Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 195–279 | Cite as

Origin of the species and genus concepts: An anthropological perspective

  • Scott Atran
Article

Keywords

Genus Concept Anthropological Perspective 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adanson, M. 1764. Familles des plantes. 2 vols. Paris: Vincent.Google Scholar
  2. Albertus Magnus. 1955. De natura et origine animae, de principiis motus processivi, quaestiones super de animalibus. Vol. XII of Opera omnia.: Monasterri Westfalorum.Google Scholar
  3. Aquinas, Th. 1946. Tractatus de unitate intellectus contra Averroistas. Rome: Gregorian University.Google Scholar
  4. 1955. Somme théologique [Summa theologiae]. Translated by A.-M. Rouget. 6 vols. Paris: Desclée.Google Scholar
  5. Arber, A. 1950. The Natural Philosophy of Plant Form. Darien, Conn.: Hafner.Google Scholar
  6. 1953. “From Medieval Herbalism to the Birth of Modern Botany.” In Science, Medicine and History, ed. E., Underwood, pp. 317–336. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  7. Aristotle. 1908–1931. The Complete Works of Aristotle. Edited by J. A. Smith and W. D. Ross. 11 vols. Vol. I: Analytica priora, trans. A Jenkinson, and Analytica posteriora, trans. G. Mure [1928]; vol. IV: Historia animalium, trans. D. Thompson [1910]; vol. V: De partibus animalium, trans. W. Ogle [1912]; vol. VIII: Metaphysica, trans. W. Ross [1928].Google Scholar
  8. 1963. Categories [Categoriae] and De interpretatione. Translated by J. Ackrill. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  9. 1975. On the soul [De anima]. Translated by W. Hett. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  10. 1980. The physics [physica]. 2 vols. Translated by P. Wicksteed and F. Cornford. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  11. Atran, S. 1983. “Covert Fragmenta and the Origins of the Botanical Family.” Man, 18:51–71.Google Scholar
  12. 1985a. “The Nature of Folkbotanical Life-forms.” Amer. Anthrop.87:298–315.Google Scholar
  13. 1985b. “Pre-theoretical Aspects of Aristotelian Definition and Classification of Animals: The Case for Common Sense.” Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., 16:113–163.Google Scholar
  14. 1986. Fondements de l'historie naturelle. Pour une anthropologie de la science. Brussells: Complexe.Google Scholar
  15. 1987. “Folkbiological Universals as Common Sense.” In Noam Chomsky: Consensus and Controversy, ed. S., Modgil and C., Modgil, pp. 247–268. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  16. Bachelard, G. 1980. La formation de l'esprit scientifique. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  17. Balme, D. 1980. “Aristotle's Biology Was Not Essentialist.” Arch. Geschichte Phil.62:1–12.Google Scholar
  18. Bartlett, H. 1926. “Sumatran Plants in Asahan and Karoland, With Notes on Their Vernacular Names.” Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts Let., 6:1–66.Google Scholar
  19. 1935. “The Batak Lands of North Sumatra.” Natural Appli. Sci. Bull., 4:211–323. (University of the Philippines.)Google Scholar
  20. 1940. “History of the Generic Concept in Botany.” Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 47:319–362.Google Scholar
  21. Bauhin, C. 1623. Pinax theatri botanici. Basel: Regis.Google Scholar
  22. Berlin, B. 1972. “Speculations on the Growth of Ethnobotanical Nomenclature.” Lang. Soc., 1:63–98.Google Scholar
  23. 1973. “The Relation of Folk Systematics to Biological Classifications and Nomenclature.” Ann. Rev. Syst. Ecol., 4:259–271.Google Scholar
  24. 1978. “Ethnobiological Classification.” In Cognition and Categorization, ed. E., Rosch and B., Lloyd, pp. 9–26. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Berlin, B. 1982a. “Predicting Discontinuities in Ethnobiological Classification.” Paper presented at the Department of Anthropology Faculty Seminar, November 22, 1982, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  26. Berlin, B. 1982b. “Natural and Not-so-natural Higher-order Categories in Ethnobotanical Classification.” Paper read before the Anthropology Section of the New York Academy of Sciences, April 26, 1982, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Berlin, B.; Boster, J.; and O'Neill, J. 1981. “The Perceptual Basis of Ethnobiological Classification: Evidence from Aguaruna Folk Ornithology.” J. Ethnobiol., 1:95–108.Google Scholar
  28. Berlin, B.; Breedlove, D.; and Raven, P. 1973. “General Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Folk Biology.” Amer. Anthrop., 75:214–242.Google Scholar
  29. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  30. Bianchi, H. 1957. “Tournefort et la médicine.” In Tournefort, ed. R., Heims, pp. 97–103. Paris: Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle.Google Scholar
  31. Blackwelder, R. 1967. Taxonomy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. Bock, H. 1539. Kreütter Buch. Strasbourg: W. Rihelius.Google Scholar
  33. 1552. De stirpium. Strasbourg: W. Rihelius.Google Scholar
  34. Bock, W. 1973. “Philosophical Foundations of Classical Evolutionary Taxonomy.” Syst. Zool., 22:375–392.Google Scholar
  35. Boyle, R., 1667. The Origine of Formes and Qualities. 2nd ed. Oxford: Davis.Google Scholar
  36. Bremekamp, C. 1953. “A Re-examination of Cesalpino's Classification.” Acta Bot. Neerl., 1:580–593.Google Scholar
  37. Bretzl, H. 1903. Botanische Forschungen des Alexanderzuges. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
  38. Brown, C. 1977. “Folk Botanical Life-forms: Their Universality and Growth.” Amer. Anthrop., 79:317–342.Google Scholar
  39. 1979. “Folk Zoological Life-forms: Their Universality and Growth.” Amer. Anthrop., 81:791–817.Google Scholar
  40. 1984. Language and Living Things: Uniformities in Folk Classification and Naming. New Brunswick, N. J. Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  41. Brunfels, O. 1530–1536. Herbarum vivae eicones. Strasbourg: Schottu.Google Scholar
  42. Buffon, G.-L. 1749. Histoire naturelle générale et particulière, vol. I. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
  43. Bulmer, R. 1970. “Which Came First, the Chicken or the Egg-head?” In Échanges et communications: Mélanges offerts à Claude Lévi-Strauss, ed. J., Pouillon and P., Maranda, pp. 1069–91. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  44. 1974. “Folk Biology in the New Guinea Highlands.” Soc. Sci. Info., 13:9–28.Google Scholar
  45. 1979. “Kalam Classification of Birds.” In Classifications in Their Social Contexts, ed. R., Ellen and D., Reason, pp. 57–79. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  46. Bulmer, R., and Tyler, M 1968. “Karam Classification of Frogs.” J. Polynesian Soc., 77:333–385.Google Scholar
  47. Burma, B 1949. “The Species Concept: A Semantic Review.” Evolution, 3:369–373.Google Scholar
  48. Cain, A. 1956. “The Genus in Evolutionary Taxonomy.” Syst. Zool., 5:97–109.Google Scholar
  49. Cain, A. 1959. “The Post-Linnaean Development of Taxonomy.” Proc. Linn. Soc. London, 170:234–244.Google Scholar
  50. Candolle, A.-P. 1833. “Note sur la division du règne végétal en quatre embranchements.” Bibl. Universelle Genève Sci. Arts18:259–268.Google Scholar
  51. Carey, S. 1978. “The Child's Concept of ‘Animal.’” Paper presented to the Psychonomic Society, San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar
  52. Cassirer, E. 1906. Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft de neueren Zeit. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.Google Scholar
  53. Cesalpino, A. 1571. Questionum peripateticorum libri quinque. Venice: Juntas.Google Scholar
  54. 1583. De plantis libri XVI. Florence: Marescot.Google Scholar
  55. Cole, C. 1984. “Taxonomy: What's in a Name?” Nat. Hist., 93:30–34.Google Scholar
  56. Cordus, V. 1561. Valerii Cordi Simesusij Annotationes in Pedacij Dioscoridis Anazerabei de medica materia libros V [Historia plantarum]. Edited by C., Gesner. Strasbourg: J. Rihelius.Google Scholar
  57. Croizat, L. 1945. “History and Nomenclature of the Higher Units of Classification.” Bull. Torrey Bot. Club, 72:52–75.Google Scholar
  58. Cronquist, A. 1968. The Evolution and Classification of Flowering Plants. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  59. Cullen, J. 1968. “Botanical Problems of Numerical Taxonomy.” In Modern Methods in Plant Taxonomy, ed. V., Heywood, pp. 175–183. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  60. Cuvier, G. 1812. “Sur un nouveau rapprochement à établir entre les classes qui composent le règne animal.” Muséum d'Historie Naturelle de Paris, Annales, 19:73–84.Google Scholar
  61. Darwin, C. 1883. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. 6th ed. New York: Appleton.Google Scholar
  62. Daudin, H. 1926–1927. Cuvier et Lamarck: Les classes zoologiques et l'idée de série animale (1790–1830). 2 vols. Paris: Alcan.Google Scholar
  63. Davis, P., and Heywood, V. 1963. Principles of Angiosperm Taxonomy. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  64. de Beer, G., ed. 1960, 1967. “Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species.” Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), 2:27–200; 3:129–176. (Notebooks B, C, D, E.)Google Scholar
  65. Descartes, R. 1907 [1637]. Discours de la méthode. Paris: Cerf.Google Scholar
  66. Diamond, J. 1966. “Zoological Classification of a Primitive People.” Science, 15:1102–4.Google Scholar
  67. 1972. The Avifauna of the Eastern Highland of New Guinea. Cambridge, Mass.: Nuttall Ornithological Club.Google Scholar
  68. Dioscorides. 1959. The Greek Herbal of Dioscorides, Illustrated by a Byzantine A.D. 712, Englished by John Goodyer A.D. 1655. Ed. R., Gunther. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
  69. Diver, C. 1940. “The Problem of Closely Related Species Living in the Same Area.” In The New Systematics. ed. T., Huxley, pp. 301–328. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  70. Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  71. Dodoens, R. 1583. Stirpium historiae. Antwerp: Plantini.Google Scholar
  72. Dorolle, M. 1929. Introduction to Césalpin, questions péripatéticiennes. Paris: Alcan.Google Scholar
  73. Dougherty, J. 1979. “Learning Names for Plants and Plants for Names.” Anthrop. Linguistics, 21:298–315.Google Scholar
  74. Dughi, R. 1957. “Tournefort dans l'histoire de la botanique.” In Tournefort, ed. R., Heim, pp. 131–185. Paris: Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle.Google Scholar
  75. Durkheim, E., and Mauss, M. 1963 [1903]. Primitive Classification. Trans. R. Needham. Chicago: Chicago University.Google Scholar
  76. Dwyer, P. 1976a. “An Analysis of Rofaifo Mammal Taxonomy.” Amer. Ethnol., 3:425–445.Google Scholar
  77. 1976b. “Beetles, Butterflies, and Bats: Species Transformation in New Guinea Folk Classification.” Oceania, 14:188–205.Google Scholar
  78. Emmart, E. 1940. The Badianus Manuscript: An Aztec Herbal. Baltimore: (Originally composed in 1552.)Google Scholar
  79. Farber, P. 1982a. “The Transformation of Natural History in the Nineteenth Century.” J. Hist. Biol., 15:145–152.Google Scholar
  80. 1982b. The Emergence of Ornithology as a Scientific Discipline, 1760–1850. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  81. Feyerabend, P. 1970. “Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge.” Minnesota Stud. Phil. Sci., 4:17–130.Google Scholar
  82. Foucault, M. 1970 [1966]. The Order of Things. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  83. Friedberg, C. 1970. “Analyse de quelques groupements de végétaux comme introduction à l'étude de la classification botanique bunaq.” In Échanges et communications: Mélanges offerts à Claude Lévi-Strauss, vol. II, ed J., Pouillon and P., Maranda, pp. 1092–1130. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  84. 1972. “Éléments de botanique bunaq.” In Langues et techniques: Nature et société, vol. II, Approche ethnologique et naturaliste, ed. J., Barrau, pp. 375–393. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
  85. Friedberg, C. 1982. Les Bunaq de Timor et les Plantes, vol. IV MUK GUBUL NOR “La Chevelure de la Terre.” Thèse d'État, Université de Paris V.Google Scholar
  86. Fuchs, L. 1542. De historia stirpium. Basel: Insengrin.Google Scholar
  87. 1543. Neu Kreüterbuch. Basel: Insengrin.Google Scholar
  88. Galileo, G. 1623. Il Saggiatore. Rome: Mascardi.Google Scholar
  89. Gesner, C. 1584. Epistolarum medicinalium. Wittenberg: Gronenberg.Google Scholar
  90. 1972. Conradi Gesneri historia plantarum. Zurich: U. Graf.Google Scholar
  91. Gilbert, N. 1963. “Galileo and the School of Padua.” J. Hist. Phil., 1:223–231.Google Scholar
  92. Gilmour, J., and Walters, S. 1964. “Philosophy and Classification.” In Vistas in Botany, vol. IV, Recent Researches in Plant Taxonomy, ed. W., Turrill, pp. 1–22. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  93. Gotthelf, A. 1976. “Aristotle's Conception of Final Causality.” Rev. Metaphys., 30:226–254.Google Scholar
  94. Greene, E. 1983. Landmarks of Botanical History, 2 vols. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  95. Guyénot, E. 1941. Les sciences de la vie au XVII e et XVIIIe siècles. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
  96. Harvey, W. 1981 [1651]. Disputations Touching the Generation of Animals [De generatione animalium]. Trans. G. Whitteridge. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  97. Hays, T. 1976. “An Empirical Method for the Identification of Covert Categories in Ethnobiology.” Amer. Ethnol., 3:489–507.Google Scholar
  98. 1983. “Ndumba Folk Biology and General Principles of Ethnobotanical Classification and Nomenclature.” Amer. Anthrop., 85:592–611.Google Scholar
  99. Hodge, M. 1985. “Darwin, Species, and the Theory of Natural Selection.” Paper presented to Colloque International: “Histoire du Concept d'Espèce dans les Sciences de la Vie,” Fondation Singer-Polignac, Paris, May 28–31, 1985.Google Scholar
  100. Hull, D. 1965. “The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy — Two Thousand Years of Stasis. Part 1.” Brit. J. Phil. Sci., 15:314–326.Google Scholar
  101. Hunn, E. 1975a. “Cognitive Processes in Folk Ornithology: The Identification of Gulls.” Language-Behavior Research Laboratory, Working Paper No. 42, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  102. 1975b. “A Measure of the Degree of Correspondence of Folk to Scientific Biological Classification.” Amer. Ethnol., 2:309–327.Google Scholar
  103. 1976. “Toward a Perceptual Model of Folk Biological Classification.” Amer. Ethnol., 3:508–524.Google Scholar
  104. Inger, R. 1958. “Comment on the Definition of Genera.” Evolution, 12:370–384.Google Scholar
  105. Inglis, W. 1966. “The Observational Basis of Homology.” Syst. Zool., 15:219–228.Google Scholar
  106. Jacob, F. 1973 [1970]. The Logic of Life. Trans. B. Spillman. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  107. Jacobs, M. 1980. “Revolutions in Plant Description.” In Liber gratulatorius in honorem H. C. D. De Wit, ed. J., Arends, G., Boelema, C., de, Groot, and A., Leeuwenberg, pp. 155–181. Wageningen: H. Veenman and Zonen.Google Scholar
  108. Jardine, N. 1969. “A Logical Basis for Biological Classification.” Syst. Zool., 18:37–52.Google Scholar
  109. 1976. “Galileo's Road to Truth and the Demonstrative Regress.” Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci.7:277–318.Google Scholar
  110. Jaume Saint-Hilaire, J. H. 1805. Exposition des familles naturelles. 2 vols. Paris: Treuttel and Würtz.Google Scholar
  111. Joly, R. 1968. “La biologie d'Aristote.” Rev. philos., 158:219–253.Google Scholar
  112. Jung, J. 1747 [1662]. Opuscula botanico-physica. Ed. M., Fogel and J., Vagetius . Coburg: Ottonis. (The Isagoge phytoscopica was originally complied in 1678–1679 and De plantis doxoscopiae in 1662.)Google Scholar
  113. 1982. Praelectiones physicae. Historisch-Kritische Edition, ed. Christoph, Meinel. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  114. Jussieu, A.-L. 1789. Genera plantarum. Paris: Herissant.Google Scholar
  115. Kästner, H. 1896. “Pseudo-Dioscorides De herbis femininis.” Hermes, 31:578–636.Google Scholar
  116. Keil, F. 1979. Semantic and Conceptual Development: An Ontological Perspective. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  117. Kesby, J. 1979. “The Rangi Classification of Animals and Plants.” In Classifications in Their Social Contexts, ed. R., Ellen and D., Reason, pp. 33–56. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  118. Lamarck, J.-B. 1758. Mémoire sur les classes les plus convenables à établir parmi les végétaux. Mémoires de l'Académie des Sciences, année 1758, pp. 437–453.Google Scholar
  119. 1809. Philosophie zoologique. Paris: Dentu.Google Scholar
  120. Landgraf, E. 1928. “Ein frühmittelaltericher Botanicus.” Kyklos, 1:3–36.Google Scholar
  121. Lenox, J. 1980. “Aristotle on Genera, Species, and ‘The More and the Less.’” J. Hist. Biol., 13:321–346.Google Scholar
  122. Li, H.-L. 1974. “Plant Taxonomy and the Origin of Cultivated Plants.” Taxon, 23:715–724.Google Scholar
  123. Linnaeus, C. 1737a. Genera plantarum. Leiden: Wishoff.Google Scholar
  124. 1737b. Critica botanica. Leiden: Wishoff.Google Scholar
  125. 1751. Philosophia botanica. Stockholm: Kiesewetter.Google Scholar
  126. 1787. Philosophia botanica. 4th ed. Geneva: Pietre and Dellamolière.Google Scholar
  127. 1790 [1760]. Disquisitio de sexu plantarum. In Amoenitates academicae, vol. X, pp. 100–131. Erlangen: Schreber. (Originally presented as the prize essay of the Imperial Academy of St. Petersburg in 1760.)Google Scholar
  128. 1972 [1744]. Discours sur l'accroissement de la terre habitable [Oratio de Telluris habitabilis incremento]. In L'équilibre de la nature, trans. B. Jasmin, pp. 29–55. Paris: Vrin. (Originally published in Latin in 1744, subsequently in the Amoenitates academicae, vol. II.)Google Scholar
  129. Lloyd, G. 1968. Aristotle: The Growth and Structure of His Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  130. Locke, J. 1848 [1689]. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Tegg.Google Scholar
  131. MacArthur, R. 1972. Geographical Ecology: Patterns in the Distribution of Species. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  132. Macnamara, J. 1982. Names for Things: A Study of Human Learning. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
  133. Magnol, P. 1689. Prodromus historiae generalis plantarum. Montpellier: Pech.Google Scholar
  134. Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  135. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  136. Meinel, C. 1984a. In physicis futurum saeculum respicio: Joachim Jungius und die Naturwissenschaftliche Revolution des 17 Jahrhunderts. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
  137. 1984b. Der handschriftliche Nachlass von Joachim Jungius in der Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg. Katalog. Stuttgart: Ernst Hauswedell.Google Scholar
  138. Meinel, C. 1985. “Révolution scientifique et expérience en chimie: méthodologie et réforme chez Joachim Jungius vers 1630”. Paper presented to Colloque International: “Hélène Metzger”, Centre International de Synthèse, Paris, May 21–23, 1985.Google Scholar
  139. Meyer, E. 1854–1857. Geschichte der Botanik. 4 vols. Köningsberg: Bornträger.Google Scholar
  140. Milt, B. 1936. “Conrad Gessner's ‘Historia plantarum’ (Fragmenta relicta)”. Vierteljahrs. naturforsch. Ges. Zürich, 81:285–291.Google Scholar
  141. Morison, R. 1669. Praeludia botanica. London.Google Scholar
  142. 1672. Plantarum umbelliferarum distributio nova. Oxford: Sheldonian.Google Scholar
  143. 1680–1699. Plantarum historiae universalis Oxiensis. Vols. II–III. Oxford: Sheldonian.Google Scholar
  144. Morton, A. 1981. History of Botanical Science. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  145. Needham, J. 1986. Science and Civilisation in China. Vol. VI(1), Botany. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  146. Owen, R. 1866. The Anatomy of Vertebrates. Vol. I, Fishes and Reptiles. London: Longman, Green.Google Scholar
  147. Paso y Trancoso. F. 1886. “La botanica entre los Nahuas”. Anales Mus. Nac. Mexico, 3.Google Scholar
  148. Pline [Pliny]. 1829. Histoire naturelle de Pline [Historiarum Mundi]. 20 vols. Paris: Panckoucke.Google Scholar
  149. Quine, W. 1966. “Three Grades of Modal Involvement”. In W., Quine, The Ways of Paradox, pp. 174–184. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  150. Randall, J. 1940. “The Development of Scientific Method in the School of Padua”. J. Hist. Ideas, 1:177–206.Google Scholar
  151. Raven, C. 1942. John Ray Naturalist, His Life and Works. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  152. Raven, P. 1976. “Systematics and Plant Population Biology”. Syst. Bot., 1:284–316.Google Scholar
  153. Raven, P.; Berlin, B.; and Breedlove, D. 1971. “The Origins of Taxonomy”. Science174:1210–13.Google Scholar
  154. Ray, J. 1660. Catalogous plantarum circa Cantabrigiam nascentium. Cambridge: Field.Google Scholar
  155. 1682. Methodus plantarum nova. London: Faithorne and Kersey.Google Scholar
  156. 1686. Historia plantarum. London: Smith and Walford.Google Scholar
  157. 1691. The Wisdom of God Manifested in the Works of Creation. London: Smith.Google Scholar
  158. 1693. Synopsis methodica animalium quadrupedum & serpentini. London: Smith and Walford.Google Scholar
  159. 1696a. Synopsis methodica stirpium Britanicarum. London: Smith and Walford.Google Scholar
  160. 1696b. De variis plantarum methodus dissertatio brevis. London: Smith and Walford.Google Scholar
  161. 1703. Methodus plantarum emendata et aucta. London: Smith and Walford.Google Scholar
  162. 1848. The Correspondence of John Ray. Edited by E., Lankester. London: Ray Society.Google Scholar
  163. Regan, C. 1926. “Organic evolution”. Presidential Address, Section D. British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1925.Google Scholar
  164. Riddle, J. 1981. “Pseudo-Dioscorides' Ex herbis femininis and Early Medieval Medical Botany”. J. Hist. Biol., 14:43–81.Google Scholar
  165. Rivinus, A. [Bachmann]. 1690. Introductio generalis in rem herbariam. Leipzig: Günther.Google Scholar
  166. Sachs, J. 1890 [1875]. History of Botany (1530–1860). Trans. H. Garnsey. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  167. Scheffer, W. 1958. Seals, Sea Lions, and Walruses. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  168. Simpson, G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  169. Singer, C. 1927. “The Herbal in Antiquity”. J. Hellenic Stud., 47:1–52.Google Scholar
  170. 1959. A History of Biology. New York: Abelard-Schuman.Google Scholar
  171. Skulsky, H. 1968. “Paduan Epistemology and the Doctrine of the One Mind”. J. Hist. Phil., 6:341–361.Google Scholar
  172. Sloan, P. 1972. “John Locke, John Ray, and the Problem of the Natural System”. J. Hist. Biol., 5:1–53.Google Scholar
  173. Sperber, D. 1975. “Pourquoi les animaux parfaits, les hybrides et les monstres sont-ils bons à penser symboliquement?” L'Homme, 15:5–34.Google Scholar
  174. Sprague, T. 1928. “The Herbal of Otto Brunfels”. J. Linn. Soc. London, 48:79–124.Google Scholar
  175. 1940. “Taxonomic Botany, with Special Reference to the Angiosperms”. In The New Systematics, ed. T., Huxley, pp. 435–453. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  176. Sprague, T., and Sprague, M. 1939. “The Herbal of Valerius Cordus”. J. Linn. Soc. London, 52:1–113.Google Scholar
  177. Sprengel, K. 1817–1818. Geschichte der Botanik. 2 vols. Altenberg: Brockhaus.Google Scholar
  178. Stearn, W. 1957. “An Introduction to the Species plantarum and Cognate Botanical Works of Carl Linnaeus”. In Species plantarum. A Facsimile of the first edition, 1753. vol. I, pp. 1–176. London: Ray Society.Google Scholar
  179. Stevens, P. 1984a. “Metaphors and Typology in the Development of Botanical Systematics 1690–1960, or The Art of Putting New Wine in Old Bottles”. Taxon, 33:169–211.Google Scholar
  180. 1984b. “Haüy and A.-P. de Candolle: Crystallogrpahy, Botanical Systematics, and Comparative Morphology, 1780–1840”. J. Hist. Biol.17:49–82.Google Scholar
  181. Strathern, M. 1696. “Why is the Pueraria a Sweet Potato?” Ethnology, 8:189–198.Google Scholar
  182. Stross, B. 1973. “Acquisition of Botanical Terminology by Tzeltal Children”. In Meaning in Mayan Languages, ed. M., Edmonson, pp. 107–141. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  183. Taylor, P. 1978–1979. “Preliminary Report on the Ethnobiology of the Tobelorese of Hamalhera, North Moluccas”. Majalah Ilmu-ilmu Sastra Indonesia, 8:215–229.Google Scholar
  184. 1984. “Covert Categories' Reconsidered: Identifying Unlabeled Classes in Tobelo Folk Biological Classification”. J. Ethnobiol., 4:105–122.Google Scholar
  185. Theophrastus. 1968. Enquiry into Plants [Historia plantarum]. Trans. A Hort. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  186. Tournefort, J.-P. 1694. Élémens de botanique. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
  187. 1697. De optima methodo instituenda in re herbaria. Epistola. In quä respondetur Dissertationi D. Raii de variis plantarum methodus. Paris: Jardin du Roi.Google Scholar
  188. 1708. Materia medica, or a Description of Simple Medicines Generally Used in Physick ... Their Operating and Acting upon Human Bodies According to the Principles of the New Physiology, Chymistry and Mechanism. London: Bell. (Lessons given at the Jardin du Roi, Paris, and first published in English.)Google Scholar
  189. 1717. Relation d'un voyage au Levant. 3 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
  190. 1719. Institutiones rei herbariae. 3rd ed. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
  191. Vines, S. 1913. “Robert Morison and John Ray”. In Makers of British Botany, ed. F., Oliver, pp. 8–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  192. Voigts, L. 1978. “The Signficance of the Name Apuleius to the Herbarium Apulei”. Bull. Hist. Med., 52:214–227.Google Scholar
  193. Walters, S. 1961. “The Shaping of Angiosperm Taxonomy”. New Phytologist, 60:70–84.Google Scholar
  194. Wellisch, H. 1975. “Conrad Gessner: A bio-bibliography”. J. Soc. Bibliog. nat. Hist., 7:151–247.Google Scholar
  195. Wharburton, F. 1967. “The Purposes of Classification”. Syst. Zool., 16:241–245.Google Scholar
  196. Wilkins, J. 1668. Essay Towards a Real Character and Artificial Language. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  197. Zabarella, G. 1608. Iacobi Zabarellae Patavini opera logica. Frankfurt: Zetzneri.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott Atran
    • 1
  1. 1.C.N.R.S. UA 882 Laboratoire d'Ethnobiologie-BiogéographieMuséum National d'Histoire NaturelleParisFrance

Personalised recommendations