¹ For a sampling of the literature over the years see: Edge, D. O., Case Studies of Scientific Specialties, University of Edinburgh, 1974Google Scholar; Geison, G. L., ‘Scientific change, emerging specialties, and research schools’, History of Science (1981), 19, 20–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Vernon, K., ‘Pus, sewage, beer and milk. Microbiology in Britain, 1870–1940’, History of Science (1990), 28, 289–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

² Allen, G. E., Life Science in the Twentieth Century, New York, 1975.Google Scholar

³ The literature on these disciplines, particularly genetics, is very large; for an introduction see: Geison, G., Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology. The Scientific Enterprise in Late Victorian Society, New York, 1978Google Scholar; Kohler, R. E., From Medical Chemistry to Biochemistry The Making of a Biomedical Discipline, Cambridge, 1982CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Provine, W. B., The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics, Chicago, 1971Google Scholar; Allen, G. E., Thomas Hunt Morgan: The Man and His Science, New York, 1978.Google Scholar That these books are now beginning to age reflects, perhaps, the changing interests of historians of biology.

⁴ Mayr, E., The Growth of Biological Thought, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.Google Scholar There is some confusion over terminology in this subject, for taxonomy and systematics are sometimes used interchangeably and sometimes given different meanings. There is also a tendency for systematics to be used in the USA. Here, I shall use taxonomy as a general term and systematics in special senses as defined in the course of the paper, or as used by contemporaries.

⁵ Allen, , op. cit. (2).Google Scholar

⁶ Cain, A. J., ‘Deductive and inductive methods in post-Linnaean taxonomy’, Proc. Linn. Soc. London (1959), 170, 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ Allen, , op. cit. (2)Google Scholar, Mayr, , op. cit. (4)Google Scholar, Dean, J. R., ‘A Naturalistic Model of Classification and its Relevance to Some Controversies in Botanical Systematics. 1900–1950’. Ph.D. thesis. (1980) University of Edinburgh.Google ScholarAppel, T. A., ‘Organizing biology. The American Society of Naturalists and its “Affiliated Societies”, 1883–1923’, in American Development of Biology (ed. Rainger, R., Benson, K. R. and Maienschein, J.), Philadelphia, 1988.Google Scholar Several other essays in this volume touch on the matter as well.

⁸ Bower, F. O., Sixty Years of Botany in Britain, London, 1938.Google Scholar

⁹ Lawrence, G. H. M., Taxonomy of Vascular Plants, New York, 1951, 9.Google Scholar

¹⁰ For (conflicting) accounts of Experimental Taxonomy see Dean, , op. cit. (7)Google Scholar, and Hagen, J. B., ‘Experimentalists and naturalists in twentieth century biology: experimental taxonomy, 1920–1950’, J. Hist. Biol. (1984), 17, 249–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹ Hagen, J. B., ‘Ecologists and taxonomists: divergent traditions in twentieth century plant geography’, J. Hist. Biol. (1986), 19, 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Organisms which bred true were generally thought to be most deserving of the title ‘species’, but this could only be established on extensive evidence of breeding behaviour, which was difficult to obtain; consequently other sorts of evidence were used in lieu of this genetic affinity. Morphological resemblance was often taken as evidence of genetic relationships or recency of common descent. Cytogenetics became a popular source of evidence because it was somehow felt to be ‘closer’ to the genetic material in the chromosomes than external appearances.

¹³ Turesson, G., ‘The genotypic response of the plant species to the habitat’, Hereditas (1922), 3, 211–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁴ Several British taxonomists seem to have held such fears (Hagen, op. cit. (11)).

¹⁵ Dean, op. cit. (7), and Hagen, op. cit. (10).

¹⁶ Mayr, , op. cit. (4).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Huxley, J. S. (ed.), The New Systematics, Oxford, 1940.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Wright, S., ‘The statistical consequences of Mendelian heredity in relation to speciation’Google Scholar, in Huxley, , op. cit. (17), 161–84Google Scholar; Timofeeff-Ressovsky, N., ‘Mutations and geographical variation’Google Scholar, in Huxley, , op. cit. (17), 73–136.Google Scholar

¹⁹ E.g. Salisbury, E. J., ‘Ecological aspects of plant taxonomy’Google Scholar, in Huxley, , op. cit. (17), 329–40.Google Scholar

²⁰ E.g. Caiman, W. T., ‘A museum zoologist's view of taxonomy’Google Scholar, in Huxley, , op. cit. (17), 455–60.Google Scholar

²¹ Hull, D. L., ‘Contemporary systematic philosophies’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics (1970), 1, 19–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² Allen, , op. cit. (2).Google Scholar

²³ Mayr, E. and Provine, W. (eds.), The Evolutionary Synthesis. Cambridge, Mass., 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a useful recent summary see Provine, W. B., ‘Adaptation and mechanisms of evolution after Darwin: a study in persistent controversies’, in The Darwinian Heritage (ed. Kohn, D.), New York, 1986.Google Scholar

²⁴ Provine, W. B., Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology. Chicago, 1986.Google Scholar There is also work in progress on Simpson and Dobzhansky. See also Mayr, , op. cit. (4)Google Scholar, Mayr, and Provine, , op. cit. (23)Google Scholar and Provine, , op. cit. (23).Google Scholar

²⁵ Biology has sometimes for convenience been divided into experimental and evolutionary biology. Taxonomy would come under evolutionary biology.

²⁶ Mayr, E., ‘Introduction’Google Scholar, in Mayr, and Provine, , op. cit. (23).Google Scholar

²⁷ Dobzhansky, T., Genetics and the Origin of Species, New York, 1937.Google Scholar

²⁸ Mayr, E., Systematics and the Origin of Species, New York, 1942.Google Scholar

²⁹ Mayr, , op. cit. (4).Google Scholar

³⁰ See Mayr, , op. cit. (4)Google Scholar and Stresemann, E., Ornithology: From Aristotle to the Present, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.Google Scholar

³¹ Mayr, , op. cit. (28), 127.Google Scholar

³² Taxonomists, used to studying wild populations in the field, were more impressed with the role of environmental pressures than the autonomous, internal genetic leaps postulated by laboratory geneticists.

³³ Simpson, G. G., Tempo and Mode in Evolution, New York, 1944.Google Scholar

³⁴ A good analysis of Tempo and Mode in Evolution has been provided by Gould, S. J., ‘G. G. Simpson, palaeontology and the modern synthesis’Google Scholar, in Mayr, and Provine, , op. cit. (23).Google Scholar

³⁵ Mayr, , op. cit. (28), 1.Google Scholar

³⁶ Mayr, , op. cit. (28), 3.Google Scholar

³⁷ Simpson, G. G., ‘The principles of classification and a classification of mammals’, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History (1945), 85, 1.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid., 2.

³⁹ Mayr, E., Linsley, E. G. and Usinger, R. L., Methods and Principles of Systematic Zoology, New York, 1953.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Simpson, , op. cit. (37), 1.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Simpson, , op. cit. (37).Google Scholar This was subsequently expanded into: Simpson, G. G., Principles of Animal Taxonomy, New York, 1961.Google Scholar

⁴² Mayr, et al. , op. cit. (39).Google Scholar

⁴³ Ibid. 25.

⁴⁴ Ibid. 13.

⁴⁵ Ibid. 42.

⁴⁶ Simpson, (1961), op. cit. (41), 14.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Mayr, et al. , op. cit. (39), 19.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ There is, as yet, no secondary literature on Taxon and the IAPT. For a survey of their activities see Stafleu, F. A., ‘A face-lift for Taxon’, Taxon (1967), 16, 67.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Blackwelder, R. E., ‘Twenty-five years of taxonomy’, Systematic Zool. (1977), 26, 107–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Unfortunately, I have been unable to find independent confirmation of this.

⁵⁰ Systematic Zoology Newsletter No. 1, December 1949.

⁵¹ Systematic Zoology Newsletter No. 2, March 1950, 2.

⁵² Ibid.

⁵³ Ibid., 1. In the opinion of one reviewer, Mayr, Linsley and Usinger's book fulfilled this need. C. L. Hubbs, Review of Mayr, et al. , Systematic Zool. (1953), 2, 93.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Hull, D. L., ‘Thirty-one years of Systematic Zoology’, Systematic Zool. (1983), 32, 315–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁵ Systematic Zool. (1952), 1Google Scholar, inside cover.

⁵⁶ Petrunkevitch, A., ‘Principles of classification as illustrated by studies of Arachnida’, Systematic Zool. (1952), 1, 1–19, on 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ Ibid.

⁵⁸ Myers, G. S., ‘The nature of systematic biology and of a species description’, Systematic Zool. (1952), 1, 106–11, on 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ Stunkard, H. W., ‘Life histories and systematics of parasitic worms’, Systematic Zool. (1953), 2, 7–18, on 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶⁰ Orton, G. C., ‘The systematics of vertebrate larvae’, Systematic Zool. (1953), 2, 63–75, on 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ See Hull, , op. cit. (54)Google Scholar for a summary of the contents of Systematic Zoology.

⁶² Stearn, W. T., The Natural History Museum at South Kensington. A History of the British Museum (Natural History), 1753–1980, London, 1981.Google ScholarBlunt, W., In for a Penny. A Prospect of Kew Gardens, London, 1978.Google Scholar

⁶³ Civil Estimates for the Year Ending 31 March 1951, Class IV, 3, HMSO, London. Parliamentary Papers, Accounts 1950, 17.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments for the Year Ending 31 March 1955, Class IV, 3, HMSO, London. Parliamentary Papers, Accounts 1953–1954, 23, i.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ University Grants Committee 1951. Interim Report on the Years 1947–51. Cmd. 8473, HMSO, London. Parliamentary Papers, Reports 1951–1952, 18.Google Scholar University Grants Committee 1953. Report on the Years 1947–52. Cmd. 8875. HMSO London. Parliamentary Papers, 1952–1953, 17.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Annual Report 1958/1959Google Scholar, HMSO, London. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Annual Report 1955/1956Google Scholar, HMSO, London.

⁶⁷ Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy 1959–60. Cmd. 1167, HMSO, London. Parliamentary Papers, Reports, 1959–1960, 20, 7.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Annual Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy 1961–62. Cmd. 1920, HMSO, London. Parliamentary Papers, Reports. 1962–1963, 24, 6–8.Google ScholarYearbook of the Royal Society of London, 1958, 19.Google Scholar The Royal Society was, in fact, invited to respond.

⁶⁹ The Royal Society, Taxonomy. Report of a Committee appointed by the Council of the Royal Society, London, 1963.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Ibid., 2.

⁷¹ There was a serious dispute in the Systematics Association, the primary forum for discussion of taxonomy in Britain (see note 98 below), over this report, resulting in the resignation of A. J. Cain, an officer of the association. Cain had been asked to prepare a response to the report which was thought to be too critical. A rather more restrained answer was eventually approved for submission to Nature. Sylvester-Bradley, P. C., Heywood, V. H. and Sneath, P. H. A., ‘Development and support of systematics in Britain’, Nature (1964), 203, 358–9.Google Scholar For further details of this episode see Vernon, K., The Stone of Sisyphus. Numerical Taxonomy and the Taxonomists' Search for Respectability. 1957–73. Ph.D. thesis. 1987. University of Manchester.Google Scholar

⁷² Mayr, E. and Godwin, R., Biological Materials Part 1. Preserved Materials and Museum CollectionsGoogle Scholar, Biology Council, Division of Biology and Agriculture Publ. 399, Washington (no date).

⁷³ Ibid., 18.

⁷⁴ Schaffter, D., The National Science Foundation, New York.Google Scholar Toby Appel is currently doing some work on the support of biology by the NSF.

⁷⁵ Schmidt, K. P., ‘The promotion of research’, Systematic Zool. (1952), 1, 145.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Just, T., ‘Generic synopsis and modern taxonomy’, Chronica Botanica (1953), 14, 103–14.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Waterman, H. T., ‘The National Science Foundation. A ten-year resumé’, Science (1960), 131, 1341–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁷⁸ Mayr, to author, 27 08 1986.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Ibid.

⁸⁰ Reish, D. L., ‘An analysis of a sample of systematic literature 1758–1954’, Systematic Zool. (1958), 7, 174–80.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Barnard, J. L., ‘The question of decline in systematic activity, measured in the marine Amphipoda’, Systematic Zool. (1958), 7, 123–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸² Blackwelder, R. E., ‘The open season on taxonomists’, Systematic Zool. (1954), 3, 177–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸³ Hedgpeth, J. W., Menzies, R., Hurd, L. and Burkenrood, M., ‘On certain problems of taxonomists’, Science (1953), 117, 17–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

⁸⁴ Rollins, R. C., ‘Plant taxonomy today’, Systematic Zool. (1953), 2, 180–91, on 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁵ Constance, L., ‘Plant taxonomy in an age of experiment’, American journal of Botany (1957), 44, 88–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁶ Ibid., 92.

⁸⁷ Blackwelder, R. E. and Boyden, A. A., ‘The nature of systematics’, Systematic Zool. (1952), 1, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸⁸ Ibid., 30.

⁸⁹ Ibid., 33.

⁹⁰ Myers, , op. cit. (58).Google Scholar

⁹¹ Blackwelder, R. E., ‘Animal taxonomy and the New Systematics’, Survey Biological Progress (1962), 4 1–47.Google Scholar Blackwelder was also highly critical of Simpson's sweeping statements like ‘the majority of taxonomist: agree’ in his review of Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Systematic Zool. (1961), 10, 197.Google Scholar

⁹² Ibid., 3.

⁹³ Bigelow, R. S., ‘Classification and phylogeny’, Systematic Zool. (1958), 7, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁴ Borgmeier, T., ‘Basic questions of systematics’, Systematic Zool. (1957), 6, 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁵ Ibid., 70.

⁹⁶ Lawrence, , op. cit. (9).Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Ibid., 93.

⁹⁸ The Systematics Association was a group set up by Turrill and Gilmour in the late 1930s as the Society for the Study of Systematics in Relation to General Biology. They were concerned at the parallel terminological systems being created by experimental taxonomists, so they met with some of their botanical colleagues to try to establish some agreement and so avoid conflict and confusion. They asked zoologists to join them and the Society was formed to consider diverse aspects of principles, education and recognition of taxonomy. The core botanists, however, during the 1940s, found little in common with their zoological colleagues. Zoologists they found were obsessed with evolutionary matters, which to many botanists were merely the sort of special concern they had tried to avoid with experimental taxonomy. M. P. Winsor has done some, as yet unpublished, work on the Systematics Association. This is derived from a seminar she gave at University College London, on 9 February 1986.

⁹⁹ The differences between botanical and zoological taxonomy, and differences in their development, have been noted by several authors (all botanists). Walters, S. M., ‘The shaping of Angiosperm taxonomy’, New Phytologist (1961), 60, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarStevens, 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, 169–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarStebbins, G. L., ‘Botany and the synthetic theory of evolution’Google Scholar, in Mayr, and Provine, , op. cit. (23).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Turrill, W. B., ‘Phytogeny in relation to classification’, Nature (1951), 187, 503–5.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Turrill, W. B., ‘Taxonomic aims and principles’, Nature (1952), 169, 388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹⁰² Turrill, W. B., ‘Modern trends in classification of plants’, Nature (1950), 166, 384.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Controversy erupted more vigorously with the development of Numerical Taxonomy and later Cladistics. See Vernon, K., The Stone of Sisyphus. Numerical Taxonomy and the Taxonomists' Search for Respectability. 1957–73. Ph.D. thesis, 1987. University of Manchester.Google ScholarHull, D. L., Science as a Process. An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science, Chicago, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar