DOCSLIB.ORG

The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy a Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy a Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy MARC ERESHEFSKY University of Calgary published by the press syndicate of the university of cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge, United Kingdom cambridge university press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, UK 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, VIC 3166, Australia Ruiz de Alarcón 13, 28014 Madrid, Spain Dock House, The Waterfront, Cape Town 8001, South Africa http://www.cambridge.org © Marc Ereshefsky 2001 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. First published 2001 Printed in the United States of America Typeface Times Roman 10.25/13 pt. System QuarkXPress [BTS] A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. Library of the Congress Cataloging in Publication data Ereshefsky, Marc. The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy : a philosophical study of biological taxonomy / Marc Ereshefsky. p. cm. – (Cambridge studies in philosophy and biology) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-521-78170-1 (hardcover) 1. Biology – Classification – Philosophy. I. Title. II. Series. QH83 .E73 2000 578¢.01¢2 – dc21 00-028945 ISBN 0 521 78170 1 hardback Contents Preface page ix Introduction 1 PART I THE HISTORICAL TURN 1 The Philosophy of Classification 15 1.1 Essentialism 16 1.2 Cluster Analyses 24 1.3 The Historical Approach 28 1.4 Taxonomic Monism and Pluralism 39 1.5 Hierarchical Classification 46 2 A Primer of Biological Taxonomy 50 2.1 Evolutionary Taxonomy 51 2.2 Pheneticism 60 2.3 Process Cladism 66 2.4 Pattern Cladism 75 2.5 Species Concepts 80 3 History and Classification 94 3.1 The Death of Essentialism 95 3.2 The Failure of Cluster Analysis 102 3.3 Taxa as Historical Entities 109 3.4 Species as Individuals 112 3.5 Theory and Explanation 119 PART II THE MULTIPLICITY OF NATURE 4 Species Pluralism 129 4.1 The Possibility of Pluralism 130 4.2 The Ontological Argument 138 vii Contents 4.3 Varieties of Pluralism 145 4.4 Monist Objections 154 5 How to Be a Discerning Pluralist 163 5.1 Normative Naturalism 164 5.2 The Aim of Biological Taxonomy 170 5.3 Primary and Secondary Rules 178 5.4 A Case Study: Species Concepts 185 5.5 Methodological Unity and Disunity 193 PART III HIERARCHIES AND NOMENCLATURE 6 The Evolution of the Linnaean Hierarchy 199 6.1 Linnaeus’s Original System 200 6.2 Darwin and the Modern Synthesis 208 6.3 Cladistic Changes 214 6.4 Remaining Problems 221 6.5 Pragmatic Considerations 232 7 Post-Linnaean Taxonomy 238 7.1 Hierarchies 239 7.2 Naming Taxa 247 7.3 Defining Taxon Names 256 8 The Future of Biological Nomenclature 267 8.1 The Annotated Linnaean System 268 8.2 The Post-Linnaean System 274 8.3 Theory and Practice 280 Notes 292 References 300 Index 313 viii Introduction THE LINNAEAN SYSTEM RECONSIDERED Three hundred years ago biological taxonomy was a chaotic discipline marked by miscommunication and misunderstanding. Biologists dis- agreed on the categories of classification, how to assign taxa to those categories, and even how to name taxa. Fortunately for biology, Linnaeus saw it as his divinely inspired mission to bring order to taxonomy.The system he introduced offered clear and simple rules for constructing classifications. It also contained rules of nomenclature that greatly enhanced the ability of biologists to communicate. Linnaeus’s system of classification was widely accepted by the end of the eigh- teenth century. That acceptance brought order to a previously dis- organized discipline. Furthermore, it laid the foundation for “the unprecedented flowering of taxonomic research” of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Mayr 1982, 173). Linnaeus himself seemed assured of his place in the history of biology. Consider the frontispiece of his Hortus Cliffortianus (1737) (Figure I.1). Linnaeus’s youthful face is seen on the body of Apollo. In one hand he holds a light, in the other he pushes back the clouds of ignorance from crowned Mother Nature. With his foot Linnaeus tram- ples the dragon of falsehood. In the foreground, plants are brought for identification and two cherubs admire Linnaeus’s centigrade ther- mometer.An exuberant illustration, and an immodest one – it was com- missioned and approved by Linnaeus.The metaphors of the illustration are not completely unfounded; Linnaeus’s work did usher in a golden era of biological classification. In the last two hundred years, the theoretical landscape of biology has changed drastically. The foundation of Linnaeus’s system was his 1 Introduction Figure I.1 The frontispiece of Linnaeus’s Hortus Cliffortianus (1737). Courtesy of Hunt Institute for Botanical Documentation, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. 2 Introduction biological theory – in particular, his assumptions of creationism and essentialism. These assumptions have gone by the wayside and have been replaced by evolutionary theory. Still, the vast majority of biolo- gists use the Linnaean hierarchy and its system of nomenclature. Unfortunately, the system’s outdated theoretical assumptions under- mine its ability to provide accurate classifications. Furthermore, its rules of nomenclature, once prized for their ability to bring order to biological classification, are no longer practical.These problems are far from minor, for the Linnaean system is the backbone of biological clas- sification and much of biology.The Linnaean system prescribes how to name and represent taxa and, in doing so, provides the template for displaying life’s diversity. Moreover, the terms and concepts of the Linnaean system play a central role in biological theorizing. They frame all theoretical questions concerning groups of organisms above the level of the local population. To get a better idea of the problems facing the Linnaean system, let us take a closer look at its theoretical assumptions. Among them is Linnaeus’s conception of biological taxa. Linnaeus thought that species and other taxa are the result of divine intervention. Once a taxon is created, each of its members must have the essential properties of that taxon. The evolution of a species was foreclosed by God’s original creation. Needless to say, Darwinism gives us a different picture of the organic world. Taxa are the products of natural rather than divine processes. Species are evolving lineages, not static classes of organisms.This conceptual shift in biological theory is well discussed in the literature and comes under many banners. Some authors talk of the “death of essentialism”; others refer to the “species are individu- als” thesis. In broader perspective, this conceptual shift falls under “the historical turn” in biology, or what Ernst Mayr calls “population thinking.” Essentialism concerning taxa has fallen out of favor among evolu- tionary biologists, so this tenet of Linnaeus’s original system has been dropped. Nevertheless, many of Linnaeus’s original principles remain in place, and those assumptions, I will argue, are equally problematic. Consider Linnaeus’s conception of the species category. The species category is the group of all species taxa, whereas species taxa, such as Homo sapiens and Drosphila melangaster, are groups of organisms. For Linnaeus, not only do species taxa have essences, but so does the species category. In the Linnaean system, all species taxa are compa- rable and distinguishable from all other types of taxa. The assumption 3 Introduction that there is an essence to the species category is still widely held. Many biologists believe that species are groups of organisms that can suc- cessfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Being a group of organisms with those properties defines membership in the species cat- egory. So while biologists have rejected the Linnaean assumption that species taxa have essences, they have, for the most part, retained the assumption that there is an essence to the species category. That latter assumption, however, should be questioned as well. The idea that species are groups of organisms that successfully interbreed and produce fertile offspring is just one of many prominent definitions of the species category. (Biologists often refer to such definitions as “species concepts.”) Another definition asserts that a species is a group of organisms bound by their unique phylogeny,and still another defines a species as a group of organisms that share a unique ecological niche. What are we to make of this variety of species concepts in the litera- ture? According to some authors, there is a single correct description of the species category.The existence of more than one species concept, they suggest, merely reflects a lack of consensus among biologists on the nature of species. Against this view, I will argue that there is no single correct definition of the species category. The species category lacks an essence and is in fact multifarious. This second view is species pluralism and runs counter to the Linnaean assumption that there is an essence to the species category. If one accepts species pluralism, then not only must essentialism at the level of species be abandoned, but so must essentialism at the level of the species category. Similar arguments have been used against the other Linnaean categories. Many biologists note that the higher Linnaean categories – genus, family, order, and so forth – are hetero- geneous collections of taxa. Families, for example, vary in their ages as well as their degrees of inclusiveness. Calling a taxon a “family” indi- cates only that within a particular classification that taxon is more inclusive than genera and less inclusive than classes. This meaning of “family” has no ontological significance. Similar observations apply to the rest of the Linnaean higher categories. If the higher Linnaean cat- egories lack significant defining features, then another major tenet of the Linnaean system is obsolete.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Using Te Reo Māori and Ta Re Moriori in Taxonomy
    VealeNew Zealand et al.: Te Journal reo Ma- oriof Ecologyin taxonomy (2019) 43(3): 3388 © 2019 New Zealand Ecological Society. 1 REVIEW Using te reo Māori and ta re Moriori in taxonomy Andrew J. Veale1,2* , Peter de Lange1 , Thomas R. Buckley2,3 , Mana Cracknell4, Holden Hohaia2, Katharina Parry5 , Kamera Raharaha-Nehemia6, Kiri Reihana2 , Dave Seldon2,3 , Katarina Tawiri2 and Leilani Walker7 1Unitec Institute of Technology, 139 Carrington Road, Mt Albert, Auckland 1025, New Zealand 2Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research, 231 Morrin Road, St Johns, Auckland 1072, New Zealand 3School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, 3A Symonds St, Auckland CBD, Auckland 1010, New Zealand 4Rongomaiwhenua-Moriori, Kaiangaroa, Chatham Island, New Zealand 5Massey University, Private Bag 11222 Palmerston North, 4442, New Zealand 6Ngāti Kuri, Otaipango, Ngataki, Te Aupouri, Northland, New Zealand 7Auckland University of Technology, 55 Wellesley St E, Auckland CBS, Auckland 1010, New Zealand *Author for correspondence (Email: [email protected]) Published online: 28 November 2019 Auheke: Ko ngā ingoa Linnaean ka noho hei pou mō te pārongo e pā ana ki ngā momo koiora. He mea nui rawa kia mārama, kia ahurei hoki ngā ingoa pūnaha whakarōpū. Me pēnei kia taea ai te whakawhitiwhiti kōrero ā-pūtaiao nei. Nā tēnā kua āta whakatakotohia ētahi ture, tohu ārahi hoki hei whakahaere i ngā whakamārama pūnaha whakarōpū. Kua whakamanahia ēnei kia noho hei tikanga mō te ao pūnaha whakarōpū. Heoi, arā noa atu ngā hua o te tukanga waihanga ingoa Linnaean mō ngā momo koiora i tua atu i te tautohu noa i ngā momo koiora. Ko tētahi o aua hua ko te whakarau: (1) i te mātauranga o ngā iwi takatake, (2) i te kōrero rānei mai i te iwi o te rohe, (3) i ngā kōrero pūrākau rānei mō te wāhi whenua.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Mammals Are Called Mammals: Gender Politics in Eighteenth-Century Natural History Author(S): Londa Schiebinger Source: the American Historical Review, Vol
    Why Mammals are Called Mammals: Gender Politics in Eighteenth-Century Natural History Author(s): Londa Schiebinger Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 2 (Apr., 1993), pp. 382-411 Published by: American Historical Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2166840 Accessed: 22/01/2010 10:27 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aha. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Historical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Historical Review. http://www.jstor.org Why Mammals Are Called Mammals: Gender Politics in Eighteenth-Century Natural History LONDA SCHIEBINGER IN 1758, IN THE TENTH EDITION OF HIS Systema naturae, Carolus Linnaeus introduced the term Mammaliainto zoological taxonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertation Ch 2
    Disenchantment and Re-enchantment: Rhetorical Tension in the Siècle des Lumières A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA BY Sean P. Killackey IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Daniel Brewer DECEMBER 2020 © Sean P. Killackey, 2020 Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank the members of my committee, without whom none of this project would have seen the light of day. I am deeply grateful to Dan Brewer, Juliette Cherbuliez, Mary Franklin-Brown, and Michael Gaudio for their commitment and perseverance in seeing this dissertation project through to its completion. Before this dissertation even took shape, their courses and scholarship inspired new avenues of intellectual pursuit for me. I am particularly grateful for the many conversations at workshops, in offices and hallways, and after myriad speaker events with each of them during the development of ideas that would eventually coalesce into a dissertation project. I would like to express my deep and enduring gratitude to my advisor, Daniel Brewer, who read countless revisions with patience and tirelessly gave diplomatic and insightful feedback, challenging my assumptions and posing questions that lead me to more fruitful exploration and stronger writing. His intellectual guidance for this project over the long duration is a testament to his perseverance and his passion for critical inquiry into the literature and culture of the eighteenth century. I sincerely thank Juliette Cherbuliez for chairing my committee and for her advice on the importance of working with people who “ask great questions.” Her brilliant and challenging questions impacted my thinking on this project, perhaps more than she even knows.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of Arts and Architecture PLANTAE, ANIMALIA, FUNGI: TRANSFORMATIONS OF NATURAL HISTORY IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN ART A Dissertation in Art History by Alissa Walls Mazow © 2009 Alissa Walls Mazow Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2009 The Dissertation of Alissa Walls Mazow was reviewed and approved* by the following: Sarah K. Rich Associate Professor of Art History Dissertation Adviser Chair of Committee Brian A. Curran Associate Professor of Art History Richard M. Doyle Professor of English, Science, Technology and Society, and Information Science and Technology Nancy Locke Associate Professor of Art History Craig Zabel Associate Professor of Art History Head of the Department of Art History *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. ii Abstract This dissertation examines the ways that five contemporary artists—Mark Dion (b. 1961), Fred Tomaselli (b. 1956), Walton Ford (b. 1960), Roxy Paine (b. 1966) and Cy Twombly (b. 1928)—have adopted the visual traditions and theoretical formulations of historical natural history to explore longstanding relationships between “nature” and “culture” and begin new dialogues about emerging paradigms, wherein plants, animals and fungi engage in ecologically-conscious dialogues. Using motifs such as curiosity cabinets and systems of taxonomy, these artists demonstrate a growing interest in the paradigms of natural history. For these practitioners natural history operates within the realm of history, memory and mythology, inspiring them to make works that examine a scientific paradigm long thought to be obsolete. This study, which itself takes on the form of a curiosity cabinet, identifies three points of consonance among these artists.
    [Show full text]
  • History of Taxonomy
    History of Taxonomy The history of taxonomy dates back to the origin of human language. Western scientific taxonomy started in Greek some hundred years BC and are here divided into prelinnaean and postlinnaean. The most important works are cited and the progress of taxonomy (with the focus on botanical taxonomy) are described up to the era of the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus, who founded modern taxonomy. The development after Linnaeus is characterized by a taxonomy that increasingly have come to reflect the paradigm of evolution. The used characters have extended from morphological to molecular. Nomenclatural rules have developed strongly during the 19th and 20th century, and during the last decade traditional nomenclature has been challenged by advocates of the Phylocode. Mariette Manktelow Dept of Systematic Biology Evolutionary Biology Centre Uppsala University Norbyv. 18D SE-752 36 Uppsala E-mail: [email protected] 1. Pre-Linnaean taxonomy 1.1. Earliest taxonomy Taxonomy is as old as the language skill of mankind. It has always been essential to know the names of edible as well as poisonous plants in order to communicate acquired experiences to other members of the family and the tribe. Since my profession is that of a systematic botanist, I will focus my lecture on botanical taxonomy. A taxonomist should be aware of that apart from scientific taxonomy there is and has always been folk taxonomy, which is of great importance in, for example, ethnobiological studies. When we speak about ancient taxonomy we usually mean the history in the Western world, starting with Romans and Greek. However, the earliest traces are not from the West, but from the East.
    [Show full text]
  • The Word Hawk by Bob Johnson
    The Word Hawk by Bob Johnson His intellect was keen and penetrating was Carl (Carolus in Latin), which meant Let Us Now Laud but his greatest characteristic was his ability to that his sons would all bear the name reason methodically: Carlsson. Instead, Linnaeus’s father, Nils, Linnaeus Whatever he said or did was methodical and decided to name himself after a specimen systematical. linden tree (a linn in Old Swedish) that he —Johan Christian Fabricius, admired on his family’s land, making him student of Linnaeus, writing in 1805 Nils Linné. Thus, the newborn Carl, Nil’s son (Nilsson), became Carl Linné, which With the tercentenary observance of the was Latinized in his scholarly publications birth of Linnaeus,1 it seemed fitting to to Carolus Linnaeus. His name is now uni- dedicate a few column inches to him, versally recognized in taxonomies simply as the system of scientific nomenclature he Linnaeus and is represented by “L.” (note invented (or at least popularized), and a the period) after a genus or species to indi- bit about the Latin and greek words it cate that it was he who first described the employs. type species under discussion. Perhaps my interest in Linnaeus was also Although Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae was whetted after I learned of a recent tempest authoritative during the first 100 years or in a taxonomic teapot on Barbados. Some so after its promulgation, the codes for zoo- residents of that Lesser Antilles island logic and botanic nomenclature are today rose up in high dudgeon after Penn State maintained and regulated by two principal biologist S Blair Hedges “discovered” and scientific organizations—the International named the world’s smallest known snake, Commission on Zoological Nomenclature the 4-inch–long Leptotyphlops carlae, after (ICZN) and the International Code of his wife, Carla.2,3 Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), respec- Some background: By tradition and tively.
    [Show full text]
  • Linnaean Taxonomy and Globalized Law Ronald J
    Michigan Law Review Volume 115 | Issue 6 2017 Linnaean Taxonomy and Globalized Law Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr. University of Alabama School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Judges Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Ronald J. Krotoszynski Jr., Linnaean Taxonomy and Globalized Law, 115 Mich. L. Rev. 865 (2017). Available at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol115/iss6/6 This Review is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Law Review at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LINNAEAN TAXONOMY AND GLOBALIZED LAW Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr.* The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities. By Stephen Breyer. New York: Andrew A. Knopf. 2015. Pp. 8, 284. $27.95. Introduction In the mid–seventeen hundreds, Carl Linnaeus, the famed Swedish bot- anist, invented the system of binomial nomenclature to identify and classify all living organisms.1 Binomial nomenclature involves associating all living things, plants and animals alike, with a name that indicates the genus and species of the organism.2 Linnaeus believed, correctly, that in order to un- derstand the natural world, one first had to organize and classify living
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Philology
    BEYOND PHILOLOGY AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LINGUISTICS, LITERARY STUDIES AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING 15/1 WYDAWNICTWO UNIWERSYTETU GDAŃSKIEGO GDAŃSK 2018 EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Danuta Stanulewicz SECTION EDITORS Olga Sokołowska (Linguistics) Ludmiła Gruszewska-Blaim (Literary Studies, Culture) Wojciech Kubiński (Translation) Magdalena Wawrzyniak-Śliwska (Language Acquisition, Academic Teaching, Education) Jadwiga Węgrodzka (Reviews, Reports, Interviews) ASSISTANT EDITORS Maria Fengler Marcin Fortuna Michał Golubiewski Ewelina Gutowska-Kozielska Karolina Janczukowicz Joanna Redzimska Małgorzata Smentek PROOFREADERS Martin Blaszk Sarah Flamminio Jean Ward Tadeusz Z. Wolański The Editors and Proofreaders are all affiliated with the Institute of English and American Studies, University of Gdańsk, Poland. COVER DESIGN Andrzej Taranek ISSN 1732-1220 eISSN 2451-1498 © Copyright by Uniwersytet Gdański Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego Contact address Institute of English and American Studies University of Gdańsk ul. Wita Stwosza 51 80-308 Gdańsk Poland Phone: (+48) 58 523 30 49, (+48) 58 523 30 50 Email: [email protected] ASSOCIATE EDITORIAL BOARD Marta Bogdanowicz (University of Gdańsk, Poland) Joanna Burzyńska-Sylwestrzak (Uczelnia Lingwistyczno-Techniczna, Świecie, Poland) Ewa Dąbrowska (Northumbria University, Newcastle, U.K.) Desmond Graham (University of Newcastle, U.K.) Zoltán Kövecses (Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary) Ronald W. Langacker (University of California at San Diego, U.S.A.) Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Animals
    C H A P T E R 10 Taxonomy and Phylogeny of Animals Molluscan shells from the collection of Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1744 to 1829). Order in Diversity Evolution has produced a great diversity of species in the animal kingdom. including vertebrae and homeothermy, that separate them from even more Zoologists have named more than 1.5 million species of animals, and thou- dissimilar forms such as insects and flatworms. sands more are described each year. Some zoologists estimate that species All human cultures classify familiar animals according to patterns in ani- named so far constitute less than 20% of all living animals and less than 1% mal diversity. These classifications have many purposes. Some societies classify of all those that have existed. animals according to their usefulness or destructiveness to human endeavors; Despite its magnitude, the diversity of animals is not without limits. others may group animals according to their roles in mythology. Biologists or- Many conceivable forms do not exist in nature, as our myths of minotaurs ganize animal diversity in a nested hierarchy of groups within groups according and winged horses show. Animal diversity is not random but has definite to evolutionary relationships as revealed by ordered patterns in their sharing order. Characteristic features of humans and cattle never occur together of homologous features. This ordering is called a “natural system” because it in a single organism as they do in the mythical minotaurs; nor do char- reflects relationships that exist among animals in nature, outside the context acteristic wings of birds and bodies of horses occur together naturally as of human activity.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomy (Biology)
    Taxonomy (biology) In biology, taxonomy (from Ancient Greek τάξις (taxis) 'arrangement', and -νομία (- nomia) 'method') is the scientific study of naming, defining (circumscribing) and classifying groups of biological organisms based on shared characteristics. Organisms are grouped into taxa (singular: taxon) and these groups are given a taxonomic rank; groups of a given rank can be aggregated to form a super-group of higher rank, thus creating a taxonomic hierarchy. The principal ranks in modern use are domain, kingdom, phylum (division is sometimes used in botany in place of phylum), class, order, family, genus, and species. The Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus is regarded as the founder of the current system of taxonomy, as he developed a system known as Linnaean taxonomy for categorizing organisms and binomial nomenclature for naming organisms. With the advent of such fields of study as phylogenetics, cladistics, and systematics, the Linnaean system has progressed to a system of modern biological classification based on the evolutionary relationships between organisms, both living and extinct. Definition The exact definition of taxonomy varies from source to source, but the core of the discipline remains: the conception, naming, and classification of groups of organisms.[1] As points of reference, recent definitions of taxonomy are presented below: 1. Theory and practice of grouping individuals into species, arranging species into larger groups, and giving those groups names, thus producing a classification.[2] 2. A field of science (and major component of systematics) that encompasses description, identification, nomenclature, and classification[3] 3. The science of classification, in biology the arrangement of organisms into a classification[4] 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Past, Present and Future of Biological Taxonomy
    The Past, Present and Future of Biological Taxonomy An Honors Thesis (HONRS 499) By Joseph Urban Thesis Advisor: Dr. Kamal Islam Ball State University Muncie, IN December 2013 Graduation: December 2013 5pCoH U I'lc:t e "5r,.) c:l -rhe~'\s 1-"0 2-4-8 9 .~'1 Table of Contents ?v/3 .u.. 73 Abstract. ........................................................................................................ 3 Acknowledgements............................................................................................4 The Past. ........................................................................................................5 The Present .................................................................................................... 18 The Future .....................................................................................................29 Work Cited ....................................................................................................39 2 Abstract This honors thesis examines the history, present applications and the current issues of biological taxonomy, the study of classifying, identifying and naming organisms. The history portion examines the development of taxonomy through the works of many naturalists and biologists. One biologist in particular, Carl Linnaeus, established guidelines and the framework for nomenclature of all organisms. The present applications of taxonomy focus on the developments of taxonomy when it is integrated with evolutionary theory. This integration, named systematics, focuses on determining
    [Show full text]
  • Systems of Systematics
    Biological Classification What’s in a name? Biological Classification “Bears” • Taxonomy: naming & classifying organisms • Systematics: studying relationships among taxonomic groups North America Australia Systems of I. Anthrocentric Systems • “human-centered” — Classified based on their Systematics relevance or usefulness to humans I. Anthrocentric – Edible / inedible / medicinal – Wild vs. domestic II. Ecological – Crops vs. weeds • Still basis for political policies – “Biological resources” III. Hierarchical – Commercially harvested vs. recreationally harvested vs. non-targeted (trash, by-catch) IV. Phylogenetic species I. Anthrocentric Systems II. Ecological Systems • Classified based on their habitat, niche or behavior Aristotle, 384–322 BCE – “Plant” (planted in place / sessile) – Scalae Naturae (“ladder of nature”) vs. “Animal” (animated / motile) – “beasts of the field” / “beasts of the air” / • “advanced” = more human-like “beasts of the sea” (fish) • “primitive” = less human-like • Useful for studying ecological relationships and effects of environment on body forms * Archaic, prejudicial expressions: – Vegetation types: herb / shrub / tree Any organism successfully surviving is not – Aquatic life: plankton / nekton / benthos “primitive”! – Assemblages of organisms in a specific * Better terms: “generalized” vs. “specialized” community or “derived” • Oak woodland biota; coral reef biota; etc. Heyer 1 Biological Classification Carolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné), 1707–1778 III. Hierarchical Systems —“Father of modern taxonomy & systematics” • Classified based on their relative similarities • Swedish botanist, zoologist, physician, linguist, poet, & educator. Degree in of body form Medicine; professor of medicine & Carolus Linnaeus (Carl von Linné), 1707–1778 botany - Uppsala University. • Also one of the fathers of modern —“Father of modern taxonomy & systematics” ecology. One of the most influential intellectuals of the 18th century. • Students from all over Europe (esp.
    [Show full text]