Biological design — a neglected art

I ought now, perhaps, to offer a summary of what I have been trying to convey in this lecture — but I am haunted by the failure which attended an effort, by an eminent scholar of this city, to do something of the same kind many years ago. Sir John Sheppard, Provost of King's, once gave a public lecture during one of the University's ceremonial gatherings. His subject was the Trojan War. The large audience sat spellbound in admiration of his depth of insight, breadth of knowledge and grasp of detail. As he was leaving after the meeting, a young man came up to him and explained that he was a graduate studuent engaged in research on the economic consequences of the Trojan War. He had, however, been spellbound by the lecture and had been too engrossed to write anything down. Would Sir John be so kind as to lend him his notes so that he could make a summary of the lecture? “My dear chap”, said Sheppard, “I'd be delighted; here are my notes — use them as you wish and let me have them back whenever they have served your purpose”. So saying he handed the young man a postcard on which was written: Agamemnon — Achilles — Agamemnon.I hope that members of the audience won't mind if I leave them to make their own summary of my remarks to which they have listened so patiently this evening.     

In memoriam: Napoleon A. Chagnon

Anthropologist Napoleon A. Chagnon was a central figure in the development and foundation of evolutionary approaches to human behavior. We highlight his ethnographic fieldwork, contributions to studies of kinship and marriage, and his foundational role in the development of evolutionary approaches to human behavior. As a holistic anthropologist Chagnon led anthropology toward the integration of cultural and evolutionary theory. Finally, his leadership was central in the foundation of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society.EpigraphRicardo, a Brazilian Protestant missionary who was assisting the scientific team and who has worked with the Yanomami for over 25 years … told me to run and get my camera. “There's going to be a fight,” he said. Then he turned to leave. “Aren't you going to stay?” I asked. “Nah, happens all the time. You stay, you're an anthropologist, should be interesting. Call me if anyone gets hurt.”     

Govindjee,an institution,at his 80th (really 81st) birthday in Třeboň in October, 2013: a pictorial essay

Govindjee (one name only), who himself is an institution, has been recognized and honored by many in the past for he is a true ambassador of “Photosynthesis Research” to the World. He has been called “Mr. Photosynthesis”, and compared to the Great Wall of China. To us in T?eboň, he has been a great research collaborator in our understanding of chlorophyll a fluorescence in algae and in cyanobacteria, and more than that a friend of the Czech “Photosynthesis” group, from the time of Ivan ?etlík (1928–2009) and of Zdeněk ?esták (1932–2008). Govindjee’s 80th (really 81st) birthday was celebrated by the Institute of Microbiology, Laboratory of Photosynthesis, by toasting him with an appropriate drink of a suspension of green algae grown at the institute itself. After my presentation, on October 23, 2013, of Govindjee’s contributions to photosynthesis, and his intimate association with the photosynthetikers (in Jack Myers’s words) of the Czech Republic, Govindjee gave us his story of how he began research in photosynthesis in the late 1950s. This was followed by a talk on October 25 by him on “Photosynthesis: Stories of the Past.” Everyone enjoyed his animated talk—it was full of life and enjoyment. Here, I present a brief pictorial essay on Govindjee at his 80th (really 81st) birthday in T?eboň during October 23–25, 2013.     

The Identity of La Salle’S Pana Slave

Abstract

In June 1682 Robert Cavelier, Sieur de La Salle, was presented with a “Pana” boy by the Illinois Michigamea Indians. The boy told La Salle of his history as a captive in four Indian tribes. He described Indian village locations and listed the tribes which had “many” horses. The significance of the information for which he was the source depends on the tribal identity of the captive. It has been suggested in anthropological literature that “Pana” indicated “Pawnee,” Ponca, Arikara, Wichita, even Apache. After examination of evidence-linguistic, cultural, historical - it seems most likely he was a Southern Pawnee, a Wichita. If this was so, then his information substantiates the theory of Kroeber, Brant and others that some Kiowa Apaches were still living in the southern Plains in the late 17th century.     

A preliminary biography of Armand de Ricqlès (1938–), the great synthesizer of bone histology

Armand de Ricqlès has had a long, successful career. From his start as an Assistant in the University of Paris in 1961, he defended his doctoral thesis in 1963, became Maître-Assistant (Assistant Professor) in 1970 (tenured 1971), defended his “doctorat d’état” (habilitation thesis) in 1973, was nominated Professor in the University Paris 7, was promoted to first class (Full Professor) in 1987, and was finally nominated to the prestigious chair “Biologie Historique et Évolutionnisme” (Historical and Evolutionary Biology) of the Collège de France in 1996. He lectured on a wide range of topics, especially in comparative and evolutionary biology, and assumed important administrative responsibilities, including responsibility of various master's programs, leadership of the team “Formations squelettiques” (1973–2002; till Professor Jacques Castanet took over leadership of the team), involvement in various committees, and in organizing scientific meetings. He served on several editorial committees and was co-editor of the “Annales des Sciences Naturelles”, as well as co-editor-in-chief of the “Comptes Rendus Palevol”. His scientific research always emphasized bone histology, especially paleohistology, but he also made contributions to systematic paleontology, phylogenetics, history of paleontology, and biological nomenclature, in decreasing order of importance. He has so far published over 100 scientific papers and 120 semi-popular papers.     

Not deconstructing serial homology,but instead,the a priori assumption that it generally involves ancestral anatomical similarity: An answer to Kuznetsov's paper

I am very thankful to Kuznetsov for his comments on our recent paper about serial structures published in this journal. I hope this is just the beginning of a much wider, and holistic, discussion on the evolution of serial homologous structures, and of so-called “serial structures” in general, whether they are truly serial homologs or the secondary result of homoplasy. Strangely, Kuznetsov seems to have missed the main point of our paper, what is particularly puzzling as this point is clearly made in the very title of our paper. For instance, he states that “Siomava et al. claim that the serial homologues are false because they are ancestrally anisomeric (dissimilar)' and that” Siomava et al., (Siomava et al., Journal of Morphology, 2020, 281, 1110–1132) expected that if serial homology was true, then the serial homologs would be identical at the start and then only diverge. “ However, our paper clearly did not state this. Instead, we stated that (a) serial homology is a real phenomenon, and (b) ancestral dissimilarity is actually likely the norm, and not the exception, within serial homology. In particular, our paper showed that, as clearly stated in its title and abstract, within the evolution of serial homologues these structures “many times display trends toward less similarity while in many others display trends toward more similarity, that is, one cannot say that there is a clear, overall trend to anisomerism.” Serial homology is therefore a genuine and much widespread phenomenon within the evolution of life in this planet. It is clearly one of the most important issues—and paradoxically one of the less understood, precisely because of the a priori acceptance of long-standing assumptions that have never been empirically tested, some of them repeated in Kuznetsov's paper—within macroevolution and comparative anatomy.     

Prasanna K. Mohanty (1934–2013): a great photosynthetiker and a wonderful human being who touched the hearts of many

Prasanna K. Mohanty, a great scientist, a great teacher and above all a great human being, left us more than a year ago (on March 9, 2013). He was a pioneer in the field of photosynthesis research; his contributions are many and wide-ranging. In the words of Jack Myers, he would be a “photosynthetiker” par excellence. He remained deeply engaged with research almost to the end of his life; we believe that generations of researchers still to come will benefit from his thorough and enormous work. We present here his life and some of his contributions to the field of Photosynthesis Research. The response to this tribute was overwhelming and we have included most of the tributes, which we received from all over the world. Prasanna Mohanty was a pioneer in the field of “Light Regulation of Photosynthesis”, a loving and dedicated teacher—unpretentious, idealistic, and an honest human being.     

Development of the amentiferous concept

The amentiferous concept developed in pre-Linnaean times, and early botanists clearly recognized the topical similarities among plants bearing aments. Among the amentiferous plants placed side by side in early times were many that would not be so situated today—e.g., gymnosperms intermixed with dicotyledons. By the time of Linnaeus, only dicotyledons were included among the ament-bearing groups. J. G. Gmelin was first to recognize ament-bearing plants (including some gymnosperms) under a single category, “Amentaceae.” Linnaeus, A. L. de Jussieu, W. J. Hooker, Lindley, and Eichler, at one time or another, placed these plants in a separate amentaceous category, but never under the term “Amentiferae.” The name was never used by Engler although he did place the ament-bearing plants among the first families of his Archichlamydeae. The category “Amentiferae” appears to have entered the literature in British publications and through British/English translations from the German.     

George Gaylord Simpson as mentor and apologist for paleoanthropology

The influence of George Gaylord Simpson (1902–1984) on paleoanthropology provides a well-documented, historical example of how one scientific discipline can impact upon another, bringing the latter quickly “up to speed” without having to retrace ground covered by the former. Paleoanthropologists were bystanders during the formulation of the evolutionary synthesis (1936–1947). After World War II, the younger paleoanthropologists looked to George Gaylord Simpson as one of several mentors regarding the implications of the synthesis for their own discipline. But why Simpson? Having earlier defined the superfamily Hominoidea (1931) as holding the Pongidae and Hominidae and monographed lower primate fossils (e.g., “Studies on the earliest primates,” 1940), Simpson's “Principles of classification and a classification of mammals” (1945) further solidified his reputation as a mammalian systematist. Simpson's Meaning of Evolution (1949) was widely read as an introduction to the synthesis, and his Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944) made accessible the more complex aspects. Consequently, in the 1950s and 1960s paleoanthropologists invited Simpson to participate in their symposia (e.g., “Some principles of historical biology bearing on human origins,” 1951; “The meaning of taxonomic statements,” 1964), used his books as classroom texts, and cited his publications to support claims for their own work. Later in the 1960s, Simpson moved from mentor to apologist, as the paleoanthropologists were by then familiar with the synthesis and incorporated its theoretical concepts in their interpretations of the many newly discovered hominoid fossils. Simpson now took special care to celebrate these results in his more general, less technical writings, acting as a forceful apologist for the materialistic view of human origins (e.g., “The biological nature of man,” 1966; “The evolutionary concept of man,” 1972). During the 1970s, Simpson's influence waned, and he became just another practitioner at the margin of the discipline. However, anthropologists acknowledged Simpson's earlier impact, for example, when he was invited, yet again, to address them at the 50th anniversary celebration of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists in 1981.     

History of Ichnology: The Correspondence Between the Reverend Henry Duncan and the Reverend William Buckland and the Discovery of the First Vertebrate Footprints

The Reverend Henry Duncan (1774–1846), clergyman, philosopher, writer, politician, archeologist, poet, educator, social reformer, and the founder of savings banks, was indeed a Man for All Seasons. In 1824, while Minister of the Church of Scotland at Ruthwell, Dumfriesshire, he was presented with a slab of red sandstone from the Corncockle Muir quarry in Annandale, exhibiting a set of footprints on it. Although Duncan felt from the start that he was dealing with the tracks of an animal, he wrote to the Reverend William Buckland, Reader in Mineralogy and Geology at the University of Oxford, to solicit his opinion on the origin of these curious markings. Buckland was at first skeptical, but after receiving casts of the markings from Duncan, he became convinced that they did in fact represent footprints. Duncan and Buckland maintained a correspondence about the footprints, and on January 7, 1828, Duncan described the Corncockle Muir footprints to the Royal Society of Edinburgh and quoted Buckland's findings. Duncan's paper was not published by the Society until 1831, but it aroused considerable interest—“Footsteps before the Flood”!—and was reported in several newspapers. This was the first scientific report of a fossil track; although a schoolboy, Pliny Moody, had found fossil footprints in Connecticut in 1802, they were not scientifically described until 1836. The Scottish tracks are now considered to be not reptilian but of synapsid origin and the rocks containing them are now known to be of Permian age.     

The origins of “new assimilation theory”

Boundaries play an important role in Richard Alba’s articulation of new assimilation theory, as is evident in the major works he has produced during the past two decades. This article traces his interest in boundaries to “The Twilight of Ethnicity among Americans of European Ancestry: The Case of Italians”, an article he published in ERS in 1985. It is in this article and a related book published the same year that one can begin to trace the evolution of his thinking on both ethnic boundaries and the cultural content contained within those boundaries.     

Distastefulness as a defense mechanism in Aplysia brasiliana (Mollusca: Gastropoda)

An unusual courtship pattern for fiddler crabs is described from field observations in Panama. This behavior pattern, referred to here as “directing,” differs considerably from the more frequently observed communal courtship system found in close relatives of Uca deichmanni. A male involved in “directing” approaches a female and attempts to carry or maneuver her into his burrow for mating. The female usually struggles to escape from the male. This activity often attracts other males which attempt to “direct” the female if she escapes from the first male. A male is most successful in “directing” a female into his burrow if a) he is larger than the female, b) the female is wandering (a sign of physiological receptivity) prior to the “directing” attempt, and c) several males attempt to “direct” the female at once. The results suggest that females are choosing mates by inciting several males to compete for them. The males which successfully “direct” the struggling females are probably the most fit males.     

Lorenz Hiltner, a pioneer in rhizosphere microbial ecology and soil bacteriology research

Lorenz Hiltner is recognized as the first scientist to coin the term “rhizosphere” in 1904. His scientific career and achievements are summarized in this essay. Most of his research he performed in the Bavarian Agriculture–Botanical Institute (later named the “Bavarian Institute of Plant Growth and Plant Protection”) in Munich, where he was the director from 1902 to 1923. Beginning with intensive and thorough investigations on the germination and growth of different crop plants (legumes and non-legumes) Hiltner became convinced, that root exudates of different plants support the development of different bacterial communities. His definition of the “rhizosphere” in the year 1904 centered on the idea, that plant nutrition is considerably influenced by the microbial composition of the rhizosphere. Hiltner observed bacterial cells even inside the rhizodermis of healthy roots. In analogy with fungal root symbionts, Hiltner named the bacterial community that is closely associated with roots “bacteriorhiza.” In his rhizosphere concept, Hiltner also envisioned, that beneficial bacteria are not only attracted by the root exudates but that there are also “uninvited guests,” that adjust to the specific root exudates. Based on his observations he hypothesized that “the resistance of plants towards pathogenesis is dependent on the composition of the rhizosphere microflora.” He even had the idea, that the quality of plant products may be dependent on the composition of the root microflora. In addition to his scientific achievements, Hiltner was very dedicated to applied work. Together with F. Nobbe he had the first patent on Rhizobium inoculants (Nitragin). He continuously improved formulations and the effectivity of the Rhizobium preparations and he also initiated seed dressing with sublimate for plant protection of seedlings. Thus, Hiltner tightly linked breakthroughs in basic research to improved rhizosphere management practices. In addition, he wrote a pioneering monograph on plant protection for everybody’s practical use. His emphasis on understanding microbes in the context of their micro-habitat, the rhizosphere, made him a pioneer in microbial ecology. Even now, in the era of genome and postgenome analysis with our better understanding of plant nutrition and soil bacteriology, his ideas and contributions are as fresh as they were more than 100 years ago.     

From the Zulu medicine to the European phytomedicine Umckaloabo®

Among the Zulus of South Africa a crude root drug of initially unknown botanical origin was used for the treatment of pulmonary diseases and tuberculosis (TB). An English TB patient called “Stevens” heard about it and travelled to South Africa where, according to his account, he was cured by taking an extract of the crude drug. It was extremely difficult to establish the imported crude herbal drug as a “new TB medicine”, as neither the plant from which the drug originated was identified nor were the constituents and pharmacological effects known at that time.It was only after a professional search and initial chemical and taxonomic investigations enabled the identity of the plant to be determined that the requirements were met for comprehensive chemical, pharmacological and clinical research into the crude drug.The following report traces the long and difficult path of this “mystery drug” from the Zululand of South Africa to the laboratories of Europe.     

The life and times of Ferruccio Ritossa

Ferruccio Ritossa wrote these lines only a few months before he died, as a preface to a book he wanted to write and that, unfortunately, we will never be able to read. It was to be the story of his life, an amazing story indeed. With this article, we want to take a picture of Ferruccio’s life, a mosaic of events, facts, ideas, hopes, and memories linked in a way that they will not go away, even after “a stroll in our brain.”     

Jules Cotard: sa vie, son œuvre

Jules Cotard was a psychiatrist at the Vanves asylum. Described as a sharp observer and clinician, he also had a passion for clinical research. Jules Cotard was always ready to modify, question, or even abandon a hypothesis if clinical facts and scientific analysis made him deem it necessary to do so. He devoted most of his writing to “negation delirium”, (also known as “nihilistic delusion”): “Du délire hypochondriaque dans une forme grave de mélancolie (“Concerning hypochondriac delusion in serious melancholy”)” in 1880, “Du délire des négations (“Concerning negation delirium”)” in 1882, “Perte de la vision mentale dans une mélancolie anxieuse (“Loss of mental vision in anxious melancholy”)” in 1884 and “Du délire d’énormité (“Concerning delusions of enormity”)” in 1888. Long after his death, there was much controversy and debate about the existence of negation delirium. J. Séglas and J. Régis were the main contributors to the development and clarification of his work. Thus it is this most unusual of syndromes, Cotard’s syndrome, that has caused Jules Cotard to be part of the history of French psychiatry since the end of the 19th century.     

The ornithologist Alfred Russel Wallace and the controversy surrounding the dinosaurian origin of birds

Over many years of his life, the British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace (1823–1913) explored the tropical forests of Malaysia, collecting numerous specimens, including hundreds of birds, many of them new to science. Subsequently, Wallace published a series of papers on systematic ornithology, and discovered a new species on top of a volcano on Ternate, where he wrote, in 1858, his famous essay on natural selection. Based on this hands-on experience, and an analysis of an Archaeopteryx fossil, Wallace suggested that birds may have descended from dinosaurian ancestors. Here, we describe the “dinosaur-bird hypothesis” that originated with the work of Thomas H. Huxley (1825–1895). We present the strong evidence linking theropod dinosaurs to birds, and briefly outline the long and ongoing controversy around this concept. Dinosaurs preserving plumage, nesting sites and trace fossils provide overwhelming evidence for the dinosaurian origin of birds. Based on these recent findings of paleontological research, we conclude that extant birds indeed descended, with some modifications, from small, Mesozoic theropod dinosaurs. In the light of Wallace’s view of bird origins, we critically evaluate recent opposing views to this idea, including Ernst Mayr’s (1904–2005) arguments against the “dinosaur-bird hypothesis”, and document that this famous ornithologist was not correct in his assessment of this important aspect of vertebrate evolution.     

Teilhard de Chardin,human evolution and “Piltdown Man”

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was a French Jesuit paleontologist, priest, and philosopher. In the figures published in articles in 1943 and 1951, he attempted to draw a “plausible schematic reconstruction of the natural connections between fossil men” and a “phyletic composition of the human group”. I draw attention to Teilhard's reference to Eoanthropus (“Piltdown Man”) in small print in his figure that was first printed in 1943. Most suspiciously, there is no reference to this (supposedly important) genus in the associated text, nor is there any reference whatsoever to “Piltdown Man” in the article published in 1951. Even as early as January 1913, Teilhard may have been aware that “Piltdown Man” was a hoax or joke, artificially associating a human cranium with a modified orangutan mandible. A new suspect is Edgar Willett (rather than Charles Dawson). Teilhard may have been an advisory accomplice in a joke that went seriously wrong.