Talk:Francis Willughby

Removed text

In 2003 Willughby's scientific study of games was published (under the name Francis Willughby's Book of Games), making generally available for the first time in-depth descriptions of a number of seventeenth century games. It was the first such work in the English language, and is comparable to the Spanish Libro de los juegos. His early account of football is particularly noteworthy as he refers to football by its correct name and is the first to describe the following: goals and a pitch ("a close that has a gate at either end. The gates are called Goals"), tactics ("leaving some of their best players to guard the goal"), scoring ("they that can strike the ball through their opponents' goal first win") and the way teams were selected ("the players being equally divided according to their strength and nimbleness"). He is the first to describe a law of football: "They often break one another's shins when two meet and strike both together against the ball, and therefore there is a law that they must not strike higher than the ball". His account of the ball itself is also very informative: "They blow a strong bladder and tie the neck of it as fast as they can, and then put it into the skin of a bull's cod and sew it fast in". He adds: "The harder the ball is blown, the better it flies. They used to put quicksilver into it sometimes to keep it from lying still".

The above was incorrectly placed in this biography. Shyamal (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove this? Willughby did write this book, and it is of HUGE importance to the history of football. There is no error, he was the same man. Please see this link: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/manuscriptsandspecialcollections/collectionsindepth/family/middleton/biographies/biographyoffranciswillughbyfrs(1635-1672).aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.236.94 (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

When I removed that section it was uncited and looked dubious. It can certainly be included with a proper citation. Shyamal (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Natural history collection at Wollaton Hall

I've removed the claim that the collection is Ray and Willughby's. Much of it certainly isn't, as the collection is from the city, not the Hall, and many specimens are more recent; also, the claim is uncited and I can't find evidence of its truth. If you know of such, by all means replace it with the citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Informal review

The article looks great. I'll note here my random comments.

• The last sentence "Even Willoughby’s own collection of 170 plates and nature paintings seem intended to be intended ..." has too many "intended"s.
• Footnote b "A Fellow-commoner paid double..." needs a reference.

More later. -Aa77zz (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• "Ray published three books on birds, fish and invertebrates, the Ornithologiae libri tres, Historia Piscium and Historia Insectorum." I find this sentence confusing especially as in the Works section you treat the Ornithologiae as three books - "The first of the three books included an introduction to bird biology". (libri tres = three books?) - Aa77zz (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps "Ray published three books on birds..." -Aa77zz (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Cited texts

• Charmantier et al 2016 is not cited - Aa77zz (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• Sap. It would be nice to replace Hutton et al (1809) with a link to a scan of the actual article available from BHL. Note that first names aren't provided and Ray is written as Wray:
  • Willughby, F.; Wray, J. (1669). "Concerning the motion of the sap in trees made this spring". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 48: 963–965. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zz, Many thanks, I'll start working through these. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zz, all done. I feel like a sap missing the original paper especially as Birkhead mentioned it as his source, silly error with Charmantier, although first time around I misspelt both of Kususawa's names.Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• "The Historia Piscium was finally published in Latin in 1678 with a dedication to Samuel Pepys," I suspect that the year should be 1686 - see the British Library Catalogue (The Icthyographia has a separate engraved titlepage, dated 1685.) Also see the comments beneath the Internet Archive Scan - Aa77zz (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that seems to have wandered from the Ornithology, I'll fix Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Ray died in January 1705, and little happened with the book ..." As this is a new paragraph perhaps mention the name Historia Insectorum again. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• OK, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• "The book was published in Latin as Ornithologiae libri tres in 1676.[61] The first of the three books included..." This is confusing. Perhaps mention that the "three books" in Ornithologiae libri tres are in a single volume - the first "book" is only around 24 pages.

Perhaps simpler just to replace the second book by "part". - Aa77zz (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Was the translation of the Ornithologiae the first book on birds to be published in English?
• From a personal perspective I would like to read more about Ornithology but I admit this may be more suitable for separate article. I don't have access to Birkhead et al 2016 but from googling and looking at the book itself there are many interesting details. For example Willughby and Ray use asterisks to denote species that they hadn't seen and have "borrowed their descriptions of others".(Brisson copied the use of asterisks). More could be said about the 77 bird plates (78 in the translation) - Who drew the original pictures? There is some information in Flis 2015. It is also mentioned here. I notice that Linnaeus in his 10th ed frequently cites Willughby (as Will. orn.).- Aa77zz (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
• "Perhaps the first book on birds in English was William Turner's 1544.." Turner's book was in Latin Avium præcipuarum, quarum apud Plinium et Aristotelem mentio est, brevis et succincta historia here. The 1903 book in Sources is a translation. Perhaps Turner's book was the first on English birds. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I've just realised that! I can't find anything earlier in English, but I'm reluctant to make the claim when none of the sources I've found do. I think "first on English birds" is a bit peripheral, especially as the Ornithology was global in its range. I've reorganised the lengthy "Works" section and added an outline of the sources. There is more on this than you might think, but again I'm wary of this getting too long. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Last sentence of article: "seems to be intended not just provide individual illustrations," there appears to be a missing "to" here - Aa77zz (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'll fix that. Incidentally, I've followed Birkhead rather than Flis on Francis Barlow. It's clearly the case that those paintings were the basis of the engraved plates, but no evidence for a commission from the authors. Why would they commission expensive oil paintings for monochrome plates, and why would they be in the Royal collection, not FW's? Also a search of Hodnett's biography of Barlow gave no results for Willughby or Ray Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

• Bibliography. The placement at the end of the article after the references is unusual. Normally the list of an author's works appears before the "See also" section. This is specified in the MOS page MOS:ORDER. For the section title MOS:BIB states ""Bibliography" is discouraged because it is not clear whether it is limited to the works of the subject of the article." In the Francis Willughby article the Bibliography includes works by Ray and Wilkins so consider retaining the heading but moving it to above the Notes. It is slightly hidden at the moment. (I use the links to the IA as I like looking at scans of the original books) - Aa77zz (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Fine, this bio is a new departure for me, so I've never had a bibliography before. I'll do as you recommend Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Sir Thomas having moved into Woolaton Hall in 1687" presumably a typo for Wollaton Hall mentioned earlier.
• "the Royal Society finally published in 1710 in Latin, incomplete, unillustrated and under Ray's name only," - missing "it"?
• "like the Woolaton manuscript, have now been lost." What is the Woolaton/Wollaton manuscript? Was it written by Willughby? - Aa77zz (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• All done, I can't help thinking of it as WOOLaton, despite having been there. I've rejigged the last sentence you mentioned to make it clearer. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• "made a diversion to buy a book of wildlife paintings from a Leonard Baldner". Need a link to Leonhard Baldner - check the spelling of first name. (thanks to Shyamal for creating this article) In Baldner's book the paintings were used to illustrate the handwritten text - perhaps "a handwritten book containing wildlife paintings". (See this beautiful copy of a 1666 version). I think you should add a little on the significance of this book.

Willughby and Ray seem to have considered both the pictures and the text important as they had the German text translated into English by Frederick Slare (MS in BL - see p. 338 here). Slare is acknowledged in the Preface to Historia Piscium.

In the Preface to the Ornithology Ray mentions Baldner's book and writes "For my part, I must needs acknowledge that I have received much light and information from the Work of this poor man, and have been thereby inabled to clear many difficulties, and rectifie some mistakes in Gesner."

Birkhead singled out Baldner's book in his talk given at the Royal Society in 2012 (External links)(9:30-11:15) and stated "I'm sure it helped to forge their own thinking". It seems that Baldner's book influenced the approach taken by Willughby and Ray to their own (printed) books on natural history. Aa77zz (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zz, all makes sense, I'll expand in the morning Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zz, I made these changes. Birkhead 2018 has seven pages on Baldner. It's obvious that Willughby bought the book for its paintings, since he could not have read the text when he made the purchase. Ray didn't meet Baldner, hence the misleading "Poor man", and if he had actually seen Stare's translation, he largely ignored it. For example, Baldner had described from first-hand study how bitterns boomed, Ray said that the mechanism was unknown. Although Baldner and the Englishmen shared an empirical philosophy, the German had little influence in more concrete terms. I'll probably take this to FAC later today or tomorrow, many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Jim Changes look good. I wonder when Slare made the translation. Ray mentioned it in the preface to Historia Piscium which was published 10 years after the Ornithologiae. I've tried looking in the online catalogue of the British Library for Willughby's copy of Baldner's book (using all the variant spellings) without success. (Gurney gives the catalogue numbers as Addl. MS 6485 and MS 6486) This isn't the first time I've failed to find documents in the BL manuscript catalogue - even when I know the numbers. Perhaps the online version of the catalogue isn't complete - but then this should be made clear on the search page. I'll ask when I next visit the library.

Willughby's other copy of Baldner's book along with a collection of pictures is now in the library of Brown University. They were bought in 1995 for £87,300 at Christies (Lot 56). -Aa77zz (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zz, I wondered the same about the date of the translation, but I can't find anything on that. Birkhead says the version you mention may be the original, since the poorer illustrations may be by Baldner himself. He also says that Walther illustrated the two Willughby copies (BL and Phillips/Lownes) and the Cassell copy, so he doesn't agree that the version you mentioned was owned by FW. In the circumstances, I'll steer clear of that in the article! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zz Looking again, the Brown University copy is the Lownes version, but may not be the one sold at Christies Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis

A very good read. On the book of probabilities in games of chance, once highly profitable and jealously guarded information, are there other authorship claims? cygnis insignis 08:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, not quite sure what you are asking. Since the manuscript no longer exists, we know nothing of its contents. Ray and FW were both competent mathematicians, but AFAIK Ray never mentioned it, and far more of his manuscripts survive than FW's Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, I get that a lot, it's not just you ;| It is not clear to me how this lost work is being discussed, although that is not an uncommon occurrence, or the nature of the evidence on its subject matter (Wardhaugh). The quote is from Willughby, I'm supposing, who and where the quote is from might be added. Maybe you have scraped out all that can be said about the lost book, or I am overlooking something and being a bother, it was the only query I had in a well written and informative article. Regards, cygnis insignis 13:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

And for next time you have a similar ref situation, there is a similar system that clicks through again to full citation. There is an example demostrated in a recent FA, red-capped parrot, someone with a script could convert this article if you thought it desirable. cygnis insignis 14:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis, the quote is actually by his daughter, now clarified and sourced. Wardhaugh has little more; he talks about the work on probabilities by contemporaries, and suggests that he may have worked on cards and dice, since he dealt with these in the book of games, but it's all guesswork. As for the refs, I ended up with the system i always use in my FAs, so I'm comfortable with as is. Thanks again, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, no worries, should be a breeze getting this to FA. cygnis insignis 15:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

References

@Jimfbleak: Would be good to cover some of the contents from Gurney's Early annals of ornithology - the memorial tablet to Willughby maybe a good addition if some higher quality image was available. Shyamal (talk) 12:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shyamal: I can go to Middleton and take a picture, but I've been putting off doing so because I can't find out when the church is open, so I was planning to wait until the hall opens for the spring. Perhaps I'll take a chance and go at the weekend, weather permitting, and visit the RSPB reserve if the church is shut.

Did you have anything else particularly in mind from Gurney? Quite a lot of what he mentions is in Birkhead, but for reasons of length I've had to omit quite a lot of detail, such as the description of the roller and the details of the Caldey visit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I found particularly the books that he had access to of some interest - Rondeletius, Gesner, Aldrovandus, Piso, Ferranti, Olina, Collaert - see. Regarding the tablet, it appears that there is also one at Southwell Minster. Would the epitaph be worth of interest - https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/17303547 - Volume 5 of the Naturalists' Library is also worth having in the references for anyone who would like to go beyond only Birkhead's interpretations of his sources. Shyamal (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shyamal:, Ok thanks for that. I'm up to my neck in TFA scheduling this afternoon, but I'll look in the morning Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shyamal:, I've added the epitaph to ELs. The Southwell memorial isn't as imposing as the Middle ton one, and is much further. I'll have to check Gurney against Birkhead tomorrow, since the more recent source should be used where they overlap, and I know Birkhead deals with most of those texts mentioned by Gurney. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Shyamal:, I've added a bit more on sources, including links to Gurney. I think that's probably enough since I don't want to get too bogged down in detail. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Weirdness in preview

The preview of this article says that Willughby was a "psychological condition" regarding body odor.. April's fool? --Alricb (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Temporary vandalism Peaceray (talk) 00:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

"First naturalist to capture and accurately describe a hippogryph" or "thestral" would be an April Fool prank. "Smell my farts" or "Mehmet + Suzie 4 Ever!!!" is always just middle-school vandalism. — LlywelynII 01:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Latin Name

Should be given somewhere on the page, since his major works were written in it and the transcription in the nonobvious Franciscus Willughbeius (nom.) and Francisci Willughbeii in the genitive form that appears in the titles of his books. The full names of the works should be given in the notes since you have that section anyway. — LlywelynII 01:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Added the nominative case form in lead. Shyamal (talk) 05:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)