Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 31–67 | Cite as

Moving Past the Systematics Wars

  • Beckett Sterner
  • Scott Lidgard


It is time to escape the constraints of the Systematics Wars narrative and pursue new questions that are better positioned to establish the relevance of the field in this time period to broader issues in the history of biology and history of science. To date, the underlying assumptions of the Systematics Wars narrative have led historians to prioritize theory over practice and the conflicts of a few leading theorists over the less-polarized interactions of systematists at large. We show how shifting to a practice-oriented view of methodology, centered on the trajectory of mathematization in systematics, demonstrates problems with the common view that one camp (cladistics) straightforwardly “won” over the other (phenetics). In particular, we critique David Hull’s historical account in Science as a Process by demonstrating exactly the sort of intermediate level of positive sharing between phenetic and cladistic theories that undermines their mutually exclusive individuality as conceptual systems over time. It is misleading, or at least inadequate, to treat them simply as holistically opposed theories that can only interact by competition to the death. Looking to the future, we suggest that the concept of workflow provides an important new perspective on the history of mathematization and computerization in biology after World War II.


David Hull Mathematization Cladistics Numerical taxonomy Workflow Evolutionary epistemology 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abrantes, Paulo and El-Hani, Charbel Niño. 2009. “Gould, Hull, and the Individuation of Scientific Theories.” Foundations of Science 14(4): 295–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, Edward N., III. 1986. “N-Trees as Nestings: Complexity, Similarity, and Consensus.” Journal of Classification 3(2): 299–317.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, Edward N., III. 1972. “Consensus Techniques and the Comparison of Taxonomic Trees.” Systematic Zoology 21(4): 390–397.Google Scholar
  4. Agar, Jon. 2006. “What Difference Did Computers Make?’ Social Studies of Science 36(6): 869–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Allen, Garland E. 1991. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science David L. Hull; The Metaphysics of Evolution David L. Hull. Isis 82(4): 698.Google Scholar
  6. Almeida, M.T. and Bisby, F.A. 1984. “A Simple Method for Establishing Taxonomic Characters from Measurement Data.” Taxon 33(3): 405–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Archie, James W. 1985. “Methods for Coding Variable Morphological Features for Numerical Taxonomic Analysis.” Systematic Zoology 34(3): 326–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bardram, Jakob E. 1997. Plans as Situated Action: an Activity Theory Approach to Workflow Systems. In Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
  9. Barrett, Martin, Donoghue, Michael J. and Sober, Elliott. 1991. “Against Consensus.” Systematic Zoology 40(4): 486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beatty, John. 1982. Classes and Cladists. Systematic Zoology 31(1): 25–111.Google Scholar
  11. Bisby, F.A. 1970. “The Evaluation and Selection of Characters in Angiosperm Taxonomy: an Example From Crotalaria.” The New Phytologist 69(4): 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowers, John, Button, Graham, and Sharrock, Wes. 1995. Workflow from Within and Without: Technology and Cooperative Work on the Print Industry Shopfloor. In Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work ECSCW’95. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 51–66.Google Scholar
  13. Cain, Joe. 2000. “Woodger, Positivism, and the Evolutionary Synthesis.” Biology & Philosophy 15: 535–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Camin, Joseph H. and Sokal, Robert R. 1965. “A Method for Deducing Branching Sequences in Phylogeny.” Evolution 19(3): 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cranston, PS and Humphries, CJ. 1988. “Cladistics and computers: a chironomid conundrum?” Cladistics 4:72–92.Google Scholar
  16. Craw, Robin. 1992. “Margins of Cladistics: Identity, Difference and Place in the Emergence of Phylogenetic Systematics 1864–1975.” Paul E. Griffiths (ed.), Trees of Life: Essays in Philosophy of Biology. Boston: Kluwer, pp. 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter. 2007. Objectivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Day, William H.E. 1985. “Optimal-Algorithms for Comparing Trees with Labeled Leaves.” Journal of Classification 2(1): 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. De Bivort, Benjamin L., Clouse, Ronald M. and Giribet, Gonzalo. 2010. “A Morphometrics-Based Phylogeny of the Temperate Gondwanan Mite Harvestmen (Opiliones, Cyphophthalmi, Pettalidae).” Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 48(4): 294–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dourish, Paul. 2001. Process Descriptions as Organisational Accounting Devices: the Dual Use of Workflow Technologies. In The 2001 International ACM SIGGROUP Conference. New York: ACMGoogle Scholar
  21. Duncan, Thomas and Baum, Bernard R. 1981. “Numerical Phenetics: Its Uses in Botanical Systematics.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12: 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Farris, James S. 1969. “A Successive Approximations Approach to Character Weighting.” Systematic Biology 18(4): 374–385.Google Scholar
  23. Farris, James S. 1970. “Methods for Computing Wagner Trees.” Systematic Zoology 19(1): 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Farris, James S. 1977. “On the Phenetic Approach to Vertebrate Classification.” Max K. Hecht, Peter C. Goody and Bessie M. Hecht (eds.), Major Patterns in Vertebrate Evolution. Boston: Springer, pp. 823–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Farris, James S. 1989. “Lord of the Flies: The Systematist as Study Animal.” Cladistics 5: 295–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Farris, James S. 2008. “Parsimony and Explanatory Power.” Cladistics. 24(5): 825–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Farris, James S. 2012. “Early Wagner Trees and ‘the Cladistic Redux’.” Cladistics 28(5): 545–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Farris, James S., Kluge, Arnold G. and Eckardt, Michael J. 1970. “A Numerical Approach to Phylogenetic Systematics.” Systematic Zoology 19(2): 172–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Felsenstein, Joe. 1983. “Parsimony in Systematics: Biological and Statistical Issues.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 14: 313–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Felsenstein, Joe. 1988. “Phylogenies and Quantitative Characters.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 445–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Felsenstein, Joe. 2001. “The Troubled Growth of Statistical Phylogenetics.” Systematic Biology 50(4): 465–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Felsenstein, Joe. 2004. “A Digression on History and Philosophy.” Joe Felsenstein (ed.), Inferring Phylogenies. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates Inc., pp. 123–146.Google Scholar
  33. García-Sancho, Miguel. 2012. Biology, Computing, and the History of Molecular Sequencing: From Proteins to DNA, 1945–2000. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerson, Elihu M. 2008. “Reach, Bracket, and the Limits of Rationalized Coordination: Some Challenges for CSCW.” Mark S. Ackerman, Christine A. Halverson, Thomas Erickson and Wendy A. Kellogg (eds.), Resources, Co-Evolution and Artifacts: Theory in CSCW. London: Springer, pp. 193–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gilmour, John Scott Lennox. 1940. “Taxonomy and Philosophy.” Julian Huxley (ed.), The New Systematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 461–474.Google Scholar
  36. Goldman, Nick. 1988. “Methods for Discrete Coding of Morphological Characters for Numerical Analysis.” Cladistics 4(1): 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Goodfellow, Michael, Jones, Dorothy and Priest, Fergus G. (eds.). 1985. Computer-Assisted Bacterial Systematics New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Grantham, Todd A. 2000. “Evolutionary Epistemology, Social Epistemology, and the Demic Structure of Science.” Biology & Philosophy 15(3): 443–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grantham, Todd A. 1994. “Does Science Have a ‘Global Goal?’: A Critique of Hull’s View of Conceptual Progress.” Biology & Philosophy 9(1): 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Griesemer, James R. 2007. “Tracking Organic Processes: Representations and Research Styles in Classical Embryology and Genetics.” Jane Maienschein and Manfred D. Laubichler (eds.), From Embryology to Evo-Devo: a History of Developmental Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 375–435.Google Scholar
  41. Haber, Matthew. 2009. Phylogenetic Inference. In A Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography, ed Aviezer Tucker. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 231–242.Google Scholar
  42. Hagen, Joel B. 1999. “Naturalists, Molecular Biologists, and the Challenges of Molecular Evolution.” Journal of the History of Biology 32(2): 321–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hagen, Joel B. 2001. “The Introduction of Computers Into Systematic Research in the United States During the 1960s.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 32(2): 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hagen, Joel B. 2003. “The Statistical Frame of Mind in Systematic Biology From Quantitative Zoology to Biometry.” Journal of the History of Biology 36(2): 353–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hamilton, Andrew (ed.). 2014. The Evolution of Phylogenetic Systematics. Los Angeles:University of California Press.Google Scholar
  46. Helfenbein, Kevin G. and DeSalle, Rob. 2005. “Falsifications and Corroborations: Karl Popper’s Influence on Systematics.” Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 35(1): 271–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hofer, Veronika. 2013. “Philosophy of Biology in Early Logical Empiricism.” Hanne Andersen, Dennis Dieks, Wenceslao J. Gonzalez, Thomas Uebel and Gregory Wheeler (eds.), New Challenges to Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 351–363.Google Scholar
  48. Hogeweg, P. 1976. “Iterative Character Weighing in Numerical Taxonomy.” Computers in Biology and Medicine 6(3): 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Hull, David L. 1982. “Exemplars and Scientific Change.” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982: 479–503.Google Scholar
  50. Hull, David L. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hull, David L. 2001. “The Role of Theories in Biological Systematics.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 32(2): 221–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Huxley, Julian (ed.). 1940. The New Systematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  53. Jensen, Richard J. 2009. “Phenetics: Revolution, Reform or Natural Consequence?’ Taxon 58(1): 50–60.Google Scholar
  54. Kitcher, Philip. 1988. “Selection Among the Systematists.” Nature 336(6196): 277–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kitching, Ian J., Forey, Peter L., Humphries, Christopher J. and Williams, David M. 1998. Cladistics: The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Kluge, Arnold G. and Farris, James S. 1969. “Quantitative Phyletics and the Evolution of Anurans.” Systematic Zoology 18(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Koyré, Alexandre. 1978. Galileo Studies. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  58. Latour, Bruno. 1990. “Review: Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science.” Contemporary Sociology 19(2): 281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Le Quesne, Walter, J. 1982. “Compatibility Analysis and Its Applications.” Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 74(3): 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Legendre, Pierre. 1975. “A Posteriori Weighting of Descriptors.” Taxon 24(5/6): 603–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Leonelli, Sabina and Ankeny, Rachel A. 2012. “Re-Thinking Organisms: The Impact of Databases on Model Organism Biology.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43(1): 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ludäscher, Bertram, Weske, Mathias, McPhillips, Timothy and Bowers, Shawn. 2009. “Scientific Workflows: Business as Usual?’ Business Process Management 5701: 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ludäscher, Bertram, Altintas, Ilkay, Berkley, Chad, Higgins, Dan, Jaeger, Efrat, Jones, Matthew, Lee, Edward A., Tao, Jing and Zhao, Yang. 2006. “Scientific Workflow Management and the Kepler System.” Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 18(10): 1039–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Maynard-Smith, John. 1988. “Mechanisms of Advance.” Science 242(4882): 1182–1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mayr, Ernst. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species From the Viewpoint of a Zoologist, 1st ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Mayr, Ernst. 1965. “Classification and Phylogeny.” American Zoologist 5(1): 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mayr, Ernst. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  68. McGuire, James B. 1979. “On the Consensus Construction of an Evolutionary Tree.” Journal of Social and Biological Systems 2(2): 107–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. McGuire, James B. and Thompson, Colin J. 1978. “On the Reconstruction of an Evolutionary Order.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 75(2): 141–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. McMorris, F.R. and Neumann, Dean. 1983. “Consensus Functions Defined on Trees.” Mathematical Social Sciences 4(2): 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mickevich, M.F. and Johnson, Michael S. 1976. “Congruence Between Morphological and Allozyme Data in Evolutionary Inference and Character Evolution.” Systematic Zoology 25(3): 260–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mickevich, M.F. and Platnick, N.I. 1989. “On the Information Content of Classifications.” Cladistics 5(1): 33–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mishler, Brent D. 2005. “The Logic of the Data Matrix in Phylogenetic Analysis.” Victor A. Albert (ed.), Parsimony, Phylogeny, and Genomics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–70.Google Scholar
  74. Morgan, Gregory J. 1998. “Emile Zuckerkandl, Linus Pauling, and the Molecular Evolutionary Clock, 1959–1965.” Journal of the History of Biology 31(2): 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Nelson, Gareth. 1979. “Cladistic Analysis and Synthesis: Principles and Definitions, with a Historical Note on Adanson’s Familles Des Plantes (1763–1764).” Systematic Zoology 28(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Nicholson, Daniel J. and Gawne, Richard. 2013. “Rethinking Woodger’s Legacy in the Philosophy of Biology.” Journal of the History of Biology 47(2): 243–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Nixon, Kevin C. and Carpenter, James M. 1996. “On Consensus, Collapsibility, and Clade Concordance.” Cladistics 12(4): 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. November, Joseph A. 2012. Biomedical Computing: Digitizing Life in the United States. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  79. O’Hara, Robert J. 1994. “Evolutionary History and the Species Problem.” American Zoologist 34(1): 12–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Pante, Eric, Schoelinck, Charlotte and Puillandre, Nicolas. 2015. “From Integrative Taxonomy to Species Description: One Step Beyond.” Systematic Biology 64(1): 152–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Pimentel, Richard A. and Riggins, Rhonda. 1987. “The Nature of Cladistic Data.” Cladistics 3(3): 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pullan, Martin R., Watson, Mark F., Kennedy, Jessie B., Raguenaud, Cédric and Hyam, Roger. 2000. “The Prometheus Taxonomic Model: A Practical Approach to Representing Multiple Classifications.” Taxon 49(1): 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Renzi, Barbara Gabriella and Napolitano, Giulio. 2011. Evolutionary Analogies: Is the Process of Scientific Change Analogous to the Organic Change?. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  84. Richards, Robert J. 1981. “Natural Selection and Other Models in the Historiography of Science.” Donald T. Campbell, Marilynn B. Brewer and Barry E. Collins (eds.), Scientific Inquiry and the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 37–76.Google Scholar
  85. Rieppel, Olivier. 2003. “Popper and Systematics.” Systematic Biology 52(2): 259–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rieppel, Olivier. 2006. “Willi Hennig on Transformation Series: Metaphysics and Epistemology.” Taxon 55(2): 377–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rieppel, Olivier. 2007. “The Metaphysics of Hennig’s Phylogenetic Systematics: Substance, Events and Laws of Nature.” Systematics and Biodiversity 5(4): 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Rieppel, Olivier. 2008. “Re-Writing Popper’s Philosophy of Science for Systematics.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 30(3/4): 293–316.Google Scholar
  89. Rieppel, Olivier. 2009. “Hennig’s Enkaptic System.” Cladistics 25(3): 311–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rieppel, Olivier. 2011. “Willi Hennig’s Dichotomization of Nature.” Cladistics 27(1): 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rieppel, Olivier. 2013. “The Early Cladogenesis of Cladistics.” Andrew Hamilton (ed.), The Evolution of Phylogenetic Systematics. Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Rieppel, Olivier. 2016. Phylogenetic Systematics: Haeckel to Hennig. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  93. Rieppel, Olivier, Williams, David M. and Ebach, Malte C. 2012. “Adolf Naef (1883–1949): On Foundational Concepts and Principles of Systematic Morphology.” Journal of the History of Biology 46(3): 445–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Schuh, Randall T and Pohlemus, John T. 1980. “Analysis of Taxonomic Congruence Among Morphological, Ecological, and Biogeographic Data Sets for the Leptopodomorpha (Hemiptera).” Systematic Zoology 29 (1): 1–26.Google Scholar
  95. Schuh, Randall T. and Farris, James S. 1981. “Methods for Investigating Taxonomie Congruence and Their Application to the Leptopodomorpha.” Systematic Zoology 30(3): 331–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Schuh, Randall T. and Farris, James S. 2000. Biological Systematics: Principles and Applications. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Scott-Ram, N.R. 1990. Transformed Cladistics, Taxonomy, and Evolution. New York:Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sepkoski, David. 2012. Rereading the Fossil Record: the Growth of Paleobiology as an Evolutionary Discipline. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sepkoski, David and Ruse, Michael E. (eds.). 2009. The Paleobiological Revolution: Essays on the Growth of Modern Paleontology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  100. Shipman, Frank M. and Marshall, Catherine C. 1999. “Formality Considered Harmful: Experiences, Emerging Themes, and Directions on the Use of Formal Representations in Interactive Systems.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8(4): 333–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Simpson, George Gaylord. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Sneath, Peter H.A. and Sokal, Robert R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy: the Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  103. Sokal, Robert R. and Rohlf, F. James. 1969. Biometry: the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research, 1st ed. San Francisco:W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  104. Sokal, Robert R. and Rohlf, F. James. 1981. “Taxonomic Congruence in the Leptopodomorpha Re-Examined.” Systematic Zoology 30(3): 309–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sokal, Robert R. and Rohlf, F. James. 2012. Biometry: the Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  106. Sokal, Robert R. and Sneath, Peter H.A. 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  107. Sterelny, Kim. 1994. “Science and Selection.” Biology & Philosophy 9(1): 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Sterner, Beckett. 2014. “Well-Structured Biology: Numerical Taxonomy and Its Methodological Vision for Systematics.” Andrew Hamilton (ed.), The Evolution of Phylogenetic Systematics. Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 213–244.Google Scholar
  109. Sterner, Beckett and Lidgard, Scott. 2014. “The Normative Structure of Mathematization in Systematic Biology.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 46: 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Strasser, Bruno J. 2010. Collecting, Comparing, and Computing Sequences: The Making of Margaret O. Dayhoff’s Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure, 1954–1965. Journal of the History of Biology 43(4): 623-660.Google Scholar
  111. Strasser, Bruno J. 2011. “The Experimenter’s Museum: GenBank, Natural History, and the Moral Economies of Biomedicine.” Isis 102(1): 60–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Strasser, Bruno J. 2012. “Collecting Nature: Practices, Styles, and Narratives.” Osiris 27(1): 303–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Strasser, Bruno J. and de Chadarevian, Soraya. 2011. The Comparative and the Exemplary: Revisiting the Early History of Molecular Biology. History of Science xlix: 317–226.Google Scholar
  114. Suárez-Díaz, Edna. 2013. “The Long and Winding Road of Molecular Data in Phylogenetic Analysis.” Journal of the History of Biology 47(3): 443–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Suárez-Díaz, Edna and Anaya-Muñoz, Victor H. 2008. “History, Objectivity, and the Construction of Molecular Phylogenies.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 39(4): 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Suchman, Lucy. 1993. “Do Categories Have Politics? the Language/Action Perspective Reconsidered.” G. De Michelis, C. Simone and K. Schmidt (eds.) Proceedings of the Third European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  117. The Editors. 2016. Editorial. Cladistics 32(1): 1–1.Google Scholar
  118. Varma, Charissa S. 2013. Beyond Set Theory: the Relationship Between Logic and Taxonomy From the Early 1930 to 1960 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from PhD_thesis.pdf
  119. Vergara-Silva, Francisco. 2009. “Pattern Cladistics and the ‘Realism–Antirealism Debate’ in the Philosophy of Biology.” Acta Biotheoretica 57(1–2): 269–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Vernon, Keith. 1988. “The Founding of Numerical Taxonomy.” British Journal for the History of Science. 21(2): 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Vernon, Keith. 2001. “A Truly Taxonomic Revolution? Numerical Taxonomy 1957–1970.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 32(2): 315–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Wheeler, Quentin D. 1986. “Character Weighting and Cladistic Analysis.” Systematic Zoology 35(1): 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Wilkins, John S. 1998. “The Evolutionary Structure of Scientific Theories.” Biology & Philosophy 13: 479–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Wilkinson, Mark. 1994. “Common Cladistic Information and Its Consensus Representation: Reduced Adams and Reduced Cladistic Consensus Trees and Profiles.” Systematic Biology 43(3): 343–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Williams, David M. and Ebach, Malte C. 2008. Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography. Boston, MA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Williams, David M. and Ebach, Malte C. 2009. “What, Exactly, Is Cladistics? Re-Writing the History of Systematics and Biogeography.” Acta Biotheoretica 57(1–2): 249–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Williams, David M. and Forey, Peter L. (eds.). 2004. Milestones in Systematics. New York: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  128. Winograd, Terry. 1994. “Categories, Disciplines, and Social Coordination.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2(3): 191–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Biology and SocietyArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Integrative Research CenterField MuseumChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations