? 19 Jun 201719 Jun 2017 This is a section of my forthcoming revision to Species, presented here for comments that I can steal – umm, I mean for peer commentary. The philosophical ideas and terms of Wittgenstein have played an interesting and underappreciated role in the species debate: we saw Beckner appeal to family resemblance… Read More
Ethics and Moral Philosophy Morality and evolution 2: Moral facts 1 May 201422 May 2014 [Morality and Evolution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7] In a forthcoming paper, “Evolution and Moral Realism”, Kim Sterelny and Ben Fraser, of the Australian National University, have argued that there can be moral facts that evolution by selection tracks. Their argument is that moral reasoning is complex, and relies upon rapid judgements (what Daniel… Read More
Biology Arsenic and the life extraterrestrial 3 Dec 201022 Jun 2018 Paul Z. Myers, a little known biologist from Minnesota has published a lovely debunking of the hype surrounding the “second life” announcement from NASA. He should do more science-related posts. He’s really good at them. Here are some other excellent pieces: Bytesized Biology, Leaf Warbler, Greg Laden; Wired; and Ed… Read More
It is truly an incredible find. If you had just posted the reference, I would have thought the 1885 date was mistyped from 1985. The downward slope to indicate degeneration is a nice touch. You bought yourself a copy? A facsimile?
It is truly an incredible find. If you had just posted the reference, I would have thought the 1885 date was mistyped from 1985. The downward slope to indicate degeneration is a nice touch. You bought yourself a copy? A facsimile?
It is truly an incredible find. If you had just posted the reference, I would have thought the 1885 date was mistyped from 1985. The downward slope to indicate degeneration is a nice touch. You bought yourself a copy? A facsimile?
It is truly an incredible find. If you had just posted the reference, I would have thought the 1885 date was mistyped from 1985. The downward slope to indicate degeneration is a nice touch. You bought yourself a copy? A facsimile?
It is truly an incredible find. If you had just posted the reference, I would have thought the 1885 date was mistyped from 1985. The downward slope to indicate degeneration is a nice touch. You bought yourself a copy? A facsimile?
Actually, the quality of the foldout in the scan is almost as good as that of your scan. In general, I’m amazed at how they managed to get that file down to 5.2 MB. I suppose all sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic…
Actually, the quality of the foldout in the scan is almost as good as that of your scan. In general, I’m amazed at how they managed to get that file down to 5.2 MB. I suppose all sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic‚Ķ
Actually, the quality of the foldout in the scan is almost as good as that of your scan. DUH!!? Have you looked at the large version of John’s scan, David?
Actually, the quality of the foldout in the scan is almost as good as that of your scan. DUH!!? Have you looked at the large version of John’s scan, David?
Actually, the quality of the foldout in the scan is almost as good as that of your scan. DUH!!? Have you looked at the large version of John’s scan, David?
Actually, the quality of the foldout in the scan is almost as good as that of your scan. DUH!!? Have you looked at the large version of John’s scan, David?
David is right – if you download the PDF the image is high quality. I saw only another version without the good foldout.
David is right – if you download the PDF the image is high quality. I saw only another version without the good foldout.
John, You just go out and buy 1885 texts? If you have a long-term habit of doing this, I really want to see what’s on the rest of your bookshelves!
Fantastic find John, its interesting how we can find things in history that are almost modern, and then there are these other touches. Ever read Kepler’s Correspondence with Galileo? Kepler sounds like a lunatic in some sections.
Fantastic find John, its interesting how we can find things in history that are almost modern, and then there are these other touches. Ever read Kepler’s Correspondence with Galileo? Kepler sounds like a lunatic in some sections.
Fantastic find John, its interesting how we can find things in history that are almost modern, and then there are these other touches. Ever read Kepler’s Correspondence with Galileo? Kepler sounds like a lunatic in some sections.
Fantastic find John, its interesting how we can find things in history that are almost modern, and then there are these other touches. Ever read Kepler’s Correspondence with Galileo? Kepler sounds like a lunatic in some sections.
David is right – if you download the PDF the image is high quality. I saw only another version without the good foldout. I apologise unreservedly to David; I didn’t even realise that the text is downloadable and in the version posted on the website the diagram at the back of the book is unreadable.