Read e-book Aux sources de notre nourriture: Nikolaï Vavilov et la découverte de la biodiversité (French Edition)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Aux sources de notre nourriture: Nikolaï Vavilov et la découverte de la biodiversité (French Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Aux sources de notre nourriture: Nikolaï Vavilov et la découverte de la biodiversité (French Edition) book. Happy reading Aux sources de notre nourriture: Nikolaï Vavilov et la découverte de la biodiversité (French Edition) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Aux sources de notre nourriture: Nikolaï Vavilov et la découverte de la biodiversité (French Edition) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Aux sources de notre nourriture: Nikolaï Vavilov et la découverte de la biodiversité (French Edition) Pocket Guide.

Bilan 3. Une vue globale des publications mondiales 4. Le budget de la PCA 7 5. Bilan 6. Pour en savoir plus, contacts : - 1. Pour en savoir plus, contacts : - [1] BE Etats-Unis Ils ne nous laisseront plus semer nos plantes". Cela devrait permettre d'ajouter quelques dollars additionnels au prix du quintal qui est actuellement de 18 USD. Tous ceux qui disposent de ressources sauront comment les travailler". Pour en savoir plus, contacts : - Novozymes : www. Celui-ci sera en mesure de stocker annuellement un million de tonnes de dioxyde de carbone. Source : China. Selon M. Selon le maire adjoint de la ville de Turpan, M.

Su Tiancheng, la nouvelle ville pourra accueillir environ Qu estime ces ressources comme "globales, et non territoriales". Ils peuvent en outre renfermer de l'aluminium, du cuivre ou du cobalt. Source :"River sediment may counter Bangladesh sea level rise" - SciDev. Source :"Fears of glacial lake outburst floods allayed" - SciDev. Toutes les sources seront rendues publiques.

Source :"Cameras to settle Himalayan glacier dispute" - SciDev. Source :"Irrigation interfering with monsoons, says study" - SciDev. Source : Engineering News 10 Mai - www. Retour haut de page. Later Poliakov himself regretted his participation in this project. The first book on Lamarck and his theory appeared in Russian in , at the time when evolutionary theory underwent a crisis. It was a Russian translation of a German book by A. It was soon followed by a flood of academic, popular and quasi-scholarly biographies of Lamarck written by Russian authors.

It reflected the acuteness of the debates waged on Lamarck. In some Lamark, Pholosophia zoologii, Moscow, Nauka, Vagner, Novyi kurs v biologii, Moscow, Obrazovanie, Lesgaft and V. Among the latters were the founder of the Darwin Museum in Moscow and V. Russian Lamarckists considered themselves as Darwinists and advocated the synthesis of the concept of natural selection and the principle of inheritance of acquired traits. In the mids ideological arguments were called upon to support this view.

According to an author of a secondary-school textbook on evolutionary theory, Fedor F. Duchinskii ? Zavadovsky called for the synthesis of Darwinism and Lamarckism that would become the basis of Marxist philosophy. Agol , Nikolai P. Dubinin , Solomon G. Levin , Vasilii N. Slepkov , Alexandr S. Serebrovskii and a few others, who stigma- tized Lamarkism for its metaphysics, mechanicism, implicit teleology, vitalism, etc. By the early s the academic debates had come to their end.

sin2b dans lhcb: Topics by jyhoxafi.cf

Beliaev, Lamark, Moscow, Uchpedgiz, Komarov, Lamark, Moscow, Leningrad, Gosizdat, Mestergazi, Osnovnye problemy organicheskoi evoliutsii, Moscow, Kommunisticheskaia Akademiia, , p. As a result, Lamarckism became one of the main theoretical foundations of Lysenkoism, and its many critics were persecuted. Trofim D. Lysenko and his main ideol- ogist Isai I. With the fall of Lysenkoism most authors adopted a very critical attitude towards Lamarck; we could find only three publications in which Lamarck and his work are considered in a positive manner.

Unlike Lamarck, Cuvier always believed that established facts and generalizations based on them were more important for science That was the reason why, for about two centuries, it was Cuvier, a believer in the immutability of species, and not his opponent Lamarck, who exercised an ongoing influence upon the development of evolutionary ideas in Russia, and who became the source of inspiration for a strong intel- lectual current, neo-Catastrophism.

With the loss of support from the Soviet authorities, Lamarckism virtually lost all its influence in the Russian-speaking part of the world. Acknowledgements My research has been supported by the Russian Humanities Foundation rgnf , grant no. Historians and biologists usually only glorified the successes of the new Darwinian palaeontology. However, the situation is more complicated since the origination of this palaeontology contributed to researches on evolution and, at the same time, contributed to the penetration of teleology into biology.

It implemented the ancient idea that, in order to understand a phenomenon, it is necessary to reveal its rational purpose which it originated from. With some delay, a paradox appeared in biology: on the one hand, teleology contradicts that science is close to religion, but on the other hand, it is actively used in evolutionary studies. Modern evolutionists still analyse such 1. Gall and V.

Reznik, Vladimir Kovalevsky tragedia nigilista [Vladimir Kovalevsky. Tragedy of nigilist], Moskva, Molodaya gvardia, ; D. Todes, V. Milanovsky and V. Kowalevsky, Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta, 5, , p. Kovalevsky mastered the main European languages, and this knowledge greatly influenced his following activities.

While a student, he took an interest in natural sciences and especially in chemistry. His brother, Alexander Kovalevsky, studied natural sciences, and later became an eminent zoologist and embry- ologist. After the completion of his education, Vladimir Kovalevsky was assigned to the department of heraldry of senate, but he did not work there, asking for a sick leave to Europe.

Later he lived in various European countries perfecting his education and looking for an occu- pation to engage in. The self-reliant life of Kovalevsky started as some liberalization took place in Russia. He personified reaction, strong power, discipline, severity, absolutism, etc. He completed various progressive reforms, but educated people were not satisfied, requiring more and more. Their activities provoked the reaction of authorities. Political confrontation became stronger. He was never arrested. Revolutionists paid attention to this fact, they falsely accused him of treachery and his conspiratorial activity stopped.

Sources of the Darwinian palaeontology … 53 but he abandoned them soon after, starting to deal with the translation and edition of books. He mainly edited classic treatises of natural sciences. Meanwhile, he visited Europe and met several scientists. He negotiated the edition of their papers. Although they were popular, the commercial benefits of this enterprise were doubtful.

Kovalevsky borrowed money too easily, then he was enabled to repay in time. He tried to stop this business and he elaborated new projects. Being a correspondent of Russian newspapers, he participated in the campaigns of Garibaldi in However, he came back shortly after. Then he moved to Europe again, visited Darwin, impressed him favourably and successfully negotiated the translation and edition of his next treatises in Russia. In , Kovalevsky married Sofia Korvin-Krukovskaya.

Initially it was a marriage of convenience and a fine gesture for getting Sofia and her sister the possibility of a higher education in Europe. Later Sofia Kovalevskaya succeeded in science and became a well-known mathematician. Soon after their marriage, Kovalevsky and his wife moved to Europe. The sale of books and his business income, as well as the dowry, probably covered their expenses. Together with his wife, Kovalevsky visited several European scientific centres and he learned various sciences: geology, chemistry, crystallography, mathematics.

He continued to bustle and look for a main occupation. At some point, he decided to focus on palaeontology. Since Darwin and his first advocates did not present enough data from fossil records, Kovalevsky decided to fill in this gap. He looked for a zoological group which could demonstrate this point, and he took an interest in extinct ungulates. He explored various collections, visiting all the significant European museums.

Kovalevsky rapidly prepared a thesis on palaeontology and successfully defended it in Jena. The thesis was devoted to detailed research on the genus Anthracoterium, primitive ungulates considered as the ancestors of horse, and to the revision of the large family Hypopotamidae. His books sold slowly; so money came in slowly and irregularly. His brother Alexander helped him, but he himself was poor. However Kovalevsky continuously travelled over Europe, bought collection specimens and ran into new debts.

He turned out to be slightly involved in these events: the sister of his wife Anna was married to the French communard, Viktor Jacklard, who was put in prison after the Commune. Kovalevsky came to Paris with his wife to try to have Jacklard released and to take care of Anna, also threatened with prison. They helped Anna to move abroad, but Jacklard remained in prison. Finally the father of Sofia, an old general who knew Louis-Adolphe Thiers personally, came to Paris and asked for the release of Jacklard. Thiers rejected his demand, but, probably, helped, because Jacklard escaped from prison soon after.

The details of these events are not well-known, but no doubt that Kovalevsky was ready to help. He decided that he was able to overcome any academic obstacle and he went on to take exam although in a situation of conflict of interests. For some reason Odessa city was chosen for the exam, while one of the board members was at odds with Kovalevsky and his friends.

The situation during the exam was questionable, but Kovalevsky himself required to taking it. Kovalevsky wrote and published a brochure about this event. He continued to struggle to cope with business and science starting new commercial activities. Together with his wife, Kovalevsky decided to become rich quickly and to deal with science peacefully afterwards. In such a way Kovalevsky tried to solve the serious economic problem of the seasonality of transportation. Since in Russia rivers are frozen during several months, big breaks in intensive transportation of loads existed. Kovalevsky patented his idea, but no transport under ice was realized.

In , Kovalevsky went to the US to get to know the American petroleum industry and he explored collections of fossils. He met with the greatest American paleontologists, E. Cope and O. Marsch, and admired their rich collections. His knowledge of palaeontology progressed, but his activities did not.

The situation in his firm became worse and worse.


  • ⏩ Download Lobster King Richard J - jyhoxafi.cf.
  • Mais títulos a considerar;
  • Niccolo Paganini - Le romantique italien (French Edition)!
  • SEO secret(5) (55).
  • Richesse Richesse Virtuelle Et Dette?
  • Was sich liebt, das rächt sich: Roman (German Edition);
  • New Zealand- The Land of Natural Masterpiece.

Nevertheless, being sure of its stability, Kovalevsky raised numerous new loans. He parted with Sofia because he worried about his inability to support the family. His scientific work worsened too. He gave lectures improperly, because he was very often absent. Finally, Kovalevsky complained that his memory was failing, he could no longer remember the contents of his lectures. In , he committed suicide. In such a way he demonstrated that, when one is clear on objectives and methods, it is possible to get rewarding results rapidly.

His style of work often provoked the perplexity of his colleagues, because he continuously moved from museums to museums never stopping for a long time. His scientific carrier also progressed in reverse direction: he first received excellent theoretical knowledge, then learned to work with material, then became a recognized specialist, and only after then went to take exams in Russia.

Despite spending a long time in Europe, 4. Reznik, op. The most significant are the following: V. He was offered positions in Vienna and other European cities, but he always rejected these invitations. In spite of the disorderliness of his activities, his main aspiration was evident: he continuously tried to contribute to progress and to the enlightenment of his motherland. He presented abundant material of bones, describing in detail teeth, legs and other parts of skeletons. In such a way, he rather successfully demonstrated a fact of evolution, but his interpretations of evolutionary mechanisms were not so convincing.

He wrote about bones thoughtlessly: in his writings, he perceived the parts of fingers and other bones as communities of persons, which behaved either rationally or not rationally as they had obligations and rights, concluded agreements with each other or violated them, etc. It was as if somebody had set up the bones an objective, and they fulfilled it in different ways. The main objective was to adapt mammals to the life in grasslands. Kovalevsky believed that forests were replaced by grass- lands over large territories, and this transformation forced animals to evolve: they had to run rapidly and to eat grass.

In such a way Kovalevsky demonstrated an algorithm of biological study, which is still in use: he advised to look for adaptation in every event of evolution and every detail of organisms; if this were problematic, he recommended to look for such explanations at any price, not considering any other interpretation. This is a demonstration of a procedure, which was appropriately 6. Surprisingly, in addition to adaptive evolution Kovalevsky described inadaptive forms of evolution.

However, from his viewpoint, inadap- tive evolution still means that evolution is adaptation, because the inadaptive forms become extinct. These speculations were tauto- logical: animals were considered as inadaptive because they became extinct, while their extinction was explained by inadaptive evolution.

Meanwhile, inadaptive and adaptive animals often coexisted and still coexist. According to Kovalevsky this fact was caused by differences in competition: animals having competitors evolved horses , while the animals not having competitors did not for example, hippopotami. If, in the modern fauna, inadaptive animals having competitors still exist, this means, that they will be extinct soon. For example, Kovalevsky claimed that rhinoceros escaped in refuges along the rivers, while in the main part of the grasslands they were forced out by more perfect ungulates.

If the primitive and progressive animals lived simultane- ously in the past, this means that our knowledge of fossil records is incomplete or erroneous. However even such a firm epistemological base had not freed these speculations from contradictions. This was possible because cows are ruminants; they have a more complicated digestive system.

This means that ruminants are better adapted to a diet of grass. Gould and R. His life style made it problematic. Meanwhile he wrote and told several times, that he preferred to work with books and museum collections.

During his periods of successes, he was offered to explore some Russian territories, but he rejected these plans. He elaborated new palaeontology rather speculatively. The conditions for such work in Russia were favorable to some extent: palaeontologists in Russia were not numerous, this was why there did not exist any pressure from other concepts and traditions.

Biological palaeontology was a relatively new science for Russia. It is partly explained by the geologic character of Russian territory. They are not big and not very remarkable. The remains of mammoths and other impressive objects rarely arrived from the remote parts of the Russian Empire. In many European countries stone-like fossils are much more numerous. Such an abundance of remarkable fossils caused the early birth of palaeontology.

This science had rich traditions before Darwin, this why a rapid formation of Darwinian palaeontology in Europe was problematic. Dollo stressed this link with several times considering himself as a student of Kovalevsky. The brother of Vladimir Kovalevsky, Alexander, received the letter 8. Sources of the Darwinian palaeontology … 59 in , but he was late forwarding it. However it is still informative since it indicates that Dollo accepted the palaeontology of Kovalevsky since the beginning of his scientific career.

In many other respects the life and work of Dollo represented a contrast to those of Kovalevsky. Dollo was born in Lille France. He was trained as a mining engineer at the University of Lille, while taking some additional courses in biology. After graduating from the University, he did not pursue a professional career in that field. He almost never left Brussels. Sometimes he moved over to Belgium giving popular lectures, but usually worked in his museum.

One of his works was devoted to iguanodons, which were discovered at that time in Belgium.

HOLIDAY PARTNERS

Dollo discovered them while working on a public museum exhibit. Describing iguanodons, Dollo cited Kovalevsky and compared their evolution to the evolution of horses, finding many similarities such as the fact that Iguanodons had to adapt to grasslands in the same manner as horses did. His direct superior pointed out which objects Dollo should study, and those which he should not. Sometimes Dollo was not allowed to work within the museum collections or even to leave his room. Dollo overstated the importance of this, focusing on his research and his scientific activities.

Some of his colleagues noted that Dollo exaggerated these difficulties, and that he was a touchy person. Davitashwilli and L. Dollo, Voprosy istorii estestvoznanya i tehniki, 3, , p. Gabunia, Louis Dollo , Moscow, Nauka, Unlike Kovalevsky, Dollo tried to write papers as short as possible. His texts often represented series of numbered statements. So, according to Dollo, some turtles aimed to adapt to the life in Open Ocean. This is why they underwent some transformations.

Later on turtles aimed to adapt to coastal environment, and they suffered new transformations. If some turtles did not demonstrate necessary changes, this means that they did not have competitors. Although no data on competition among turtles was available. Developing such a procedure, Dollo elaborated and developed an additional algorithm of research, which is still very popular: the search for secondary evolutionary changes of animals.

Moreover, the whole group of marsupials also suffered secondary transformation: they are not primitive mammals without placenta, they lost their placenta because it was not useful to them. Snake-like fishes, cephalopod molluscs, tetrapod dinosaurs and many other animals are also secondary forms. Abel and L. Yakovlev, Vospominaniya geologa-paleontologa, Moscow, Nauka, The interpretations of primary and secondary events in evolution are fascinating and could seem well-founded, but such a procedure allows absolute arbitrariness in genealogical schemes.

Thereafter Dollo divided palaeontology into two sciences: geologic and biologic ones. Geological palaeontology deals with the fossils which clearly mark the geological layers irrespective of their evolutionary transformations Mollusks , while biological paleontology explores the animals demon- strating evolution and adaptation Vertebrates. In such a way any paleontological data contradicting the composed schemes of evolution could easily be removed into geology.

Paleontologists were still not numerous, however, their number continuously increased, and some decades later they remembered Kovalevsky. In the s, he was considered as the founder of a new science. His writings were republished in the s and s and presented to the Russian audience by several scientists, including eminent Russian academicians.

Louis Dollo was also often recalled approvingly. Classe des sciences, 8, , p. For a discussion, see I. Especially cephalopods often caused heresies in evolu- tionary biology until recently. This statement characterizes well the modern knowledge on their evolution: What influence, if any, environmental factors can have had in driving this evolution, in accordance with the classical Darwinian adaptive canon, remains wholly unknown.

Numerous claims in the literature to the contrary are almost invariably tautological. In short, we now know rather well how the ammonites evolved, but not why. Soviet researchers often addressed the problem of irreversibility and other related topics. Probably Dollo was known mainly from a good biographical book written by Georgian-Soviet palaeontologist L.

Kovalevsky was soon forgotten in Europe and the US though. Sobolev, Nachala istoricheskoy biogenetiki [Bases of historical biogenetics], Simpheropol, , in Russian. For details, see I. Gabunia, op. Sources of the Darwinian palaeontology … 63 outstanding scientists. The studies on extinct ungulates progressed after Kovalevsky.

Kovalevsky was cited sometimes in this context, but the following studies by O. Marsch and other palaeontologists became much better known. Dollo was better known also, but he was cited mainly as one of the authors of the law of irreversibility and for numerous morphological descriptions, and not as a student of Kovalevsky and co-author of a new palaeontology. Usually they considered evolution as a spontaneous transformation reminding the growth of crystals, which is just partly related to adaptation.

It happened because fossil records were still very difficult to use for evolutionary analysis, and it was difficult to describe evolution using simple traditional schemes by selection. Inadaptive forms, extinction of well-adapted forms, simultaneous extinction of several big groups and many other complicated phenomena were hardly explainable. At that time he first turned to the study of the formation and growth of dormant buds of trees and their role in the adaptation of plants to the influence of environmental factors.

He worked in the laboratory of G. Bonnier, which was a branch of the plant physiology laboratory of the Sorbonne during five summer seasons from to and he later came to Paris in and in Gaston Bonnier was a student of famous French evolutionist, A. Manoylenko, V. In France, he devised a spectrophotometric method for the analysis of small quantities of pigments chlorophyll, xanthophylls. Lyubimenko and N. In the book, he analyzed the embryology of plants, the doctrine of heredity and the adaptation of plants in evolutionary directions. Once again, V. Lyubimenko visited the laboratory of Fontainebleau in , after attending in the International Congress of the Protection of Nature, in which he participated together with V.

His reports about the work of the Congress were published in in Russian and in in the French press. Molyar in order to analyze the most recent data in the field of experimental morphology, to the creation of which French botanists significantly contributed G. Bonnier, M. Molyar, etc. Molyar considered metabolism was a key factor, in changing environmental conditions, in determining the structure of plants.

Lyubimenko stressed the essential organizational work carried out by Molyar which led to the creation of the department of plant physiology of the Sorbonne. Lyubimenko and French science. In , Lyubimenko was presented as a Corresponding He also received a proposal to write a monograph about vernalization and geotropism.

This work was stopped by the sudden death of the scientist on August 14th, He also made a table of chlorophyll concentrations in leaves in different geographical latitudes. He first noted and began to study the possible role of enzymes in particular peroxidase in the conversion of plant pigments in different geographical areas and reported about the relationship of chlorophyll and proteins of plastids.

Following G. Bonnier, Lyubimenko studied the characteristics of adaptation that occurred in plants from the valleys after moving them to the mountains. Lyubimenko believed that this transfer led to a reduction in the length of the growing season and the appearance of dwarf forms with short stems and a reduction in size and in the number of leaves.

Lyubimenko studied the phenomenon of chromatic adaptation, analyzing the pigments of algae, the purple bacteria plastids of higher plants. It was shown that the yellow pigment, lycopene, was present in all the investigated objects. Lyubimenko supposed a common origin of the yellow pigment system in living organisms.

He was inclined to believe in the symbiogenesis nature of the origin of green plant plastids. Lyubimenko developed a method for the isolation of plastids from leaf tissues and the culture media for the study of their function in the isolated state. Being a follower of the ecological ideas of G. Bonnier, Lyubimenko studied the effect of the environmental factors on photosynthesis, respira- tion, transpiration of plants, promoted the importance of the idea of the synthesis between, in the one hand, plant physiology and ecology, and evolutionary theory, in the other hand.

In his works, Lyubimenko wrote about the necessity to study the appearance of adaptive characteristics of plants in different environmental conditions. Akademii Nauk, Serie 7, 20, 2, , p. Scientific cooperation of Vladimir Lyubimenko … 69 of the integrity of plant interactions with the environmental factors and the increasing organism resistance to stress factors during development. According to the conclusions of Lyubimenko, plant resistance to cold depended on the stage of the plant development and on its physiological state.

Therefore it was necessary to have in mind the ontogenic stage of the experimental plant, in the study of environmental factors. It was concluded that the main physiological difference between short- and long-day plants is found in the ratio between the activity of respiration and photosynthesis: in long-day plants, respiration rate is higher in comparison with the process of photosynthesis, than in short-day plants. The original researches of V. Lyubimenko continued with the development of the problems of photosynthesis in evolutionary directions, taking into account the character of the formation of pigment systems during the interaction of plant organisms with envi- ronmental and geographical factors.

Borodin and the French school of morphologist and plant physiologists G. The tendency of V. Lyubimenko to study the morphological and physiological responses of plants in their interactions as individuals and in coenoses with environmental factors is increasingly being used in the modern ecological physiology of plants. Lyubimenko and E. Belozerov Historians of science, interested in the origins of developmental biology in the USSR, usually seek them in the activities of the group of investigators who worked during the ss in the paradigm of developmental mechanics.

Developmental mechanics was really a very important root of the Soviet developmental biology, but not the only one, a fact which is curiously neglected in the specialized literature. In the ss in the USSR there existed an alternative program of the study of devel- opment, presented by Mikhail Zavadovskii and named developmental dynamics of the organism. It was founded on different grounds: if, in the study of the form of living beings, the roots of developmental mechanics rested on morphology, those of developmental dynamics laid in physiology.

This paper analyzes the short history of develop- mental dynamics, the causes of its neglect, and its influence on the emergence of developmental biology in the USSR. In the late s, he changed his research priorities, having become interested in the issues of development. But his approach to the topic was different from the one of Wilhelm Roux and other developmental mechanists: instead of studying the early stages of development he focused on the postnatal development of mammals and birds, and first of all on the role of endocrine glands in the process.

Being in the years in the famous Askania-Nova reserve, located in the steppes of modern South Ukraine, and at the University of Tavria Crimea , working predominantly on chickens and to a lesser extent on some mammals, he tried by means of the grafting of sexual glands to induce robust and constant secondary sex characters.

Zavadovskii was among those who tried to convert these vague hopes into a coherent theory. In the s, he devised an ambitious research program named after a number of experiments in the developmental dynamics of the organism. Defined tautologically, developmental dynamics was conceived of as a science of development. But the fact that Zavadovskii launched his project when the study of development had had quite a long history, raised the question of why Zavadovskii decided to inaugurate a new discipline of development. Zavadovskii, Pol i razvitie ego priznakov, Moskva, Gosgiz, , p.

The realization of this task demanded the formulation of the main idea that could unify all these evidence. It looked as if the aim of this new discipline was to facilitate the teaching due to the better organization of the instructional material. But Zavadovskii also gave more comprehensive explanations of his discipline-building.

He pointed out that: 1. He argued that such inheritance was impossible or unlikely, for the acquired characters usually were due to changes in somatic cells, not in germ ones. Although he only declared what he intended to do concerning developmental dynamics he could demonstrate but few achievements in this field it quickly gained official recognition.

Le développement durable, approches géographiques

In , a new Biology Faculty was created with a number of new departments including the Department of Developmental Dynamics. As a result most of devel- opmental biologists saw no reasons for inventing a new discipline on development, different from developmental mechanics. The negative reception of developmental dynamics is one of the most probable reasons why Zavadovskii stopped theorizing about developmental dynamics after But in spite of all these successes the fall of developmental dynamics was not far away.

Zavadovskii was not a geneticist but as an academician of VASKhNIL and its vice-president from to , he took part in all the genetic discussions of the ss and supported geneticists in their struggle against Lysenko; in addition he was a close friend of Aleksandr Serebrovskii, one of the leading Soviet geneticists. He was allowed to return to research only in , when he reestablished his laboratory in the All-Union Institute for Animal Breeding, where he worked until his death in It is worth mentioning also that a number of his disciples succeeded in other areas of biology, first of all endocrinology and physiology.

Most Russian consulates and diplomatic missions of Tsarist Russia were closed. The A. Korotneff Russian Zoological Station in Villefranche- sur-Mer France was among those Russian research establishments, which suffered in these years. The Station was opened in by a Kiev professor, Aleksei Alekseevich Korotneff , in the building of a former Russian naval base. The Station was very popular among zoologists from all over the world; it was one of the major centres for the study of the Mediterranean coastal and pelagic fauna. The collection contains about letters and documents.

It was received from the national archives of France where it had been kept as a special collection no. The information about these docu- ments is provided in my paper. In , Nikolai Ivanovich Andrusov was elected the chairman of the Committee of Patronage. He was an outstanding geologist, paleontologist, a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences elected in and of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences from on. After his emigration to France, Andrusov worked as a fellow at the geological office in the Sorbonne.

In , he moved to Prague where he received a position at the geological cabinet of the Charles University. Two members of the Committee of Patronage were working at the Pasteur Institute in Paris: zoologist and immunologist Professor Sergei Ivanovich Metalnikoff and physician and biologist Alexander Tikhonovich Vassilieff Other members were lawyer and politician Valerian Konstantinovich Agafonov , the widow of a former Station director, Sophia Ivanovna Korotneff, a new director of the Station, Professor Mikhail Mikhailovich 2.

Professor Mikhail Mikhailovich Novikov , a zoologist, comparative anatomist and former rector of the Imperial Moscow University, started his work at the Committee of Patronage in , after he had moved to Prague. In , when Andrusov died, Novikov was elected as the Committee chairman. In , Novikov helped Korotneff put pressure on the Russian Duma the Parliament for passing a resolution authorizing the transfer of the Russian Station to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education and the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Krym born in , an agronomist, joined the Committee of Patronage some years later. Before emigrating to France, Krym was a member of the First Duma ; he was elected a delegate of the Taurida Province. From to , thanks to the initiative of Novikov, a Russian zoological seminar functioned at the Zoological Institute of the Czech Charles University. The Russian Station was the only site where Czech zoologists could carry out experimental research on oceanic organisms.

Hermann and K. Novikov In and , the Czech Academy paid the Station for a few posi- tions reserved for Czech scientists. From to , it supported twelve workplaces; then in , the payments were interrupted the reason will be discussed below. In , they were resumed for a short while, although on a lesser scale: the Czech Academy covered four workplaces in and just one place in The Czech Academy also purchased some equipment.

For example, thanks to a generous donation made by Professor Carl Cori, a future Noble Prize laureate, the Station was equipped with a cabinet for experimental research. Novikov was also able to establish cooperation with the Polish, Yugoslavian and Bulgarian Academies of Sciences. Its owners were beggars, Russian refugees who extended, however, their hospitality to the whole academic world, since the Station attracted scientists from everywhere.

It was impossible to start a conversation that would engage everyone in such a company, yet their interest and enthusiasm… were unanimous. This money was used to pay regular salaries to the Station administration. True, he works hard enough but he is a very unpleasant, disagreeable, quarrelsome man. Novikov, Ot Moskvy do Niyu-Yorka. Unpublished letter sent by S. Korotneff to M. R, op. Davydoff, the widow of a well-known Russian embryol- ogist Konstantin N. Davydoff , a distant relative of M. In early May , we went to Villefranche-sur-Mer where K.

Davydoff, a distant relative of K. The real director was Tregouboff, a rather unpleasant man; he was always drunk and very rude, especially with Russians. His wife was also a rather unpleasant French woman, hostile to Russians, particularly to us. Fortunately, at that time there were a few other scientists at the Station; thanks to this circumstance, we felt much better… On the other hand, we were on very friendly terms with young scientists from Poland, as well as with a son of Professor Novikoff [Novikov], Vladimir, who worked as a mechanic on the Laboratory motorboat… When the head [of the Station] went to Paris, the Laboratory changed from the very first day of his departure: whistles, laughter and bustle were heard in the corridor, many kinds of jokes were made.

Russian dinner was cooked in some laboratories, or people shared expenses and made common tea. He studied under Professor Octave Duboscq. In late Tregouboff appeared at the Russian Station in Villefranche. Since he had no Russian diploma, he could not obtain a permanent position at the Station that was governed by Russian laws. Vasiliev to E. He was rather skep- tical about the efforts made by the Committee of Patronage in order to preserve the Station as a Russian institution.

When members of the Committee protested against his policies, he replied that the only realistic way to secure the future of the Station would be to hand it over to France. Novikov wrote about Tregouboff: […] a nephew of a well-known member of the State Duma Archpriest Tregouboff, as it often happens in the families of our clergy, he boasted of his atheism. There are many reasons to believe that the reso- lution was instigated by negotiations between Tregouboff and his former mentor at the University of Montpellier, Professor Octave Duboscq. Tregouboff carried them on his own initiative, without an authorization from the Committee of Patronage.

He justified them by claiming that the Station needed protection from the Bolsheviks. In fact subsequent events proved that the Bolsheviks were a lesser evil compared to Tregouboff: with support from the Czech Academy of Sciences, the Station could remain a Russian or Russo-Czechoslovak, or Slavic institution for a long time. Yet Tregouboff had different plans for its future. From on, Tregouboff started ousting Czech scientists from the station: he refused them positions and left their letters unanswered.

When they complained, he made false excuses. He claimed that the letters had not been delivered by the post or that the funds he received from the Czech Academy of Sciences were insufficient to cover the expenses or there were no vacant positions. His actions were aimed at disrupting cooperation with Czechoslovakia: evidently, he expected that the disruption of financial assistance from the Czech Academy New archival data about … 83 would make it easier to hand the Station over to France.

Tregouboff harassed not only the Czechs and the Germans but also those Russian scientists who displeased him. In , the Czech Academy of Sciences protested against his unethical behavior towards Czech scientists and refused to provide funding for their positions for the next year. Novikov resigned from his position as chairman of the Committee of Patronage and even left the Committee. Serge Metalnikoff was elected as the new chairman. Novikov did everything possible to save the Station. Maklakov, baron B. Novikov to S. Still, a major concession was made: technically, the Station remained a Russian institution that was temporarily maintained and administered by the Sorbonne.

However, the money that the Station received from the Czech Academy of Sciences and other national academies were transferred to the Sorbonne, and not directly to the Station administration, as it had been the case earlier. Unfortunately, Tregouboff was not content with this arrangement and went on with his struggle with the Committee of Patronage. He openly abstained from contacts with the Committee and its members on the grounds that he was an employee of the French administra- tion.

In this way he ignored all the documents and requests that he received from the Committee. Without the Committee authorization, Tregouboff hands over to the Sorbonne internal documentation of the Committee including private correspondence , translating it from Russian to French.

He closed the door of the Station to the Committee general secretary, E. Kovalevsky, on the pretext that Kovalevsky was not a biologist. When Davydoff died in , Professor Duboscq was officially appointed director of the Station. Tregouboff remained in office as deputy director. It was only with the death of Duboscq in that Tregouboff finally assumed the directorship of the Station. He was the last Russian head of the Zoological Station in Villefranche-sur-Mer, and he occupied this position till his retirement in Kovalevskii to M.

Metalnikoff to E.

Winkelwagen

In the prize was awarded to a Soviet scientist, a corre- sponding member of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, a researcher at the A. The prize was awarded within the framework of the Soviet-French scientific cooperation. He did not hesitate to spend most of his personal fortune trying to preserve the scientific activities of this institution. Hopefully, the truth about this person will sooner or later be common knowledge. Konashev Among evolutionary scientists, Theodosius Dobzhansky and Pierre Teilhard de Chardin occupy a special place.

In many respects, thanks to them, the evolutionary concept of man became a part not only of Western or European culture, but of the whole world. It is how it was under- stood by Dobzhansky who was inspired by this message, and became, probably, one of the best defenders and interpreters of Teilhard.

He demonstrated convincingly its synthetic character and its importance for the understanding of the unique role of man in his own evolution and in the evolution of the whole universe. See in detail: C. National Academy of Sciences, usa, 55, , p. See in detail: M.

Loskutova eds. Boesiger, visited the Foundation Teilhard de Chardin. B:D Dobzhansky Papers. Teilhard de Chardin ed. Hecht, W. Steere and B. Wallace eds. Teilhard de Chardin Pierre ed. The opponents, among whom G. Simpson has given the best reasoned critique, rightly pointed out that the vision does not necessarily follow from the scientific evidence.

By the same token, it is most unwise for overenthusiastic supporters to claim for their favorite authors achievements which these authors were not aiming for. What he is trying to do is rather to include his science in his total world view which is basically a religious one. Such an attempt is of interest to scientists. The four years of First World War represented for Teilhard a time of spiritual tension and maturation. The relation of science and religion, according to Dobzhansky, can be understood in three ways. One group holds that science is the sole and only valid source. At the exact opposite, there are those who dismiss science because it deals with impersonal objects, and is consequently irrelevant to the problems of personal existence and selfhood.

There is also a middle ground. Knowledge gained from science is as necessary as it is by itself insufficient. It must be supplemented by the insights of poets, artists, mystics, and by religious experience. Monod, world famous French biologist. In an article especially devoted to the comparison of concepts and outlooks of Teilhard and Monod, he wrote that Teilhard de Chardin and Monod had little in common. Though both were adherents of evolutionary biology, they viewed the evolutionary process in quite different perspectives, and their world views were irreconcilable. Teilhard was convinced that the universe has a direction and that it could result in some sort of irreversible perfection.

To Monod, all ideas of this kind were anathema and evolution had no direction. He explained that any orthogenetic theory of evolution postulates preformation when all that happens was bound to happen. If all that happens in evolution is only a long strip tease act, all evolution becomes meaningless. Consequently, orthogenesis is only a possible, but neither a necessary nor even a very plausible, explanation of the progressive trend observed in the history of the biosphere and culminating in the emergence of the noosphere.

See in detail: V.

Meer titels ter overweging

Nazarov, Finalizm v sovremennom evolutionnom uchenii, Moscow, Nauka, , p. He agreed with J. Not merely survival, let us be clear, but some form of higher life or super-life. They will open to an advance Dobzhansky, op. But tell yourself, categorically, that for the success of the enormous work of creation, God only needs one thing: that you should do your best.

See, for example: id. Oldfield et D. Vernadskii and the development of biogeochemical understandings of the biosphere, c. Tsiolkovskii, Kosmicheskaia filosofiia [La philosophie cosmique] [], Cfera, , p. Chaque animal est un petit univers. Tsiolkovskii, op. An animal in either kingdom has its systematic mode of formation or growth. Every sphere in space must have had a related system of growth, and all are, in fact, individualities in this Kingdom of Worlds. Ce milieu de son habitation est toute la surface de la Terre.

Mais Vernadski ne soutient pas, comme un Tchijevski, que le cosmos est un et vivant. Mais cette distinction est selon lui quantitative et non qualitative. La Terre souffre. Elle se vengera. CNRS, Gavaudan, M. Guyot et A. Gavaudan, Paris, Masson, Raulin- Cerceau et S.

Bernal, The Origin of Life, trad. Synge, London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, Il fut traduit dans plusieurs langues et notamment en anglais en Dauvillier et E. Pour sa biographie voir D. Les trois premiers ont une nature historique. Dans lequel il est question des conditions du milieu terrestre primorodial. Watson et F. Par ailleurs, la publication des travaux de Matthew Meselson et Franklin W. Meselson et F. Les actuelles mitochondries. Histoire, recherches et archives, , , p. Samoilov The first Russian physiologist, doctor of philosophy and medicine, P. Postnikov, studied at the University of Padua where he defended his doctoral thesis.

In other words, a division occurred in a huge field of knowledge into two separate disciplines. Galler is thought to be the initiator of this institutionalization. Unfortunately, the contribution in the process of I. However, the introduction of experimentation in physiological research had been strongly resisted by representatives of natural philosophy, then dominant at German universities and merging with vitalism.

Famous historian of medicine G. Vellansky promoted natural philosophy rejecting experimentation, yet most of the researchers supported the experi- mental research of physiological processes. Ivan Glebov, the teacher of I. According to I. Magendie, Kazan astronomer, Simonov, published an article in about the mechanism of the accommodation of the eye, a work which can be considered the first scientific research on the physiology of sensory system in Russia.

The great reformer of physiology, J. Ivanovskiy ed. Karlik, Klod Bernar, Moscow, Nauka, , p. Magendie, Kratkoe osnovanie fiziologii, Moscow, , p. Franco-German-Russian physiological triangle in the 19th century works in bookshops and destroyed them. He quickly became a devotee of experimental physiology and trained a galaxy of eminent scientists who approved the methodology in physiology and related fields of natural science once and for all.

Ludwig, T. Schwann, R. Virchow, E. Haeckel, J. Henle, F. Bidder, R. Remak, I. Claparede, A. Filomafitsky, N. Pirogov, I. Flourens and C. Bernard were working in France. Sechenov wrote on that matter that C. As acknowledged by I. Pavlov, as a student, he had learned French to read C. The unification of the small German states into one power under the aegis of Prussia led to a better funding of scientific research; in the setting of the rapid development of industry, the techniques of experimental work were improving; physiologic institutes with excellent conditions for work were founded.

And if C. There, psychologists not only worked, but also lived C. The institute of physiology at Leipzig University became an inter- national scientific training school for physiologists after E. Weber had been replaced by K. Ludwig at the university faculty in Samoilov and A. The life of the institute research was the life of its leader and the achievements of the teams were the achievement of K.

It was consistent, according to H. There were eleven U. Chesnokova, Karl Ludwig, Moscow, Nauka, , p. Helmholtz, Ob akademicheskoi svobode germanskikh universitetov, Moscow, , p. From to , nearly half of all the articles published in the Leipzig Journal were the works of Russian scientists. In the late s, the number of works decreased because Russia had its own scientific journals by then. Many foreign physiologists began to visit Russian scientists for training and consultation. Later, having abandoned natural philosophy and developed experimental approach in physiological science, German physiologists occupied a dominant position.

The physiological studies of British and American scientists were still inferior. Sechenov, I. Pavlov, I. Tsion, N. Yakubovich, I. Fulton and L. Orbeli, Izbrannye trudy, Leningrad, Nauka, , vol. Il recevra 1. Altschuller et W. Pirogov, Questions of life, Diary of an old physician, India, Watson publishing International, , p. Il meurt en Ukraine en Il compare les effets des deux substances et recueille de nombreuses observations. Keenan, art. Gouzevitch et D.