Abstract
In this paper, I investigate the variety and richness of the taxonomical practices between the end of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries. During these decades, zoologists and paleontologists came up with different quantitative practices in order to classify their data in line with the new biological principles introduced by Charles Darwin. Specifically, I will investigate Florentino Ameghino’s mathematization of mammalian dentition and the quantitative practices and visualizations of several German-speaking paleontologists at the beginning of the twentieth century. In so doing, this paper will call attention to the visual and quantitative language of early twentieth-century systematics. My analysis will therefore contribute to a prehistory of the statistical frame of mind in biology, a study which has yet to be written in full. Second, my work highlights the productive intertwinement between biological practices and philosophical frameworks at the turn of the nineteenth century. Deeply rooted in Kantian bio-philosophy, several biologists sought to find rules in order to apply ordering principles to chaotic taxonomic information. This implies the necessity to investigate the neglected role of Kantian and Romantic bio-philosophy in the unfolding of twentieth-century biology.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Central to the statistical frame of mind adopted by biologists during the second half of the twentieth century is the idea that “the routine use of statistics, mediated by the computer could play both a heuristic and an analytical role in biological research” (Hagen 2003, p. 368). See also (Sokal 1969).
Quantitative practices were also introduced in biogeography during at the of the eighteenth century. See for instance Ebach (2015). For the use quantitative in nineteenth-century natural history see footnote 20.
Translation in Levine and Novoa (2012, p. 201).
Translation in Levine and Novoa (2012, pp. 201–202).
Translation in Levine and Novoa (2012, p. 202).
Translation in Levine and Novoa (2012, p. 205).
Translation in Levine and Novoa (2012, p. 205).
See his 1889 lecture Visión y Realidad (Vision and Reality) translated in English in Levine and Novoa (2012).
Translation in Levine and Novoa (2012, p. 212).
Translation in Levine and Novoa (2012, p. 212).
This was Ameghino’s main concern. He introduced these graphical visualizations so that his investigation was “understandable to everyone” (Ameghino 1884, p. 440).
As Podgorny noted, “the so-called “mathematical classification” was a visual system for converting verbal descriptions into graphics, where the number of anatomical pieces and anatomical characters were transformed into formulas that reduced a page of words to a line of symbols” (Podgorny 2017, p. 32). On the practices of nineteenth-century data visualization, see for instance Archibald (2014), Hineline (1993), Rudwick (1967), Schäffner (1999) and Sepkoski and Tamborini (2018).
See the fifth footnote.
See Waagen (1869).
Between the end of the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, the study of ontogeny was a common research topic among the biologists inspired by Kant and Romantic philosophy. See Esposito (2016).
References
Allen, G. E. (1975). Life science in the twentieth century. New York: Wiley.
Ameghino, F. (1884). Filogenia: Principios de clasificación transformista, basados sobre leyes naturales y proporciones matemáticas. Buenos Aires: Editorial Acme.
Ameghino, F. (1889). Visión y Realidad (Alegoría científica a propósito de “Filogenia”). Boletín del Instituto Geográfico Argentino, 10, 340–350.
Anonymous. (1882). Congrès Géologique International: Compte Rendu 2me Session, Bologne, 1881. Bologne: Fava et Garagnani.
Archibald, J. D. (2014). Aristotle’s ladder, Darwin’s tree: The evolution of visual metaphors for biolgoical order. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bowler, P. J. (1996). Life’s splendid drama: Evolutionary biology and the reconstruction of life’s ancestry, 1860–1940. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cain, J. (1989). Moving beyond consistency: The historical significance of Simpson’s Tempo and mode in evolution, Unpublished MA thesis. University of Maryland College Park.
Cain, J. (1993). Common problems and cooperative solutions: Organizational activity in evolutionary studies, 1936–1947. Isis, 84, 1–25.
Caponi, G. (2017). El darwinismo de Ameghino: una lectura de Filogenia. Florianópolis: NEL/UFSC.
Caponi, G. (2018). Las flechas de la evolución: Florentino Ameghino y las leyes de la filogenia. Scientiae Studia, 15, 365–386.
Cassirer, E. (1969). The problem of knowledge: Philosophy, science, and history since Hegel. New Heven: Yale University.
Coen, D. R. (2007). Vienna in the age of uncertainty. Science, liberalism, and private life. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Cuvier, G. (1813). Essay on the theory of the earth. Edinburgh: William Blackwood.
Daston, L., & Galison, P. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.
Davenport, C. B. (1904). Statistical methods with special reference to biological variation. New York: Wiley.
Dawson, G. (2016). Show me the bone: Reconstructing prehistoric monsters in nineteenth-century britain and America. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Desrosières, A. (1998). The politics of large numbers. A history of statistical reasoning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Ebach, M. C. (2015). Origins of biogeography. The role of biological classification in early plant and animal geography. Dordrecht: Springer.
Esposito, M. (2016). Romantic biology, 1890–1945. London: Routledge.
Farber, P. L. (2000). Finding order in nature: The naturalist tradition from Linnaeus To E. O. Wilson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Goldschmidt, R. B. (1911). Einführung in die Vererbungswissenschaft. Leipzig: Engelmann.
Hacking, I. (1990). The taming of chance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hagen, J. (2003). The statistical frame of mind in systematic biology from Quantitative Zoology to Biometry. Journal of the History of Biology, 36, 353–384.
Harrington, A. (1999). Reenchanted science: Holism in German culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hineline, M. L. (1993). The visual culture of the earth sciences, 1863–1970. San Diego: University of California.
Huneman, P. (2006). Naturalising purpose: From comparative anatomy to the ‘adventure of reason’. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 37, 649–674.
Johannensen, W. (1909). Elemente der exakten Erblichkeitslehre. Jena: Fisher.
Kant, I. (2000 (1790)). Critique of the power of judgment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I. (2004 (1786)). Metaphysical foundations of natural science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kendig, C. (2016). Homologizing as kinding. In C. Kendig (Ed.), Natural kinds and classification in scientific practice (pp. 106–125). Abingdon: Routledge.
Klähn, H. (1920). Der Wert der Variationsstatistik für die Paläontologie. Berichte d. Nat. Gesellsch. z. Freiburg, 22, 1–218.
Laporte, L. F. (1987). Simple curiosity; Letters from George Gaylord Simpson to his family, 1921–1970. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Laporte, L. F. (2000). George Gaylord Simpson: Paleontologist and evolutionist. New York: Columbia University Press.
Larson, J. (1994). Interpreting nature: The science of living form from Linnaeus to Kant. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Leitch, D. (1951). Biometrics and systematics in relation to palaeontology. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, 162, 159–170.
Levine, A., & Novoa, A. (2012). ¡Darwinistas! The construction of evolutionary thought in nineteenth century Argentina. Leiden: Brill.
Lopes, M. M., & Podgorny, I. (2000). The shaping of Latin American museums of natural history, 1850–1990. Osiris, 15, 108–118.
Lull, R. S. (1917). Organic evolution. New York: The Macmillan Company.
McOuat, G. (2001). From cutting nature at its joints to measuring it: New kinds and new kinds of people in biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 32, 613–645.
Müller, G. B. (2017). Vivarium. Experimental, quantitative, and theoretical biology at Vienna’s Biologische Versuchsanstalt. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Müller-Wille, S. (2017). Names and numbers: ‘Data’ in classical natural history. Osiris, 32, 109–128.
Neumayr, M. (1874). Die Fauna der Schichten mit Aspidoceras acanthicum. Abhandlungen der Geologischen Bundesanstalt in Wien, 5, 141–257.
Nickelsen, K. (2006). Botanists, draughtsmen and nature: The construction of eighteenth-century botanical illustrations. Berlin: Springer.
Novoa, A., & Levine, A. (2010). From man to ape: Darwinism in Argentina, 1870–1920. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Nyhart, L. K. (1987). The disciplinary breakdown of German morphology, 1870–1900. Isis, 78, 365–389.
Nyhart, L. K. (1995). Biology takes form. Animal morphology and the German Universities 1800–1900. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Owen, R. (1845). Odontography; or, A treatise on the comparative anatomy of teeth: Their physiological relations, mode of development, and microscopic structure in the vertebrate animals (Vol. 2). Paris: Hippolyte Bailliere.
Podgorny, I. (2005). Bones and devices in the constitution of paleontology in Argentina at the end of the nineteenth century. Science in Context, 18, 249–283.
Podgorny, I. (2015). Human origins in the New World? Florentino Ameghino and the emergence of prehistoric archaeology in the Americas (1875–1912). PaleoAmerica, 1, 68–80.
Podgorny, I. (2017). Manifest ambiguity: Intermediate forms, variation, and mammal paleontology in Argentina, 1830–1880. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 66, 27–36.
Podgorny, I. (2018). Florentino Ameghino y Hnos. Empresa Argentina de Paleontología Ilimitada. Buenos Aires: Edhasa.
Porter, T. M. (1986). The rise of statistical thinking 1820–1900. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rehbock, P. F. (1990). Transcendental anatomy. In A. Cunningham & N. Jardine (Eds.), Romanticism and the sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, R. J. (2002). The romantic conception of life: Science and philosophy in the age of Goethe. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Richards, R. J. (2008). The tragic sense of life. Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over evolutionary thought. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Richards, R. J. (Ed). (2016). Objectivity and the theory of the archetype. In What reason promises. Essays on reason, nature and history. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Rieppel, L. (2012). Bringing dinosaurs back to life: Exhibiting prehistory at the American Museum of Natural History. Isis, 102, 460–490.
Rieppel, O. (2012). Adolf Naef (1883–1949), systematic morphology and phylogenetics. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 50, 2–13.
Rieppel, O. (2016). Phylogenetic systematics: Haeckel to Hennig. London: CRC Press.
Roe, A. (1985). 1984 Leona Tyler award address: Career and life. The Counseling Psychologist, 13, 311–326.
Rudwick, M. J. S. (1967). The emergence of a visual language for geological science, 1760–1840. History of Science, 14, 149–195.
Rudwick, M. J. S. (1997). Georges Cuvier, fossil bones, and geological catastrophes. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Schäffner, W. (1999). Verwaltung der Kultur. Alexander von Humboldts Medien (1799–1834). In S. Rieger, S. Schahadata, & M. Weinberg (Eds.), Interkultularität zwischen Inszenierung und Archiv. Tübingen: Narr.
Sepkoski, D. (2012). Rereading the fossil record: the growth of paleobiology as an evolutionary discipline. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Sepkoski, D., & Tamborini, M. (2018). “An image of science”: Cameralism, statistics, and the visual language of natural history in the nineteenth century. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 48, 56–109.
Sereno, P. C. (1982). An early Eocene sirenian from Patagonia (Mammalia, Sirenia). American Museum novitates; no. 2729. American Museum Novitates, 2729, 1–10.
Simpson, G. G. (1937a). The Fort Union of the Crazy Mountain Field, Montana, and its mammalian faunas. Bulletin of United States National Museum, 169, 1–287.
Simpson, G. G. (1937b). Patterns of phyletic evolution. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, 48, 303–313.
Simpson, G. G. (1980). Why and how: Some problems and methods in historical biology. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Simpson, G. G. (1984). Discoverers of the lost world. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Simpson, G. G., & Roe, A. (1939). Quantitative zoology. New York: Mc-Graw-Hill.
Simpson, G. G., & Roe, A. (1942). A standard frequency distribution method. American Museum Novitates, 1190, 1–19.
Sokal, R. R. R., & James, F. (1969). Biometry. The principles and practice of statistics in biology. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Tamborini, M. (2015a). Die Wurzeln der ideographischen Paläontologie: Karl Alfred von Zittels Praxis und sein Begriff des Fossils. NTM Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Wissenschaften, Technik und Medizin, 23, 117–142.
Tamborini, M. (2015b). Paleontology and Darwin’s theory of evolution: The subversive role of statistics at the end of the 19th century. Journal of the History of Biology, 48, 575–612.
Tamborini, M. (2016). “If the Americans can do it, so can we”: How dinosaur bones shaped german paleontology. History of Science, 54, 225–256.
Tamborini, M. (2017). The reception of Darwin in late nineteenth-century German paleontology as a case of pyrrhic victory. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 66, 37–45.
Tamborini, M., & Vennen, M. (2017). Disruptions and changing habits: The case of the Tendaguru expedition. Museum History Journal, 10, 183–199.
Vai, G. B. (2004). The second international geological Congress, Bologna, 1881. Episodes, 27, 13–20.
von Bubnoff, S. (1919). Über einige grundlegende Prinzipien der paläontologischen Systematik. Zeitschrift für induktive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre, 21, l58–l68.
von Bubnoff, S. (1921). Die ladinische Fauna von Forno (Mezzovalle) bei Predazzo. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Waagen, W. H. (1869). Die Formenreihe des Ammonites subradiatus: Versuch einer paläontologischen Monographie. Geognostisch-Paläontologische Beiträge, 2, 179–256.
Wedekind, R. (1916). Über die Grundlagen und Methoden der Biostratigraphie. Berlin: Gebrüder Borntraeger.
Williams, H. S. (1895). Geological biology. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
Witteveen, J. (2015). “A temporary oversimplification”: Mayr, Simpson, Dobzhansky, and the origins of the typology/population dichotomy (part 1 of 2). Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 54, 20–33.
Wittmann, B. (2013). Outlining species: Drawing as a research technique in contemporary biology. Science in Context, 26, 363–391.
Zammito, J. H. (2017). The gestation of German biology. Philosophy and physiology from Stahl to Schelling. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank David Sepkoski, Maurizio Esposito, Michele Cardani, and the two anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions on earlier versions of this paper. Furthermore, I thank Joeri Witteveen and Catherine Kendig for inviting me to this special issue and for their great and inspiring feedback.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tamborini, M. Series of forms, visual techniques, and quantitative devices: ordering the world between the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. HPLS 41, 49 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-019-0282-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-019-0282-x