Service Animals Books

A very rare book on a rare topics

A vast, detailed summary of the latest advances in tissue engineering.

A few too many equations, but clearly the most comprehensive text in the field. Contributors list reads like a 'Who's Who' of tissue engineering.

The book is mistitled as 'Principles' since it does not really do justice to the foundations of the field. It is more of a compilations of the research work of a 'few' investigators in the field.

This is a great book, covering most details of its field. It describes the physicians (and their patients) dream of substituting organs and cells and it also shows, how mankind could not solve problems � up to now. History of artificial organs lacking the full function is one point, but the focus is on cells and their ability to build complete organs � and therefore the book looks on the pathway for the future of organ substitution.
The introduction covers some main ideas of tissue engineering � what do we want � what are we able to do � what do we still have to get knowledge of. After a short review of the history, the essentials of cell biology (Growth, Differentiation) are being introduced. The reader should have an idea of developmental biology to be able to follow topics like induction and morphogenesis. The authors emphasize the importance of the extracellular matrix as one of organ-prosthesis� main building blocks (ECM = scaffold; cells = function; cell signalling = integration and physiology).
The second part describes technical aspects of in-vitro organ synthesis: tissue culture and ECM, tissue culture und growth factors, bioreactors and vascularization. The third part continues with in-vivo techniques of organ reparation, exemplified by methods for substitution of the ECM of skin, peripheral nerves and meniscus.
Parts 4 � 6 develop models for the substitution of the ECM (Collagen, BioPolymers), their implantation in the receiving organism and the resulting immunologic problems (emphasized).
Parts 7 � 20 are concerned with the organs themselves. After few words about stem cells and gene therapy the book explains reconstruction and substitution methods for breast, heart and blood vessels, Cornea, endocrine glands, liver (very good), kidney and haematopoietic system. Biomechanical problems are outlined in the part about the musculoskeletal system. On this place tissue engineering celebrates its oldest success (cartilage substitution). Today innervation processes are being focused.
The book continues with substitutes for the senses (ear and eye), nerve cells, nerve regeneration and neural stem cells. Dents and skin could be all to make an ill patient �healthy� by substitutes, one might think. But no, western medicine also knows something about substitutes for womb and placenta�
On me the book made a good impression. The only point is: it�s quite too much text and too few pictures. It addresses medicals after their exams, practicing physicians and biologists. Chapters focus on the basic principles. There is a large number of links to more detailed publications.

Rain Without Thunder is a penetrating look at howanimal rights activism without a clear understandingof important philosophical differences between animal rights and animal welfare has led to ineffective strategies which, Francione argues, serve only to more deeply entrench the speciesist paradigms that lead to animal oppression. Francione's insights are important not only for animal rights activists, but for everyone working for social justice. The first truly original animal rights book I have seen in a long time. Read it!

First, this is a book for the anointed. Those who don't already think cows deserve personhood need not bother; there's absolutely nothing here that will convince you. For anyone left: Written in wandering, equivocal academic speak and crushingly redundant, this is a book that took 230 pages to say what could have been said in ten, and still failed to say much at all. Synopsis: "Animals are persons, too. `Mainstream' animal rights groups aid animal `exploiters' because they still behave as if animals are, well, animals. 'Mainstream' animal rights groups are also sexist because they only throw red paint on women. We must demand an immediate end to institutionalized animal use. We'd be silly to expect an immediate end to institutionalized animal use. We must demand incremental changes within the `all animal use must end' paradigm. I don't know how, but let's talk." Unless you'd like to give this book to someone too comfortable with the state of higher education - Mr. Francione is a law professor at Rutgers - I'd strongly suggest you save your money. If you must read it, take mine. Please.

If you have embraced the idea that all sentient beings have fundamental rights--particularly the right not to be used exclusively as a resource--and have made the step to advocating on their behalf, this is the most important book you will ever read on the subject. Gary L. Francione's _Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement_ literally woke me up and gave me the resources I needed to avoid the seriously harmful strategy of animal welfare and new welfare. Before reading it, I took part in "bigger cages" campaigns, thought that such advocacy was helpful in the short term and had a very strong desire to continue to do so. After reading Francione's extremely compelling theoretical arguments, empirical evidence and well evidenced practical implications of different advocacy methods, I had no choice but to reject welfarism and new-welfarism in favor of a clearly defined concept of animal rights. In a nutshell, Francione's central thesis in _Rain Without Thunder_ is as follows:

In everyday language with respect to human animals, the word "welfare" has very good connotations. However, in the areas of _law_ and _institutional policy_ with respect to non-human animals, words like "welfare," "humane," "care," "unnecessary suffering," and so on only mean _one_ thing. Namely, they mean that the interests of non-human animals will be protected only to the extent necessary to exploit them in an economically efficient manner. For example, in law and policy, the welfare of a pig not to starve is protected because it is necessary to feed the pig in order to get her or his meat. The same is necessarily true of every animal welfare law and regulation. Therefore, any advocacy that attempts to achieve animal rights and the abolition of animal exploitation in the long-term by using the supposedly short-term strategy of trying to pass welfare regulations achieves only _one_ thing. Namely, if those measures are implemented, it will be further ensured that the only interests of non-human animals that will ever be protected are those that are required to exploit them efficiently. In other words, the supposed "success" of implementing a welfare measure only further ensures that the interests of other animals that are not required to exploit them efficiently will *always* be violated in the most abhorrent ways imaginable. In short, welfare measures *only* harm non-human animals and never help them.

Again, before I read Francione's arguments and evidence, I found his claim to be counter-intuitive. If this describes your views on the subject, for the sake of non-human animals who are exploited everywhere, I urge you to read and seriously consider _Rain Without Thunder_. Francione offers an excellent practical alternative to welfarist advocacy that, if followed, will further the rights of other animals on a workable *incremental* basis. As an animal rights advocate, I am extremely grateful that this book exists.

This book is a must read for anyone who considers themselves a supporter of animal rights. Francione powerfully argues that the animal rights movement has spiraled down into a animal welfare movement--a movement that has failed horribly in the past. Please read this!

In "Rain Without Thunder," Francione discusses the emergence of "new welfarists" who are doing the animals more harm than good. He meticulously lays out why animal welfare cannot lead to animal liberation. And argues a need for change. This book is a must read for all animal rights activists. Unfortunately you won't see it carried by mainstream "animal rights" (which GF calles the "new welfarists")organizations, because it is much too controversial!

My almost-three-year-old daughter loves this book. We checked it out from the library along with other penguin books, and this is the one that most captured her imagination, so we decided to buy it. She liked And Tango Makes Three well enough, but it was much more about the parents (Roy and Silo) than about young Tango--Penguin Post is about a young penguin preparing for a new sibling.

In response to earlier reviews: I don't think the point of this book is to get across to youngsters how much work newborns/babies entail, and I don't agree that there are holes in the plot. It appears to me that the point is to bring Milo, a young penguin dubious about the arrival of a new baby, around to getting prepared and even excited about the new sibling and feeling empowered about being an older brother. I think it succeeds in this regard. As I've read this book so many times I can also attest that the egg got into the mail bag when his father set it down to put some packages back in after they fell out--an egg-shaped package got warmed under Dad's fluffed-up feathers instead--not sure about the message this sends concerning parental responsibility, but a young child is probably not going to go there, and will instead just be charmed by the characters and word play.

On the whole, this is a book that both my daughter and I can agree to like--there's some word play for me and nothing that makes me cringe--and she gets to see different types of animal families personified, which is always hit.

This story is about a young Penguin named Milo. Milo's about to have a baby brother. However, mother has to leave home on a food expedition and father needs to deliver the mail. Somebody has to sit on the egg. Father wants Milo to, but Milo wants to deliver the mail instead. So, Milo sets off an a journey delivering packages to all sorts of residents. He has a grand adventure and returns home for a surprise.

This is a nice, little story. I love penguins and I enjoyed reading through this book. However, it does contain a hole in the plot that will probably confuse readers (I still don't understand how the egg ended up in the bag). However, the pictures are vivid and colorful and the addresses on each package are filled with clever word play that slightly older children will love figuring out. Recommended for early elementary students.

Milo is the youngest in a family of post-delivering penguins. However, an egg is soon to hatch in his family and Milo is called into service to deliver the mail. Every parcel that Milo delivers contains something to help the pole inhabitants take care of their young. Each of the package recipients inquires about Milo�s soon-to-be new family member. However, Milo is oblivious to the significance of having a new baby in the house until he delivers baby stars to Stella Polaris. It�s at this point that Milo learns he has been carrying the precious soon-to-be hatched egg in his mailbag all day.
The illustrations in this book are imaginative and colorful, however, the story is flat and without much feeling. The character development is weak and the plot only progresses with assistance from the illustrations. Through the pictures we can assume that Milo comes to love and cherish his baby brother, however, the text leaves us wondering upon this matter.
While I do not recommend this book for parents looking to expand their children�s understanding of impending siblings, this fantasy book is an enjoyable fictional journey. In addition, some helpful information could even be gleaned about the postal service.

My kids liked this story but it fails to make some connections for little ones. It is about a little penguin who is about to be a big brother but who is responsible for delivering packages all over the frosty north. All the deliveries are items that mothers are using to take care of their babies. By the end the little Penguin has decided he is ready for his baby brother's egg to hatch. There is no connection that he has learned that taking care of a baby takes a lot of work. If you are looking for a book to introduce big brothers or big sisters to the arrival of a baby this would not be my first recommendation. If you want to introduce the mail system it is pretty decent at describing package delivery.

I began reading The Animal Rights Debate with the expectation that debate between two philosophy professors might truly illuminate the issues at hand in the continuing, in fact, increasing, discussion regarding the relationship between humans and other animals.

Tom Regan is well known for his sharp and careful analysis, and I expected anyone paired with him in a book of this nature to be similarly prepared for the discussion. Mr. Cohen did write as if he knew what he was writing about, but unfortunately for the reader, he did not.

From the first pages of Mr. Cohen's article, errors of fact are rife. He says, "The Department of Agriculture recently estimated the number of animals used in medical and pharmaceutical research to be about 1.6 million, of which the vast majority, approximately 90%, were rats, mice, and other rodents." (p 14)

In fact, mice, rats, and birds are specifically excluded from the statistics Mr. Cohen cites; the Department of Agriculture (USDA) figures do not include mice, rats, or birds because the Animal Welfare Act excludes these animals from coverage under the act. This is very well known by all observers. Industry estimates suggest that at least 30 million mice and rats are used annually.

He also claims that "every" lab using animals is subject to "frequent" inspection by the Department of Agriculture to insure the humane use of the animals in those labs. The USDA, in fact, estimates that at least 2000 labs in the US are not inspected because they use only mice, rats, or birds, and these animals are not counted as animals under U.S. law. Humane use is not at issue even during the inspections of the labs that do fall within the purview of the agency.

I was shocked by Mr. Cohen's lack of command of the basic facts regarding animals used in U.S. laboratories, and more so by his claim that he was presenting the facts.

As far as Mr. Cohen's philosophical arguments are concerned, aside from his factual errors, I found his claims to be a mix of circular reasoning: only humans have rights, animals aren't human, so animals can't have rights; bait and switch: he makes the correct claim that most animals used in labs are rodents, and then calls attention to polio, the investigation of which almost eliminated rhesus monkeys from India; demonizing: he goes out of his way to paint rats as the ugliest and meanest creatures imaginable, and other similarly suspect techniques used commonly to confuse an audience.

But, this book thrilled me nevertheless. The arguments put forth by Mr. Regan are straightforward, fact driven, and polite. His logic is impeccable and his conclusions inescapable.

It is at once gladdening to see the best that each side in the debate can muster clearly displays the fact that animals do have inherent rights. Indeed, based on the arguments presented in this book, the debate is over. It remains painful to realize that the essentially failed attempt by Mr. Cohen is nevertheless the weak excuse for the continuing daily massive exploitation of other animals by us. If you have an interest in seeing an opponent of animal rights get thoroughly trounced, then I think you will like this book. If you are looking for reasoned debate, unfortunately, the defenders of the status quo have yet to muster a meaningful and cogent argument.

Cohen's sophomoric replies to Regan's claims for extending basic moral consideration to nonhuman animals makes a mockery of this debate (a surprising deficit, given Cohen's training and reputation as a logician). Regan, in contrast, is scholarly and thoughtful, though one suspects that his case for "animal rights" (and consequent absolutism) continues to faulter against the foundational assumption of the "equal inherent value of all subjects of a life" and concommitant rejection of all extrinsic (relational) ethical considerations. See M. Silliman, *Sentience and Sensibility,* for an value-incrementalist alternative to Regan's antiperfectionist unicriterialism.

Regan's contribution is impressive. Regan's section is where to begin. He argues that whether a being has rights (and which rights it has) depends on its psychological capacities, not its biological species per se. Since babies and mentally challenged humans (who aren't rational or autonomous) have the right not to be eaten, worn, experimented on, chased down and shot and their heads hung on the wall, etc., so do non-human animals, since their psychologies are of comparable, if not often greater, levels. QED.

Objections to Regan concern his general theory of rights, NOT whether animals have them, if anyone does (many plausible moralities deny "rights" in the sense Regan defends).

According to Cohen, animals do not have rights because they animals cannot engage in moral deliberation, act on principles, and be moral agents.

Many humans cannot cannot engage in moral deliberation, act on principles, and be moral agents and hvae the capacities that Cohen seems to think are necessary for having rights. But, most of us think it would be wrong to experiment on them and kill them, even if doing so would greatly advance our interests. Cohen agrees. But since some humans lack these capacities yet have rights, this shows that these capacities are not necessary for rights. Cohen's denying rights to animals is arbitrary, a case of not treating beings with equal psychological capacities as equals: it is discrimination on the basis of species alone.

Cohen replies that objections like this "miss the point badly" because human infants, the senile, and the severely mentally disabled "have rights because they are human." He says that, "The critical distinction is one of kind." Earlier Cohen said that the "kind" needed for rights possession was a moral and psychological kind; now he says that the relevant kind is the biological kind Homo sapiens. No justification is given for this switch and why humans who (even permanently) lack moral capacities have rights yet animals do not.

Cohen's reply to this objection--the so called "argument from marginal cases"--is unsuccessful and his main argument that animals do not have rights fails. Appeals to thinkers ranging from Aquinas and Augustine to Marx and Lenin, as well as appeals to "immediate" and "certain" intuitions, do little to defend his view either. His repeated ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with him do not help either.

Cohen also argues that animals don't have rights because it's in our interest to use them. It's scientificaly dubious that using animals for food and research is in our best interest (both vegetarian diets and human-based research are superior for meeting our needs), but questions about morality shouldn't be decided by appeal to self-interest anyway. Cohen's case that animals do not have rights is a disappointment.

Animal Subjects: An Ethical Reader in a Posthuman World, is not an easy book to read. Whether or not you put animals on the same moral plane as humans, whether or not you believe that beasts should be bestowed with all the unalienable rights of "personhood", it's unpleasant to confront some of the truths in this collection of essays on animal ethics. Take, for example, "Power and Irony: One Tortured Cat and Many Twisted Angles of Our Moral Schizophrenia about Animals," by Lesli Bisgould. The essay recounts the case of Jesse Power, a Canadian art student who filmed himself and friends torturing a cat and then claimed it was part of a school project on animal rights. In 2002, Power was sentenced to just 90 days in jail, which he chose to serve on weekends so his class schedule wouldn't be disrupted. Bisgould makes the point that, while anyone who saw or even read about the feline torture film knew viscerally that it was wrong, we generally ignore that animals are used, abused and murdered every day, in order to produce food and clothing, test household products or medications, or just for purposes of entertainment. "Should we not finally confront Orwell's observation literally and ask, why are some animals more equal than others?" Bisgould asks. "Is there really a difference between the animals we call 'pets' and the animals we call 'dinner' or does the difference reside in the comfort of our own imagination?"

If you've ever taken your children to the zoo or aquarium for a day of wonder and fun, gazing at exotic animals, applauding for somersaulting sea lions, you might see things differently after reading "Monsters: The Case of Marineland." In this essay, author John Sorenson draws disturbing parallels between these animal exhibits and the sideshows of human "freaks" put on display by P.T. Barnum and other legendary exploiters of people with genetic disorders and physical abnormalities. "Zoos and aquaria are prisons for animals where the public can visit and observe the suffering of the inmates, just as the circus sideshow allowed paying customers the opportunity to derive pleasure from viewing the misfortunes of the disabled." Sorenson focuses in on Marineland, a marine mammal theme park in Niagara Falls Ontario, to illustrate his point with disturbing clarity.

Throughout the 14 essay collection, edited by Jodey Castricano, spirited arguments are made for the elimination of any moral distinction between human and non-human animals. In "Electric Sheep and the New Argument for Nature," Angus Taylor rejects a litany of mental attributes traditionally used to elevate humans above animals. "Not all humans can reason better than animals; not all humans are moral agents; not all humans can imagine an extended future for themselves or have a sophisticated conception of self. Many animals exhibit more autonomy than many humans do, in the sense that they are better able to care for themselves and to navigate successfully through their natural and social environment."

For those who believe all creatures should be treated with dignity, this volume is full of difficult reminders about how far we have to go. For those who abuse, mistreat or neglect animals, this book should be required reading.

I'll end where the introductory essay begins, with a quote from Mahatma Gandhi.
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

Animals are an invaluable part of today's society. But is the cruelty necessary? "Animal Subjects: An Ethical Reader in a Posthuman World" is a look at how modern humanity treats its relatives in the animal kingdom. With countless essays on the subject from writers all over the world and close to the fields at hand, the thoughts and ideas presented are complete and scholarly, sure to inform and enlighten readers to new ideas they never would have thought of. "Animal Subjects" is of high recommendation to any ethical studies course and college library collection on ethics.

In this volume Jodey Castricano has gathered together an interesting and challenging series of articles that address ethical issues arising from our treatment of animals. The viewpoint is one that is pertinent to Cultural Studies. The collection will be of interest to those who already have some background in the areas of ethics and our treatment of animals and our conception and understanding of them - this latter area being one more of ontology than ethics. The writing is varied and will sometimes strike a reader trained in the analytic tradition as a little offbeat in its approach.

The strength of the collection is in its diversity and its difference from existing literature on the subject. The weakness is that the relativities of postmodernism are not given more prominent analysis and defence even if that defence were couched in terms other than the analytic.

There are chapters on the largest areas of animal abuse - on chickens and on animal experimentation. However, some of the more interesting thoughts belong in other areas. John Sorenso, for example, has a chapter on animals kept in marine parks and (by extension) zoos and aquariums, how they are trained to entertain humans and how this runs counter to their interests. Sorenson writes:

'It is possible for aquaria to conduct educational programs and to promote and interest in conservation and protection of animals. However, it is widely agreed that the educational services currently provided by these institutions typically remain superficial, offering approximately the same level of information that might be gained from browsing through any popular book on animals'.

Angus Taylor, `Electric Sheep and the New Argument from Nature', addresses an important argument that conservationists sometimes appeal to in rejecting demands for the rights of individual animals based on sentience. For many conservationists it is species, rather than individuals, that matter. Further, the argument is advanced (and rejected by Taylor) that what is natural is also what is right. Thus, (it is suggested) having evolved as omnivores it is right that humans continue in that habit. Taylor rebuts that position.

Ecologists, environmentalists or conservationists who argue that what is natural is right are still advancing a moral imperative, appealing to a non-natural property of the world. As David Hume pointed out in his distinction between the is and the ought, we cannot consistently argue that what is actual - such as the empirical fact that we have evolved as omnivores - is neither right nor wrong, but is also right! Thus, our treatment of animals cannot be justified by appeal to the natural order of things - us being the superior predator and therefore right in our oppression of animals. This argument conflates the difference between is and ought and commits Hume's fallacy.

Michael Allen Fox and Lesley McLean explore the concept of moral space and suggest that we must develop new ways of thinking both about ethics and animals. In a chapter entitled `A Missed Opportunity' Paola Cavalieri looks at the big name Continental philosophers Foucault, Derrida and Levinas. Although she finds some sympathy for animals in their work she thinks that they have missed the opportunity to adequately explore the animal issues pretty much because their particular methodological approach prevents them from doing so.

At this point it will be useful to provide a list of chapter headings:

Castricano, `Introduction: Animal Subjects in a Posthuman World'; Haraway, `Chicken'; Preece, `Selfish Genes, Sociobiology and Animal Respect'; McCance, `Anatomy as Speech Act: Vesalius, Descartes, Rembrandt or, The Question of "the animal" in the Early Modern Anatomy Lesson'; Cavalieri, `A Missed Opportunity: Humanism, Anti-Humanism and the Animal Question'; Wolfe, `Thinking Other-Wise: Cognitive Science, Deconstruction and the (Non) Speaking (Non) Human Animal Subject'; Fox and McLean, `Animals in Moral Space'; Taylor, `Electric Sheep and the New Argument from Nature'; Sorenson, `Monsters: The Case of Marineland'; Seeber, `"I Sympathise in their pains and pleasures": Women and Animals in Mary Wollstonecraft'; Sztybel, `Animals as Persons'; Bisgould, `Power and Irony: One Tortured Cat and Many Twisted Angels to Our Moral Schizophrenia about Animals'; Dagg, `Blame and Shame? How Can We Reduce Unproductive Animal Experimentation?'; Tito, `On Animal Immortality: An Argument for the Possibility of Animal Immortality in Light of the History of Philosophy.

The issues that arise from the interface of humans and non-humans continue to be one of the most revealing tests of the relevance and scope of moral philosophy and one, in spite of several decades of some very good academic minds working in the area continues to largely be ignored by the popular media. The issues involved not only are deeply troubling and difficult questions of ethics, but also depend on knowledge from a number of scientific disciplines particularly in establishing what kind of subjectivity we might ascribe to different species of animals. These difficulties are part of the reason why the popular media shy away from the subject, but it is also why many ordinary people don't engage with it - the topic is not only difficult it also calls for personal change that at the very least would be inconvenient for many. It is thus an important focus for Cultural Studies.

This book, ranging over many aspects of the subject and including what we might regard as the question of what is central to ethics, is a worthy and original addition to the literature and anyone who reads it will find that its ideas continue to nag.

Most of this book is a repeat of his other book "Trapper's Bible: Traps, Snares & Pathguards". If you are looking for info on traps and snares, just buy "Trapper's Bible: Traps, Snares & Pathguards". Save your money and skip "Into The Primitive: Advanced Trapping Techniques".

I have read all of Mr. Martin's books and I highly endorse "Into The Primitive". Detailed and well researched. "Trapper's Bible" is another book by Martin that is excellent.

A top notch first rate book on survival. Not the same old stuff, but gives information on many items not seen in any other similar books. Well researched and well done!

It is not often, in my experience, one has the opportunity to say, "I read the most sharply fascinating book about cows this past weekend." Not that I said this sort of thing after reading this book, but I could have. Barney Nelson performs at minimum two premier services for her readers. First, she reopens the cow case, teasing into gray complexity the traditional assignation of cows to the realm of domestic beasts. Second, Nelson continues a rehabilitation of fame for the early twentieth century writer of the West, Mary Austin.(This rehabilitation comes at the expense of John Muir over the issue of sheep herding and lambing.) Truly, after reading this book I think it is curious that the remarkable Austin is in need of reputation refurbishment in American letters.

The glory continues with the author adding a raucously noble essay on her own life. Nelson also contributes a fine essay on Ed Abbey's reading and suggested usage of Mary Austin's desert book. At last, I mention the political concerns churned up by Nelson's hearty ploughing. Much about land management, grazing rights, and habitat change finds sensible reappraisal. I do not have the expertise or experience to evaluate the suggestions of the author on this matter, but I find her suggestion of interest, that the government policies based on the research programs of some scientists are quite possibly informed by an erring sense of healthy land use and a mistaken foundational origin for the data they interpret. Overall, this book of essays wafts thoughtful chips into the air with relatively little theoretical marsh.

This voice is loving if you're a horse, sheep, cow, dog, antelope, sheepherder, or cowperson. But, Goddess help you if you're a mountaineer, hiker, camper, easterner, urbanite, or Sierra Clubber. Perhaps John Muir does need some dethroning, but blame him for the industrialization of Yosemite National Park? Come now.

Nelson is a creative thinker and fresh voice injecting new ways of looking at the environment, women's place in nature, and ultimately how to reconcile our dependence upon domestic livestock. By delving into works of Thoreau, John Muir, Jack London, Ed Abbey, and the lone female voice of Mary Austin, Nelson shows how our thinking about the wild, the domestic environment, and the place of men and women in both has been shaped by assumptions that are not true. I enjoyed this book very much--there are lots of new ideas to consider, as well as plenty of research to back up Nelson's points. She writes clearly and smoothly, and is not afraid to tackle ideas that westerners have misunderstood for too long, livestock grazing for one. I was not at all familiar with the work of Mary Austin, but thanks to Nelson I can see that she should be widely studied for her environmental writings, particularly pertaining to women's role. All women, all environmentalists, all westerners, should read Nelson's book, it will be the basis for many conversations, if not debates.

Galvani & Volta's photography

You wouldn't think history of science could actually be interesting (especially in a book with a not so catchy title), but The Ambiguous Frog is extraordinarily well-written and engaging. It details the late 18th century controversy between physicist Alassandro Volta and physiologist Luigi Galvani on the nature of electricity in animals. Is the electricity responsible for producing muscular contraction *in* animals, which a bimetallic arc between muscle and nerve can *actively reproduce* in a dead specimen, or is the electricity *of* the animal, which a metallic arc merely passively indicates by discharging an *inherent imbalance* in a dead specimen? The Voltaists take one side, the Galvanists, the other. It's not a simple account of what experiment turned the tables on who, when, and how the other camp responds, but takes a deep, critical look at the motivating factors: the state of electrical knowledge at the time, the then current philosophy of science, and even psychological motivations in both theorists. Pera demonstrates clear command of the original texts, making valuable insights which guide you carefully, in the way of a storyteller, through the maze of events composing the Galvani-Volta controversy. This is an amazing work I would recommend to anyone unintimidated by the joy of scientific discovery.

If you are not familiar with basic electrical theory, however, the book won't stop to review the fundamentals. Pera, rather, relies on the reader's background to understand the phenomena being observed. Furthermore, Pera rarely explains what the obsolete apperatuses being used and developed at the time do, or how they work, so again, you might keep Google handy if you aren't familiar with them (I wasn't). Pera also makes the choice to sprinkle in some references to major contemporary/recent philosophies of science in his discussion, but his work here is less insightful, and strikes me as something of an afterthought. The lucid historical exploration of the controversy is by far the more valuable aspect of the book.

Again, this is a gread read. I highly recommend it.

Wonderful starting point for creating measures and helps to explain some other anthrozoology studies that have been published.

This book is great in that it provides the actual survey tools used to assess the human-animal bond, as well as references where to find where the tools have been used. Wonderful that this information can be found at your fingertips! Would appreciate clarification on whether we can freely use these tools. Highly recommend this book for anyone who wants to evaluate human-animal interactions, even in regards to other types of research, such as compliance in other aspects of veterinary medicine.

This paperback volume is a bit pricey but worth it for the information contained. Line drawings accompany and compliment the text. This book is very much up-to-date. Two shortcomings kept it from a 5 star rating: the bees & wasps are not included, and the addition of some color plates would have been most helpful.

One of the best, most thorough short books out there on the subject -- easy to tote around, concise, yet readable and even enjoyable. As the previous reviewer mentioned, the stinging arthros are skipped out on, but if that's important to you, your best bet might be downloading the notes pages from the University of California's course pages website (I'd recommend, honestly, snagging all of their pages from their micro and parasitology departments -- these are GOOD notes and videos, priceless and yet price-less), and/or snagging a copy of the appropriate (and it will be longer) chapter on subject same from "Medical and Veterinary Entomology" (which is probably my 5-star GET THIS IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT text/reference and all-around reader on the subject. It's thorough, it's got good pictorial coverage, and it's incredibly readable -- but expensive (worth it, but what good is that if you can't afford it -- and you'll RARELY (read: probably NEVER) find a cheap used copy on here or anywhere).

As for this particular (short, handy, soft-cover and light) book: Note well that if you're taking an undergrad course in med (and maybe also vet) parasitology with entomology, this book is the most often used book in my experience. It can be well-supplemented (especially in the graphics section, which is admittedly poor, save for the very helpful line drawings and graphs) by John T. Sullivan's "Electronic Atlas of Parasitology" CD (currently in Version 2.02 (as far as I know), available from the author who is a professor at UC-San Francisco, via ebay, and possibly also via Amazon, for somewhere around $12-15).

All in all, I thoroughly recommend this book, ESPECIALLY for anybody reviewing for exams or finals, where it truly shines for its concision and well-thought-out format. If you've got labs (and especially if you have a lot of lab quizzes), this book will only get you so far in preparation for that portion of your education (for eg, while you might find descriptions of differentiating culex from aedes, the pictures themselves are pretty much necessary, take my word) -- do do the extra work and obtain something with good pictorial (color is preferable but not necessary) views... even if it is a book specifically on field entomology & identification, or in combination with that CD (more helpful with the parasitology portion, to be honest).