This area of the
website will consist of "old-fashioned" observations and essays of the type that
have unfortunately gone out of fashion in science journals that publish natural history
related papers. Some time in the 1950's or 1960's, shortly after Watkins and Crick's
elucidation of the structure and significance of DNA, molecular biology was pushed to the
forefront and natural history studies relegated to the curio cabinet of biology (as
so well chronicled by Edward O. Wilson in his autobiography, Naturalist). During this period, even scientific journals
that were specifically devoted to natural history began going to great lengths to publish
only papers that utilized the entire spectrum of the scientific method, especially those
that contained pages of esoteric statistical analyses and extensive graphical
representations of every possible relationship between any and all variables. It was
as though appearing like the molecular biological journals in print would somehow elevate
the study of natural history to the same "serious" level. Take a look
sometime at any pre-1950 issue of any major natural history journal. Compare it to
those published today and you will probably come away entertained by the fact that some of
those "old fashioned" naturalists could really write.
Even herpetological journals began
refusing to publish observational notes, referring to such as "anecdotal."
This prompted no less a naturalist than Dr. Henry S. Fitch, of the University of
Kansas, to blast the editors of such journals:
| The advocates of
biometrical methods need to recognize that some types of behavior are not readily
quantified because they are so rarely observed. Even a single observation may
constitute a valuable contribution, and may be a break-through in understanding the
species' ecology. There are many kinds of anecdotes, and the fact that some are trivial is
a poor excuse for condemning all narrative statements or accounts in scientific writing.
[Fitch, H. S. 1987. The sin of anecdotal writing. Herp. Rev. 18(4): 68] |
Seemingly, the editors
of many scientific journals had forgotten that the scientific method consists of a series
of steps, each of which is important. The reporting of factual observations, which
would fall under the heading of "gathering information," is actually one of the
very first steps of the method. I have always maintained that natural history can
and should be practiced by anyone with an interest. It's not rocket science and it
doesn't require a Ph.D. to make valuable natural history contributions.
[Table of Contents]
