Close
today i learned (til)

Maria Sibylla Merian

September 30, 2019

From Larva to Painted Lady: The Life of Maria Sibylla Merian Maria Sibylla Merian was born in Frankfurt, Germany in 1647 to Johanna Sibylla Heim and Mattaus Merian. Her father died when she was young, but both he and her stepfather Jacob Marrell were well known artists. Marrell taught and collaborated with Merian on paintings throughout her childhood. The style of the time was to paint flowers, generally tulips, and add in small animals and insects for symbolism such as a butterfly for resurrection and a snail for caution. Merian took this standard and turned a scientists eye on her artistic renditions. Merian began observing and documenting the life cycles of insects when she was thirteen years old. She started out with silkworms, making detailed illustrations of every phase of their lives. Later, Merian began raising insects in order to better observe them for her notes. Eventually, her studies expanded further to the metamorphoses of moths and butterflies. When she was eighteen, she married and had daughters, Johanna Helena and, ten years later, Dorothea Maria. Late in her life she decided, after seeing insect specimens brought from across the world in the parlors of her fellow naturalists, to undertake an expedition to Surinam to study the life cycle of those new insects in person. She took her daughter, Dorothea, on this trip but they had to return after two years because of Merian’s health issues. Neues Blumenbuch was the first book Merian published. It was a book of etchings of flowers that she had produced. Merian would follow this artistic endeavor with her more naturalist publications of Der Raupen wunderbare Verwandelung und sonderbare Blumen-nahrung in 1679 detailing her studies of the life cycles of moths and butterflies, and part two of Raupen was published in 1681. Maria Sibylla gathered all of her paintings and notes into a notebook when she lived with her half brother in a Protestant community among other naturalists. This notebook was never printed, but remains an important source of information. Merian detailed the growth of frog eggs and tadpoles before Dutch microscopist Antony van Leeuwenhoek published his findings on the same subject. Merian’s most famous work is Metamorphosis which is the compendium of information she compiled about plants, insects, arachnids, amphibians, and reptiles she found in Surinam. Maria Sibylla Merian’s influence in studying the natural world and in entomology in particular cannot be overstated. Before her investigations, most people, both laypeople and scientists, believed in the dark ages notions of insect birth which included them springing from mud fully formed. Merian documented the lives and interactions of hundreds of New World species. Her work is so detailed that modern entomologists and natural scientists can still identify a majority of the species she depicted. Merian set a standard for entomological investigation and is known as the first famous female scientist of the Netherlands, where she spent a good portion of her life. Her name is engraved among a few others in the facade of the Artis Library in Amsterdam, cementing her place as a prominent scientist. Read more about Merian: The Cupola Routledge Science Direct
0Likes
DJ Baker
About Author

DJ is a third-year Computational Media Major at the Georgia Institute of Technology. They are a Science Fiction Research Fellow, a campus radio host and board operator, and the host of the Sci-Fi Lab Podcast. DJ is a writer, artist, web designer, animator, researcher, and programmer.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
What Really Happened to the Dinosaurs?
today i learned (til)
Let’s Get Physical – a pumpin’ playlist to get you moving
today i learned (til)
Caffeine: A Neuroprotective Agent Against Adenosine Receptors
today i learned (til)
Demystifying Transgender Healthcare

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.