Darwin on Aristotle

Gotthelf, Allan

doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199287956.003.0015

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides the absence of a taxon equivalent to modern Mollusca in Aristotle and the absence of an equivalent to the Aristotelian ostracoderma in contemporary classification highlighted by these authors, one can find several "errors", as for example the placement of (i) ascidians and echinoids in ostracoderma (PA680a5) along with bivalves and gastropods, because of their hard body cover, and (ii) the angler fish in selachia along with rays and skates (HA749a23), probably because of its flattened body form, although Aristotle knew that it was oviparous and had a bony skeleton. However, when we take into account the huge challenges Aristotle must have faced when developing his pioneering work in marine taxonomy more than two millennia ago, one can only admire him, as Charles Darwin did after a limited encounter with Aristotle's writings, two months before his death (Gotthelf, 1999).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, his classification was recognized and praised by the early taxonomists and evolutionists. Thus, Charles Darwin admired his work as a taxonomist and compared him to Carl Linnaeus (Gotthelf, 1999), while Cuvier (1841) commented that Aristotle's "… genius for Aristotle's scientific contributions to the classification, nomenclature and distribution of marine organisms Medit. Mar.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Aristotle’s scientific contributions to the classification, nomenclature and distribution of marine organisms

Voultsiadou

Gerovasileiou²,

Vandepitte³

et al. 2017

Medit. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The biological works of the Greek philosopher Aristotle include a significant amount of information on marine animals. In the present study, an overview of his scientific contribution to the knowledge of marine biodiversity and specifically to taxonomic classification, nomenclature and distribution of marine species is attempted. Our results showed that Aristotle’s approach looks remarkably familiar to present day marine biologists since: (i) although not directly aiming at it, he gave a taxonomic classification of marine animals, which includes physical groups ranked on three levels at least; (ii) most of Aristotle’s marine “major groups” correspond to taxa of the order rank in Linnaeus’s classification and to taxa of the class rank in the current classification; (iii) a positive correlation was found between the number of taxa per group identified in Aristotle’s writings and those described by Linnaeus; (iv) his classification system exhibits similarities with the current one regarding the way taxa are distributed to higher categories. (v) a considerable number of Aristotle’s marine animal names have been used for the creation of the scientific names currently in use; (vi) he gave the first account of the Mediterranean marine fauna, focusing on the Aegean Sea and adjacent areas. Taking into account all the above, we suggest that the foundations of marine taxonomy as laid down by Aristotle are still echoing today.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aristotle’s scientific contributions to the classification, nomenclature and distribution of marine organisms

Voultsiadou

Gerovasileiou²,

Vandepitte³

et al. 2017

Medit. Mar. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The idea of using animals as models of human disease, as we know it now, is a relatively recent development, whereas the recognition of the commonalities in structure and function between humans and non‐human animals is quite ancient. The earliest written records of people drawing inferences about biology and physiology through observation of the similarities in anatomy between humans and non‐human animals extends back to at least the sixth century BCE .…”

Section: Modelling Human Disease In Animals – a Historical Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Studying human respiratory disease in animals – role of induced and naturally occurring models

Williams

Roman

2015

The Journal of Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Respiratory disorders like asthma, emphysema, and pulmonary fibrosis affect millions of Americans and many more worldwide. Despite advancements in medical research that have led to improved understanding of the pathophysiology of these conditions and sometimes to new therapeutic interventions, these disorders are for the most part chronic and progressive; current interventions are not curative and do not halt disease progression. A major obstacle to further advancements relates to the absence of animal models that exactly resemble the human condition, which delays the elucidation of relevant mechanisms of action, the unveiling of biomarkers of disease progression, and identification of new targets for intervention in patients. There are currently many induced animal models of human respiratory disease available for study, and even though they mimic features of human disease, discoveries in these models have not always translated into safe and effective treatments in humans. A major obstacle relates to the genetic, anatomical, and functional variations amongst species, which represents the major challenge to overcome when searching for appropriate models of respiratory disease. Nevertheless, rodents, in particular mice, have become the most common species used for experimentation, due to their relatively low cost, size, and adequate understanding of murine genetics, among other advantages. Less well known is the fact that domestic animals also suffer from respiratory illnesses similar to those found in humans. Asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, and pulmonary fibrosis are among the many disorders occurring naturally in dogs, cats, and horses, among other species. These models might better resemble the human condition and are emphasized here, but further investigations are needed to determine their relevance.

show abstract

“…(Mayr 1982: 152). Similarly, Darwin stated, in a letter (Gotthelf 1999) to the physician and classicist William Ogle who has sent Darwin a copy of his translation of Aristotle's works on the parts of animals, that "Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were mere schoolboys to old Aristotle." Cuvier (1841: 148-149) also praised Aristotle's achievements in zoology: "Aristote, dès son introduction, expose aussi une classification zoologique qui n'a laissé que bien peu de choses à faire aux siècles qui sont venus après lui.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phylogenetic Signal in Characters from Aristotle’s History of Animals

Laurin¹,

Humar²

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The great Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) is almost unanimously acclaimed as the founder of zoology. There is a consensus that he was interested in attributes of animals, but whether or not he tried to develop a zoological taxonomy remains controversial. Fürst von Lieven and Humar compiled a data matrix and showed, through a parsimony analysis published in 2008, that these data produced a hierarchy that matched several taxa recognized by Aristotle. However, their analysis leaves some questions unanswered because random data can sometimes yield fairly resolved trees. In this study, we update the scores of many cells and add four new characters to the data matrix (147 taxa scored for 161 characters) and quote passages from Aristotle’s Historia animalium to justify these changes. We confirm the presence of a phylogenetic signal in these data through a test using skewness in length distribution of a million random trees, which shows that many of the characters discussed by Aristotle were systematically relevant. Our parsimony analyses on the updated matrix recover far more trees than reported by Fürst von Lieven and Humar, but their consensus includes many taxa that Aristotle recognized and apparently named for the first time, such as selachē (selachians) and dithyra (Bivalvia). This study suggests that even though taxonomy was clearly not Aristotle’s chief interest in Historia animalium, it was probably among his secondary interests. These results may pave the way for further taxonomic studies in Aristotle’s zoological writings in general. Despite being almost peripheral to Aristotle’s writings, his taxonomic contributions are clearly major achievements.

show abstract

Darwin on Aristotle

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Aristotle’s scientific contributions to the classification, nomenclature and distribution of marine organisms

Aristotle’s scientific contributions to the classification, nomenclature and distribution of marine organisms

Studying human respiratory disease in animals – role of induced and naturally occurring models

Phylogenetic Signal in Characters from Aristotle’s History of Animals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About