Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T11:51:29.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematics and the Darwinian Revolution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Kevin de Queiroz
Kevin de Queiroz*
Affiliation:
Department of Zoology and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Taxonomies of living things and the methods used to produce them changed little with the institutionalization of evolutionary thinking in biology. Instead, the relationships expressed in existing taxonomies were merely reinterpreted as the result of evolution, and evolutionary concepts were developed to justify existing methods. I argue that the delay of the Darwinian Revolution in biological taxonomy has resulted partly from a failure to distinguish between two fundamentally different ways of ordering identified by Griffiths (1974): classification and systematization. Classification consists of ordering entities into classes, groups defined by the attributes of their members; in contrast, systematization consists of ordering entities into systems, more inclusive entities whose existence depends on some natural process through which their parts are related. Evolutionary, or phylogenetic, systematics takes evolutionary descent to be the natural process of interest in biological taxonomy. I outline a general framework for a truly phylogenetic systematics and examine some of its consequences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 55 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 238 - 259
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 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

†

I bear a tremendous intellectual debt to G. C. D. Griffiths, M. T. Ghiselin, and D. L. Hull, whose writings laid the foundation for this contribution. Other people who have strongly influenced my thinking either through conversations or their writings are R. de Queiroz, M. J. Donoghue, J. A. Gauthier, W. Hennig, E. Mayr, G. Nelson, M. A. Norell, M. J. Novacek, C. Patterson, N. I. Platnick, G. G. Simpson, E. O. Wiley, A. Wyss, and a host of other taxonomists arguing the virtues of their approaches and the drawbacks of others. M. J. Donoghue, R. Estes, J. A. Gauthier, M. T. Ghiselin, H. W. Greene, D. L. Hull, D. B. Wake, M. H. Wake, E. O. Wiley, and an anonymous referee provided valuable comments on earlier versions of the paper.

References

REFERENCES

Ashlock, P. D. (1979), “An Evolutionary Systematist's View of Classification”, Systematic Zoology 28: 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, A. D. (1969), “An Approach to the Theory of Natural Selection”, Philosophy 44: 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernier, R. (1984), “The Species as an Individual: Facing Essentialism”, Systematic Zoology 33: 460–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, R. L. (1984), “Response to Wyss and de Queiroz”, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 4: 609–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cracraft, J. (1983), “Species Concepts and Speciation Analysis”, Current Ornithology 1: 159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, C. R. (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
de Queiroz, K. (1985), “The Ontogenetic Method for Determining Character Polarity and its Relevance to Phylogenetic Systematics”, Systematic Zoology 34: 280–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1937), Genetics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, T. (1976), “Organismic and Molecular Aspects of Species Formation”, in Ayala, F. J. (ed.), Molecular Evolution. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer, pp. 95–105.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. (1979), “Cladism and Common Sense”, in Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N. (eds.), Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 165–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J. (1980), Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Farris, J. S. (1974), “Formal Definitions of Paraphyly and Polyphyly”, Systematic Zoology 23: 548–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaffney, E. S. (1979), “An Introduction to the Logic of Phylogeny Reconstruction”, in Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N. (eds.), Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 79–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1966), “On Psychologism in the Logic of Taxonomic Controversies”, Systematic Zoology 15: 207–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1969), The Triumph of Darwinian Method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1974), “A Radical Solution to the Species Problem”, Systematic Zoology 23: 536–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1980), “Natural Kinds and Literary Accomplishments”, The Michigan Quarterly Review 19: 73–88.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1981), “Categories, Life, and Thinking”, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 269–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1984), “‘Definition’, ‘Character’, and Other Equivocal Terms”, Systematic Zoology 33: 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiselin, M. T. (1985), “Narrow Approaches to Phylogeny: A Review of Nine Books of Cladism”, Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 1: 209–222.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. (1982), “Darwinism and the Expansion of Evolutionary Theory”, Science 216: 380–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, G. C. D. (1974), “On the Foundations of Biological Systematics”, Acta Biotheoretica 13: 85–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, G. C. D. (1976), “The Future of Linnaean Nomenclature”, Systematic Zoology 25: 168–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. (1965), “Phylogenetic Systematics”, Annual Review of Entomology 10: 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, G. C. D. (1966), Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Himmelfarb, G. (1968), Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Holsinger, K. E. (1984), “The Nature of Biological Species”, Philosophy of Science 51: 293–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopson, J. A., and Crompton, A. W. (1969), “Origin of Mammals”, Evolutionary Biology 3: 15–72.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1965), “The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy—Two Thousand Years of Stasis (II)”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 16: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1974), Philosophy of Biological Science. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1976), “Are Species Really Individuals?”, Systematic Zoology 25: 174–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1978), “A Matter of Individuality”, Philosophy of Science 45: 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1980), “Individuality and Selection”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11: 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1981), “Units of Evolution: A Metaphysical Essay”, in Jensen, U. J. and Harré, R. (eds.), The Philosophy of Evolution. Brighton, Sussex: The Harvester Press, pp. 23–44.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L. (1984), “Can Kripke Alone Save Essentialism? A Reply to Kitts”, Systematic Zoology 33: 110–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, J. S. (ed.) (1940), The New Systematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huxley, J. S. (ed.) (1958), “Evolutionary Processes and Taxonomy with Special Reference to Grades”, Uppsala Universitets Årsskrift 1958(6): 21–38.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1984), “Species”, Philosophy of Science 51: 308–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitts, D. B. (1983), “Can Baptism Alone Save a Species?”, Systematic Zoology 32: 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitts, D. B. (1984), “The Names of Species: A Reply to Hull”, Systematic Zoology 33: 112–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manser, A. R. (1965), “The Concept of Evolution”, Philosophy 40: 18–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1942), Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963), Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1969a), Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1969b), “The Biological Meaning of Species”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 1: 311–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1971), “The Nature of the Darwinian Revolution”, Science 176: 981–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1974), “Cladistic Analysis or Cladistic Classification?”, Zeitschrift fur zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 12: 94–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1981), “Biological Classification: Toward a Synthesis of Opposing Methodologies”, Science 214: 510–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1985), “Darwin and the Definition of Phylogeny”, Systematic Zoology 34: 97–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michener, C. D. (1977), “Discordant Evolution and the Classification of Allodapine Bees”, Systematic Zoology 26: 32–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. (1985), “Outgroups and Ontogeny”, Cladistics 1: 29–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, G. and Platnick, N. I. (1981), Systematics and Biogeography. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, J. (1976), “Archaeopteryx and the Origin of Birds”, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 8: 91–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, C. (1978), “Verifiability in Systematics”, Systematic Zoology 27: 218–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, C. (1982), “Morphological Characters and Homology”, in Joysey, K. A. and Friday, A. E. (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. London: Academic Press, pp. 21–74.Google Scholar
Patterson, C. (1983), “How does Phylogeny Differ from Ontogeny?”, in Goodwin, B. C., Holder, N. and Wylie, C. C. (eds.), Development and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Platnick, N. I. (1978), “Gaps and Prediction in Classification”, Systematic Zoology 27: 472–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platnick, N. I. (1979), “Philosophy and the Transformation of Cladistics”, Systematic Zoology 28: 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Romer, A. S. (1966), Vertebrate Paleontology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. (1979), The Darwinian Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Russell, E. S. (1916), Form and Function. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1953), The Major Features of Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1961), Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, P. H. A., and Sokal, R. R. (1973), Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1984), “Discussion: Sets, Species, and Evolution: Comments on Philip Kitcher's ‘Species‘”, Philosophy of Science 51: 334–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Sneath, P. H. A. (1963), The Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Stevens, P. F. (1984), “Metaphors and Typology in the Development of Botanical Systematics 1690–1960, Or the Art of Putting New Wine in Old Bottles”, Taxon 33: 169–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrba, E. S. (ed.) (1985), Species and Speciation. Pretoria: Transvaal Museum Monograph No. 4.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. (1974), “Karl R. Popper, Systematics, and Classification: A Reply to Walter Bock and Other Evolutionary Taxonomists”, Systematic Zoology 24: 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O. (1979), “Ancestors, Species, and Cladograms—Remarks on the Symposium”, in Cracraft, J. and Eldredge, N. (eds.), Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O. (1981), Phylogenetics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Willmann, R. (1983), “Biospecies und Phylogenetische Systematik”, Zeitschrift fur zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 21: 241–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyss, A., and de Queiroz, K. (1984), “Phylogenetic Methods and the Early History of Amniotes”, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 4: 604–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar