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
Education Early modern philosophy texts for students 16 Mar 2009 As you may have noticed, I am something of a Victorian – as well as being from that wonderful state, I also write as if I were a nineteenth century writer. It comes of reading too many of them over too long a period. I have little trouble when the… Read More
History Ill of the dead 8 Mar 20218 Mar 2021 I have found it necessary, in the course of this volume, to speak of the departed; for the misgovernment of the Royal Society has not been wholly the result of even the present race. It is said, and I think with justice, in the life of Young inserted amongst Dr…. Read More
Evolution My species article online at RNCSE 19 Dec 2007 A little while back I published an article on species concepts in Reports of the National Center for Science Education, and I just discovered that it is available on the web. This is actually abetter format than the published version, which has weird columns and layout. The citation is Wilkins,… 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.