Subject
Fw: Nabokov's scientific writings: Mimicry. Alexander
From
Date
Body
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victoria N. Alexander" <alexander@dactyl.org>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:11 PM
Subject: Nabokov's scientific writings
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (63
lines) ------------------
> Zimmer and Boyd have been discussing whether or not Nabokov wrote any
> serious scientific papers on the topic of mimicry. They also list many of
> the examples of mimicry that he mentioned in his writing. I have focused
on
> two forms of mimicry that Nabokov specifically mentions, the deadleaf and
> the viceroy-monarch relation. He wrote about the dead-leaf in the passage
> from Speak Memory that everyone quotes. He actually tasted a viceroy and a
> monarch in order to test the Batesian hypothesis, and the passage in
> "Father's Butterflies" that I quote in my paper directly addresses this
form
> of supposed mimicry. Although Nabokov may not have published scientific
> works tackling the problem of mimicry per se, his anti-Darwinian argument
> was an argument for theoretical biology, which was the focus of biological
> science before Darwin. As I have shown, a lot of his scientific writing on
> lepidoptery is influenced by his partiality to the theoretical approach.
So
> there is, in fact, a lot of scientific material to support his
> non-utilitarian approach to evolution.
>
>
>
> Nabokov had a peculiar obsession with the mechanisms behind the formation
of
> lines and macules on butterfly wings. Nabokov seemed out-of-step because
few
> other scientists were interested in theoretical biology or teleology. (If
> any were, they sure wouldn't have mentioned it. It was very "unscientific"
> to think that way in the 30s and 40s.) For example, Nabokov had a
passionate
> reaction against what he felt was a misunderstanding of the mechanisms
> responsible for the "Nymphalid Ground Plan" (discovered in the 1920s).
The
> ground plan is a structural archetype and a key concept in theoretical
> biology.
>
>
>
> Nabokov argued that there were other mechanisms besides natural selection
> that influenced evolution. Scientists have recently discovered that this
is
> so. Nabokov was not wrong about there being nonutilitarian mechanisms
> (besides random drift, which Boyd notes) that influence evolution. I've
also
> tried to argue that our perception of teleological phenomena (phenomena
that
> seem designed) is these days explained by theoretical biologists who use
the
> tools of nonlinear dynamics. I have shown the relevance of this research
to
> the concept of mimicry (apparent functional design in nature), especially
> the viceroy-monarch relation. I've also offered a hypothesis regarding the
> sudden appearance of large groups deadleaf forms, which seems to involve
> some version of a many-to-one neutral mechanism. I've related this to some
> work by 19th century teleologists. Doubtless, I have guessed wrong about
the
> details (I'm no scientist), but the general idea is plausible. Any
> criticisms on that matter would be helpful to me, and very much
appreciated.
>
>
>
> In any case, Darwinian gradualism isn't a real option. Some theory of
sudden
> speciation, whether mine, or Crutchfeild's Epochal Evolution, or some
other
> theory, is called for to explain the origin of the deadleaf. One can bring
> in natural selection after, to explain why the form is stabilized, but one
> should not use it to explain the origin.
>
>
>
> My argument needs to be refined, not refuted. To that end, I've found Kurt
> Johnson's criticisms and cautions very useful.
>
>
>
> Victoria Alexander
>
>
>
From: "Victoria N. Alexander" <alexander@dactyl.org>
To: "Vladimir Nabokov Forum" <NABOKV-L@LISTSERV.UCSB.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 8:11 PM
Subject: Nabokov's scientific writings
>
> ----------------- Message requiring your approval (63
lines) ------------------
> Zimmer and Boyd have been discussing whether or not Nabokov wrote any
> serious scientific papers on the topic of mimicry. They also list many of
> the examples of mimicry that he mentioned in his writing. I have focused
on
> two forms of mimicry that Nabokov specifically mentions, the deadleaf and
> the viceroy-monarch relation. He wrote about the dead-leaf in the passage
> from Speak Memory that everyone quotes. He actually tasted a viceroy and a
> monarch in order to test the Batesian hypothesis, and the passage in
> "Father's Butterflies" that I quote in my paper directly addresses this
form
> of supposed mimicry. Although Nabokov may not have published scientific
> works tackling the problem of mimicry per se, his anti-Darwinian argument
> was an argument for theoretical biology, which was the focus of biological
> science before Darwin. As I have shown, a lot of his scientific writing on
> lepidoptery is influenced by his partiality to the theoretical approach.
So
> there is, in fact, a lot of scientific material to support his
> non-utilitarian approach to evolution.
>
>
>
> Nabokov had a peculiar obsession with the mechanisms behind the formation
of
> lines and macules on butterfly wings. Nabokov seemed out-of-step because
few
> other scientists were interested in theoretical biology or teleology. (If
> any were, they sure wouldn't have mentioned it. It was very "unscientific"
> to think that way in the 30s and 40s.) For example, Nabokov had a
passionate
> reaction against what he felt was a misunderstanding of the mechanisms
> responsible for the "Nymphalid Ground Plan" (discovered in the 1920s).
The
> ground plan is a structural archetype and a key concept in theoretical
> biology.
>
>
>
> Nabokov argued that there were other mechanisms besides natural selection
> that influenced evolution. Scientists have recently discovered that this
is
> so. Nabokov was not wrong about there being nonutilitarian mechanisms
> (besides random drift, which Boyd notes) that influence evolution. I've
also
> tried to argue that our perception of teleological phenomena (phenomena
that
> seem designed) is these days explained by theoretical biologists who use
the
> tools of nonlinear dynamics. I have shown the relevance of this research
to
> the concept of mimicry (apparent functional design in nature), especially
> the viceroy-monarch relation. I've also offered a hypothesis regarding the
> sudden appearance of large groups deadleaf forms, which seems to involve
> some version of a many-to-one neutral mechanism. I've related this to some
> work by 19th century teleologists. Doubtless, I have guessed wrong about
the
> details (I'm no scientist), but the general idea is plausible. Any
> criticisms on that matter would be helpful to me, and very much
appreciated.
>
>
>
> In any case, Darwinian gradualism isn't a real option. Some theory of
sudden
> speciation, whether mine, or Crutchfeild's Epochal Evolution, or some
other
> theory, is called for to explain the origin of the deadleaf. One can bring
> in natural selection after, to explain why the form is stabilized, but one
> should not use it to explain the origin.
>
>
>
> My argument needs to be refined, not refuted. To that end, I've found Kurt
> Johnson's criticisms and cautions very useful.
>
>
>
> Victoria Alexander
>
>
>