"I think that the most important requisite in describing an animal, is to be sure to give its character and spirit, for in that you have, without error, the sum and effect of all its parts, known and unknown.  You must tell what it is to man....  What is most interesting in a dog, for example, in his attachment to his master, his intelligence, courage, and the like, and not his anatomical structure or even many habits which affect us less."

What do you think about this statement, especially as regards Eckstein's "Two Lives" and perhaps John James Audubon's "White-headed Eagle" and Pandeya's fact sheet "Rough-legged Hawk"?
 

lyda:   i don't agree with thoreau because i feel that animals have worth irregardless of their relationship to man.
Spot:  I'm not sure I agree with this.  We're always putting ourselves at the center of the universe, and Thoreau seems to be doing the same.
Spot:  Some of the most intriguing and admirable animals have almost no effect on man.
Spot:  Of course, these are the same animals that get wiped out at astounding rates
Lyle:  I agree with Thoreau in the sense that the character of an animal is more intersting and important in describing that individual animal.  however, we are not concerned with describing one specific animal here.  when writers describe animals in scientific books, they are giving us the generalization, facts about a populations of animals.
Spot:  What do you mean when you say one specific animal?  Do you mean one animal, or one species?
lyda:  i agree w/ you, spot...  at the same time, i do sort of understand where throeau means though.  i feel that writings about animals are most intersting TO MAN when the animals are written about in relationship to man, however, that doesn't mean, that animals aren't inherently intersting without relationships to man.
Lyle:  just as when we write about one specific pserson, we can talk about that person's character, intelligence, and all, but when we want to describe mankind as a whole, we shouldn't attmpt to include all these specifics b/c you can't make generalizations about individuality.  same with animals.  you can say intersting things about one dog, but you have to rely on the scientific facts in ....
Lyle:  .... in describing dos as a species.
lyda:  well, do you guys think that we are suppose to talk about a specific (individual) animal or a species as a whole?
Lyle:  i thought species as a whole.
Spot:  I got the same impression
Max:  I thought a specific animals in terms of descriptive writing!?
lyda:  really?  i didn't....
Lyle:  i mean, if it's one dog that we're talking about, we can say a lot of intersting things about why this dog is different, why this dog is so special...
Max:  Exactly
Max:  He values the individuality in nature-so ther is no need to discuss the species as a whole?
lyda:  well, how can you give the character and spirit of a whole species of animal?
Lyle:  i agree w/ lyda.
Spot:  when you're  man, you assume that everthing else is so far below you that the whole species can be summed up in one encyclopedia article
Lyle:  isn't that what we do to ourselves too?  we make all these generalizations about mankind in general.
Spot:  but there are always exceptions to the rule
Lyle:  what kind of exceptions?
Spot:  I guess it's just more convenient for us to group everthing....that's where prejudice comes in
Max:  You could generalize the nature, say certain specifics about dolphins, of one particular species-we think of dolphins in general as being smart fun loveing etc. not one particular dolpohin like  Flipper
Max:  I think that is the point-to try and transcend that generalized realm into one of more description and feeling
lyda:  i felt as if thoreau was writing about writing about specific individual animals....that's why i feel as if anatomical structure, etc. are not as interesting or valuable when describing that speicific animal as writing about the character of that animal
Spot:  bye all