Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 27–70 | Cite as

Building on Bedrock: William Steel Creighton and the Reformation of Ant Systematics, 1925–1970

  • Joshua Buhs
Article

Abstract

Ideas about the natural world are intertwined with the personalities, practices, and the workplaces of scientists. The relationships between these categories are explored in the life of the taxonomist William Steel Creighton. Creighton studied taxonomy under William Morton Wheeler at Harvard University. He took the rules he learned from Wheeler out of the museum and into the field. In testing the rules against a new situation, Creighton found them wanting. He sought a new set of taxonomic principles, one he eventually found in Ernst Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of Species. Mayr's ideas tied together a number of themes running through Creighton's life: the need for a revised taxonomy, the emphasis on fieldwork, and the search for a new power center for ant taxonomy after Wheeler died. Creighton's adoption of Mayr's ideas as part of his professional identity also had very real implications for his career path: field studies required long and intensive studies, and Creighton would always be a slow worker. His method of taxonomy contrasted sharply not only with Wheeler's but also with two of his younger colleagues, William L. Brown and E. O. Wilson, who took over Wheeler's spot at Harvard in 1950. The disputes between these men over ant taxonomy involved, in addition to questions of technical interest, questions about where and how best to do taxonomy and who could speak withthe most authority. Creighton's story reveals how these questions are interrelated. The story also reveals the importance of Mayr's book for changes occurring in taxonomy in the middle of the twentieth century.

ants E. O. Wilson Ernst Mayr systematics Systematics and the Origin of Species taxonomy William L. Brown William Morton Wheeler William Steel Creighton 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ball, C. R. 1946. “Why is Taxonomy Ill-supported?” Science 103: 713-714.Google Scholar
  2. Barrow, M. V. 1998. A Passion for Birds. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bates, M. 1935. “The Butterflies of Cuba.” Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 78: 63-258.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, H. S. 1963. Outsiders. London: Free Press of Glenco Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Becker, H. S. and Carper, J. W. 1956. “The Development of Identification with an Occupation.” American Journal of Sociology 61: 289-298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biagioli, M. 1993. Galileo, Courtier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Blatchley, W. S. 1928. “'Quit-claim' Specialists vs. the Making of Manuals.” Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society 23: 10-19.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, W. L. 1950. “Morphological, Taxonomic, and Other Notes on Ants.” The Wasmann Journal of Biology 8: 241-250.Google Scholar
  9. — 1951. “The Ants of North America (Review).” Psyche 57: 31-32.Google Scholar
  10. — 1955. “Ant Taxonomy.” In: A Century of Progress in The Natural Sciences, pp. 569-572. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  11. — 1963. “The Ants of Colorado (Review).” Quarterly Review of Biology 38: 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. — 1964. “The Ants of North Dakota (Review).” Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 37: 87-88.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, W. L. and Wilson, E. O. 1954. “The Case Against the Trinomen.” Systematic Zoology 3: 174-176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Buren, W. F. 1943. A Monograph of Iowa Ants (Formicidae, Hymenoptera). M.S. Thesis, Iowa State College.Google Scholar
  15. — 1968. “Some Fundamental Taxonomic Problems in Formica (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).” Journal of the Georgia Entomological Society 3: 25-40.Google Scholar
  16. Chapman, F. M. 1921. “The Department of Birds.” Natural History 21: 307-318.Google Scholar
  17. Cockerell, T. D. A. 1930. “Variation in Lepidoptera.” Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society 25: 9-10.Google Scholar
  18. Cole, A. C. 1938. “Suggestions Concerning Taxonomic Nomenclature of the Hymenopterous Family Formicidae.” American Midland Naturalist 19: 236-241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. — 1956. “In Defense of the Integrity of an Ant.” Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science 31: 212-214.Google Scholar
  20. — 1966. “Ants of the Nevada Test Site.” Brigham Young University Science Bulletin. Biological Series Volume 7, Number 3: 1-27.Google Scholar
  21. — 1968. Pogonomyrmex Harvester Ants. Nashville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
  22. Creighton, W. S. 1930. “The New World Species of the Genus Solenopsis (Hymenoptera: Formicidae).” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Science 66: 39-151.Google Scholar
  23. — 1938. “On Formicid Nomenclature.” Journal of the New York Entomological Society 46: 1-9.Google Scholar
  24. — 1940. “A Revision of the North American Variants of the Ant Formica Rufa.” American Museum Novitiates 1055: 1-10.Google Scholar
  25. — 1950. “The Ants of North America.” Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 104: 1-585.Google Scholar
  26. — 1951. “Studies on Arizona Ants.” Psyche 58: 89-99.Google Scholar
  27. Darlington, P. J. 1934. “The Subspecies of Chlaenius leucoseelis Chev. (Coleop., Carabidae) with a Note on a Function of Museums.” The Pan-Pacific Entomologist 10: 115-118.Google Scholar
  28. Donisthorpe, H. 1915. British Ants, Their Life-History and Classification. Plymouth: W. Brendon and Son, Ltd.Google Scholar
  29. Durrant, S. 1955. “In Defense of the Subspecies.” Systematic Zoology 4: 186-190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Edwards, J. G. 1954. “A New Approach to Infrapsecific Categories.” Systematic Zoology 3: 1-20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Emerson, A. E. 1945. “Taxonomic Categories and Population Genetics.” Entomological News 56: 14-19.Google Scholar
  32. Emery, C. 1910. Hymenoptera Family Formicidae Subfamily Dorylinae. Genera Insectorum fascicle 102: 1-34.Google Scholar
  33. — 1911. Hymenoptera Family Formicidae Subfamily Ponerinae. Genera Insectorum fascicle 118: 1-125.Google Scholar
  34. — 1912. Hymenoptera Family Formicidae Subfamily Dolichoderinae. Genera Insectorum fascicle 137: 1-50.Google Scholar
  35. — 1921-1922. Hymenoptera Family Formicidae Subfamily Myrmicinae. Genera Insectorum fascicles 174a, b, and c: 1-397.Google Scholar
  36. — 1925. Hymenoptera Family Formicidae Subfamily Formicinae. Genera Insectorum fascicle 183: 1-302.Google Scholar
  37. Evans, M. A. and Evans, H. E. 1970. William Morton Wheeler, Biologist. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Fennah, R. G. 1955. “Subspecific Nomenclature: The Proposed Method of Wilson and Brown.” Systematic Zoology 4: 140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ferris, G. F. 1942. “The Needs of Systematic Entomology.” Journal of Economic Entomology 35: 732-738.Google Scholar
  40. Gaul, A. T. 1946. “How to Become an Entomologist.” Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society 41: 83.Google Scholar
  41. Gould, S. J. 1989. Wonderful Life. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
  42. Gregg, R. E. 1953. “Morphological Considerations Affecting the Taxonomy of Certain Genera of Ants.” Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington 55: 324-330.Google Scholar
  43. — 1963. The Ants of Colorado. Boulder: University of Colorado Press.Google Scholar
  44. — 1974. “William Steel Creighton-An Appreciation.” Journal of the New York Entomological Society 82: 67-75.Google Scholar
  45. Greil, A. L. and Rudy, D. R. 1984. “What Have We Learned from Process Models of Conversion? An Examination of Ten Case Studies.” Sociological Focus 17: 305-321.Google Scholar
  46. Hardee, Betty and Tomita, Kazuo. 1973. A Survey of Scientific and Professional Characteristics of the General Membership of the Entomological Society of America. JHU-CRSC Report #25. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
  47. Henson, P. M. 1990. Evolution and Taxonomy: John Henry Comstock's Research School in Evolutionary Entomology at Cornell University 1874-1930. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  48. — 1993. “The Comstock Research School in Evolutionary Entomology.” Osiris, n.s., 8: 159-177.Google Scholar
  49. Horn, W. 1928. “The Future of Insect Taxonomy.” Transactions of the Fourth International Congress of Entomology. Naumburg: G. Gpätz, pp. 34-51.Google Scholar
  50. Hoyt, Erich. 1996. The Earth Dwellers. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  51. Hunt, Tim (ed.). 1988. The Collected Poetry of Robinson Jeffers, Volume 1. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Jacot, A. P. 1930. “Nomenclature and Me.” Science 72: 272-273.Google Scholar
  53. Kennedy, C. H. 1928. “The Theory of Nomenclature.” Transactions of the Fourth International Congress of Entomology. Naumburg: G. Spätz, pp. 665-672.Google Scholar
  54. Kinsey, A. C. 1929. “The Gall Wasps of the Genus Cynips: A Study in the Origin of Species.” Indiana University Studies 26: 5-577.Google Scholar
  55. — 1936. The Origin of Higher Categories in Cynips. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  56. — 1937. “An Evolutionary Analysis of Insular and Continental Species.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 23: 5-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Knight, H. H. 1929. “Rectifications for Blatchley's 'Heteroptera' With the Description of a New Species (Hemiptera).” Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomological Society 24: 143-154.Google Scholar
  58. Kohler, R. E. 1994. Lords of the Fly. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Krombein, K. V., Hurd, P. D. and Smith, D. R. 1979. Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
  60. Kuklick, H. and Kohler, R. E. 1996. Introduction. Osiris, n.s., 11: 1-14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Latour, B. 1983. “Give Me a Laboratory and I Will Raise the World.” In: Science Observed, ed. Karin Knorr-Cetina and Michael Mulkay, pp. 141-170. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  62. — 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Linsley, E. G. 1944. “The Naming of Infraspecific Categories.” Entomological News 55: 225-232.Google Scholar
  64. Lloyd, J. E. 1990. “Firefly Semiosystematics and Predation: A History.” Florida Entomologist 73: 51-66.Google Scholar
  65. Maeterlinck, M. 1930. The Life of the Ant. New York: John Day Co.Google Scholar
  66. Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Mayr, E. and Ashlock, P. D. 1991. Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  68. Nash, R. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Parker, G. H. 1938. “William Morton Wheeler 1865-1937.” Biographical Memoirs of the Members of the National Academy of Sciences 19: 203-241.Google Scholar
  70. — 1946. The World Expands: Recollections of a Zoologist. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  71. — 1964. “The New Harvard Biological Lab.” Science 76: 158-162.Google Scholar
  72. Pearl, Raymond. 1922. “Trends of Modern Biology.” Science 56: 581-592.Google Scholar
  73. Regnier, F. E. and Wilson, E. O. 1971. “Chemical Communication and 'Propaganda' in Slave-making Ants.” Science 172: 267-269.Google Scholar
  74. Rudwick, Martin. 1996. “Geological Travel and Theoretical Innovation: The Role of “Limnal” Experience.” Social Studies of Science 26: 143-159.Google Scholar
  75. Sax, Karl. 1966. “The Bussey Institution: Harvard University Graduate School of Applied Biology.” Journal of Heredity 57: 175-178.Google Scholar
  76. Secord, A. 1994. “Science in the Pub: Artisan Botanists in Early Nineteenth-century Lancashire.” History of Science 232: 269-315.Google Scholar
  77. Shapin, S. 1988. “The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-century England.” Isis 79: 373-404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. — 1994. A Social History of Truth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  79. Shapin, S. and Schaffer, S. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Simpson, G. G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Spieth, H. T. 1978. From Farm Boy to Evolutionist. Oral History with Marvin Brienes. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  82. Stresemann, E. 1975. Ornithology. Trans. Hans J. and Cathleen Epstein. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Tilden, J. W. 1961. “Certain Comments on the Subspecies Problem.” Systematic Zoology 10: 17-23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Traweek, Sharon. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  85. Turner, F. J. 1920. The Frontier in American History. New York: H. Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  86. Vernon, K. 1993. “Desperately Seeking Status: Evolutionary Systematics and the Taxonomists' Search for Respectability 1940-1960.” British Journal for the History of Science 26: 207-227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wheeler, G. C. and Wheeler, J. 1963. The Ants of North Dakota. Grand Forks: University of North Dakota.Google Scholar
  88. Wheeler, W. M. 1910. Ants. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  89. — 1913. “The Ants of the Genus Formica.” Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 53: 379-565.Google Scholar
  90. — 1917. “The Mountain Ants of Western North America.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 52: 457-569.Google Scholar
  91. — 1923. Social Life Among the Insects. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company.Google Scholar
  92. — 1930. “The Bussey Institution.” In: The Development of Harvard University, 1869-1929, ed. Samuel Eliot Morison, pp. 508-517. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Wilson, E. O. 1955. “A Monographic Revision of the Ant Genus Lasius.” Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 113: 1-199.Google Scholar
  94. — 1991. “Philip Jackson Darlington, Jr.” Biographical Memoirs of the Members of the National Academy of Sciences 60: 33-44.Google Scholar
  95. — 1994. Naturalist. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.Google Scholar
  96. Wilson, E. O. and Brown, W. L. 1953. “The Subspecies Concept and its Taxonomic Application.” Systematic Zoology 2: 97-111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. — 1955. “Revisionary Notes on the Sanguinea and Neogagates Groups of the Ant Genus Formica.” Psyche 62: 108-128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Wilson, E. O. and Regnier, F. E. 1971. “The Evolution of the Alarm-defense System in the Formicine Ants.” The American Naturalist 105: 279-289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Winner, L. 1980. “Do Artifacts Have Politics?” Daedalus 109: 121-136.Google Scholar
  100. Winsor, M. P. 1976. Starfish, Jellyfish, and the Order of Life. New York: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  101. — 1991. Reading the Shape of Nature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  102. Zabusky, S. E. 1995. Launching Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Zuckerman, Michael. 1977. “Pilgrims in the Wilderness: Community, Modernity, and the Maypole at Merry Mount.” The New England Quarterly 50: 255-275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joshua Buhs
    • 1
  1. 1.History and Sociology of Science DepartmentUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaU.S.A.

Personalised recommendations