The meaning of the English term "natural history" (acalque of theLatinhistoria naturalis) has narrowed progressively with time, while, by contrast, the meaning of the related term "nature" has widened (see alsoHistory below).
Medieval European academics considered knowledge to have two main divisions: thehumanities (primarily what is now known asclassics) anddivinity, with science studied largely through texts rather than observation or experiment. The study of nature revived in theRenaissance, and quickly became a third branch of academic knowledge, itself divided into descriptive natural history andnatural philosophy, the analytical study of nature. In modern terms, natural philosophy roughly corresponded to modernphysics andchemistry, while natural history included thebiological andgeological sciences. The two were strongly associated. During the heyday of thegentleman scientists, many people contributed to both fields, and early papers in both were commonly read at professionalscience society meetings such as theRoyal Society and theFrench Academy of Sciences—both founded during the 17th century.
Natural history had been encouraged by practical motives, such as Linnaeus' aspiration to improve the economic condition of Sweden.[4] Similarly, theIndustrial Revolution prompted the development of geology to help find usefulmineral deposits.[5]
A natural history collection in a French public secondary school
Modern definitions of natural history come from a variety of fields and sources, and many of the modern definitions emphasize a particular aspect of the field, creating a plurality of definitions with a number of common themes among them. For example, while natural history is most often defined as a type of observation and a subject of study, it can also be defined as a body of knowledge, and as a craft or a practice, in which the emphasis is placed more on the observer than on the observed.[6]
Definitions from biologists often focus on the scientific study of individual organisms in their environment, as seen in this definition by Marston Bates: "Natural history is the study of animals and Plants—of organisms. ... I like to think, then, of natural history as the study of life at the level of the individual—of what plants and animals do, how they react to each other and their environment, how they are organized into larger groupings like populations and communities"[7] and this more recent definition by D.S. Wilcove and T. Eisner: "The close observation of organisms—their origins, their evolution, their behavior, and their relationships with other species".[8]
This focus on organisms in their environment is also echoed by H.W. Greene and J.B. Losos: "Natural history focuses on where organisms are and what they do in their environment, including interactions with other organisms. It encompasses changes in internal states insofar as they pertain to what organisms do".[9]
Some definitions go further, focusing on direct observation of organisms in their environments, both past and present, such as this one by G.A. Bartholomew: "A student of natural history, or a naturalist, studies the world by observing plants and animals directly. Because organisms are functionally inseparable from the environment in which they live and because their structure and function cannot be adequately interpreted without knowing some of their evolutionary history, the study of natural history embraces the study of fossils as well as physiographic and other aspects of the physical environment".[10]
A common thread in many definitions of natural history is the inclusion of a descriptive component, as seen in a recent definition by H.W. Greene: "Descriptive ecology and ethology".[11] Several authors have argued for a more expansive view of natural history, including S. Herman, who defines the field as "the scientific study of plants and animals in their natural environments. It is concerned with levels of organization from the individual organism to the ecosystem, and stresses identification, life history, distribution, abundance, and inter-relationships. It often and appropriately includes an esthetic component",[12] and T. Fleischner, who defines the field even more broadly, as "A practice of intentional, focused attentiveness and receptivity to the more-than-human world, guided by honesty and accuracy".[13] These definitions explicitly include the arts in the field of natural history, and are aligned with the broad definition outlined by B. Lopez, who defines the field as the "Patient interrogation of a landscape" while referring to the natural history knowledge of the Eskimo (Inuit).[14]
A slightly different framework for natural history, covering a similar range of themes, is also implied in the scope of work encompassed by many leadingnatural history museums, which often include elements of anthropology, geology, paleontology, and astronomy along with botany and zoology,[15][16] or include both cultural and natural components of the world.[17]
The plurality of definitions for this field has been recognized as both a weakness and a strength, and a range of definitions has recently been offered by practitioners in a recent collection of views on natural history.[18]
Prior to the advent ofWestern science humans were engaged and highly competent in indigenous ways of understanding the more-than-human world that are now referred to astraditional ecological knowledge. 21st century definitions of natural history are inclusive of this understanding, such as this by Thomas Fleischner of the Natural History Institute (Prescott, Arizona):
Natural history – a practice of intentional focused attentiveness and receptivity to the more-than-human world, guided by honesty and accuracy – is the oldest continuous human endeavor. In the evolutionary past of our species, the practice of natural history was essential for our survival, imparting critical information on habits and chronologies of plants and animals that we could eat or that could eat us. Natural history continues to be critical to human survival and thriving. It contributes to our fundamental understanding of how the world works by providing the empirical foundation of natural sciences, and it contributes directly and indirectly to human emotional and physical health, thereby fostering healthier human communities. It also serves as the basis for all conservation efforts, with natural history both informing the science and inspiring the values that drive these.[3]
As a precursor toWestern science, natural history began withAristotle and other ancient philosophers who analyzed the diversity of the natural world. Natural history was understood byPliny the Elder to cover anything that could be found in the world, including living things, geology, astronomy, technology, art, and humanity.[19]
De Materia Medica was written between 50 and 70 AD byPedanius Dioscorides, a Roman physician of Greek origin. It was widely read for more than 1,500 years until supplanted in theRenaissance, making it one of the longest-lasting of all natural history books.
From theancient Greeks until the work ofCarl Linnaeus and other 18th-century naturalists, a major concept of natural history was thescala naturae orGreat Chain of Being, an arrangement of minerals, vegetables, more primitive forms of animals, and more complex life forms on a linear scale of supposedly increasing perfection, culminating in our species.[20]
Natural history was basically static through theMiddle Ages in Europe—although in theArabic andOriental world, it proceeded at a much brisker pace. From the 13th century, the work of Aristotle was adapted rather rigidly intoChristian philosophy, particularly byThomas Aquinas, forming the basis fornatural theology. During the Renaissance, scholars (herbalists and humanists, particularly) returned to direct observation of plants and animals for natural history, and many began to accumulate large collections of exotic specimens and unusualmonsters.Leonhart Fuchs was one of the three founding fathers of botany, along withOtto Brunfels andHieronymus Bock. Other important contributors to the field wereValerius Cordus,Konrad Gesner (Historiae animalium),Frederik Ruysch, andGaspard Bauhin.[21] The rapid increase in the number of known organisms prompted many attempts at classifying and organizing species intotaxonomic groups, culminating in the system of the Swedish naturalistCarl Linnaeus.[21]
The British historian of Chinese scienceJoseph Needham callsLi Shizhen "the 'uncrowned king' of Chinese naturalists",[22] and hisBencao gangmu "undoubtedly the greatest scientific achievement of the Ming".[This quote needs a citation] His works translated to many languages direct or influence many scholars and researchers.[citation needed]
A significant contribution to English natural history was made byparson-naturalists such asGilbert White,William Kirby,John George Wood, andJohn Ray, who wrote about plants, animals, and other aspects of nature. Many of these men wrote about nature to make thenatural theology argument for the existence or goodness of God.[23] Since early modern times, however, a great number of women made contributions to natural history, particularly in the field of botany, be it as authors, collectors, or illustrators.[24]
In modern Europe, professional disciplines such as botany, geology,mycology,palaeontology,physiology, andzoology were formed.Natural history, formerly the main subject taught by college science professors, was increasingly scorned by scientists of a more specialized manner and relegated to an "amateur" activity, rather than a part of science proper. In Victorian Scotland, the study of natural history was believed to contribute to good mental health.[25] Particularly in Britain and the United States, this grew into specialist hobbies such as thestudy of birds, butterflies, seashells (malacology/conchology), beetles, and wildflowers; meanwhile, scientists tried to define a unified discipline of biology (though with only partial success, at least until themodern evolutionary synthesis). Still, the traditions of natural history continue to play a part in the study of biology, especially ecology (the study of natural systems involving living organisms and the inorganic components of the Earth's biosphere that support them),ethology (the scientific study of animal behavior), andevolutionary biology (the study of the relationships between life forms over very long periods of time), and re-emerges today as integrative organismal biology.
Three of the greatest English naturalists of the 19th century,Henry Walter Bates,Charles Darwin, andAlfred Russel Wallace—who knew each other—each made natural history travels that took years, collected thousands of specimens, many of them new to science, and by their writings both advanced knowledge of "remote" parts of the world—theAmazon basin, theGalápagos Islands, and theIndonesian Archipelago, among others—and in so doing helped to transform biology from a descriptive to a theory-based science.
Natural historymuseums, which evolved fromcabinets of curiosities, played an important role in the emergence of professional biological disciplines and research programs. Particularly in the 19th century, scientists began to use their natural history collections as teaching tools for advanced students and the basis for their ownmorphological research.
The term "natural history" alone, or sometimes together with archaeology, forms the name of many national, regional, and local natural history societies that maintain records foranimals (includingbirds (ornithology),insects (entomology) andmammals (mammalogy)),fungi (mycology), plants (botany), and other organisms. They may also havegeological andmicroscopical sections.
Examples of these societies in Britain include theNatural History Society of Northumbria founded in 1829, London Natural History Society (1858),Birmingham Natural History Society (1859),British Entomological and Natural History Society founded in 1872,Glasgow Natural History Society,Manchester Microscopical and Natural History Society established in 1880, Whitby Naturalists' Club founded in 1913,[27] Scarborough Field Naturalists' Society and the Sorby Natural History Society,Sheffield, founded in 1918.[28] The growth of natural history societies was also spurred due to the growth of British colonies in tropical regions with numerous new species to be discovered. Manycivil servants took an interest in their new surroundings, sending specimens back to museums in theBritain. (See also:Indian natural history)
Professional societies have recognized the importance of natural history and have initiated new sections in their journals specifically for natural history observations to support the discipline. These include "Natural History Field Notes" ofBiotropica,[29] "The Scientific Naturalist" ofEcology, "From the Field" ofWaterbirds,[30] and the "Natural History Miscellany section" of theAmerican Naturalist.
Natural history observations have contributed to scientific questioning and theory formation. In recent times such observations contribute to how conservation priorities are determined. Mental health benefits can ensue, as well, from regular and active observation of chosen components of nature, and these reach beyond the benefits derived from passively walking through natural areas.[3]
^Finnegan, Diarmid A. (2008), "'An aid to mental health': natural history, alienists and therapeutics in Victorian Scotland",Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences,39 (3):326–337,doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.06.006,PMID18761284
Atran, Scott (1990),Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards an Anthropology of Science, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, p. 376,ISBN978-0-521-43871-1
Farber, Paul Lawrence (2000),Finding Order in Nature: The Naturalist Tradition from Linnaeus to E. O. Wilson. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
Kohler, Robert E. (2002),Landscapes and Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Mayr, Ernst. (1982),The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Rainger, Ronald; Keith R. Benson; and Jane Maienschein (eds) (1988),The American Development of Biology. University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia.
