Nature readings: discuss

>>8342854
Of Wilson's works - i found The Ants and Consilience the most intriguing. If I remember correctly, his other works are mainly cases studies of conservationism

>>8342854
After London by Richard Jeffries is an imagining of London after an apocalypse and he describes nature taking back its hold on the land.

>>8342854
Hey, OP! Where you the guy that said you'd start a natural history thread last night? I tried to start one today but it didn't catch on.

>>8342966
Sort of.

>>8342966
Either way I commend you for making this thread.

I'm an in-training ecologist. I'm currently reading a Wilson book. I haven't really gotten into Dawkins aside from Unweaving the Rainbow, if I'm honest. Whilst I respect the man and his earlier works I disagree with what he does nowadays. Mostly he just sits on Twitter and acts more like a journalist than a scientist.


Anyway, books I've enjoyed:
The Ecology of Plants by Gurevitch et. al (complex textbook for bachelors degree upwards)
Trees: their natural history by Peter A Thomas of Cambridge, another textbook
Letters to a Young Scientist by E O Wilson
Natural History of the British Isles
History of the Countryside by Dr. Oliver Rackham

Just to name a few.

Funnily enough I don't actually own any books on general ecology myself, only books relating to botany specifically. I suppose it's because I am surrounded by ecology at college anyway... I was thinking about getting Natural Systems: the organisation of life by Markus Eichorn, but it's quite an undertaking.

>>8342977
>The Ecology of Plants by Gurevitch et. al
This one has my eye.
>I haven't really gotten into Dawkins aside from Unweaving the Rainbow, if I'm honest.
I have read Dawkins but largely forgot about what I've read.

Like you, I am not fond of what Dawkins does nowadays. And it seems the popularity of his selfish gene idea had side-effects on evolutionary biology: it sticks within evolutionary biology not so much because it is true but because of the popularity.

He is hugely influential tho and will still be in the future: both political and scientific.

Now that I've found this thread I'm just going to continue spamming it. Hopefully others with a passion for ecology/life sciences will rise up.

I've always been most interested in the kingdom Plantae, that's a given. But in terms of animals for the longest time I was focused only on the big charasmatic mammals such as Siberian tigers (did a few reports on the ecology/evolutionary traits of tigers) and wolves and so on. But the more I've studied the more I'm becoming fascinated by insects. It probably has something to do with reading Wilson and his infectious enthusiasm for ants. So many people notice only the big animals. It's the little guys that do all the work. Having studied ecology/land management for the past 2 years at diploma level and now going to study at degree for the next 3 years, I'm becoming increasingly interested in insect fauna. I suppose I could extend it to all terrestrial arthropods, but I don't really like arachnids. That doesn't mean the aren't marvels of nature though. I never thought of myself as someone being particularly interested in insects, but that's changing. I guess it makes sense, since I've always loved plants and their complex interactions from the individual level to the level of biogeography. Plants co-evolved with insects from the late Cretaceous. They are so closely related it only seems natural to focus more on insects now.

Ramble over!

>>8343020
I highly recommend Ecology of Plants. I have to admit I sort of skipped over the matrix models and life cycle graphs, but I've tried to consume as much as possible from that tome.

On that note, the other Wilson book I've just begun reading is actually The Social Conquest of Earth. When I picked it up from the library I didn't realise it was so controversial, this idea of kin selection versus group selection. I don't like reading controversial work for fear that I might be reading the wrong information, but I'm sure Wilson knows what he's talking about. The controversy is that Wilson took a while reject kin selection in favour of group selection, but Dawkins says that he's wrong and sticks with his original ideas of selfish genes/kin selection. I'm more of a general ecology man with a background in practical conservation/land management so I don't know a lot about this particular topic, though I know a fair deal about evolutionary processes in general.

It's a shame so few are interested in nature.

>>8343171
Yea I feel the same. I wish I could popularize it and make it more as only fragile species. Make it interesting, cool and so on.

I mean, I do not want most species to go extinct, but the emphasis on nature being fragile I think doesn't help the popularity of nature.

That and I think that nature is losing cultural significance.

One important thing is the divide between culture and nature. You see this in the famous BBC documentaries, regular pop culture and even the creation of national parks. There are very clear boundaries.

Well that's what I think.

>>8343247
Very true. This might sound cynical, but I often think how arrogant humans can be. It's not a novel ideal, but I really dislike how superiour most of us think we are. We're not. We're just one branch of a collosal tree of life. We got lucky. I don't mean to sound like an edgy nihilist though.

>>8343335
Abrahamic religions are very anthropocentric. One would think that after Darwin we would think more humble. It seems not so.

Science while improving our lives has also created hubris.

>>8343376
At the risk of sound like an edgy antitheist (I'm really not) I think the monotheistic patriarchal anthropocentric religions are a disease of the mind. I've likened it to standing on top of a mountain and closing your eyes to look inside your self for "god". That goes against all of science, all of humanism. I argue that people should be looking at nature, not themselves. The idea that a lot of people still believe in a deity constructed by the minds of men is abhorrent Think of how vast the cosmos is. And what does God care about? He cares about what we do with our sex lives. He cares about what we wear. The idea of gods are debunked as soon as you realise that so many cultures have had gods. It's just a biological phenomenon. No one religion is right. It's insane how Christians can't see this basic fact. They think they of ALL people are correct. It's delusion.

Nature is so much bigger than man. Gods are just man's ego reflected.

Again, these aren't novel ("I'm a special snowflake ideas") I'm just saying my point of view. I know I'm not an intellectual genius for stating these facts.

>>8343411
>At the risk of sound like an edgy antitheist
Doesn't matter. Let's keep the discussion open.

I think at least Greek, Norse and Aztec mythology taught some humility: they did not put humans in the center as much as Abrahamic religion. At least from what I understand.

But I am also not a fan of neopagan stuff.

>>8343441
The interesting thing is I love the aesthetics, the culture, the mythology and history of the Celto-Germanic religions. It's fair to say that the pre-Christian religions were far more involved in nature. It's a shame they have been butchered due to the lack of information we have about them. So instead of something like Celtic Reconstructionist Polytheism we get nonsense like Wicca.

In all, I can appreciate certain aspects of pagan religion, but I fundamentally disagree with the superstitious elements. You can see why the greeks and others would imbue rocks and trees with their own spirit, but humans should not hold such beliefs these days.

>>8343480
I suppose a religion with a focus on nature, although not great since it doesn't actually champion understanding natural phenomena in a scientific way, is miles better than Christianity.

Christianity literally teaches that man is superiour in every way to "the beasts of the earth" and the we should have "dominion over everything."

Disgusting.

Just throwing out a second topic to keep the thread dynamic. What is your favourite habitat/biome/ecosystem?

I would say mines if woodland, more specifically the Caledonian pine forest of Scotland. Look it up and be amazed. Aside from that it's atlantic british Oakwoods.

>>8343539
Forests, bogs + swamps and abandoned places in cities. Woods near rivers, not sure what you call 'em in English are kind of cool too.

I come from the countryside and like a mixture of farmland with forests.

When it comes to woodland, I prefer oak with birch or linden forest (have disappeared mostly tho). I am not too fond of beech forest as nothing tends to grow underneath it, but this is partly a manmade problem.

>>8343781
Nice, yeah I'm a fan of palustrine/riverine ecosystems. Beech forests are bit dull, yes. They're almost like monocultures really. It's the tannin in the leaves and the fact that they cause such dense shade.

>>8343854
Yep, where I'm from the nitrogen also keeps the leaves from being 'digested' (can't think of the English word right now).

>>8343897
Oh, do you mean something like anaerobic conditions at all? The sort of thing you'd find in acidic peat bogs. But I don't know if we're talking about that or the beech woods. Doesn't really apply to beech woods.

>>8343916
The beech forest. I hope I am not saying it wrong. Nitrogen from agricultural industry keeps the leaves from being biodegraded (the word I was looking for).

A botanist told me this, but maybe I remember it incorrectly.

>>8343966
Ah, that makes more sense. I was the one who started going on about something completely different. Yeah, I can imagine that, big loads of NPK fertilizing the leaves and sending the photosynthetic machinery into overdrive, I suppose? I'm not a professional!

I love going on walks on the countryside, but I'm a complete moron when it comes to nature.

Where should I begin in order to know more about it? I'd really love to be able to at least identify the most common trees in my region...

>>8344131
That's great, man. Where are you from? I'll tell you a quick story. I was once a shut-in with no interest in nature. I didn't know what a single tree was. I didn't even know that my own home country, Scotland, had mountains and amazing scenery. I changed. A lot. I recommend nature as a source of infinite curiosity and freedom. Before getting into the science I would simply suggest getting a reputable identification book and going round your local patch of woodland and trying to identify as many trees as possible.

>>8342854
>Horseshoe Crabs and Velvet Worms: The Story of the Animals and Plants That Time Has Left Behind
>Weeds: How Vagabond Plants Gatecrashed Civilisation and Changed the Way We Think About Nature

Is this way of naming books (Short Title: How This Changed The World) a specifically American thing? I'm not against it, I just rarely see it in books from elsewhere.

>>8344155
Ha, it is kind of silly yea. Dunno.

The horseshoe book I am currently reading, but the author seems to be British actually.

>>8344152

I've already tasted the marvels of losing your Self in Nature, anon, and it truly is a powerhouse of a spiritual experience.

I'll try doing what you said, but I don't even know where to cop such a book around where I live (Portugal).

Also, Scotland has an amazing countryside, been there last year and it blew me away. Bonus points for making me love Whisky, as well.

>>8344193
I personally use this site a lot:
http://portugal2.observation.org/foto/index?lang=en&local=xx

But outside of the Netherlands it isn't used as much.

I just check pictures from time to time or search for specific species and my knowledge increases.

>>8344235

Cool site, thanks a bunch!

Thanks for the thread. Seems to be dying, but it was a good departure from the usual /lit/ stuff.

Crap, I'm late to this thread.
Presumably since you are on /lit/ most would be interested in literary and philosophical books that deal with nature in adition to purely scientific stuff.
For those who are inetersted, I highly recomend the works of Loren Eiseley.
Oh, and favorite ecosystem: probably montain coniferous forests, specifically ponderosa pine/Douglass fir associations.

>>8344701
Well, you don't have to be late to the thread. Add to it and keep it alive, mate.

I'm probably make another similar tommorow (I'm not OP but the guy that's been talking most in the thread. Scottish in-training ecologist)

Non-fiction science books are still literature though, I reckon.

Nice, conifer forests are good... just not when they're crowded plantations. I do like my Larix decidua and Norway Spruce trees. When it comes to mountains, I love small upland wildflowers. I particularly like upland birchwoods with ferns.

>>8343171
no one cares about boring modernist ecology textbooks

pop science != nature readings

>>8344701
>Loren Eiseley

Only ever heard of the Immense Journey by him, is there any other book you'd reccomend?

>>8344830
The Unexpected Universe is his other most famous one.
I also like The Firmament of Time.
They are all essay collections.
Some of the science is outdated, but they are still well worth the read.

File: c2d83fc63fc6b45d3773521bbc093721.jpg (77KB, 564x564px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 564x564px

ThIs is a story commonly ripped off from one of his [Loren Eiseley] short stories called The Star Thrower.
It's over sentimentalized and it isn't actually much like the actual storey, but some of you may have heard it before.

File: 18651509280.jpg (233KB, 1125x1500px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1125x1500px

I highly recommend this book. It's a bit old now and the latin names are out of date, but this is by far the best natural history book for those living in Britain. It's not particularly scientific for the most part, but every page is brimming with top tier illustrations and photographs. It's a massive book, like the size of a small tv monitor... and has about 300-400 pages or so if I recall. All British habitats are photographed and illustrated, as well as trees, shrubs, herbs, grasses, birds, insects, you name it.

File: 3099240.jpg (9KB, 182x280px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 182x280px

>tfw you have an opportunity to recommend
Henri Bortoft's _The Wholeness of Nature: Goethe's Way Toward a Science of Conscious Participation in Nature_ on /lit/
>tfw no one will read it or get into Goethean science but you still got to recommend it

>>8345055
I love these old fucking things, holy shit.

I worked at a huge library warehouse for a while and we had to store tons of old books, usually in batches. We once got this whole batch of old Victorian nature books, some 150~ years old and the size of a house. I took a picture of one that was an ecological "walking tour" of either Britain or all of Europe, describing all the ecosystems and habitats and flora and fauna along the way, with beautiful illustrations. I'll try to find it and post the name.

>>8345063
I will read it if I can get my hands on it. Promise.

This kind of threads is one of the reasons I still go to this board.

Sorry that I have nothing to offer. I read some Dawkins and Darwin books when I was a kid but that's it.

File: f8edbde0bce41ef3b08f2e892bfd38f0.jpg (199KB, 736x1127px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 736x1127px

I'm more into reading bird books than general ecological books, but I will always try and recommend more ecological books to people.
I recently picked up pic related at a second hand store and I fell in love with it. It's an overview of birds in general; movement, feeding, behaviour, then going into specific species- but the style of writing is amazing. It was published in 1880 and has that amazingly descriptive style that the old field guides had, rather than the very formal style in a lot of ecological books nowadays.

And the illustrations in it are breathtaking! Basically every single page has an illustration on it, and each of those were engravings. I can't imagine how long it would have taken the artist to produce enough to illustrate the entire book, because it's 464 pages long.

If any of you can find a copy, I would definitely encourage you to get it; even if just for a laugh because the descriptions are hilarious.

(It is a little depressing to read about extinct species in it though; I was confused reading about Tasmanian Emu's, which the author described as hard to find, before I remembered they went extinct a decade or so after this was printed :( )

>>8345063
cool