Talk:Biology/Bibliography: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
 
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== How to improve this page ==
This page needs to be greatly expanded, obviously.  It should make a few general textbook recommendations; there should be a book about the state of biology as a field today; there should be many more classics of biology (like Aristotle, Lamarck, Linnaeus, and Darwin--just to name names that even a philosopher is familiar with); and I'm sure there are many other general biology books of interest.
This page needs to be greatly expanded, obviously.  It should make a few general textbook recommendations; there should be a book about the state of biology as a field today; there should be many more classics of biology (like Aristotle, Lamarck, Linnaeus, and Darwin--just to name names that even a philosopher is familiar with); and I'm sure there are many other general biology books of interest.


Moreover, these books should be annotated.  I've left spaces for the annotations. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:29, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
Moreover, these books should be annotated.  I've left spaces for the annotations. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:29, 7 July 2007 (CDT)
And how could I forget?  The bibliographic entries themselves are not in any recognizable form.  They should follow ''The Chicago Manual of Style.'' --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:33, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 11:33, 7 July 2007

How to improve this page

This page needs to be greatly expanded, obviously. It should make a few general textbook recommendations; there should be a book about the state of biology as a field today; there should be many more classics of biology (like Aristotle, Lamarck, Linnaeus, and Darwin--just to name names that even a philosopher is familiar with); and I'm sure there are many other general biology books of interest.

Moreover, these books should be annotated. I've left spaces for the annotations. --Larry Sanger 11:29, 7 July 2007 (CDT)

And how could I forget? The bibliographic entries themselves are not in any recognizable form. They should follow The Chicago Manual of Style. --Larry Sanger 11:33, 7 July 2007 (CDT)