Elephant comes from the Greek word "elephas" meaning ivory. This, of course, refers to their tusks. In scientific nomenclature, elephants belong to the order Proboscidae. This word is also Greek referring to the other distinctive elephant anatomy, the trunk.

In understanding elephant evolution, I think we should first discuss zoological nomenclature. In science, animals and plants are classified and named using a universal system and language. At the narrowest or top level is the genus and species. Every animal and plant can be identified by its two-word (genus and species) name. (i.e. Homo sapiens: man). When subspecies are present, this can be a three-word name. (i.e. Elephas maximus maximus: Sri Lankan Asian elephant). If you think of species denoting one kind of animal or plant, then genus would include more than one kind. From the top level to the bottom level the number of animals or plants included in each group increases. In general the major categories of classification listed from top to bottom or low to high are:

animal

HELLO WAS A MONKEY A GOOD ANIMAL, I CAN TRY AND ANSWER THE QUESTION MONKEY IS GOOD CREATURE, ALWAYS LIKE IN CLAMPING THE TREE AND ALSO, FLY FROM ONE TREE TO ANOTHER, lets hear what Harry F. Harlow, LET SEE WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE MONKEY

The famous experiments that psychologist Harry Harlow conducted in the 1950s on maternal deprivation in rhesus monkeys were landmarks not only in primatology, but in the evolving science of attachment and loss. Harlow himself repeatedly compared his experimental subjects to children and press reports universally treated his findings as major statements about love and development in human beings. These monkey love experiments had powerful implications for any and all separations of mothers and infants, including adoption, as well as childrearing in general.

In his University of Wisconsin laboratory, Harlow probed the nature of love, aiming to illuminate its first causes and mechanisms in the relationships formed between infants and mothers. First, he showed that mother love was emotional rather than physiological, substantiating the adoption-friendly theory that continuity of care—“nurture”—was a far more determining factor in healthy psychological development than “nature.” Second, he showed that capacity for attachment was closely associated with critical periods in early life, after which it was difficult or impossible to compensate for the loss of initial emotional security. The critical period thesis confirmed the wisdom of placing infants with adoptive parents as shortly after birth as possible. Harlow’s work provided experimental evidence for prioritizing psychological over biological parenthood while underlining the developmental risks of adopting children beyond infancy. It normalized and pathologized adoption at the same time.

How did Harlow go about constructing his science of love? He separated infant monkeys from their mothers a few hours after birth, then arranged for the young animals to be “raised” by two kinds of surrogate monkey mother machines, both equipped to dispense milk. One mother was made out of bare wire mesh. The other was a wire mother covered with soft terry cloth. Harlow’s first observation was that monkeys who had a choice of mothers spent far more time clinging to the terry cloth surrogates, even when their physical nourishment came from bottles mounted on the bare wire mothers. This suggested that infant love was no simple response to the satisfaction of physiological needs. Attachment was not primarily about hunger or thirst. It could not be reduced to nursing.

Then Harlow modified his experiment and made a second important observation. When he separated the infants into two groups and gave them no choice between the two types of mothers, all the monkeys drank equal amounts and grew physically at the same rate. But the similarities ended there. Monkeys who had soft, tactile contact with their terry cloth mothers behaved quite differently than monkeys whose mothers were made out of cold, hard wire. Harlow hypothesized that members of the first group benefitted from a psychological resource—emotional attachment—unavailable to members of the second. By providing reassurance and security to infants, cuddling kept normal development on track.

What exactly did Harlow see that convinced him emotional attachment made a decisive developmental difference? When the experimental subjects were frightened by strange, loud objects, such as teddy bears beating drums, monkeys raised by terry cloth surrogates made bodily contact with their mothers, rubbed against them, and eventually calmed down. Harlow theorized that they used their mothers as a “psychological base of operations,” allowing them to remain playful and inquisitive after the initial fright had subsided. In contrast, monkeys raised by wire mesh surrogates did not retreat to their mothers when scared. Instead, they threw themselves on the floor, clutched themselves, rocked back and forth, and screamed in terror. These activities closely resembled the behaviors of autistic and deprived children frequently observed in institutions as well as the pathological behavior of adults confined to mental institutions, Harlow noted. The awesome power of attachment and loss over mental health and illness could hardly have been performed more dramatically.

In subsequent experiments, Harlow’s monkeys proved that “better late than never” was not a slogan applicable to attachment. When Harlow placed his subjects in total isolation for the first eights months of life, denying them contact with other infants or with either type of surrogate mother, they were permanently damaged. Harlow and his colleagues repeated these experiments, subjecting infant monkeys to varied periods of motherlessness. They concluded that the impact of early maternal deprivation could be reversed in monkeys only if it had lasted less than 90 days, and estimated that the equivalent for humans was six months. After these critical periods, no amount of exposure to mothers or peers could alter the monkeys’ abnormal behaviors and make up for the emotional damage that had already occurred. When emotional bonds were first established was the key to whether they could be established at all.

For experimentalists like Harlow, only developmental theories verified under controlled laboratory conditions deserved to be called scientific. Harlow was no Freudian. He criticized psychoanalysis for speculating on the basis of faulty memories, assuming that adult disorders necessarily originated in childhood experiences, and interpreting too literally the significance of breast-feeding. Yet Harlow’s data confirmed the well known psychoanalytic emphasis on the mother-child relationship at the dawn of life, and his research reflected the repudiation of eugenics and the triumph of therapeutic approaches already well underway throughout the human sciences and clinical professions by midcentury.

Along with child analysts and researchers, including Anna Freud and René Spitz, Harry Harlow’s experiments added scientific legitimacy to two powerful arguments: against institutional child care and in favor of psychological parenthood. Both suggested that the permanence associated with adoption was far superior to other arrangements when it came to safeguarding the future mental and emotional well-being of children in need of parents. SO THAT IS THE ONE OF HIS OWEN EXPERIENCE AND ALSO U CAN HAVE YOUR OWEN HAS HIS, MONKEY IS GOODS NEVER YOU FOLLOW PEOPLE THAT WENT AND KILL MONKEY IN THE BUSH, CAUSE MONKEY HAVE A FUTURE.

THE HISTORY OF OWL

LETS US LOOK SOME OF THE HISTORY OF OWL AS A BIRD

The Purdue OWL originated as a collaborative effort by Dr. Muriel Harris, Director of the Purdue University Writing Lab, and Dave Taylor, a graduate student in Educational Computing who redesigned the e-mail server and developed the gopher and Web sites. Their goal was to provide a resource for students who sought writing help but couldn't make it into the physical writing lab during operating hours. Since that time, our OWL has become a complement to classroom instruction, a supplement to face-to-face tutorials, and a stand-alone reference for thousands of writers worldwide.

A number of Purdue students have facilitated and effected the arduous process of getting instructional materials online. Particularly valuable were the contributions of Michael Manley, who initially developed OWL as an e-mail server; and Michelle Sidler, Norman Vierstahler, Clinton Wong and Trish Jenkins, each of whom were instrumental in the development of the OWL during its formative stages. Special thanks goes to David Elderbrock, Humanities Coordinator for the Instructional Technology Program at UC Berkeley who helped us with a survey to identify the needs of our users.

Currently, our OWL consists of several hundred nodes, including approximately 200 handouts available in hypertext and printer-friendly forms. It also includes a wide array of links to sites relevant to various aspects of writing and written communication. Current foci for continued development include an expanded job search section and more interactive exercises.

Past OWL coordinators include Stuart Blythe , currently an assistant professor at Purdue University, Fort Wayne, Teddi Fishman, who teaches in the MAPC program at Clemson, and Jon Bush, a recent Purdue University Ph.D. Our 1998-1999 technical coordinator, Liz Thelen, is now faculty at Niagara University. Matt Mooney, our 1999-2000 technical coordinator, is now a distance education specialist at a university in Arizona. Our 2000-2001 coordinator, Dave Neyhart, has been doing editorial work in southern California and Spain, and our 2001-2002 coordinator, Geoff Stacks, is currently an editorial assistant for Modern Fiction Studies, a well-known journal of literary criticism. Brian Yothers, the OWL coordinator for 2002-2003, completed his Ph.D. at Purdue Unversity. Erin Karper, our OWL technical coordinator from 2000-2004, is an assistant professor at Niagara University.

BIRDS PICTURE

Birds HISTORY

Birds

Birds are animals that have feathers and that are born out of hard-shelled eggs.

Some people think that what makes an animal a bird is its wings. Bats have wings. Flies have wings. Bats and flies are not birds. So what makes an animal a bird?

Introduction

In the recent upsurge of interest in the early evolution of birds, Australia has not contributed to the debates on bird-dinosaur relationships or on the origin of feathers or flight. Nonetheless, it does have interesting, albeit patchy, record of birds across the past 110 million years. The record is poor compared those of Europe and North America, in both temporal and faunistic representation. There are a few intervals with rich, diverse avian records, several scattered periods with small to moderate representations and some extensive gaps at critical times.

The earliest Australian record of birds, from the Early Cretaceous (110-100 million years ago -mya), comprises five small indeterminate feather impressions from Koonwarra, Victoria and a few small bones from southern Victoria, north central New South Wales and western Queensland. The feathers have been known for some time, but unfortunately the birds from which they came have not appeared from the deposits. Likewise, little can be said about the Victoria and New South Wales fossils.

The bones from Queensland can be attributed to an enantiornithine bird. The recognition of the subclass Enantiornithes has been a major advance in understanding bird evolution. These strange birds differed from modern birds in a variety of major features of the skeleton. They appear to have been the dominant lineage of birds through the Cretaceous, and their fossils are now known from every continent, including Australia. Like the dinosaurs, this group of morphologically diverse birds became extinct by the end of the Cretaceous. The Queensland fossils, which have been named Nanantius eos, show that these birds were in Australia.

The History of Fish Smoking 2

The History of Fish Smoking

Curing Manx Kipper Fillets
Kipper More about Manx Kippers

For as long as history can record, people all over the world from all cultures have relied on the smoke-curing of fish and meat products for long-term storage solutions.

Nowadays, smoking for preservation is common in less developed countries where transportation is limited and climate extremes impact upon food life cycles. In more developed countries where transportation is increasingly efficient, smoking remains popular for texture and flavour.

In Europe during the middle ages, various heavily smoked and salted foods helped people maintain subsistence over late winter and into spring. Fresh fish could not be transported any distance from the port of landing unless they were preserved.

Fish, used initially in the home markets, were widely exported to the West Indies in the infamous Triangle Trade between Britain, its northern colonies and the West Indian plantations with the introduction of smoking for preservation. While not smoked, salt cod supported the expansion of trade routes throughout the world.

The rapid growth of logistical infrastructure beginning in the 1840s, enabled the transportation of perishables. For the first time in human history it was possible to move large quantities fresh fish from one place to another.

As a result, heavily salted, heavily smoked products began to dwindle and were no longer commonplace. Soon, the smoked fish products became a tradition, with the smoking kept for increased flavour and texture, while containing minimum salt as condiment.

The kipper itself was a result of this changing trend, invented by John Woodger at Seahouses in Northumberland in about 1843 after considerable experiment. Within a few years it had become very popular and remains so today.

Where the primary reason for smoking fish had been formerly to preserve it, it has now used mainly to impart a pleasant mild smoky flavour.

Smoking Seafood

Smoking Seafood

Smoking Seafood

A History of Smoke Preservation

FOODS HAVE BEEN PRESERVED BY SMOKE-CURING since before the dawn of recorded history. People in all cultures the world over have relied on the smoke-curing of fish and meat products for long-term storage.
It is important to make a distinction between smoking for preservation, and smoking for texture and flavour. Today the former is common in less developed countries where transportation and climate extremes may be a factor. The later is popular in developed countries where refrigeration and an integrated logistical infrastructure for the efficient transportation of perishables is in place.
In its simplest form smoking meat and fish is similar throughout the world depending on the end product desired. Preservation can be accomplished by first cutting the flesh into thin strips and then drying them slowly over a fire — or in the sun in northern climes).
Packed as dried smoked products, these can travel great distances and remain edible for long periods of time. In all these processes, drying is of paramount importance for preservation, because it is moisture in the flesh that permits bacterial activity and spoilage. Salt accelerates the removal of water and hence its widespread use as a traditional perservative. Further, the application of extracts from the smoke (phenols, etc.) retards the development of spoilage bacteria.
Smoke Salmon Side

IN EUROPE AND BRITAIN DURING THE MIDDLE AGES various heavily smoked and salted foods were relied upon to carry people over the lean times of late winter and into spring. Fresh fish could not be transported any distance from the port of landing unless they were preserved. Two of these products were Red Herring and Salt Cod. Red Herring was made with heavily salted herring that was smoked for up to three weeks in a kiln similar to those in use today to make "bloaters" on Grand Manan, New Brunswick today.
These herring, used initially in the home markets, were widely exported (and continue to be so today) to the West Indies in the infamous "Triangle Trade" between Britain, its Northern Colonies and the West Indian plantations. While not smoked, Salt Cod supported the expansion of trade routes throughout the world, and is a prime example of how a simple product can be of supreme importance to merchants — and the extension of government policy.

Cod fillet

THE RAPID GROWTH OF LOGISTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE (railways and steamships) beginning in the 1840's, enabled the transportation of perishables. For the first time in human history it was possble to move large quantities fresh fish from one place to another. This marks the beginning of sea-fishing industrialization. As a result of the widespread availability of fresh fish, the popularity of heavily salted, heavily smoked products — a mainstay for hundreds of years — began to decline. In the same period (mid 1800's), the smoked fish products we now regard as traditional came into being. These are mildly smoked and dried and contain minmum salt as condiment.
The kipper for example was invented by John Woodger at Seahouses in Northumberland about 1843 after considerable experiment. Within a few years it had become very popular and remains so today.
Where the primary reason for smoking fish had been formerly to preserve it, it was now mainly to impart a pleasant mild smoky flavour. Rapid transportation for foodstuffs meant a long shelf-life was no longer so essential.

Kipper

THE MARKET FOR SMOKED FISH UNDERWENT A MAJOR CHANGE in the mid to late nineteenth century. And yet the actual technology of smoking fish remained much the same as it had been for centuries.
It was not until 1939 that the Torry Research Station in Aberdeen, Scotland developed the Torry Kiln that a reliable tool was generally made available to the industry. This mechanical kiln can be relied upon to produce a high-quality, uniform product time after time. The use of a forced-draft greatly enhances drying and smoke application and with the use of a heat source remote to the smoke generator a much reduced smoking time is achieved. This accomplishes two things; first, the fish is exposed to moderate temperatures (prime for bacterial growth) for a shorter period and secondly, the kiln-operator can process more fish in a given time and produce it at a consistently higher quality.

Many companies now produce kilns based on this proven technology of laminar air-flow through the product. The increasing use of micro-processors has added another quality factor that insures consistency and adaptability in processing any smoked seafood product for varying demands in any marketplace (differing salt levels, moisture content requirements, etc.).
On a personal level we have been asked if the application of all this technology removes us from the actual business of producing a really top-notch food. The answer is both yes and no. Yes, we don't have to baby-sit every load of fish now-it is controlled much more closely than any human could actually do it ourselves (people need breaks, holidays, etc.). The answer is no, it doesn't remove us from the process because the computer faultlessly carries out what we have programmed into it earlier. The result is as uniform and consistent as the changing nature of fish will allow.


The Physical Properties of Smoking Fish
IT TAKES FIRST CLASS FISH to make a first-class product. Like the old saying "garbage in, garbage out," a good product can't be made from stale fish. Some folks believe that smoking can cover up moldy or stale fish off-flavours. This is false. Any unpleasant odours or flavors will be readily apparent in short order.

Haddock Golden Cutlet
Given that the fish are of good quality and free from disease it is important to look at the natural condition of the fish. In the North-East, for instance, spring herring and mackerel are low in fat and make a poor quality product. Haddock that have recently spawned cannot be expected to turn-out well. Atlantic salmon with a fat content much in excess of 14% becomes too oily and can oxidize rapidly after processing.
Fish for smoking must be fresh and certainly post-rigour. Some keep longer than others. Trout for instance, will keep longer than mackerel which keep longer than silver-hake (given similar washing, handling, and icing) and so on. In short, get to know the fish your dealing with before you jump in and produce something even your dog wouldn't touch.
After preparation which may include, filleting, or nobbing, splitting or chunking, the fish is either brined or packed in fine dry salt (brining being more common nowadays). Once salted, the fish are placed in the kiln for a period of time and allowed to drip. This allows excess liquid to drain off and in certain products, allows the formation of an attractive gloss. The gloss is actually the drying of a water soluble protein and such a pellicle is the mark of a high-quality smoked whitefish like cod or haddock. Fatty fish will develop a gloss also, but this can be generated by the oil that comes to the surface during smoking. Fish packed in dry salt will not form a pellicle of the same nature.

Split haddocks threaded for smoking
Most fish is cold-smoked, meaning no point will the temperature be allowed to exceed 34°C. Cold smoked products include: Lox, Haddock, cod and Kippers. Hot smoking on the other hand, is the slow raising of the kiln temperature to in excess of 60°C to cook the product. Seabright hot smokes: Mackerel, Shrimp, Scallops and Salmon. These products are generally flaky in texture and are ready-to-eat.

Smoking
IT IS BEST TO CONSIDER THE TWO PROCESSES of smoking and drying separately, as controlling one does not necessarily mean controlling the other.
Smoke should be produced from a smoldering, saw-dust fire. Wood smoke is composed of millions of microscopic particles which rise like a fog, and by vapours. The fog is mostly water, carbon and trace solids. The vapour contains what we're after, namely volatile oils which are released from the wood and furnish the characteristic flavours and preservative qualities.
The choice of wood for smoking varies a great deal with geography. Most reputable smokers spurn the use of softwoods in favour of hardwoods (Oak in the United Kingdom; Alder on the West coast of North America). Experienced smokers also know that given a quality hardwood source, variations in species will result in only small flavour differences. So there is ample latitude to refine one's recipe! Some advocate the use of more resinous woods with oilier fish like mackerel to counter its strong taste. Softwood dust is sometimes added when smoking white fish to bring up colour more rapidly. A general rule of thumb would have it that if a piece of smoked fish tastes "pitchy" it has more to do with the temperature of the fire then the type of wood you use.
London Cut Finnan Haddie
At Seabright the exact formula for our wood smoke is a closely guarded. Yet everyone here knows we use native Nova Scotian hardwoods and over the years we've found ground juniper can be used with great positive effect.
A hot fire (blazing flames, little smoke and more complete combustion) actually tends to burn off the volatile oils and reduces them to more stable tar type resins. Pretty yuckey all round. So keep the fire down, cool and watch out for flare-ups.


Aberdeen cut finnan haddock Drying
WHETHER DRYING OCCURS AND THE SPEED OF DRYING is influenced by a number of factors: the speed of the air-flow; the moisture content of the fish; the temperature and moisture content in the smoke; and most important; the relative humidity (RH) in the surrounding air.
Relative humidity is generally expressed as a percentage in relation to the temperature. Therefore if the RH is 100% at 20°C and you cool the air just slightly — presto it rains. Let's assume however, that the temperature is about 16°C at 75% RH. This air will not dry fish very quickly at all but, if we raise the air temperature to 30°C, the RH would fall to about 45%. An RH of about 65% at a temperature of 30°C, is about perfect for most climates (if possible). If the RH falls too far below this the fish will dry too rapidly and "case-hardening" can result. A high RH in excess of 75% will prevent effective drying from taking place.
Temperature and smoke should be controlled separately. We have seen that we need a cool fire but we need an internal kiln temperature of at least 30 to 35°C. How to achieve this? Generate the smoke "remotely" from the actual kiln and provide heat from either electrical elements or natural gas burners in the kiln. Sure people did, and do, generate both smoke and heat together but not if you are seeking a reasonable consistency. We don't want salmon that's to die for this week — and salmon that will kill you the next. Consistency will be hard enough to come by in any case. Don't worry about a boring product. If its good it won't be boring!

Kilns or "What can I smoke it in?"
AS MENTIONED, KILNS HAVE come a long way in a comparatively short period of time and there can be some confusion as to which would work best for you. First, consider what kind of fish you're smoking and what kind of product you want out. Cold-Smoking is the most difficult to achieve on a consistent basis so, if you're just starting out, I recommend Hot-Smoking. This gives a fully cooked product and can handle the greatest range of fish. Smoked Mackerel, Eel, Salmon, Sturgeon, even small Haddock and Cod can be delicious if hot smoked.
A simple Hot-Smoker can be an old refrigerator — or even a barrel can work reasonably well. Just make sure what you are using is clean. Clean sawdust from a cabinet-maker (NOT from a power-saw-it's got chain-oil in it!) or a local saw-mill. Get the finest "grind" you can. If the dust is too coarse the point of flame temperature may get too high and you'll wind up with a raging fire. Remember, a slow, smoldering fire is what you need. An electric hot-plate (to provide the heat required), an indoor/outdoor thermometer (this allows you to monitor the smoke temperature to ensure it comes up slowly and regularly), a few racks (stainless steel, or chrome-plated steel/brass will work fine but NO exposed brass, copper or other material that corrodes quickly or you could start ingesting some very undesirable elements).
Arbroath Smokies
Haddocks, gutted and beheaded, Tails tied, brined, hung over wooden sticks, and smoked over a barrel.

Buckling
Hot Smoked Herring Years ago I used an old bucket with some heavy steel mesh over the top (to prevent "smuts" or ash from blowing onto your fish) and lit my sawdust in that. At the time I also scavenged the fan from an old computer and stuck that at the top to blow the smoke about a little. We would recommend sitting your kiln away from anything else that can burn (it wouldn't be the first time someone either burnt their house down or caught the woods on fire at the cottage doing this and it can really be a drag on the whole weekend!).
Process the fish. Keep plenty of notes, including times, weather, temperature (inside the kiln and out), salt/brining times and strengths (brine strength can be measured using a hygrometer available from a hardware store (car battery tester) or from a brew shop (measuring alcohol levels). They all do the same thing-measure the density of water so when you add water the density increases and it floats higher in the solution. Below is a table to refer to:
Percentage Salt in Solution
Percentage Salt by Wgt.
Pounds of Salt per Imp. gal. water



Because liquids become more or less dense with temperature the above table is for use with water at about 60°F. After your first experiment. Cool the fish rapidly after it reaches ambient temperature. Sample the product yourself before you feed it to any anyone else. Keep everything VERY clean and disinfected. Most of your products will keep very well in a fridge (well wrapped) for about 10 days.

Source illustrations and technical references:
Fish Smoking, A Torry Kiln Operator's Handbook
Torry Research Station, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
Ministry of Technology, Edinburgh 1963

LION

animal2

BY SEYI JOHN

The rebellious teenage son of a former colleague used to confront his father with this taunt: "Say, Dad, what's new in history?"

He had a point. The past has already happened, so it seems difficult to discover something new about it. Unlike archaeologists, few historians unearth buried treasures or undiscovered archives that reveal the secrets of a past civilization we didn't even know existed.

Instead, the most innovative historians rework familiar material from the past by thinking about it in new ways. Forty years ago, in an intellectual revolution that accompanied the other revolts of the '60s, historians began to study the lives of working people, immigrants, women, African-Americans, Chicanos and other marginalized groups. The masses of ordinary people, previously treated as bit players in a drama staged by kings and statesmen, moved to the center of the stage.

More recently, historians have tried to assess the interior lives of other groups whose history has often been told through the voices of others -- gays in a society that privileges heterosexuality, for example, or colonial subjects of imperial states.

But once the subjective perspective of nearly every human group on the planet has become part of written history, what remains? Well, animals. Yes, what's new in history? The animal turn. Thirty years ago, in an attempt to parody the new social history, "Charles Phineas" (a pseudonym) wrote a mock essay in which he proclaimed that the history of household pets remains too much the history of their masters, revealing more about the owning society than the owned. Little did Professor Phineas imagine that a new generation of historians would eventually produce scholarship that addressed his mock complaint.

No doubt Fox News and Rush Limbaugh will have a field day with this one, but in fact animals have their own subjective history, too.

A few cutting-edge historians have begun to argue that animals are not just beasts of burden, material resources or wild threats to the spread of civilization, to be domesticated, eaten or exterminated by human beings. Instead, animals behave in ways peculiar to their own identity, and their independent actions impact human history in sometimes surprising ways. In the catchphrase of the history generated by the 1960s, animals have agency. If racism long distorted the way historians discussed the history of African-Americans (as it did), "speciesism" does the same for the way humans have written about animals. Until now.

What do we know?

But how do we write the subjective history of animals? Talk about the history of the "inarticulate"; animals certainly have not left any written sources, and oral history is not of much use. Still, creative historians have looked at familiar sources with new eyes to explore them for clues about human-animal relationships in the past. One of the first books to do this was Harriet Ritvo's 1987 study of the role of animals in symbolizing class relations in Victorian England, The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creatures in the Victorian Age (Harvard University Press, $18.95). Ritvo's book offered a detailed social history of the way the 19th-century English treated livestock, pets and rabid dogs at home, and big game in their empire.

Still, in Ritvo's account, animals mostly remained the objects of human action, whether as prize possessions, as public-health menaces or as exotic beasts. More recent scholarship has given animals a voice of their own. As Erica Fudge writes in an introduction to her recent edited collection of essays on animal history in the 17th century, Renaissance Beasts: Of Animals, Humans, and Other Wonderful Creatures (University of Illinois Press, $39.95), this newer endeavor considers animals as beings in the world who may themselves create change -- that is, who make history.

A fine example of this approach is Virginia DeJohn Anderson's Creatures of Empire: How Domestic Animals Transformed Early America (Oxford University Press, $37.50), a fascinating examination of the interactions among Indians, colonists and livestock in Colonial North America. Anderson's book, published last year, relies on traditional written sources about animal husbandry, Colonial settlement and Indian-European relationships. Yet the cattle, who were never wholly under human control, definitely become full participants in this history: They produced changes not only in the land but also in the hearts and minds and behavior of the peoples who dealt with them, claims Anderson, a professor at the University of Colorado.

Liberated from the close supervision of English animal husbandry, formerly domesticated animals virtually ran wild in America. Without much control by colonists, who were too busy planting tobacco, many cattle and swine became feral. These animals then encroached on Indian territory and abetted European expansion at native expense. Thus, Anderson says with some justice, livestock deserve a place in the narrative of American history. By incorporating animals into her narrative, Anderson manages to tell a familiar story of Colonial settlement and cultural conflict in a fresh way.

Changing the equation

Some scholars go even further, if not eliminating humans from animal-centered history altogether, at least relegating them to a secondary role. At a conference last year in Montana, I heard a young faculty member named Brett Walker present a wolf-centered paper about the history and reintroduction of these animals in Yellowstone National Park. While Walker had to endure the mocking howls his colleagues set up outside the lecture hall (really!), inside he made an utterly convincing case that the story of Yellowstone cannot be understood unless we take into account the behavior of the wolves who have lived there -- behavior driven by their own instinctual logic, rather than purely as a response to the intrusions of human beings upon their terrain.

Walker, a historian of Japan who teaches at Montana State University, has just published a stunningly original book about the Japanese veneration and then extermination of wolves that incorporates this wolf perspective. In The Lost Wolves of Japan (University of Washington Press, $35), Walker notes that his experiences observing wolves in Yellowstone helped him recognize that Japan's wolves were living and breathing creatures with agency, experiences and stories of their own. Extinct Japanese wolves, Walker argues, harbor a yet-unheard perspective on that country's past. For now, The Lost Wolves of Japan probably goes beyond any other history book in insisting that animals are complex beings with emotional lives who experience historical lives.

The animal turn in historical scholarship is part of a larger intellectual trend, known as animal studies or human-animal relations. Drawing eclectically on the fields of environmental history, psychology, cultural geography, bioethics and anthropology, scholars have begun to think about how humans have constructed their identities around encounters with animals, both wild and domesticated. No emerging field can do without its scholarly journal, and animal studies is no exception. Society & Animals is a multidisciplinary quarterly that, in its own words, "explores the ways in which nonhuman animals figure in human lives."

By no means is the animal turn a neutral approach to history. Just as the upsurge of black and women's history of the 1960s grew in tandem with the black and women's liberation movements, the animal turn is part of today's project of animal liberation. Like their counterparts in other disciplines, the new animal historians have a strong ethical commitment to animal rights and reject the apparently natural dominion of the human species over all others. They seek to connect the academy and the abattoir, as Fudge puts it.

Most of these scholars probably draw their inspiration from the controversial philosopher Peter Singer, whose 1975 book Animal Liberation (Ecco, $14.95) represents a kind of early manifesto for the animal-rights movement. But even if you are not a vegetarian -- this is Texas, after all -- don't dismiss this fascinating work. Thinking about the history of animals in new ways allows us to reconsider what it means to be human. As Fudge puts it, we can learn more about humans by understanding what they claimed they were not: animals.

Alex Lichtenstein teaches human history at Rice University.