Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-31T11:08:10.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Outlining Species: Drawing as a Research Technique in Contemporary Biology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2013

Barbara Wittmann
Barbara Wittmann*
Affiliation:
Bauhaus-Universität Weimar Email: barbara.wittmann@uni-weimar.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

Biological drawings of newly described or revised species are expected to represent the type specimen with greatest possible accuracy. In taxonomic practice, illustrations assume the function of mobile representatives of relatively immobile specimens. In other words, such illustrations serve as “immutable mobiles” in the Latourian sense. However, the significance of drawing in the context of first descriptions goes far beyond that of illustration in the conventional sense. Not only does it synthesize the verbal catalogue of the type's morphological characteristics: it also enables the examination of these traits. The efficacy of drawing is thus closely related to its power to direct and redirect observation; it is inextricably bound up with the act of making a drawing. Although the invariance of the “immutable mobiles” is a key virtue of the logistics of “paperwork,” the recovery of graphic knowledge requires a much stronger dynamic activity – a process of sequential processing that brings out differences by translating the phenomenon under examination into various modes of graphic representation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 26 , Special Issue 2: Knowledge in the Making , June 2013 , pp. 363 - 391
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bach, Friedrich Teja, and Pichler, Wolfram. 2009. Öffnungen: Zur Theorie und Geschichte der Zeichnung. Munich, Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beale, Lionel S. 1880. How to Work with the Microscope, 5th ed., revised and enlarged. London: Harrison.Google Scholar
Bethke, Emil G. 1969. Basic Drawing for Biology Students. Springfield IL: Thomas.Google Scholar
Blum, Ann Shelby. 1993. Picturing Nature: American Nineteenth-Century Zoological Illustration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bredekamp, Horst. 2000. “Gazing Hands and Blind Spots: Galileo as Draftsman.” Science in Context 13:423–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bredekamp, Horst. 2009. Galilei der Künstler. Der Mond, die Sonne, die Hand. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breidbach, Olaf. 2005. Bilder des Wissens. Zur Kulturgeschichte der wissenschaftlichen Wahrnehmung. Munich, Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, Norman. 2003. “A Walk for a Walk's Sake.” In The Stage of Drawing: Gesture and Act, edited by de Zegher, Catherine, 149–58, exhibition catalogue. New York: Tate Publishing and Drawing Center.Google Scholar
Bulliard, Jean Baptiste François Pierre. 1780–93. Herbier de la France ou Collection complète des plantes indigènes de ce Royaume: avec leurs détails anatomiques, leurs propriétés, et leurs usages en médécine, 13 vols. Paris: chez l'auteur, Didot Jeune, Debure, Belin.Google Scholar
Campe, Rüdiger. 1991. “Die Schreibszene. Schreiben.” In Paradoxien, Dissonanzen, Zusammenbrüche: Situationen offener Epistemologie, edited by Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich and Pfeiffer, K. Ludwig, 759–72. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Chadarevian, Soraya de. 1993. “Instruments, Illustrations, Skills, and Laboratories in Nineteenth-Century German Botany.” In Non-Verbal Communication in Science Prior to 1900, edited by Mazzolini, Renato G., 529–50. Florence: Olschki.Google Scholar
Cook, Christopher D. K. 1998. “A Quick Method for Making Accurate Botanical Illustrations.” Taxon 47:371–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalby, Claire, and Dalby, Dunkery Hugh. 1980. “Biological Illustration: A Guide to Drawing for Reproduction.” Field Studies 5:307–21.Google Scholar
Damisch, Hubert. 1995. Traité du trait: Tractatus tractus [à l'occasion de l'exposition présentée au Musée du Louvre, Hall Napoléon, par le Département des Arts Graphiques, du 26 avril au 24 juillet 1995], exhibition catalogue, Musée National du Louvre. Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux.Google Scholar
Daston, Lorraine. 2004. “Type Specimen and Scientific Memory.” Critical Inquiry 31:153–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, and Galison, Peter. 1992. “The Image of Objectivity.” Representations 40:81–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daston, Lorraine, and Galison, Peter. 2007. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
Dennis, Michael Aaron. 1989. “Graphic Understanding: Instruments and Interpretation in Robert Hooke's Micrographia.” Science in Context 3:309–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Downey, John C., and Kelly, James L.. 1982. Biological Illustration: Techniques and Exercises. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Elkins, James. 2005. “Letter to John Berger.” In John Berger. Berger on Drawing, edited by Savage, Jim, 111–14. Cork: Occasional Press.Google Scholar
Fiorentini, Erna. 2004. “Subjective Objective: The Camera Lucida and Protomodern Observers.” Bildwelten des Wissens. Kunsthistorisches Jahrbuch für Bildkritik 2 (2):58–66.Google Scholar
Fiorentini, Erna. 2006. “Instrument des Urteils. Zeichnen mit der Camera Lucida als Komposit.” In The Picture's Image: Wissenschaftliche Visualisierung als Komposit, edited by Hinterwaldner, Inge and Buschhaus, Markus, 44–58. Munich, Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Fiorentini, Erna. 2008. “Optical Instruments and Modes of Vision in Early Nineteenth Century.” In Verfeinertes Sehen. Optik und Farbe im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Busch, Werner, 201–21. Munich: R. Oldenbourg Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleck, Ludwik. 1979. The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, translated and edited by Bradley, Frederick and Trenn, Thaddeus J.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Flusser, Vilém. 1991. “Die Geste des Schreibens.” In Gesten. Versuch einer Phänomenologie, edited by Flusser, Vilém, 39–49. Düsseldorf: Bollmann.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galison, Peter. 1998. “Judgment against Objectivity.” In Picturing Science, Producing Art, edited by Jones, Caroline A. and Galison, Peter, 327–59. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ganong, William F. 1910. The Teaching Botanist: A Manual of Information upon Botanical Instruction. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael T. 1966. “On Psychologism in the Logic of Taxonomic Controversies.” Systematic Zoology 26:207–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael T. 1997. Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Heim, Albert. 1894. Sehen und Zeichnen. Vortrag gehalten auf dem Rathause zu Zürich, 1. Februar 1894. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
Hodges, Elaine R. S., ed. 1989. The Guild Handbook of Scientific Illustration. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Holmgren, Noel H., and Angell, Bobbi. 1986. Botanical Illustration: Preparation for Publication. Bronx: New York Botanical Garden.Google Scholar
Ingold, Tim. 2007. Lines: A Brief History. London, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 2000. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.Google Scholar
Krümmel, Clemens. 2004. “Es reicht zu zeichnen: Möglichkeiten der Reportagezeichnung/Drawing's Enough: Potentials of Reportage Drawing.” In Tauchfahrten: Zeichnung als Reportage/Diving Trips: Drawing as Reportage, 8–19, exhibition catalogue. Kunstverein Hannover, Kunsthalle Düsseldorf, Hannover: Kunstverein Hannover.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1990. “Drawing Things Together.” In Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by Lynch, Michael and Woolgar, Steve, 19–68. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1999. “Circulating Reference: Sampling the Soil in the Amazon Forest.” In Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, edited by Latour, Bruno, 24–79. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, Alex. 2001. “Individualism, Type Specimens, and the Scrutability of Species Membership.” Biology and Philosophy 16:325–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1985. “Discipline and the Material Form of Images: An Analysis of Scientific Visibility.” Social Studies of Science 15:37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Michael. 1990. “The Externalized Retina: Selection and Mathematization in the Visual Documentation of Objects in the Life Sciences.” In Representation in Scientific Practice, edited by Lynch, Michael und Woolgar, Steve, 153–86. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nasim, Omar W. 2008. “Beobachtungen mit der Hand: Astronomische Nebelskizzen im 19. Jahrhundert.” In Daten sichern: Schreiben und Zeichnen als Verfahren der Aufzeichnung, edited by Hoffmann, Christoph, 21–46. Zurich, Berlin: Diaphanes.Google Scholar
Nickelsen, Kärin. 2006. Draughtsmen, Botanists and Nature: The Construction of Eighteenth-Century Botanical Illustrations. Dordrecht: Springer.Google ScholarPubMed
Papp, Charles S. 1976. Manual of Scientific Illustration: With Special Chapters on Photography, Cover Design and Book Manufacturing. Sacramento: American Visual Aid Books.Google Scholar
Pichler, Wolfram, and Ubl, Ralph. 2007. “Vor dem ersten Strich: Dispositive der Zeichnung in der modernen und vormodernen Kunst.” In Randgänge der Zeichnung, edited by Busch, Werner, Jehle, Oliver, and Meister, Carolin, 231–55. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Piles, Roger de. 1766. Cours de peinture par principes. Paris: Jombert.Google Scholar
Pircher, Wolfgang. 2005. “Die Sprache des Ingenieurs.” Nach Feierabend. Zürcher Jahrbuch für Wissensgeschichte 1:83–108.Google Scholar
Randall, John E., and Bartsch, Peter. 2007. “Aseraggodes corymbus: A New Soleid Fish from the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia.” Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Zoologische Reihe 83:105–9.Google Scholar
Rijcke, Sarah de. 2008. “Drawing into Abstraction: Practices of Observation and Visualisation in the Work of Santiago Ramón y Cajal.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 33 (4):287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Simon. 1998. “On Astronomical Drawing.” In Picturing Science, Producing Art, edited by Jones, Caroline A. and Galison, Peter, 441–74. New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schickore, Jutta. 2002. “Fixierung mikroskopischer Beobachtungen: Zeichnung, Dauerpräparat, Mikrofotografie.” In Ordnungen der Sichtbarkeit: Fotografie in Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technologie, edited by Geimer, Peter, 285–310. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Schulze, Elke. 2002. “‘Einführung in die Kunst des Zeichnens zum Zweck bewussten Sehens’: Das Lektorat Akademisches Zeichnen an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität.” Jahrbuch für Universitätsgeschichte 5:51–67.Google Scholar
Schulze, Elke. 2005. “Zeichnung und Fotografie: Universitäres Zeichnen und naturwissenschaftliche Bildfindung.” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 28 (2):151–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapin, Steven. 1989. “The Invisible Technician.” American Scientist 77:554–63.Google Scholar
Stingelin, Martin. 2004. “‘Schreiben’: Einleitung.” In “Mir ekelt vor diesem tintenklecksenden Säkulum”: Schreibszenen im Zeitalter der Manuskripte, edited by Stingelin, Martin, 7–21. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Taylor, Peter J., and Blum, Ann S.. 1991. “Pictorial Representation in Biology.” Biology and Philosophy 6:125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Peter, Pomfrett, Jo Anne, and Mabberley, David. 1997. An Exquisite Eye: The Australian Flora and Fauna Drawings of Ferdinand Bauer, 1801–1820. Glebe, New South Wales: Historic Houses Trust of New South Wales.Google Scholar
West, Keith. 1983. How to Draw Plants: The Techniques of Botanical Illustration. London: Herbert Press.Google Scholar
Winston, Judith E. 1999. Describing Species: Practical Taxonomic Procedure for Biologists. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Wittmann, Barbara. 2013. “Morphologische Erkundungen. Zeichnen am Mikroskop.” Bildwelten des Wissens 9 (2):45–54.Google Scholar
Wood, Phyllis. 1994. Scientific Illustration: A Guide to Biological, Zoological, and Medical Rendering Techniques, Design, Printing, and Display. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Zweifel, Frances W. 1961. A Handbook of Biological Illustration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar