»

lindahall:

Elizabeth Gould - Scientist of the Day

Elizabeth Gould, an English artist, was born July 18, 1804. In 1829, she married John Gould, an up-and-coming ornithologist, and Elizabeth immediately became the official family draughtswoman, finishing John’s rough drawings and executing the lithographs for the Century of Birds from the Himalaya Mountains (1830-32), and The Birds of Europe (1833-37). Although John gave Elizabeth full artistic credit in the Century, he became increasingly reluctant to share the limelight in later publications, so that, for example, Elizabeth receives almost no acknowledgement in the bird volume of Darwin’s Zoology of the Beagle (1841), although she did all the drawings and lithographs.

Elizabeth went to Australia with John in 1838 (leaving her 3 youngest children behind) and spent two years there, capturing the local birds and mammals on paper. John and Elizabeth returned to England in 1840, but sadly, Elizabeth died of puerperal fever in 1841, after giving birth to their eighth child. She was only 37 years old. All of her Australian paintings were lithographed and eventually published in such volumes as The Mammals of Australia (1863), but she received no credit at all for these posthumous publications.

The images show the crimson horned pheasant from Century of Birds, the blue roller from Birds of Europe, and the cactus finch from the Zoology of the Beagle,as well as a portrait of Elizabeth in a private collection.

Elizabeth was one of 12 women artists featured in the Library’s 2005 exhibition, Women’s Work. All of the volumes mentioned here are in the Library’s History of Science Collection.

Dr. William B. Ashworth, Jr., Consultant for the History of Science, Linda Hall Library and Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Missouri-Kansas City

We think of men as antiheroes, as capable of occupying an intense and fascinating moral grey area; of being able to fall, and rise, and fall again, but still be worthy of love on some fundamental level, because if it was the world and its failings that broke them, then we surely must owe them some sympathy. But women aren’t allowed to be broken by the world; or if we are, it’s the breaking that makes us villains. Wronged women turn into avenging furies, inhuman and monstrous: once we cross to the dark side, we become adversaries to be defeated, not lost souls in need of mending. Which is what happens, when you let benevolent sexism invest you in the idea that women are humanity’s moral guardians and men its native renegades: because if female goodness is only ever an inherent quality – something we’re born both with and to be – then once lost, it must necessarily be lost forever, a severed limb we can’t regrow. Whereas male goodness, by virtue of being an acquired quality – something bestowed through the kindness of women, earned through right action or learned through struggle – can just as necessarily be gained and lost multiple times without being tarnished, like a jewel we might pawn in hardship, and later reclaim.

Foz Meadows (Gender, Orphan Black & The Meta of Meta)

Look at your stories - don’t just count who gets to be the hero and the villain (what kind of hero? what kind of villain?); count who gets the redemption arcs. (via notsosilentsister)

#the backlash against the female antiheroes is the profoundest kind of disingenuous bullshit #’why do we want our women to be cruel to be selfish to be ungentle? why do we want to VALORIZE that?’ #we don’t #we want truth we want humanity in all its facets #women allowed the moral spectrum we don’t even evaluate when looking at male characters because we so entirely take it for granted #so many women and such different women that we stop ranking them by their virtues #and how comfortable/uncomfortable they make us #different women IN THE SAME STORIES even #imagine. (hotelsongs)

   

nowwheresmynut:

Suggestion from madly-empirical

Hannitales part 3: enter the cannibal

[part 2] [all parts]

So here’s the deal: reblog or send asks with the next two lines of the story, I’ll draw the one I like the most and then we’ll repeat the same thing so on and so forth until no one is sending suggestions anymore.

Tagging these as #hannitales cause i couldnt think of anything else

fennist:

I caught the bus home early and I was feeling sad because my plans to buy a cactus failed seeing as I could barely stay standing let alone search for a beautiful new baby but I came home to find the final book I ordered online had arrived!

brains-and-bodies:

So strange seeing this with skin still attached.

I’ve been looking into this for 20 minutes, which flexor is this?

F. digitorum superficialis?  F. carpi radialis?

Anyone?

corporisfabrica:

Illustration of the spinal column and surrounding circulation.

From the Atlas of Human Anatomy and Surgery, 2005.