{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020366598778004074, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007739307535641548, 'mean_word_length': 5.124688279301745, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Medical Practice, 1600–1900: Physicians and Their Patients ed. by Martin Dinges et al. (review)

page and is richly illustrated from many of Haeckel’s original embryological publications. The many prints are derived mostly from Haeckel’s previous work, although a few come from the parallel texts of other contemporary authors. Most but not all of the 182 illustrations are well presented and appear in contrasting black-and-white, and many consume full pages in Hopwood’s elaborate and persuasive renderings. Hopwood has included a few additional illustrations, which are derived from Haeckel’s contemporaries and provide a much needed historical reflection on how Haeckel interacted with and must have stimulated his peers. The last three paragraphs of the first chapter of Hopwood’s renderings not only provide a useful synopsis of the rich contents of this self-contained book but add an important dimension to what many biologists conveyed to and persuaded their peers to accept at the time. In brief, this is a new rendering of many illustrations drawn from Haeckel’s best known publications written at the height of his career. Hopwood focuses particularly on copies taken from Haeckel’s Naturliche Schoepfungsgeschichte (beginning in 1878) and from the fifth edition of his Anthropogenie (beginning in 1874). By concentrating on Haeckel’s visual presentations and his detailed discussions of them, Hopwood forces the reader to come to terms with his pictorial talents and the role his illustrations must have had not only with other biologists but with scientific art at the time. Although only a few of Haeckel’s illustrations were in color, they are detailed and true to nature. This is important for historians of science who for the most part minimize, even ignore, this side of Haeckel’s work and of biological publications as a whole that are derived from the second half of the nineteenth century. It is clear that Haeckel was a master of his work, which ensures him a significant role in promoting the biological side of science at the time. The collection provides an important lesson for historians of medicine and the life sciences, who today are instinctively more captivated by written presentations of evolution or by the anatomical details drawn from over century-old dissections. This book may be highly recommended not only for professional studies but for the general enjoyment of Haeckel’s and his contemporaries’ illustrations.