Talk:Ray Lankester

Some explanations of changes

In the paragraph listing the extraordinary number of top biologists whom Ray met in his father's house, it is poor practice to list their full names, because that is so cumbersome and gets in the way of the reading process. Since we have the link system, any reader who doesn't know who, say, Clifford is can soon find out. That is the whole point of links.

The same person changed 'his German was good, and he could read the language fluently' to 'his German was fluent'. Of course there is a big difference between reading and speaking a foreign language: I have no reference at present on his speaking German, and will return this. Meanwhile, I've taken the comment out.

The same person changed 'whilst still a child' to 'while still a child'. The original version is correct.

Such a large number of changes should not have been made without a) better justification, and b) reasons fully explained.

I have also diluted the suggestion that he was the model for Challenger, following reasons given by another contributor.

Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Lazarus Fletcher

Much as I respect Lankester's exceptional contribution, am I the only one who thinks it is a little harsh to refer to Fletcher as a 'relative nonentity'. I have not edited this, but perhaps the original writer might consider whether this can be rephrased or justified... 89.240.110.205 (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have examined their track records by looking at their Royal Society nomination papers ([1] and [2] for Lankester;). There is no question that Lankester's track record was streets ahead, and we know from Punch and other periodicals that he was wellknown to the general reading public. Add to that Fletcher never held a single post outside the museum, had no publications at all in the biological sciences, not even palaeontology, and was Thomson's chosen man, no doubt because he would kow-tow to Thomson's will... Lankester, on the other hand, held important posts in two universities, published massively, had Charles Darwin's signature on his FRS application... The public debate about the row conclusively proved who was the better known to the educated public. And relative nonentity is what Fletcher was. It is not a judgement on him as a human being; just the truth about their relative visibility as scientists. Why be mealy-mouthed? Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgotten illustration?

@Macdonald-ross: A decade ago (here), you added (inter alia) the somewhat cryptical parenthesis

(+ wood-engraved illustration),

which still is present in the article. Now, this was a long time ago, and I do understand that you may have troubles remembering precisely what you meant. (Since the rest of that sentences concerned an example from Lankester's Degeneration: a chapter in Darwinism, I suspect, that you planned to add an illustration from that book, but then either had some technical difficulties, or simply forgot it. Now, this was a long time ago, and I do understand that you may have troubles remembering precisely what you meant.)

Anyhow, do you now want to add such an illustration, or should the parenthesis just be deleted?

I should add that I discovered this, from noting that

, taken from A guide to the shell and starfish galleries (from 1901, when Lankester was the NHM director) actually in that work was referred to as taken from Degeneration: a chapter in Darwinism, whence I thought that it could be employed as an illustration in the Lankester article. Actually, also the preceding four members of the Commons category c:Category:Ascidia which seem to have a similar background, and may be even more relevant.

Regards, JoergenB (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I was about to give up, since I no longer have copies of his essays in book form. Then I looked at Project Gutenberg, and (to cut a long story short) I think he may have referred to Sacculina, a parasite of hermit crabs, which undergoes simplification of its body so that it is "a mere sac filled with eggs". See [3] #34, figure 7 of Degeneration, a chapter in Darwinism.

Regards, Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Macdonald-ross: Aha; you mean this image? JoergenB (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct! Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Individual Works

This section seems redundant. Most of the items are in the Publications section. I suggest moving those that aren't to Publications and deleting the Individual Workd section. Kognos (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)