![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in zoology. |
This article needs to start with a discussion of Aristotle's zoology.-- ragesoss 22:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Zoology is a theoretical field of study on the topic of all animals, wherever and whatever they might be. This article delves, incorrectly, I believe, into other more practical fields, more in the line of arts, crafts, or skills, such as animal breeding or animal domestication. These are not strictly theoretical topics of study. So, the facts that Neolithic man domesticated animals or that ancient Egypt used cattle aren't zoology as such. What we would want to know is, what theory of animals did the Egyptians have? If they didn't have any, they shouldn't be in the article. The fact that they could milk or slaughter cattle or knew how to keep and feed them is not zoologic. A zoologist is a theoretical man; he studies facts about animals and comes up with theories, which he publishes with the evidence, to be learned by students and reviewed by peers. A stock-breeder is not per se a zoologist, although some stock-breeders might also be zoologists or be familiar with zoology.
A history of zoology is therefore a history of a field of study. It seems to me a good place to start would be the origin of the named field, zoology. We might mention how and when this named field began, and with whom. Then of course we would be covering the topic of zoological theories not under that name. How far back do those go? Aristotle, of course, the king of the theoreticians, offers much zoological theory under the general term "animals." He does not talk about stock-breeding. He mainly wants to describe and classify different animals, focusing on method of reproduction. I wish I knew more about animal theory in other ancient cultures. Since others no doubt have the same problem this is going to have to be a pooling of knowledge, as is so much of WP, by now practically an indispensable source. It seems to me the furthest back you possibly could go would be the first utterance of a classification of objects, say plant, animal, mineral. I'm afraid the Neolithic will be of no use to us there, as their languages are mainly vanished away.
In short, the best place to start is with definitions of animals and then of their field of study. Ciao. Botteville ( talk) 22:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of zoology (through 1859). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)