Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 49, Issue 1, pp 135–189 | Cite as

Suppressing Synonymy with a Homonym: The Emergence of the Nomenclatural Type Concept in Nineteenth Century Natural History

  • Joeri WitteveenEmail author
Open Access
Article

Abstract

‘Type’ in biology is a polysemous term. In a landmark article, Paul Farber (Journal of the History of Biology 9(1): 93–119, 1976) argued that this deceptively plain term had acquired three different meanings in early nineteenth century natural history alone. ‘Type’ was used in relation to three distinct type concepts, each of them associated with a different set of practices. Important as Farber’s analysis has been for the historiography of natural history, his account conceals an important dimension of early nineteenth century ‘type talk.’ Farber’s taxonomy of type concepts passes over the fact that certain uses of ‘type’ began to take on a new meaning in this period. At the closing of the eighteenth century, terms like ‘type specimen,’ ‘type species,’ and ‘type genus’ were universally recognized as referring to typical, model members of their encompassing taxa. But in the course of the nineteenth century, the same terms were co-opted for a different purpose. As part of an effort to drive out nomenclatural synonymy – the confusing state of a taxon being known to different people by different names – these terms started to signify the fixed and potentially atypical name-bearing elements of taxa. A new type concept was born: the nomenclatural type. In this article, I retrace this perplexing nineteenth century shift in meaning of ‘type.’ I uncover the nomenclatural disorder that the new nomenclatural type concept dissolved, and expose the conceptual confusion it left in its tracks. What emerges is an account of how synonymy was suppressed through the coinage of a homonym.

Keywords

history of taxonomic nomenclature type concept Method of Type type method type specimen codes of nomenclature Carolus Linnaeus William Whewell John Obadiah Westwood Hugh Edwin Strickland John Edward Gray Paul Farber 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Most of the research for this article was done under the sponsorship of Trinity College, Cambridge, and during visiting fellowships at the Konrad Lorenz Institute of Evolution and Cognition Research, and at the Descartes Centre for the History and Philosophy of the Sciences and the Humanities. Their financial support is gratefully acknowledged. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at ISHPSSB 2013 in Montpellier, at &HPS 2014 in Vienna, and at the ‘The Artificial and the Natural’ workshop at Exeter University in 2014. I thank David Depew, Chris DiTeresi, Paul Farber, Jim Griesemer, Matt Haber, Tarquin Holmes, Charlie Jarvis, Tim Lewens, Gordon McOuat, Staffan Müller-Wille, Greg Radick, Nicolaas Rupke, Kees Rookmaaker, Sara Scharf, Laura Synder, and Polly Winsor for their feedback, discussion, and encouragement. Special thanks go to Ann Charlton from the Cambridge University Museum of Zoology, for providing access to correspondence from the Strickland Papers in the midst of renovations. I dedicate this paper to the memory of the KLI’s scientific director, Werner Callebaut.

References

  1. Agassiz, L. 1842–1847. Nomenclator Zoologicus, p. 1564. Soloduri: Jent et Gassmann.Google Scholar
  2. Amundson, R. 2005. The Changing Role of the Embryo in Evolutionary Thought: Roots of Evo-Devo. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anonymous. 1844. Rapport d’une commission nommée par l’Association britannique pour l’avancement des sciences dans lebut d’aviser auxmoyens de render la nomenclature zoologique uniforme et permanente, rédigé par Mr. Strickland. Bibliothèque Universelle de Genève, pp. 184–188.Google Scholar
  4. Appel, T.A. 1987. The Cuvier–Geoffrey debate: French Biology in the Decades before Darwin. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Arthur, J.C., et al. 1904. “Code of Botanical Nomenclature.” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 31(5): 249–261.Google Scholar
  6. Arthur, J.C., et al. 1907. “American Code of Botanical Nomenclature.” Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 34(4): 167–178.Google Scholar
  7. Bather, F.A. 1897. “A Postscript on the Terminology of Types.” Science 5(126): 843.Google Scholar
  8. Bentham, G. 1878. “Notes on Euphorbiaceae.” Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Botany 17(100): 185–267.Google Scholar
  9. Blanchard, R. 1881. De la Nomenclature des Êtres Organisés. Paris: Sociéte Zoologique de France.Google Scholar
  10. Blanchard, R. 1889. “De la nomenclature des êtres organisés.” R. Blanchard (ed.), Compte-Rendu des Séances du Congrès International de Zoologie. Paris: Société Zoologique de France, pp. 333–424.Google Scholar
  11. Bonaparte, C.L. 1843. “Adunanza del Giorno 27 Settembre.” Atti della Quarta Riunione degli Scienziati Italiani Tenuta in Padova nel Settembre del 1842. Padova: Co’Tipe del Seminario, pp. 306–345.Google Scholar
  12. Briquet, J. 1906. International rules of botanical nomenclature: adopted by the International botanical congress of Vienna 1905. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
  13. Burkhardt, F., et al., eds. 1985. The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Camardi, G. 2001. “Richard Owen, morphology and evolution.” Journal of the History of Biology 34(3): 481–515.Google Scholar
  15. Chung, C. 2003. “On the origin of the typological/population distinction in Ernst Mayr’s changing views of species, 1942–1959.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34: 277–296.Google Scholar
  16. Clarke, J.M. 1894. “Composite Generic Fundamenta.” Natural Science: A Monthly Review of Scientific Progress 4(28): 401–404.Google Scholar
  17. Coggon, J. 2002. “Quinarianism after Darwin’s Origin: The circular system of William Hincks.” Journal of the History of Biology 35(1): 5–42.Google Scholar
  18. Coues, E., Allen, J., Ridgway, R., Brewster, W., and Henshaw, H. 1886. The Code of Nomenclature and Check-List of North American Birds adopted by the American Ornithologists Union. New York: American Ornithologists Union.Google Scholar
  19. Croizat, L. 1953. “On Nomenclature: The “Type-Method”.” Taxon 2(5–6): 105–107, 124–130.Google Scholar
  20. Cuvier, G. and Valenciennes, A. 1828. Histoire Naturelle des Poissons. Paris: Levrault.Google Scholar
  21. Dall, W.H. 1877. Nomenclature in Zoology and Botany: A Report to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Salem: Salem Press.Google Scholar
  22. Dana, J.D. 1846. Report on Scientific Nomenclature, Made to the Association of American Geologists and Naturalists, New Haven, May, 1845. New Haven, CT: B.L. Hamlen.Google Scholar
  23. Daston, L. 2004. “Type specimens and scientific memory.” Critical Inquiry 31(1): 153–182.Google Scholar
  24. Daston, L. and Galison, P. 2007. Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar
  25. Dayrat, B. 2010. “Celebrating 250 dynamic years of nomenclature debates.” A. Polaszek (ed.), Systema Naturae 250 – The Linnaean Ark. London: Routledge, pp. 185–239.Google Scholar
  26. de Buffon, G.-L.L. 1749–1789. Histoire naturelle, generale et particuliere. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
  27. de Buffon, G.-L. L. 1778. Histoire naturelle des Oiseaux. Paris: Imprimerie Royale.Google Scholar
  28. de Candolle, A. 1867. Lois de la Nomenclature Botanique. Paris: J.-B. Baillière et Fils.Google Scholar
  29. de Candolle, A. 1880. La Phytographie: ou, l’art de décrire les végétaux considérés sous différents points de vue. Paris: G. Masson.Google Scholar
  30. de Candolle, A.-P. 1813. Théorie élémentaire de la Botanique. Paris: Déterville.Google Scholar
  31. de Candolle, A.-P. 1819. Théorie élémentaire de la Botanique, 2nd ed. Paris: Déterville.Google Scholar
  32. Dennler, J.G. 1939. “La importancia de la distribución geográfica en la sistemática de los vertebrados.” Physis 16: 41–53.Google Scholar
  33. Dobzhansky, T. 1967. “On types, genotypes, and the genetic diversity in populations.” J.N. Spuhler (ed.), Genetic Diversity and Human Behavior. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  34. Dubois, A. 2005. “Proposed Rules for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked zoological taxa in the international code of zoological nomenclature.” Zoosystema 27(2): 365.Google Scholar
  35. Dunbar, C.O. 1959. “A half century of paleontology.” Journal of Paleontology 33(5): 909–914.Google Scholar
  36. Durrant, J.H. 1898. “Nomenclature of Lepidoptera: Correspondence relating to questions circulated by Sir George F. Hampson, Bart.” A. Sedgwick (ed.), Proceedings of the fourth International Congress of Zoology, Cambridge, 22–27 August, 1898. London: C.J. Clay & Sons.Google Scholar
  37. Eigen, E. 1997. “Overcoming first impressions: Georges Cuvier’s Types.” Journal of the History of Biology 30(2): 179–209.Google Scholar
  38. Endersby, J. 2008. Imperial Nature: Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  39. Fabricius, J.C. 1778. Philosophia Entomologica. Hamburg and Kiel: Carol. Ernest. Bohnii.Google Scholar
  40. Farber, P.L. 1976. “The type-concept in zoology during the first half of the nineteenth century.” Journal of the History of Biology 9(1): 93–119.Google Scholar
  41. Farber, P.L. 1977. “The development of taxidermy and the history of ornithology.” Isis 68(4): 550–566.Google Scholar
  42. Farber, P.L. 1978. “A historical perspective on the impact of the type concept on insect systematics.” Annual Review of Entomology 23(1): 91–99.Google Scholar
  43. Farber, P.L. 1980. “The development of ornithological collections in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries and their relationship to the emergence of ornithology as a scientific discipline.” Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 9(4): 391–394.Google Scholar
  44. Fernald, H. 1939. “On type nomenclature.” Annals of the Entomological Society of America 32(4): 689–702.Google Scholar
  45. Frizzell, D. 1933. “Terminology of types.” American Midland Naturalist 14(6): 637–668.Google Scholar
  46. Gassó Miracle, M. 2008. “The Significance of Temminck’s Work on Biogeography: Early Nineteenth Century Natural History in Leiden, The Netherlands.” Journal of the History of Biology 41(4): 677–716.Google Scholar
  47. Gould, A.A. 1843. “Notice of some works, recently published, on the nomenclature of zoology.” The American Journal of Science 45: 1–12.Google Scholar
  48. Gray, A. 1864a. “Nomenclature.” American Journal of Science and Arts 37: 278–281.Google Scholar
  49. Gray, J.E. 1864b. Address by Dr. J. E. Gray, President of the Section of Botany and Zoology, including Physiology. Report of the 34th Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 75–86.Google Scholar
  50. Gray, G.R. 1844. List of the specimens of birds in the collection of the British museum. London: British Museum.Google Scholar
  51. Gray, J.E. 1843. List of the specimens of mammalia in the collection of the British museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum.Google Scholar
  52. Green, M. 1925. “Standard-species of the Linnean genera of Tetradynamia.” Bulletin of Miscellaneous Information (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew) (2): 49–58.Google Scholar
  53. Guérin-Méneville, F.E. 1843. “Rapport d’une commission nommée par l’Association britannique pour l’avancement de la science, chargée d’examiner les règles d’après lesquelles la nomenclature zoologique pourrait êtres établie sur une base uniforme et permanente.” Revue Zoologique 202–210.Google Scholar
  54. Gunther, A.E. 1975. A Century of Zoology at the British Museum through the Lives of Two Keepers, 1815–1914. London: Dawsons Pall Mall, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
  55. Gunther, A.E. 1980. “The miscellaneous autobiographical manuscripts of John Edward Gray (1800–1875).” Bulletin of the British Museum Natural History 6(6): 199–244.Google Scholar
  56. Haber, M.H. 2012. “How to misidentify a type specimen.” Biology and Philosophy 27(6): 767–784.Google Scholar
  57. Hartert, E. 1918. “Types of birds in the Tring Museum.” Novitates Zoologicae 25: 4–63.Google Scholar
  58. Harvey, W.H. and Sonder, O.W. 1865. Flora capensis: being a systematic description of the plants of the Cape Colony, Caffraria, & Port Natal (and neighbouring territories), vol. 3. Dublin: Hodges, Smith, and Co., p. 637.Google Scholar
  59. Hitchcock, A.S. 1925. Methods of Descriptive Systematic Botany. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. Hitchcock, A.S. and Green, M.L. 1929. “Standard-species of Linnaean genera of Phanerogamae (1753–1754).” International Botanical Congress, Cambridge (England) 1930: Nomenclature; Proposals by British Botanists. London: Wyman & Sons, pp. 110–199.Google Scholar
  61. Holmes, E.M. 1896. “Type specimens in botanical museums.” Report of Proceedings of Seventh Annual General Meeting of the Museums Association. London: Howarth & Platnauer, pp. 55–59.Google Scholar
  62. Hooker, J.D. 1853. Flora Novae-Zelandiae. London: Lovell Reeve.Google Scholar
  63. Hövel, G. 1999. “Qualitates vegetabilium,“vires medicamentorum,” und “oeconomicus usus plantarum” bei Carl von Linné (1707–1778): Erste Versuche einer zielgerichteten Forschung nach Arznei- und Nutzpflanzen auf wissenschaftlicher Grundlage. Braunschweig: Dt. Apotheker-Verlag.Google Scholar
  64. Hughes, T.M. 1891. H. Woods (ed.), Catalogue of the Type Fossils in the Woodwardian Museum, Cambridge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  65. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1905. Règles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique; International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature; Internationale Regeln der Zoologischen Nomenklatur. Paris: F. R. de Rudeval.Google Scholar
  66. Jarvis, C.E. 2007. Order Out of Chaos: Linnaean Plant Names and Their Types. London: Linnean Society of London in Association with the Natural History Museum.Google Scholar
  67. Jevons, W.S. 1883. Methods of Social Reform and Other Papers. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  68. Johnson, K. 2005. “Type-specimens of birds as sources for the history of ornithology.” Journal of the History of Collections 17(2): 173.Google Scholar
  69. Jordan, D.S. 1901. “The determination of the type in composite genera of animals and plants.” Science 13(326): 498–501.Google Scholar
  70. Kirby, W.F. 1892. “On “Type-Specimens” and “Type-Figures” in Entomology.” Science 20(508): 244–245.Google Scholar
  71. Knapp, S., Lamas, G., Lughadha, E.N. and Novarino, G. 2004. “Stability or stasis in the names of organisms: the evolving codes of nomenclature.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 359(1444): 611–622.Google Scholar
  72. Kobelt, W. 1904. Iconographie der Land- & Süsswasser-Mollusken mit vorzüglicher Berücksichtigung der europäischen noch nicht abgebildeten Arten von E. A. Rossmässler. Wiesbaden: C. W. Kreidel’s Verlag.Google Scholar
  73. Koerner, L. 1999. Linnaeus: Nature and Nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Lenoir, T. 1978. “Generational Factors in the Origin of “Romantische Naturphilosophie”.” Journal of the History of Biology 11(1): 57–100.Google Scholar
  75. Levit, G.S. and Meister, K. 2006. “The history of essentialism vs. Ernst Mayr’s “Essentialism Story”: A case study of German idealistic morphology.” Theory in Biosciences 124(3): 281–307.Google Scholar
  76. Lindley, J. 1832. An Introduction to Botany. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, & Longman.Google Scholar
  77. Lindroth, C.H. 1957. “The Linnaean species of Carabid Beetles.” Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology 43(291): 325–341.Google Scholar
  78. Linnaeus, C. 1736. Fundamenta Botanica. Amstelodami: Salomonem Schouten.Google Scholar
  79. Linnaeus, C. 1737a. Critica Botanica. English translation: Sir Arthur Hort (1938). London: Ray Society; Lugduni Batavorum: Wishoff.Google Scholar
  80. Linnaeus, C. 1737b. Flora Lapponica. Amstelaedami: Salomonem Schouten.Google Scholar
  81. Linnaeus, C. 1737c. Hortus Cliffortianus. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  82. Linnaeus, C. 1751. Philosophia Botanica. Stockholm: Kiesewetter. English Translation: Freer, S. 2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Linnaeus, C. 1753. Species Plantarum. Stockholm: Salvius.Google Scholar
  84. Linnaeus, C. 1754. Genera Plantarum, 5th ed. Holmiae: Laurentii Salvii.Google Scholar
  85. Linsley, E.G. and Usinger, R.L. 1959. “Linnaeus and the Development of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.” Systematic Zoology 8(1): 39–47.Google Scholar
  86. Lucas, F.A. 1897. “Zoological Notes.” Science 5(118): 543–544.Google Scholar
  87. Lyons, S.L. 1999. Thomas Henry Huxley: the evolution of a scientist. Amherst: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  88. Mayr, E. 1959. “Darwin and the evolutionary theory in biology.” Evolution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal. Washington, DC: Theo Gaus’ Sons, Inc., pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  89. Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  90. Mayr, E. 1976. “Typological versus population thinking.” Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 26–29.Google Scholar
  91. McNeill, J., et al. 2012. International Code of Nomenclature for Algae, Fungi and Plants (Melbourne Code). Königstein: Koeltz Scientific Books.Google Scholar
  92. McOuat, G.R. 1996. “Species, Rules and Meaning: The Politics of Language and the Ends of Definitions in 19th Century Natural History.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 27(4): 473.Google Scholar
  93. McOuat, G.R. 2001. “Cataloguing Power: Delineating ‘Competent Naturalists’ and the Meaning of Species in the British Museum.” The British Journal for the History of Science 34(01): 1–28.Google Scholar
  94. McOuat, G.R. 2009. “The origins of ‘Natural Kinds’: Keeping essentialism at bay in the Age of Reform.” Intellectual History Review 19(2): 211–230.Google Scholar
  95. McOuat, G.R. unpublished. Kinds, patronage and commodities: How the British Museum Went from Collecting (and Exchanging) Patronage to Collecting (and Exchanging) Commodities and What That Might Say About Natural Objects.Google Scholar
  96. Melville, R.V. 1995. Towards stability in the names of animals: a history of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1895–1995. London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.Google Scholar
  97. Merriam, C.H. 1897. “Type specimens in natural history.” Science 5(123): 731–732.Google Scholar
  98. Morch, O.A.L. 1858. “Observations on conchological nomenclature.” Annals and Magazine of Natural History 2: 133–139.Google Scholar
  99. Müller-Wille, S. 2001. “Gardens of paradise.” Endeavour 25(2): 49–54.Google Scholar
  100. Müller-Wille, S. 2003. “Joining Lapland and the Topinambes in flourishing Holland: Center and periphery in Linnaean botany.” Science in Context 16(4): 461–488.Google Scholar
  101. Müller-Wille, S. 2006. “Linnaeus’ Herbarium Cabinet: A Piece of furniture and Its Function.” Endeavour 30(2): 60–64.Google Scholar
  102. Müller-Wille, S. 2007. “Collection and collation: theory and practice of Linnaean botany.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38(3): 541–562.Google Scholar
  103. Nicolson, D.H. 1991. “A History of Botanical Nomenclature.” Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 78(1): 33–56.Google Scholar
  104. Nisbet, H. 1967. “Herder, Goethe, and the natural ‘type’.” Publications of the English Goethe Society 37: 83–119.Google Scholar
  105. Nyhart, L.K. 1995. Biology Takes Form: Animal Morphology and the German Universities, 1800–1900. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  106. Oberthür, C. 1889. Considérations sur la nomenclature zoologique. R. Blanchard (ed.), Compte- Rendu des Séances du Congr‘es International de Zoologie: Documents relatifs à la nomenclature des êtres organisés. Paris: Sociéte Zoologique de France, pp. 471–476.Google Scholar
  107. Ogilby, W. 1838a. “Further observations on ‘Rules of Nomenclature’.” Magazine of Natural History 2: 275–284.Google Scholar
  108. Ogilby, W. 1838b. “Observation on ‘Rules of Nomenclature’.” Magazine of Natural History 2: 150–157.Google Scholar
  109. Parliamentary Papers. 1835. Report from the Select Committee on the Condition, Managament and Affairs of the British Museum. London.Google Scholar
  110. Parliamentary Papers. 1836. Report from the Select Committee on the Condition, Managament and Affairs of the British Museum. London.Google Scholar
  111. Parliamentary Papers. 1858. Copies of All Communications Made by the Officers and Architect of the British Museum to the Trustees, Respecting the Want of Space for Exhibiting the Collections in That Institution, as well as Respecting the Enlargement of Its Buildings; and, of All Minutes of the Trustees, and of All Communications Between the Trustees and the Treasury Upon the Same Subject, vol. XXXIII. 378.Google Scholar
  112. Pearn, J. 2010. On “officinalis”: The Names of Plants as One Enduring History of Therapeutic Medicine. Vesalius: Acta Internationales Historiae Medicinae Suppl: 24–28.Google Scholar
  113. Pennell, F.W. 1930. Genotypes of the Scrophulariaceae in the First Edition of Linné’s “Species Plantarum.” Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 82: 9–26.Google Scholar
  114. Pennell, F.W. 1933. Polygala verticillata and the problem of typifying Linnean Species. Bartonia 15: 38–45.Google Scholar
  115. Pennell, F.W. 1939. “On the Typification of Linnean Species as Illustrated by Polygala Verticillata.” Rhodora 41: 378–384.Google Scholar
  116. Pennisi, E. 2001. “Linnaeus’s Last Stand?” Science 291(5512): 2304–2307.Google Scholar
  117. Richards, R.J. 2002. The Romantic Conception of Life: Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  118. Ride, W., Cogger, H., Dupuis, C., Kraus, O., Minelli, A., and Thompson, C. (eds.). 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 4th ed. London: International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature.Google Scholar
  119. Riegner, M.F. 2013. “Ancestor of the New Archetypal Biology: Goethe’s Dynamic Typology as a Model for Contemporary Evolutionary Developmental Biology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 44(4): 735–744.Google Scholar
  120. Ritvo, H. 1997. “Zoological Nomenclature and the Empire of Victorian Science.” B. Lightman (ed.), Contexts of Victorian Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  121. Romer, A.S. 1959. “Vertebrate paleontology, 1908–1958.” Journal of Paleontology 33(5): 915–925.Google Scholar
  122. Rookmaaker, L.C. 2010. Calendar of the Scientific Correspondence of Hugh Edwin Strickland. Cambridge: University Museum of Zoology.Google Scholar
  123. Rookmaaker, L.C. 2011. “The early endeavours by Hugh Edwin Strickland to establish a code for zoological nomenclature in 1842–1843.” Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1): 29.Google Scholar
  124. Rupke, N.A. 2009. Richard Owen: Biology without Darwin. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  125. S.D.W. 1834. “Species of Birds of Which Individuals in Plumage Anomalous to that of the Species, and Permanent, have been Known.” Magazine of Natural History 7: 593–594.Google Scholar
  126. Schopf, J.M. 1960. “Emphasis on holotype (?)” Science 131(3406): 1043.Google Scholar
  127. Schuchert, C. 1897. “What is a Type in Natural History?” Science 5(121): 636.Google Scholar
  128. Schuchert, C. 1905. Catalogue of the Type and Figured Specimens of Fossils, Minerals, Rocks, and Ores in the Department of Geology, United States National Museum. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  129. Schuchert, C. and Buckman, S.S. 1905. “The nomenclature of types in natural history.” Annals and Magazine of Natural History 16: 102–104).Google Scholar
  130. Secord, A. 1994. “Science in the Pub: Artisan Botanists in Early Nineteenth-Century Lancashire.” History of Science 32(97): 269–315.Google Scholar
  131. Sharpe, R.B. 1906. History of the Collections Contained in the Natural History Departments of the British Museum, vol. 2. London: William Clowes & Sons.Google Scholar
  132. Shenefelt, R.D. 1959. “Taxonomic “descriptions”.” Science 130(3371): 331.Google Scholar
  133. Shuckard, W.E. 1837a. Essay on the indigenous fossorial Hymenoptera. London: C. Roworth & Sons, p. 300.Google Scholar
  134. Shuckard, W.E. 1837b. “On generic nomenclature.” Magazine of Natural History 1: 248–257.Google Scholar
  135. Simpson, G.G. 1940. “Types in modern taxonomy.” American Journal of Science 238(6): 413–431.Google Scholar
  136. Simpson, G.G. 1945. “Neotypes.” American Journal of Science 243: 680–694.Google Scholar
  137. Simpson, G.G. 1960. “Types and name-bearers.” Science 131(3414): 1684.Google Scholar
  138. Simpson, G.G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  139. Snyder, L.J. 2006. Reforming Philosophy. A Victorian Debate on Science and Society. Chicago, IL: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  140. Stearn, W.T. 1957. “An Introduction to the Species Plantarum and Cognate Botanical Works of Carl Linnaeus.” Species Plantarum. A Fascimile of the First Edition of 1753. London: Ray Society.Google Scholar
  141. Stearn, W.T. 1959. “The background of Linnaeus’s contributions to the nomenclature and Methods of Systematic Biology.” Systematic Zoology 8(1): 4–22.Google Scholar
  142. Stearn, W.T. 1960. “Notes on Linnaeus’s ‘Genera Plantarum’.” Genera Plantarum. With an introduction by William T. Stearn. Weinheim: H.R. Engelmann, pp. vi–xxiv.Google Scholar
  143. Stevens, P.F. 1984. “Metaphors and Typology in the Development of Botanical Systematics 1690–1960, or the Art of Putting New Wine in Old Bottles.” Taxon 33(2): 169–211.Google Scholar
  144. Stevens, P.F. 1994. The Development of Biological Systematics: Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, Nature, and the Natural System. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  145. Strickland, H.E. 1835. “On the Arbitrary Alteration of Established Terms in Natural History.” Magazine of Natural History 8: 36–40.Google Scholar
  146. Strickland, H.E. 1837a. “Objections to the nomenclature employed by Mr. Ogilby.” Magazine of Natural History 1: 604–605.Google Scholar
  147. Strickland, H.E. 1837b. “On the Inexpediency of Altering Established Terms in Natural History.” Magazine of Natural History 1: 127–131.Google Scholar
  148. Strickland, H.E. 1837c. “Rules of zoological nomenclature.” Magazine of Natural History 1: 173–176.Google Scholar
  149. Strickland, H.E. 1838a. “Remarks on Mr. Ogilby’s ‘Further Observations on Rules for Nomenclature’.” Magazine of Natural History 2: 198–204.Google Scholar
  150. Strickland, H.E. 1838b. “Reply to Mr. Ogilby’s ‘Observations on rules for nomenclature’.” Magazine of Natural History 2: 198–204.Google Scholar
  151. Strickland, H.E. 1841a. “Commentary on Gray’s Genera of Birds.” Annals and Magazine of Natural History 6: 410–423.Google Scholar
  152. Strickland, H.E. 1841b. Proposed Plan for Rendering the Nomenclature of Zoology Uniform and Permanent (Draft, September 1841), vol. [Strickland Correspondence, N-089]. London: Richard & John E. Taylor.Google Scholar
  153. Strickland, H.E. 1842. Proposed report of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature. For the use of the members of the committee, vol. [Strickland Correspondence, N-119]. London: Richard & John E. Taylor.Google Scholar
  154. Strickland, H.E. 1843. Report of a Committee Appointed “to Consider of the Rules by which the Nomenclature of Zoology May be Established on a Uniform and Permanent Basis.” Report of the Twelfth Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 105–129.Google Scholar
  155. Strickland, H.E. 1844. Report on the Recent Progress and Present State of Ornithology. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 170–221.Google Scholar
  156. Svenson, H.K. 1945. “On the descriptive method of Linnaeus.” Rhodora 47(561): 273–302, 363–388.Google Scholar
  157. Swainson, W. 1836. On the Natural History and Classification of Birds. London: Jonh Taylor.Google Scholar
  158. Swainson, W. 1838. The Natural Arrangement and Relations of the Family of Flycatchers, or Muscicapidae. Edinburgh: W.H. Lizars.Google Scholar
  159. Thomas, J.M. 2012. “The documentation of the British Museum’s natural history collections, 1760–1836.” Archives of Natural History 39(1): 111–125.Google Scholar
  160. Thomas, O. 1893. Suggestions for the More Definite Use of the Word “Type” and Its Compounds, as Denoting Specimens of a Greater or Less Degree of Authenticity.” Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London: 241–242.Google Scholar
  161. Thomas, O. 1906. “Mammals.” The History of the Collections Contained in the Natural History Departments of the British Museum, vol. II. London: Order of the Trustees of the British Museum, pp. 2–66.Google Scholar
  162. Toepfer, G. 2011. “Typus.” Historisches Wörterbuch der Biologie. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, pp. 537–565.Google Scholar
  163. Trienes, R. 1989. “Type Concept Revisited. A Survey of German Idealistic Morphology in the First Half of the Twentieth Century.” History and Philosophy of the Lifes Sciences 11(1): 23–42.Google Scholar
  164. Varma, C.S. 2009. “Threads that guide or ties that bind: William Kirby and the Essentialism Story.” Journal of the History of Biology 42(1): 119–149.Google Scholar
  165. Van der Hammen, L. 1981. “Type-concept, higher classification and evolution.” Acta Biotheoretica 30(1): 3–48.Google Scholar
  166. von Kiesenwetter, E. 1858. “Gesetze der entomologischen Nomenclatur.” Berliner entomologische Zeitschrift 2: xi–xxii.Google Scholar
  167. Warren, R.L.M. 1966. Type-specimens of birds in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 1: Non-passerines. London, p. 330.Google Scholar
  168. Warren, R.L.M. and Harrison, C.J.O. 1971. Type-specimens of birds in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 2: Passerines. London, p. 636.Google Scholar
  169. Warren, R.L.M. and Harrison, C.J.O. 1973. Type-specimens of birds in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 3: Systematic Index. London, p. 88.Google Scholar
  170. Westwood, J.O. 1828. “On the Chalcididae.” Zoological Journal 4: 3–31.Google Scholar
  171. Westwood, J.O. 1836. “On the Modern Nomenclature of Natural History.” Magazine of Natural History 9: 561–566.Google Scholar
  172. Westwood, J.O. 1837a. “Observations in reply to Mr. Shuckard’s article on generic nomenclature.” Magazine of Natural History 1: 316–318.Google Scholar
  173. Westwood, J.O. 1837b. “On generic nomenclature.” Magazine of Natural History 1: 169–173.Google Scholar
  174. Whewell, W. 1840. The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences: Founded upon their History (2 Vols), vol. 1. London: John W Parker.Google Scholar
  175. Williams, C.B. 1940. “On ‘Type’ specimens.” Annals of the Entomological Society of America 33(4): 621–624.Google Scholar
  176. Winsor, M.P. 2003. “Non-Essentialist Methods in Pre-Darwinian Taxonomy.” Biology and Philosophy 18(3): 387–400.Google Scholar
  177. Winsor, M.P. 2006. “The creation of the Essentialism Story: An Exercise in Metahistory.” History & Philosophy of the Life Sciences 28(2): 149–174.Google Scholar
  178. Witteveen, J. 2015. “Naming and Contingency, The Type Method of Biological Taxonomy.” Biology & Philosophy 30: 569–586.Google Scholar
  179. Witteveen, J. under review[a]. “A Temporary Oversimplication”: Mayr, Simpson, Dobzhansky, and the Emergence of the Typology/Population Dichotomy.Google Scholar
  180. Witteveen, J. under review[b]. Biological Taxonomy and the Historical-Epistemology of Objectivity.Google Scholar
  181. Wood, C.T. 1835. The Ornithological Guide. London: Whittaker.Google Scholar
  182. Wood, C.T. 1836. “Remarks on the question of the Propriety of Altering Established Scientific Names in Natural History, Should They be Erroneous.” Magazine of Natural History 9(63): 337–342.Google Scholar
  183. Zimsen, E. 1954. The Insect Types of C.R.W. Wiedemann in the Zoological Museum in Copenhagen. Copenhagen: Bianco Luno A-S.Google Scholar
  184. Zimsen, E. 1964. The Type Material of I. C. Fabricius. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2015

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Descartes Centre for the History and Philosophy of the Sciences and the HumanitiesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and Religious StudiesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations