Book Review: Evolution: The Story of Life

i-4a22756aaf1e9b292492bc0d6cf4c8ed-evolution-story-of-life-thumb-150x173-21519.jpg

Whenever I sit down to write an entry for this blog I remind myself that I might not always speak the same language as the people I am trying to reach. A statement that might be technically accurate, such as "Mammuthus primigenius was a Late Pleistocene proboscidean with a Holarctic distribution", will likely cause nonspecialist readers to go cross-eyed and vow never to visit this blog again. Instead I have to remember what it was like when I began to teach myself about paleontology and evolution. What do those words mean? And how can I quickly and accurately define them without sacrificing the story I am trying to tell?

Admittedly I sometimes forget this principle. I might throw around terms like "Miocene" or "adapid" without fully explaining their meaning. Thankfully Google is always available to assist baffled readers with defining these terms, but regular readers of this blog (and others like it) might find it easier to keep a single source at hand. When it comes to paleontology and evolution there is no shortage of such titles. This year alone has seen the publication of Evolution: The First Four Billion Years, Darwin's Universe: Evolution A to Z, and Prehistoric Life: The Definitive Visual History of Life on Earth, with Douglas Palmer and Peter Barrett's Evolution: The Story of Life due out early next month. This review is about the latter book, an updated version of the classic "Life Through the Ages" treatment.

As an encyclopedia, Evolution: The Story of Life is not meant to be read from cover-to-cover. It is a heavy compendium of information that is organized into several large sections. The first section presents a brief, textbook-like summary of who Charles Darwin was, how fossils are formed, &c. This provides the bare minimum of background to properly understand the rest of the book. It is followed by several larger divisions; one looking at what life was like during particular slices of geologic time, another presenting a drawn-out "tree of life", and a final set of indexes to material found elsewhere in the book.

Paleontology takes center stage in these core sections. Genetics and developmental biology are given a tip of the hat early in the book, but Palmer (author) and Barrett (artist) primarily trace evolution through a series of vignettes restored on the basis of fossil evidence. This is a classic technique, but I have to question its utility.

The succession of illustrations is like a parade of distinct organisms from particular points in time, and little is done to draw the creatures in each habitat group together through evolution. That life changed through time is made abundantly clear, but just how it did so (i.e. through what mechanisms and from which ancestors?) remains obscure in the text. On pages 60-61, for example, the reader is introduced to early, jawless fish, yet not explanation is given as to where those fish came from. I find this lack of explanation strange for a book called Evolution.

For now, though, I will forget about the book that I had expected from the title. What did Palmer and Barrett actually create? The general layout of the "scenes from deep time" made me think of what a Facebook photo gallery for "Life on Earth" might look like. Each scene created by Barrett is bordered by a timescale along the top and detailed boxes and panels along the bottom that correspond to numbers and squares inside each scene. There is a lot of information on each page, not all of it made clear (i.e. page 65 mentions the thylacocephalan Ainiktozoon but just what a thylacocephalan is does not receive comment from the author), but overall this format does serve the intended purpose of showing how life on earth has changed. To the credit of the authors, once life moves onto land they still sample marine habitats, thus mitigating the traditional "onward and upward" vision of evolutionary inertia catapulting life from a simple aquatic monad to humanity.

On page 250 the book changes gears. It goes from being a scrapbook of extinct ecologies to a seemingly endless array of branches arranged to reveal evolutionary relationships. Animals may have received the majority of attention in the previous section, but here single-celled organisms, plants, and other less charismatic organisms are discussed in turn. Again, sometimes technical terms are employed without any explanation of what they mean, but this section of the book can be used in conjunction with the prior one in order to draw connections between organisms previously featured. The actual transitions are not discussed, but together the two sections create a broad sketch of the tree of life.

The last section of the book is a heterogeneous mix of indexes and glossaries. There is a catalog of fossil sites described in the earlier sections, an species index, a listing of various groups of organisms, and a few other handy resources. This is all capped off with a fold-out timeline and a "panoramic view" of all Barrett's scenes from prehistory stitched together into one evolutionary mural.

What audience would most benefit from this book? If you are interested in the mechanisms of evolution, or the "how" questions, this is not the title for you. Instead I would suggest that you pick up Carl Zimmer's new user-friendly textbook The Tangled Bank. If you want an overview of what animals (especially vertebrates) lived during different times during prehistory, however, this is a good compendium to keep handy. It provides a broad and up-to-date outline of what lived where and when, and different portions of the book can be cross-checked with each other to provide more information should you require it. Likewise, if you often read popular science books, watch documentaries, and read evolution blogs but are often left uncertain by technical terms this book might be a worthwhile investment. It allows readers to easily look up details about particular species, localities, and groups of organisms even if the details of evolutionary transformations are almost entirely absent from this book.

Whether Evolution: The Story of Life is a "good" book or not depends entirely upon the needs of the reader. Someone well-acquainted with paleontology might find little in it that they did not already know while someone who has a more casual interest in the subject may consider it a wellspring of useful information. This is a book meant not so much to be read as to be used, and though it is a bit rough in patches Evolution: The Story of Life could certainly be a useful resource for those who want to peek into the prehistoric past.

Categories

More like this

The book is already out...at least at my B&N. I wanted to leaf through it, but as usual, it was shrink-wrapped (as was an intruiging arachnid book...argh!). Also, as usual, books that probably should be shrinkwrapped were not ("The Big Book of Breasts," a 50-year history of Playboy, etc.) but that's a tangent for another day.

I've been wondering ever since what the book "is," so I was happy to read this book review. Doesn't really sound like the book for me. I just bought "Prehistoric Life" and it sounds like the same kind of book.

That sounds like the kind of book I used to love as a kid. Maybe I need to get back into the habit of buying these; I'm sure a lot has happened in palaeontology since I last bought one. And I'm in love with the cover.

How good is the art?

To the credit of the authors, once life moves onto land they still sample marine habitats, thus mitigating the traditional "onward and upward" vision of evolutionary inertia catapulting life from a simple aquatic monad to humanity.

Giant props for that! Does this include marine invertebrates in anything other than background roles?

A statement that might be technically accurate, such as "Mammuthus primigenius was a Late Pleistocene proboscidean with a Holarctic distribution", will likely cause nonspecialist readers to go cross-eyed and vow never to visit this blog again.

As a layman and high school graduate with a general interest in all things sciencey; with a latent "fontanelle" for dinosaurs and the like, I'm actually grateful for the chance to be presented with novel (to me) words. How anyone manages to learn anything without being challenged or intrigued is bewildering.

Please feel free to fire at will with the deeply arcane polysyllabic lingo.

I wandered over here from either "Pharyngula" or "Not Exactly Rocket Science" a while back and I've continued to come back as I make my ever widening daily Science Blogs rounds. Here's to hard words and thunder lizards!

By Bone Oboe (not verified) on 01 Nov 2009 #permalink

Naraoia; I'm sorry to say that the artwork isn't that great. Restoring dozens of prehistoric habitats is no easy job, and the artist did a better job than I surely could, but overall I was not very impressed by it. A few are very well done, most are so-so, and there are a few that just don't look good at all (i.e. a restoration of Unitatherium).

And there are marine inverts, particularly in the Cambrian sections, but as soon as verts evolved the inverts are shoved to the background.

Bone; Thank you, and I will continue to use technical terms in my writing. I just want to make sure I define them. I have no intention of "dumbing things down" but I want to make sure I explain what I mean when I am using a word many readers might not be familiar with.

Naraoia; I'm sorry to say that the artwork isn't that great.

That's a shame :(

Restoring dozens of prehistoric habitats is no easy job...

Certainly, although it's hard to accept that excuse when one's first exposure to palaeoart was a bookful of ZdenÄk Burian.

And there are marine inverts, particularly in the Cambrian sections, but as soon as verts evolved the inverts are shoved to the background.

*sigh* And here I was hoping. Wait till Haikouichthys takes over the Cambrian scenes.

&lt/cynic&gt

Bone; Thank you, and I will continue to use technical terms in my writing. I just want to make sure I define them. I have no intention of "dumbing things down" but I want to make sure I explain what I mean when I am using a word many readers might not be familiar with.

Well, thank you for taking the care and time to possibly enrich the minds/vocabulary of your Readers. By all means, explain and define, however, be aware that there are at least a handful of readers who get a kick out of obscure prefixes and suffixes. Well, maybe it's just me...but carry on nonetheless.

Perhaps my previous comment was a little sharp, familiar and caffeinated; the former two I'd not intended, the latter was quite beyond my control. Too much French roast at the time, too little restraint brought to bear upon the digits set loose upon the keyboard.

Carry on Good Sir, carry on.

By Bone Oboe (not verified) on 02 Nov 2009 #permalink

Thanks for this book review -- most people forget to ask, "Who is this written for, and who will it be useful to?" And that is such an essential question! Your comments at the top about audience hit home to me as that is something I am giving a lot of thought to for one of my writing projects. Doing science writing and avoiding adopting the jargon of your scientist sources can be really difficult; but that's what science writers do. (I can empathize!) The important thing, as you note, is to make sure to define your terms if you do use technical ones. When I worked as a staff writer at a natural history museum, my editor there used to tell me, "We don't want to drive our readers to their dictionaries or they won't finish your story!" He was right, though he underestimated the limits of most readers' patience. For really general audiences, that can be tough to balance. But I always wanted my pieces to be at least semi-educational, and that does mean introducing lingo where it's just easier to do so. In the end, it's all about reaching -- and being relevant -- to your audience.

I've suggested several times that Sci blogs develop a communal glossary to which you could then link your terms for those of us who aren't experts, but no one seems interested. I find that rather sad.