Dr. Ernst Mayr, the leading evolutionary biologist of the 20th century, died on Thursday in Bedford, Mass. He was 100.
Dr. Mayr's death, in a retirement community where he had lived since 1997, was announced by his family and Harvard, where he was a faculty member for many years.
He was known as an architect of the evolutionary or modern synthesis, an intellectual watershed when modern evolutionary biology was born. The synthesis, which has been described by Dr. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard as "one of the half-dozen major scientific achievements in our century," revived Darwin's theories of evolution and reconciled them with new findings in laboratory genetics and in field work on animal populations and diversity.
One of Dr. Mayr's most significant contributions was his persuasive argument for the role of geography in the origin of new species, an idea that has won virtually universal acceptance among evolutionary theorists. He also established a philosophy of biology and founded the field of the history of biology.
"He was the Darwin of the 20th century, the defender of the faith," said Dr. Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis, a historian of science at the University of Florida in Gainesville.
In a career spanning eight decades, Dr. Mayr, the Alexander Agassiz Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Harvard, exerted a broad and powerful influence over the field of evolutionary biology. Prolific, opinionated and dynamic, Dr. Mayr had been a major figure and intellectual leader since the 1940's. Setting much of the conceptual agenda for the field, he put the focus just where Charles Darwin first placed it, on the question of how new species originate.
Though Dr. Mayr will be best remembered for his role as a synthesizer and promoter of evolutionary ideas, he was also an accomplished ornithologist. In fact, it was with the sighting of a pair of very unusual birds that Dr. Mayr's long career in biology began in 1923 at 19.
Ernst Mayr
↗ The current version of this post is on the live site: https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/ernst-mayr.html
17 Comments
Great White Wonder · 4 February 2005
steve · 4 February 2005
A good opportunity to remind creationists than What Evolution Is, by Mayr, might help them to understand evolutionary science.
Russell · 4 February 2005
Spurred by Steve's frequent recommendations, I got myself a copy of "What Evolution Is". A great read, even if you think you're beyond that.
steve · 4 February 2005
I just checked it out from NCSU's library again. I recommend it to people largely when I'm feeling benevolent. In my more optimistic moods, I think that most creationists are smart enough that if they only knew enough about evolution, they'd have that Aha! moment and realize that it's obviously correct. At the very least, they might learn enough from Mayr's book to stop making the very dumbest creationist arguments, such as, if evolution's true, why are there still monkeys? It's a great book. Especially for people like me who are in science, but not biology.
Tim Tesar · 4 February 2005
Neil · 4 February 2005
Good thinking, Tim.
Tim Tesar · 4 February 2005
I forgot to inlcude in my previous post that Dr. Smocovitis' email is: bsmocovi@history.ufl.edu
steve · 4 February 2005
Tim brings up a point which is to my mind unresolved. On the one hand, we can use discipline to keep our message clear and difficult to misuse politically. On the other hand, should we let a small fringe of ignorant people burden us like that?
Great White Wonder · 4 February 2005
Steve, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.
When talking to the media, I think the burden of keeping in mind that what you say may be widely reported and is almost surely going to be taken out of context is minimal.
A greater difficulty arises in the context of writing scientific papers. For example, a common way to "sell" scientific data for publishing (peer reviewed or otherwise) is to begin by presenting a summary of what has previously been discovered and what has not been discovered, and then describing how your work represents an attempt to fill in some of the "unknowns."
In that context, it is always tempting to exagerate the scope of the unknown because that makes the work you've done seem more important.
Hence, the quotes that the creationists like to mine about how "very little" is known about the mechanisms of evolution.
I don't think there is any question that scientists should be AWARE of how their words might be twisted to disparage their field of research. As to what steps should be taken, I might as a reviewer of an article make a recommendation to change certain passages so that they accurately reflect the state of knowledge without providing cannon fodder for creationism peddlers. But if the author insisted on keeping the text, I certainly wouldn't hold up publication on that account (unless the text was misleading to a reasonable person).
And it must be said that it is a damn crying shame that it's come to this and it is NOT -- I repeat, NOT the fault of scientists for writing their papers about evolutionary biology as if they were writing for other scientists, and it is NOT the fault of evolutionary biologists for failing to anticipate the ability of the Internet and dubious organizations like the Discovery Institute to slickly peddle anti-science scripts for rubes to recite.
For the moment (as has been the tradition for years and years), it's evolutionary biology that's in the spotlight. But I would be shocked if scientists in other disciplines don't find themselves arguing with school boards about this garbage before too long.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 4 February 2005
OK, how long until antievolutionists start with the "Ernst Mayr is a creationist NOW" comments? We could have a pool. I'll take 8PM PST this evening.
Reed A. Cartwright · 4 February 2005
Unlike Gould, they probably have no idea who Mayr is.
Tim Tesar · 4 February 2005
Great White Wonder · 4 February 2005
Well, one can hardly take issue with Dr. Smocovitus' explanation under the circumstances.
If you read this thread, Doc, don't take my 3:11 comment personally. I never spoke with Dr. Mayr but I've argued with scores of creationists and, yeah, I'm probably overly sensitive. I apologize for the snippiness and I'm very glad to know you're ready and willing to defend ... evolutionary biology. ;)
Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis · 4 February 2005
That's OK Great White Wonder and thanks to all of you for following this closely. I knew Ernst personally but also wrote about him for my scholarly work. I study the evolutionary synthesis, and my primary contribution so far has been to argue that it involved the emergence of the scientific discipline known as evolutionary biology. It was a sad day; the news broke out in the department of zoology and you could just feel it touching everyone. He was actually a very kind, honest and forthright person--pretty accommodating on the personal side, but you could never really disagree with him on scientific matters (that dogmatic side).
Carol Yoon, the author of the article in the NYTimes has a PhD in the field of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from Cornell University. She is a reliable source of information and "on the side of the angels"...but don't quote me on that.
Betty
rampancy · 4 February 2005
I wonder if the creationists are going to be as enthusiastic to dance a jig on his grave as they did to Carl Sagan.
Yvonne Strong · 5 February 2005
Bayesian Bouffant · 5 February 2005