Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 249–270 | Cite as

Experimentalists and naturalists in twentieth-century botany: Experimental taxonomy, 1920–1950

  • Joel B. Hagen
Article

Conclusion

Experimental taxonomy was a diverse area of research, and botanists who helped develop it were motivated by a variety of concerns. While experimental taxonomy was never totally a taxonomic enterprise, improvement in classification was certainly one major motivation behind the research. Hall's and Clements' belief that experimental methods added more objectivity to classification was almost universally accepted by experimental taxonomists. Such methods did add a new dimension to taxonomy — a dimension that field and herbarium studies, however rigorous, could not duplicate. Nonetheless, experimental techniques were never completely divorced from traditional taxonomic methods. In practice, all experimental taxonomists employed a combination of descriptive and experimental methods. Most researchers freely acknowledged a debt to traditional taxonomy. Furthermore, the greater rigor of twentieth-century taxonomy was not due entirely to experimentalism. Both the experimental and descriptive aspects of taxonomy were improved by the increased use of quantitative methods, particularly statistics.52

From the beginning, a number of experimental taxonomists were interested primarily in classification. But many approached their research from fields other than taxonomy. These botanists were concerned primarily with ecological and genetic problems rather than with classification. There is little indication that they drew a sharp distinction: for example, taxonomic and cytogenetic conclusions were interwoven in Babcock and Stebbins' 1938 study of Crepis53 (this was even more true of Babcock's final mongraph on the genus, published in 1947). Similarly, the extensive series of monographs, “Experimental Studies on the Nature of Species,” initiated by the Carnegie Institution group in 1940 combined ecological, cytogenetic, and taxonomic conclusions. Indeed, the significance of the major projects completed by experimental taxonomists was largely due to the fact that they were comprehensive studies rather than strictly taxonomic or cytogenetic.

In a general sense, the primary motivation behind much of experimental taxonomy was evolutionary. Beginning in the second decade of the century Hall and Clements exhorted taxonomists to take an explicitly evolutionary perspective on research. Hall undoubtedly spoke for the majority of experimental taxonomists when he stated, “If there be anything at all to organic evolution, then taxonomy is dealing with the products of evolution and it is this that gives to taxonomy both its highest mission and its greatest responsibility.”54

Aside from a common interest in evolution, however, the theoretical orientations of experimental taxonomists were varied. This diversity is strikingly illustrated by the evolutionary views of members of the Carnegie Institution research group. Experimental taxonomy was initiated by Clements as one aspect of his Lamarckian study of adaptation and speciation. In contrast, Hall's research was inspired by a broad concern for evolutionary problems. Hall rarely referred to specific evolutionary mechanisms; rather, he applied a general conception of evolutionary processes to deduce phylogenetic relationships. His later associates at the Carnegie Institution explicitly dissociated themselves from Clements' theoretical framework. The neo-Darwinian interpretations of adaptation and speciation presented by Clausen, Keck, and Hiesey could hardly have been more different than those of Clements. However, this major shift in theoretical orientation should not obscure significant similarities between the research of Clements and later Carnegie workers. In terms of research problems and methodology, the first volume of “Experimental Studies on the Nature of Species” was an extension of the Clementsian research program. Clausen, Keck, and Hiesey's monograph was the mature discussion of transplant experimentation that Clements had very tentatively initiated during the first decades of the twentieth century. The bond that linked the members of the Carnegie Institution research group to experimental taxonomists in general was one of shared methodology rather than common theoretical orientation. While Clements' evolutionary views were eventually repudiated, his enthusiasm for innovative experimental methods was shared by later workers.

The development of experimental taxonomy faced significant problems. During the period 1920–1950 this area of botanical research remained a hybrid discipline. The aims and scope of experimental taxonomy were never articulated in a completely unified manner. Consequently, even among experimental taxonomists, there were disagreements over the relation of their research to other botanical endeavors. Even though experimental taxonomy had close ties with general taxonomy, a number of experimental taxonomists questioned the “taxonomic” nature of their research55. Even to the extent that this hybrid discipline could be identified as a branch of taxonomy, problems arose. Taxonomists, as we have seen, were justifiably skeptical of what appeared to be a rapid influx of untested methods and ideas. Experimental taxonomists were not merely incorporating well-accepted methods from ecology and cytogenetics; during the period 1920–1950 the fields from which experimental taxonomists borrowed were themselves undergoing major theoretical and methodological changes. Despite problems and conflicts, experimental taxonomists did contribute improvements to classification. Furthermore, they made significant contributions to plant ecology and evolutionary genetics.

The development of experimental taxonomy indicates that twentieth-century botanists were not necessarily isolated in naturalist and experimentalist camps. The joint session of taxonomists, cytologists, and geneticists at the 1926 International Congress of Plant Sciences indicates communication among specialists fairly early in the century. The papers and commentaries presented during this session do not reveal the hostility and intolerance that supposedly characterized encounters between experimentalists and naturalists. Nor do they suggest incompatible conceptual worlds separating geneticists and taxonomists.

Discussions between taxonomists and other specialists were not limited to a single international congress. Particularly during the 1930s discussions among specialists appear to have been fairly widespread. Groups such as the Biosystematists and the Society for the Study of Systematics in Relation to General Biology served as forums for discussion among biologists from a variety of disciplines. The naturalist-experimentalist dichotomy tends to obscure the broad research interests of a number of prominent twentieth-century botanists. Most of the experimental taxonomists cannot be characterized adequately as either naturalists or experimentalists. Traditionally trained taxonomists such as Hall, Keck, and Turrill throughout their careers participated in both experimental and herbarium research. And a number of specialists in fields other than taxonomy took an active interest in taxonomic problems, not necessarily limited to experimental aspects. For example, Anderson suggested a number of innovations to make herbarium collections more amenable to statistical analysis.

This historical study of experimental taxonomy indicates a different relationship between experimentalism and taxonomy than that portrayed by the naturalist-versus-experimentalist dichotomy. F. E. Clements originated experimental taxonomy as a revolt against descriptive botany. In retrospect, this revolution was not vigorously waged and was not successfully completed. Experimental taxonomy was never an entirely experimental approach to botanical research. Even the most ardent advocates of experimentalism relied heavily on methods inherited from traditional taxonomy. Moderate exponents of experimental taxonomy stressed the compatibility of experimental methods, field observation, and herbarium techniques. Attempts to fuse cytogenetics, ecology, and taxonomy during the period 1920–1950 resulted in an impressive body of research. However, this fusion constituted neither a repudiation of descriptive botany nor a complete revision of taxonomic theory of practice.

Keywords

Theoretical Orientation Carnegie Institution Botanical Research Evolutionary View Traditional Taxonomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Julian Huxley, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (London: Allen and Unwin, 1942).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Modern Synthesis as a unifying force in twentieth-century biology is a general theme of all the essays in Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine, eds., The Evolutionary Synthesis (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1980).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    This interpretation is comprehensively presented by Ernst Mayr in two articles, “Prologue: Some Thoughts on the History of the Evolutionary Synthesis” and “The Role of Systematics in the Evolutionary Synthesis,” both of which appear in Mayr and Provine, The Evolutionary Synthesis. Garland Allen mentions “the longstanding separation and distrust between laboratory and field workers” in his Life Science in the Twentieth Century (New York: Wiley, 1975), p. 19. A somewhat similar distinction between “orthodox” and “experimental” taxonomists is presented by John Dean, “Controversy over Classification: A Case Study in the History of Botany,” in Natural Order: Historical Studies in Scientific Culture Barry Barnes and Steven Shapin ed. (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1979).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mayr, “Prologue,” p. 13.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ibid., p. 40–42.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    I shall use the term “experimental taxonomy,” since it appears to have enjoyed wide currency between 1920 and 1950. It was used as a general descriptive term referring to the use of cytological, ecological, and genetic methods for the study of systematic relationships among plants. In referring to specific botanists as experimental taxonomists, I am not necessarily implying that they themselves claimed the designation; rather, I am suggesting that they shared a particular methodology and a loose set of common objectives.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frederic E. Clements, Research Methods in Ecology (Lincoln, Nebr.: University Publishing Co., 1905), pp. 12–13.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. E. Clements and H. M. Hall, “Experimental Taxonomy,” Carnegie Inst. Wash. Yearb., 18 (1919), 334–335.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anton Kernervon Marilaun, The Natural History of Plants, trans. F. W. Oliver (New York: Holt, 1895), pt. 2, p. 514. Emphasis in original.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bonnier's experiments were flawed by methodological problems. What he claimed to be transformed lowland species may well have been related alpine species that had invaded the experimental garden. A critical analysis of Bonnier's research is provided by William M. Hiesey, “Environmental Influence and Transplant Experiments,” Bot. Rev., 6 (1940), 181–203.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aside from brief accounts published in Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook beginning in 1918, Clements' only discussion of experimental speciation was in an article devoted primarily to experimental methodology. In the paper he deferred detailed discussion to a later report — which was, however, never published. See Frederic Clements, “Experimental Methods in Adaptation and Morphogeny,” J. Ecol., 17 (1929), 357–379.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Clements' experiments probably were marred by the same methodological problems encountered by Bonnier. Hall and his associates were unable to confirm any of Clements' experimental results. See Hiesey, “Environmental Influence,” pp. 185–187.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Göte Turesson, “The Genotypical Response of the Plant Species to the Habitat,” Hereditas, 3 (1922), 211–347. I have discussed the development of Turesson's ideas in greater detail in “Experimental Taxonomy, 1930–1950: The Impact of Cytology, Ecology, and Genetics on Ideas of Biological Classification” (Ph.D. diss., Oregon State University, 1982).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. W. Gregor, “The Units of Experimental Taxonomy,” Chron. Bot., 7 (1942), 193–196; D. H. Valentine, “The Units of Experimental Taxonomy”, Acta Biotheoret., 9 (1949), 75–88.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The term “genecology” was coined by Turesson to refer to the ecological study of species. Genecology later became associated with ecological genetics. However, in his early writings Turesson made a clear distinction between genetics and ecology. See Göte Turesson, “The Scope and Import of Genecology,” Hereditas, 4 (1923), 171–176.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Turesson's system was one of several nomenclatorial reforms proposed by experimental taxonomists. For a detailed discussion see Hagen, “Experimental Taxonomy.”Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    W. B. Turrill, “The Ecotype Concept,” New Phytologist, 45 (1946), 34–43.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harvey Monroe Hall and Frederic E. Clements, “The Phylogenetic Method in Taxonomy,” Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. no 326 (1923).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Although methodologically traditional, the monograph was controversial because Hall and Clements “lumped” a larger number of species into a few comprehensive ones. This was a direct attack on the earlier work of P. A. Rydberg, who responded to Hall and Clements in “Scylla and Charybdis,” Proc. Internat. Cong. Plant Sci. (1926), 1539–51.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    The results of two decades of transplant experiments were compiled in Jens Clausen, David D. Keck, and William M. Hiesey, “Experimental Studies on the Nature of Species. I. Effect of Varied Environments on Western North American Plants,” Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. no. 520 (1940).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. M. Hall, “Heredity and Environment-as Illustrated by Transplant Studies,” Sci. Monthly, 35 (1932), 289–302.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    H. M. Hall, “Significance of Taxonomic Units and Their Natural Basis from the Point of View of Taxonomy,” Proc. Internat. Cong. Plant Sci. (1926), 1571–74.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Although Hall may have had little sympathy for Clements' evolutionary views, he shared Clements' fundamental assumptions about taxonomy. Both men favored grouping small species, both supported an explicitly phylogenetic basis for classification, and both argued that the use of experimental methods would make classification more “objective”.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hall, “Significance of Taxonomic Units.”Google Scholar
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    H. M. Hall, “Letter to Carlotta Case Hall-August 21, 1926,” H. M. Hall papers, University of California, Berkeley, Bancroft Library.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    E. B. Babcock, “Genetics and Plant Taxonomy,” Science, 59 (1924), 327–328.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    George H. Shull, “Significance of Taxonomic Units and Their Natural Basis: Point of View of Genetics,” Proc. Internat. Cong. Plant Sci. (1926), 1578–86. Emphasis in original.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    K. M. Wiegand, “Discussion of Dr. H. M. Hall's Paper,” Proc. Internat. Cong. Plant Sci. (1926), 1575–76.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ernest Brown Babcock and Harvey Monroe Hall, “Hemizonia congesta, A Genetic, Ecologic, and Taxonomic Study of the Hay-Field Tarweeds,” Univ. Cal. Publ. Bot., 13 (1924), 15–100.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    E. B. Babcock, “Investigations in the Genus Crepis,” Carnegie Inst. Wash. Yearb., 25 (1926), 316–317.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ernest Brown Babcock, “The Genus Crepis,” Univ. Cal. Publ. Bot., 21, 22 (1947), 1–1030.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    G. Ledyard Stebbins, “Ernest Brown Babcock”, Biog. Mem. Nat. Acad. Sci., 32 (1968), 50–66.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    According to Stebbins, Clausen hired Keck and Hiesey after Hall's death. See Stebbins' “Botany and the Synthetic Theory of Evolution” in Mayr and Provine, The Evolutionary Synthesis. However, Keck and Hiesey were coauthors with Hall on research reports dating back to 1927, four years before Clausen joined the group. See “Experimental Taxonomy”, Carnegie Inst. Wash. Yearb., 26 (1927), 311–312.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stebbins, “Botany and the Synthetic Theory,” notes Clausen's frequent correspondence with the Scottish botanist J. W. Gregor. In response to my questions on this matter, David Keck suggested the importance of Clausen's correspondence with European botanists.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Among the prominent early members of the biosystematists were E. B. Babcock, Jens Clausen, Lincoln Constance, Richard Goldschmidt, William Hiesey, David Keck, Herbert Mason, and G. Ledyard Stebbins. When questioned, Constance, Hiesey, Keck, and Stebbins all remarked on the usefulness of this discussion forum.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Perhaps the major contribution of this group was the publication of a widely read set of essays: Julian Huxley, ed., The New Systematics (London: Oxford University Press, 1940). In addition, the group sponsored several symposia on the relation of taxonomy to various other disciplines.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Edgar Anderson, “Cytology in its Relation to Taxonomy,” Bot. Rev., 3 (1937), 335–350.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
  40. 40.
    W. B. Turrill, “The Expansion of Taxonomy with Special Reference to Spermatophyta,” Biol. Rev., 13 (1938), 342–373.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    G. Ledyard StebbinsJr., “The Significance of Polyploidy in Plant Evolution,” Amer. Nat., 74 (1940), 54–66.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Edgar Anderson, “The Species Problem in Iris,” Ann. Mo. Bot. Graden, 23 (1936), 457–509.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dean, “Controversy over Classification,” cites a number of these conflicts as evidence for a dichotomy between herbarium taxonomists and experimental taxonomists.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    J. W. Gregor, “Experimental Delimitation of Species”, New Phytologist, 30 (1931), 204–217.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    A. J. Wilmott, “Experimental Delimitation of Species”, J. Bot., 70 (1932), 49–50.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
  47. 47.
    J. W. Gregor, “Correspondence”, J. Bot., 70 (1932), 154–155; A. J. Wilmott, “Correspondence”, ibid., 155.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Indeed, during the two decades following 1931 cytogeneticists demonstrated that the relationships among polyploid groups in Phleum were considerabley more complex than Gregor had proposed. For a brief discussion of cytogenetic research on Phleum see G. Ledyard StebbinsJr., Variation and Evolution in Plants (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), p. 333.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    C. D. Darlington, Recent Advances in Cytology (Philadelphia: Blakiston's 1932). For brief discussions of the reception of Darlington's text see Hampton Carson, “Cytogenetics and the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis”, and C. D. Darlington, “The Evolution of Genetic Systems: Contributions of Cytology to Evolutionary Theory”, both in Mayr and Provine, The Evolutionary Synthesis.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    For example, in a presidential address to the American Society of Plant Taxonomists, W. H. Camp noted: “Our present system of nomenclature was designed to fit a concept of static genera and species. Tinker with it as we will, we cannot re-tailor this mouldy shroud into something which will serve as an adequate nomenclatural covering for the complex, living groups which we are now beginning to realize must be defined”. See W. H. Camp, “Biosystematy”, Brittonia, 7 (1951), 113–127.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gregor, in “Units of Experimental Taxonomy”, noted that while they were basically different, experimental taxonomy and orthodox taxonomy were “mutually helpful”.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Statistical analysis cannot be considered merely an adjunct to experimental biology. Indeed, it appears that field biologists and taxonomists were among the leading advocates of statistical methods. This was true of zoologists as well as botanists. For example, G. C. Robson and O. W. Richards reviewed numerous examples of statistical field studies (“population analysis”) in The Variation of Animals in Nature (London: Longmans, 1936), p. 15. Similar suggestions for combining statistics and taxonomy are found in Edgar Anderson and W. B. Turrill, “Biometrical Studies on Herbarium Material”, Nature, 136 (1935), 986.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    E. B. Babcock and G. L. Stebbins, Jr., “The American Species of Crepis — Their Interrelationships and Distribution as Affected by Polyploidy and Apomixis”, Carnegie Inst. Wash. Publ. no. 504 (1938).Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hall, “Heredity and Environment”.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    J. Heslop-Harrison, New Concepts in Flowering-Plant Taxonomy (London: Heinemann, 1953), p. 122.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel B. Hagen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyYankton CollegeYanktonUSA

Personalised recommendations