Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History in Science and Inquiry

May 23, 2010 James rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: paleontology, science, biology, evolution, non-fiction

A decent, but certainly out of date book. The most interesting section is that regarding the anatomy of the Burgess biota, and the historical narrative of Whittington, Conway Morris, and Briggs is also a highlight. The more technical details of chapter three might throw some readers off, but I found them to be fascinating.

Unfortunately, most of the book is out of date. Most of the "weird wonders" that Gould describes have been taxonomically re-evaluated in the previous two decades, and technical A decent, but certainly out of date book. The most interesting section is that regarding the anatomy of the Burgess biota, and the historical narrative of Whittington, Conway Morris, and Briggs is also a highlight. The more technical details of chapter three might throw some readers off, but I found them to be fascinating.

Unfortunately, most of the book is out of date. Most of the "weird wonders" that Gould describes have been taxonomically re-evaluated in the previous two decades, and technical developments in systematics (the concept of "stem groups" in cladograms), now show that much Burgess biota, ironically, belong closer to the original classifications of Walcott. Much of the biota are now considered to be stem groups of modern taxa, evolutionary aunts and uncles.

I also found Gould's continued emphasis on the "cone of increasing diversity" to be quite exhausting. Based on Gould's own definitions of diversity and disparity, there is no fundamental problem with depicting increased diversity in more modern geological eras, because there simply are more species (Gould's diversity) than in the Cambrian and Pre-Cambrian. Additionally, Gould seems to be railing against concepts that either haven't been present in the evolutionary literature for decades, perhaps centuries (depiction of an evolutionary ladder), or his examples of phylogenies are either strawmen or misinterpreted. For example, in Haeckel's illustrations, Gould does not analyze the taxonomic groups represented, nor does he consider that Haeckel perhaps wanted to show the phylogenies of the taxa he placed close to the top, and thus gave them more visual importance, because, after all, there is only so much space on the page.

In cladograms (and other methods of depicting phylogenies), if the diagram is "rooted", the root is meant to depict the hypothetical last common ancestor. Since clades are monophyletic (all descended from a single common ancestor), there is always going to be a "cone of increasing diversity", because the clade always depicts hierarchical branching lineages of descent. The only way there would not be a cone is if there truly was a ladder within a single lineage, something that Gould (rightly) disparages! One could argue that this is because Gould was simply arguing against older methods of depicting phylogeny, rather than the relatively new (at the time) cladistics, but even these do not generally follow his pattern. For example, in a classic depiction of fossil horse phylogeny (to use one of Gould's examples from chapter one), the maximum "disparity" is reached in the Miocene, and then scales back as it gets closer the the present.

Overall, the book is certainly not bad, especially when it comes to the historical and anatomical aspects. But in too many instances, Gould is simply engaging in his typical "revolutionary" grandstanding and hyperbole. Proceed carefully, and read more up-to-date texts as a follow up. ...more

61 likes · Like · see review

Jul 02, 2021 Jimmy rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science

Here is a link to find out more about the Burgess Shale:
https://burgess-shale.rom.on.ca/en/sc...

Always a joy to read Mr. Gould's work. This one is tougher than many others but the humor and fantastic knowledge are still there. It was my honor to have heard him speak shortly before he died. ...more

1 like · Like · see review

Aug 25, 2017 Tippy rated it it was ok

Shelves: science-history, animalia, abandoned

I loved the first 50 pages of this book but it went downhill from there. I suppose fans of Gould will appreciate it. He starts with a broad discussion of the importance of the Burgess Shale, which was fascinating and wonderful. Then he jumps into the nitty gritty of it... with detailed explanations of each scientists methods and publications and comparisons. It reads like a science journal. Or like a lab manual. Painfully slow with specific details of each appendage of various groups and specime I loved the first 50 pages of this book but it went downhill from there. I suppose fans of Gould will appreciate it. He starts with a broad discussion of the importance of the Burgess Shale, which was fascinating and wonderful. Then he jumps into the nitty gritty of it... with detailed explanations of each scientists methods and publications and comparisons. It reads like a science journal. Or like a lab manual. Painfully slow with specific details of each appendage of various groups and specimens. And of every scientist and how they came to work on the project.

I abandoned it at about 150 pages.

This was from the first 50 or so pages:

I'm loving this one already... but when I read it, I swear I can't stop hearing it in David Attenborough's voice in my head-LOL

"Consider the magnitude of this difference: taxonomists have described almost a million species of arthropods, and all fit into four major groups; one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than twenty additional arthropod designs! The history of life is a story of massive removal followed by differentiation within a few surviving stocks, not the conventional tale of steadily increasing excellence, complexity and diversity." pg. 25

Too great.

"Consider the great warhorse of tradition-the evolutionary ladder of horses themselves... But Hyracotherium-Equus is not a ladder, or even a central lineage. This sequence is but one labyrinthine pathway among thousands on a complex bush. This particular route has achieved prominence for just one ironic reason- because all other twigs are extinct. Equus is the only twig left, and hence the tip of the ladder in our false iconography. Horses have become the classic example of progressive evolution because their bush has been so unsuccessful. We never grant proper acclaim to the real triumphs of mammalian evolution. Who ever hears a story about the evolution of bats, antelopes, or rodents-the current champions of mammalian life? We tell no such tales because we cannot linearize the bounteous success of these creatures into our favored ladder. They present us with thousands of twigs on a vigorous bush.

Need I remind everyone that at least one other lineage of mammals, especially dear to our hearts for parochial reasons, shares with horses both the topology of a bush with one surviving twig, and the false iconography of a march to progress?" ...more

Like · see review