Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 387–400

Non-essentialist methods in pre-Darwinian taxonomy

  • Mary P. Winsor
Article

Abstract

The current widespread belief that taxonomic methods used before Darwin were essentialist is ill-founded. The essentialist method developed by followers of Plato and Aristotle required definitions to state properties that are always present. Polythetic groups do not obey that requirement, whatever may have been the ontological beliefs of the taxonomist recognizing such groups. Two distinct methods of forming higher taxa, by chaining and by examplar, were widely used in the period between Linnaeus and Darwin, and both generated polythetic groups. Philosopher William Whewell congratulated pre-Darwinian taxonomists for not adhering to the rigid ideal of definition used in the mathematical sciences. What he called the “method of types” is here called the “method of exemplars” because typology has been equated with essentialism, whereas the use of a type species as the reference point or prototype for a higher category was a practice inconsistent with essentialism. The story that the essentialism of philosophers dominated the development of systematics may prove to be a myth.

Essentialism History Linnaeus Mayr Method of exemplars Polythetic groups Popper Typology Whewell 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adanson M. 1763–64. Familles des plantes. Wheldon & Wesley facsimile, 1966.Google Scholar
  2. Amundson R. 1998. ‘Typology Reconsidered: Two Doctrines on the History of Evolutionary Biology’. Biology and Philosophy 13: 153–177.Google Scholar
  3. Atran S. 1990. Conceptual Foundations of Natural History: Towards an Anthropology of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Beckner M. 1959. The Biological Way of Thought. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd R. 1999. ‘Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa’. In: Wilson R.A. (ed.), Species: New Interdiscipliary Essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 141–185.Google Scholar
  6. Cain A.J. 1958. ‘Logic and Memory in Linnaeus's System of Taxonomy’ Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. 169:, pp. 144–163.Google Scholar
  7. Cain A.J. 1959. ‘Deductive and Inductive Methods in Post-Linnaean Taxonomy’ Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London. 170:, pp. 185–217.Google Scholar
  8. Cain A.J. 1995. ‘Linnaeus's Natural and Artificial Arrangements of Plants’. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society of London 117: 73–133.Google Scholar
  9. Camardi G. 2001. ‘Richard Owen, Morphology, and Evolution’. Journal of the History of Biology 34: 481–515.Google Scholar
  10. Cuvier G. 1828. Historical Portrait of the Progress of Ichthyology, from its Origins to Our Own Time (ed. T.W. Pietsch, transl. A.J. Simpson, 1995). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  11. Darwin C.R. 1859. On the Origin of Species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, (facsimile) 1964Google Scholar
  12. De Candolle A.P. 1813. Theorie elementaire de la botanique. Paris.Google Scholar
  13. Eigen E. 1997. ‘Overcoming First Impressions: Georges Cuvier's Types’. Journal of the History of Biology 30: 179–209.Google Scholar
  14. Ereshefsky M. 2001. The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Farber P.L. 1976. ‘The Type Concept in Zoology in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century’. Journal of the History of Biology 9: 93–119.Google Scholar
  16. Greene J.C. 1992. ‘From Aristotle to Darwin: Reflections on Ernst Mayr's Interpretation in The Growth of Biological Thought’. Journal of the History of Biology 25: 257–284.Google Scholar
  17. Hacking I. 1975. Why Does Language Matter to Philosophers? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Hull D.L. 1965. ‘The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy – Two Thousand Years of Stasis’. British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 15: 314–326. 16: 1–8.Google Scholar
  19. Hull D.L. 1988. Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  20. Lakoff G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. Larson J.L. 1971. Reason and Experience. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  22. Linnaeus C. 1753. Species Plantarum. Ray Society, London, (facsimile) 1957–1959.Google Scholar
  23. Mayr E. 1959. ‘Darwin and the Evolutionary Theory in Biology’. In: Evolution and Anthropology: A Centennial Appraisal. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington, DC, USA (excerpt reprinted in Mayr 1976: 26–29). pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  24. Mayr E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.Google Scholar
  25. Mayr E. 1964. ‘Introduction’. In: Darwin C., On the Origin of Species. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA (facsimile). pp. vii–xxvii.Google Scholar
  26. Mayr E. 1968. ‘Theory of Biological Classification’. Nature 220 (reprinted in Mayr (1969): 425–432): 545–548.Google Scholar
  27. Mayr E. 1969. ‘The Biological Meaning of Species’. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society of London 1 (reprinted in Mayr 1976: 515–525): 311–320.Google Scholar
  28. Mayr E. 1976. Evolution and the Diversity of Life: Selected Essays. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  29. Mayr E. 1982. The Growth of Biological Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  30. McOuat G.R. 1996. ‘Species, Rules and Meaning: The Politics of Language and the Ends of Definitions in 19th Century Natural History’. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 27: 473–519.Google Scholar
  31. Mirbel C.-F.B. 1815. Elements de physiologie végétal. Paris.Google Scholar
  32. Muller-Wille S. 1999. Botanik und Weltweiter Handel: Zur Begründung eines Natürlichen Systems der Pflanzen durch Carl von Linné (1707– 1778). Verlag für Wissenschaft und Bildung, Berlin.Google Scholar
  33. Müller-Wille S. 2001. ‘Gardens of Paradise’. Endeavour 25: 49–54.Google Scholar
  34. Panchen A.L. 1992. Classification, Evolution, and the Nature of Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. Pennell F.W. 1939. ‘On the typification of the Linnean species as illustrated by Polygala verticillata’. Rhodora 41: 378–384.Google Scholar
  36. Popper K. 1944. ‘The Poverty of Historicism I’. Economica 11: 86–103.Google Scholar
  37. Popper E. 1950. The Open Society and its Enemies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  38. Pratt V. 1981. ‘Aristotle and the Essence of Natural History’. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 3: 203–223.Google Scholar
  39. Pratt V. 1985. ‘System-Building in the Eighteenth Century’. In: North J.D. and Roche J.J. (eds), The Light of Nature. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp. 421–431.Google Scholar
  40. Russell J.B. 1991. Inventing the Flat Earth. Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Sneath P.H.A. 1962. ‘The Construction of Taxonomic Groups’. In: Ainsworth G.C. and Sneath P.H.A. eds), Microbial Classification. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge pp. 289–332.Google Scholar
  42. Sober E. 1980. ‘Evolution, Population Thinking and Essentialism’. Philosophy of Science 47: 350–383.Google Scholar
  43. Sokal R.R. 1962. ‘Typology and Empiricism in Taxonomy’. Journal of Theoretical Biology 3: 230–267.Google Scholar
  44. Sokal R.R and Sneath P.H.A. 1963. Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  45. Stearn W. 1957. ‘An Introduction to the Species Plantarum and Cognate Botanical Works of Carl Linnaeus’. In: Linnaeus 1753 Vol. 1. 1–176., pp. v–xiv.Google Scholar
  46. Stearn W. 1959. ‘Four Supplementary Linnaean Publications’. In: Linnaeus 1753 Vol. 2., pp. 73–102.Google Scholar
  47. 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: 169–211.Google Scholar
  48. Stevens P.F. 1994. The Development of Biological Systematics: Antoine-Laurent de Jussieu, Nature, and the Natural System. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  49. Stevens P.F. 1997. ‘How to Interpret Botanical Classifications – Suggestions from History’. BioScience 47: 243–250.Google Scholar
  50. Taylor J.R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization. 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  51. Thompson P. 2001. ‘“Organization,” “Population,” and Mayr's Rejection of Essentialism in Biology’. In: Sfendoni-Mentzou D., Hattiangadi J. and Johnson D.M. (eds), Aristotle and Contemporary Science Vol. 2. Peter Lang, New York, pp. 173–183.Google Scholar
  52. Van der Hammen L. 1981. ‘Type-Concept, Higher Classification and Evolution’. Acta Biotheoretica 30: 3–48.Google Scholar
  53. Whewell W. 1847. The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences Founded upon their History. 2nd edn. Johnson Reprint Corporation, New York, facsimile, 1967.Google Scholar
  54. Winsor M.P. 1976. ‘The Development of Linnaean Insect Classification’. Taxon 25: 57–67.Google Scholar
  55. Winsor M.P. 1979. ‘Louis Agassiz and the Species Question’. Studies in History of Biology 3: 89–117.Google Scholar
  56. Winsor M.P. 1991. Reading the Shape of Nature: Comparative Zoology at the Agassiz Museum. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  57. Winsor M.P. 2001. ‘Cain on Linnaeus: The Scientist-historian as Unanalysed Entity’. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Biology and Biomedical Sciences 32: 239–254.Google Scholar
  58. Winsor M.P. 2003. ‘Setting Up Milestones: Sneath on Adanson and Mayr on Darwin’. In: Williams D.M. and Forey P.L. (eds), Milestones in Systematics, Systematics Association Special Vol. 68. Taylor and Francis, London (in press).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary P. Winsor
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and TechnologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations