Type localities of the Gibbon,Hylobates pileatus gray, 1861, and the leaf monkey,Presbytis crepuscula wroughtoni Elliot, 1909, collected by A. H. Mouhot

The type specimens of two nominal primate taxa were collected by A. H Mouhot during his historic expedition to Indochina from 1858 to 1861. His death from fever in Laos led to the material being accompanied by unreliable locality data. Combining information from his published itinerary with evidence from more recently collected specimens, I attempt to determine the type localities more accurately.     

‘Anthropology and Sociology Were of No Value … in War Time’: Ronald and Catherine Berndt and War-Time Security, 1939–1945

ABSTRACT

On 3 September 1939, Australia followed the United Kingdom in declaring war on Germany. Soon afterwards a number of German nationals including Australians of German descent were placed in internment camps. For those German enemy aliens and Australians of German heritage not interned, suspicion was never far from the surface. In the case of the anthropologist Ronald Murray Berndt, what initially put him under suspicion was not his political affiliations or actions, but his German name and some of his utterances on the war which were interpreted as being pro-German. Linked to this was a concern by Australian military and government authorities that Indigenous people were potentially disloyal, and anthropologists who worked with Indigenous Australians were, by the very nature of their relationship with them, considered potential subversives. However, although Ronald Berndt always worked with his wife Catherine, only Ronald was considered a security risk. Catherine was simply seen as his wife, part of a team, about whom nothing adverse was known. This article analyses the early career of Ronald and Catherine Berndt, and the restrictions and blocks they faced in accessing field sites during WWII. An easy answer to such impairments that was made at the time and later, was that Ronald was caught during WWII in a surveillance dragnet that focused on Germanness. The reality that emerges from the archival record, however, is far more complex, and shows amongst others, the exploitation of surveillance by local establishment gatekeepers.     

History of Ichnology: The Origins of Trace Fossil Taxonomy and the Contributions of Joseph F. James and Walter H. Häntzschel

The taxonomy of trace fossils has had a somewhat controversial history because they do not represent the actual animal remains but rather their work on and in the substrate. As such, traditional palaeontologists and zoologists have viewed them with some skepticism. Ichnologists owe a great debt to two geologists: Joseph F. James of Cincinnati and Walter H. Häntzschel of Hamburg, who took it upon themselves to impose some order on the chaos that constituted trace fossil taxonomy at the time. James, working independently and in ignorance of Alfred Nathorst, arrived at and utilized many of the same criteria his Swedish counterpart employed to criticize the fucoid origins of many trace fossils in the late 19th century. With his restudy of the systematics of Fucoides, Skolithos, and Arthrophycus, James brought to light many of the taxonomical nightmares that faced—and are still facing—the fledging science and can be rightfully considered the first trace fossil taxonomist. During the 1940s and 1950s, Häntzschel collected the widely scattered pertinent data from the literature, an immense task that, when published in 1962 (and later revised and expanded in 1975), made trace fossils accessible to further research and started a worldwide boom in trace fossil research.     

Effects of castration and home cage residency on aggressive behavior in rats

The effects of castration of both resident and intruder rats on territorial aggressive behavior were studied. The results suggest that residence in a home cage is more important than gonadal status in determining the outcome of an aggressive encounter. Resident rats were more likely to be dominant especially if they were intact. Intact residents directed less aggressive behavior toward castrated intruders than toward intact intruders. Intruder rats generally showed low levels of aggressive behavior and were only dominant when the resident had been castrated. Thus, the aggressive behavior of a male rat depends upon both his gonadal status and that of his opponent.     

Effect of the Content of Communication on the Attitude of Young Children Toward Adults

Children begin at a very early age to behave selectively toward both familiar and unfamiliar adults: some they meet with smiles, others they turn away from with fright, and still others confuse them. Children behave differently toward unfamiliar persons than they do in their interactions with those close to them. A child will often display a special sort of attachment to his (her) mother or grandmother, and sometimes to his father, and frequently will favor an older brother or sister more than anyone else in his milieu. The psychological literature abounds in analyses of the rich and complex range of behavior of children toward others (1-6).     

Christian Ludwig Brehm (1787–1864) über Spezies und Subspezies von V?geln

Zusammenfassung Christian Ludwig Brehm wollte die Kenntnis der Naturgeschichte jeder europ ?ischen Vogelart, einschlie?lich ihrer jahreszeitlichen Wanderungen, vertiefen und analysierte deshalb auch die Variation der V?gel in vielen Einzelheiten. Von den geographischen Subspezies in verschiedenen Gebieten Europas, die er beschrieben hat, wurden 55 sp?ter anerkannt. Darüber hinaus glaubte Brehm, dass viele weit verbreitete Artenzur Brutzeit in Mitteleuropa ein ?kologisch bestimmtes, mikrogeographisches Mosaik unterschiedlich differenzierter Populationen bilden. Diese von ihm ebenfalls mit Subspezies-Namen versehenen „Formen“ haben sich sp?ter als individuelle Varianten von morphologisch einheitlichen Brutpopulationen herausgestellt und k?nnen nicht mit eigenen Namen taxonomisch unterschieden werden. Jedoch wurde in sp?teren Jahrzehnten bei vielen Vogelarten innerhalb von geographischen Subspezies die Existenz von ?kologischen Sippen, die sich durch biologische Besonderheiten unterscheiden, festgestellt. Brehms taxonomisches System der V?gel umfasste wie das seiner Kollegen Spezies und diesen untergeordnete Subspezies (die er zun?chst Nebenarten genannt hatte). Ab 1826 behandelte Brehm die Subspezies als jeweils eigene Fortpflanzungsgemeinschaften begrifflich wie „Arten“, aber bündelte die meisten gleichzeitig zu polytypischen Spezies. Seine eigenwillige Bezeichnungsweise (Nomenklatur) von Arten und Unterarten (Subspezies) wurde durch nahezu alle Ornithologen im 20. Jahrhundert missverstanden. In seinemHandbuch der Naturgeschichte aller V?gel Deutschlands (1831) nummerierte Brehm, beginnend mit der Ziffer 1, die jeweils mit einem Binomen gekennzeichneten Subspezies einer polytypischen Art (z. B. 1–3) und fügte ihnen den gemeinsamen Artnamen jeweils in Klammern hinzu. Die Subspezies-Abfolge (z. B. 1–5) der n?chsten polytypischen Art beginnt wieder mit der Zahl 1. Monotypische Arten sind nicht nummeriert. In sp?teren Listen (1855a, b) hat er das hierarchische System von Genus, Spezies und Subspezies klarer dargestellt als in früheren Publikationen. Insgesamt betonte Brehm in seinem Werk die Analyse der kleinsten morphologisch-?kologischen Einheiten (Subspezies), w?hrend seine Kollegen und Widersacher F. Faber und C. W. L. Gloger deren Synthese zu weit umgrenzten taxonomischen Arten hervorhoben.

---

Christian Ludwig Brehm (1787–1864) on species and subspecies of birds

Summary C. L. Brehm’s main ornithological objective was to increase the knowledge of the natural history of the European bird species including their seasonal migrations. For this reason he analyzed in detail the variation of birds and described many subspecies from different regions of Europe. 55 of his geographical subspecies have later been accepted as valid. In addition, Brehm suggested that,during the breeding season, most widely distributed species of birds form an ecologically determined microgeographical mosaic of slightly differentiated populations each of which he also distinguished by a separate subspecies name. However, these named groups later turned out to have been based on individual variants of widespread breeding populations which cannot be designated with separate taxonomic names. On the other hand, during the 20^th century, the existence of ecological forms within subspecies differing in certain biological characteristics has been confirmed for many bird species. Like his colleagues, Brehm distinguished species and subspecies of birds. Beginning in 1826, he treated the subspecies as separate reproductive communities conceptually like „species“. At the same time, however, he grouped most of them into polytypic species. In hisHandbook of the Natural History of all the Birds of Germany (1831) Brehm numbered the subspecies of a particular species consecutively (e. g. 1–3) and gave each of them a Latin binomen followed in parentheses by their common species name. The sequence of subspecies composing the next species (e. g. 1–5) begins again with that species’ subspecies number 1. Monotypic species are not numbered. In later lists (1855a, b) he presented the hierarchic system of genus, species and subspecies more clearly than in his earlier publications. Generally speaking, Brehm emphasized in his work the analysis of the smallest morphological-ecological units (subspecies), while his colleagues and adversaries F. Faber and C. W. L. Gloger practiced the combination (synthesis) of subspecies into broadly delimited taxonomic species.

     

Still going strong: Leeuwenhoek at eighty

At age 80, Antony van Leeuwenhoek was a world-famous scientist who came from a prosperous Delft family with a heritage of public service. He continued that tradition by serving in paid municipal offices. Self-taught, he began his scientific career in his 40s, when he began making hundreds of tiny single-lens microscopes. Pioneering the use of now-common microscopic techniques, he was the first human to see microbes and microscopic structures in animals, plants, and minerals. Over 50 years, he wrote only letters, more than 300 of them, and published half of them himself. More than a hundred were published in translation in the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions. Today, Leeuwenhoek is considered in the lesser rank of scientists and is not well known outside of his homeland. Recent archival research in Delft has contributed new information about his life that helps to contextualize his science, but much remains to be learned.     

Building on Bedrock: William Steel Creighton and the Reformation of Ant Systematics, 1925–1970

Ideas about the natural world are intertwined with the personalities, practices, and the workplaces of scientists. The relationships between these categories are explored in the life of the taxonomist William Steel Creighton. Creighton studied taxonomy under William Morton Wheeler at Harvard University. He took the rules he learned from Wheeler out of the museum and into the field. In testing the rules against a new situation, Creighton found them wanting. He sought a new set of taxonomic principles, one he eventually found in Ernst Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of Species. Mayr's ideas tied together a number of themes running through Creighton's life: the need for a revised taxonomy, the emphasis on fieldwork, and the search for a new power center for ant taxonomy after Wheeler died. Creighton's adoption of Mayr's ideas as part of his professional identity also had very real implications for his career path: field studies required long and intensive studies, and Creighton would always be a slow worker. His method of taxonomy contrasted sharply not only with Wheeler's but also with two of his younger colleagues, William L. Brown and E. O. Wilson, who took over Wheeler's spot at Harvard in 1950. The disputes between these men over ant taxonomy involved, in addition to questions of technical interest, questions about where and how best to do taxonomy and who could speak withthe most authority. Creighton's story reveals how these questions are interrelated. The story also reveals the importance of Mayr's book for changes occurring in taxonomy in the middle of the twentieth century. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

河北省临城小天池森林区被子植物区系

河北省临城小天池森林区属华北植物分布区 ,有被子植物 88科、30 1属、5 5 5种 (包括1 4变种 )。含 1 0种以上的优势科有 1 4科、30 5种。表征科有 7科 ,中国特有属 5属 6种 ;河北特有植物 7种。该植物区系的组成和地理成分分析表明 ,被子植物主要以北温带成分为主 (共计有 98属、2 2 1种 ,占总属数的 37 6 9%、总种数的 4 6 92 % ) ;其次是旧大陆温带和泛热带成分。数据说明小天池被子植物区系具有明显的温带性质     

农业气象灾害地域组合规律的初步研究

农业气象灾害地域组合规律的初步研究石忆邵（西北农业大学经贸学院,陕西杨陵７１２１００）ＰｒｅｌｉｍｉｎａｒｙＳｔｕｄｙｏｎＡｒｅａＣｏｍｂｉｎａｔｉｏｎＬａｗｏｆＡｇｒｏ－ＭｅｔｅｏｒｏｌｏｇｉｃａｌＤｉｓａｓｔｅｒｓ￥,ＳｈｉＹｉｓｈａｏ（Ｎｏｒｔ...     

Three Centuries of Protozoology: A Brief Tribute to its Founding Father,A. van Leeuwenhoek of Delft*

SYNOPSIS. It was exactly 300 years ago this month (August 1974) that the 17th century modest draper from Delft, Holland—Antony van Leeuwenhoek—discovered protozoa. Describing them, often with amazing accuracy considering the optical equipment he was using (simply a home-made “glorified”hand lens), in letters to the Royal Society of London, he established himself, certainly, as the founding father of protozoology. It is particularly appropriate for an assemblage of protozoologists to pay homage to this intrepid “philosopher in little things,”a man with an insatiable curiosity about his wee animalcules, on the tricentenary of his discovery of them, since it was an event of such long-lasting significance.     

H.A. Hawkes—A pioneer of field ecology

This article outlines the life and career of H.A. (Bert) Hawkes, who has been referred to as one of the founders of field ecology, due to the work he conducted in the late 1940s and 1950s, investigating the fly nuisance emanating from biological filters. Following an overview of his life, there is a focus on his core research, carried out over a period of some 50 years, on two aspects of river pollution control—the prevention of pollution by sewage biological filtration and the monitoring of river pollution by biological surveillance.     

Edward Hitchcock’s Pre-Darwinian (1840) “Tree of Life”

The “tree of life” iconography, representing the history of life, dates from at least the latter half of the 18th century, but evolution as the mechanism providing this bifurcating history of life did not appear until the early 19th century. There was also a shift from the straight line, scala naturae view of change in nature to a more bifurcating or tree-like view. Throughout the 19th century authors presented tree-like diagrams, some regarding the Deity as the mechanism of change while others argued for evolution. Straight-line or anagenetic evolution and bifurcating or cladogenetic evolution are known in biology today, but are often misrepresented in popular culture, especially with anagenesis being confounded with scala naturae. Although well known in the mid 19th century, the geologist Edward Hitchcock has been forgotten as an early, if not the first author to publish a paleontologically based “tree of life” beginning in 1840 in the first edition of his popular general geology text Elementary Geology. At least 31 editions were published and those between 1840 and 1859 had this “paleontological chart” showing two trees, one for fossil and living plants and another for animals set within a context of geological time. Although the chart did not vary in later editions, the text explaining the chart did change to reflect newer ideas in paleontology and geology. Whereas Lamarck, Chambers, Bronn, Darwin, and Haeckel saw some form of transmutation as the mechanism that created their “trees of life,” Hitchcock, like his contemporaries Agassiz and Miller, who also produced “trees of life,” saw a deity as the agent of change. Through each edition of his book Hitchcock denounced the newer transmutationist hypotheses of Lamarck, then Chambers, and finally Darwin in an 1860 edition that no longer presented his tree-like “paleontological chart.”     

The Context of Ecosystem Theory

Arthur George Tansley's paper “The Temporal Genetic Series as a Means of Approach to Philosophy,” published here for the first time, provides the philosophical context for the development of his ecosystem theory. His rejection of idealist reasoning, his concern with ethics, and his long standing interest in Freudian psychology as well as mechanistic reasoning comprised the intellectual underpinnings for his thinking on systems and ecosystem theory.     

Ernst Mayr: Biologist-historian

Ernst Mayr's historical writings began in 1935 with his essay Bernard Altum and the territory theory and have continued up through his monumentalGrowth of Biological Thought (1982) and hisOne Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought (1991). Sweeping in their scope, forceful in their interpretation, enlisted on behalf of the clarification of modern concepts and of a broad view of biology, these writings provide both insights and challenges for the historian of biology. Mayr's general intellectual formation was guided by the GermanBildung ideal, with its emphasis on synthetic and comprehensive knowledge. His understanding of how to write history was inspired further by the example of the historian of ideas Arthur Lovejoy. Some strengths and limitations of this approach are explored here through attention to Mayr's treatment of the French biologist J.-B. Lamarck. It is contended that Mayr's contributions to the history of biology are not restricted to his own very substantial historical writings but also include his encouragement of other scholars, his development of an invaluable archive of scientific correspondence, and his insistence that historians who write about evolution and related subjects acquire an adequate understanding of the principles of Darwinian biology.This paper was originally delivered at the biennial meeting of the International Society for the History, Philosophy, and Social Studies of Biology, held in Brandeis in July 1993, in the special session organized by John Greene on Ernst Mayr's contributions to systematics, evolutionary theory, and the history and philosophy of biology. The paper is presented here with only slight modifications of the original, oral presentation. As indicated in the text, a full assessment of Mayr's historical work, including situating that work in the context of Mayr's other work and contemporary developments in the history of science, would require a much more extensive study than I have been able to undertake here.     

"Describing our whole experience": the statistical philosophies of W. F. R. Weldon and Karl Pearson

There are two motivations commonly ascribed to historical actors for taking up statistics: to reduce complicated data to a mean value (e.g., Quetelet), and to take account of diversity (e.g., Galton). Different motivations will, it is assumed, lead to different methodological decisions in the practice of the statistical sciences. Karl Pearson and W. F. R. Weldon are generally seen as following directly in Galton’s footsteps. I argue for two related theses in light of this standard interpretation, based on a reading of several sources in which Weldon, independently of Pearson, reflects on his own motivations. First, while Pearson does approach statistics from this “Galtonian” perspective, he is, consistent with his positivist philosophy of science, utilizing statistics to simplify the highly variable data of biology. Weldon, on the other hand, is brought to statistics by a rich empiricism and a desire to preserve the diversity of biological data. Secondly, we have here a counterexample to the claim that divergence in motivation will lead to a corresponding separation in methodology. Pearson and Weldon, despite embracing biometry for different reasons, settled on precisely the same set of statistical tools for the investigation of evolution.     

HISTORY OF ICHNOLOGY—Ichnological Eccentrics: The Curious Case of Dr. Joseph Barratt of Middletown,Connecticut

Joseph Barratt was a British-born and educated physician who settled in the United States in 1819. He had a great interest in natural history, collecting both plants and insects and studying geology, mycology, ornithology, chemistry, meteorology, Native Americans, and local history. He was apparently a man of great energy and ambition but one who could not focus to see a project to completion. Barratt was active in the early history of the discovery of vertebrate footprints in the Newark Supergroup in the eastern United States but latter developed some very strange theories regarding the age and significance of these deposits. In his latter years, Barratt's mental state deteriorated and he became even more obsessed with trying to publicize his outlandish theories. Dr. Joseph Barratt is remembered in ichnology for basically two things; he sold Edward Hitchcock a superb specimen of vertebrate tracks; and he may have the most elaborate ichnological tombstone ever constructed.     

Mendel’s law reveals fatal flaws in Bateman’s 1948 study of mating and fitness

Bateman’s experimental study of Drosophila melanogaster produced conclusions that are now part of the bedrock premises of modern sexual selection. Today it is the most cited experimental study in sexual selection, and famous as the first experimental demonstration of sex differences in the relationship between number of mates and relative reproductive success. We repeated the experimental methodology of the original to evaluate its reliability. The results indicate that Bateman’s methodology of visible mutations to assign parentage and reproductive success to subject adults is significantly biased. When combined in offspring, the mutations decrease offspring survival, so that counts of mate number and reproductive success are mismeasured. Bateman’s method overestimates the number of subjects with no mates and underestimates the number with one or more mates for both sexes. Here we discuss why Bateman’s paper is important and present additional analyses of data from our monogamy trials. Monogamy trials can inform inferences about the force of sexual selection in populations because in monogamy trials male–male competition and female choice are absent. Monogamy trials also would have provided Bateman with an a priori test of the fit of his data to Mendel’s laws, an unstated, but vital assumption of his methodology for assigning parentage from which he inferred the number of mates per individual subject and their reproductive success. Even under enforced monogamous mating, offspring frequencies of double mutant, single mutant and no mutant offspring were significantly different from Mendelian expectations proving that Bateman’s method was inappropriate for answering the questions he posed. Double mutant offspring (those with a mutation from each parent) suffered significant inviability as did single mutant offspring whenever they inherited their mother’s marker but the wild-type allele at their father’s marker locus. These inviability effects produced two important inaccuracies in Bateman’s results and conclusions. (1) Some matings that actually occurred were invisible and (2) reproductive success of some mothers was under-estimated. Both observations show that Bateman’s conclusions about sex differences in number of mates and reproductive success were unwarranted, based on biased observations. We speculate about why Bateman’s classic study remained without replication for so long, and we discuss why repetition almost 60 years after the original is still timely, necessary and critical to the scientific enterprise. We highlight overlooked alternative hypotheses to urge that modern tests of Bateman’s conclusions go beyond confirmatory studies to test alternative hypotheses to explain the relationship between mate number and reproductive success.