Well you're not alone when it comes to the errata field Bryan. I recently confused an expedition to the North Polar region with one that went to the South Pole! Both expeditions were cock-ups which kind of saved the point of those two paragraphs of a bigger essay on weather forecasting. Luckily Jason of the Field Guide to the Anthropocene substack, a preeminent Antarctic writer among other things, caught the blunder. A little googling on my part could have saved the reader some puzzlement and me some egg on my vest (as the Brits might say.) "Check first" will be my new second motto. (The first is "Spell check, spell check, spell check!")
Never considered that, and yep, wallflower and shrinking violet are both fairly negative female-pointed misappropriations of flowers. Of course there's, She's no shrinking violet. But that, too, may have negative connotations, as I think there's a specifically defined form of cultural violet women are supposed to be. Are there any flower references to men? At least references that don't imply the terrible danger of being female? (pansy comes to mind)
I'm all for the forward-living botany! And snowy owls, who have nothing to do with this note, but OWLS! What more needs to be said.
Brian, you have brilliantly provided the quote of the year. Thank you for all your writing.
"We Homo sapiens are but a minuscule bud on a tiny twig of a gigantic tree of life. Out on a limb, we are so full of creativity and intelligence, so full of love and promise, and yet so full of ourselves; we are alone as the sole remaining occupant of our genus (perhaps more aptly named Homo hubris). And so we get to name things however it damn well suits us. "
Every essay, besides making me think, contains at least one “Bryanism” that makes me laugh knowing it made you laugh when you thought of it and wrote it. This time it was the sentence that began “Out on a limb..”. You are so skilled in taking us, your readers, along on your rambles in the woods or in your mind. I do miss your “in person” field trips. This is the next best thing.
I remember loving to take my biology students into the woods and stopping in a mossy glen. Inviting them to take off their shoes and sox to enjoy the green carpet, I’d segue into moss sex and sperm swimming on that same carpet after a rain. Most moved off into leaf litter taking their chances with slime molds.
I wasn't bothered, I think it's actually really great each time I'm asked to take time to consider the undertones of language I/we don't even see. I'm always being surprised by my own not noticing. And then, my big noticing. They as terms aren't problematic in themselves, it's more what we do with them culturally - like the word bossy which is never used for a man. Thanks Bryan, I really enjoy your writing and also the laughs when they come!
“We Homo sapiens are but a minuscule bud on a tiny twig of a gigantic tree of life. Out on a limb, we are so full of creativity and intelligence, so full of love and promise, and yet so full of ourselves; we are alone as the sole remaining occupant of our genus (perhaps more aptly named Homo hubris). And so we get to name things however it damn well suits us.”
Well I really like the more appropriate scientific name you suggest for us. And your essay is always easy to read while still being thought provoking. Hard to believe their birth is hard or challenging for you. I know for me crafting an essay is humbling and challenging. Thank you for sharing. Your writing inspires me.
"My point here is that flowers are so much more than male or female. Like us, they are nature and culture — their very own nature and culture." This is wonderful, and might help me explain some things about gender non-conformity to people who ask me about it. The line "gender is a social construct" is completely unhelpful for people not in that discourse but truly trying to understand. This helps more!
As for wallflower and shrinking violet: probably? Maybe? That's one I'd be curious to dig into the etymology about.
A good essay. I appreciate your knowledge and perspectives and enjoy your writing.
Just wanting to make a friendly comment on the characterization of humans as "so full of ourselves" and the idea we could be called, "Homo hubris." Without a doubt, "so full of ourselves" aptly describes our *current civilization* but does it make sense to ascribe that trait as inherent to the entire species, Homo sapiens? Our species is at least 200,000 years old, and do we know for certain that we have been "so full of ourselves" that entire time? If we are saying that the hubris is unique to us as we currently live (and I would agree with that), *but* we know we evolved from earlier species who lacked the trait, then the question arises: When? At what point in history did hubris make its appearance on the scene?
It is certainly hubris to consider that we have "dominion" over the earth, but in our 200,000 year history, that's a recent idea, from Abrahamic religion, which is a product of agricultural civilization, and of the very different relationships to the earth that came about with it, and the very different perspectives that came out of those relationships. Personally, I would bet that we acquired the hubris trait with the Neolithic revolution. And if it's an acquired trait, then it's not biologically inheritable, and is rather a cultural phenomena passed down through institutions. That is, not a trait of Homo sapiens the species, but only of certain human cultures, which are not the end all and be all of the species.
As evidence that hubris is a cultural trait and not an inherent trait of the species, we could acknowledge the existence of cultures of Homo sapiens currently on the planet who seem to lack the trait. For example, indigenous people in the Amazon fighting to defend the forest from "development." I don't believe their motivations can be reduced to hubris or the idea that they are "full of" themselves. Quite the opposite, if we are to take their words seriously.
The reason I think this is an important topic is because, if we are inescapably "full of ourselves" by nature, then we are fundamentally flawed by nature (which is another Abrahamic idea), and that excuses our bad behavior because we can't help it. This is a dangerous perspective because it relieves us of our collective and individual responsibility for our actions. After all, if we are indeed "Homo hubris" then we can't do anything but fuck up.
Personally, I'm not willing to let us off the hook like that.
"Homo sapiens" is undoubtedly a bad label. Its meaning: "Wise man." Wow, talk about hubris! Rather, I would suggest "Homo communis" -- "Man of community," in which that community is all life on the planet. Like every other species of animal, we are dependent on a community of plants, other animals, fungi, liverworts! etc., in which we participate, respond and adapt. The label might strike us as aspirational considering our current impacts on the planet, but so be it.
Anyway, like I said, I enjoy your column here on SubStack, but just wanted to remark on that detail.
Well you're not alone when it comes to the errata field Bryan. I recently confused an expedition to the North Polar region with one that went to the South Pole! Both expeditions were cock-ups which kind of saved the point of those two paragraphs of a bigger essay on weather forecasting. Luckily Jason of the Field Guide to the Anthropocene substack, a preeminent Antarctic writer among other things, caught the blunder. A little googling on my part could have saved the reader some puzzlement and me some egg on my vest (as the Brits might say.) "Check first" will be my new second motto. (The first is "Spell check, spell check, spell check!")
Seriously, Bryan, LIVERWORTS??
Never considered that, and yep, wallflower and shrinking violet are both fairly negative female-pointed misappropriations of flowers. Of course there's, She's no shrinking violet. But that, too, may have negative connotations, as I think there's a specifically defined form of cultural violet women are supposed to be. Are there any flower references to men? At least references that don't imply the terrible danger of being female? (pansy comes to mind)
I'm all for the forward-living botany! And snowy owls, who have nothing to do with this note, but OWLS! What more needs to be said.
Brian, you have brilliantly provided the quote of the year. Thank you for all your writing.
"We Homo sapiens are but a minuscule bud on a tiny twig of a gigantic tree of life. Out on a limb, we are so full of creativity and intelligence, so full of love and promise, and yet so full of ourselves; we are alone as the sole remaining occupant of our genus (perhaps more aptly named Homo hubris). And so we get to name things however it damn well suits us. "
Every essay, besides making me think, contains at least one “Bryanism” that makes me laugh knowing it made you laugh when you thought of it and wrote it. This time it was the sentence that began “Out on a limb..”. You are so skilled in taking us, your readers, along on your rambles in the woods or in your mind. I do miss your “in person” field trips. This is the next best thing.
I remember loving to take my biology students into the woods and stopping in a mossy glen. Inviting them to take off their shoes and sox to enjoy the green carpet, I’d segue into moss sex and sperm swimming on that same carpet after a rain. Most moved off into leaf litter taking their chances with slime molds.
I wasn't bothered, I think it's actually really great each time I'm asked to take time to consider the undertones of language I/we don't even see. I'm always being surprised by my own not noticing. And then, my big noticing. They as terms aren't problematic in themselves, it's more what we do with them culturally - like the word bossy which is never used for a man. Thanks Bryan, I really enjoy your writing and also the laughs when they come!
Loved this post, and I always love the beautiful photographs you include in your essays!
“We Homo sapiens are but a minuscule bud on a tiny twig of a gigantic tree of life. Out on a limb, we are so full of creativity and intelligence, so full of love and promise, and yet so full of ourselves; we are alone as the sole remaining occupant of our genus (perhaps more aptly named Homo hubris). And so we get to name things however it damn well suits us.”
Now, that there’s good writin’, yo.
I love learning about the gender-fluidity of plants! 🌱
Well I really like the more appropriate scientific name you suggest for us. And your essay is always easy to read while still being thought provoking. Hard to believe their birth is hard or challenging for you. I know for me crafting an essay is humbling and challenging. Thank you for sharing. Your writing inspires me.
"My point here is that flowers are so much more than male or female. Like us, they are nature and culture — their very own nature and culture." This is wonderful, and might help me explain some things about gender non-conformity to people who ask me about it. The line "gender is a social construct" is completely unhelpful for people not in that discourse but truly trying to understand. This helps more!
As for wallflower and shrinking violet: probably? Maybe? That's one I'd be curious to dig into the etymology about.
A good essay. I appreciate your knowledge and perspectives and enjoy your writing.
Just wanting to make a friendly comment on the characterization of humans as "so full of ourselves" and the idea we could be called, "Homo hubris." Without a doubt, "so full of ourselves" aptly describes our *current civilization* but does it make sense to ascribe that trait as inherent to the entire species, Homo sapiens? Our species is at least 200,000 years old, and do we know for certain that we have been "so full of ourselves" that entire time? If we are saying that the hubris is unique to us as we currently live (and I would agree with that), *but* we know we evolved from earlier species who lacked the trait, then the question arises: When? At what point in history did hubris make its appearance on the scene?
It is certainly hubris to consider that we have "dominion" over the earth, but in our 200,000 year history, that's a recent idea, from Abrahamic religion, which is a product of agricultural civilization, and of the very different relationships to the earth that came about with it, and the very different perspectives that came out of those relationships. Personally, I would bet that we acquired the hubris trait with the Neolithic revolution. And if it's an acquired trait, then it's not biologically inheritable, and is rather a cultural phenomena passed down through institutions. That is, not a trait of Homo sapiens the species, but only of certain human cultures, which are not the end all and be all of the species.
As evidence that hubris is a cultural trait and not an inherent trait of the species, we could acknowledge the existence of cultures of Homo sapiens currently on the planet who seem to lack the trait. For example, indigenous people in the Amazon fighting to defend the forest from "development." I don't believe their motivations can be reduced to hubris or the idea that they are "full of" themselves. Quite the opposite, if we are to take their words seriously.
The reason I think this is an important topic is because, if we are inescapably "full of ourselves" by nature, then we are fundamentally flawed by nature (which is another Abrahamic idea), and that excuses our bad behavior because we can't help it. This is a dangerous perspective because it relieves us of our collective and individual responsibility for our actions. After all, if we are indeed "Homo hubris" then we can't do anything but fuck up.
Personally, I'm not willing to let us off the hook like that.
"Homo sapiens" is undoubtedly a bad label. Its meaning: "Wise man." Wow, talk about hubris! Rather, I would suggest "Homo communis" -- "Man of community," in which that community is all life on the planet. Like every other species of animal, we are dependent on a community of plants, other animals, fungi, liverworts! etc., in which we participate, respond and adapt. The label might strike us as aspirational considering our current impacts on the planet, but so be it.
Anyway, like I said, I enjoy your column here on SubStack, but just wanted to remark on that detail.
You are always, even if your failures, an inspiration! Thank you. Check out the sex life of Gingko trees too.
Nice essay Bryan. I too loved the "humans out on a limb" paragraph. How do you feel about calling male insect genitalia penises?
Owls! Almost single-handedly could be a reason life is worth living! (Do you have to have hands to single-handedly do something?)
What camera did you use for the Costa Rica photo? Thanks!
I don’t blame the Snowy Owls for avoiding the northeast. Darn winter weather whiplash.