Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Statistical Frame of Mind in Systematic Biology from Quantitative Zoology to Biometry

  • Published:
Journal of the History of Biology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The twentieth century witnessed a dramatic increase in the useof statistics by biologists, including systematists. The modern synthesis and new systematics stimulated thisdevelopment, particularly after World War II. The rise of ``thestatistical frame of mind'' resulted in a rethinking of relationship between biological and mathematical points of theview, the roles of objectivity and subjectivity in systematicresearch, the implications of new computing technologies, and theplace of systematics among the biological disciplines.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, Edgar. 1936. “The Species Problem in Iris.” Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 23: 457–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1941. “The Technique and Use of Mass Collections in Plant Taxonomy.” Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 28: 287–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1949. Introgressive Hybridization. John Wiley.

  • —— 1952. Plants, Man, and Life. Little, Brown, and Co. [reprint edition. 1997. Missouri Botanical Garden Press].

  • —— 1954. “Efficient and Inefficient Methods of Measuring Specific Differences.” Oscar Kempthorne, Theodore A. Bancroft, John W. Gowen, and Jay L. Lush (eds.), Statistics and Mathematics in Biology. Iowa State College Press, pp. 93–105.

  • —— 1956a. “Natural History, Statistics, and Applied Mathematics.” American Journal of Botany 43: 882–889.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1956b. “Why Botanists Visit Math Departments.” Missouri Botanical Garden Bulletin 44: 148–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1957. “A Semi-Graphical Method for the Analysis of Complex Problems.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 13: 923–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1960. “A Semi-Graphical Method for Analysis of Complex Problems.” Technometrics 2: 387–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1961. “The Analysis of Variation in Cultivated Plants with Special Reference to Introgression.” Euphytica 10: 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, E. and Turrill, W.B. 1935. “Biometrical Studies on Herbarium Material.” Nature 136: 986.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartcher, Ronald L. 1966. FORTRAN IV Program for estimation of Cladistic Relationships using the IBM 7040. Kansas State Geological Survey.

  • Blackwelder, Richard E. 1967. Taxonomy: A Text and Reference Book. John Wiley.

  • Burt, William H. 1940. “Territorial Behavior and Populations of some Small Mammals in Southern Michigan.” Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology. University of Michigan. 45: 1–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camin, Joseph H. and Sokal, Robert R. 1965. “A Method for Deducing Branching Sequences in Phylogeny.” Evolution 19: 311–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, William C. 1980. “Fisher and the Analysis of Variance.” S.E. Fienberg and D.V. Hinkley (eds.), R.A. Fisher: An Appreciation. Springer-Verlag, pp. 17–34.

  • Felsenstein, Joseph. 1982. “Numerical Methods for Inferring Evolutionary Trees.” Quarterly Review of Biology 57: 379–404.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finan, John J. 1972. “Edgar Anderson 1897–1969.” Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 59: 325–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R.A. 1925. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. Oliver and Boyd.

  • —— 1936. “The Use of Multiple Measurements in Taxonomic Problems.” Annals of Eugenics 7: 179–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R.A. and MacKenzie, W.A. 1923. “Studies in Crop Variation II. The Manurial Response of Different Potato Varieties.” Journal of Agricultural Science 13: 311–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, Scott and Herron, Jon C. 2001. Evolutionary Analysis, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall.

  • Hagen, Joel B. 1984. “Experimentalists and Naturalists in Twentieth-Century Botany: Experimental Taxonomy, 1920–1950.” Journal of the History of Biology 17: 249–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1999. “Naturalists, Molecular Biologists, and the Challenges of Molecular Evolution.” Journal of the History of Biology 32: 321–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 2000. “The Origins of Bioinformatics.” Nature Reviews Genetics 1: 231–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 2001. “The Introduction of Computers into Systematic Research in the United States during the 1960s.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences 32: 291–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, P.H., Leigh Brown, A.J. and Maynard Smith, J. (eds.). 1995. “New Uses for New Phylogenies.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B. 349: 1–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillis, David M. 2001. “The Emergence of Systematic Biology.” Systematic Biology 50: 301–303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, David L. 1988. Science as a Process. An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. University of Chicago Press.

  • Huxley, Julian (ed.). 1940. The New Systematics. Clarendon Press.

  • Kleinman, Kim. 1999. “His Own Synthesis: Corn, Edgar Anderson, and Evolutionary Theory in the 1940s.” Journal of the History of Biology 32: 293–320.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 2002. “How Graphical Innovations Assisted Edgar Anderson's Discoveries in Evolutionary Biology.” Chance 15(3): 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, Robert E. 2002. Landscapes and Labscapes. Exploring the Lab-Field Border in Biology. University of Chicago Press.

  • Lake, James A. and Moore, Jonathan E. 1998. “Phylogenetic Analysis & Comparative Genomics.” Trends Guide to Bioinformatics [Trends Supplement] 22–23.

  • Laporte, Leo F. 1993. “Simpson's Tempo and Mode in Evolution Revisited.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 127: 365–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1994. “Simpson on Species.” Journal of the History of Biology 27: 141–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1995. “The Mind's Eye: George G. Simpson's Use of Visual Language.” Earth Science History 14: 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, Richard C. 1974. “The Analysis of Variance and the Analysis of Causes.” American Journal of Human Genetics 26: 400–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, Donald A. 1981. Statistics in Britain, 1865–1930. The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Edinburgh University Press.

  • —— 2001. Mechanizing Proof. Computing, Risk, and Trust. MIT Press.

  • Marcus, Leslie F. 1993. “The Goals and Methods of Systematic Biology.” Renaud Fortuner (ed.), Advances in Computer Methods for Systematic Biology: Artificial Intelligence, Databases, Computer Vision. Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 31–54.

  • Mayr, Ernst. 1964. “The New Systematics.” C.A. Leone (ed.), Taxonomic Biochemistry and Serology. Ronald Press, pp. 13–32.

  • —— 1980a. “Prologue: Some Thoughts on the History of the Evolutionary Synthesis.” Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine (eds.), The Evolutionary Synthesis. Perspectives on the Unification of Biology. Harvard University Press, pp. 1–48.

  • —— 1980b. “Botany.” Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine, (eds.), The Evolutionary Synthesis. Perspectives on the Unification of Biology. Harvard University Press, pp. 137–138.

  • —— 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Belknap Press.

  • Mayr, Ernst and Ashlock, Peter D. 1991. Principles of Systematic Zoology, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill.

  • Mayr, Ernst, Linsley, E. Gorton and Usinger, Robert L. 1953. Methods and Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw-Hill.

  • Penny, David, Hendy, Michael D. and Steel, Michael A. 1992. “Progress with Methods for Constructing Evolutionary Trees.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7: 73–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Theodore M. 1995. Trust in Numbers. The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton University Press.

  • Provine, William B. 1971. Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. University of Chicago Press.

  • Ridley, Mark. 1986. Evolution and Classification. The Reformation of Cladism. Longman.

  • Roe, Anne. 1953. The Making of a Scientist. Dodd, Mead, & Co.

  • Rohlf, F. James and Sokal, Robert R. 1962. “The Description of Taxonomic Relationships by Factor Analysis.” Systematic Zoology 11: 246–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segerstråle, Ullica. 2000. Defenders of the Truth. The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond. Oxford University Press.

  • Simpson, George Gaylord. 1945. “The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals.” Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85: 1–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1960. “Diagnosis of the Classes Reptilia and Mammalia.” Evolution 14: 388–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press.

  • —— 1962. “Primate Taxonomy and Recent Studies of Nonhuman Primates.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 102: 497–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1964. “Numerical Taxonomy and Biological Classification.” Science 144: 712–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1980. Why and How. Some Problems and Methods in Historical Biology. Pergamon Press.

  • Simpson, George Gaylord and Roe, Anne. 1939. Quantitative Zoology. Numerical Concepts and Methods in the Study of Recent and Fossil Animals. McGraw Hill.

  • Simpson, George Gaylord, Roe, Anne and Lewontin, Richard C. 1960. Quantitative Zoology, rev. ed. Harcourt, Brace and Co.

  • Smocovitis, Vassiliki Betty. 1997. “G. Ledyard Stebbins, Jr. and the Evolutionary Synthesis.” American Journal of Botany 84: 1625–1637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, Elliot. 1988. Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference. MIT Press.

  • Sokal, Robert Reuven. 1952a. Variation in a Local Population of Pemphigus. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Chicago.

  • —— 1952b. “Variation in a Local Population of Pemphigus.” Evolution 6: 227–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1964. “The Future Systematics.” C.A. Leone (ed.), Taxonomic Biochemistry and Serology. Ronald Press, pp. 33–48.

  • —— 1965. “Statistical Methods in Systematics.” Biological Reviews 40: 337–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, Robert R. and Camin, Joseph H. 1965. “The Two Taxonomies: Areas of Agreement and Conflict.” Systematic Zoology 14: 176–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, Robert R. and Rohlf, F. James. 1969. Biometry. The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biology. W.H. Freeman. [2nd ed., 1981; 3rd ed., 1995].

  • Sokal, Robert R. and Sneath, Peter H.A. 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. W.H. Freeman.

  • —— 1966. “Efficiency in Taxonomy.” Taxon 15: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbins, G. Ledyard. 1972. “Edgar Anderson: Recollections of a Long Friendship.” Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 59: 373–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tukey, John W. 1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley.

  • Vernon, Keith. 1988. “The Founding of Numerical Taxonomy.” British Journal for the History of Science 21: 143–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • —— 1993. “Desperately Seeking Status: Evolutionary Systematics and the Taxonomists' Search for Respectability.” British Journal for the History of Science 26: 207–227.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, Radford University, Radford, VA, 24142, USA

    Joel Hagen

Authors
  1. Joel Hagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hagen, J. The Statistical Frame of Mind in Systematic Biology from Quantitative Zoology to Biometry . Journal of the History of Biology 36, 353–384 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024479322226

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024479322226

Search

Navigation