¹ Michener, C.D. and Sokal, R.R., ‘A Quantitative Approach to a Problem in Classification’, Evolution, (1957), 11, pp. 130–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCain, A.J. and Harrison, G.A., ‘An Analysis of the Taxonomist's Judgement of Affinity’, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1958), 131, pp. 85–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSneath, P.H.A., ‘Some Thoughts on Bacterial Classification’, J. Gen. Microbiol. (1957a), 17, pp. 184–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed ‘The Application of Computers to Taxonomy’, J. Gen. Microbol. (1957b), 17, pp. 201–26.Google ScholarRogers, D.J. and Tanimoto, T.T., ‘A Computer Program for Classifying Plants’, Science, (1960), 132, pp. 1115–1118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedSneath, P.H.A. and Sokal, R.R., ‘Numerical Taxonomy’, Nature, (1962), 193, pp. 855–860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

² See Hull, D.L. ‘Thirty-one Years of Systematic Zoology’, Systematic Zool. (1983), 32, pp. 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘Bias and Commitment in Science: Phenetics and Cladistics’, Annals of Science, (1985), 42, pp. 319–338.Google Scholar

³ For a thorough survey of numerical taxonomy see Sneath, P.H.A. and Sokal, R.R., Numerical Taxonomy, San Francisco, 1973.Google Scholar

⁴ Goodfellow, M., Jones, D. and Priest, F.G. (eds), Computer-assisted Bacterial Systematics. Special Publications of the Society for General Microbiology 15. London, 1985Google Scholar, dedication. The scope of this paper has, deliberately, been kept narrow, to enable a detailed examination of the founding of the numerical taxonomy position, achieved by these three groups. There is, of course, a much wider background of earlier attempts at a ‘quantitative taxonomy’, parallel developments in other fields, and taxonomy generally, in the twentieth century, which is cursorily summarized here. The background is considered in much greater depth in my Ph.D.thesis. In that work I also follow the subsequent development of numerical taxonomy and some of the controversies which surrounded its earlier history.

⁵ Sneath, , op. cit. (1).Google ScholarMichener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1).Google ScholarSokal, R.R. and Michener, C.D., ‘A Statistical Method for Evaluating Systematic Relationships’, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. (1958), 38, pp. 1409–1438.Google ScholarCain, A.J. and Harrison, G.A., op. cit. (1).Google Scholar

⁶ E.g., Mayr, E., The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, Mass. 1982, pp. 221–225.Google ScholarSokal, R.R., ‘The Principles of Numerical Taxonomy: Twenty-five Years Later’Google Scholar, in Goodfellow, James, and Priest, , op. cit. (4), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

⁷ Stevens, P. F., ‘Metaphors and Typology in the Development of Botanical Systematics 1690–1960, or the Art of Putting New Wine in Old Bottles’, Taxon. (1984), 33, pp. 169–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ Darwin, C., The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 6th edn. Reprint, Oxford.Google Scholar

⁹ E.g., Mayr, , op. cit. (6), pp. 222–226.Google ScholarCain, A.J., ‘Deductive and Inductive Methods in Post-Linnaean Taxonomy’, Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (1959), 170, pp. 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Allen, G.E., Life Sciences in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge, 1975, p. xxiii.Google Scholar

¹¹ Huxley, J.S. (ed.) The New Systematics, Oxford, 1940.Google Scholar

¹² Mayr, E., ‘The New Systematics’, in Taxonomic Biochemistry, Physiology and Serology, Leone, C.A. (ed.), New York, 1963, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar

¹³ The new systematics was the approach to taxonomy which taxonomists derived from the volume of the same name, op. cit. (11).

¹⁴ Mayr, E. and Provine, W.B. (eds), The Evolutionary Synthesis, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Huxley, , op. cit. (11), p. 2.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Cain, A.J., personal communication.Google Scholar

¹⁷ E.g., Gilmour, J.S.L., ‘The Development of Taxonomic Theory Since 1951’, Nature, (1951), 168, pp. 400–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁸ Blackwelder, R.E. and Boyden, A.A., ‘The Nature of Systematics’, Systematic Zool. (1952), 1, pp. 26–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBigelow, R.S., ‘Monophyletic Classification and Evolution’, Systematic Zool. (1956), 5, pp. 145–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBorgmeier, T., ‘Basic Questions of Systematics’, Systematic Zool. (1957), 6, pp. 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁹ Sneath, , op. cit. (1).Google Scholar

²⁰ Sneath, P.H.A., Whelan, J.P.F., Bhagwan-Singh, R. and Edwards, D., ‘Fatal Infection by Chromobacterium violaceum’, Lancet, (1953), ii, pp. 276–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ Sneath, P.H.A., ‘Putrescine as an Essential Growth Factor for a Mutant of Apsergillus nidulans’, Nature, (1955), 175, p. 818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSneath, P.H.A., ‘Failure of Chromobacterium violaceum to Grow on Nutrient Agar, Attributed to Hydrogen Peroxide’, J. Gen. Microbiol. (1955), 13, p. i.Google ScholarSneath, P.H.A., ‘Spontaneous Nature of Heritable Change to Production of Penicillinase’, Heredity, (1955), 9, p. 290.Google Scholar

²² Sneath's M.D. thesis was published in full in Iowa State Journal of Science, (1960), 34, pp. 243–500.Google Scholar

²³ Sneath, P.H.A., ‘Cultural and Biochemical Characteristics of the Genus Chromobacterium’, (1956), 15, p. 70.Google Scholar

²⁴ Sneath, P.H.A., ‘Conservation of the Generic Name Chromobacterium and Designation of Type Species and Type Strains’, International Bulletin of Bacteriological Nomenclature and Taxonomy, (1956), 6, pp. 65–91.Google Scholar

²⁵ Sneath, P.H.A., ‘The Change from Polar to Peritrichous Flagellation in Chromobacterium, J. Gen. Microbiol. (1956), 15, pp. 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

²⁶ Chester, F.D., A Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, New York, 1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ Sneath, , op. cit. (25), p. 104.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cowan, S.T., ‘Ordnung in Das Chaos “Migula”’, Canad.J. Micro. (1956), 2, pp. 212–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁹ Sneath, , op. cit. (1). a.Google Scholar

³⁰ Bissett, K.A., Bacteria, Edinburgh, 1952.Google Scholar

³¹ Sneath, P.H.A., personal communication.Google Scholar

³² Sporne, K.R., ‘The Phylogenetic Classification of the Angiosperms’, Biol. Rev. (1956), 31, pp. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Gilmour, J.S.L., ‘Taxonomy and Philosophy’Google Scholar in Huxley, , op. cit. (11), p. 461–474.Google Scholar

³⁴ Gilmour, J.S.L., ‘A Taxonomic Problem’, Nature, (1937), 139, pp. 1040–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and op. cit. (33) and (17).

³⁵ Gilmour was strongly influenced by positivist epistemology and cited Pringle, H., ‘The Rational and Empirical Elements in Physics’, Philosophy, (1938), 13, pp. 148–165.Google Scholar

³⁶ Turrill, , op. cit. (17).Google Scholar

³⁷ Bather, F.A., ‘Biological Classification: Past and Future’, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. (1927), 831, pp. ixii–civ.Google Scholar

³⁸ Adanson, M., Families des Plantes, 2 vols. Paris, 1763, Vol. 1, Preface.Google Scholar

³⁹ Sneath, P.H.A., ‘Early Experience with Computers’, Binary, the Society for General Microbiology Computer Club Newsletter, (1984), 1, pp. 5–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Sneath, , op. cit. (1), a.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Sneath, , op. cit. (1), b.Google Scholar

⁴² Michener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1)Google Scholar, Sokal, and Michener, , op. cit. (5).Google Scholar

⁴³ Michener, C.D., ‘Comparative External Morphology, Phylogeny and a Classification of the Bees’, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. (1944), 82, pp. 151–326.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Sokal, R.R. to Mayr, E., 25 09 1967.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Michener, C.D., ‘The Biology of a leaf-cutter Bee (M. brevis) and its Associates’, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull, (1953), 35, pp. 1659–1748.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Michener, C.D., ‘Comparative Morphology and Systematic Studies of Bee Larvae with a Key to the Families of Hymenopteran larvae’, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., (1953), 35, pp. 987–1102.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Michener, to Author, , 27 01 1985.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Stroud, C.P., ‘An Application of Factor Analysis to the Systematics of Kaloternes’, Systematic Zool. (1953), 2, pp. 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁹ Thurstone, L.L., Multiple Factor Analysis, Chicago, 1947.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Sokal, R.R., ‘Variation in a Local Population of Pemphigus’, Evolution, (1952), 6, pp. 296–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSokal, R.R., ‘An Apparently Genetic Inhibition of Antennal Differentiation in the Aphid Pemphigus populi-transversus’, J. Hered. (1953), 44, pp. 219–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ Sokal, R.R. and Hunter, P.E., ‘A Morphometric Analysis of DDT Resistant and Non-resistant House-fly Strains’, Ann. Ent.Soc.Amer., (1955), 48, pp. 444–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵² Sokal, R.R., personal communication.Google Scholar

⁵³ Hurd, P.D. and Michener, C.D., ‘The Megachiline Bees of California’, Bull. Calif. Insect Survey, (1955), 3, pp. 1–247.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Sturtevant, A.H., ‘The Classification of the Genus Drosophila with Descriptions of Nine New Species’, Univ. Texas Publ. (1942), 4213.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Sokal, R.R., personal communication.Google Scholar There was, however, a body of statistical literature relating to classification which Sokal would have known about, e.g., Pearson's Coefficient of Racial Likeness (Biometrika, (1926), 18, pp. 105–117)Google Scholar, Fisher's discriminant functions (Ann. Eugen. (1936), 7, pp. 179–188)Google Scholar and the work of the Indian statisticians and anthropometricians Mahalnobis and Rao (see Rao, , C.R., ‘Utilization of multiple Measurements in Problems of Biological Classification’, J. Roy. Statist. Soc., Ser. B, (1948), 10, pp. 159–193).Google Scholar These had not been adopted by taxonomists very widely but they formed part of the pool of statistical resources on which numerical taxonomy drew in subsequent years. Sokal especially made use of standard statistical procedures and adopted them to biological classification; later numerical taxonomists devised completely new methods.

⁵⁶ Sokal, and Michener, , op. cit. (5).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Michener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1), pp. 130–131.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid., p. 133.

⁵⁹ Sokal, to Mayr, 3 04 1956Google Scholar, Mayr, to Sokal, 18 04 1956Google Scholar, Sokal, to Mayr, 9 05 1956Google Scholar, Sokal, to Simpson, 3 04 1956Google Scholar, Simpson, to Sokal, 16 04 1956Google Scholar, Sokal, to Simpson, 6 05 1956.Google Scholar Letters held by Sokal.

⁶⁰ Michener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1).Google Scholar

⁶¹ Sokal, and Michener, , op. cit. (5).Google Scholar

⁶² Michener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1), p. 161.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid., pp. 154–156.

⁶⁴ Ibid. p. 157.

⁶⁵ Cain, and Harrison, , op. cit. (1).Google ScholarCain, A.J. and Harrison, G.A., ‘Phylogenetic Weighting’, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1960), 135, pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁶ Cain, A.J., ‘Demonstration of Lipine in the Golgi Apparatus in Gut Cells of Glossiphonia’, Quart. J. Sci. (1947), 88, pp. 151–157.Google ScholarPubMed

⁶⁷ E.g., Cain, A.J. and Sheppard, P.M., ‘The Effects of Natural Selection on Body Colour in the Land Snail Cepaea nemoralis’, Heredity, (1952), 6, pp. 217–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCain, A.J. and Shepard, P.M., ‘Selection in the Polymorphic Land Snail Cepaea nemoralis’, Heredity, (1950), 4, pp. 279–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁶⁸ Cain cited Carter, G., Animal Evolution, London, 1951Google Scholar, and objected to it specifically because it gave C. nemoralis as an example of random drift.

⁶⁹ Cain, A.J., ‘So-called Non-Adoptive or Neutral Characters in Evolution’, Nature, (1951), 168, p. 424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCain, A.J., ‘Nonadaptive or Neutral Characters in Evolution’, Nature, (1951), 168, p. 1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁰ Cain, A.J., ‘Subdivisions of the Genus Ptilinopus, (Aves, Columbae)’, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Zoology, (1954), 2, pp, 267–284.Google ScholarCain, A. J., ‘Affinities of the Fruit Pigeon Ptilinopus perousii, Peale’, Ibis, (1954), 96, pp. 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷¹ See, e.g., Mayr, E., (ed.), The Species Problem, Washington, D.C., 1957.Google Scholar

⁷² Mayr, E., Systematics and the Origin of Species, New York, 1947.Google Scholar

⁷³ See Cain, A.J., Animal Species and their Evolution, London, 1954.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ E.g. Cain, , op. cit. (70).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Cain, A.J., ‘Chromosomes and Taxonomic Importance’, Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (1958), 169, pp. 125–128.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Cain, A.J., personal communication.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Harrison, G.A., personal communication.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ E.g., K. Pearson's Co-efficient of Racial Likeness. Pearson, K., ‘On the Co-efficient of Racial Likeness’, Biometrika, (1926), 18, pp. 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁹ Cain, and Harrison, , op. cit. (1).Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Cain, and Harrison, , op. cit. (65).Google Scholar

⁸¹ See Tryon, R.C., Cluster Analysis, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1934.Google Scholar

⁸² Holzinger, K.J. and Harmon, H.H., Factor Analysis, Chicago, 1941.Google Scholar

⁸³ There is some debate about the actual similarities between Adanson and what he was trying to achieve and what Sneath was trying to do. See Stafleu, F.A., ‘Adanson and the “families des Plantes”’ in Lawrence, G.H.M. (ed.) Adanson, the Bicentennial of Michel Adanson's ‘families des Plantes’, Pittsburgh, Part 1, pp. 123–264, 1963.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ E.g., Sokal, , op. cit. (6).Google Scholar Computers became increasingly available and more powerful during the subsequent development of numerical taxonomy and much work was devoted to programming numerical taxonomy for computers. Although some early numerical taxonomic work was done by hand, with the volume of data required for measurements of overall similarity it was virtually inviable without using a computer.

⁸⁵ Michener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1), p. 161.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Merton, R.K., ‘Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery’, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. (1961), 105, pp. 470–486.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Mulkay, M.J., ‘Conceptual Displacement and Migration in Science: A Prefaratory Paper’, Sci. Studies, (1974), 4, pp. 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁸ Schon, D., Displacement of Concepts, London, 1963.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Sokal, , personal communication.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Sneath, , personal communication.Google Scholar