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
Ecology and Biodiversity Miscellany 23 Dec 2008 Damn it’s hot. Around here, snow is at a premium, which means our solstitial celebrations are less active than those oop north. Anyway, I got interviewed last night on national radio, the ABC’s National Evening show, talking about the early ideas of philosophy to presenter Rhys Muldoon. Nice fellow. It… Read More
Evolution Nationalism and evolution 3 Dec 2007 Way back in the 1910s, when human evolution was poorly known, some trickster, probably Charles Dawson, its discoverer, set up a hoax: Piltdown man. This was enthusiastically accepted by many British experts because it made Britain, and in particular, England, a leading locale in human evolution. This was the era… Read More
Evolution Myth 4: Darwin was a gradualist 19 Feb 2009 This myth has more to do with what people thought their own views contrasted to, than anything Darwin said, but like all myths, there’s a hint of truth underlying it. The problem with this myth is the ambiguity of the term “gradual”. It is a weasel word, which can mean… 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.