In the history of European painting, there is a shift in pictorial representation that occurs around

the year 1420 CE. As a result of this shift, paintings became more realistic and vivid. Subjects
appear in much brighter light, which is depicted in a photographically 'correct' manner. Up until
recently, there was no satisfactory art historical explanation for how, all of a sudden, painters
began to see light in a different way, but it is now widely believed that 400 years before the
invention of photography, painters were using simple cameras to reproduce realistic images on
canvas.

If an artist wanted to paint a perfectly proportional image of an object today, she would likely take
a slide or photograph of the image, and then project it onto a canvas in order trace its outline.
Much before the development of photographic technology, however, artists were performing a
similar task with what is known as a camera obscura, which is Latin for 'dark room.' A camera
obscura is literally a dark room in which the only source of light is a piece of glass, or lens. The light
from outside the room enters through the lens, and, if the light is strong enough, forms an exact,
although inverted, replica of the outside scene onto the wall opposite the lens inside the camera
obscura. An artist can then trace the image in perfect proportion, and can objectively view the
interplay of light and shadow on a subject.

The 15th century Flemish master painter Jan van Eyck was one of the earliest painters art
historians believe made use of optics in his compositions. And it was his work which was an
obstacle in the popular acceptance of camera obscura theory. Critics of the theory pointed out,
quite accurately, that the lens technology in the early 15th century was not sufficiently advanced
to allow for the construction of a quality camera obscura. Indeed, these critics were correct. But
even though van Eyck did not use a camera obscura, he did, in fact, make use of optics in the form
of mirror projections. Although the lens technology was at the time rudimentary, mirrors,
specifically concave mirrors, were widely available, and could be made to produce a similar result
if the mirror's reflection of a brightly lit scene was projected onto a dark surface.

Paintings made from mirrors were limited, however, to a certain size as a result of the difficulty of
focusing a mirror's reflected image. The ideal focal threshold - that is, the size at which the image
achieves the sharpest focus and thus clearest image - is approximately thirty centimeters by thirty
centimeters. It is no coincidence, then, that around 1420 many of the portraits that historians
believe made use of optic technology are found to be about 30 centimeters squared.

The differences between paintings produced using a mirror and those using a camera obscura are
significant, despite the fact that they both result in a more true-to-life depiction of their subjects.
Paintings produced using a camera obscura, for example, vary in size. The size of the projection is
limited only by the size of the room. Also, for a relatively short historical period, an uneven
amount of figures in camera obscura produced paintings were left-handed. This is a result of
painters tracing the inverted image directly onto a canvas: the subjects, which would have likely
modeled right-hand dominant poses, became flipped on the canvas. When painters realized that
so many of their models were turning out backwards, they remedied the situation by reflecting the
lens projection of the camera obscura off a mirror and onto the canvas.

In 1870, forty years after the invention of photography, painting began to move away from
realistic, 'correct' representation. Artists like the French painter Paul Cezanne and the Dutch
painter Vincent van Gogh rejected verisimilitude as a primary motivation for painting, choosing
instead to obscure their images for artistic purposes. Photography, with its light-sensitive
chemicals, made optics-based painting irrelevant, but served to open up many new paths for
painters to follow into the twentieth century.

The Interbreeding of Species

Organisms can be divided into groups called species, based on similarities in physical form,
biochemistry, behavior, and genetic makeup. One such characteristic is the potential of organisms
to interbreed with each other in nature to produce viable offspring. Obviously, a lion will mate
with a lion and not with a mouse, but what prevents species that are very similar to each other,
from interbreeding? There are barriers to reproduction which isolate the gene pools of species.
These barriers are called prezygotic and postzygotic barriers, based on whether the barriers exist
before a zygote, a fertilized egg, is formed or after one is formed.

The western spotted skunk and the eastern spotted skunk are examples of species which are
closely related to each other and yet do not interbreed, hence the species are kept separate. Their
barrier to reproduction is known as temporal isolation, because they breed at different times of
the year. The western spotted skunk mates in late summer while the eastern spotted skunk mates
in late winter.

Two related species may live in the same area but rarely meet each other because they occupy
different habitats. Two species of garter snakes living in the same jungle may rarely encounter
each other because one is aquatic and the other lives primarily on land. Just as habitat isolation is
a barrier to reproduction between species, mechanical barriers may exist when species live
together. In a field containing many flowering plants, species of plants will remain isolated
because their anatomy is adapted to certain insects or animals that transfer pollen between the
same species of plants.

Differences in behavior, especially in courtship behavior, can cause reproductive isolation between
species. This is likely the most important barrier between closely related organisms. Eastern and
western meadowlarks inhabit the same area of the United States, and are almost identical in
appearance. Yet they remain separate species, partly because of the difference in their songs. On
the Galapagos Islands, another species of bird called the blue-footed booby will mate only after a
certain courtship behavior occurs in which the male lifts its feet one at a time, displaying the bright
blue feet characteristic of the species.
Even if different species can undergo the physical act of mating, a zygote, or fertilized egg, rarely
results. The sperm may not survive in the reproductive tract of the female or the molecules on the
egg's surface may not adhere to the molecules on the sperm's surface. The latter situation occurs
among aquatic animals which release their eggs and sperm into the water, where fertilization
takes place.

In the case that the egg of one species is successfully fertilized by a different species, postzygotic
barriers exist to prevent the hybrid offspring from becoming a viable, fertile adult. If fertilization
does occur, the genetic differences between species may result in an undeveloped offspring. This
has occurred among some species of frogs living in the same regions and habitats. Hybrids that do
develop fully and are strong are usually unable to have offspring because they are sterile; they are
unable to form normal sperm or eggs. The cross between a horse and a donkey, for example,
produces a sterile hybrid called a mule. The species still remain separate because, except very
rarely, the mule cannot breed with either species. Finally, there are also some cases where the
hybrids are viable and fertile, but their offspring in turn are not. These second-generation
offspring are weak or sterile.

Although reproductive barriers do exist between species, there are some cases where
interbreeding transcends these barriers. In the natural world, coyotes can interbreed with dogs
and wolves and their offspring are fully developed and fertile. When we leave the natural
environment which animals live in and turn to the laboratory or a zoo, we find that fertile hybrids
can sometimes be produced between species that do not interbreed in nature. We also find that
these reproductive barriers do not apply among some organisms, specifically organisms which can
reproduce themselves. The banana plant and certain lizards reproduce asexually, as do some fungi
and protists. Bacteria do transfer genes but in a very minimal manner compared to the gene
transfer that occurs during sexual reproduction. So as you can see, the reality of intra-species
breeding and asexual reproduction in the natural world makes it evident that a species cannot be
defined by its potential to interbreed.