User:Evaadevries/sandbox

Hugo De Vries
One of the notable inspirations for the textbook was Hugo de Vries (1848-1935), a Dutch botanist and early geneticist who for some time worked alongside Charles Darwin. Known for his work Species and Varieties (x), de Vries rediscovered Mendelian Inheritance by independently proposing the Law of Segregation, which played a role in modifying Darwin’s Theory of Heredity (x). One of de Vries’s personal influences on the approaches to botany and cell theory was his emphasis on organelles’ roles in cells (Intracellular pangenesis), which deviated from previous teachings that focused mainly on entire cell’s roles in larger beings. Hugo De Vries was also known for his proposition of Mutation Theory, which was later proven to be incorrect (x) but impacted the scientific community nonetheless by changing the way that scientific questions were practically approached, and the way that resulting theories were proposed (x). Pertaining to the field of botany, Hugo de Vries had an impact on the outlook on the field of botany as a whole: largely due to his studies with plant genetics, it is believed that de Vries inspired a shift from a taxonomic and morphologic perspective, to a physiological one in regards to the function of plants (x).

Early life
Victor Jacob Koningsberger (1895-1966) was born in Java to father Jacob Christian Koningsberger and mother Manuella Ursule Mariana Hellendoorn (x). In 1899, the family including Jacob, Manuella, Victor, and brother Jacob Christiaan (l) moved to the Netherlands in response to the developing dysentery of Manuella. However, Manuella died aboard the journey to the Netherlands, so Jacob left his two sons with his half-sister Johanna Maria in the city Rijsoord (and later Zundert) while he himself moved back to the Indies after a few short months in the Netherlands. As children Victor and his brother were moved between caretakers several times. However, two factors that remained constant for the boys included friendly correspondence with their father (until he moved back to the Netherlands permanently in 1819) and a good education (x).

Education
Partially due to the poor state of primary education in the Netherlands at the time (x), Victor excelled in maths and natural sciences during his early education (x). After completing his military service from 1914-1915, Victor took up a study of biology at the University of Utrecht. During his time at university, Victor was a very active student (x) and took leadership positions in various student programs, including being a member of the USC, president of the Philosophy Student Faculty and acting Rector (1919-1920). In 1917, Victor became the assistant of prof.dr. Frits Went at his botanical laboratorium, and, feeling drawn to physiology, Victor completed his doctorate research on animal physiology under Went and prof.dr. H.J. Jordan.

Research
Likely inspired by the life work of his father (x), Victor followed a similar path by first studying biology at Utrecht University and participating in similar programs (including the USC) and eventually moving to Java to pursue a successful career as the head of agriculture and zoology at a botanical research center (x). In Java, Victor published many papers on his botanical studies (xxxxxxxxxxx) and bred better plants for trade (NEEDS WORK. this section will be much bigger).

Previous state of Dutch education
Need to find more on this-- sorry dudes its not close to done yet

As editor, the personal approach of Victor J. Koningsberger as to how education should be presented to students likely had a dramatic influence on the teaching style of the textbook. Koningsberger speculated on how students should approach learning, believing that factual knowledge should be presented in the context of bigger picture systems (how concepts relate to each other) to promote engaged, critical thinking rather than memorization (x). Compared with many professors and writers of the time, KB had a very modern vision for the future of the institute of education (pg 82).

Previous state of botanical knowledge
At the time that this textbook was published, the field of botany was growing, and the way that it was approached academically was undergoing the effects of a recent shift. Taxonomic and morphological studies prevailed until the second half of the 19th century, but from then botany was studied more in the physiological sense, and its division into branches became more prevalent. (6) (This was largely due to the work of Hugo de Vries (1848-1935)) For this reason, academic botanical knowledge was somewhat scattered at the time of publishing. As stated in the presume of volume 1, Koningsberger et. al sought a place to compile classic botanical information with the most recent research of the time, as there was a lack of up-to-speed educational botanic material (x). Many of the topics covered in the book, including evolution, had been controversial for some time and therefore were not properly addressed in previous textbooks. This served as evidence of the state of botanical knowledge before this textbook was published: 1) the priorities within the field of botany were undergoing a dramatic shift and 2) while the information was widespread, it was often not presented objectively according to the degree of evidence present for the information, but according to the personal dispositions of authors and contributorss.

KNAW
Translated from Dutch to the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, KNAW is an institute based in Amsterdam that, operating on the values of collaboration, knowledge, and creativity (x) advises the Dutch government on scientific matter and collaborates internationally with other institutes to address greater scientific and cultural issues. KNAW likely played a great role in uniting the scientists who wrote this textbook, as many of the authors were members of the institute. (List of authors in KNAW?)