If you have read many of Mayr's other books, including _This is Biology_, _The Growth of Biological Thought_, _Systematics and the Origin of Species_, and _Evolution and the Diversity of Life_, you have read elaborations on most of the topics featured in _Toward a New Philosophy of Biology._ I was interested to read some of Mayr's older thoughts on subjects I now associate with him - genetic revolutions, allopatric speciation, the biological species and certainly selectionism - and this book has particularly helped me to better understand the nature of both Mayr's abiding and his more changing arguments.

Some of the observations in this book were first delivered as addresses by Mayr, and these were especially interesting to consider in the context of their audience and time. Others of the observations are taken from previously published articles, some of which are featured in his other works. Mayr's reflections on more volatile tenets of his field (especially punctuational evolution) are familiar, and interesting to trace from their earlier publications to their more recent adaptations.

I recommend this book wholeheartedly for what it is, especially to students interested in the history of evolutionism and related philosophy.

I have found this to be one of the best treatments of biology, philosophy, evolution, and other related issues that is available. Perhaps this is so because it was not written by a computational biologist, but rather by a "real" biologist, and one who has seen everything since the NeoDarwinian synthesis that he contributed to. I strongly recommend this book to everyone with more than a passing interest in biology.

Science necessitates focus. Surveys and summaries of a field by leading scientists are rare in part because so few have the tenure and perspective to take a global view. When such surveys are executed, they often suffer from the author thinking too much of the entry-level audience and not enough of the need for sweeping but accurate description of the trends and relationships that unite and shape the field. This book succeeds in formulating a portrait of biology, and an assessment of Biology's role in all science from perspectives rooted in philosophy, techniques, and most importantly its conclusions. There is a unique elegance in a great amalgamation of the sinews underlying the thousands of journal and research magazine pages of a massive and fundamental field. But such an summary is not easy reading, nor is it always filled with the drama some popular scientific books have attained. This book is not pop science. It is a science book for the educated person wanting to have a feel for where biology

Mayr's book is a superb reflection on the place biology deserves among the sciences and among all other intellectual disciplines. He clearly explains the accomplishments and uniqueness of biological science. As one would expect, his reflections on evolutionary biology are his strongest.

This is an excellent and extremely accessible (but not in a dumbed down sense) introduction to biology. My only serious complaint is in Mayr's treatment of ethics, which is a good example of what bad can happen when a specialist doesn't stick to his specialty. His discussion of the possible biological origins of certain ethical behavior starts off fine, with an explication of how though individualistic selection can produce egoism, kinship selection and group selection can extend an organism's altruistic "interest" to other members of its kin or, larger, to its group. So far so good. But as Mayr notes what Darwin pointed out, altruistic behavior via kinship selection never extends to every member of a species. So by the end of the discussion of the biology of altruistic behavior, what we have are explanations for why someone might act altruistically towards their "in-group". Yet later, in discussing the proposition that moral inclinations are not innate, Mayr appears to endorse the proposition that reprehensible behavior towards minorities (including slavery) is, as Mayr put it, "amoral". But a group subordinating the interests of an outgroup for the benefit of the ingroup is precisely what one would expect from Mayr's biological account of altrusitic behavior directed solely towards one's ingroup! At the very least, Mayr gives a good account for why one would be biologically inclined to act altruistically towards one's ingroup, but provides zero biological reason for any transgroup universal altruism. From then on, Mayr only gets worse, delving into the murky fields of philosophy and moral theology. Aside from Mayr's wildly overstated implication that Darwin proved that God has nothing to do with the origin of morality (when did biology start coming up with transcendental proofs like that?), Mayr further sullies an otherwise excellent book by critiquing Judeo-Christian ethics' relevance in today's world. That has nothing to do with biology, and if someone wanted to read much better discussions on such a subject, there are much better treatments in the philosophy section of the bookstore. Furthermore, Mayr's broad brush overview of Judeo-Christian morality reeks of straw man superficiality. Perhaps Mayr didn't think it worth his time to study serious treatments on Judeo-Christian morality, but if he didn't, he shouldn't have broached the subject in a biology book. Finally, that Mayr can discuss the scientific bases of morality without mentioning the classic problem of the "naturalistic fallacy" (i.e. in this context, what IS the case biologically, does not entail what OUGHT to be the case morally), AKA the "fact-value gap", indicates how superficial (or unread) a discussion of ethics Mayr engages in. If creationists sound silly talking about biology, biologists should get a clue about how they must sound when they try to talk seriously about theology and moral philosophy.

While Mayr took on a monumental task in researching the history of ideas in 3 important areas of biology, this book feels limited. The most glaring weakness I found is the heavy Eurocentrism displayed throughout. It gives no mention to the large contribution made by scientists in Asia to many of the issues it addresses. The book also feels highly repetitive in some areas, explaining the same concepts every few pages at times. I feel that it would have been better served as a series of books, each one more detailed in the branch of biology with which it is concerned.

Ernst Mayr's comprehensive history of biological thought is nothing less than the story of man's discovery of his own place in nature. Mayr goes back centuries in this fascinating detective story of man's attempt to make sense of all the similarities and all the diversity of organic life, as well as the changes in life forms and the makeup of the earth as found in the geological record. Mankind's attempts to understand life forms through their categorization is fully discussed. Mayr is exceptionally good in his lengthy review of evolutionary thought and brings it up to date throught the century following Darwin. He ends by dealing with the problem of inheritance and the development of genetic theory which is brought up through the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. Throughout the work Mayr retains a focus on the place of biological thought in the history of science. He clearly shows how historians and philosophers of science have made serious errors by assuming that physics and mathematics present the perfect models for the "scientific method." He illustrates how biological understanding does not often fit those paradigms. A real strength of his book is how he develops the "conceptual" universe of thinkers and researchers as they struggled with the problems posed by biological diversity and change. "In biological science," he says, "our understanding of the world is achieved more effectively by conceptual improvements than by the discovery of new facts." Pertinent here is what he refers to as the "strait jacket of Plato's essentialism" that influenced thinking right into the 20th century. He also demonstrates why it was so important that biologists began to ask "why?" instead of simply "how?" One particular hi-lite of Mayr's book is his "rehabilitation" of the reputation of Jean Baptiste Lamarck who is so often disparaged in texts which use him as "the" example of all that was wrong with biological thinking prior to Darwin. Mayr clearly shows the power of Lamarck's thought and reveals that he, more than anyone, "discovered the Achilles heel of natural theology" with his insight that "a species must likewise change forever in order to remain in harmonious balance with the environment." This book is not a quick read as it is packed with information. But it is a fascinating detective story that should be seen as required reading for any educated individual. It is often hard to put it down as one is constantly looking forward to seeing how men solved the various problems of biological change and the nature of organic life.

There is history in biological thought and not only an accumulation of knowledge as it is commonly assumed. Knowledge is an interpretation of facts and is dependent on concepts about the world or even the process of cognition. This book deals with the part of dependency on concepts about the world which were used to research and explain the found data. For me it was an eye-opener because in school we learned, that there is just one eternal biology about wich one cannot argue. After genetics we may no more be able to argue, but because of other reasons:-)

I bought this book as a brief introduction to SJ Gould's opus "A History of Evolutionary Theory." I have no idea how well it will prepare me because I have not yet tackled that tome.

Let me say a few things what this book is not about:

1) It is not an argument in any real sense of the term, at least the book does not give us a glimpse of the passions in the scientific community in the mid-19th Cen. Mayr's style is more descriptive. He describes the current thinking in Darwin's time and the, mostly philosophical, rational debates that Darwin's ideas were immersed.

2) There is no real background of description of the people around Darwin except to enumerate their thoughts in contrast or in support to him. We get some good background of Darwin's personal life when it is relevant to an idea, but this slender volume is about the battle of ideas, but at least in Mayr's work, the passion largely omited.

3) The work deals with Evolution and how Darwin and others around him reached rational scientific conclusions on certain ideas. It is testament to the intrinsic simplicity of the idea (its relative ease to being proved wrong -- yet was not) that motivated the personalities around him Darwin until Evolution became the firmanent for the scientific understanding of the origin of species and the rise of genetic theory.

4) The books lacks most of the later day varients of Darwinism, there is little about Gould's punctuated equilibrium or Dawkins' selfish genes. The reason is that these ideas compliment the theory and do not challenge any major central idea of the descent of man or the evolution of species --- all understood and accepted by the scientific community by about 1900.

5) This not a book about the "debate" between creationism and science. This is a serious scientific, philosphic study and those topics such as teleos and the saltation (spontaneous creation) theory of the origin of species are only discussed in relationship they had on the scientific mind of the 19th Century. By the 20th Cen. such ideas had been relegated to the fringe and off the scientific plate of ideas. A true testament to the brilliance of Darwin.

The reading style, while not like Gould or Matt Ridley, is pleasant but the emphasis on the philosophic underpinnings of Darwin means that the debate does not deal with any empirical issues. He is intersted in Argument and the history of the Scientifc Argument.

I gave the book an overall 3 because although I realise that Mayr is one of the best minds in the area of the history of evolution theory I found the book losing my interest at points. How it prepares me for Gould's Opus Major I will only know when I have the guts to tackle the whole 1800 pages of it.....

The title "One Long Arguement", it is a reference to part of Darwin's introductory description to The Origin of Species (appearing within Origin itself). This book is not about arguing with Creationists (Thank God ;). I suspect the above reviewers were misled to the point that they felt rating stars must be subtracted. Don't be fooled by title bashers. This is an excellent history and theory primer for the novice and a nice knowledge gap filler for those well-read in the science of evolution and biology.

Creationists have claimed that geology has conspired to support evolution. This book just shows how ridiculous that claim really is. Geologists tossed out the idea of "Flood Geology" long before Darwin arrived on the scene. The idea of an old Earth was developed independently of Darwin. Also interesting is that Darwin was well respected among his fellow scientists, even though they did not initially accept his idea of evolution. His work on the Beagle was considered important, and it alone was sufficent to establish Darwin's scientific reputation. He was already famous (in his day) before his landmark work.

Many scientists in Darwin's time were old earth creationists. In time, many of them were persuaded by the mass of evidence that Darwin had collected, although it would be a long time before natural selection was accepted as the mechanism. So, it is possible to not accept natural evolution and still accept the idea of common descent. Creationists try to argue that evolution is a package deal, that if one idea is out of place or not quite right, then the whole thing should be tossed out. This notion is just wrong, and reading this book will help the reader understand why. In general, creationists exploit the public's poor understanding of the scientific method. While one fact can be enough to completely toss out a theory, what often happens is that old theories get revised to accomdate the new facts. Successful, powerful theories (like Darwins) tend to evolve.

Ernst Mayr represents 60 years of published knowledge of evolution, starting with his involvement in the "modern synthesis" in the 1940's. This text provides a readable introduction to Darwin's five major theories of evolution (Don't know what they are? ... better read the book!) and a clear definition of the biological species concept. He emphasis on evolution occurring on populations and the elimination of the unfit individual is important (in contrast to Richard Dawkins view of the gene as the target of selection). The book is well organized, with short sections that lead you along. The illustrations help explain some of the concepts, and a minor beef is that some of those copied from other books have been reduced too much (maybe the eye needs a little more evolution after all!).

The concluding part of the book, on human evolution, will be the most controversial and intriguing. Mayr presents his view of the lineage and makes no pretense that this view is fact ... but is merely a point of discussion. The short section on evolution of human ethics perhaps may be a little weak, considering the body of work on evolutionary psychology. The final chapter on "The future of evolutionary" thought, may intrigue developing biologists, and brings home the practicality of evolutionary studies to pesticides and pests, and viruses and man.

My impression matches that of reviewer Dennis Littrell: an excellent introduction, but definitely not a "Dummies" series book. Mayr's book is extremely well-organized and actually gets better as it progresses. One of the finest chapters is near the end, "How Did Mankind Evolve?" where he spells out what we know and where the holes are in the human evolutionary record.

Diagrams are usually very clear and a reader can see the work of a strong editor. "What Evolutions Is" includes an FAQ (frequently-asked questions list); glossary; and appendix covering key evolutionary issues.

The reasons that it's not "Evolution for Dummies" is that it is replete with biological jargon and has occasional annoying lapses.

The hardest chapters for the non-biologist are about the simplest of animals. Ironically it's because these simple creatures have the longest names and a narrow significance to biologists, e.g., "The protostomes and deuterstomes derived from ancestral bilateralian." What that last sentence means is "Multicellular animals split into two types of basic embryo formation."

An example of one of the lapses, Mayr uses "mya" as an abbreviation in dating of specieis throughout the book but it's Chapter 11 before "mya" is defined as "million years ago."

Mayr covers an interesting range of 12 topics in the book and he avoids the typical trap of taking the history of evolutionary biology in chronological order, as many issues finish as dead ends. Rather, he treats the main threads of evolutionary biology and succinctly describes how the scientific evidence has been gathered via paleontology, anthropology, genetics and biology.

It would be hard for a non-biologist to read this book and not find several surprises.

What Evolution Is written by Ernst Mayr is a well written lucid account of the current accepted explanation of evolution. This compelling book by the grand old man of evolutionary biology really brings home, to the general reader, a spirited defense of the Darwinian explanation of evolutionary biology.

Mayr really gets to the heart of the question... why evolution, what evidence, and the role of organic diversity. Mayr has spent seventy years in search of the answers and reading this book reveals answers to some of the most challenging problems posed by evolutionary theory, or as Mayr likes to put it, evolutionary fact.

Yes, those who need more evidence to prove evolution; why are you hedging. The clains of the creationists have been refuted so frequently and so thoroughly that there is no need to cover this subject once more. Publications by Alters, Eldredge, Futuyma, Kitcher, Montagu, Newell, Peacocke, Ruse, and Young all are in concert with Mayr... evolution is fact.

Mayr believes that the story of evolution as it is worked out during the past fifty years continues to be attacked and criticized. The critics either hold an entirely different ideology, as do the creationists, or they simply misunderstand the Darwinian paradigm. The dogma of religion should be left out of the discussions of evolution as irrelevant, as religion is not a biological process.

Mayr discusses the reductionist approach, an approach that reduces everything down to the level of the gene. As Mayr describes this in a refreshingly nontechnical language, you can appreciate evolutionary phenomena much better.

An interesting section toward the back of the book in the fianl section where Mayr has a rather provocative approach of evolution as it is related to viewpoints and values of modern man. I found this to be very enlightening and fascinatingly compelling bringing insight and clarity to human evolution, and how did mankind evolve.

If you like to read about evolution, evolutionary biology, and want a clear straight forward appoach, this is the book for you as Mayr pulls no punches as the question is asked... Are humans alone? Are we the only intelligent beings in this vast universe? Mayr says, "Alas, the rutted road from bacteria to humans is long and difficult. Following the origin of life on Earth there were nothing but prokaryotes for the next billion years, and highly intelligent life originated only about 300,000 years ago, in a single one of the more than one billion species that had arisen on Earth. These are indeed long odds."

"Yes, for all practical purposes, man is alone." We can only consider this that evolution is something unexpected, but it happened anyway dispelling the odds.

I read the original version of "The origin of Species" a few years ago. As a naive secondary year student, I beleived in most of its contents. After that, when I started to think how animal behavor is programmed and how mutation (s) in such program can completely null the system as a whole, I started to ask myself how, then, these creatures (Ants, Bees,......etc) were the source of another more evoluted species or how they evolved from lower species. Actually, mutations can not attribute to the origin of such behavor(work in group, assigning the job to specific members...etc). Meanwhile, in the lab. scientists could not transform cyanobacteria to algae or bacteria to yeast.........etc. The only appreciated points of Darwin were his observations; modifications and variation. Science so far was not able to prove that life has evolved from nothing; the idea of the first cell (the first anscetor) still controversial. Meanwhile biochemical analyses proved that all creatures contain the same organic elements (N, C, H) and inorganic ones (P, S,...etc). Surperisingly, these analyses proved that Mud contain all of these elements and do not contain any toxic elements that are toxic to humans, for example. If anybody looked carefully to the DNA and how this molecule is well-arganized and how many enzymes are keeping this molecule in its normal conformation and maintain its function, He/She could get the point that cells generally are elaborately programmed; exaclty in a manner resembles that computer programs. Cells excute these programs starting from their brith to death and any change in this program cause serious problems. Fossils showed insects with the same compund eyes exactly like that insects that are surviving nowadays. Some fossils, also, showed different species, which are supposed not to be together, in the same historic era. we know also now that must of the mutations are harmful and fatal to the organisms(for example, in humans mutations cause sever diseases). Meanwhile research on HIV showed that mutations in this virus never originate a new viral species, but result in defective HIV viruses that could not replicate, assemble, and therefore not able to re infect its host to survive. Actually, similarity among the species can not prove they originated from each other(if we argue that sequence homology between Mankey and human, for example, is so close and so they are relative, this is not true). My opinion does not refute the book; it contains very old concepts that should be revised and corrected.

NOTE that this is a review of the Harvard University Press facsimile of the first edition of "On the Origin of Species" (intro by Ernst Mayr). This is NOT a commentary on Darwin's text.

I blithely bought and began reading the Modern Library's "Origin", then came across this facsimile of the first edition in the library. Hmm, I wondered. I used the quotations in the front of my copy to deduce that I was reading the sixth (and last) edition, rather than the first. While that, too, has its considerable interest in illustrating the twists and turns of Darwin's thought during those years, the evolution revolution was made by the first edition. As Ernst Mayr says in his introduction, "When we go back to the Origin, we want the version that stirred up the Western world, the first edition." Besides which, if one is going to do any historical research, one needs this edition, for contemporary references use the first edition's pagination.

But most importantly, this is the firstborn of Darwin's mind, long gestating, and contains his most confident and positive statement of his thesis. He had tried to anticipate all the major objections to his theory and answer them preemptively here. Still, at the time of this writing he had no critics, so the tone and content display none of that waffling that mar, to a certain extent, the final edition.

This volume was put together in 1964, and Ernst Mayr's introduction dates from that time. It is a good historical introduction to Darwin and his contribution, and some more specific remarks on the first edition, its general approach and some of its path-breaking arguments. Also included in the extra matter is a bibliography of Darwin's published works, plus current works on evolution, as of 1964. There is also a quite comprehensive index of the text, which should make the book considerably more usable to us than it was to Darwin's original readers.

My only gripe is that Harvard University Press only offers a paperback, although it used to have a hardcover edition. The paperback version is readable enough at 5.5 by 8.2 inches, yet it's too thick for its size, and, while definitely not of poor quality, vulnerable to the binding breakage typical of the breed, so serious scholars of the work might find themselves literally pulling it apart. For you and me, though, it should be just fine.

A lot of unanswered questions of Darwin's age have been answered today, but still one does not fail to see the genius behind the logical derivations and counterweighted arguments.

In this edition, Darwin expresses himself much more boldly than in the later editions, when he was countered and threatened by the ridiculous religious groups simply because ir doesn't support 'their' theory.

(This is for the anti-theorists) A theory is always a theory, it can't be proven like a mathematical formula, it may have gaps in understanding, it may not be able to explain everything under the sun, but that does NOT provide a good reason to throw the whole theory out. For the ones attentive to the nuances, it is NOT a hypothesis, it's a theory, and in spite of not being provable by deductive logic, this provides a good insight on how the species might have evolved, and very interestingly, the role of mankind in it.

One of the reason behind my liking this book is that the author is aware of the weak areas and mentioned what kind of proofs (fossils and the like) would substanciate the theory, and in many cases such pieces of proof were found much afterwards. The book is really a masterpiece.

While many people would find this book a tedious read. Anyone interested in the study of ecology, evolution or taxonomy could not help to find something useful. It is arranged as a series off essays, grouped by topic. This enables the reader to proceed at his or her own pace and find the information most valuable. It is among my most favorite bed time reads.

This book belongs on every serious biologist's bookshelf -when it isn't on your desk, in your easy chair, in the clutches of your students, etc. Not as "easy a read" as Mayr's more "popular" books like the wonderful ONE LONG ARGUMENT, this was and is a definitive statement on key elements of the evolutionary synthesis. Get it & read it!

Acquiring Gnomes is an attempt to support the theory of symbiogenesis, the idea that organisms evolve by exchanging genes and as a result of symbiosis relationships, such as lichen. The authors are the leading experts in the field of symbiosis, and this shows in this well done work. The major strong point of the work is it explains in detail what biologists have known for years but often do not admit publicly, namely that evolution by the accumulation of small mutations has not been supported by either laboratory or field research. The authors also show that Darwin has been almost a god for over a century, yet his work was neither original (and he failed to credit those he plagiarized his ideas from - see p. 27) and his classic 1859 book The Origin of Species is "laced with hesitancies, contradictions, and possible prevarication" (p. 26). Having shown neo-Darwinism is now effectively dead, the authors make an excellent case for their own theory of the origin of species. The only problem is they demonstrate that many lower level organisms have probably exchanged genetic material throughout history, yet this does not explain its origin, only its spread. We are still left with the question "where did the genome information come from in the first place?" It may be best to admit that we do not know (and present theories do not explain this problem) so that future scientists are encouraged to look for the source instead of discouraging research by teaching students that we know the source when we do not. As a college teacher for over 35 years now, in my classes I stress what we do not know in my field (molecular biology) with the hope that my students may be inspired to find some of the answers. This book is a good place to begin. The authors also show that anyone who questions Darwin "are often dismissed as if they were Christian fundamentalist zealots or racial bigots" (p. 19). This is tragic.

Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan continue their series of books on highlighting Margulis's evolving and elaborative theory on evolution. Margulis, with her symbiosis concept, is science's only significant spearhead on the creation of Darwinian evolutionary theory not strictly within the vague limits of Darwinian framework. This book gives us hints on her progress to moving closer to understanding the origin and evolution of eucaryotic mitosis and meiosis mechanisms.

In the book, Sagan and Margulis outline their major objections with neo-darwinian orthodoxy: the notion of mutation and its inherent implications, and argue that its current role in theory is misguided and overemphasized. They argue, rightfully so, the concepts of symbiogenesis and Gaia give much better traction to explaining change from a procaryotic world to the current world of the living than the doctrines of neo-darwinian selection via mutation.

Margulis and Sagan give a interesting account, and more importantly, several detailed examples of symbiosis, where the genome has clearly changed. Whether or not one is familar with Margulis's work, the accounts are enlightening, although I wouldn't recommend this book as an introduction to Margulis's symbiosis and Gaia metaphors, it gives enough to wet the appetite for more. I would recommend Microcosmos as better introductory book to get a better glimpse of the scope and revolutionary nature of Margulis's ideas. If one is interested in other details, her other books, such as the Symbiotic Planet are worth reading.

Clearly the most important part of the book, besides a few more of her and Dorion's insights into Gaia, is the report on her latest publishable material on evidence of the steps from procaryotic to eucaryotic organisms. She concentrates more on her evidence for the first major symbiotic pairing (amitochondriates) which eventually leads to the mitosis and meiosis mechanisms. Her detailing of karyomastigont and akaryomastigont mechanisms and their relations, gives one a better understanding of some of the major steps that most likely occurred from the transition from gross bacterial genetic mechanisms (e.g., plasmids, bacteriophages, and conjugation) to the full blown eucaryotic mitosis and meiosis mechanisms. Obviously, despite their compelling evidence, there looks to be a great deal of work to done to fill in gaps between the connected dots. But Margulis and Sagan provide an entertaining and informative overview on some of the issues entailed in determining the details.

The book is a tantalizing look at the edge of science, for if one is informed, one can see some interesting signposts ahead. The only problem I have with the book is once you start looking beyond the edge, you realize indeed Margulis has only a few explorers with her, and they haven't gotten very far. But that's the nature of science, isn't it.

Lynn Margulis has been a maverick all her life. Early in her career she shocked her biological colleagues by arguing that the mitochondria that power our cells and the chloroplasts that let plants transform solar into chemical energy once were free-living bacteria. As soon as scientists could isolate and decode the scraps of DNA in those vital organelles, they found that she was right. Margulis went on to develop her Serial Endosymbiosis Theory, which attempted to trace the development of all creatures with nucleated cells, from yeasts to humans, to a series of genetic mergers between different kinds of organisms. According to Margulis, all the familiar family trees of life, which show only diverging branches, are wrong. Ancient roots and current branches cross and merge to produce new species. To Margulis, nature is far more promiscuous and much more creative than most biologists dream.

Her new book, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of Species, extends and deepens that argument. Margulis sets out to prove that new species rarely if ever appear as the result of mutation, isolation, genetic drift, or population bottlenecks--the meat and potatoes of neo-Darwinism. Instead she maintains that the major engine of evolutionary change, the source of most of the new forms that natural selection edits, is symbiogenesis--the acquisition of whole genomes as the result of symbiotic associations between different kinds of organisms. (Knowing that some people will seize on her thesis as an attack on the theory of evolution as a whole, Margulis makes it clear that she fully supports Darwin's great discovery of the mechanism of natural selection. She simply thinks that neo-Darwinists have failed to recognize the enormous creative power of genomic mergers.)

Readers who are familiar with Margulis' earlier works will recognize her vivid, personal and sometimes impressionistic writing style. I found this book, co-authored by her son, Dorion Sagan, to be clear and accessible. Starting with Chapter 9, where Margulis presents her latest ideas on the symbiotic origin of the nucleus itself, things get a bit more technical. Margulis makes every effort to help readers through the thicket of important, but at times tongue-twisting terms, and supplements explanations in the text with an excellent glossary. Margulis also presents the findings of several other researchers whose work supports or relates closely to her own.

Readers may or may not close the book convinced that Margulis is right and the neo-Darwinists are wrong. But they will come away with a vastly deeper understanding of the pervasive nature and power of the microbial world, and of symbiosis. Margulis reveals a hidden side of nature, in which microbes have generated most if not all of life's metabolic machinery, in which vastly different life-forms consort in a myriad of ways, and in which the acquisition of entire genomes provides the raw material for great evolutionary leaps. Anyone with a deep interest in biology will gain important insights from "Acquiring Genomes."

Robert Adler, author of Science Firsts: From the Creation of Science to the Science of Creation (Wiley & Sons, 2002).