Advertisement

Biological Theory

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 383–394 | Cite as

Structuralism in Phylogenetic Systematics

  • Richard H. Zander
Article

Abstract

Systematics based solely on structuralist principles is non-science because it is derived from first principles that are inconsistent in dealing with both synchronic and diachronic aspects of evolution, and its evolutionary models involve hidden causes, and unnameable and unobservable entities. Structuralist phylogenetics emulates axiomatic mathematics through emphasis on deduction, and “hypotheses” and “mapped trait changes” that are actually lemmas and theorems. Sister-group-only evolutionary trees have no caulistic element of scientific realism. This results in a degenerate systematics based on patterns of fact or evidence being treated as so fundamental that all other data may be mapped to the cladogram, resulting in an apparently well-supported classification that is devoid of evolutionary theory. Structuralism in systematics is based on a non-ultrametric analysis of sister-group informative data that cannot detect or model a named taxon giving rise to a named taxon, resulting in classifications that do not reflect macroevolutionary changes unless they are sister lineages. Conservation efforts are negatively affected through epistemological extinction of scientific names. Evolutionary systematics is a viable alternative, involving both deduction and induction, hypothesis and theory, developing trees with both synchronic and diachronic dimensions often inferring nameable ancestral taxa, and resulting in classifications that advance evolutionary theory and explanations for particular groups.

Keywords

classification conservation empiricism evolution phylogenetics structuralism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aczel A (2007) The Artist and the Mathematician: The Story of Nicolas Bourbaki, the Genius Mathematician Who Never Existed. London: High Stakes.Google Scholar
  2. Assis LCS, Rieppel O (2010) Are monophyly and synapomorphy the same or different? Revisiting the role of morphology in phylogenetics. Cladistics 26: 1–9.Google Scholar
  3. Aubin D (1997) The withering immortality of Nicolas Bourbaki: A cultural connector at the confluence of mathematics, structuralism, and the Oulipo in France. Science in Context 10: 297–342.Google Scholar
  4. Avise JC (2000) Cladists in wonderland. Evolution 54: 1828–1832.Google Scholar
  5. Balzer W, Moulines CU, Sneed JD (1987) An Architectonic for Science: The Structuralist Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  6. Barry P (2002) Structuralism. Beginning Theory: An Introduction to Literary and Cultural Theory. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Batten D, Salthe S, Boschetti F (2008) Visions of evolution: Self-organization proposes what natural selection disposes. Biological Theory 3: 17–29.Google Scholar
  8. Beatty J (1994) Theoretical pluralism in biology, including systematics. In: Interpreting the Hierarchy of Nature (Grande L, Rieppel O, eds), 33–60. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bell JL (1981) Category theory and the foundations of mathematics. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32: 349–358.Google Scholar
  10. Bessey CE (1915) The phylogenetic taxonomy of flowering plants. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 2: 109–233.Google Scholar
  11. Bock WJ (2004) Explanations in systematics. In: Milestones in Systematics Systematics Association Special Vol. 67 (Williams DM, Forey PL, eds), 49–56. London: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bok C (2001) Pataphysics: The Poetics of an Imaginary Science. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Bowler PJ (1989) Evolution: The History of an Idea. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Brading K, Landry E (2006) Scientific structuralism: Presentation and representation. Philosophy of Science 73: 571–581.Google Scholar
  15. Brower AVZ (2000) Evolution is not a necessary assumption of cladistics. Cladistics 16: 143–154.Google Scholar
  16. Brown S, De Jonckheere JF (1999) A re-evaluation of the amoeba genus Vahlkampfia based on SSUrDNA sequences. European Journal of Protistology 35: 49–54.Google Scholar
  17. Brummitt RK (2003) Further dogged defense of paraphyletic taxa. Taxon 52: 803–804.Google Scholar
  18. Brummitt RK (2006) Am I a bony fish? Taxon 55: 268–269.Google Scholar
  19. Buhay JE (2009) “COI-like” sequences are becoming problematic in molecular systematic and DNA barcoding studies. Journal of Crustacean Biology 29: 96–110.Google Scholar
  20. Burke J (1995) The Day the Universe Changed: How Galileo’s Telescope Changed the Truth and Other Events in History that Dramatically Altered Our Understanding of the World. New York: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
  21. Cain AJ (1959) Deductive and inductive methods in post-Linnaean taxonomy. Proceedings of the Linnean Society London 170: 185–217.Google Scholar
  22. Carle FL (1995) Evolution, taxonomy, and biogeography of ancient Gondwanian libelluloides, with comments on anisopteroid evolution and phylogenetic systematics (Anisoptera: Libelluloidea). Odonatologica 24: 383–506.Google Scholar
  23. Cavalier-Smith T (2010) Deep phylogeny, ancestral groups and the four ages of life. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365: 111–132.Google Scholar
  24. Chesterton GK ([1933] 1956) St. Thomas Aquinas. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  25. Cleland CE (2001) Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method. Geology 29: 987–990.Google Scholar
  26. Cohen J (1994) The world is round (p <.05). American Psychologist 49: 997–1003.Google Scholar
  27. Colborn J, Crabtree RE, Shaklee JB, Pfeiler E, Bowen BW (2001) The evolutionary enigma of bonefishes (Albula spp.): Cryptic species and ancient separations in a globally distributed shorefish. Evolution 55: 807–820.Google Scholar
  28. Cunningham CW, Omland KE, Oakley TH (1998) Reconstructing ancestral character states: A critical reappraisal. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 361–366.Google Scholar
  29. Dayrat B (2005) Ancestor-descendant relationships and the reconstruction of the tree of life. Paleobiology 31: 347–353.Google Scholar
  30. Dewey J (1909) The influence of Darwinism on philosophy. Popular Science Monthly 75: 90–98.Google Scholar
  31. Dewey J (1950) Reconstruction in Philosophy. With a New Introduction. New York: Mentor Book, New American Library.Google Scholar
  32. Dobzhansky T (1956) What is an adaptive trait? American Naturalist 90: 337–347.Google Scholar
  33. Dosse F (1998) History of Structuralism, Vol. 1: The Rising Sign 1945–1966. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  34. Farjon A (2007) In defense of a conifer taxonomy which recognizes evolution. Taxon 56: 639–641.Google Scholar
  35. Farris JS, Kluge AG, Eckardt M (1970) A numerical approach to phylogenetic systematics. Journal of Zoology 19: 172–189.Google Scholar
  36. Frost-Arnold G (2010) The no-miracles argument for realism: Inference to an unacceptable explanation. Philosophy of Science 77: 35–58.Google Scholar
  37. Funk DJ, Omland KE (2003) Species-level paraphyly and polyphyly: Frequency, causes, and consequences, with insights from animal mitochondrial DNA. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34: 397–423.Google Scholar
  38. Giere RN (2005) Modest evolutionary naturalism. Biological Theory 1: 52–60.Google Scholar
  39. Giere RN (2009) Essay review: Scientific representation and empiricist structuralism. Philosophy of Science 76: 101–111.Google Scholar
  40. Gigerenzer G (2007) Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious. New York: Viking Penguin.Google Scholar
  41. Gigerenzer G, Swijtink Z, Porter T, Daston L, Beatty J, Küger L (1989) The Empire of Chance: How Probability Changed Science and Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gilbert SF, Opitz JM, Raff RA (1996) Resythesizing evolutionary and developmental biology. Developmental Biology 173: 357–372.Google Scholar
  43. Gishtick A (2006) Baraminology. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 26(4): 17–21. http://ncse.com/rncse/26/4/baraminology (accessed September 2, 2010).Google Scholar
  44. Gontcharov AA, Melkonian M (2005) Molecular phylogeny of Staurastrum Meyen ex Ralfs and related genera (Zygnematophyceae, Streptophyta) based on coding and noncoding rDNA sequence comparisons. Journal of Phycology 41: 887–899.Google Scholar
  45. Gould SJ (1970) Dollo on Dollo’s Law: Irreversibility and the status of evolutionary laws. Journal of the History of Biology 3: 189–212.Google Scholar
  46. Gould SJ (2002) The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Grant V (2003) Incongruence between cladistic and taxonomic systems. American Journal of Botany 90: 1263–1270.Google Scholar
  48. Griffiths PE (1996) Darwinism, process structuralism, and natural kinds. Philosophy of Science 63: S1–S9.Google Scholar
  49. Hair JF Jr, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (1987) Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  50. Hanc J, Tuleja S, Hancova M (2003) Simple derivation of Newtonian mechanics from the principle of least action. American Journal of Physics 71: 386–391.Google Scholar
  51. Hart MW, Byrne M, Johnson SL (2003) Patiriella pseudoexigua (Asteroidea: Asterinidae): A cryptic species complex revealed by molecular and embryological analyses. Journal of the Marine Biology Association UK 83: 1109–1116.Google Scholar
  52. Hebert PDN, Gregory T (2005) The promise of DNA barcoding for taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54: 842.Google Scholar
  53. Hickey DA (2000) The evolution of sex and recombination. In: Evolutionary Genetics: From Molecules to Morphology (Singh RS, Krimbas CB, eds), 314–330. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Holton G (1993) Science and Anti-Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Hörandl E (2006) Paraphyletic versus monophyletic taxa: Evolutionary versus cladistic classifications. Taxon 55: 564–570.Google Scholar
  56. Hörandl E (2007) Neglecting evolution is bad taxonomy. Taxon 56: 1–5.Google Scholar
  57. Hörandl E, Stuessy TF (2010) Paraphyletic groups are natural evolutionary units and acceptable in biological classification. Taxon 59: 1641–1653.Google Scholar
  58. Hull DL (2005) The essence of scientific theories. Biological Theory 1: 17–19.Google Scholar
  59. Hutchinson JMC, Gigerenzer G (2005) Simple heuristics and rules of thumb: Where psychologists and behavioural biologists might meet. Behavioural Processes 69: 97–124.Google Scholar
  60. Jablonski D (2007) Scale and hierarchy in macroevolution. Palaeontology 50: 87–109.Google Scholar
  61. Jacquette D (1996) On defoliating Meinong’s Jungle. Axiomathes 1–2: 17–42.Google Scholar
  62. Jardine N, Sibson R (1971) Mathematical Taxonomy. London: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  63. Jarman SN, Elliott NG (2000) DNA evidence for morphological and cryptic Cenozoic speciations in the Anaspididae, “living fossils” from the Triassic. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 13: 624–633.Google Scholar
  64. Jaynes J ([1990] 2000) The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. New York: Houghton-Mifflin, Mariner Books.Google Scholar
  65. King JL, Hanner R (1998) Cryptic species in a “living fossil” lineage: Taxonomic and phylogenetic relationships within the genus Lepidurus (Crustacea: Notostraca) in North America. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 10: 23–36.Google Scholar
  66. Kline M (1980) Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Knox EB (1998) The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society of London 63: 1–49.Google Scholar
  68. Kress WJ, Wurdack KJ, Zimmer EA, Weigt LA, Janzen DH (2005) Use of DNA barcodes to identify flowering plants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 102: 8369–8374.Google Scholar
  69. Kuhn T (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  70. Kuusela J, Ziẹtara MS, Lumme J (2008) Description of three new European cryptic species of Gyrodactylus Nordmann, 1832 supported by nuclear and mitochondrial phylogenetic characterization. Acta Parasitologica 53: 120–126.Google Scholar
  71. Lee T, Foighil DÓ (2004) Hidden Floridian biodiversity: Mitochondrial and nuclear gene trees reveal four cryptic species within the scorched mussel, Brachidontes exustus, species complex. Molecular Ecology 13: 3527–3542.Google Scholar
  72. Lee M, Wolsan M (2004) Integration, individuality, and species concepts. Biology and Philosophy 17: 651–660.Google Scholar
  73. Lévi-Strauss C ([1949] 1969) The Elementary Structures of Kinship (Needham R, trans). Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  74. Lewis H (1962) Catastrophic selection as a factor in speciation. Evolution 16: 257–271.Google Scholar
  75. Lewis H (1966) Speciation in flowering plants. Science 3152: 167–172.Google Scholar
  76. Lewis H, Roberts MR (1956) The origin of Clarkia lingulata. Evolution 10: 126–138.Google Scholar
  77. Lopez PA (1990) Closet pataphysics. http://www.paulavion.com/pata/cpat.html (accessed September 2, 2010).
  78. Matthews P (2001) A Short History of Structural Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Mayden RL (1997) A hierarchy of species concepts: The denouement in the sage of the species problem. In: Species: The Units of Biodiversity (Claridge MR, Dawah HA, Wilson MR, eds), 381–424. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  80. Mayer MS, Beseda L (2010) Reconciling taxonomy and phylogeny in the Streptanthus glandulosus complex (Brassicaceae). Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 97: 106–116.Google Scholar
  81. Mayr E, Bock WJ (2002) Classifications and other ordering systems. Journal of Zoological Evolutionary Research 40: 169–194.Google Scholar
  82. McShea DW (2005) The evolution of complexity without natural selection, a possible large-scale trend of the fourth kind. Paleobiology 31: 146–156.Google Scholar
  83. Mercier H, Sperber D (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34: 57–74.Google Scholar
  84. Molbo D, Machado CA, Sevenster JG, Keller L, Herre EA (2003) Cryptic species of fig-pollinating wasps: Implications for the evolution of the fig-wasp mutualism, sex allocation, and precision of adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100: 5867–5872.Google Scholar
  85. Mooi RD, Gill AC (2010) Phylogenies without synapomorphies—a crisis in fish systematics: Time to show some character. Zootaxa 2450: 26–40.Google Scholar
  86. Nelson G (1989) Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics 5: 275–289.Google Scholar
  87. Ogrodnik B (2004) The metaphysical dimension of optimizing principles. Concrescence: Australasian Journal for Process Thought 5: 1–5.Google Scholar
  88. Okasha S (2003) Does the concept of “clade selection” make sense? Philosophy of Science 70: 739–751.Google Scholar
  89. O’Keefe FR, Sander PM (1999) Paleontological paradigms and inferences of phylogenetic pattern: A case study. Paleobiology 25: 518–533.Google Scholar
  90. Oppenheimer JR (1957) Physics in the contemporary world. In: Great Essays in Science (Gardner M, ed), 188–204. New York: Washington Square Press.Google Scholar
  91. Overton WF (1975) General systems, structure and development. In: Structure and Transformation: Developmental and Historical Aspects, Vol. 3 (Riegel K, Rosenwald GC, eds), 61–81. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  92. Padial JM, Miralles A, De la Riva I, Vences M (2010) The integrative future of taxonomy. Frontiers in Zoology 7: 1–16. http://www.frontiersinzoology.com/content/7/1/16 (accessed September 2, 2010).Google Scholar
  93. Pelser PB, Nordenstam B, Kadereit JW, Watson LE (2007) An ITS phylogeny of tribe Senecioneae (Asteraceae) and a new delimitation of Senecio L. Taxon 56: 1077–1104.Google Scholar
  94. Piaget J (1970) Structuralism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  95. Poole M (1990) A Guide to Science and Belief. Oxford: Lion Publishing.Google Scholar
  96. Popper KR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  97. Qiu Y-L, Chase MW, Les DH, Parks CR (1993) Molecular phylogenetics of the Magnoliidae: Cladistic analyses of nucleotide sequences of the plastid gene rbcL. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 80: 587–606.Google Scholar
  98. Racheli L, Racheli T (2006) Phylogenetic hypothesis and classification: Theoretical and methodological issues with reference to some studies on Saturniidae (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae). SHILAP Revista de Lepidopterología 34(133): 5–12.Google Scholar
  99. Rees M (2000) Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  100. Ridley M (1996) Evolution, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science.Google Scholar
  101. Rieppel O (2010) The series, the network, and the tree: Changing metaphors of order in nature. Biology and Philosophy 25: 475–496.Google Scholar
  102. Rieppel O (2011) Willi Hennig’s dichotomization of nature. Cladistics 27: 103–112.Google Scholar
  103. Rieppel O, Grande L (1994) Summary and comments on systematic pattern and evolutionary process. In: Interpreting the Hierarchy of Nature (Grande L, Rieppel O, eds), 227–255. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  104. Rieseberg LH, Brouillet L (1994) Are many plant species paraphyletic? Taxon 43: 21–32.Google Scholar
  105. Rubinoff D, Cameron S, Will K (2006) A genomic perspective on the shortcomings of mitochondrial DNA for “barcoding” indentification. Journal of Heredity 97: 581–594.Google Scholar
  106. Sardar Z (2000) Thomas Kuhn and the Science Wars. Cambridge: Icon Books.Google Scholar
  107. Schmidt H-J (2008) Structuralism in physics. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring ed (Zalta EN, ed) //html: plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2008/entries/physics-structuralism
  108. Schneider H, Smith AR, Pryer KM (2009) Is morphology really at odds with molecules in estimating fern phylogeny? Systematic Botany 34: 455–475.Google Scholar
  109. Scott-Ram NR (1990) Transformed Cladistics, Taxonomy and Evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Sneath PHA (1995) Thirty years of numerical taxonomy. Systematic Biology 44: 281–298.Google Scholar
  111. Sober E (2008) Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Nickrent DL, Johnson LA, Hahn WJ, Hoot SB, Sweere JA, Kuzoff RK, Kron DA, Chase MW, Swensen SM, Zimmer EA, Chaw S-M, Gillespie LJ, Kress WJ, Sytsma KJ (1997) Angiosperm phylogeny inferred from 18S ribosomal DNA sequences. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 84: 1–49.Google Scholar
  113. Sosef MSM (1997) Hierarchical models, reticulate evolution and the inevitability of paraphyletic supraspecific taxa. Taxon 46: 75–85.Google Scholar
  114. Stein G (1937) Everybody’s Autobiography. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  115. Stuart BL, Inger RF, Voris HK (2006) High level of cryptic species diversity revealed by sympatric lineages of Southeast Asian forest frogs. Biological Letters 2: 470–474.Google Scholar
  116. Stuessy TF (2009) Paradigms in biological classification (1707–2007): Has anything really changed? Taxon 58: 68–76.Google Scholar
  117. Stuessy TF, Crawford DJ, Anderson GJ, Jensen RJ (1998) Systematics, biogeography and conservation of Lactoridaceae. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 1: 267–290.Google Scholar
  118. Stuessy TF, König C (2008) Patrocladistic classification. Taxon 57: 594–601.Google Scholar
  119. van Fraasen BD (2007) Structuralism(s) about science: Some common problems. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplement 81: 45–61.Google Scholar
  120. van Wyk AE (2007) The end justifies the means. Taxon 56: 645–648.Google Scholar
  121. Vasek FC (1968) The relationships of two ecologically marginal sympatric Clarkia populations. American Naturalist 102: 25–40.Google Scholar
  122. Wagner WH Jr (1952) The fern genus Diellia: Its structure, affinities and taxonomy. University of California Publications in Botany 26: 1–212 (pl. 1–21).Google Scholar
  123. Wilkinson L, Rosenthal R, Abelson R, Cohen J, Aiken L, Appelbaum M, Boodoo G, Kenny DA, Kraemer H, Rubin D, Thompson B, Wainer H (1999) Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist 54: 594–604.Google Scholar
  124. Williams DM, Ebach MC (2007) Foundations of Systematics and Biogeography. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  125. Zander RH (2007a) Nine easy steps for constructing reliable trees from published phylogenetic analyses. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 94: 691–709.Google Scholar
  126. Zander RH (2007b) When biodiversity study and systematics diverge. Biodiversity 8: 43–48.Google Scholar
  127. Zander RH (2007c) Paraphyly and the species concept, a reply to Ebach & al. Taxon 56: 642–644.Google Scholar
  128. Zander RH (2008a) Statistical evaluation of the clade “Rhabdoweisiaceae.” Bryologist 111: 292–301.Google Scholar
  129. Zander RH (2008b) Evolutionary inferences from non-monophyly of traditional taxa on molecular trees. Taxon 57: 1182–1188.Google Scholar
  130. Zander RH (2009) Evolutionary analysis of five bryophyte families using virtual fossils. Anales del Jardín Botánico de Madrid 66: 263–277.Google Scholar
  131. Zander RH (2010) Taxon mapping exemplifies punctuated equilibrium and atavistic saltation. Plant Systematics and Evolution 286: 69–90.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Missouri Botanical GardenSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations