Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Poverty of Taxonomic Characters

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The theory and practice of contemporary comparative biology and phylogeny reconstruction (systematics) emphasizes algorithmic aspects but neglects a concern for the evidence. The character data used in systematics to formulate hypotheses of relationships in many ways constitute a black box, subject to uncritical assessment and social influence. Concerned that such a state of affairs leaves systematics and the phylogenetic theories it generates severely underdetermined, we investigate the nature of the criteria of homology and their application to character conceptualization in the context of transformationist and generative paradigms. Noting the potential for indeterminacy in character conceptualization, we conclude that character congruence (the coherence of character statements) relative to a hierarchy is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for phylogeny reconstruction. Specifically, it is insufficient due to the lack of causal grounding of character hypotheses. Conceptualizing characters as homeostatic property cluster natural kinds is in accordance with the empirical practice of systematists. It also accounts for the lack of sharpness in character conceptualization, yet requires character identification and re-identification to be tied to causal processes.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Belon P. (1555). L’Histoire de la Nature des Oyseaux. Guillaume Cavellat, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd R. (1991). Realism, anti-fondationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philos. Stud. 61:127–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In: Wilson R.A. (eds), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 141–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon R.N. (1999). The units of selection revisited: the modules of selection. Biol. Philos. 14:67–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke A.C. (1989). Development of the turtle carapace: implications for the evolution of a novel bauplan. J. Morphol. 199:363–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke A.C. (1991). The development and evolution of the turtle body plan: inferring intrinsic aspects of the evolutionary process from experimental embryology. Am. Zool. 31:616–627

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell M.W., Lee M.S.Y. (1997). A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386:705–709

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll R.L. (1988). Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. W.H. Freeman & Co., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates M., Ruta M. (2000). Nice snakes, shame about the legs. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15: 503–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohn M.J., Tickle C. (1999). Developmental basis of limblessness and axial patterning in snakes. Nature 399:474–479

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin Ch. (1859). The Origin of Species. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Devitt M. (1997). Realism and Truth, Second Edition. Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Disney R.H.L. (2003). Is not Hennig’s method of producing cladograms as defensible as those derived from parsimony algorithms?. Bonner zoologische Beiträge 50:305–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky Th. (1973). Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Am. Biol. Teach. 35:125–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré J. (1993). The Disorder of Things. Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuis C. (1990). Hennig, Emil Hans Willi. In: Holmes F.L. (eds), Dictionary of Scientific Biography Vol 17 (Suppl 2). Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, pp. 407–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Estes R., deQuieroz K., Gauthier J. (1988) Phylogenetic relationships within Squamata. In: Estes R., Pregill G. (eds), Phylogenetic Relationships of the Lizard Families. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 119–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Field H. (1973). Theory change and the indeterminacy of reference. J. Philos. 70:462–481

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert S.F., Loredo G.A., Brukman A., Burke A.C. (2001). Morphogenesis of the turtle shell: the development of a novel structure in tetrapod evolution. Evol. Dev. 3:47–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert S.F., Cebra-Thomas J.A., Fraser T. (2004). Working hypothesis for the origin of the turtle shell. Journal of Morphology 260:294 (abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman N. (1965). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, Second Edition. Bobbs-Merrill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman N. (1972). Seven strictures on similarity. In: Goodman N. (eds), Problems and Projects. The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis IN, pp. 437–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould S.J. (1977). Ontogeny and Phylogeny. The Belknap Press at Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant T., Kluge A.G. (2004). Transformation series as an ideographic character concept. Cladistics 20:32–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene H.W., Cundall D. (2000). Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287:1939–1941

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths P.E. (1999). Squaring the circle: natural kinds with historical essences. In: Wilson R.A. (eds), Species. New Interdisciplinary Essays. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 209–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Härlin M. (1999). The logical priority of the tree over characters and some of its consequences for taxonomy. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 68:497–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig W. (1950). Grundzüge einer Theorie der Phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher Zentralverlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig W. (1966). Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig W. (1978). Die Stellung der Systematik in der Biologie. Entomol. Germ. 4:193–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillis A.L. (1994). Homology in molecular biology. In: Hall B.K. (eds), Homology. The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 339–368

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull D.L. (1999). On the plurality of species: questioning the party line. In: Wilson R.A. (eds), Species. New Interdisciplinary Essays. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 23–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Iordansky N.N. (1978). On the origin of snakes. Zool. Zh. 57:888–898 (in Russian)

    Google Scholar 

  • Iwabe N., Hara Y., Kumazawa Y., Shibamoto K., Saito Y., Miyata T., Katho K. (2005). Sister group relationship of turtles to the bird-crocodilian clade revealed nuclear DNA-coded proteins. Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:810–813

    Google Scholar 

  • Janich P. (1993). Der Vergleich als Methode in den Naturwissenschaften. In: Weingarten M., Gutmann W.F. (eds), Geschichte und Theorie des Vergleichs in den Biowissenschaften, Aufsätze und Reden Nr. 40 der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft. Verlag Waldemar Kramer, Frankfurt a.M., pp. 13–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, M. (In press). Philosophy and phylogenetics: historical and current connections. In: Hull, D. and Ruse, M. (eds), Cambridge Companion to the Philosophy of Biology

  • Keller R.A., Boyd R.N., Wheeler Q.D. (2003). The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. Bot. Rev. 69:93–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P. (1993). The Advancement of Science. Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kley N., Hilton E.J., Richmond E.J. (2002). Comparative morphology of the pelvic apparatus of snakes. Integr. Comp. Biol. 42:1257 (abstract)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge A.G. (2003). The repugnant and the mature in phylogenetic inference: atemporal similarity and historical identity. Cladistics 19:356–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge A.G. (2004). On total evidence: for the record. Cladistics 20:205–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühne W. (1978). Willi Hennig 1913–1976: Die Schaffung einer Wissenschaftstheorie. Entomol. Germ. 4:374–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuraku S., Usuda R., Kuratani S. (2005). Comprehensive survey of carapacial ridge-specific genes in turtle implies co-option of some regulatory genes in carapace evolution. Evolution & Development 7:3–17

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte J. (2004). Natural Kinds and Conceptual Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee M.S.Y. (1993). The origin of the turtle body plan: bridging a famous morphological gap. Science 261:1716–1720

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee M.Y.S., Scanlon J.D. (2002). Snake phylogeny based on osteology, soft anatomy, and ecology. Biol. Rev. 77:333–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton P. (2004). Inference to the Best Explanation. Second Edition. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycan W.G. (2000). Philosophy of Language. A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahner M., Bunge M. (1997). Foundations of Biophilosophy. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagel E. (1961). The Structure of Science. Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. Hartcourt, Brace & World Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary M.A., Gatesy J., Novacek M.J. (2003). Are the dental data really at odds with the molecular data? Morphological evidence for whale phylogeny (re)reexamined. Syst. Biol. 52:853–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyama S., Griffiths P.E., Gray R.D. (2001). Introduction: what is developmental systems theory?. In: Oyama S., Griffiths P.E., Gray R.D. (eds), Cycles of Contingency. Developmental Systems and Evolution. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Panchen A.L. (1994) Richard Owen and the concept of homology. In: Hall B.K. (eds), Homology. The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 21–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson C. (1977). Cartilage bones, dermal bones and membrane bones, or the exoskeleton versus the endoskeleton. In: Andrews S.M., Miles R.S., Walker A.D. (eds), Problems in Vertebrate Evolution. Academic Press, London, pp. 77–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson C. (1982). Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey K.A., Friday A.E. (eds), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp. 21–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson C. (1987). Introduction. In: Patterson C. (eds), Molecules and morphology in evolution: conflict or compromise. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson C. (1988). Homology in classical and molecular biology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5:603–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Platnick N.I. (1978). Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Syst. Zool. 28:537–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam H. (1996). The meaning of ‘meaning’. In: Pessin A., Goldberg S. (eds), The Twin Earth Chronicles. Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam’s “The Meaning of ‘Meaning”’. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY, pp. 3–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W.V. (1964). Word and Object. Cambridge MA, The MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine W.V. (1994). Natural kinds. In: Stalker D. (eds), Grue. The New Riddle of Induction. Open Court, La Salle, IL, pp. 42–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Raff R.A. (1996). The Shape of Life. Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Rage J.-C. and Escuillié F. 2003. The Cenomanian: stage of hindlimbed snakes, Carnets de Géologie, Article 2003/01:1–11

  • Remane A. (1952). Die Grundlagen des Natürlichen Systems, der Vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards R. (2002). Kuhnian values and cladistic parsimony. Perspect. Sci.10:1–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards R. (2003). Character individuation in phylogenetic inference. Philos. Sci. 70:264–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl R. (1978). Order in Living Organisms. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O. (1993a). The conceptual relationship of ontogeny and phylogeny: the taxic approach. Evol. Biol. 27:1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O. (1993b). Studies on skeleton formation in reptiles. II. The postembryonic development of the skeleton in Chamaeleo hoehnelii (Reptilia: Chamaeleoninae). Herpetologica 49:66–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O. (2001). Turtles as hopeful monsters. BioEssays 23:987–991

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O. (2003). Semaphoronts, cladograms, and the roots of total evidence. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 80:167–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O. (2004). The language of systematics, and the philosophy of ‘total evidence’. Syst. Biodivers. 2:9–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O. (2005a). The philosophy of total evidence and its relevance for phylogenetic inference. Papéis Avulsos Zool. 45:77–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O. (2005b). Modules, kinds, and homology. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 304B:18–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O., Kearney M. (2001). The origin of snakes: limits of a scientific debate. Biologist 48: 110–114

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O., Kearney M. (2002). Similarity. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 75:59–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O., Reisz R.R. (1999). The origin and early evolution of turtles. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30:1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O., Zaher H., Tchernov E., Polcyn M.J. (2003). The anatomy and relationships of Haasiophis terrasanctus, a fossil snake with well-developed hind limbs from the mid-Cretaceous of the Middle East. J. Paleontol. 77:336–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer A.S. (1956). Osteology of the Reptiles. Chicago University Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe T. (1987). Definition and diagnosis in the phylogenetic system. Syst. Zool. 36:208–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse M. (1988). Philosophy of Biology Today. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanger T.J., Gibson-Brown J.J. (2004). The developmental bases of limb reduction and body elongation in squamates. Evolution 58:2103–2106

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon J.D., Lee M.Y.S. (2000). The Pleistocene serpent Wonambi and the early evolution of snakes. Nature 403:416–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Schank J.C., Wimsatt W.C. (2000). Evolvability: adaptation and modularity. In: Singh R., Krimbas C., Beatty J., Pauls D. (eds), Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical, and Political Perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 322–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoemaker S. (2003). Causality and properties. In: Shoemaker S. (eds), Identity, Cause, and Mind; Expanded Edition. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 206–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson G.G. (1961). Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober E. (1981). Evolutionary theory and the ontological status of properties. Philos. Stud. 40:147–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober E. (1984). Discussion: sets, species, and evolution. Comments on Philip Kitcher’s ‘species’. Philos. Sci. 51:334–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny K., Griffiths P.E. (1999). Sex and Death. An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Tchernov E., Rieppel O., Zaher H., Polcyn M.J., Jacobs L.J. (2000). A new fossil snake with limbs. Science 287:2010–2012

    Google Scholar 

  • Underwood G. (1957). On lizards of the family Pygopodidae, a contribution to the morphology and phylogeny of the Squamata. J. Morphol. 100:207–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Vane-Wright R.I. (2001). Taxonomy, methods of. In: Levin S. (eds), Encyclopedia of Biodiversity Vol 5. Academic Press, New York, pp. 589–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Wägele K. (2004). Hennig’s phylogenetic systematics brought up to date. In: Williams D.M., Forey P.L. (eds), Milestones in Systematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 101–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G.P. (1994). Homology and the mechanisms of development. In: Hall B.K. (eds), Homology. The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology.Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 273–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G.P. (1996). Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity. Am. Zool. 36:36–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G.P. (2001). Characters, units, and natural kinds. In: Wagner G.P. (eds), The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • West-Eberhard M.J. (2003). Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler W. (2001a). Homology and DNA sequence data. In: Wagner G.P. (eds), The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 303–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler W. (2001b). Homology and the optimization of DNA sequence data. Cladistics 17:S1–S11

    Google Scholar 

  • Wickler W. (1967). Vergleichende Verhaltensforschung und Phylogenetik. In: Heberer G. (eds), Die Evolution der Organismen, 3. Auflage, Band I. G. Fischer, Stuttgart, pp. 420–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley E.O. (1981). Phylogenetics. The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. John Wilery & Sons, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams D.M. (2004). Homologues and homology, phenetics and cladistics: 150 years of progress. In: Williams D.M., Forey P.L. (eds), Milestones in Systematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 191–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson R.A. (1999). Realism, essence, and kind: resuscitating species essentialism?. In: Wilson R.A. (eds), Species. New Interdisciplinary Essays. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 187–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt W.C. (1986). Developmental constraints, generative entrechment and the innate-acquired distinction. In: Bechtel W. (eds), Integrating Scientific Disciplines. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp. 185–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Winther R.G. (2001). Varieties of modules: kinds, levels, origins, and behaviors. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 291:116–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaher H., Rieppel O. (2000). A brief history of snakes. Herpetol. Rev. 31:73–76

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Richard Boyd, Richard Richards, and Kim Sterelny for reviewing earlier drafts of this paper. Shannon Hackett provided important opportunities for the discussion of molecular systematics. Research for this paper was funded, in part, through the NSF grant DEB-0235628 (to M.K. and O.R.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geology, The Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL, 60605-2496, USA

    Olivier Rieppel

  2. Department of Zoology, The Field Museum, 1400 S Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL, 60605-2496, USA

    Maureen Kearney

Authors
  1. Olivier Rieppel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maureen Kearney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Rieppel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rieppel, O., Kearney, M. The Poverty of Taxonomic Characters. Biol Philos 22, 95–113 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-006-9024-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-006-9024-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation