I've been on about the history of science quite a bit lately (see here, here, and here), and as I've aired my gripes one point in particular keeps coming up again and again.
For various reasons the development of science (particularly those connected with evolution) in Victorian times has been extensively studied. There is still work to be done, but generally speaking there is an immense body of literature on science during the 19th century. This is particularly the case with geology & paleontology, associated sciences that came into their own during the 1800's and were important to the development of evolutionary theory.
The problem is that many histories of paleontology trace the discipline through the "Bone Wars" era of the 1890's and stop there. The Cope and Marsh feud seemed to mark the end of an era, and even though work continued, I have seldom seen works that address the history of 20th century paleontology. (The forthcoming Dinosaurs: A Historical Perspective volume will be a step in the right direction, though.) Those that I have seen almost exclusively focus on the American Museum of Natural History, and within that narrow sphere exclusively on H.F. Osborn, as if other researchers and institutions made no contributions to paleontology. (Although I have not read it, Tom Rea's Bone Wars might be an exception to this rule.)
Perhaps even worse, there is virtually no historical literature about paleontology after the 1920's. I have seen it hinted that paleontology went through a phase where it was relegated to the sidelines as genetics and other sciences came into prominence, yet I have not seen this hypothesis confirmed. Perhaps even more shocking is that outside of Adrian Desmond's Hot-Blooded Dinosaurs there has been almost no work done on the second "Dinosaur Renaissance" of the late 20th century (the first "Dinosaur Renaissance," in my opinion, happened during the late 1800's with the discovery that some dinosaurs were bipedal and were bird-like in some ways). It is more recent history, true, but given how vastly the understanding of dinosaurs changed during the latter half of the 20th century I'm a bit shocked that seemingly no one else has taken to the topic.
Indeed, names like Richard Swann Lull, R.T. Bird, Barnum Brown, Edwin Colbert, John Bell Hatcher, Franz Nopsca, Samuel Williston, and William Diller Matthew, are all familiar, yet they are often discussed as "sideline" researchers. (I would have included G.G. Simpson in the list, but there has been some recent work on his life & contributions by Leo Laporte, including a biography and selected letters.) There are plenty of others who could be mentioned, of course, but that is precisely the point.
While there are still things to discuss about paleontology during the 19th century, I think a more important task for concerned historians of science is to start sorting out 20th century paleontology. The field is wide open, and with the increase of available online material (like through Google Books) it is easier than ever to track down otherwise hard-to-find materials. In fact, the field is so open that it is difficult to know where to start and the earliest synthesis are going to have to be general in scope. Still, such studies would provide a starting place to built a foundation of historical scholarship, and I think it would be a very profitable area of study. Paleontology during the 1800's is important to understand, absolutely, but I think we can do better than perpetually rehash the same histories!
- Log in to post comments
Sounds like an idea for the next book project... ;)
Forthcoming historical treatments from David Sepkoski (http://people.uncw.edu/sepkoskid/index_files/Page347.htm):
The Paleobiological Revolution: Essays on the History of Recent Paleontology. Editor, with Michael Ruse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Forthcoming, 2009.
http://www.amazon.com/Paleobiological-Revolution-Essays-Growth-Paleonto…
Re-reading the Fossil Record: The Growth of Paleobiology as an Evolutionary Discipline. Manuscript under consideration with University of Chicago Press.
One of my pipe dreams during the past few years has been to prepare the next edition of Asimov's Chronology of Science and Discovery. This was a single-volume reference work which Isaac Asimov wrote in 1988, starting with the evolution of bipedalism and continuing on up to the present day. Like James Burke's Connections, it's less Whiggish than most histories, although a systematic attempt to improve it could certainly bring about improvements. It was first published in 1989, and a second edition, updated by other people, came out in 1994. That second edition was a big influence on me, when I was a much smaller boffin.
Unfortunately, I think you have to become famous first, before the Asimov Estate will say, "Please update Isaac's books for us."
Hi Brian,
The problem is that many histories of paleontology trace the discipline through the "Bone Wars" era of the 1890's and stop there.
I wonder if perhaps part of the problem is that paleontology began to diversify radically after the Bone Wars period. Each of the various sub-disciplines -- anthropology, dinosaurs, mammals, insects, etc. -- became a full field in its own right. One author, one book, just couldn't cover it all.
Perhaps even more shocking is that outside of Adrian Desmond's Hot-Blooded Dinosaurs there has been almost no work done on the second "Dinosaur Renaissance" of the late 20th century ...
I'm not sure I agree with this. I can think of several such books, including John Noble Wilford's magnificent work The Riddle of the Dinosaur, and another book by Don Lessem which was variously published as Kings of Creation and Dinosaurs Rediscovered.
I'd also offer the thought that in the mid-1980s, several paleontologists seem to have discovered that writing science-for-the-layman books was just as much fun (if not more) as writing formal papers. Thus we got a pretty extensive and ever-lengthening list of books about paleontology as written by paleontologists -- for example, The Dinosaur Heresies by Robert Bakker, Digging Dinosaurs and Dinosaur Lives by Jack Horner, Wonderful Life by Stephen Jay Gould, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by Don Johanson. And most of these books set the stage by reviewing the history of paleontological thought on their subject of interest.
Blake; Well I hope you become famous enough to do it!
Wolf; The diversification of disciplines does make it more difficult to gather information and keep track, but there is no rule saying that more specific case studies could be done to build a foundation for more synthetic work. I'm just saying that in general after 1890 much of paleontological thought (even in books purporting to deal with the history of paleontology) is ignored.
As for the books by Wilford & Lessem, this is the first time I have heard of them (at least as far as I can recall). I will have to look into them. Even then, though, the amount of historical work on the 2nd Dinosaur Renaissance seems to be very minuscule.
In terms of the books published during the 1980's, some of them do include fair histories, but other than Gould's work I don't know if I would say they contained good "history of science" information. As I remarked in an earlier post, science history by scientists has a tendency to play up winners and play down losers to fit into certain viewpoints. This isn't to say that nothing they say can be trusted, but it isn't the same as, say, putting historical events & ideas in context and tracing the development of the science or idea itself.
The books from the 1980's you mention would all be useful resources in constructing a history of paleontology for different disciplines, but I would argue that they present more of the "data" to be synthesized than historical syntheses themselves. Rather than just going by the words of the scientists I would like to see someone (like a historian) look at what those books said but then look at the responses to those works and what ideas those works represented, therefore producing something more synthetic and encompassing.
Thank you, though, for mentioning the books for Wilford and Lessem. I will order them shortly and see what they have to say. Even then, though, I would like to see historians of science take a greater interest in the events described in those books (especially since those books seem to be out of print and only available as used copies!)
The British Prime Minster and author Benjamin Disraeli is supposed to once have dismissed someone's book recommendation with the comment, "When I want a good book, I'll write one."
Although discovering a lacuna in the historical literature is frustrating, any aspiring writer should just regard it as a future research topic. You seem to be on a career arc to become historian of science, so just add these topics to that list of books you need to write some day.
If you want a good series of papers and essays about Alberta's palaeo history Darren Tanke is typically turning out at least 2-3 publications (of various sorts) on the subject a year. He's offered me PDF's, which I can pass onto you if you're interested.
Also in about a month on my blog the next big adventure is tied into the Fossil Hunters of the Great Canadian Dinosaur Rush. So anyone interested in that specific era of palaeo should check out The Tyrannosaur Chronicles in October
Also look for The Hominid Gang. The author Delta Willis, focusses on the people doing the research. At the link, she has uploaded a few pictures of Richard Leakey and Stephen Jay Gould -- illustrations from the book perhaps.
There's a great book by Pascal Tassy on the history of the concept of the tree of life. It treats quite a bit of history of 20th century paleontology. I don't think an English translation of the French original exists, though.
I'll try to do the link better this time. There's a book published in 2006 called "The First Human: The Race to Discover Our Earliest Ancestor" by Ann Gibbon. But it's centred on human evolution rather than the theory of evolution, and I'm not sure how far it goes back.
See Drawing Out Leviathan: Dinosaurs and the Science Wars, and The Great Dinosaur Controversy: A Guide to the Debates, both by Keith Parsons. The book I'm writing about 20th century paleontology (which Michael kindly plugged above--now forthcoming from U of Chicago) deals mostly with invertebrate paleontology, but the edited volume (The Paleobiological Revolution, which will be available this spring) has a couple of chapters on dinosaur paleo. I agree, though, that historians haven't paid enough attention to modern paleo. I'm trying to correct that, and I may do a history of 20th century dinosaur paleo as a future project.
Thanks very much for the comments and updates, David. Peter Bowler covers some early 20th century paleo in Life's Splendid Drama, but it's pretty fast & furious stuff. I definitely appreciate your efforts, though, and I am certainly looking forward to those books!
Sure thing, Brian. I would say that there are two very important topics in the history of vertebrate paleo that should be addressed: the first is whether vertebrate paleontologists in the late 19th/early 20th centuries were really as non-Darwinian or agnostic about evolutionary theory as historians like Bowler have portrayed them. The second is, as you mentioned, the dinosaur renaissance of the late 20th century. On the latter subject, I think that the fact that scientists have written so much on the subject (e.g. Bakker and Horner) has discouraged historians from stepping in. It's also very recent history, which some historians (not me) try to avoid.
I will say that literature on 20th century paleontology isn't quite as sparse as it may seem. If you haven't already, check out Ron Rainger's work, and also Joe Cain's papers on Simpson (which are much better and more historical than the Laporte biography--which in my opinion is too much like hero worship). I also know of several grad students working on topics in modern paleo, so I forsee a mini 'renaissance' in history of paleo around the corner. Feel free to email me sometime if you want more complete references. Good luck with your own project.