KohlerRobert E., “Place and practice in field biology”, History of science, xl (2002), 189–210. Also GierynThomas F., “Three truth-spots”, Journal of the history of the behavioural sciences, xxxviii (2002), 113–32.
2.
CetinaKaren Knorr, “The couch, the cathedral, and the laboratory: On the relations between experiment and laboratory in science”, in Science as practice and culture, ed. by PickeringAndrew (Chicago, 1992), 113–38.
3.
KohlerRobert E., Landscapes and labscapes: Exploring the lab-field border in biology (Chicago, 2002).
4.
LatourBruno, “Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world”, in Science observed, ed. by KnorrKarenMulkayMichael (London, 1983), 141–70. Also Latour, The Pasteurization of France (Cambridge, Mass., 1988), chap. 2.
5.
ShapinSteven, “The house of experiment”, Isis, lxxix (1988), 373–404, p. 383. HannawayOwen, “Laboratory design and the aim of science: Andreas Libavius versus Tycho Brahe”, Isis, lxxvii (1986), 585–610. SchafferSimon, “Physics laboratories and the Victorian country house”, in Making space for science: Territorial themes in the shaping of knowledge, ed. by SmithCrosbieAgarJon (London, 1998), 149–80. ForganSophie, “The architecture of science and the idea of a university”, Studies in the history and philosophy of science, xx (1989), 405–34. Idem, “The architecture of display: Museums, universities and objects in nineteenth-century Britain”, History of science, xxxii (1994), 139–62. TraweekSharon, Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists (Cambridge, Mass., 1988), chap. 1. GoodayGraeme, “The premisses of premises: Spatial issues in the historical construction of laboratory credibility”, in Making space for science, ed. by SmithAgar, 216–45.
6.
The few existing studies of laboratory settings deal with the political and cultural symbolism of urban or suburban places, not the natural settings. For example: ForganSophieGoodayGraeme, ‘“A fungoid assemblage of buildings’: Diversity and adversity in the development of college architecture and scientific education in 19th-century South Kensington”, History of universities, xiii (1994), 153–92; and PaulyPhilip J., “Summer resort and scientific discipline: Woods Hole and the structure of American biology, 1882–1925”, in The American development of biology, ed. by RaingerRonaldBensonKeith R.MaienscheinJane (Philadelphia, 1988), 121–50.
7.
GoodayGraeme, “‘Nature’ in the laboratory: Domestication and discipline with the microscope in Victorian life science”, The British journal for the history of science, xxiv (1991), 307–41, p. 313.
8.
BurkhardtRichard W.Jr., “The Journal of Animal Behavior and the early history of animal behavior studies in America”, Journal of comparative psychology, ci (1987), 223–30, p. 228.
9.
AllenGarland E., Life science in the twentieth century (New York, 1975), chaps. 2 and 3. NyhartLynn K., Biology takes form: Animal morphology and the German universities, 1800–1900 (Chicago, 1995). Allen, “The transformation of a science: T. H. Morgan and the emergence of a new American biology”, in The organization of knowledge in modern America, 1860–1920, ed. by OlesonAlexandraVossJohn (Baltimore, 1979), 173–210. GouldStephen J., Ontogeny and phylogeny (Cambridge, Mass., 1977), 167–9, 186–206. MaienscheinJaneRaingerRonaldBensonKeith (eds), “Special section on American morphology at the turn of the century”, Journal of the history of biology, xiv (1981), 83–191.
10.
WilsonEdmund B., “Aims and methods of study in natural history”, Science, xiii (1901), 14–23, p. 19. RitterWilliam E., “The marine biological station at San Diego: Its history, present conditions, achievements, and aims”, University of California publications in zoology, ix (1912), 137–248, p. 215.
11.
Editorial, Botanical gazette, xvi (1891), 86–87.
12.
SpaldingVolney M., “The rise and progress of ecology”, Science, xvii (1903), 201–10, p. 204. BumpusHermon, “Laboratory teaching of large classes — Zoology”, Science, i (1905), 260–3, p. 262.
13.
Kohler, Landcapes and labscapes (ref. 3), chap. 2. See also HenkeChristopher R., “Making a place for science: The field trial”, Social studies of science, xxx (2000), 483–511.
14.
JackHomer A., “The biological field stations of the world: A comparative and descriptive study”, Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1940, i, 52–60. In addition to these seventy-six stations, another thirteen were itinerant or temporary, and fifteen more undated and probably very informal. Jack also lists twenty-one nature-study camps. Twenty-nine of the seventy-six datable field stations were defunct by 1939. I have made some additions and corrections to Jack's data. Maps of station locations are in vol. i, pp. 80–82, and data on abandonment on pp. 104–8. A greatly abbreviated version without the data is Jack, “Biological field stations of the world”, Chronica botanica, ix (1945), 5–73.
15.
Jack, “Biological field stations” (ref. 14). Florida had five such stations, the Pacific Northwest four, and the Gulf coast just two. Their richer coastal faunas were offset by the lower density of research universities in these regions.
16.
Pauly, “Summer resort and scientific discipline” (ref. 6), 134–5. Also WilsonHenry V., “Marine biology at Beaufort”, American naturalist, xxxiv (1900), 339–60. KofoidCharles A., The biological stations of Europe, United States Bureau of Education Bulletin no. 440 (Washington, 1910). LillieFrank R., The Woods Hole Marine Biological Laboratory (Chicago, 1944). Various authors, “The Naples Zoological Station and the Marine Biological Laboratory: One hundred years of biology”, Supplement to Biological bulletin, lxviii (1985). BensonKeith R., “Laboratories on the New England shore: The ‘somewhat different direction’ of American marine biology”, New England quarterly, lxi (1988), 55–78.
17.
LankesterRay E., “An American sea-side laboratory”, Nature, xxi (1880), 497–9. Edmund B. Wilson to Charles O. Whitman, 27 Dec. 1891, Charles B. Davenport Papers general series, American Philosophical Society Library, Philadelphia, Pa. (hereafter: CBD), f. Whitman Woods Hole, Blanchard. JordanDavid Starr, “The flora of Penikese Island”, American naturalist, viii (1874), 193–7.
18.
Kofoid, Biological stations of Europe (ref. 16), 11, 18. DeanBashford, “Notes on the marine biological laboratories of Europe”, American naturalist, xxvii (1893), 697–707, p. 702.
19.
KelloggVernon L., “The Hopkins seaside laboratory”, American naturalist, xxx (1899), 629–34.
20.
Kofoid, Biological stations of Europe (ref. 16), 19. Dean, “Notes” (ref. 18). Lillie, Woods Hole (ref. 16), 87–88, 111.
21.
SharpDallas L., “The Marine Biological Laboratory”, Science, xxii (1893), 127–8.
22.
MorganThomas H. to ConklinEdwin G., 30 May 1911, Princeton University Biology Department Papers, Harvey Mudd Library, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J. (hereafter: PUB), Box 1, f. Biological Plans and Projects.
23.
SumnerFrancis B. to RitterWilliam E., 9 June 1914, Francis B. Sumner Papers, Archives, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, Cal., Box 5, f. 531. Also ProvineWilliam B., “Francis B. Sumner and the evolutionary synthesis”, Studies in the history of biology, iii (1979), 211–40. Warder C. Allee to Libbie Hyman, 6 Dec. 1940, Warder C. Allee Papers, University of Chicago Special Collections, Regenstein Library, Chicago, Ill. (hereafter: Allee Papers), Box 18, f. 16.
24.
Lillie, Woods Hole (ref. 16), 108. FewkesJesse W., “Sea-side study on the coast of California”, American naturalist, xxii (1888), 33–14, pp. 34–35. Fewkes, “A corner of Brittany”, American naturalist, xxiii (1889), 95–109, pp. 100–1.
25.
See MontgomeryThomas H. to WheelerWilliam M., 31 July 1902, 23 Aug. 1906, both in William M. Wheeler Papers, Harvard University Archives, Cambridge, Mass., Box 23, f. M Formicidae; Montgomery to Wheeler, 11 July 1909, Wheeler Papers, Box 26; BumpusHermon to WheelerWilliam M., 29 June 1910, Wheeler Papers, Box 6. Also ConklinEdwin G., “Professor Thomas Harrison Montgomery, Jr.”, Science, xxxviii (1913), 207–13.
26.
“Annual announcement Minnesota Seaside Station” [1906], FredericE. Clements Papers, American Heritage Center, Laramie, Wyo., Box 79, f. Appointment. BensonKeith R., “Experimental ecology on the Pacific coast: Victor Shelford and his search for appropriate methods”, History and philosophy of the life sciences, xiv (1992), 73–92. The northwest coast has a richer intertidal ecology than New England; Keith Benson, personal communication.
27.
WilliamM. Wheeler to Charles T. Brues, 4 Feb. 1909, Wheeler Papers, Box 6.
28.
KofoidCharles A., “The fresh-water biological stations of America”, American naturalist, xxxii (1898), 391–406, pp. 391–92. ElrodMorton J., “The University of Montana biological station and its work”, Science, xx (1904), 205–12. Henry Nachtrieb to Cyrus Northrop, 5 April 1900, Comptroller's Papers, University of Minnesota Archives, Minneapolis, Minn., f. 318. Anon., “The summer school of biology of Cornell University”, School and society, lvii (1923), 323–4.
29.
Kohler, Landscapes and labscapes (ref. 3), chaps. 2–3.
30.
ForbesStephen A., “Special report of the Biological Experiment Station”, University of Illinois Trustees report, xviii (1895–96), 302–26, pp. 302–3, 308 (quote); also ibid., xxi (1901–02), 8–10. KofoidCharles A., “The fresh-water biological stations of America”, American naturalist, xxxii (1898), 391–406, pp. 391, 406. Kofoid to RitterWilliam E., 7 Nov. 1912, William E. Ritter Papers, University of California Archives, Bancroft Library, Berkeley, Cal., Box 13. Henry Nachtrieb, “Zoological stations: What they are and where they are”, enclosed in Nachtieb to Jens K. Grondahl, 28 Sept. 1899, Henry F. Nachtrieb Papers, University of Minnesota Archives, Minneapolis, Minn, (hereafter: Nachtrieb Papers), Box 4, f. 47. Nachtrieb to Greenleaf Clark, 30 April 1900, University of Minnesota Comptroller's Papers, f. 318.
31.
Jack, “Biological field stations of the world” (ref. 14), ii, 334–59.
32.
CookMel T., “The Lake Laboratory at Sandusky, Ohio”, Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, xviii (1902), 107–10, p. 110. Kofoid, “Fresh-water biological stations” (ref. 28), 394–5.
33.
RamaleyFrancisRobbinsWilfred W., “A summer laboratory for mountain botany”, Plant world, xii (1909), 105–10. ClementsFrederic E., “The Alpine Laboratory”, Science, xxxvii (1913), 327–8. McDougalDaniel T. to WoodwardRobert S., 8 May 1913, 12 Jan. 1914, both in Carnegie Institution of Washington Archives, Washington, D.C. (hereafter: CIW), f. Desert Lab Research Associates. Frederic E. Clements to Mr. Lane, 15 Nov. 1918, CIW, f. Ecology Projects Proposed. Clements to William Gilbert, 13 March 1925, CIW, f. Ecology Buildings and Grounds. AlleeWarder C. to ShelfordVictor E., 22 Oct. 1922, Allee Papers, Box 22, f. 2.
34.
ForbesStephen A., “Special report of the Biological Experiment Station”, University of Illinois Trustees report, xviii (1895–96), 302–26, pp. 304–7. Kofoid, “Fresh-water biological stations” (ref. 28), 398–106. RichardsonRobert E. to ForbesStephen A., [c. 22–29] Jan. 1913, Illinois Natural History Survey Papers, series 43/1/5, University of Illinois Archives, Urbana, Ill., Box 1.
35.
CoxUlysses O., “The zoological survey of Minnesota”, Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, xvii (1901), 89–93. NachtriebHenry to GrondahlJens K., 28 Sept. 1899; Grondahl to Nachtrieb, 1 March 1900; both in Nachtrieb Papers, Box 4, ff. 47, 48. Nachtrieb to Grondahl, 17 March 1900, Nachtrieb Papers, Box 1.
36.
NachtriebHenry F., “The ‘Megalops’”, The Minnesota magazine, vi (1899), 18–22. CoxUlysses O. to Nachtrieb, 28 March, 8, 21 April, 4, 8 May 1899, all in Nachtrieb Papers, Box 4, f. 47. KofoidCharles, “The biological experiment station”, The Illini, xxvi (1896), 665–72.
BowersRay, Mr. Carnegie's plant biologists (Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1992). ShreveForrest, “Statement regarding the work and program of the Desert Laboratory”, to John C. Merriam, 23 Oct. 1928, CIW, f. Desert Lab General.
39.
For example, CharlesB. Davenport to biological committee, 20 Dec. 1903, CBD, f. Cold Spring Harbor Beginnings.
40.
EigenmannCarl H. to WalcottCharles D., 19 April 1903; to Daniel C. Gilman, 7 Oct. 1903; to Carnegie Institution, 4 Oct. 1904; to Robert S. Woodward, 27 April 1906, 29 July 1907; all in CIW, f. Eigenmann. Eigenmann to Charles B. Davenport, 6 Oct. 1909, 18 Oct., 1 Nov 1911; Davenport to Eigenmann, 9 Dec. 1909, 24 Oct. 1911; all in CBD. Also ZetekJames to VestalArthur G., 23 Sept. 1911, Arthur G. Vestal Papers, University of Illinois Archives, Urbana, Ill. (hereafter: Vestal Papers), Box 2.
41.
Jack, “Biological field stations of the world” (ref. 14), i, Table 4, on p. 45. France had twenty stations (sixteen of known function); western Europe had eighty-five (sixty-eight of known function).
42.
NachtriebHenry to NorthropCyrus, 5 April 1900, University of Minnesota Comptroller's Papers, f. 318. Charles A. Kofoid to Stephen A. Forbes, 16 July 1898, Illinois Natural History Survey Papers, series 43/1/1, Box 8. Jacob Reighard to Alexander Ruthven, n.d. [1915?], Alexander G. Ruthven Papers, Bentley Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich, (hereafter: Ruthven Papers), Box 52, f. 6. Of the fifteen students enrolled in the Illinois Station's course in 1898, ten were either high school teachers acquiring college credits or college graduates preparing for high school teaching. Henry Nachtrieb to Cyrus Northrop, 5 April 1900, University of Minnesota Comptroller's Papers, f. 318. Charles A. Kofoid to Stephen A. Forbes, 16 July 1898, Illinois Natural History Survey Papers, series 43/1/1, Box 8. BensonKeith R., “Why American marine stations? The teaching argument”, American zoologist, xxviii (1988), 7–14.
43.
GleasonHenry A., “The biological station of the University of Michigan”, School science and mathematics, xiii (1913), 411–15, p. 411. Also ReighardJacob to PearseArthur S., 7 Sept. 1911, Ruthven Papers, Box 52, f. 5.
44.
ElrodMorton J., “The University of Montana Biological Station”, in Elrod to Stephen A. Forbes, 20 April 1913, Illinois Natural History Survey Papers, series 43/1/5, Box 1.
45.
EigenmannCarl H., “Turkey Lake as a unit of environment, and the variation of its inhabitants”, Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science, xi (1895), 204–17, pp. 204–5. Eigenmann to Charles B. Davenport, 6 Jan. 1897, CBD.
46.
Jack, “Biological field stations of the world” (ref. 14, 1945), 27, quoting Charles C. Adams to Jack, 25 March 1940.
47.
HenryA. Gleason to Arthur G. Vestal, 1 Feb. 1912, 27 Oct. 1911, both in Vestal Papers, Box 2.
48.
CharlesC. Adams to William E. Ritter, 31 Dec. 1929, Ritter Papers, Box 5. ShelfordVictor E., “Grassland as a site for basic research on terrestrial animals”, Science, xc (1939), 564–5, p. 564.
49.
ShreveForrest, “Statement regarding the aims and work of the Desert Laboratory and the biological problems of the desert”, 5 Nov. 1931, CIW, f. Desert Lab 1931–72. BowersJanice, A sense of place: The life and work of Forrest Shreve (Tucson, 1988).
50.
CampbellJohn P., “Biological teaching in the colleges of the United States”, United States Bureau of Education circular, ix (1891). WhitmanCharles O., “A biological farm for the experimental investigation of heredity, variation and evolution and for the study of life-histories, habits, instincts and intelligence”, Biological bulletin, iii (1902), 214–24.
51.
ConklinEdwin G., “Advances in methods of teaching zoology”, Science, ix (1899), 81–84, p. 84. MarkEdward L. to DavenportCharles B., 23 Dec. 1900, CBD. Harvard College report of the President, 1888–89, 182; 1892–93, 210; 1902–03, 266. Museum of Comparative Zoology report of Curator, 1888–89, plates IV and V.
52.
Kohler, Landscapes and labscapes (ref. 3), chap. 1.
53.
ComstockJohn H., “The insectary of Cornell University”, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station annual report, i (1888), 25–30. FernaldG. H. to Comstock, 7 Jan. 1888, John H. Comstock Papers, Box 2, Cornell University Archives, Ithaca, N.Y. Comstock, “Report of the entomologist”, Cornell University Agricultural Experimental Station annual report, iii (1890), 35–40. Comstock to Charles B. Davenport, 3 Nov. 1898, CBD. Reports of the section on entomology of the Association of American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, in United States Office of Experiment Station, Bulletin, xvi (1893), 41–51; ibid., xcix (1901), 17–21; and ibid., cxv (1902), 21–22.
54.
Conklin, “Advances in methods” (ref. 51), 84. ZelenyCharles, “The need of a vivarium”, 23 Jan. 1911, Charles Zeleny Papers, University of Illinois Archives, Urbana, Ill. (hereafter: CZ), Box 6, f. Vivarium Early Plans.
55.
[Zeleny?Charles], “Provisional plan for development of zoological department”, n.d., CZ, Box 6, f. Dept. Zoology Inventories and Plans 1911–14. Edwin G. Conklin to Frank R. Lillie, 23 Jan. 1915, University of Chicago Zoology Department Papers, Special Collections, Regenstein Library, Chicago, Ill., Box 4, f. 2. Jaques Loeb to William R. Harper, 16 July 1902; Harper to WhitmanCharles O., 11 Sept 1902; both in University of Chicago Presidents Papers, Special Collections, Regenstein Library, Chicago, Ill. (hereafter: UC-Pres), Box 17, f. 13.
56.
Conklin, “Advances in methods” (ref. 51), 84.
57.
ConklinEdwin G., “Report of the director of the University Vivarium”, University of Pennsylvania Provost's report, 1898–99, 153–5. Anon., “The Vivarium”, Old Penn weekly review, i, issue of 14 March 1903, 6. CalvertPhilip P., “The University Vivarium”, University of Pennsylvania, Alumni register, iv (1900), 13–14.
58.
MacfarlaneJohn M., “The Vivarium”, Old Penn weekly review, i, issue of 14 March 1903, 6. ConklinEdwin G., “Report of the Director of the University Vivarium”, University of Pennsylvania Provost's report, 1900–01, 163–5. On European stations' aquaria, see Jack, “Biological field stations” (ref. 14), i, 387–92; and Kofoid, Biological stations of Europe (ref. 16).
59.
MacfarlaneJohn M., “Botany Department”, Old Penn weekly review, vi, issue of 4 Jan. 1908, 1.
60.
Princeton University Department of Biology”, n.d. [c. 1916]; “The Biological Laboratories”, n.d. [c. 1916]; ConklinEdwin G. to McLapinMr., 6 Dec. 1910; ThompsonHenry B. to Conklin, 28 June 1911; all in PUB, Box 1, f. Biological Plans. McClureCharles F. to Conklin, 22, 28 Oct., 7 Nov. 1907; SchroederA. Sawyer to McClure, 28 Oct. 1907; all in Edwin G. Conklin Papers, Princeton University Special Collections, Princeton, N.J., Box 15, f. McClure. Conklin, “Memorandum of the urgent needs of the Department of Biology”, 9 March 1909, Conklin Papers, Box 43, f. Woodrow Wilson. M. Taylor Pyne to Board of Trustees, 10 June 1907, Princeton University Trustees Papers, Harvey Mudd Library, Princeton, N.J.
61.
RobertA. Harper to Edwin G. Conklin, 5 June 1911. 17 March 1911, both in PUB, Box 1, f. Biological Plans.
62.
BurkC. John, Celebrating a century: The botanic garden of Smith College (Northampton. Mass., 1995). Idem, The gardens and botanical facilities of Smith College: Education, research, and pleasure (Northampton, Mass., 1981). I am grateful to Professor Burk for copies of these pamphlets. John C. Coulter to Harry P. Judson, 6 May 1907, UC-Pres, Box 15, f. 13.
63.
TurnerPaul V., Campus: An American planning tradition (Cambridge, Mass., 1984). ZetzelSusanna S., “The garden in the machine: The construction of nature in Olmsted's Central Park”, Prospects, xiv (1989), 291–339. PatonGeorge E.MenkeWilliam F., “Design with nature and culture: The Long Meadow, Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York as exemplar of an urban park compatible with its past”, Journal of garden history, ii (1982), 361–76. Also StilgoeJohn R., Borderland: Origins of the American suburb (New Haven, 1988).
64.
ZelenyCharles, “The need of a vivarium”, 23 Jan. 1911; Zeleny to WardHenry B., 14 June 1913; both in CZ, Box 6, f. Vivarium Early Plans. Anon., “The Vivarium”, Alumni quarterly, i (1916), 294–5.
65.
ShelfordVictor E., “Research facilities in connection with the Vivarium in behavior, ecological work, and breeding associated with the same”, 1912; Shelford to WardHenry B., 30 June 1914 enclosing “Specification for vivarium from V. E. Shelford”; Ward to WhiteJames M., 22 Aug. 1914; Ward to White, 10 July, 14 Aug. 1914; all in CZ, Box 6, f. Vivarium Early Plans. ShelfordVictor E., Laboratory and field ecology: The responses of animals as indicators of correct working methods (Baltimore, 1929). CrokerRobert A., Pioneer ecologist: The life and work of Victor Ernest Shelford 1877–1968 (Washington, 1991), chaps. 2 and 3.
66.
VictorE. Shelford to Henry B. Ward, 1 July 1914, CZ, Box 6, f. Vivarium Early Plans. HowellWilliam H. to ConklinEdwin G., 6 Feb. 1911, PUB, Box 1, f. Biological Plans.
67.
ReighardJacob to WardHenry B., 10 June 1914, CZ, Box 6, f. Vivarium Early Plans.
68.
“Princeton University Department of Biology”, n.d. [1916]; “The Biological Laboratories”, n.d. [1916]; both in PUB, Box 1, f. Biological Plans. Edwin G. Conklin to Mr. MacMillan, 6 July 1925; Conklin to Henry B. Thompson, 6 Dec. 1926 (and memorandum); Conklin to Committee on Grounds and Buildings, 30 Nov. 1925; all in PUB, Box 2, f. Grounds and Buildings.
69.
ReighardJacob to DavenportCharles B., 24 May 1913, CBD. Davenport, reports in Carnegie Institution year book, iii–xxiii (1904–24). MontgomeryThomas H.Jr., “The new zoological laboratory of the University of Pennsylvania”, Science, xxxiv (1911), 742–8.
70.
de VarignyHenry C., “Le transformisme expérimental”. Revue scientifique, xlvii (1891), 769–77, p. 776.
71.
CockrellT. D. A., review of books by J. C. Ewart, Science, xiii (1901), 423–4. DavenportCharles B., Carnegie Institution year book, v (1906), 96–97. Idem, “A summary of progress in experimental evolution”, 5 March 1903, CBD, f. Cold Spring Harbor Beginnings. Francis Galton to Davenport, 16 Oct. 1902, CBD. LankesterE. RayPoultonE. B.RomanesG. J., “An Institut Transformiste”, n.d. [c. 1891], Charles B. Davenport Papers, series staff-1, f. Romanes. MeldolaRalph, “The speculative method in entomology”, Nature, liii (1896), 352–6. EwartJ. C., “Experimental study of variation”, Scientific American supplement, lii (1901), 21592–3, 21608–9.
DavenportCharles B., “The biological problems of today — Morphogenesis”, Science, vii (1898), 158–61, p. 161. Davenport, “Biological experiment station for studying evolution”, Carnegie Institution year book, i (1902), 280–1. Davenport to Carnegie Institution, 5 May 1902, CIW, f. Genetics Director. Conklin, “Advances in methods” (ref. 51), 84.
74.
DavenportCharles B., “A summer of progress in experimental evolution”, 5 March 1903, CBD, f. Cold Spring Harbor Beginnings. AngellJames R. to MacLeanM. H., 14 Oct. 1907, in McLean, “Report on the scientific and financial requirements of a proposed Biological Farm for the University of Chicago”, 29 Oct. 1907, UC-Pres, Box 18, f. 7. YerkesRobert M., “The Harvard laboratory of animal psychology and the Franklin Field Station”, Journal of animal behavior, iv (1914), 176–84.
75.
Whitman, “Biological farm” (ref. 50), 219, 222–3. An early draft of this paper is part 6 of Whitman, “Report of the trustees of the MBL to the trustees of the Carnegie Institution”, 25 Aug. 1902, CIW, f. Marine Biological Laboratory. Whitman, “A marine biological observatory”, Popular science monthly, xlii (1893), 459–71, pp. 460–1. Lillie, Woods Hole (ref. 16), 47–62.
76.
CharlesB. Davenport to HarperWilliam R., 16 April, 3 Dec. 1903, both in CBD. Davenport memo, 15 April 1903 (Minutes, iv, 246); Grey and Heckman report on biological farm, 19 May 1903 (Minutes, iv, 258); both in University of Chicago Trustees Papers, Regenstein Library, Chicago, Ill. (hereafter: UC-Trus). McLeanM. H., “Report on the scientific and financial requirements of a proposed Biological Farm for the University of Chicago”, 29 Oct. 1907; WhitmanCharles O. to JudsonHarry P., 11 July 1907; both in UC-Pres, Box 18, f. 7. Whitman, “A biological farm” (ref. 72). Whitman to Acting President, 14 Jan. 1907; Whitman to Lloyd Morgan, n.d.; both in CBD, f. Whitman Biological Farm.
77.
Whitman to MorganLloyd, n.d.; McLeanM. H., “Report”; Davenport to HarperWilliam R., 16 April 1903; all in CBD. Davenport to Harper, 3 Dec. 1903, UC-Pres, Box 7, f. 1. Whitman et al. to President and Board, 11 May 1906; and to Trustees, 3 Dec. 1906; both in UC-Pres, Box 15, f. 12. [Whitman?] to Martin A. Ryerson, 1 Dec. 1906, UC-Pres, Box 18, f. 7. Whitman to Harper, n.d., UC-Pres, Box 18, f. 6.
78.
DavenportCharles B., “First report of the Station for Experimental Evolution”, Carnegie Institution year book, iii (1904), 23–32, pp. 24–27.
79.
DavenportCharles B. to HooperFranklin W., 21 April 1902; Davenport, “Some of the lines of work of a Station for the Experimental Study of Evolution”, 5 March 1903; both in CBD, f. Cold Spring Harbor Beginnings. Davenport to Carnegie Institution, 15 Feb. 1904, CIW, f. Genetics Director. Davenport to Willet M. Hays, 20 Feb. 1904; to Bradley M. Davis, 20 June 1904; to Raymond Pearl, 19 Feb. 1904; all in CBD. Davenport to Robert S. Woodward, 21 Oct. 1909, 1 Oct. 1912, both in CIW, f. Genetics, Buildings, Quarters. Davenport to Woodward, 23 Aug. 1919, Davenport Papers, series staff-1, f. Woodward. Davenport, annual reports, Carnegie Institution year book, iii–xviii (1904–19).
80.
HooperFranklin W. to WalcottCharles D., 24 July 1902, CBD, f. Cold Spring Harbor Beginnings. Davenport, “First report” (ref. 78). Davenport to Robert Yerkes, 3 Jan. 1907, CBD.
81.
DonaldsonHenry H., “Experiment on the feralization of the albino rat”, Carnegie Institution year book, xv (1916), 200–1. HataiShikishi to DavenportCharles B., 6, 9 June 1910; Hitai, report on visit to Goose Island, 1 Aug 1911; correspondence with Henry H. Donaldson 1910–12; all in CBD.
82.
Carnegie Institution year book, ix (1910), 82–86; ibid., x (1911), 84–85. BantaArthur M., reports to Charles B. Davenport, 1911–24, all in Davenport Papers, series staff-2.
83.
McLeanM. H. to JudsonHarry P., 7 Nov. 1907, UC-Pres, Box 18, f. 7.
84.
WhitmanCharles O. to MorganLloyd, n.d. [1900–2?], CBD, f. Whitman Biological Farm.
85.
JudsonHarry P. to HeckmanWallace, 17 March 1914, in Minutes, iv; Minute, 12 March 1925, in Minutes, xv, 96–97; Minute, 10 Sept. 1931, in Minutes, xxi, 198; all in UC-Trus.
86.
Kohler, Landscapes and labscapes (ref. 3), chap. 3.
87.
LauffGeorge H.ReichleDavid, “Experimental ecological reserves”, Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, lx (1979), 4–11. MayrErnst, “Materials for a history of American ornithology”, in StresemannErwin, Ornithology from Aristotle to the present (Cambridge, Mass., 1975), 365–96, p. 378.