This paper aims at bridging a gap between the history of American animal behavior studies and the history of sociobiology. In the post-war period, ecology, comparative psychology and ethology were all investigating animal societies, using different approaches ranging from fieldwork to laboratory studies. We argue that this disunity in “practices of place” (Kohler, Robert E. Landscapes & Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002) explains the attempts of dialogue between those three fields and early calls for unity through “sociobiology” by J. Paul Scott. In turn, tensions between the naturalist tradition and the rising reductionist approach in biology provide an original background for a history of Edward Wilson’s own version of sociobiology, much beyond the William Hamilton’s papers (Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1–16, 17–52, 1964) usually considered as its key antecedent. Naturalists were in a defensive position in the geography of the fields studying animal behavior, and in reaction were a driving force behind the various projects of synthesis called “sociobiology”.

中文翻译：

---

与动物行为研究相关的社会生物学的发展，1946-1975

本文旨在弥合美国动物行为研究史与社会生物学史之间的鸿沟。在战后时期，生态学、比较心理学和行为学都在研究动物社会，使用从田野调查到实验室研究的不同方法。我们认为，“场所实践”（Kohler, Robert E. Landscapes & Labscapes: Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002）中的这种不统一解释了这三个领域之间的对话尝试和早期呼吁通过 J. Paul Scott 的“社会生物学”实现团结。反过来，自然主义传统与生物学中正在兴起的还原论方法之间的紧张关系为爱德华威尔逊自己的社会生物学版本的历史提供了原始背景，远远超出了通常被认为是其关键先例的威廉汉密尔顿的论文（理论生物学杂志 7：1-16、17-52、1964）。博物学家在研究动物行为的领域的地理学中处于防御地位，而作为反应，则是各种称为“社会生物学”的综合项目背后的驱动力。