David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 55 (2):238-259 (1988)
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 : 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
|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
Olivier Rieppel (2010). New Essentialism in Biology. Philosophy of Science 77 (5):662-673.
Joel D. Velasco (2010). Species, Genes, and the Tree of Life. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 61 (3):599-619.
Robert J. O'Hara (1992). Telling the Tree: Narrative Representation and the Study of Evolutionary History. Biology and Philosophy 7 (2): 135–160.
Michael J. Donoghue (1990). Sociology, Selection, and Success: A Critique of David Hull's Analysis of Science and Systematics. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 5 (4):459-472.
Robert J. O'Hara (1991). Representations of the Natural System in the Nineteenth Century. Biology and Philosophy 6 (2): 255–274.
Similar books and articles
Michael Ruse (1993). Book Review:The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth Peter Bowler; The Mendelian Revolution: The Emergence of Hereditarian Concepts in Modern Science and Society Peter J. Bowler. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 60 (1):171-.
Fang Zhao-hui & David R. Schiller (2002). A Critical Reflection on the Systematics of Traditional Chinese Learning. Philosophy East and West 52 (1):36-49.
Richard Machalek & Michael W. Martin (2004). Sociology and the Second Darwinian Revolution: A Metatheoretical Analysis. Sociological Theory 22 (3):455-476.
Kevin De Queiroz & Michael J. Donoghue (1988). Phylogenetic Systematics and the Species Problem. Cladistics 4:317-38.
Michael Ruse (2005). The Darwinian Revolution, as Seen in 1979 and as Seen Twenty-Five Years Later in 2004. Journal of the History of Biology 38 (1):3 - 17.
D. R. Oldroyd (1988). Darwinian Impacts: An Introduction to the Darwinian Revolution. New South Wales University Press.
Vassiliki Betty Smocovitis (2005). "It Ain't Over 'Til It's Over": Rethinking the Darwinian Revolution. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 38 (1):33 - 49.
Jeffrey Schwartz (2009). Reflections on Systematics and Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Acta Biotheoretica 57 (1-2):295-305.
Sandra Herbert (2005). The Darwinian Revolution Revisited. Journal of the History of Biology 38 (1):51 - 66.
Kevin De Queiroz (1988). Systematics and the Darwinian Revolution. Philosophy of Science 55 (2):238 - 259.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #180,066 of 1,725,157 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #268,621 of 1,725,157 )
How can I increase my downloads?