{"title":"\"我的声誉受到了威胁\"。洪堡山地植物地理学的形成(1803-1825 年)。","authors":"Susanne S Renner, Ulrich Päßler, Pierre Moret","doi":"10.1007/s10739-023-09705-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Alexander von Humboldt's depictions of mountain vegetation are among the most iconic nineteenth century illustrations in the biological sciences. Here we analyse the contemporary context and empirical data for all these depictions, namely the Tableau physique des Andes (1803, 1807), the Geographiae plantarum lineamenta (1815), the Tableau physique des Îles Canaries (1817), and the Esquisse de la Géographie des plantes dans les Andes de Quito (1824/1825). We show that the Tableau physique des Andes does not reflect Humboldt and Bonpland's field data and presents a flawed depiction of plant occurrences and vertical succession of vegetation belts, arising from Humboldt's misreading of La Condamine's description (1751). Humboldt's 1815 depiction, by contrast, shows a distribution of high-vegetation belts that is consistent with La Condamine's description, while the 1824 depiction drops innovations made in 1815 and returns to simply showing numerous species' names, thus not applying Humboldt's own earlier zonation framework. Our analysis of contemporary reactions to Humboldt's TPA includes Francis Hall's posthumously published 1834 illustration of Andean plant zonation near Quito and Humboldt's reaction to Hall's critique. Throughout his work on plant geography, Humboldt disregarded some of his own observations, or confused them. At stake was his reputation as an innovator in the field of plant geography and a discoverer of the sequence of high-elevation vegetation belts on the world's mountains.</p>","PeriodicalId":51104,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the History of Biology","volume":"56 1","pages":"97-124"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"My Reputation is at Stake.\\\" Humboldt's Mountain Plant Geography in the Making (1803-1825).\",\"authors\":\"Susanne S Renner, Ulrich Päßler, Pierre Moret\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10739-023-09705-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Alexander von Humboldt's depictions of mountain vegetation are among the most iconic nineteenth century illustrations in the biological sciences. Here we analyse the contemporary context and empirical data for all these depictions, namely the Tableau physique des Andes (1803, 1807), the Geographiae plantarum lineamenta (1815), the Tableau physique des Îles Canaries (1817), and the Esquisse de la Géographie des plantes dans les Andes de Quito (1824/1825). We show that the Tableau physique des Andes does not reflect Humboldt and Bonpland's field data and presents a flawed depiction of plant occurrences and vertical succession of vegetation belts, arising from Humboldt's misreading of La Condamine's description (1751). Humboldt's 1815 depiction, by contrast, shows a distribution of high-vegetation belts that is consistent with La Condamine's description, while the 1824 depiction drops innovations made in 1815 and returns to simply showing numerous species' names, thus not applying Humboldt's own earlier zonation framework. Our analysis of contemporary reactions to Humboldt's TPA includes Francis Hall's posthumously published 1834 illustration of Andean plant zonation near Quito and Humboldt's reaction to Hall's critique. Throughout his work on plant geography, Humboldt disregarded some of his own observations, or confused them. At stake was his reputation as an innovator in the field of plant geography and a discoverer of the sequence of high-elevation vegetation belts on the world's mountains.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the History of Biology\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"97-124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the History of Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-023-09705-z\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/3/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the History of Biology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-023-09705-z","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/3/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
亚历山大-冯-洪堡对山区植被的描绘是十九世纪生物科学领域最具代表性的插图之一。在这里,我们分析了所有这些描绘的时代背景和经验数据,即《安第斯山植被图》(Tableau physique des Andes,1803 年,1807 年)、《植物地理线图》(Geographiae plantarum lineamenta,1815 年)、《加那利群岛植被图》(Tableau physique des Îles Canaries,1817 年)和《基多安第斯山植物地理调查》(Esquisse de la Géographie des plantes dans les Andes de Quito,1824/1825 年)。我们的研究表明,《安第斯地貌图》没有反映洪堡特和邦普兰的实地数据,对植物分布和植被带垂直演替的描述存在缺陷,这是洪堡特误读拉孔达明的描述(1751 年)造成的。相比之下,洪堡在 1815 年的描述中显示的高植被带分布与拉孔达明的描述一致,而在 1824 年的描述中,洪堡放弃了 1815 年的创新,恢复了简单显示众多物种名称的做法,因此没有采用洪堡早先的分区框架。我们对洪堡 TPA 的当代反应的分析包括弗朗西斯-霍尔(Francis Hall)1834 年在基多附近追认出版的安第斯植物区系图,以及洪堡对霍尔批评的反应。在洪堡的植物地理学研究中,他忽视了自己的一些观察结果,或将其混淆。这关系到他作为植物地理学领域创新者和世界山脉高海拔植被带序列发现者的声誉。
"My Reputation is at Stake." Humboldt's Mountain Plant Geography in the Making (1803-1825).
Alexander von Humboldt's depictions of mountain vegetation are among the most iconic nineteenth century illustrations in the biological sciences. Here we analyse the contemporary context and empirical data for all these depictions, namely the Tableau physique des Andes (1803, 1807), the Geographiae plantarum lineamenta (1815), the Tableau physique des Îles Canaries (1817), and the Esquisse de la Géographie des plantes dans les Andes de Quito (1824/1825). We show that the Tableau physique des Andes does not reflect Humboldt and Bonpland's field data and presents a flawed depiction of plant occurrences and vertical succession of vegetation belts, arising from Humboldt's misreading of La Condamine's description (1751). Humboldt's 1815 depiction, by contrast, shows a distribution of high-vegetation belts that is consistent with La Condamine's description, while the 1824 depiction drops innovations made in 1815 and returns to simply showing numerous species' names, thus not applying Humboldt's own earlier zonation framework. Our analysis of contemporary reactions to Humboldt's TPA includes Francis Hall's posthumously published 1834 illustration of Andean plant zonation near Quito and Humboldt's reaction to Hall's critique. Throughout his work on plant geography, Humboldt disregarded some of his own observations, or confused them. At stake was his reputation as an innovator in the field of plant geography and a discoverer of the sequence of high-elevation vegetation belts on the world's mountains.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of the History of Biology is devoted to the history of the life sciences, with additional interest and concern in philosophical and social issues confronting biology in its varying historical contexts. While all historical epochs are welcome, particular attention has been paid in recent years to developments during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. JHB is a recognized forum for scholarship on Darwin, but pieces that connect Darwinism with broader social and intellectual issues in the life sciences are especially encouraged. The journal serves both the working biologist who needs a full understanding of the historical and philosophical bases of the field and the historian of biology interested in following developments and making historiographical connections with the history of science.