2020
DOI: 10.1007/s12064-020-00322-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Aristotle’s lobster: the image in the text

Abstract: The Anatomai, a lost work written by Aristotle, must have contained a collection of various drawings and figures of species as well as their organs. In his texts (mainly the Historia animalium), Aristotle is often referring to the drawings after the description of species. Our study applies the method of the comparative view (‘Vergleichendes Sehen’) to provide an access to and reconstruction of Aristotle’s lost illustrations based on his textual descriptions. As an example, we chose the treatment of the Europe… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

2
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
1
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The main common cause of shared similarities between taxa in biological systematics is now considered (Hennig 1965;O'Hara 1997) to be the phylogeny (though convergence, often reflecting a similar ecology, can also play a role), which is a concept alien to Aristotle's work. Nevertheless, our results, along with the evidence provided by Fürst von Lieven &Humar (2008) andVoultsiadou et al (2017), logically leads to the conclusion that Aristotle thought that there was indeed one best way to classify biodiversity (Wiener 2015), which is compatible with monistic realism. Modern taxonomic practice is also inherently monistic, given that we seek to uncover the Tree of Life (TOL).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…The main common cause of shared similarities between taxa in biological systematics is now considered (Hennig 1965;O'Hara 1997) to be the phylogeny (though convergence, often reflecting a similar ecology, can also play a role), which is a concept alien to Aristotle's work. Nevertheless, our results, along with the evidence provided by Fürst von Lieven &Humar (2008) andVoultsiadou et al (2017), logically leads to the conclusion that Aristotle thought that there was indeed one best way to classify biodiversity (Wiener 2015), which is compatible with monistic realism. Modern taxonomic practice is also inherently monistic, given that we seek to uncover the Tree of Life (TOL).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 75%
“…Aristotle must have been a good naturalist, as he described fairly accurately many systematically relevant characters in various taxa. These data found in Aristotle's History of Animals can be used to score data matrices, which have been subjected to phylogenetic parsimony analysis in two studies (Fürst von Lieven & Humar, 2008; Laurin & Humar, 2022). In these studies, the trees were rooted using the sea anemone, known to Aristotle as akalēphē .…”
Section: Earliest Biological Nomenclaturesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Armand Leroi is also one of those researchers who have attempted to reproduce Aristotle's dissections experimentally, as did Christopher Cosans, who also tried to do so in the late Nineties (Cosans 1998) – although he performed his experiences on previously prepared anatomical parts in the laboratory, under conditions that were therefore considerably different from those encountered by Aristotle – or Alexander Fürst von Lieven, Marcel Humar and Gerhard Scholtz in Berlin, who attempted to reconstruct the Anatomai by using an interdisciplinary collaborative approach (Fürst von Lieven et al 2021).…”
Section: Re-enacting Aristotle's Dissections Redrawing Aristotle's Di...mentioning
confidence: 99%