Finding Order in Nature: The Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to E. O. Wilson (Hopkins Introductions to the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine)

Thi is a very well thought out, very well documented, very well written book on a subject that should have been far more carefully studied than it has been. Namely, over the last two hundred years the natural sciences have changed enormously - not just in their theoretical foundations but their methodologies as well. This book focuses on the life sciences, but as a geologist I can confirm that very, very similar things to what this book describes have also taken place in the earth sciences during the 20th century. No practicing natural scientist who wants to understand the changes in their science, well enough to keep up with them, should be without this book.

"Finding Order in Nature: The Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to E.O. Wilson" by Paul Lawrence Farber, Johns Hopkins Introductory Studies in the history of Science Series; The Johns Hopkins University Press, © 2000, 136 pages, softcover.This is an uneven book of nine chapters, varying between the history of central figures in natural history, the evolving philosophical mindset of the times, the gradual development of evolutionary perspectives, asides into related science philosophies such as French experimentalism, the gradual maturation of evolution under the characters involved, and finally an admiring perspective of contemporary naturalist E.O. Wilson. In a spectrum from "pop science" to serious a research review, it leans toward "pop" in part due to lack of detailed attribution, either through footnotes or reference citations. Nevertheless, it does “all hang together.”Chapter 1 lays out the context of Linnaeus’s work and the work of his contemporary Georges Louis Leclerc de Buffon. Linnaeus is commonly mentioned for his system of classification that lives today in his seven major ranks and binomial system, but Buffon was just as important in addressing the need for an encyclopedic compilation of life, from his position in the French Royal Garden which allowed him political influence and legitimacy and recognition among scientists and politicians.Chapter 2 shows the gradual building of natural history and the classification system from a mere listing or description of what exists into a science of describing. It is disappointing that Farber does not try to trace the origin of Linnaeus’s ideas (why did Linnaeus reduce names to two, etc.)? However, 1760 to 1840 became a time of expansive travel that paralleled colonization by the British, French, etc. and massive amounts of specimens were brought back to showcase that colonization.Chapter 3 incorporates the classification schemes into various interpretations of structure and describes an old argument over the structure-function dichotomy. The rapidly emerging science of comparative anatomy that runs about parallel to Chapter 2 pits Georges Cuvier against Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire. Cuvier advocated for organs operating as functional units that had to operate in a whole system and these basic plans formed compartmentalized classification units and there were four distinct blueprints with no transitional forms in the fossil record. Saint-Hilaire saw continuous change over time. Richard Owen proposed a limited “archetype” that was the vertebrate blueprint. Karl Ernst von Baer felt he could see similarity in the early embryonic stages of creatures but in four distinct groups. This play back-and-forth between natural history and the comparative anatomists set the stage for the next step.Chapter 4 leads up to Darwin’s publication in 1859 and many readers will be surprised to find that the unifying concept of evolution was already incipient, just awaiting a fuller explanation of its mechanisms. The nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles Lucien Bonaparte, traveled to America and studied every major collection of birds in the world, compiling an encyclopedic catalog. Whereas prior collections were soon decimated by dermestid beetles, the development of insecticides allowed taxidermy to last, and development of better guns allowed collections to expand greatly for public appreciation if not for science. However, the increased collecting and major compilations now allowed natural history to become a science and “was reaching a point of synthesis.”Chapter 5 unfolds Wallace and Darwin’s arrival at natural selection as the mechanism for evolution, and this makes classification a way to understand evolutionary relationships. In science, we tend to think that the acceptance of evolution among scientists was abrupt and the only resistance was from religious groups, but the broader historical background laid down in natural history up to this point helps us understand how widespread acceptance of evolution lingered among various scientists for forty years after Darwin’s 1859 "Origin of Species." Lord Kelvin’s use of physics to calculate a young earth from thermodynamics before radioactivity was understood was just one objection from within the science community. Owen pointed out von Baer’s position that animals could still not be arranged into a linear sequence. And without the rediscovery of Mendel’s genetic mechanisms until 1901, there was great difficulty determining exactly how variation could lead to speciation. While Thomas Huxley and Joseph Dalton Hooker and Asa Gray pushed Darwin’s theory, Agassiz and others did not accept Darwinian evolution. Ernst Haeckel examined embryos and united von Baer’s separate lineages, contending that this recapitulation of phylogeny revealed the past evolution.Chapter 6 summarizes another thread of work deriving from Nicholas Baudin’s French naval expedition collections in 1800-1804 and its contribution to physiology. In addition, the work of Xavier Bichat and Claude Bernard as experimental physiologists with a stress on experimentation, resulted in a very productive line of research for resolving contemporary problems, but at that time gave no evidence for evolutionary classification because you cannot go back in time to experiment. It is at this stage that biology classes begin to use lab exercises. Researchers in different countries pursue different philosophies of biology and Farber uses the contradictory results of Hans Driesch and Wilhelm Roux in embryology to trace acceptance of evolution versus experimental biology. This results in the redefinition of biology as experimental, and contributes to a decline in natural history.Chapter 7 notes that the golden age of natural history occurred in the late 1800s with the expansion of natural history museums and a shift from pure research and entertainment for the elite to education for the masses.Mendel’s laws were rediscovered and now understood. For readers not familiar with the “new synthesis,” Farber provides a brief history of Julian Huxley’s pulling together of genetics and evolution, along with Thomas Hunt Morgan and other contributors in Chapter 8. The contributions of Ernst Mayr, George Gaylord Simpson, Theodosius Dobzhansky, are mentioned but this chapter is short and runs out of steam before unfolding the full scenario of their contributions to the new synthesis.Chapter 9 is written in a different voice. And it is more difficult to write about science history when you are writing in the present without the benefit of future hindsight. To some extent, this is a broad-ranging admiration of Prof. E.O. Wilson as a holdover of the naturalist tradition. One early goal of that tradition was to put-it-all-together by providing an all-encompassing web of knowledge about nature, and Darwin began that process in one limited way. However, Farber sees E.O. Wilson’s more expansive work, first in sociobiology and now in extensive philosophical work attempting to tie together the whole of human scientific knowledge as accomplishing what Linnaeus and others had tried to do in the context of their limited times and limited knowledge. Of course, while earlier scientists who proposed biology as merely an extension of physics did not realize the extent of complexity and unpredictable emergent properties that biology presents, Wilson does handle this unification with considerably more intellectual rigor. What the book strives to show is that much of this effort over the last centuries has been driven by the attempt to “find order in nature” and that is exactly the correct title for this book.A three page epilogue concludes the book, with references to Steven Jay Gould, Walt Disney’s early wildlife documentaries, and Henry David Thoreau’s Walden. Farber’s conjecture that communication technology has expanded our appreciation of natural history is highly questionable because watching nature documentaries is not the same as being in nature and observing nature personally. Indeed recent research indicates that the onslaught of social media is isolating even rural “farm” kids as they now ride in enclosed cabs with earphones while the tractor drives itself.Seven pages of “suggested further reading” provides the next step for those wishing to pursue specific historical personalities. The six-page index is adequate.

Very neat reading. I ordered this for my History of Science class and it helped out a lot. Wish it was a litle cheaper but books are always expensive when for school.

I had to purchase this book for school. It was a very difficult read; it felt like I was reading an encyclopedia. But, if you're looking for a history of science, this is a good one for you!

great product! highly recommended.

Fabulous book.Every one should read it.

excellent!

Overall, I enjoyed reading this book. It was well-written and I learned a lot from it. I was introduced to a number of historic figures who I had previously known nothing about and it did a good job fitting natural history into a solid historical context.However, I felt the book was lacking in a couple key areas, namely citations and depth. I found it odd that the book contained no citations. Especially when dealing with the history of science, I believe that properly cited works are a must. Instead of a list of citations for each chapter, at the end of the book there is a very long list of "suggested readings" that maybe we are supposed to assume are the source of the authors information. The lack of citations makes me feel like this book is not as factually rigorous as it should be.My second problem with the book was its overall lack of depth. At many points it felt more like an outline than a book. Many important people and ideas were mentioned and then immediately left by the wayside. I guess that isn't too surprising since the book covers Linnaeus to Wilson in only 150 pages.Overall I'm glad I read the book, but I wish it had citations instead of suggested reading and I wish it had delved deeper into many of the important people and topics that were glossed over.