Naturalists v. biologists

 Yesterday’s note was about those who want to understand nature and those who want to feel their connection to it.

Here’s another way of looking at the problem: The entomologist William Morton Wheeler, in an address to the Boston Society of Natural History in 1931, considered the distinction between naturalists and biologists. In his telling:

• Naturalists are extraverts, Romantics, observers, collectors, classifiers. If they were philosophers, they’d be students of Aristotle.

• Biologists are introverts, Classicists, theorists, handlers of ideas rather than specimens. If they were philosophers, they’d be students of Plato.

Wheeler had an interesting mind. Some of his specimens are still in the collection at the University of Texas. He was known as a taxonomist, one of stars of the science of zoological classification. But this classification seems like whimsy to me.

What I’d say: The diversity we see in nature is mirrored in the diversity we see in the observers of nature. It’s a spectrum, rather than an either-or. Some observers are trying to understand what they see, and others are trying to feel how they connect to web of nature.

All the observers on the spectrum give some kind of account of what they experienced. Old newspapermen would be tempted to talk about how objective each account was.

I’ve been watching a red yucca in the front garden. It put out a stalk, which seemed to grow about 6 inches a day. Then the flowers came, and while I was counting, a hummingbird came to feed.

I have seen hummingbirds feed on many plants and I know a bit about how they go about it. I was interested in this sight, but also thrilled.