Search results for 'systematics' (try it on Scholar)

241 found
Order:
  1.  79
    Beckett Sterner (2014). Well-Structured Biology: Numerical Taxonomy's Epistemic Vision for Systematics. In Andrew Hamilton (ed.), The Evolution of Phylogenetic Systematics. University of California Press 213-244.
    What does it look like when a group of scientists set out to re-envision an entire field of biology in symbolic and formal terms? I analyze the founding and articulation of Numerical Taxonomy between 1950 and 1970, the period when it set out a radical new approach to classification and founded a tradition of mathematics in systematic biology. I argue that introducing mathematics in a comprehensive way also requires re-organizing the daily work of scientists in the field. Numerical taxonomists sought (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  37
    Walter J. Bock (1994). Ernst Mayr, Naturalist: His Contributions to Systematics and Evolution. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 9 (3):267-327.
    Ernst Mayr''s scientific career continues strongly 70 years after he published his first scientific paper in 1923. He is primarily a naturalist and ornithologist which has influenced his basic approach in science and later in philosophy and history of science. Mayr studied at the Natural History Museum in Berlin with Professor E. Stresemann, a leader in the most progressive school of avian systematics of the time. The contracts gained through Stresemann were central to Mayr''s participation in a three year (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  3.  7
    Robert J. O'Hara (1997). Population Thinking and Tree Thinking in Systematics. Zoologica Scripta 26 (4): 323–329.
    Two new modes of thinking have spread through systematics in the twentieth century. Both have deep historical roots, but they have been widely accepted only during this century. Population thinking overtook the field in the early part of the century, culminating in the full development of population systematics in the 1930s and 1940s, and the subsequent growth of the entire field of population biology. Population thinking rejects the idea that each species has a natural type (as the earlier (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  4.  6
    Robert J. O'Hara (1996). Trees of History in Systematics and Philology. Memorie Della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali E Del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano 27 (1): 81–88.
    "The Natural System" is the name given to the underlying arrangement present in the diversity of life. Unlike a classification, which is made up of classes and members, a system or arrangement is an integrated whole made up of connected parts. In the pre-evolutionary period a variety of forms were proposed for the Natural System, including maps, circles, stars, and abstract multidimensional objects. The trees sketched by Darwin in the 1830s should probably be considered the first genuine evolutionary diagrams of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  5.  16
    Frederic Tremblay (2013). Nicolai Hartmann and the Metaphysical Foundation of Phylogenetic Systematics. Biological Theory 7 (1):56-68.
    When developing phylogenetic systematics, the entomologist Willi Hennig adopted elements from Nicolai Hartmann’s ontology. In this historical essay I take on the task of documenting this adoption. I argue that in order to build a metaphysical foundation for phylogenetic systematics, Hennig adopted from Hartmann four main metaphysical theses. These are (1) that what is real is what is temporal; (2) that the criterion of individuality is to have duration; (3) that species are supra-individuals; and (4) that there are (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  6
    Joshua Blu Buhs (2000). Building on Bedrock: William Steel Creighton and the Reformation of Ant Systematics, 1925-1970. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 33 (1):27 - 70.
    Ideas about the natural world are intertwined with the personalities, practices, and the workplaces of scientists. The relationships between these categories are explored in the life of the taxonomist William Steel Creighton. Creighton studied taxonomy under William Morton Wheeler at Harvard University. He took the rules he learned from Wheeler out of the museum and into the field. In testing the rules against a new situation, Creighton found them wanting. He sought a new set of taxonomic principles, one he eventually (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7.  4
    Robert J. O'Hara (1998). The History of Systematics: A Working Bibliography, 1965–1996. SSRN Electronic Journal 2541429.
    80 titles published between 1965 and 1996 in multiple languages attest to an increase in scholarly interest in the history of systematic biology, both among scientific practitioners and also among historians and philosophers of science. Topics studied have included the early history of the field (Ray, Linnaeus, Buffon), the influence of essentialism on systematics, the history of systematic diagrams, the development of cladistic analysis, the nature of species, and the growth of phylogenetic thinking.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  4
    Robert J. O'Hara (2006). Trees of History in Systematics, Historical Linguistics, and Stemmatics: A Working Interdisciplinary Bibliography. SSRN Electronic Journal 2540351.
    138 titles across a wide range of scholarly publications illustrate the conceptual affinities that connect the palaetiological sciences of biological systematics, historical linguistics, and stemmatics. These three fields all have as their central objective the reconstruction of evolutionary "trees of history" that depict phylogenetic patterns of descent with modification among species, languages, and manuscripts. All three fields flourished in the nineteenth century, underwent parallel periods of quiescence in the early twentieth century, and in recent decades have seen widespread parallel (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  2
    Ernst Mayr (1942). Systematics and the Origin of Species From the Viewpoint of a Zoologist. Columbia University Press.
    WE HAVE LEARNED in the preceding chapter that a revolutionary change of the species concept is in the making, a change which not only affects taxonomic procedure, but which also contributes considerably toward a better understanding of ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   16 citations  
  10.  23
    Harold N. Bryant (1995). The Threefold Parallelism of Agassiz and Haeckel, and Polarity Determination in Phylogenetic Systematics. Biology and Philosophy 10 (2):197-217.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11. Leandro Assis & Ingo Brigandt (2009). Homology: Homeostatic Property Cluster Kinds in Systematics and Evolution. Evolutionary Biology 36:248-255.
    Taxa and homologues can in our view be construed both as kinds and as individuals. However, the conceptualization of taxa as natural kinds in the sense of homeostatic property cluster kinds has been criticized by some systematists, as it seems that even such kinds cannot evolve due to their being homeostatic. We reply by arguing that the treatment of transformational and taxic homologies, respectively, as dynamic and static aspects of the same homeostatic property cluster kind represents a good perspective for (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  12.  40
    Richard H. Zander (2010). Structuralism in Phylogenetic Systematics. Biological Theory 5 (4):383.
    Systematics based solely on structuralist principles is non-science because it is derived from first principles that are inconsistent in dealing with both synchronic and diachronic aspects of evolution, and its evolutionary models involve hidden causes, and unnameable and unobservable entities. Structuralist phylogenetics emulates axiomatic mathematics through emphasis on deduction, and “hypotheses” and “mapped trait changes” that are actually lemmas and theorems. Sister-group-only evolutionary trees have no caulistic element of scientific realism. This results in a degenerate systematics based on (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  80
    John S. Wilkins (2012). Getting Over Systematics. [REVIEW] Metascience 21 (2):383-386.
    Getting over systematics Content Type Journal Article Category Book Review Pages 1-4 DOI 10.1007/s11016-012-9662-5 Authors John S. Wilkins, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2009, Australia Journal Metascience Online ISSN 1467-9981 Print ISSN 0815-0796.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  13
    Jeffrey H. Schwartz & Bruno Maresca (2006). Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics. Biological Theory 1 (4):357-371.
    Although molecular systematists may use the terminology of cladism, claiming that the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships is based on shared derived states , the latter is not the case. Rather, molecular systematics is based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling , that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness. This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  15.  24
    Kevin de Queiroz (1988). Systematics and the Darwinian Revolution. Philosophy of Science 55 (2):238-259.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   10 citations  
  16.  57
    Alessandro Rapini (2004). Classes or Individuals? The Paradox of Systematics Revisited. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 35 (4):675-695.
    The circumscription of taxa and classification of organisms are fundamental tasks in the systematization of biological diversity. Their success depends on a unified idea concerning the species concept, evolution, and taxonomy; paradoxically, however, it requires a complete distinction between taxa and evolutionary units. To justify this view, I discuss these three topics of systematics. Species concepts are examined, and I propose a redefinition for the Taxonomic Species Concept based on nomenclatural properties, in which species are classes conventionally represented by (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  35
    Kirk Fitzhugh (2006). The 'Requirement of Total Evidence' and its Role in Phylogenetic Systematics. Biology and Philosophy 21 (3):309-351.
    The question of whether or not to partition data for the purposes of inferring phylogenetic hypotheses remains controversial. Opinions have been especially divided since Kluge's (1989, Systematic Zoology 38, 7–25) claim that data partitioning violates the requirement of total evidence (RTE). Unfortunately, advocacy for or against the RTE has not been based on accurate portrayals of the requirement. The RTE is a basic maxim for non-deductive inference, stipulating that evidence must be considered if it has relevance to an inference. Evidence (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  18.  48
    Olivier Rieppel (2009). 'Total Evidence' in Phylogenetic Systematics. Biology and Philosophy 24 (5):607-622.
    Taking its clues from Popperian philosophy of science, cladistics adopted a number of assumptions of the empiricist tradition. These include the identification of a dichotomy between observation reports and theoretical statements and its subsequent abandonment on the basis of the insight that all observation reports are theory-laden. The neglect of the ‘context of discovery’, which is the step of theory (hypothesis) generation. The emphasis on coherentism in the ‘context of justification’, which is the step of evaluation of the relative merits (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19.  15
    Graham C. D. Griffiths (1974). On the Foundations of Biological Systematics. Acta Biotheoretica 23 (3-4):85-131.
    The foundations of systematics lie in ontology, not in subjective epistemology. Systems and their elements should be distinguished from classes; only the latter are constructed from similarities. The term classification should be restricted to ordering into classes; ordering according to systematic relations may be called systematization.The theory of organization levels portrays the real world as a hierarchy of open systems, from energy quanta to ecosystems; followingHartmann these systems as extended in time are considered the primary units of reality. Organization (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  20.  9
    J. Cain (2002). Epistemic and Community Transition in American Evolutionary Studies: The 'Committee on Common Problems of Genetics, Paleontology, and Systematics' (1942-1949). [REVIEW] Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 33 (2):283-313.
    The Committee on Common Problems of Genetics, Paleontology, and Systematics (United States National Research Council) marks part of a critical transition in American evolutionary studies. Launched in 1942 to facilitate cross-training between genetics and paleontology, the Committee was also designed to amplify paleontologist voices in modern studies of evolutionary processes. During coincidental absences of founders George Gaylord Simpson and Theodosius Dobzhansky, an opportunistic Ernst Mayr moved into the project's leadership. Mayr used the opportunity for programmatic reforms he had been (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  21.  3
    Olivier Rieppel (2008). Re-Writing Popper's Philosophy of Science for Systematics. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 30 (3/4):293 - 316.
    This paper explores the use of Popper's philosophy of science by cladists in their battle against evolutionary and numerical taxonomy. Three schools of biological systematics fiercely debated each other from the late 1960s: evolutionary taxonomy, phenetics or numerical taxonomy, and phylogenetic systematics or cladistics. The outcome of that debate was the victory of phylogenetic systematics/cladistics over the competing schools of thought. To bring about this "cladistic turn" in systematics, the cladists drew heavily on the philosopher K.R. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  22.  29
    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.
    Since the beginning of the twentieth century, Chinese scholars have tended to traditional Chinese learning split apart and rearrange it according to the systematics of modern Western academic disciplines. By examining the meaning of Western "philosophy" and "ethics," it is demonstrated that Western and Chinese learning should not be lumped together according to the same systematics. Moreover, classical Chinese learning has always had its own complex systematics and its own long tradition, and it has undergone constant development (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  8
    Kevin De Queiroz (1988). Systematics and the Darwinian Revolution. Philosophy of Science 55 (2):238-259.
    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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  24.  8
    Kim Kleinman (2013). Systematics and the Origin of Species From the Viewpoint of a Botanist: Edgar Anderson Prepares the 1941 Jesup Lectures with Ernst Mayr. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 46 (1):73-101.
    The correspondence between Edgar Anderson and Ernst Mayr leading into their 1941 Jesup Lectures on “Systematics and the Origin of Species” addressed population thinking, the nature of species, the relationship of microevolution to macroevolution, and the evolutionary dynamics of plants and animals, all central issues in what came to be known as the Evolutionary Synthesis. On some points, they found ready agreement; for others they forged only a short term consensus. They brought two different working styles to this project (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  21
    Jeffrey Schwartz (2009). Reflections on Systematics and Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Acta Biotheoretica 57 (1-2):295-305.
    I attempt to raise questions regarding elements of systematics—primarily in the realm of phylogenetic reconstruction—in order to provoke discussion on the current state of affairs in this discipline, and also evolutionary biology in general: e.g., conceptions of homology and homoplasy, hypothesis testing, the nature of and objections to Hennigian “phylogenetic systematics”, and the schism between Darwinian descendants of the “modern evolutionary synthesis” and their supposed antagonists, cladists and punctuationalists.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  7
    Robert M. Doran (2007). Constructing a New Catholic Systematics. Philosophy and Theology 19 (1/2):35-55.
    The paper shares the principal emphases to date in an attempt to begin a contemporary systematic theology and invites the collaboration of others in the development of that theology. Lonergan’s understanding of systematics as the imperfect and analogical understanding of the mysteries of faith is adopted from the outset, but so is his insistence (1) that a contemporary systematic theology must be grounded in interiorly and religiously differentiated consciousnessand (2) that such a theology will be a theology of history. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  9
    Zhao-hui Fang & ed Schiller, David R. (2002). A Critical Reflection on the Systematics of Traditional Chinese Learning. Philosophy East and West 52 (1):36-49.
    Since the beginning of the twentieth century, Chinese scholars have tended to traditional Chinese learning split apart and rearrange it according to the systematics of modern Western academic disciplines. By examining the meaning of Western "philosophy" and "ethics," it is demonstrated that Western and Chinese learning should not be lumped together according to the same systematics. Moreover, classical Chinese learning has always had its own complex systematics and its own long tradition, and it has undergone constant development (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Robert M. Doran (2003). Implementation in Systematics: The Structure. Journal of Macrodynamic Analysis 3:164-272.
    Many of the elements of the problem of implementation have been assembled in Philip McShane’s paper and addressed in his life’s work to date. The dimension to which I wish to contribute is the need to lift the chapter on Systematics in Method in Theology out of its tired and minimalist context into the context that Lonergan seems to have had in mind when, at the time of the breakthrough to functional specialization, what eventually was called Systematics was (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Richard Zander (2010). Structuralism in Phylogenetic Systematics. Biological Theory 5 (4):383-394.
    Systematics based solely on structuralist principles is non-science because it is derived from first principles that are inconsistent in dealing with both synchronic and diachronic aspects of evolution, and its evolutionary models involve hidden causes, and unnameable and unobservable entities. Structuralist phylogenetics emulates axiomatic mathematics through emphasis on deduction, and “hypotheses” and “mapped trait changes” that are actually lemmas and theorems. Sister-group-only evolutionary trees have no caulistic element of scientific realism. This results in a degenerate systematics based on (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Ingo Brigandt (2009). Natural Kinds in Evolution and Systematics: Metaphysical and Epistemological Considerations. Acta Biotheoretica 57 (1-2):77-97.
    Despite the traditional focus on metaphysical issues in discussions of natural kinds in biology, epistemological considerations are at least as important. By revisiting the debate as to whether taxa are kinds or individuals, I argue that both accounts are metaphysically compatible, but that one or the other approach can be pragmatically preferable depending on the epistemic context. Recent objections against construing species as homeostatic property cluster kinds are also addressed. The second part of the paper broadens the perspective by considering (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   20 citations  
  31. L. R. Franklin (2007). Bacteria, Sex, and Systematics. Philosophy of Science 74 (1):69-95.
    Philosophical discussions of species have focused on multicellular, sexual animals and have often neglected to consider unicellular organisms like bacteria. This article begins to fill this gap by considering what species concepts, if any, apply neatly to the bacterial world. First, I argue that the biological species concept cannot be applied to bacteria because of the variable rates of genetic transfer between populations, depending in part on which gene type is prioritized. Second, I present a critique of phylogenetic bacterial species, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  32.  23
    Mohan Matthen (2002). Origins Are Not Essences in Evolutionary Systematics. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 32 (2):167 - 181.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  33.  51
    John S. Wilkins, Walter M. Fitch & Francisco J. Ayala (2007). Systematics and the Origin of Species: On Ernst Mayr's 100th Anniversary. Biology and Philosophy 22 (4):603-610.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Gareth Nelson & Norman I. Platnick (1981). Systematics and Biogeography. Harcourt, Brace and World.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   18 citations  
  35.  99
    R. Zimmermann & M. Cooke (1988). Equality, Political Order and Ethics: Hobbes and the Systematics of Democratic Rationality. Philosophy and Social Criticism 14 (3-4):339-358.
  36.  14
    Joel D. Velasco (2012). The Future of Systematics: Tree Thinking Without the Tree. Philosophy of Science 79 (5):624-636.
    Phylogenetic trees are meant to represent the genealogical history of life and apparently derive their justification from the existence of the tree of life and the fact that evolutionary processes are treelike. However, there are a number of problems for these assumptions. Here it is argued that once we understand the important role that phylogenetic trees play as models that contain idealizations, we can accept these criticisms and deny the reality of the tree while justifying the continued use of trees (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  37.  74
    Francisco Vergara-Silva & Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther (2009). Editorial: Systematics, Darwinism, and the Philosophy of Science. Acta Biotheoretica 57 (1-2):1-3.
  38. Kevin De Queiroz & Michael J. Donoghue (1988). Phylogenetic Systematics and the Species Problem. Cladistics 4:317-38.
  39.  36
    Olivier Rieppel (2007). Parsimony, Likelihood, and Instrumentalism in Systematics. Biology and Philosophy 22 (1):141-144.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  40.  19
    Robert Trypuz & Piotr Kulicki (2010). A Systematics of Deontic Action Logics Based on Boolean Algebra. Logic and Logical Philosophy 18 (3-4):253-270.
    Within the scope of interest of deontic logic, systems in which names of actions are arguments of deontic operators (deontic action logic) have attracted less interest than purely propositional systems. However, in our opinion, they are even more interesting from both theoretical and practical point of view. The fundament for contemporary research was established by K. Segerberg, who introduced his systems of basic deontic logic of urn model actions in early 1980s. Nowadays such logics are considered mainly within propositional dynamic (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41. David S. Strait & Frederick E. Grine (2001). The Systematics of Australopithecus Garhi. Ludus Vitalis 9:109-135.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. David M. Williams & Peter L. Forey (2005). Milestones in Systematics. Journal of the History of Biology 38 (1):165-167.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  43.  63
    Marc Ereshefsky (2007). Species, Taxonomy, and Systematics. In Michael Ruse (ed.), Philosophy of Biology. Prometheus Books 403--428.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44.  9
    Kevin de Queiroz & Michael J. Donoghue (1990). Phylogenetic Systematics and Species Revisited. Cladistics 6 (1):83-90.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  45.  55
    Peter Simons (1998). Metaphysical Systematics: A Lesson From Whitehead. [REVIEW] Erkenntnis 48 (2-3):377-393.
    Despite its lack of influence in analytical philosophy, and independently of its content as a process philosophy, Whitehead's system in Process and Reality affords a valuable lesson on how to pursue revisionary systematic metaphysics. This paper argues the case generally for metaphysical revision and system, describes the structure of Whitehead's categorial scheme, endorses his idea of an ultimate which is not an entity, and outlines an alternative, “digital” ultimate or basis composed of several analytical factors. [I]n the absence of a (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  46.  24
    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.
  47.  4
    Malte C. Ebach & David M. Williams (2007). An Outline of the Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29 (1):87 - 91.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  48.  9
    Andrew M. Shedlock & Norihiro Okada (2000). SINE Insertions: Powerful Tools for Molecular Systematics. Bioessays 22 (2):148-160.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  49.  2
    P. F. Stevens (1984). Haüy and A.-P. Candolle: Crystallography, Botanical Systematics, and Comparative Morphology, 1780-1840. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 17 (1):49 - 82.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  50.  5
    David L. Hull (2001). The Role of Theories in Biological Systematics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 32 (2):221-238.
    The role of scientific theories in classifying plants and animals is traced from Hennig's phylogenetics and the evolutionary taxonomy of Simpson and Mayr, through numerical phenetics, to present-day cladistics. Hennig limited biological classification to sister groups so that this one relation can be expressed unambiguously in classifications. Simpson and Mayr were willing to sacrifice precision in representation in order to include additional features of evolution in the construction of classifications. In order to make classifications more objective, precise and quantitative, numerical (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
1 — 50 / 241