First edition, 1917 (793 pages): 2nd edition in 1942 (1116 pages). This is more jumbled than normal so be wary :-)
Since he’s was a Scot he obviously was great.
Basic biological concepts outlined in this book:
Brownian motion, surface to volume ratio:
Double a fish length, weight increases 8x
As size increases the force on bones increases, shorter and thicker bones.
Mouse skeleton is 8% of body weight.
Humans skeleton is 17% of body weight.
The trend doesn’t hold for extent in marine mammals. Water’s influence.
Advantage to grow large as a marine mammal, speed increase (more muscle mass), mass = easier to maintain temp in cold waters. Down side- must eat lots to maintain.
Bergman’s rule:
Anotherphysiologist, Carl Bergmann*, took the case a step further. It was he, by the way, who first said that the real distinction was not between warm-blooded and cold-blooded animals, but between those of constant and those of variable temperature: and who coined the terms homoeothermic and poecilothermic which we use today. He was driven to the conclusion that the smaller animal does produce more heat (per unit of mass) than the large one, in order to keep pace with surface-loss; and that this extra heat-production means more energy spent, more food consumed, more work done.
Limit to the small size of a mammal. Too small and it can’t get enough energy to run its systems and stay warm.
Lobster exoskeleton:
The mechanical construction of insect or crustacean is highly efficient up to a certain size, but even crab and lobster never exceed certain moderate dimensions, perfect within these narrow bounds as their construction seems to be. Their body lies within a hollow shell, the stresses within which increase much faster than the mere scale of size:
Eye:
The eye and its retinal elements have ranges of magnitude and limitations of magnitude of their own. A big dog's eye is hardly bigger than a little dog's; a squirrel's is much larger, proportionately, than an elephant's; and a robin's is but little less than a pigeon's or a crow's. For the rods and cones do not vary with
the size of the animal, but have their dimensions optically limited by the interference-patterns of the waves of light, which set bounds to the production of clear retinal images. True, the larger animal may want a larger field of view ; but this makes little difference, for but a small area of the retina is ever needed or used. The eye, in short, can never be very small and need never be very big; it has its own conditions and limitations apart from the size of the animal. But the insect's eye tells another story. If a fly had an eye like ours, the pupil would be so small that diffraction would render a
clear image impossible.
Surface to volume ratio:
(referable doubtless in each case to some definite physical cause) for mere bodily surface to keep pace with volume, through some alteration of its form. The development of villi on the lining of the intestine (which increase its surface, much as we enlarge the effective surface of a bath-towel),
Cells, no matter the size of the animal, tend to be similar in size:
Where/ when is this different? Egg and during development: how does that work successfully?
In the body, our body if you want, Dow cells change/break/alter this “rule” and how do they do it.
Size of organisms:
Do other animal have a growth spurt as seen in humans?
Thus ends this random blog.