A translation of Carl Linnaeus's introduction to Genera plantarum (1737)

This paper provides a translation of the introduction, titled 'Account of the work' Ratio operis, to the first edition of Genera plantarum, published in 1737 by the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). The text derives its significance from the fact that it is the only published text in which Linnaeus engaged in an explicit discussion of his taxonomic method. Most importantly, it shows that Linnaeus was clearly aware that a classification of what he called 'natural genera' could not be achieved by a top-down approach of logical division, but had to rely on inductive, bottom-up procedures. The translation is supplemented by explanatory notes.     

The scientific names in the German edition of Parkinson's plants of use for food, medicine etc., in Otaheite

Sydney Parkinson, aged 18, was Sir Joseph Banks' private assistant and artist on Captain Cook's first voyage around the world. Parkinson died on the voyage. Among his effects delivered to his brother Stanfield were drawings and notes which the latter published as a journal. Included in it is a chapter on the economic plants of Tahiti, and most of them are given scientific names, some of which were new. In 1941 Fosberg adopted two of them to form names which were new combinations under Artocarpus , and Inocarpus . The writer now indicates that Parkinson's names of 1773 were mononomials, hence invalid, but that in the German edition of 1774, edited by Herr "Z", the names are valid binomials. For the two plants mentioned, the authorship of the combinations is revised.     

The first valid publication of the Linnaean Mnium triquetrum (Musci) and other new names for mosses proposed by N. Jolyclerc

A brief biographical sketch of Nicolas-Marie-Thérèse Jolyclerc (1746–1817), the French naturalist and adherent of C. Linnaeus, is presented. The publication history of his Système sexuel des végétaux, the first French version of the Linnaean sexual system of the plants is outlined. Apart from the well-known editions of this work of 1797, 1798 and 1810, a neglected edition of 1803 is described, and it is shown that this is not a pirated edition as has been suggested. A list of fourteen new combinations in mosses proposed by N. Jolyclerc in the 1803 edition of Système sexuel des végétaux is presented and some names are briefly annotated. Additionally, it is shown that Mnium triquetrum, basionym of the well-known moss species Meesia triquetra, was validly published for the first time by N. Jolyclerc in 1803, not by H. E. Richter in 1839 as is commonly accepted. Accordingly, the correct author citation for Meesia triquetra should be ‘(L. ex Jolycl.) Ångstr.’, not ‘(L. ex Richt.) Ångstr.’ The lectotype of Mnium triquetrum L. ex Jolycl. is selected from the Linnaean herbarium (LINN).     

Linnaean sources and concepts of orchids

Background

Linnaeus developed a robust system for naming plants and a useful, if mechanical, system for classifying them. His binomial nomenclature proved the catalyst for the rapid development of our knowledge of orchids, with his work on the family dating back to 1737 in the first edition of his Genera Plantarum. His first work devoted to orchids, indeed the first monograph of the family, was published in 1740 and formed the basis for his account in Species Plantarum, published in 1753, in which he gave a binomial name to each species. Given the overwhelming number of orchids, he included surprisingly few – only 62 mostly European species – in Species Plantarum, his seminal work on the plants of the world. This reflects the European origin of modern botany and the concentration of extra-European exploration on other matters, such as conquest, gold and useful plants. Nevertheless, the scope of Linnaeus'' work is broad, including plants from as far afield as India, Japan, China and the Philippines to the east, and eastern Canada, the West Indies and northern South America to the west. In his later publications he described and named a further 45 orchids, mostly from Europe, South Africa and the tropical Americas.

Scope

The philosophical basis of Linnaeus'' work on orchids is discussed and his contribution to our knowledge of the family assessed. His generic and species concepts are considered in the light of current systematic ideas, but his adoption of binomial nomenclature for all plants is his lasting legacy.Key words: Classification, Linnaeus, nomenclature, Orchidaceae, orchids     

Libertarian bioethics and religion: the case of H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr

This paper is a critique of certain moral perspectives that are found in the second edition of Engelhardt's Foundation of Bioethics. These views are spelled out in explicit detail in his second edition, and follow on the heels of a profound religious conversion. Engelhardt is an eminent bioethicist with strong religious convictions that overlay much of his writing. The author wishes to question some of the conclusions that Engelhardt reaches as they touch upon moral frameworks, pluralism, and a 'secular' bioethics.     

IsSchindewolf’s “Grundfragen der Paläontologie” still worth reading? An apologetic evaluation of his work

Roughly five years ago O.H. Schindewolf’s book “Grundfragender Paläontologie” was first published in English by the University of Chicago Press, about fifty years after the original German edition. Thus, for the first time a considerable number of English-speaking palaeontologists became acquainted with the author’s ideas of the evolutionary process. Inevitably, numerous book reviews followed, introducing “the new publication’. The predominant tenor is characterized by titels like “Magnificent wrongheadedness” or “Wonderfully, gloriously wrong”. By referring to recent results in developmental genetics and population ecology it is shown that Schindewolf’s ideas concerning the progress of evolution must by no means be interpreted simply as a product of a self reverential, wrongheaded spirit, preformed by the atmosphere of German romanticism. Truly, his ideas can be understood as the result of a scientific imagination which was not preoccupied by neo-Darwinian paradigms and was ahead of the biological knowledge of his time.     

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.”     

Paulus Aegineta, a seventh century encyclopedist and surgeon: his role in the history of plastic surgery.

Paulus Aegineta (625-690 ad), born on the island of Aegina, practiced medicine at Alexandria. The last of the eclectic Greek compilers in the Byzantine period, he wrote an Epitome of medicine in seven books. The sixth book, which is considered the best section of his work, is devoted mainly to surgery. The first edition, "editio princeps," of his Epitome was published in Greek by the Aldine press in Venice in 1528 and later translated into English for the Sydenham Society by Francis Adams of Banchory (1844-1847). Paulus was not only a compiler but also a competent and skillful surgeon. In addition to his achievements in general surgical progress, Paulus Aegineta, especially in the book on surgery, made valuable contributions in the history of plastic surgery. He may be considered as one of the originators of plastic surgery as it is known today. He described procedures varying from the treatment of nasal and jaw fractures to operations for gynecomastia, ganglion, and hypospadias. This Grecian master influenced not only his own but also the subsequent ages. Rhazes, Haly Abbas, Albucasis, Avicenna, and Fabricius ab Aquapendente were the greatest physicians influenced by Paulus Aegineta. Because the work of Paulus Aegineta was the only source for many of the surgical treatises of Arabian authors, his Epitome bridged Western and Eastern medicine and conveyed surgical experience and knowledge, including several plastic surgery procedures, to the subsequent ages.     

Cross talk: interview with Al Gilman

Alfred Goodman Gilman was born in the same year (1941) that his father and Louis Goodman published the first edition of The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics. Pharmacology has thus always been part of his life, and in his own career he has focused primarily on cell signaling. For the past twenty years, he has chaired the Department of Pharmacology at UT Southwestern, and his long list of accomplishments includes a Nobel Prize (1994) for his work on G proteins. In 1998, Gilman embarked on his most ambitious program of research yet, bringing dozens of leading investigators from the cell signaling community to Dallas in order to plan out a ten-year project aiming "to understand as completely as possible the relationships between sets of inputs and outputs in signaling cells." Now directing the full-fledged, federally funded Alliance for Cellular Signaling, Gilman stresses that a solid database for constructing a "virtual cell" will depend on extensive collaboration from the entire signaling community. (For a complete Program Summary, and to register for membership in the Alliance, consult www.cellularsignaling.org.) The luminaries that were invited to the Dallas planning meeting, in fact, were greeted at the door with a note from Gilman exhorting them: please check EGO at door.     

Romanowsky-Malachowski Stains the So-Called Romanowsky Stain: Malachowski's 1891 Use of Alkali Polychromed Methylene Blue for Malaria Plasmodia

In the course of revising the chapter on neutral stains for the 9th edition of Conn's Biological Stains (1977) two papers of Kingsley (1935, 1937) were encountered. The first seemed to be a rather minor revision of MacNeal's tetrachrome stain, the second was concerned mainly with the inclusion of acetone in the solvent. Kingsley in this 1937 paper made an extensive review of the literature and made the only post-Nocht reference to Malachowski's 1891 publication that we had seen. It was not until much later when we were able to obtain a copy of Malachowski's 1891 paper and to study it in detail that we realized that not only had Malachowski published his results slightly before Romanowsky's 1891 paper, but that he had also anticipated Nocht's (1898) discovery of the use of alkali polychromed methylene blue.     

中英文版《中国植物志(省沽油科)》的比较

以中文版《中国植物志·第46卷》中收载的省沽油科植物分类群为基础,通过与英文修订版“Flora of China(Vol.11)”中相应分类群进行比较,报道了2部著作中植物分类群的学名和分类位置的变动及收载种类的增减情况,以资正确鉴定和编目应用。     

L. H. Bailey's citations to Gregor Mendel

L. H. Bailey cited Mendel's 1865 and 1869 papers in the bibliography that accompanied his 1892 paper, Cross-Breeding and Hybridizing, and Mendel is mentioned once in the 1895 edition of Bailey's "Plant-Breeding." Bailey claimed to have copied his 1892 references to Mendel from Focke. It seems, however, that while he may have first encountered references to Mendel's work in Focke, he actually copied them from the Royal Society "Catalogue of Scientific Papers." Bailey also saw a reference to Mendel's 1865 paper in Jackson's "Guide to the Literature of Botany." Bailey's 1895 mention of Mendel occurs in a passage he translated from Focke's "Die Pflanzen-Mischlinge."     

The herbarium of Trinity College, Dublin: its history and contents

The herbarium was established in 1840, with the personal herbarium of Thomas Coulter as its nucleus. Extensive purchases were made by him and by his successor, W. H. Harvey, whose personal herbarium was also incorporated. Harvey also received numerous donations, partly through his friendship with W. J. Hooker and Asa Gray, but also from his position as joint author of Flora Capensis. After Harvey's death in 1866 growth continued at a slower rate till 1950, when it once more accelerated. The herbarium contains c. 206000 specimens in all: 166000 seed plants, 8000 pteridophytes, 8000 bryophytes, 20 000 algae and 4000 lichens. An analysis of the geographical origin of the specimens is given, and a list of the chief collectors. The regions most fully represented are Europe (especially the west and south), India, South Africa, North and South America. There is relatively little from China and Tropical Africa. Among the largest collections are those of Spruce (Amazon and Andes), Harvey (world-wide, especially Australian algae), A. F. G. Kerr (Thailand), Drege (South Africa) and Kotschy (Orient).     

Darwinian gradualism and its limits: The development of Darwin's views on the rate and pattern of evolutionary change

Conclusion The major tenets of the recent hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium are explicit in Darwin's writing. His notes from 1837–1838 contain references to stasis and rapid change. In the first edition of the Origin (1859), Darwin described the importance of isolation of local varieties in the process of speciation. His views on the tempo of speciation were influenced by Hugh Falconer and also, perhaps, by Edward Suess (1831–1914). It is paradoxical that, although both topics were recorded in his unpublished notes of 1837–1838, the second was not explicitly and fully discussed until the fourth edition of the Origin (1866). While no wholly satisfactory explanation of this paradox suggests itself, it seems probable that Falconer's work on the persistence of fossil species of elephant helped Darwin to see the wider significance of the tempo of evolution for his general theory.     

Explaining the freemartin: Tandler and Keller vs. Lillie and the question of priority

The correct explanation for the freemartin phenotype in the female twin of a female-male pair in cattle was first reported by Tandler and Keller (1911. Deutsche Tier?rzt Wochenschr 19:148-149). This same explanation for the freemartin was independently discovered by Lillie (1916. Science 43:611-613). Today both set of scientists are given credit for this discovery; it is the basis for much of the subsequent work on the developmental basis for sex differentiation in vertebrates. Even though Lillie published after Keller and Tandler, he gets credit for this discovery because: (1) Keller and Tandler published in a veterinary journal and as a consequence their work was not disseminated as broadly throughout the larger scientific community; this problem was compounded by the fact that their definitive 1916 paper was published under wartime conditions during World War I, and (2) Lillie was an influential scientist with a group of graduate students who could elaborate on and extend his work; they published a number of papers on the freemartin. At some point while Lillie was doing his initial work on the freemartin he may have become aware that Keller and Tandler were also working on the freemartin problem; this information may have shaped his decision on when to publish.     

Japanese guideline for the management of hyperuricemia and gout: second edition

Gout is a urate deposition disease caused by persistent hyperuricemia. Because gout patients present with a variety of clinical symptoms, it is necessary to have a guideline for the standard management and care of gout and hyperuricemia. The Japanese Society of Gout and Nucleic Acid Metabolism, a scientific society committed to study nucleic acid metabolism and related diseases, established the first edition of the "Guideline for the Management of Hyperuricemia and Gout" in 2002, and published the revised version in January 2010. This second edition is not only evidence based on a search of systemic literature, but also includes consensus levels by a Delphi exercise to determine the strength of the recommendations. A draft version of this guideline was reviewed by internal and external reviewers as well as a patient. In this guideline, key messages from each chapter are listed as statements together with the evidence level, consensus level, and strength of the recommendation. In this proceeding, several selected chapters on the clinical management of gout and hyperuricemia are described. We hope this guideline is appropriately used for the standard management and care of patients with hyperuricemia and gout in daily practice.     

中英文版《中国植物志(夹竹桃科)》的比较

本文将中文版的《中国植物志·第６３卷（夹竹桃科）》（１９７７）与英文版的《中国植物志·第１６卷（夹竹桃科）》（１９９５）进行对照比较,报道了两专著中植物分类群学名和分类位置的变动以及收载种类的增减等情况,以资正确鉴定应用。