Dear Evoldir, Thanks to everyone (9 people) who forwarded their
literature sources and insights on Non-Western history and perspectives
of evolution. I have included their responses below andseveralmss.I found
after reading their responses. Additionally, I received many more requests
(16) from people who were interested in the topic but had yet to find
literature dealing with the topic.  Again, thank you foryour help. Now,
I am quite excited about preparing and presenting this lecture.  Have a
wonderful day,

Lesley Campbell.
Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology
Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH, 43210

Literature found:
1. Christidou V, Hatzinikita V. 2006. Preschool Children's Explanations
   of Plant Growth and Rain Formation: A Comparative Analysis. Research
   in Science Education 36: 187-210.
2. Maziak, W. 2005. Science in the Arab World: Vision of Glories Beyond.
   Science 308: 1416-1418.
3. Lazcano, A. 2005. Teaching Evolution in Mexico: Preaching to the
   Choir. Science 310: 787-789.
4. Gusfield JR. 2003. Contentious curricula: Afrocentrism and
   creationism in American public schools. Contemporary sociology
   32: 508-509.

Suggestions received:
Dr. Joseph L. Graves, Jr., 
Dean, University Studies & Professor of Biological Sciences, 
North Carolina A&T State University, 
108A Hines Hall, 1601 E. Market St., Greensboro, NC 27411,
email: gravesjl@ncat.edu; phone: (336)-285-2060; mobile: (336)-707-1556 

I don't think you are going to find evidence of pre-20th century,
evolutionary thinking as a whole outside of Western Europe. You may be
able to focus your discussion on particular aspects of the Darwinian
syllogism (such as variation, heredity, and struggle for existence) or
the species concept. For example, Ernest Mayer in The Growth of
Biological Thought , Harvard University Press 1982 discusses how his
identification of bird species in Papua New Guinea differed from the
native people by only one species. His explanation for his was that they
were unaware of the interbreeding of two of their species, which
differed slightly by habitat and morphology. You might be able to find
information on how non-Western cultures viewed the idea of the species.
I often use the Biblical references in Genesis, chapter 1:11 states:
"seed bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in
it, according to their varying kinds." Indigenous Western African
notions of kinds are based in animism and speak more to spiritual
entities as opposed to material beings (e.g. Mbiti, J., African
Religions and Philosophy 2nd Ed., Heineman, 1969 & Hountondji, P.J.,
African Philosophy: Myth & Reality, Indiana University Press, 1983.) You
might also find some interesting material by examining how different
cultures developed their ideas on human variation. I discuss some of
this in Graves, J.L., The Race Myth: Why We Pretend Race Exists in
America, Dutton 2005. Also in a piece I wrote for Tapestry Press, I
discuss Chinese folk notions of human ancestry, Graves, J.L., The
meaning of race in the African American Experience, in Africana Legacy:
Diasporic Studies in the Americas, 2006. I also just thought of some
other books that can give you some direction in your quest. -Lindberg,
C., The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition
in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 BC to 1450,
University of Chicago Press, 1992 -- has chapters on the origins of
science, ancient Egyptians, and Islamic science. -Moore, J., Science as
a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology, Harvard University
Press, 1993 -- chapters on the antecedents of scientific thought, also
Mesopotamia and Babylon. -Bucaille, M., The Bible, the Qur'an and
Science: The Holy Scriptures Examined in the Light of Modern Science,
1981 -- originally published in Arabic, good comparison of Christian,
Jewish, and Islamic views of history and science, contrasted to modern
scientific views of same. Also, looking at your email address I am
assuming your are at Ohio State. If my assumption is correct, you will
need to give some thought to how you teach evolutionary ideas to African
American students. By necessity this has been an interest of mine (as
the first African American evolutionary biologist in US history.) One of
the challenges you will confront is Afrocentrism. I have written some on
this see: -Graves, J.L. (1993) Evolutionary biology and human variation:
Biological determinism and the mythology of race. Race Relations
Abstracts 18(3):4-34. Sage Publishers.

William J. Etges
wetges@uark.edu 
I think there is some good information in Coyne and Orr's
(2004)Speciation on how non-scientists view species. There are
referencesabout this as well.

Mark Ragan FLS,
m.ragan@imb.uq.edu.au, 
Professor and Head, Division of Genomics & Computational Biology, The
Institute for Molecular Bioscience, Professor, School of Information
Technology & Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland.

Although I'm not a professional historian of science, history of science
(and before that, history of natural history) is a serious avocation of
mine and I've spent some 20 years pursuing some ideas back into early
history, including non-Western traditions. I believe I'm conversant with
the standard history-of-science literature. In my opinion it's possible
to trace threads of evolutionary thought back to the Middle East (what's
now Egypt & Syria) around 2000-2500 years ago. However, the tradition in
what's now the Islamic world is almost certainly derivative from Greece
via what is now Turkey, and the tradition (such as it is) in China is
even later. Japan is fully derivative from China. The Indian tradition
was oral so links are unreliable, but in any case there is little to go
on there. There are earlier stories to be told based on analogy (e.g.
concepts of metempsychosis, totemism etc.), but I don't think they link
to modern evolutionary ideas via any clear or continuous intellectual
tradition.

Michael A. Bell 
mabell@life.bio.sunysb.edu 
I don't agree that animal or plant domestication implies any
comrehension of evolution. It only understanding that offspring resemble
parents, and farmers could figure that out out.However, I have not
replied just to be disagreeable. Last summer, I received an unpublished
book that attacked creationism. It included a long list of creation
stories from different cultures. I can't tell you the title of the book
because it is lost somewhere in my office. However, there are lots of
creation stories out there, and I think that will provide you a
culturally diverse historical perspective.

Doug Tarnopol 
tarnopol@cox.net
I'm assuming you're teaching a biology class, not a history one, so I
realize you need a historical intro.I think there are several issues
here. First, if you go chronological, you risk the ol' Whiggish error --
all roads lead to, in this case, Darwin. I think that's, ironically, a
very un-evolutionary way of looking at the history of evolution, which
was as contingent a process as any other in history.

Second, "non-Western" is another sticking point. What, exactly, is that?
I get the sense that you're looking for non-Western precursors. I
understand and admire the desire, but the category begs definition,
beside the "precursoritis" of Whiggism. On the latter, does Democritus
count as "Western"? Certainly, to (some of) us, but to him, he'd have
had no idea what we were talking about. Most likely, his primary loyalty
was to his city-state, and he certainly had no idea he'd end up in "Plato-to-NATO"-
type lectures on the history of evolution! LOL. I emphasize this perhaps
obvious point to encourage you not to present the history of evolution
as an inevitable march of progress. (If you have no intention of doing
so, my apologies! Just going on the basis of the e-mail...)

Now, since the nineteenth century (definitely the twentieth), there's
been a lot evolutionary work done in Russia, Japan, Brazil -- probably
a ton of other places, too. Haldane set up a lab in India. And so
forth. What counts as "Western" -- the origin of the idea or the people
who work on and shape that idea?I think a thematic approach to views of
nature would allow you to both cast a wider net, culturally speaking,
and avoid "precursoritis." All cultures had their own ways of
explaining the variety of species (whatever term they used -- "kinds")
around them; each had its own way of categorizing (a key element) --
just look at the intro to Foucault's Order of Things (or first
chapter...can't remember), in which he describes a Chinese
categorization. (Btw, I'm not a Foucauldian or post-whatever-ist -- but
this is still a good thing to read.)

OK, for actual sources -- for China, of which I know next to nothing,
I'd start with Needham's multivolume work. For India -- can't help ya,
but I'm sure that if you cast this wider net, you'll find notions of
how various subcontinental cultures viewed nature. Breaking it down by
religious tradition would probably help. Africa -- completely ignorant,
but again, I think you could find some decent information just from
casting this wider net. And so on: Mesoamerican, etc. Anthropologists
and religious texts will probably be your best bet, and you can
probably find what you need for an intro lecture online or in the OSU
library -- you don't need to delve deeply, of course!Finally, even on
the Western tip -- try not to go Plato-to-NATO. Include practice, not
just theory; put in something (if you can) about the expansion of
natural history during the Renaissance (other worlds -- microscopic and
"New"); and so on.

If you have questions or want to bug me for actual sources (I got a
pretty big library on this stuff here), feel free!Last comment: Assuming
this is a biology course, I would take advantage of the historical
survey lecture to step back a bit and talk about the nature of history
and sciences that try to deal with the unrepeatable. Time is the subject
here, ultimately, and that may be another touchstone for your
multicultural approach: different cultures' concepts of time.I hope this
was helpful! If you don't want to deal with a historian's quibbles, you
can still go "Plato-to-NATO" with a multicultural twist by looking at
other cultures' concepts of living nature and time, which shouldn't take
long to ferret out.

I've got a friend who's a historian of Chinese medicine/science in Tel
Aviv who might be able to help with actual sources beyond Needham...but
I think Needham is all you'll need for China.Bug me anytime -- I love
this stuff, and don't get too much of a chance to go on and on about
it.Also, if you do put together a nonlinear, multicultural lecture(s?)
on evolution (writ large), I bet it's the kind of thing you could share.
Most likely, someone else has done it, but I'm not too sure...could be
very helpful for any intro course (bio or history or philosophy) on
evolution...

David Buckley 
dbuckley@berkeley.edu 

I found an interesting book some years ago. Here's the reference:-
Mabud, S. A. (1991). The Theory of Evolution. An assessment from the
islamic point of view. Publisher: The Islamic Academy, Cambridge, UK &
The Islamic Academy of Science, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.The author was
pointing out the impossibility to reconcile the Koran and the
Evolutionary Thought. I know, however, that there has been a heating
debate on this topic among Islamic scientists, but I haven't follow it
closely enough.....

Nick Barton, 
n.barton@ed.ac.uk
I've also looked for non-Western histories of evolution, with almost no
success. One paper (suggested by Satoshi Chiba) that might help is:
Sakura, O. 1998. Similarities and Varieties: A Brief Sketch on the
Reception of Darwinism and Sociobiology in Japan. Biology and Philosophy
13:341-357.

Rodolfo Jaffé Ribbi 
rojaff@gmail.com
The book "Guns, Germs and Steel" from Jared M. Diamond gives a nice
insight on Pre-Darwinian history discussed from a non-Western
perspective.

Donald Roy Forsdyke
 
forsdyke@post.queensu.caThe best account I know is Roberts' (1929)
"Plant Hybridization before Mendel."

campbell.633@osu.edu