Michelle Ralph-Forton
Week 1-
1. The
process that Aristotle went through to classify organisms was to amass
information, and link common characteristics to them. He is considered to be
the first zoologist, as he studied animals, for close observation, and recorded
the data found. His goal was to find characteristics that could be used to
establish natural groups, and go further by adding subdivisions. By creating the subdivision of blood bearing
and bloodless animals, Aristotle was able to characterize animals into these
two categories. However, he did not consider limbs into his ordering system,
nor really study which animals were in fact, bloodless. Marine invertebrates
were also brushed aside, and was not until Baron Georges de Cavier, that they
were formally classified. However, due to the lack of equipment, what he
managed to gather and name was notable for the time. Similarly, Aristotle’s and
Pliny’s natural histories included mystical creatures that were heard through
word of mouth. Being limited to traveling, much of these discoveries of “wonder
people” and mythical animals were presented more like folklore. Aristotle
described an elephant, and claimed that he had seen one, but by his
observations, it does not seem so, because it was anatomically incorrect. Also,
all observations were made on the Greek islands, and there is no evidence that
an elephant was situated here. Pliny was fascinated by stories of India, believing
that everything “big and great” was from this country, largely due to the
stories heard from others. Thus, he was not skeptical about the dragons that
lay on this land.
2 - The
significant difference between Aristotle’s time, and that of the beginning of
the 18th Century was that people were starting to explore the world.
Travel was much more accessible to the mass public, and sailors would bring
back different unknown species. Thousands of new discoveries were being made,
until it got to a point where there had to be a new system of classification;
the old was just too antiquated for the modern times. It also brought about
much confusion, as the ordering of life grew harder, and the naming process seemed
almost impossible- sometimes one species would have 7 different names to
describe it, which was not only redundant, but also muddled. Linnaeus was such an expert of plants, that
he could name species on the spot, without hesitation. Even amongst the most
brilliant and renowned botanists, who stumbled upon naming certain species,
young Linnaeus was able to bring clarification by naming the species (and have
enough evidence to back up his claim) that he was given the title of the
“Little Oracle”. At age 28, he published
the book, Systema Naturae, naming 7,700 species of plants and 4,400 species
in which he all were properly named under the Linnean Hierarchy (KPCOFGS) and had the Latin name binomial. Thus, he was
considered to be the father of taxonomy that discovered the science of
classification.
3 - I find it difficult to reflect on which
audio pieces I grew partial to from the “Natural Histories project”, as I liked
them all, but I did like how the two quotes from the first and last audio clips
brought in and foreclosed the idea of natural history in public. The first,
from Carlos del Rio, stated,” Natural history is a like fungus, it’s been
there, but we do not observe. It never disappeared, and needs to be exposed
again, because it has been proliferating in the litter”. I think this tied in
with John Horner’s concern with the education system solely using standardized
tests to teach science, as natural history has no boundaries, and cannot be
contained in just a test. It is much more a part of interacting with it,
observing, and having hands on experiences. In this regard, I feel that del
Rio’s statement is saying this as well; that we have been so focused on
logistical facts, numbers, and data we learn through textbooks, but we hardly
ever do experiments, or closely observe natural history, so it does get pushed
aside. The last audio, by Claire Walker, made a striking and simple point that
I agree with: “ You can’t talk about politics, but you can always open a
discussion about nature. We are all naturalists”. Perhaps the clip that
resonated most with myself was with Sarah Rabkin’s story of the hummingbirds.
The way she described this mutual relationship with mites that rely on the
hummingbirds, leaping into their nostrils, to take flight to Mexico, to leap
off once they spot the nearest paintbrush flowers, is just incredible. This
interconnectedness is really astonishing and beautiful to me, and so is
Rabkin’s last statement:
“The
people who are trying to save the world, I think, are missing the point, and
will never succeed unless they are appreciative of what we have, because you
have to be in touch with gratitude of what we are saving…or what’s the point? “
4 –Dillard’s manner of describing
her surroundings was not only poetic, but it had a touch of grace and care.
Although I thoroughly enjoyed her descriptions of Tinker Creek, I loved the way
she described light and dark, being, “I see only tatters of clearness through a
pervading obscurity “. She then followed by writing that we are blinded by
darkness, but we are also blinded by light. I think the point she was trying to
make was that we forget to observe, and thus can be blinded by darkness, or
perhaps ignorance, of questions we may have of nature and natural phenomenon,
but when we do reach a point of clarity, or light, we are also blinded by it,
because we may be fearful of the truth. I believe this scenario functions in
everyday life as well- we go about our rhythmic routines, and follow a certain
pattern, but when we realize something that was in the shadows, or darkness
before, that reveals some sort of unknown truth beforehand, it creates a shock,
and time to adjust to. “Ignorance is bliss” to a certain extent, but there is
more to life than just being blinded; we need to push ourselves to be open to
clarity and the truths that science may reveal to us.
No comments:
Post a Comment