Natural History has periodically been declared “dead” or at the least “not really cutting edge science”. The Question is “should it?” In a period where we are more and more aware of the need for long-term data sets to examine trends in ecological processes, the study Natural History provides us with a remarkable if incomplete window into previous populations, distributions, and abundances. I propose a brief overview of the background of Natural History as a science and also suggest its importance within contemporary ecology, conservation biology, and education. Aspects of natural history –systematic observation, categorization and recording of the non-human landscape for practical utilitarian purposes- predates any other science. Natural History itself however achieves a degree of formality with Pliny the Elder. Roman Natural History literally encompassed all sciences, with slight distinctions between “physical” and “biological” conditions. The collapse in living standards coupled with the rise of religious explanations of causality following the end of the Roman Empire lead to a decline in scientific investigation in general. Natural History reemerges in the 18th century both as taxonomy and as the pursuit of the “cabinet of curiosities” favored by often wealthy amateurs. The success of Newtonian Mechanics at providing both theoretical and practical bases for the physical sciences lead to an ever increasing emphasis on quantification and the search for universal “Natural Laws” rather than the previous emphasis on variance found in some natural histories. The association of Natural History with dilettantism has haunted the field for over two centuries, and often has the unfortunate effect of causing it to be dismissed by “serious scientists”. I argue that such a dismissal comes with significant costs.
Results/Conclusions
After a heady period as a “crisis discipline” in which data was often strikingly absent and an “applied science” that moved beyond academia, Conservation Biology has increasingly recognized the need for particulars about populations, species, and areas of concern, and the importance of long-term baseline data against which to measure change. Such is exactly the subject of Natural History. Careful examination of records of early naturalists and the rigorous continuation of their studies provides valuable insights into past conditions. Beyond this it seems likely that education based on observation and recording of actual phenomena rather than overly theoretical initial approaches may prove more effective in motivating a broad segment of the public to understand and support science and conservation.
