David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Acta Biotheoretica 31 (2):127-141 (1982)
The authors analyze Takhtajan's system of classification of the Angiosperms in relation to the principles of evolutionary and cladistic systematics. It is shown that Takhtajan belongs to the evolutionary school: he identifies the ancestors of some taxa, he accepts polytomous branching and he groups taxa on the basis of primitive as well as derived character states. Takhtajan's notion of weighted similarity does not appear to be based on objective criteria, when determining the weight and evolutionary status of characters.After a summary of the modifications brought out by Takhtajan in his 1980 version, the weak and strong points of evolutionary systems as a whole are emphasized. In these, the delimitation of taxa and their filiation are difficult to refute since they do not rely on precise criteria, which would ensure continuity and uniformity within a given system. However, these systems have some flexibility, which allows them to incorporate readily new information, a feature unfortunately missing in cladistic classifications. In fact, while it does have weaknesses from a theoretical point of view, the system of Takhtajan gives us an idea of flowering plants phylogeny that appears to be one of the most complete at the present time from both analytical and synthetic standpoints
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
M. Ereshefsky (2001). Names, Numbers and Indentations: A Guide to Post-Linnaean Taxonomy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 32 (2):361-383.
David M. Williams, Robert W. Scotland, Christopher J. Humphries & Darrell J. Siebert (1996). Confusion in Philosophy: A Comment on Williams (1992). Synthese 108 (1):127 - 136.
Jerzy A. Wojciechowski (ed.) (1974). Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge: Proceedings of the Ottawa Conference on the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, Oct. 1-5, 1971 = les Fondements De La Classification des Savoirs: Actes Du Colloque d'Ottawa Sur les Fondements De La Classification des Savoirs Du Ler au 5 Octobre 1971. [REVIEW] Verlag Dokumentation.
Jerzy A. Wojciechowski (ed.) (1978). Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge: Proceedings of the Ottawa Conference on the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, Oct. 1st to 5th, 1971 = les Fondements De La Classification des Savoirs: Actes Du Colloque d'Ottawa Sur les Fondements De La Classification des Savoirs Du Ler au 5 Octobre 1971. [REVIEW] K. G. Saur.
Ingetraut Dahlberg (2008). The Information Coding Classification (ICC): A Modern, Theory-Based Fully-Faceted, Universal System of Knowledge Fields. [REVIEW] Axiomathes 18 (2):161-176.
Leandro Assis & Ingo Brigandt (2009). Homology: Homeostatic Property Cluster Kinds in Systematics and Evolution. Evolutionary Biology 36:248-255.
Marc Ereshefsky (1991). Species, Higher Taxa, and the Units of Evolution. Philosophy of Science 58 (1):84-101.
Marc Ereshefsky (1997). The Evolution of the Linnaean Hierarchy. Biology and Philosophy 12 (4):493-519.
L. D. (2001). The Role of Theories in Biological Systematics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 32 (2):221-238.
Mark Wilkinson (1991). The Use of Primitive Character State Distributions in the Assessment of Holophyly. Acta Biotheoretica 39 (1):37-46.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?