🚀 go-pugleaf

I haven't been able to keep up here, so I missed it when Jim Rising
brought this back up.  However, I saw this response, and since I was
one of the principals in the original discussion I figured I should
comment.

In article <simonb.720947992@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>
   simonb@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Simon Blomberg) writes:

>rising@zoo.toronto.edu (Jim Rising) writes:
>
>>Perhaps enough has been said about this, but to try to answer a 
>>question posted, in the first quote (the one about the spiders), 
>>the part where he writes:  "But in terms of the success of the
>>species...that individual disaster is of limited consequence:  he
>>lost his life after...he had completed his purpose."  My objection
>>to this is that it implies that the purpose of the spider's 
>>reproductive behavior is to assure the success of the species,
>>& most evolutionary biologists think that that's backwards.

I agree completely with Jim's sentiments--the male is *not* performing
his actions for the good of the species.  I didn't get that message
out of the passage in question because I respect Attenborough and thus
gave the quote a charitable reading.  Given the later quote, however,
I'm perfectly willing to concede that Attenborough may have been
thinking exactly what Jim read into the passage.

I hope that this doesn't put people off in terms of reading what
Attenborough has written--he compiles a lot of great descriptive
information about animals and their behavior--but I also hope that
Jim's exposition will alert readers to a big misconception that may
pervade said writings.

>Simon Blomberg                        simonb@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU

Mickey Rowe     (rowe@pender.ee.upenn.edu)