La géologie connaît à partir de la fin du 18ème siècle un véritable essor dont les conséquences ne tarderont pas à apparaître dans la peinture de paysage de l’époque. Délaissant désormais les cabinets d’histoire naturelle, les naturalistes se mettent à chercher sur le terrain des indices pour comprendre le passé de notre terre et notamment son extrême ancienneté. Les artistes imitent leur démarche en se passionnant à leur tour aux phénomènes naturels comme les volcans, les glaciers ou tout simplement les falaises. Sous le prisme des découvertes effectuées en géosciences, il s’agira de déterminer l’influence de certaines théories scientifiques sur la peinture de paysage. Au nombre de quatre, ces doctrines contribueront dans une certaine mesure à moderniser ce genre pictural trop sclérosé par la tradition. Des personnalités comme Alexandre d’lt, Louis Agassiz, James Hutton ou encore George Cuvier ont avec leurs doctrines scientifiques profondément changé la vision de notre globe terrestre quant à son histoire, son évolution et ses mécanismes. Notre étude qui abordera de nombreuses facettes des sciences de la terre comme la glaciologie et la paléontologie tentera de mettre en évidence la portée de ces nouvelles disciplines sur le développement de la peinture de paysage de la fin du 18ème siècle jusqu’aux années 1860. / From the final years of the eighteenth century, Geology enjoys a rapid development whose consequences won’t take long to react on the landscape painting of the time. Leaving from then on the study for the outer world, Naturalists set to look for clues on the ground to understand the past of our planet and particularly his old age. Artists imitate their reasoning and are fascinated as well by the naturals phenomenon like the volcanoes, the glaciers or simply the cliffs. Under the prism of the discoveries made in geosciences, it will be a matter to determine the influence of some scientific theories on the landscape painting. These doctrines will contribute to modernize this pictorial genre still too blocked by the tradition. Personalities such as Humboldt, Agassiz, Hutton and Cuvier have with their ideas profoundly changed the vision of our planet about his history, his evolution and his mechanisms. Our study which tackles some aspects of the geosciences like glaciology a paleontology will try to bring to the fore the range of these new scientific disciplines on the development of the landscape painting from the final years of the eighteenth century to the 1860 years.

Neuroethology and ecomorphology seek to understand ecology and behaviour from the perspective of specialised adaptations of sensory systems, such as vision. Sharks display a large variety of visual specialisations reflecting the diversity of different ecological niches they occupy. Many shark species are long-lived and wide ranging and often select different habitats for reproduction, growth, and feeding. Habitat complexity, ambient lighting conditions and feeding strategies can therefore change throughout a shark’s lifetime or between populations. Few comprehensive investigations of visual function exist for sharks as studies typically focus on a narrow aspect of visual function or a particular life history stage. Consequently, there is limited data on within-species plasticity of visual function in response to acclimation to different visual environments or ontogenetic development. The aim of this thesis is to undertake a functional analysis of the shark visual system. An integrated approach is employed to investigate optical, anatomical and physiological specialisations, linking such specialisations to known habitat and/or behavioural traits, with particular emphasis on ontogenetic, inter-population and inter-specific variability. Fundamental capabilities of the visual system are examined, including optical quality, eye morphology, spectral range, irradiance sensitivity, spatial and temporal resolution, contrast discrimination, and temporal and spatial summation. The main study species is the sandbar shark (<i>Carcharhinis plumbeus</i>; Carcharhinidae), a cosmopolitan species of ecological and economic importance. <i>C. plumbeus</i> occupies a wide range of natural habitats from highly turbid coastal estuaries, to relatively clear waters off the outer continental shelves and near pristine clear waters over the slopes of oceanic islands. This provides an opportunity to explore the relationship between habitat variability and the adaptation of visual specialisations and subsequent behaviour. For inter-specific comparison, the visual systems of two other species of shark with contrasting ecological niches are also assessed: the shortspine spurdog (<i>Squalus mitsukurii</i>; Squalidae) and the tiger shark (<i>Galeocerdo cuvier</i>; Carcharhinidae). The study finds marked differences in visual specialisations of the three species studied. The eyes of <i>S. mitsukurii</i> are adapted to enhance retinal illumination within a dim light environment with a large eye, immobile pupil, reflective tapetum and a relatively high optical sensitivity (2.72 μm² steradians). Visual features include a short wavelength lenticular filter, a high spatial resolving power (7.2 cycles/degree) and a large binocular overlap in the dorsal visual field, suggesting adaptations may facilitate the visualisation of bioluminescent prey. In contrast, the eyes of <i>C. plumbeus</i> are optimised for vision under variable light conditions with a mobile pupil and an occlusible tapetum. The sandbar shark shows an optical sensitivity of 1.11 μm² steradians. Visual resolution is highest in the lateral visual field, reaching a peak spatial resolution of 8.9 cycles/degree. An ERG derived spectral response curve for this species indicates maximal response to blue light between 460-490 nm. Interestingly, the tiger shark is maximally sensitive to a brighter range of light intensities compared to sandbar sharks, implying that tiger sharks occupy a more photopic light environment. However, sandbar sharks have a visual system with higher temporal resolution, as evaluated by the ERG response, (54 Hz) than tiger sharks (38 Hz). These results may reflect a difference in the importance of motion perception between <i>C. plumbeus</i> and <i>G. cuvier</i>. Phenotypic variability in visual function is shown between different populations of <i>C. plumbeus</i> occupying habitats with different ambient light conditions. This study provides new evidence of plasticity of visual function in response to acclimation to different visual environments within the same species. Sandbar sharks show an adaptive plasticity in visual sensitivity and temporal resolution, which appears to enable both temporal and population-specific adaptations to local light environments. In addition, the eyes of <i>C. plumbeus</i> and <i>S. mitsukurii</i> continue to grow even in adulthood. Visual performance, with respect to spatial resolving power and optical sensitivity, improve with eye growth. For example, peak spatial resolution increases with eye growth from 4.3 to 8.9 cycles/degree in <i>C. plumbeus</i> and from 5.7 to 7.2 cycles/degree in <i>S. mitsukurii</i>. These studies suggest that the light environment strongly influences visual function in this ancient class of vertebrates. Anthropogenically induced changes in water clarity may, therefore, impact on visually-mediated behaviours such as prey detection, agonistic signals or vertical migration. Anatomical and physiological parameters obtained from these studies provide a platform from which to model visual behaviours such as 1). Prey detection capabilities, 2). The impacts of water clarity on the limits of visually-mediated behaviour, and 3). The visual strategies that would allow sharks to maximise visual function, such as spatial and temporal summation under low light conditions. In conclusion, neuroethological studies can be a useful means to enrich information obtained from life-history and tagging studies and, together, can inform us of the functional role of sharks in marine ecosystems.

Die Dissertation leistet drei Beiträge zur Forschung: (1) Sie entwickelt ein neuartiges vierstufiges Modell wissenschaftlicher Theorien. Dieses Modell kombiniert logisch-empiristische Ansätze (Carnap, Popper, Frege) mit Konzepten von Metaphern & Narrativen (Wittgenstein, Burke, Morgan), erlaubt so deutlich präzisiere Beschreibungen wissenschaftlicher Theorien bereit und löst/mildert Widersprüche in logisch-empiristischen Modellen. (Realismus vs. Empirismus, analytische vs. synthetische Aussagen, Unterdeterminiertheit/ Holismus, wissenschaftliche Erklärungen, Demarkation) (2) Mit diesem Modell gelingt ein Reihenvergleich sechs biologischer Theorien von Lamarck (1809), über Cuvier (1811), Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1835), Chambers (1844-60), Owen (1848-68), Wallace (1855/8) zu Darwin (1859-1872). Dieser Vergleich offenbart eine interessante Asymmetrie: Vergleicht man Darwin mit je einem Vorgänger, so bestehen zahlreiche wichtige Unterschiede. Vergleicht man ihn mit fünf Vorgängern, verschwinden diese fast völlig: Darwins originärer Beitrag zur Revolution in der Biologie des 19.Jh ist klein und seine Antwort nur eine aus einer kontinuierlichen Serie auf die empirischen Herausforderungen durch Paläontologie & Biogeographie seit Ende des 18. Jh. (3) Eine gestufte Rezeptionsanalyse zeigt, warum wir dennoch von einer Darwinschen Revolution sprechen. Zuerst zeigt eine quantitative Analyse der fast 2.000 biologischen Artikel in Britannien zwischen 1858 und 1876, dass Darwinsche Konzepte zwar wichtige Neuerungen brachten, jedoch nicht singulär herausragen. Verlässt man die Biologie und schaut sich die Rezeption bei anderen Wissenschaftlern und gebildeten Laien an, wechselt das Bild: Je weiter man aus der Biologie heraustritt, desto weniger Ebenen biologischen Wissens kennen die Rezipienten und desto sichtbarer wird Darwins Beitrag. Schließlich findet sich sein Beitrag in den abstraktesten Ebenen des biologischen Wissens: in Narrativ und Weltbild – den Ebenen die Laien rezipieren. / The dissertation makes three contributions to research: (1) It develops a novel 4-level-model of scientific theories which combines logical-empirical ideas (Carnap, Popper, Frege) with concepts of metaphors & narratives (Wittgenstein, Burke, Morgan), providing a new powerful toolbox for the analysis & comparison of scientific theories and overcoming/softening contradictions in logical-empirical models. (realism vs. empiricism, analytic vs. synthetic statements, holism, theory-laden observations, scientific explanations, demarcation) (2) Based on this model, the dissertation compares six biological theories from Lamarck (1809), via Cuvier (1811), Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1835), Chambers (1844-60), Owen (1848-68), Wallace (1855/8) to Darwin (1859-1872) and reveals an interesting asymmetry: Compared to any one of his predecessors, Darwins theory appears very original, however, compared to all five predecessor theories, many of these differences disappear and it remains but a small original contribution by Darwin. Thus, Darwin’s is but one in a continuous series of responses to the challenges posed to biology by paleontology and biogeography since the end of the 18th century. (3) A 3-level reception analysis, finally, demonstrates why we speak of a Darwinian revolution nevertheless. (i) A quantitative analysis of nearly 2.000 biological articles reveals that Darwinian concepts where indeed an important theoretical innovation – but definitely not the most important of the time. (ii) When leaving the circle of biology and moving to scientists from other disciplines or educated laymen, the landscape changes. The further outside the biological community, the shallower the audience’s knowledge – and the more visible Darwin’s original contribution. After all, most of Darwin’s contribution can be found in the narrative and worldview of 19th century biology: the only level of knowledge which laymen receive.