Article contents
The Founding of Numerical Taxonomy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
Extract
This paper is based on my M.Sc. dissertation: ‘The Origins of Numerical Taxonomy’ 1985, submitted to the University of Leicester during the tenure of a D.E.S. State Studentship. For this work I drew extensively on interviews with Professors A. J. Cain, G. A. Harrison, R. R. Sokal and P. H. A. Sneath. I am very grateful to them for their time, interest and encouragement. Without the indefatigable assistance of Jon Harwood, this paper would never have been finished.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1988
References
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
- 17
- Cited by