Advertisement

Journal of Classification

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 187–210 | Cite as

Statistical properties of large published classifications

  • Eric W. Holman
Article

Abstract

Large published classifications typically consist of sets (called taxa) hierarchically arranged according to taxonomic rank. A statistical survey of 23 such classification reveals the following distinctive properties. The pattern of mandatory and optional taxonomic ranks is similar to a Guttman scale. Mean taxon size (defined as the number of next-lower-rank taxa per higher-rank taxon) is a U-shaped function of mandatory rank, and averages about seven across ranks with no significant differences between classifications. The variability of taxon size is a decreasing function of mandatory rank. The generality of these properties across classifications suggests that they are determined by the psychology of the classification process. In contrast, there are significant differences between classifications in the variability of taxon size and in the prevalence of optional ranks, both of which are greater in biological than in nonbiological classifications. These differences may reflect the nature of the materials classified.

Keywords

Hierarchical classification Taxonomic rank Guttman scale Cluster analysis Folk taxonomy Natural categories Hollow curve 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ANDERSON, S. (1974), “Patterns of Faunal Evolution”,Quarterly Review of Biology, 49, 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BEISTEIN-INSTITUT FÜR LITERATUR DER ORGANISCHEN CHEMIE (1918-present),Beilstein Handbook of Organic Chemistry, 4th edition with five supplementary series, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. BERLIN, B. (1973), “Folk Systematics in Relation to Biological Classification and Nomenclature,”Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. BERLIN, B., BREEDLOVE, D.E., and RAVEN, P.H. (1973), “General Principles of Classification and Nomenclature in Folk Biology,”American Anthropologist, 75, 214–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BIERENS DE HAAN, D. (1867),Nouvelles Tables d'Intégrales Définies, Leiden: P. Engles; reprinted (1957), New York Hafner.Google Scholar
  6. BROWN, C.H. (1985), “Mode of Subsistence and Folk Biological Taxonomy,”Current Anthropology 26, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. BROWN, C.H., KOLAR, J., TORREY, B.H., TRUONG-QUANG, T., and VOLKMAN, P. (1976) “Some General Principles of Biological and Non-Biological Folk Classification”,American Ethnologist, 3, 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CHAN, L.M. (1980),Immroth's Guide to the, Library of Congress Classification, 3rd edition, Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  9. CLAYTON, W.D. (1972), “Some Aspects of the Genus Concept,”Kew Bulletin, 27, 281–287.Google Scholar
  10. CLAYTON, W.D. (1974), “The Logarithmic Distribution of Angiosperm Families,”Kew Bulletin, 29, 271–279.Google Scholar
  11. COMARONI, J.P., and WARREN, M.J. (1982),Manual on the Use of the Dewey Decimal Classification, Edition 19, Albany, NY: Forest Press.Google Scholar
  12. CRONK, Q.C.B. (1989), “Measurement of Biological and Historical Influences on Plant Classifications,”Taxon, 38, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. CRONK, Q.C.B. (1990), “The Name of the Pea: A Quantitative History of Legume Classifications,”New Phytologist, 116, 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. DOIGNON, J.P., MONJARDET, B., ROUBENS, M., and VINCKE, P. (1986), “Biorder Families, Valued Relations, and Preference Modelling,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 435–480.zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. DOUGHERTY, J.W.D. (1978), “Salience and Relativity in Classification,”American Ethnologist, 5, 66–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DOUGLAS, G.H. (1976), “What's Happened to the Thesarus?”RQ Reference and Adult Services Division, 16 149–155.Google Scholar
  17. GMELIN-INSTITUT FÜR ANORGANISCHEN CHEMIE UND GRENZGEBIETE (1927-present)Gmelin Handbook of Inorganic Chemistry, 8th edition, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. GOLDSCHMID, E. (1953), “Nosologia Naturalis,” inScience Medicine and History, Vol. 2, Ed. E.A. Underwood London: Oxford University Press, 103–122.Google Scholar
  19. GORDON, A.D. (1987), “Parsimonious Trees,”Journal of Classification, 4, 103–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. GUTTMAN, L. (1944), “A Basis for Scaling Qualitative Data,”American Sociological Review, 9, 139–150.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. HOLMAN, E.W. (1985), “Evolutionary and Psychological Effects in Pre-Evolutionary Classifications”Journal of Classification, 2, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. HUBERT, L., and SCHULTZ, J. (1975), “Hierarchical Clustering and the Concept of Space Distortion,”British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 28, 121–133.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE (1968),International Standard Classification of Occuptations, revised edition, Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar
  24. LICHINE, A. (1974),Alexis Lichine's New Encyclopedia of Wines and Spirits, New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  25. LINNÉ, C. VON (1766–1768),Systema Naturae, 12th edition, Stockholm: L. Salvius; reprinted as 13th edition (1767–1769), Vienna: J. T. Trattner.Google Scholar
  26. MARGULIS, L., and SCHWARTZ, K.V. (1988),Five Kingdoms: An, Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth, 2nd edition, New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  27. MATTHEWS R.E.F. (1982), “Classification and Nomenclature of Viruses: Fourth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses,”Intervirology, 17, 1–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McNEILL, J. (1979), “Structural Value: A Concept Used in the Construction of Taxonomic Classifications,”Taxon, 28, 481–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. MILLIGAN, G.W., and COOPER, M.C. (1985), “An Examination of Procedures for Determining the Number of Clusters in a Data Set,”Psychometrika 50, 159–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. MILLER, G.A. (1956), “The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information,”Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. PALACHE, C., BERMAN, H., and FRONDEL C. (1944–1951),The System of Mineralogy of James Dwight Dana and Edward Salisbury Dana, Yale University, 1837–1892, 7th edition, Vols. 1–2, New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  32. PARKER, S.P., Ed. (1982),Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  33. POLTI, G. (1912),Les Trente-Six Situations Dramatiques, 2nd edition, Paris: Mercure de France; tr. L. Ray (1921), Franklin, Ohio: J.K. Reeve.Google Scholar
  34. ROGET, P.M. (1855),Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, 3rd edition, London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
  35. ROSCH, E., MERVIS, C.B., GRAY, W.D., JOHNSON, D.M., and BOYES-BRAEM, P. (1976), “Basic Objects in Natural Categories,”Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. RUHLEN M. (1987),A Guide to the World's Languages Vol. 1 Classification, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. SAUVAGES, F.B. de (1763),Nosolagiae Methodica, Amsterdam: De Tournes.Google Scholar
  38. SEPKOSKI, J.J. Jr. (1982), “A Compendium of Fossil Marine Families,”Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Biology and Geology, 51.Google Scholar
  39. SLONIMSKY, N. (1947),Thesaurus of Scales and Melodic Patterns, New York: Scribner's.Google Scholar
  40. SNEATH, P.H.A., and SOKAL, R.R. (1973),Numerical Taxonomy, San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. SARCK JONES, K. (1972), “Some Thesauric History,”ALSIB Proceedings, 24, 400–411.Google Scholar
  42. STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS (1959),Indexes to the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities, New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  43. STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE, UNITED NATIONS (1975),Standard International Trade Classification, Revision 2, New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  44. THOMPSON, S. (1955),Motif-Index of Folk-Literature, revised and enlarge edition, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  45. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (1972),Solid Series of the United States Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands: Their Taxonomic Classification, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  46. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (1980)Standard Occupational Classification Manual, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  47. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (1980),International Classification of Diseases 9th revision,Clinical Modification, 2nd ed., Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  48. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (1977),Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 4th edition, with Supplement (1986), Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  49. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET (1972),Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  50. VAN VALEN, L. (1973), “Are Categories in Different Phyla Comparable?”Taxon, 22, 333–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. VOEGELIN, C.F. and VOEGELIN, F.M. (1977),Classification and Index of the World's Languages, New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  52. WALTERS, S.M. (1961), “The Shaping of Angiosperm Taxonomy,”New Phytologist, 60, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. WALTERS, S.M. (1986), “The Name of the Rose: A Review of Ideas on the European Bias in Angiosperm Classification,”New Phytologist 104, 527–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (1977),Manual of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Injuries, and Causes of Death, Geneva: United Nations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric W. Holman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations