Sarah Weber Response Questions

1 - What is Aristotle’s main innovation/ contribution to the classification of organisms? That is, what did he do differently than any predecessors? Why does Aristotle’s or Pliny’s natural histories include things like “wonder people” and dragons? What is the explanation for their having been recognized equally with various kinds of fish, deer, or other well-known animals? Aristotle attempted, although often mistaken, to divide animals into two natural groups based on characteristics: blood-bearing and bloodless. Aristotle is the first to observe animals as animals (organisms as organisms), much like contemporary natural historians. The phenomenon of “wonder people” and dragons seems to be a way to find similarities in geographies of other countries and continents, trying to relate natural history with religion, and also the reiteration of previous animal writings. 2 - Why was there a new urgency to classify the diversity of life in the 1700’s (Linnaeus’ time) than there was for ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Pliny? What fundamentally had changed in Europe by the time Linnaeus was observing the variety of living things. Why was Linnaeus called the “Little Oracle”? During Linnaeus' time sailing ships were not just used for exploring the edges of the world, but for naturalists, cartographers, missionaries, and scholars. Artistotle and Pliny were both confined to specific places, although Pliny did travel more than Aristotle because of his military duties. The name the "Little Oracle" was coined due to Linnaeus' ability to find the natural order where others had not. The Linnaean Hierarchy began the ordering and naming of the living world by using a dual Latin name to (categorize the genus and species of) each organism. 3 - Which definitions of “natural history” from the Natural Histories Project were most interesting to you and why? How do any of them speak to you personally? Relate interestingly to each other? Relate to zoos and the notions of natural history that came up in this week’s readings? The most interesting definition is from Tom Fleishchner. He defines natural history as, “ Natural History is a practice of focused intentional attentiveness to the more than human world guided by honesty and accuracy. That attentiveness can be directed to almost anything: rocks, landscapes, hummingbirds, etc. It’s not a body of knowledge or facts: it’s a practice.” The definitions relate to each other because of words that coincide: questions, regarding, documenting, species, organisms, the world. Each person seems to feel passionate about their work in a beautiful, poetic way. Another meaningful definition is Harry Greene’s Joes and Annies that essentially defines Natural History as an “observation of an organism, species in a time at a place doing something, archived and recorded so someone else can use the information.” The definitions of natural history immediately made me connect on of the first sentences in the “Dawn of Zoology” reading: “Aristotle had always tried to amass information, in many cases from his personal observations; to find common characteristics and then to attempt an explanation.” This quotation relates to many of the oral definitions of natural history because of the amassed information gathered and the importance of gathering this information for others to interpret of archive. 4 – Pick out one quote from Annie Dillard’s essay on Seeing that stood out to you and discuss it further. What is significant about it and why? If it connects to any of the other readings or the Observation 1 exercise to you, mention how. “Seeing is of course very much a matter of verbalization” (Dillard10). This quotation relates significantly to the oral definitions of natural history. What does it mean to see? What is the significance of seeing if not to verbalize the observations? Dillard’s essay emphasized the beauty of seeing nature. Dillard’s essay to me coincided with the definitions of natural history I listened to because of this acute attentiveness in regarding and experiencing nature. Less emphasis on human interaction and more of soaking it all in and using all senses.