Moving Past the Systematics Wars

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Abrantes, Paulo and El-Hani, Charbel Niño. 2009. “Gould, Hull, and the Individuation of Scientific Theories.” Foundations of Science 14(4): 295–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Adams, Edward N., III. 1986. “N-Trees as Nestings: Complexity, Similarity, and Consensus.” Journal of Classification 3(2): 299–317.

  3. Adams, Edward N., III. 1972. “Consensus Techniques and the Comparison of Taxonomic Trees.” Systematic Zoology 21(4): 390–397.

  4. Agar, Jon. 2006. “What Difference Did Computers Make?’ Social Studies of Science 36(6): 869–907.

    Article  Google 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.

  6. Almeida, M.T. and Bisby, F.A. 1984. “A Simple Method for Establishing Taxonomic Characters from Measurement Data.” Taxon 33(3): 405–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Archie, James W. 1985. “Methods for Coding Variable Morphological Features for Numerical Taxonomic Analysis.” Systematic Zoology 34(3): 326–345.

    Article  Google 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.

  9. Barrett, Martin, Donoghue, Michael J. and Sober, Elliott. 1991. “Against Consensus.” Systematic Zoology 40(4): 486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Beatty, John. 1982. Classes and Cladists. Systematic Zoology 31(1): 25–111.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

  13. Cain, Joe. 2000. “Woodger, Positivism, and the Evolutionary Synthesis.” Biology & Philosophy 15: 535–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Camin, Joseph H. and Sokal, Robert R. 1965. “A Method for Deducing Branching Sequences in Phylogeny.” Evolution 19(3): 311–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cranston, PS and Humphries, CJ. 1988. “Cladistics and computers: a chironomid conundrum?” Cladistics 4:72–92.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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: ACM

  21. Duncan, Thomas and Baum, Bernard R. 1981. “Numerical Phenetics: Its Uses in Botanical Systematics.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12: 387–404.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Farris, James S. 1989. “Lord of the Flies: The Systematist as Study Animal.” Cladistics 5: 295–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Farris, James S. 2008. “Parsimony and Explanatory Power.” Cladistics. 24(5): 825–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Farris, James S. 2012. “Early Wagner Trees and ‘the Cladistic Redux’.” Cladistics 28(5): 545–547.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Felsenstein, Joe. 1983. “Parsimony in Systematics: Biological and Statistical Issues.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 14: 313–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Felsenstein, Joe. 1988. “Phylogenies and Quantitative Characters.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 445–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Felsenstein, Joe. 2001. “The Troubled Growth of Statistical Phylogenetics.” Systematic Biology 50(4): 465–467.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gilmour, John Scott Lennox. 1940. “Taxonomy and Philosophy.” Julian Huxley (ed.), The New Systematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 461–474.

  36. Goldman, Nick. 1988. “Methods for Discrete Coding of Morphological Characters for Numerical Analysis.” Cladistics 4(1): 59–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Goodfellow, Michael, Jones, Dorothy and Priest, Fergus G. (eds.). 1985. Computer-Assisted Bacterial Systematics New York: Academic Press.

  38. Grantham, Todd A. 2000. “Evolutionary Epistemology, Social Epistemology, and the Demic Structure of Science.” Biology & Philosophy 15(3): 443–463.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  42. Hagen, Joel B. 1999. “Naturalists, Molecular Biologists, and the Challenges of Molecular Evolution.” Journal of the History of Biology 32(2): 321–341.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  48. Hogeweg, P. 1976. “Iterative Character Weighing in Numerical Taxonomy.” Computers in Biology and Medicine 6(3): 199–211.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Le Quesne, Walter, J. 1982. “Compatibility Analysis and Its Applications.” Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 74(3): 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Legendre, Pierre. 1975. “A Posteriori Weighting of Descriptors.” Taxon 24(5/6): 603–608.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ludäscher, Bertram, Weske, Mathias, McPhillips, Timothy and Bowers, Shawn. 2009. “Scientific Workflows: Business as Usual?’ Business Process Management 5701: 31–47.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Maynard-Smith, John. 1988. “Mechanisms of Advance.” Science 242(4882): 1182–1183.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Mayr, Ernst. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology New York: McGraw-Hill.

  68. McGuire, James B. 1979. “On the Consensus Construction of an Evolutionary Tree.” Journal of Social and Biological Systems 2(2): 107–118.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. McMorris, F.R. and Neumann, Dean. 1983. “Consensus Functions Defined on Trees.” Mathematical Social Sciences 4(2): 131–136.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Mickevich, M.F. and Platnick, N.I. 1989. “On the Information Content of Classifications.” Cladistics 5(1): 33–47.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Nixon, Kevin C. and Carpenter, James M. 1996. “On Consensus, Collapsibility, and Clade Concordance.” Cladistics 12(4): 305–321.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Pimentel, Richard A. and Riggins, Rhonda. 1987. “The Nature of Cladistic Data.” Cladistics 3(3): 201–209.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Rieppel, Olivier. 2006. “Willi Hennig on Transformation Series: Metaphysics and Epistemology.” Taxon 55(2): 377–385.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Rieppel, Olivier. 2011. “Willi Hennig’s Dichotomization of Nature.” Cladistics 27(1): 103–112.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Sepkoski, David. 2012. Rereading the Fossil Record: the Growth of Paleobiology as an Evolutionary Discipline. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  111. Strasser, Bruno J. 2011. “The Experimenter’s Museum: GenBank, Natural History, and the Moral Economies of Biomedicine.” Isis 102(1): 60–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Strasser, Bruno J. 2012. “Collecting Nature: Practices, Styles, and Narratives.” Osiris 27(1): 303–340.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  117. The Editors. 2016. Editorial. Cladistics 32(1): 1–1.

  118. Varma, Charissa S. 2013. Beyond Set Theory: the Relationship Between Logic and Taxonomy From the Early 1930 to 1960 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/68972/1/Varma_Charissa_S_201301_ 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Vernon, Keith. 1988. “The Founding of Numerical Taxonomy.” British Journal for the History of Science. 21(2): 143–159.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Wheeler, Quentin D. 1986. “Character Weighting and Cladistic Analysis.” Systematic Zoology 35(1): 102–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Wilkins, John S. 1998. “The Evolutionary Structure of Scientific Theories.” Biology & Philosophy 13: 479–504.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Williams, David M. and Ebach, Malte C. 2008. Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography. Boston, MA: Springer.

    Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beckett Sterner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sterner, B., Lidgard, S. Moving Past the Systematics Wars. J Hist Biol 51, 31–67 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10739-017-9471-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • David Hull
  • Mathematization
  • Cladistics
  • Numerical taxonomy
  • Workflow
  • Evolutionary epistemology