Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:44:43.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Problems with the Linnaean Hierarchy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Marc Ereshefsky
Marc Ereshefsky*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Calgary
*
‡Send reprint requests to the author, Department of Philosophy, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most biologists use the Linnaean system for constructing classifications of the organic world. The Linnaean system, however, has lost its theoretical basis due to the shift in biology from creationist and essentialist tenets to evolutionary theory. As a result, the Linnaean system is both cumbersome and ontologically vacuous. This paper illustrates the problems facing the Linnaean system, and ends with a brief introduction to an alternative approach to biological classification.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 186 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

My thanks to David Hull, Allan Larson, Michael Ruse, and Tony Russell for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.

References

Beatty, J. (1985), “Speaking of Species: Darwin's Strategy”, in Kohn, D. (ed.), The Darwinian Heritage. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 265–281.Google Scholar
Bock, W. (1977), “Foundations and Methods of Evolutionary Classification”, in Hecht, M., Goody, P., and Hecht, B. (eds.), Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 851–895.10.1007/978-1-4684-8851-7_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briggs, D. and Walters, S. (1984), Plant Variation and Evolution. 2d ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brothers, D. (1983), “Nomenclature at the Ordinal and Higher Levels”, Systematic Zoology 32: 34–42.10.2307/2413218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, A. (1958), “Logic and Memory in Linneaus's System of Taxonomy”, Proceedings of the Linnaean Society of London 169: 144–163.10.1111/j.1095-8312.1958.tb00819.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, A. (1959), “Taxonomic Concepts”, Ibis 101: 302–318.10.1111/j.1474-919X.1959.tb02387.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, A. (1962), “The Evolution of Taxonomic Principles”, in Ainsworth, G. and Sneath, P. (eds.), Microbial Classification. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. ([1859] 1964), On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
de Queiroz, K. and Donoghue, M. (1988), “Phylogenetics and the Species Problem”, Cladistics 4: 317–338.10.1111/j.1096-0031.1988.tb00518.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. and Raven, P. (1969), “Differentiation of Populations”, Science 165: 1228–1232.10.1126/science.165.3899.1228CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldredge, N. (1985), Unfinished Synthesis: Biological Hierarchies and Modern Evolutionary Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J. (1980), Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process: Method and Theory in Comparative Biology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. (1991), “Species, Higher Taxa, and the Units of Evolution”, Philosophy of Science 58: 84–101.10.1086/289600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. (1992a), “Eliminative Pluralism”, Philosophy of Science 59: 671–690.10.1086/289701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. (1992b), The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Farris, J. (1976), “Phylogenetic Classification of Fossils with Recent Species”, Systematic Zoology 25: 271–282.10.2307/2412495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futuyma, D. (1986), Evolutionary Biology. 2d ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Association.Google ScholarPubMed
Gauthier, J.; Estes, R.; and de Queiroz, K. (1988), “A Phylogenetic Analysis of Lepidosauromorpha”, in Estes, R. and Pregili, G. (eds.), Phylogenetic Relationships of the Lizard Families: Essays Commemorating Charles L. Camp. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 15–98.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. (1969), The Triumph of the Darwinian Method. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. (1987), “Species Concepts, Individuality, and Objectivity”, Biology and Philosophy 2: 127–143.Google Scholar
Griffiths, G. (1974), “On the Foundations of Biological Systematics”, Acta Biotheoretica 3–4:85–131.10.1007/BF01556343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, G. (1976), “The Future of Linnaean Nomenclature”, Systematic Zoology 25: 168–173.10.2307/2412743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. (1966), Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. ([1969] 1981), Insect Phylogeny. Translated and edited by A. C. Pont. Originally published as Die Stammesgeschichte der Insekten (Frankfurt: Waldemar Kramer). New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1965), “The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy—Two Thousand Years of Stasis”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15: 314–326.10.1093/bjps/XV.60.314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1966), “Phylogenetic Numericlature”, Systematic Zoology 15: 14–17.10.2307/2411498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1987), “Genealogical Actors in Ecological Roles”, Biology and Philosophy 2: 168–184.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1988), Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226360492.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1984), “Species”, Philosophy of Science 51: 308–333.10.1086/289182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1969), Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1970), Populations, Species, and Evolution: An Abridgment of Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Michener, C. (1963), “Some Future Developments in Taxonomy”, Systematic Zoology 12: 151–172.10.2307/2411757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1964), “The Possible Use of Uninominal Nomenclature to Increase the Stability of Names in Biology”, Systematic Zoology 13: 182–190.Google Scholar
Mishler, B. and Donoghue, M. (1982), “Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism”, Systematic Zoology 31: 491–503.10.2307/2413371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, C. and Rosen, D. (1977), “Review of Ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic Teleost Fishes and the Theory and Practice of Classifying Fossils”, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 158: 81–172.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. (1986), Evolution and Classification: The Reformation of Cladism. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. (1961), The Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.10.7312/simp92414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. (1963), “The Meaning of Taxonomic Statements”, in Washburn, S. (ed.), Classification and Human Evolution. Chicago: Aldine, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1980), “Evolution, Population Thinking, and Essentialism”, Philosophy of Science 47: 350–383.10.1086/288942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Templeton, A. (1989), “The Meaning of Species and Speciation: A Genetic Perspective”, in Otte, D. and Endler, J. (eds.), Speciation and Its Consequences. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Association, pp. 3–27.Google Scholar
Van Valen, L. (1976), “Ecological Species, Multispecies, and Oaks”, Taxon 25: 233–239.10.2307/1219444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. (1979), “An Annotated Linnaean Hierarchy, with Comments on Natural Taxa and Competing Systems”, Systematic Zoology 28: 308–337.10.2307/2412585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. (1981), Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar