I’ve argued for some time that natural history gets short shrift in the next-generation sequencing, -omics proliferating world of today’s biologist. By natural history, I mean observations of species, events, habitats, or behaviours. I think it’s safe to say that without the solid foundation of natural history, much of today’s ecology, and biology in general, wouldn’t be possible.
The major ornithological journals (Auk, Condor, Ibis, Wilson, and the then-German Journal of Ornithology) all got their start in the late 1800s. You can go back and look at some of the articles that passed muster, and you’ll see lovely titles like “A Barn Swallow’s Nest on a Moving Train” published in the Condor in 1935. Such “purely observational” notes would never pass as “research” in today’s hyper-competitive publishing gauntlet. Or would they?
There are still some journals out there that embrace this aspect of science. The Canadian Field-Naturalist, once bemoaned for its 2+ year lag in publishing has caught up, has a snazzy new website where past issues are available (others can be found on the Biodiversity Heritage Library), and keeps a fairly active presence on Twitter. Other outfits like Northeastern Naturalist (or Southeastern, Northwest, Southwest, and American Midland Naturalist) complement each other in geographic scope.
I got into biology for the field work. I love being outdoors, living in remote places, interacting with amazing creatures (and their habitats). And like those a century before, when I find myself somewhere for a lengthy period of time with no power, phone, radio, computer, or running water, I notice things. Sometimes these are little things, like an oddly-coloured individual. Other times, they’re larger things, like a significant species occurrence record, or a volcanic seep.
Field camps are the birthplace of natural history. This was my camp on Kiska Island, Alaska, during my PhD. 2 tents, 1 weatherport, 11 weeks.
The initial goal of publication in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (the first academic journal, founded in 1665) was to tell other Fellows of the Royal Society of all things various and sundry. Who could forget, after all, the 1674 classic by Dr. Johnstones: “An observation of Dr. Johnstones of Pomphret, communicated to him by Mr. Lister, and by him sent in a letter to the publisher, concerning some stones of perfect gold-colour; found in animals”? But I digress.
A few weeks ago, while taking stock of things on my plate, and prompted in part by Meg’s post on Dynamic Ecology on languishing datasets, I decided to implement “Natural History Fridays”. Friday afternoons, from about 1:30 until I leave for the day (usually about 5pm), I dedicate to natural history writings and projects. Some of these will results in manuscripts, others won’t and will end up being shared with colleagues. Here are a few of the things currently on my natural history plate:
-a summary of the birds of Kiska Island, in the western Aleutian Islands where I spent 4 years doing my PhD
-describing some cases of aberrant plumages (leucism or melanism)
-compiling vagrant records (observations or collections outside their normal range) of auklets (the seabirds I worked on for my PhD)
I’m pretty lucky in that I have the flexibility to dedicate a few hours of my week to projects that some might see as frivolous or unnecessary. But I don’t think these projects are frivolous or unnecessary – I find them enjoyable, and some may result in a publication or two, and all increase our knowledge of species, habitats, or phenomena, which, after all, is what science is all about.
Sounds like a good strategy to me – best of luck with your writings.
And your library (and staff) will continue to enjoy receiving your fun and challenging requests. Keep them coming! We too are growing fond of your Natural History Fridays. I wish more researchers utilized the impressive back-stock of articles and monographs contained in a good natural history library. The older articles make for fascinating reading while they can help bring modern research full circle. Very well written post, as usual.
It’s fascinating how much more challenging older scientific and natural history literature is to track down these days. Sure, I can find the latest issue of just about any journal within minutes (if not seconds), but discontinued periodicals that have not (and likely will not) be digitized, or late 19th-century monographs (heck, even monographs up to the 1980s!) aren’t easy for non-librarians to track down.
Remember everyone – use your libraries, and be sure to tell them how much you appreciate their services!
Great post, and great idea on devoting set times for natural history writings. And thank you very much for the very kind words you have for our work with The Canadian Field-Naturalist! I volunteer as Journal Manager for the journal, so thank you for appreciating the website I set up and my tweets. Our Editor-in-Chief Carolyn Callaghan has done a great job catching up our publication lag. We’re still working on further improvements in our Red Queen race to compete with the mega-profit publishers, but our little volunteer-run non-profit journal is in pretty good shape now.
PS- We call “shotgun” on all of the projects you listed! 😉
Jay
That’s great! I’m so glad my post was motivating! 🙂
This is wonderful, I missed it when it first came out (working in the field!) and it sounds like a great priority.
I missed this post, too (mostly due to my inability to keep up with all the interesting goings on on the web).
Seems the same thing is happening across the natural science disciplines. Empirical data, modelling, etc. are all valued over observation-based data, usually because the latter don’t involve a testable hypothesis. Even when we do have empirical data, as is the case with our large dataset measuring post-wildfire hydrology/water quality/etc., we have trouble publishing papers because we don’t have enough ‘pre-fire’ data. Our measurements & observations of current conditions are considered ‘limited’ without this baseline info (not to mention the practical/logistical fact that no one sets up watershed studies and plans for a massive wildfire – it’s largely opportunistic work).
In my line of work, landscape observation is critical to placing measured hydro variables in a broader context. This glaciology paper from 1932 starts with a beautiful description of the fjords of Greenland that you’d never find in current papers (http://bit.ly/Zy3BGn).These days landscape is the last thing people consider (see http://bit.ly/14lsBCn), perhaps because of the bias against natural history.
I like your NH Friday idea – a great contribution to the literature!
Hi Sarah, a neat article, and a great post. I think it can be difficult for some folks to connect with their landscape when the landscape they know is so urbanized (and generic), and when we spend significant chunks of time in front of computer screens, or tapping on smartphones. Yet there are people who don’t feel “at home” in a watershed, hardwood stand, or in the intertidal. As a friend put it, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, “Humankind has spent thousands of years trying to get away from the harsh outside – why go back?” Those of us that rely on field data, and make natural history observations can be derided by lab- and computer-based researchers. Perhaps this is because they think that “surely, that’s already been done” or because they see how much we enjoy it, and conclude that it couldn’t possibly be “work” 😉
Pingback: Natural history museums are essential for science | The Lab and Field
Pingback: So you write about the environment: Are you a science writer or a nature writer? | Canadian Science Writers' Association
Pingback: How thick is thick? A story of seabird eggshells, from natural history observation to published paper « The Lab and Field
Pingback: “Old” meets “New”: the role of preprints in natural history « The Lab and Field
Pingback: On the importance of Observations to Ecology – Ecology is not a dirty word