The origins of field guides and other plant identification manuals have been poorly understood until now because little attention has been paid to 18th century botanical identification guides. Identification manuals came to have the format we continue to use today when botanical instructors in post-Revolutionary France combined identification keys (step-wise analyses focusing on distinctions between plants) with the "natural method" (clustering of similar plants, allowing for identification by gestalt) and alphabetical indexes. Botanical works featuring multiple but linked techniques to enable plant identification became very popular in France by the first decade of the 19th century. British botanists, however, continued to use Linnaeus's sexual system almost exclusively for another two decades. Their reluctance to use other methods or systems of classification can be attributed to a culture suspicious of innovation, anti-French sentiment and the association of all things Linnaean with English national pride, fostered in particular by the President of the Linnean Society of London, Sir James Edward Smith. The British aversion to using multiple plant identification technologies in one text also helps explain why it took so long for English botanists to adopt the natural method, even after several Englishmen had tried to introduce it to their country. Historians of ornithology emphasize that the popularity of ornithological guides in the 19th and 20th centuries stems from their illustrations, illustrations made possible by printing technologies that improved illustration quality and reduced costs. Though illustrations are the most obvious features of late 19th century and 20th century guides, the organizational principles that make them functional as identification devices come from techniques developed in botanical works in the 18th century.
This ambitious book could have been so much better. Geoffrey Bowker is known for his astute interpretations of the roles that "information infrastructures"-standard ways of representing things-play in communication. In Memory Practices in the Sciences, he aims to demonstrate that institutional and disciplinary memory is shaped by the ways that people gather and store information. He has previously addressed this issue in an assessment of the international classification of diseases (1996 Information Processing and Management 32 (1):49-61) and in more recent works, including Sorting things out: classification and its consequences (1999) with Susan Leigh Starr. This time, he examines 1830s geology, 1940s cybernetics and late twentieth century biology. Bowker uses these cases to illustrate the effects that different kinds of information infrastructures have on what kinds of information are retained and which ones are lost as scientists record material for future use. As in his previous works, Bowker presents readers with keen observations about the social aspects of which information is recorded and how. He notes that infrastructural change is usually not obvious, and that when it is, it is often presented in terms of "intellectual manifestoes epiphenomenal to the infrastructural change"-philosophical justifications after the fact (p. 13). I was also heartened by his observation that the dominant trend in information management "has been away from representing the world as a set of neatly nested entities to representing it as a set of autonomous entities" (p. 191), a development that is mirrored in the transitions in database design from hierarchical to relational to object-oriented (pp. 190-191). His writing is also peppered with quotable quotes, such as the unforgettable "Raw data is both an oxymoron and a bad idea; to the contrary, data should be cooked with care" (p. 184). Unfortunately, Memory Practices in the Sciences is far from a persuasive text. Bowker presents his most clear and convincing arguments in the introduction. The case studies do not always support the conclusions he draws from them. Like Foucault, to whom Bowker refers repeatedly, he has grasped important concepts but does not have enough familiarity with the primary research in the fields from which he draws his examples to give his readers an adequate picture * Sara Scharf received her Ph D in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology in 2007 from the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto, where she is now an Associated Scholar. Her research centres on the question of how communities of botanists in the eighteenth century standardized text-based techniques to communicate about and identify tens of thousands of plants-all without the aid of computers.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.