Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:47:09.112Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Purposes of Biological Classification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2023

Norman I. Platnick  and
Gareth Nelson
Norman I. Platnick
Affiliation:
The American Museum of Natural History
Gareth Nelson
Affiliation:
The American Museum of Natural History
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

All biologists use classifications to one degree or another, and those of us who work on classifications use the results of all other biologists to one degree or another, so you might reasonably expect that biologists in general would share some common conception of how classifications should be constructed and how they can be used. Certainly one might expect that all taxonomists, at least, would share such a perspective. But this is not the case; in fact, the theory of taxonomy is at present a very controversial subject, with much of the controversy revolving around the question of how to go about constructing an ideal classification.

Surprisingly, there is relatively little controversy about what properties an ideal classification would have. Admittedly, different terms are used to describe these properties, various workers arguing that classifications should be maximally stable, or maximally useful, or maximally informative, or maximally testable, or maximally refutable, or maximally predictive, and so on.

Type
Part IV. The Purposes of Biological Classification
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 116 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 Philosophy of Science Association

References

[1] Brundin, L. “Transantarctic Relationships and their Significance, as Evidenced by Chironomid Midges.” Kungliga Syenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 11(1966): 1–472.Google Scholar
[2] Croizat, L. “History and Nomenclature of the High Units of Classification.” Bulletin of the Torrev Botanical Club 72(1945): 52–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3] Farris, J.S. “On the Phenetic Approach to Vertebrate Classification.” In Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. Edited by Hecht, Max K.., Goody, Peter C., and Hecht, Bessie M.. New York: Plenum Press, 1976. Pages 823–850.Google Scholar
[4] Hennig, W. Grundzüge einer Theorie der Phylogenetischen Systematik. Berlin: Deutscher Zentralverlag, 1950. (Translated as [5].)Google Scholar
[5] Hennig, W. Phylogenetic Systematics. (trans.) Davis, D.D. and Zangerl, R. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1966. (Originally published as [4].)Google Scholar
[6] Hull, D. “The Principles of Biological Classification: The Use and Abuse of Philosophy.” In PSA 1978. Volume 2. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Hacking, I. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association, 1981. Pages 130–153.Google Scholar
[7] Jussieu, Antoine Laurent de. Genera Plantarum secundum ordines Naturales disposita. Paris: Herissant, 1789.Google Scholar
[8] Laudan, L. Progress and Its Problems: Towards a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.Google Scholar
[9] Linnaeus, Karl. Systema Naturae. Leyden: J.F. Gronovium, 1735.Google Scholar
[10] Mitchell, P.C. “On the Intestinal Tract of Birds; with Remarks on the Valuation and Nomenclature of Zoological Characters.” Transactions of the Linnaean Society of London, Zoology 8(1901): 173–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11] Nelson, G. “Ontogeny, Phylogeny, Paleontology, and the Biogenetic Law.” Systematic Zoology 27(1978): 324–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12] Nelson, G. “Cladistic Analysis and Synthesis: Principles and Definitions.” Systematic Zoology 28(1979): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13] Platnick, N.I. “Cladograms, Phylogenetio Trees, and Hypothesis Testing.” Systematic Zoology 26(1977): 438–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14] Platnick, N.I. “Philosophy and the Transformation of Cladistics.” Systematic Zoology 28(1979): 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15] Popper, K.R. Logik der Forsohung. Wien: Springer, 1934. (As reprinted as The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.)Google Scholar