Navigazione – Mappa del sito

HomeNumeri59Challenged boundaries

Abstract

In una visione evoluzionistica, la biodiversità è il prodotto del cambiamento. La biodiversità, tuttavia, esiste anche perché ci sono regole che impediscono un’unione incontrollata di individui e di specie che potrebbe creare mostri come la mitica chimera, oppure ibridi come quelli fra leone e tigre. Il disagio che proviamo di fronte ad essi non è necessariamente proporzionale all’eterogeneità delle parti riunite insieme. Noi temiamo soprattutto che le conseguenze della rottura di un confine naturale possano diventare permanenti e incontrollabili. I confini, tuttavia, operano anche in modo diverso. In primo luogo, non si deve mangiare un altro membro della nostra specie. In secondo luogo, l’individualità non dovrebbe essere violata unendo insieme due individui della stessa specie. In terzo luogo, il tuo nemico non dovrebbe attraversare la pelle non visto, per nutrirsi di te dall’interno. Tutte queste regole, tuttavia, sono ampiamente violate in natura. Gli esseri umani hanno allungato questo catalogo, sfidando i confini con una diversità di pratiche che non rispettano i confini all'interno delle specie e tra le specie. Tutte queste pratiche sono l’ultima sfida — materiale e insieme culturale — alla sopravvivenza della biodiversità.

Torna su

Termini di indicizzazione

Torna su

Testo integrale

1. Ars combinatoria in animal names

1In many languages, including Italian, hybrid zoonyms abound, in which the names of two animals are associated to indicate that the species so named unites the natures of the one and the other, whether in its physical aspect or in its behaviour. Sometimes, as in the case of “cane lupo”, the Italian name of the German shepherd dog, the two associated components i.e. “dog” and “wolf” are more suggestive of objective description than of metaphor, or risky combination. More often, however, the combination goes beyond the limits of a possible hybridization, to represent nothing more than a vague suggestion, as in the case of the gerenuk, otherwise called giraffe-necked antelope but, in Italian again, straight “antilope giraffa”. But these compound names sometimes reach the limit of the imaginary combination, or of the explicit metaphor. This is the land of the antlion, or the deep sea frequented by the viperfish.

  • 1 This was, at least, the view expressed by Athanasius Kircher in his Arca Noë (1675).

2In this world of real animals with fanciful names there is an obvious place for the camelopard. This is a name that was once used for the giraffe. The name of course suggests the hypothetical dual nature of the animal, although it is not easy to trace the features of the giraffe to those of a camel, while the reference to the leopard, that is, a spotted feline, is altogether plausible, given the giraffe’s dappled coat. But what could be the cause of this dual nature? One explanation could be found in a hypothetical hybrid origin of the giraffe. If this indeed is born from the union of a camel (or she-camel) with a female (or male) leopard, Noah would have been spared the trouble of uploading on the ark a couple of animals so bulky as the long-necked camelopards. It would have been enough to have on board a pair of camels and a pair of leopards. With the withdrawal of the waters after the flood, these couples could in fact generate, as well as a new generation of camels and leopards, also a new generation of hybrid camelopards, ready to regain their place on the dry surface of the Earth1.

2. Hippogriph, chimera, hermaphrodite

3Roberto Kusterle2 is an artist of Gorizia in the works of which the dominant theme is the questioning of the borders, up to their denial. Boundaries between living and non-living, between inside and outside, between man and bird, between man and shell. A troubling world, which leads us to think about what everyday life would be like if we could not rely on certain categories and clear boundaries. If a bird lands on my shoulder, I remain man and the bird remains a bird. But this does not happen in the artist’s world, a world that revolves around figures that recall all too well real men and women, but that breaks many boundaries on whose existence our daily lives are based.

4After all, Kusterle’s world is the world in which over the centuries human imagination has placed centaurs and mermaids along with a multitude of beings, all things considered less disturbing, in which none of the components has similarity with the human body, their structure instead resulting from improbable combinations of parts of different animal species, as in the hippogriph and the chimera.

5It is possible that in other times and in other places humans believed, or maybe still believe in the existence of these beings of ambiguous nature. However, it is also true that to us who have a reliably exhaustive catalogue of the animal species that inhabit the planet, and know well the problems of rejection that prevent all facile attempts to join together body parts of different individuals, even of the same species, these hybrid creatures (or, rather, their images) embody a breaching of boundaries that at once fascinates and puzzles.

6The same applies to the hermaphrodite, in respect of which the biological categories that seem most relevant to the construction of our social life prove to be inadequate. And the problem is not confined within the limits of our species. In the face of a sea bream ready to be eaten, we can browse through the fish’s viscera to identify its sex, but perhaps many of us would have a moment of hesitation, before sinking knife and fork into it, if at that very moment we would learn that this fish, like others, is hermaphrodite. The sea bream, however, changes sex with age, whereas in other animals – e.g. in many snails, earthworms or leeches – male and female gonads mature at the same time, a fact that probably tickles our curiosity about their sexual habits.

7From a certain point of view, the hermaphrodite is even more disturbing than a centaur or a mermaid. These, in fact, obey the syntax of the body, namely the spatial and functional relationship between the different parts (head, trunk, limbs), as we know them in ourselves and in our fellow humans – a formal blueprint we take as a model when we try to decipher the morphology of other living beings, whether normal or monstrous. In the centaur, for example, one half of the body is human, the other half is equine, but each of the two components is in its natural place (let’s disregard the two extra limbs, the centaur having two arms and four feet). If the centaur is unusual as it crosses the boundaries between species, it is however still in accordance with the rules of composition common to the forms of different species. At least, this is true in mammals, as suggested namely by the centaur, but perhaps also in a wider sphere, that of vertebrates, as suggested by the sirens. In these, the half woman’s body combines with half fish body in the latest and most popular version of the myth (as mermaids), while in the oldest version the sirens were half woman and half bird, in any case in sufficient agreement with the laws of composition of the vertebrate body.

8It is worth noting that our feelings are much more relaxed with regard to plants, compared to the anxiety we suffer when witnessing the breaching of boundaries between species. This is shown by the curiosity, sometimes even the enthusiasm with which we welcome new hybrids between different species – orchid hybrid alone now numbering in the tens of thousands. These plant hybrids are all the more valuable as they seem more unlikely, the larger the morphological differences that separate the parental species. Hybrids are more difficult to obtain in animals (except perhaps in the case of some families of birds, pheasants and ducks in particular), and often remain surrounded by an aura of unnaturalness. Think of hybrids between tiger and lion, in the face of which the first thought that comes to mind is that of the heavy bars of the cages within which their parents were pushed to a pairing that nature would never have authorized.

3. Boundaries between individuals

9The mule, like the centaur, is the product of the breaching of a barrier between two species. Between the two, however, there is an important difference, even more important than the obvious contrast between a real animal and a product of human imagination. The mule is in fact a hybrid: the parents (a donkey and a mare) belong to two different species, only as a result of human intervention they were convinced to mate with a partner who is not a member of their own species. The centaur, instead, is a kind of graft, in which a totally human part is imagined as attached to a body part which is instead totally equine.

10Mule and centaur are thus examples of two different ways of overcoming the natural barrier that exists (or should exist) between species. A barrier that is on the one hand morphological and behavioural, on the other reproductive. A barrier that is not absolute, however, at least among very similar and closely related species, and can be breached in different ways, and in different degrees. The action of man, in a diversity of actions ranging from the ancient agricultural practices such as livestock hybridization and the use of grafts to the modern applications of genetic engineering and transplantation techniques, has put us in front of breaching of boundaries between one individual and another, and between species and species, that requires us to revisit our easy, traditional categorizations. At the same time it confronts us with events, or with phenotypes, against which we cannot rely on a tried and tested repertoire of responses, rational or emotional. And all this, in spite of the fact that these boundary breaching actions may have significance, for example, to the resolution of medical problems.

11It should be noted, however, that the intensity of our reaction is not necessarily proportional to the extent of the intervention. The creation of a transgenic organism that contains a single gene or two from a different species is likely to disquiet us more than the hybridization in which two whole genomes are instead put in common. This is perhaps due to the fact that a hybrid between two species too different from each other – a hybrid from which we might expect monstrous results – is probably doomed to failure, while a successful hybridization, even if it leads to the formation of a new phenotype, is necessarily one between individuals which are closely related to one another and therefore, even if it goes beyond the limit of what happens in nature, it does not seem to be excessively forced by man. Mules and hinnies, for example, are not found in nature (these animals are almost inevitably doomed to sterility), but they are sufficiently similar to the donkey and the horse as not to create us problems; whereas a possible hybrid between a man and a horse, or between a man and a macaque, do not even need to be taken into account.

12Things are different, however, when we move from the hybrid to the graft or, more seriously, to mixtures of cell lines, or to the transplantation of nuclei from cells of species A to cells of species B, especially when the ones or the others (especially those that provide the nuclei) are human cells. In these situations, it seems inevitable to worry about the possible future fate of the two species from which originate the cells or the cellular material to be mixed. Our anxiety will be greater, the more intimate and dispersed will be (or threaten to be) the mixture between the two components and, especially, the higher the probability that this condition will be maintained and propagated in time.

13This comparison between hybrids and chimeras easily discloses two aspects of our concern about borders - those between species, especially, but also, to some extent, those between individuals of the same species. The first aspect relates to our concern about the possibility that the consequences of the breakup of a natural boundary become uncontrollable, the more so, the more widespread is the mix of the two components that we feel should remain separate. The second aspect concerns the possibility that the chimera is capable of replication, giving rise to a new species that can persist indefinitely despite its unnatural character, i.e. despite the fact that it is come to being by breaking the historical, “sacred” barriers that till now had guaranteed the identity of each species.

4. Boundaries between species

  • 3 Newman 1995.

14Newman3 identifies a tradition in Western culture, whose roots are attributable to the Hebrew creation myth, and with ramifications that go through the thought and works of Buffon, Cuvier, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and von Baer, up to D’Arcy Thompson, according to which the species that inhabit the earth would be in a sense as many necessary forms of expression of living matter, somehow like the elements of the periodic table, which represent all possible stable combinations of elementary particles (in a physical sense, the “ultimate reality” of natural world). Onto a vision of this kind, Newman continues, can be grafted a vision, to some extent evolutionary, of the living world, but in this context evolution would only have the opportunity to raise more and more distinct and precise boundaries between the different species, but not to create new ones. The boundaries, to translate this concept into the language current to the present day, would be eventually marked by differences between the genetic programs specific to each species. In other words, the plurality of species would simply correspond to alternative phenotypes into which as many possible stable configurations of genetic programs are translated, and the boundaries between species would express the unnatural character that commingling between the genomes of different species would generate – whether through the construction of transgenic organisms or, more simply, as products of hybrids between different species.

  • 4 Darwin 1859: 469.

15Perhaps, we are ready to recognize that Darwin was right when he said4 that the line between ‘good’ species and simple varieties is a vanishing one, nevertheless it is likely that in practice we continue to acknowledge special status to the species: in the naive biology of non-experts (including a number of professional biologists) this is equivalent to recognizing that every species has its essence, whatever this expression may eventually mean. An essence, anyway, that in the mind of most people likely takes today the twisted features of a DNA double helix.

5. Biology neglected

  • 5 Craig Venter has been the first president of CELERA, a company focused on genetic sequencing and re (...)
  • 6 The expression comes from Francis Crick, who used it to express the idea that “the original coding (...)

16When CELERA finished identifying the nucleotide sequence of his DNA, Craig Venter did not hesitate to proclaim that the sequence of the human genome had been obtained5. However, the formidable and ambitious results of that exceptional analytical effort should not have left in the shadow the undeniable existence of individual variation within our species. Variation, of course, that is not the prerogative or the privilege of Homo sapiens, but a condition shared by all biological species and populations, although to different degrees. But this is not enough. In the general case, the limits of this variation are not the same as those of the species, but can go beyond these by invading the range of variation of related species. In other words, it is quite possible that in my genome there are gene alleles that I share with chimpanzees, but not with all human beings. How many and which ones are these alleles, this can be determined only empirically. Evolution is a historical event, full of “frozen accidents”6. Furthermore, the genes involved in a speciation process may be very few. In any case, it is very likely that the subdivision of an ancestral species into two daughter species will allocate to each of these a sample of variation that, for some time at least, largely overlaps the variation of the sister species. No scope for essences, in the post-Darwinian biology.

  • 7 See, for example, Alberch 1991; West-Eberhard 2003; Pigliucci 2010.
  • 8 Gilbert and Epel 2009.

17In addition to this point, a very important one in modern biology but also one that is too largely ignored, we must consider a second aspect, of not less critical importance in our context. If the species has no essence, the individual, at least the human one, may possibly have one. Not only in the sense of a person, a sense perhaps difficult to define but certainly more reasonable, but also in a biological sense, possibly molecular. In fact, even with a pinch of salt such as we should cautiously take when using metaphors, we might still be tempted to identify the nature of each of us with our DNA. A DNA slightly different from individual to individual, but identical – ignoring somatic mutations – in all the cells of the body and along the whole duration of its life. But this extreme defence of reductionist essentialism is faced with the complexity of the relationships between the genotype and phenotype7, relationships open to modulations and control partly dependent on external influences, including those of many microscopic organisms, especially bacteria, which live regularly associated with each one of us, throughout the course of our existence8.

6. I and others

18In Messina, in his rudimentary laboratory, on Christmas Day of 1882 Élie Metchnikoff discovered the existence of cells that recognize the presence in the body of something alien and quickly engulf and remove it. We can say that that day immunology was born. Since then, the great advancements of this science have allowed us understanding the mechanisms that ensure the individual the preservation of its borders, while avoiding undue mingling of bodies. Still, these boundaries are not always so clear, so sure, as we would be happy to believe. The occasional emergence of a pair of conjoined twins makes us painfully aware of that. We realize in fact, in these cases, that the physical distinction between two individuals cannot be ensured by hypothetical laws of organic form, but depends instead on a game of molecules carried around by specialized cells, molecules that are identical in monozygotic twins, whether they are physically separated or more or less extensively conjoined.

19Concerns, however, do not stop there. In several species of deep-sea angler fish, the male, much smaller than its companion, once found her does not leave her anymore, but joins her in the fullest sense of the term, that is, by grafting its own tissues onto those of the other, in a real permanent graft. How was this fish able to circumvent the problems of rejection, this is a still obscure aspect of their biology. A case of denied boundaries, then, but in the end these are the boundaries between two legitimate partners. Others are the boundaries the breaching of which we cannot fail to worry about.

7. Diversity out of control

20Anxiety grows the more the mix with which we are confronted is less controllable, more insidiously pervasive, and more persistent in time.

21A fundamental watershed is found in the opposition between what is legitimate among conspecifics and what appears legitimate between individuals of different species. In principle, it would seem reasonable that the latter can eat one another, but not put in common their genes or their cells, in the form of either hybrids or grafts. In contrast, transplantation of cells or organs between individuals of the same species may be perceived as an altruistic act, or at least as a medical practice to be encouraged, but very different are our reactions to cannibalism, even if practiced by animals very different from us, especially if this practice is carried out within the same family. This does not detract, however, from the fact that in some insects (midges like Miastor, and the beetles of the genus Micromalthus) there is a generation of larvae that feed on the flesh of their mother. In respect to cannibalism, however, where is the line between what you can eat and what is taboo? What will answer a sample of our fellow citizens, who are not cannibals, to whom we gradually propose, as possible edible items, a chimpanzee, a monkey, a lemur, etc.?

7.1 The other inside me

22However, as noted again by Stuart Newman, the mixing of meat - in the sense of food and feeder - has a solid place in the animal existence. But our culture has developed taboos, has erected boundaries the passing of which continues to inspire our reaction of disgust or aversion, even when the game is played between living beings that in common parlance are not even considered animals. In everyday language, in fact, the animal is – often – only the vertebrate, while the others are just worms or bugs and resume a greater dignity only if they are able to impact strongly on our aesthetic appreciation (butterflies, metallic beetles) or our gourmet attitudes (shrimps, lobsters, clams, oysters).

23The behaviour of a worm, or a tiny insect, does not seem worthy of any attention, if ever these little creatures are acknowledged the opportunity to have one. However, things change dramatically, even for the so-called man-in-the-street, if someone tells him what a tiny wasp, perhaps one or two millimetres long, is capable of doing to a moth larva, especially if this wasp is one of those in which from a single egg can be born hundreds of twins that all develop at the expense of a single victim. So, from the egg laid by mother wasp in the body of a caterpillar does not take long to form a multitude of larvae that devour their victim from the inside, leaving in the end the caterpillar's bare empty skin when it is time for them to metamorphose into as many tiny winged wasps. Which, of course, will be ready to start an identical horror story. We would not speak at all of horror, however, were the caterpillar instead quickly and resolutely torn apart by a big predator, or even by a small band of tiny predators.

24But why should a predator-prey relationship be more natural than the relationship that exists between a victim and its parasitoid that slowly devours it alive? If for a moment we manage to hold back our emotional reactions, it is not difficult to aknowledge that in reality the two events are equally natural, representing just two different forms of feeding relationship between two species, two behaviours equally valid in the economy of nature, to the extent that they ensure the survival of the species involved.

25Yet, the relationship between the parasitoid and his victim’s flesh involves a type of admixture, to use again the language of Newman, which goes far beyond the feeding relationship, that is, the consumption of the flesh of the one by the other. The extra dimension is that the one (the parasitoid) is within the body of the other, violating, more than the invisible boundaries that exist between species, the delicate physical boundaries separating individuals. The fact that the parasitoid belongs to a different species worsens the unusual nature of the situation, and the possible multiplicity of larvae that are growing within the host fill, if possible, the measure, showing a situation out of control, irreversibly doomed to destruction. However, the true alien nature of this situation is not in its predictably outcome, but right in the contamination and commingling, out of control, of meat of different species of organisms – in other words, in the prolongation of a life of torment in a context of denied boundaries.

26The knowledge that a small group of enemies are haunting the rooms and corridors of the castle can put more anxiety than the awareness of being surrounded by hundreds of enemies armed to the teeth, none of which has however crossed yet your borders, none has yet corrupted the physical entirety of your little world. A leech, a tick or a mosquito can easily suck a little blood, but fortunately they take their meals by practicing on our skin a slight injury, limited and quickly forgotten, as limited and abruptely forgotten is our concern for this temporary provocation along our somatic borders. Things change quickly, though, if a doubt creeps in that the little blood-sucking animal has introduced into our blood, with his saliva, some Borrelia or Plasmodium – alien presences capable of multiplying quietly inside our body, until all their strangeness to our flesh will turn out with the appearance of the first signs of the Lyme disease, or with the first bouts of malarial fever.

7.2 Borders denied – two in me

27To Newman, cannibalism reveals dramatically the cancellation of the traditional boundaries between different types of meat. Borders are challenged today by other practices, other processes – such as genetic engineering, transplantation of differentiated cells, implant of stem cells, or organ transplants, leading to the mingling of different meats, within a species or between individuals of different species. Next to this begins the realm of imagination – from the imaginary of people far away from us in time or in space (geographical, but also cultural), populated by creatures of hybrid forms in which human and animal parts are found together, as in the centaurs, or those of animals of different species, as in the hippogriph and the chimera, to the imaginary of our time and of our technological world, where it is available to everyone to use software that turn a body shape into that of a different species, either real or fictional.

7.3 Extinction – beyond the ultimate border

28For centuries, as a part of the Western tradition, the belief that living species have always existed (or, rather, that all existed from the instant of Creation) went together with the belief that species could not become extinct due to natural causes. In a creationist context, in which each species was a necessary part of the intricate mosaic of God’s work, its death would have shown a defect, unacceptable and impossible, in the plan of Creation.

  • 9 See, for example, Fisher and Blomberg 2010; Scheffers et al. 2011.

29However, we must acknowledge that it was not easy, even at the time of Linnaeus, to document with reasonable certainty the extinction of a species of animal or plant. Too many regions were still unexplored and no one could figure out what species would inhabit them. In addition, at the time it seemed reasonable to expect that regions similar in climate, though far apart, should hold the same forms of life, an expectation, however, contradicted by the material documents the naturalists continued to bring home when they returned from their travels around the world. However, that it is difficult to document with certainty the extinction of a species is clear from the repeated (though not necessarily true) claims of the survival of a few specimens of thylacine after the “official” date of this species’ extinction, which dates back to 1936, or from the reports of the rediscovery as extant of species that were long thought to have already disappeared9. Extinction, however, is a natural event, regardless of the fact that man can speed it up, or even determine it.

  • 10 Kurlansky 1997.

30The growing and increasingly shared perception of the fragility of existence of living species on Earth has added to a growing attention to the conservation of the species seriously endangered or even close to extinction. Concern for their decline may have simple economic reasons, especially if they are important food resources for mankind: exemplary, in this regard, is the case of cod10. This concern, however, extends to other species, particularly to those that for some reason, cultural or emotional (think of the giant panda), have turned into a symbol of biodiversity on the decline, and of the responsibility of man towards it.

  • 11 Minelli and Rigato 2013.

31With the dramatic increase in the number of species about the survival of which we feel touched to some extent, also increases the amount of the resources that the human species pours over them by providing food and shelter to the surviving specimens and by fostering their reproduction. In a sense, we are literally transforming these endangered species into as many parasites of humankind11. Parasites, of course, due to our cultural choice, but still parasites, demonstrating - almost ironically – the fact that this form of intimate relationship between two species is not against nature.

Torna su

Bibliografia

Alberch, P.
– 1991, From genes to phenotype: Dynamical systems and evolvability, “Genetica”, 84: 5-11

Darwin, C.
– 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, London, John Murray

Fisher, D.O. and Blomberg, S.P.
– 2010, Correlates of rediscovery and the detectability of extinction in mammals, “Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences”, 278: 1090-1097

Gilbert, S.F. and Epel, D.
– 2009, Ecological Developmental Biology: Integrating Epigenetics, Medicine, and Evolution, Sunderland (Mass), Sinauer Associates

Kircher, A.
– 1675, Arca Noë, in tres libros digesta, Amstelodami, apud Joannem Janssonium a Waesberge

Kurlansky, M.
– 1997, Cod: A Biography of the Fish that Changed the World, New York, Walker

Minelli, A. e Rigato, E.
– 2013, L’uomo e le specie minacciate – da un involontario parassitismo a un’auspicabile simbiosi mutualistica, “Animal Studies”, 2: 38-53

Newman, S.
– 1995, Carnal boundaries: The commingling of flesh in theory and practice, in L. Birke, R. Hubbard (eds), Reinventing Biology. Respect for Life and the Creation of Knowledge, Bloomington, Indiana University Press: 191-227

Pigliucci, M.
– 2010, Genotypephenotype mapping and the end of the ‘genes as blueprint’ metaphor, “Philosphical Transactions of the Royal Society B, Biological Sciences”, 365: 557-566

Ridley, M.
– 1993, Evolution, Boston, Blackwell; 2004 3rd ed.

Scheffers, B.R. et al.
– 2011, The world’s rediscovered species: Back from the brink?, “PLoS ONE”, 6(7): e22531

Singer, E.
– 2007, Craig Venter’s genome. The genomic pioneer bares his genetic code to the world, MIT Technology Review, Sept. 4,
URL = http://www.technologyreview.com/news/408606/craig-venters-genome/

West-Eberhard, M.J.
– 2003, Developmental Plasticity and Evolution, New York, Oxford University Press

Torna su

Note

1 This was, at least, the view expressed by Athanasius Kircher in his Arca Noë (1675).

2 See http://www.robertokusterle.it/

3 Newman 1995.

4 Darwin 1859: 469.

5 Craig Venter has been the first president of CELERA, a company focused on genetic sequencing and related technologies. He led the race between CELERA and a government-funded project to decode the human genome; and, after leaving the company (in 2002), he announced that a large part of the genome sequenced there was his own. See: Singer 2007.

6 The expression comes from Francis Crick, who used it to express the idea that “the original coding relationships were accidental, but once the code had evolved, it would be strongly maintained” (Ridley 1993: 86 3rd ed.).

7 See, for example, Alberch 1991; West-Eberhard 2003; Pigliucci 2010.

8 Gilbert and Epel 2009.

9 See, for example, Fisher and Blomberg 2010; Scheffers et al. 2011.

10 Kurlansky 1997.

11 Minelli and Rigato 2013.

Torna su

Per citare questo articolo

Notizia bibliografica

Alessandro Minelli, «Challenged boundaries»Rivista di estetica, 59 | 2015, 32-43.

Notizia bibliografica digitale

Alessandro Minelli, «Challenged boundaries»Rivista di estetica [Online], 59 | 2015, online dal 01 août 2015, consultato il 24 juin 2024. URL: http://0-journals-openedition-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/estetica/305; DOI: https://0-doi-org.catalogue.libraries.london.ac.uk/10.4000/estetica.305

Torna su

Autore

Alessandro Minelli

Articoli dello stesso autore

Torna su

Diritti d’autore

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Solamente il testo è utilizzabile con licenza CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Salvo diversa indicazione, per tutti agli altri elementi (illustrazioni, allegati importati) la copia non è autorizzata ("Tutti i diritti riservati").

Torna su
Cerca su OpenEdition Search

Sarai reindirizzato su OpenEdition Search