Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Drowning by numbers: Rereading Nelson’s “Nullius in Verba”

  • Published:
The Botanical Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Three-item data are a new way of looking at homology. Past views on homology are contrasted, and some historical details of the development of the concept are given. Application of three-item data is given for some simple examples, with a detailed series of problems outlined in the appendix (from a privately, informally published pamphlet entitled “Nullius in Verba,” by G. Nelson).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Anonymous (ed.). 1966. Joseph Kaelin 1903–1965. Frieburger Universitätsreden, n.s., 28: 1–78.

  • Andersen, N. M. 1999. Quantitative cladistics and the reconciliation of morphological and molecular systematics. Pp. 121–144in M. Schmitt (ed.), Phylogenetik und Moleküle. Edition Archaea, Gelsenkirchen.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001. The impact of W. Hennig’s “Phylogenetic Systematics” on contemporary entomology. European Journal of Entomology 98: 133–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson, L. 1996. Guest editorial: An ontological dilemma: Epistemology and methodology of historical biogeography. Journal of Biogeography 23: 269–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boletsky, S. von. 1999. Systematische Morphologie und Phylogenetik—zur Bedeutung des Werkes von Adolf Naef (1883–1949). Vierteljahrsschrift der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Zürich 144: 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 2000. Adolf Naef (1883–1949). A biographical Note in Fauna and Flora of the Bay of Naples [Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Naepel]. Monograph 35. Cephalapoda. Embryology. Part I, Vol. II [Final part of the Monograph No. 35], pp. ix–xiii. Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington, D.C.

  • Bonde, N. 1999. Colin Patterson (1933–1998): A major vertebrate palaeontologist of this century. Geologie en Mijnbouw 78: 255–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breidbach, O. 2003. Post-Heackelian comparative biology—Adolf Naef’s idealistic morphology. Theory in Bioscience 122: 174–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower, A. V. Z. 2000. Evolution is not a necessary assumption of cladistics. Cladistics 16: 143–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brundin, L. 1966. Transantarctic relationships and their significance, as evidenced by the chironimid midges. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 11: 1–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1968. Application of phylogenetic principles in systematics and evolutionary theory. Pp. 473–495in T. Ørvig (ed.), Current problems of lower vertebrate phylogeny: Proceedings of the fourth Nobel Symposium held in June 1967 at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (Naturhistoriska riksmuseet) in Stockholm. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, J. 1994. Ernst Mayr’s community architect: Launching the Society for the Study of Evolution and the JournalEvolution. Biology and Philosophy 9: 387–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craw, R. C. 1992. Margins of cladistics: Identity, differences and place in the emergence of phylogenetic systematics, 1864–1975. Pp. 65–107in P. Griffiths (ed.), Trees of life: Essays in the philosophy of biology. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darlington, P. J. 1970. A practical criticism of Hennig-Brundin “Phylogentic Systematics” and Antarctic biogeography. Systematic Zoology 19: 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beer, G. 1971. Homology, an unsolved problem. Oxford Biology Readers, No. 11. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, M. R. 1995. Richard Goldschmidt’s “heresies” and the evolutionary synthesis. Journal of the History of Biology 28: 431–461.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ebach, M. C. &D. M. Williams. 2004. Congruence and language. Taxon 53: 113–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S. 1977. On the phenetic approach to vertebrate classification. Pp. 823–850in M. K. Hecht, P. C. Goody & B. M. Hecht (eds.), Major patterns in vertebrate evolution. Plenum, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein, J. 2003. Inferring phylogenies. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forey, P. L., B. G Gardiner &C. J. Humphries (eds.). 2000. Colin Patterson (1933–1998): A celebration of his life. The Linnean, Special Issue No. 2. Linnean Society of London, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldschmidt, R. B. 1956. Portraits from memory: Recollections of a zoologist. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1966. The golden age of zoology: Portraits from memory. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle [paperback ed. of Goldschmidt, 1956].

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1960. In and out of the ivory tower. Univ. of Washington Press, Seattle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, T. &A. G. Kluge. 2004. Transformation series as an ideographic character concept. Cladistics 20: 23–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Günther, K. 1962. Systematik und Stammesgeschichte der Tiere 1954–1959. Fortschritte der Zoologie, n.s., 14: 269–547.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haffer, J. 2003. Wilhelm Meise (1901–2002), ein führender Ornithologe Deutschlands im. 20. Jahrundert. Verhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Verein in Hamburg, n.s., 40: 117–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. K. 1992. Evolutionary developmental biology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &W. M. Olson (eds.). 2003. Keywords and concepts in evolutionary developmental biology. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W. 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutsche Zentralverlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1957. Systematik und Phylogenese. Pp. 50–71in H. von Hannemann (ed.), Bericht über die Hundertjahrfeier der Deutschen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, Berlin. 30 September bis 5 Oktober 1956. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1965. Phylogenetic systematics. Annual Review of Entomology 10: 97–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana [reprinted in 1979, 1999].

    Google Scholar 

  • -. 1969. Die Stammesgeschichte der Insekten. Senckenberg-Buch 49. Kramer, Frankfurt am Main.

  • —. 1981. Insect Phylogeny. Translated and edited by Adrian C. Pont; revisionary notes by Dieter Schlee. John Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1982. Phylogenetische Systematik. Pareys Studientexte 34. Paul Parey, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoßfeld, U. &L. Olsson. 2003. The road from Haeckel: The Jena tradition in evolutionary morphology and the origins of “evo-devo.” Biology and Philosophy 18: 285–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,R. Nöthlich &L. Olsson. 2003a. Haeckel’s literary hopes dashed by materialism? Nature 424: 875.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003b. Ernst Haeckel and the 1908 Nobel Prize for Literature. Uppsala Newsletter, History of Science 34: 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,L. Olsson &R. Nöthlich. 2005. Wissenschaftspolitik international: Ernst Haeckel und der Nobelpreis für Literatur 1908. Pp. 97–102in M. Steinbach & S. Gerber (eds.), Klassische Universität und akademische Provinz: Die Universität Jena von der Mitte des 19. bis in die 30er Jahre des 20. Jahrhunderts. Bussert & Stadeler, Jena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janvier, P. 1996. Early vertebrates. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvik, E. 1980. Basic structure and evolution of vertebrates. Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, L. A. S. 1970. Rainbow’s end: The quest for an optimal taxonomy. Systematic Zoology 19: 203–239.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kälin, J. A. 1936. Über einige Grundbegriffe in der vergleichenden Anatomie und ihre Bedeutung für die Erforschung der Baupläne im Tierreich. Pp. 2: 649–664in Comptes Rendus, XIIe Congrès International de Zoologie, Lisbonne 1935. Arquivos do Museu Bocage, Lisbon.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1941. Ganzheitliche Morphologie und Homologie. Mitteilungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Freiburg (Schweiz) 3 (1): 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1945. Die Homologie als Ausdruck ganzheitler Baupläne von Typen. Bulletin Société Fribourgeoise des Sciences Naturelles 37: 135–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Källersjö, M., V. A. Albert &J. S. Farris. 1999. Homoplasy increases phylogenetic structure. Cladistics 15: 91–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G. &J. S. Farris. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of Anurans. Systematic Zoology 18: 1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laubichler, M. D. 2000. Homology in development and the development of the homology concept. American Zoologist 40: 777–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, K. 1941. Vergleichende Bewegungsstudein an Anatinen. Journal für Ornithologie, 3 (Feschrift Oskar Heinroth), 194–294 (reprinted as pp. 12–113in Vergleichende Bewegungsstudein an Anatinen. Gesammelte Abhandlugen, 2. Piper, Munich.)

  • -. 1950. The comparative method in studying innate behaviour patterns. Pp. 261–268in The 4th Symposia of the Society for Experimental Biology.

  • —. 1953. Comparative studies on the behaviour of the Anatinae. Avicultural Magazine 57, 58, 59: 1–87 [English translation of K. Lorenz, 1941, 57:157–182, 58:1–17, 61–72, 86–93, 172–183. 1951–1952].

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1974. Analogy as a source of knowledge. Science 185 (4147): 229–234 [Reprinted as pp. 185–195in Les Prix Nobel en 1973, Almqvist & Wiksell International, Stockholm; and as 97–107in J. Lindsten (ed.), Nobel lectures, physiology or medicine 1971–1980, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, 1992].

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of systematic zoology. McGraw Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitter, C. 1999. Sketches of U.S. systematic entomology, circa 1850–2000: Return of a golden age. Annals of the Entomological Society of America 92: 798–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, G. B. 2001. Homologie und analogie: Die vergleichende grundlage von morphologie und ethnologie. Pp. 127–137in K. Kotrschal, G. B. Müller & H. Winkler (eds.), Konrad Lorenz und seine verhaltensbiologischen Koncepte aus heutiger Sicht. Filander Verlag, Fürth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naef, A. 1911. Studien zur generellen Morphologie der Mollusken. 1. Teil. Über Torsion und Asymmetrie der Gastropoden. Ergebnisse und Fortschritte der Zoologie 3: 73–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1913. Studien zur generellen Morphologie der Mollusken. 2. Teil. Das Cölomsystem in seinen topographischen Berziehungen. Ergebnisse und Fortschritte der Zoologie 3: 329–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1917. Die individuelle Entwicklung organischer Formen als Urkunde ihrer Stammesgeschichte: (Kritische Betrachtungen über das sogenannte “biogenetische Grundgesetz”). G. Fischer, Jena.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1919. Idealistische Morphologie und Phylogenetik (zur Methodik der systematischen). G Fischer, Jena.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1921–1923. Die Cephalopoden (Systematik). Fauna e Flora del Golfo di Napoli. Monograph 35. Pubblicata dalla Stazione Zoologica di Napoli. R. Friedländer & Sohn, Berlin [translation in A. Naef, 1972. Cephalopoda (systematics) in Fauna and Flora of the Bay of Naples (Fauna e Flora del Golfo di Napoli), Monograph 35, Part I, Vol. I, Fascicle II [End of Vol. I]. Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington].

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1928. Die Cephalopoden (Embryologie). Fauna e Flora del Golfo di Napoli. Monograph 35, Pubblicata dalla Stazione Zoologica di Napoli. R. Friedländer & Sohn, Berlin [translation in Naef, A. 2000. Cephalopoda. Embryology in Fauna and Flora of the Bay of Naples [Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Naepel]. Monograph 35. Part I, Vol. II [Final part of Monograph No. 35]. Smithsonian Institution Libraries, Washington].

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1931a. Allgemeine Morphologic I. Die Gestalt als Begriff und Idee. Pp. 77–118in L. Bolk, E. Göppert, E. Kallius & W. Lubosch (eds.), Handbuch der vergleichenden Anatomie der Wirbeltiere, J. Urban & Schwarzenberg, Berlin and Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1931b. Phylogenie der Tiere. Pp. 1–200in E. Baur & M. Hartmann (eds.), Handbuch der Vererbungswissenschaft, Gebrüder Borntraeger, Berlin, 13 (3i).

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1933. Die Vorstufen der Menschwerdung. Eine anschauliche Darstellung der menschlichen Stammesgeschichte und eine kritische Betrachtung ihrer allgemeinen Voraussetzungen. G. Fischer, Jena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G. J. 1978. Ontogeny, phylogeny, paleontology, and the biogenetic law. Systematic Zoology 27: 324–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1989a. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics 5: 275–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1989b. Species and taxa: Systematics and evolution. Pp. 60–81in D. Otte & J. Endler (eds.), Speciation and its Consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1989c. [Review of] Reconstructing the past: Parsimony, evolution, and inference, E. Sober. Systematic Zoology 38: 293–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1994. Homology and systematics. Pp. 101–149in B. K. Hall (ed.), Homology: The hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2000. Ancient perspectives and influence in the theoretical systematics of a bold fisherman. Pp. 9–23in P. L. Forey, B. G. Gardiner & C. J. Humphries (eds.), Colin Patterson (1933–1998): A celebration of his life. The Linnean, Special Issue No. 2. Linnean Society of London, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004. Cladistics: Its arrested development. Pp. 127–147in D. M. Williams & P. L. Forey (eds.), Milestones in systematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &N. I. Platnick. 1991. Three-taxon statements: A more precise use of parsimony? Cladistics 7: 351–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,D. M. Williams &M. C. Ebach. 2003. A question of conflict: Three-item and standard parsimony compared. Systematics & Biodiversity 1: 145–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhart, L. K. 2002. Learning from history: Morphology’s challenges in Germany ca. 1900. Journal of Morphology 252: 2–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ørvig, T. (ed). 1968. Current problems of lower vertebrate phylogeny: Proceedings of the fourth Nobel Symposium held in June 1967 at the Swedish Museum of Natural History (Naturhistoriska riksmuseet) in Stockholm. Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C. 1981. Vertebrate morphology [review of Basic structure and evolution of vertebrates, by E. Jarvik (1980 ), Academic Press, London]. Science 214: 431–432.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1987. Introduction. Pp. 1–22in C. Patterson (ed.), Molecules and morphology in evolution: Conflict or compromise? Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1990. Erik Helge Osvald Stensiö. Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society 35: 363–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2002. Evolutionism and creationism. The Linnean 18: 15–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plate, L. 1914. Principien der Systematik mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Systems der Tiere. Pp. 92–164in P. Hinneberg (ed.), Die Kultur der Gegenwart. Allgemeine Biologie, 4, Abteil. 4, Bd. 3. Teubner-Verlag, Leipzig and Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Platnick, N. I. 1985. Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics revisited. Cladistics 1: 87–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O. 2003. Semaphoronts, cladograms and the roots of total evidence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 80: 167–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, E. S. 1916. Form and Function: A contribution to the history of animal morphology. John Murray, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M. 1996. Klaus Günthers Bedeutung für die Phylogenetische Systematik. Sitzungberichte der Gesellshcaft Naturforsch Freunde zu Berlin, n.s., 35: 13–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2001. Willi Hennig (1913–1976). Pp. 316–343, 541–546in I. Jahn & M. Schmitt (eds.), Darwin & Co.: Eine Geschichte der Biologie in Portraits II. C. H. Beck, Munich.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2003. Willi Hennig and the rise of cladistics. Pp. 369–379in A. Legakis, S. Stenthourakis, R. Polymeni & M. Thessalou-Legaki (eds.), The New Panorama of Animal Evolution. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia and Moscow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. G. 1961. Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia Univ. Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneath, P. H. A. &R. R. Sokal. 1973. Numerical taxonomy: The principles and practice of numerical classification. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, R. R. &P. H. A. Sneath. 1963. Principles of numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spemann, H. 1915. Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Begriffes der Homologie. Pp. 63–86in P. Hinneberg (ed.), Die Kultur der Gegenwart. Allgemeine Biologie, 3, Abteil. 4, Bd. 1. Teubner-Verlag, Leipzig and Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starck, D. 1980. Die idealistische Morphologie und ihre Nachwirkungen. Medhistorische Journal 15: 44–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Life Sciences 11: 23–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D. M. 2002. Parsimony and precision. Taxon 51: 143–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 2004. Homology and homologues, cladistics and phenetics: 150 years of progress. Pp. 191–224 in D. M. Williams & P. L. Forey (eds.), Milestones in systematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

    Google Scholar 

  • — &M. C. Ebach. 2004. The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography: 25 years after ‘Ontogeny, Phylogeny, Paleontology and the Biogenetic law’ (Nelson, 1978). Journal of Biogeography 31: 1–27.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • — &C. J. Humphries. 2004. Homology and character evolution. Pp. 119–130in T. Stuessy, E. Hörandl & V. Mayer (eds.), Deep morphology: Toward a renaissance of morphology in plant systematics. Koeltz, Königstein.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willmann, R. 2003. From Haeckel to Hennig: The early development of phylogenetics in German-speaking Europe. Cladistics 19: 449–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zangerl, R. 1948. The methods of comparative anatomy and its contribution to the study of evolution. Evolution 2: 351–374.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, W. 1953. Evolution: Die geschichte ihrer Probleme und Erkenntnisse. Karl Alber, Freiburg.

    Google Scholar 

References

  • Anonymous (ed.). 1919. The complete works of Josh Billings (Henry W. Shaw), with one hundred illustrations and a biographical introduction. Angus & Robertson, Sydney.

  • Farris, J. S. 1988. Hennig86, version 1.5. Published by the author.

  • Goloboff, P. A. 1993. NONA, version 1.1. Published by the author.

  • Haldane, J. B. S. 1930. The duty of doubt. Pp. 211–224in J. B. S. Haldane, Possible worlds and other essays. Chatto and Windus, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G. &P. Y. Ladiges. 1991. Standard assumptions for biogeographic analysis. Australian Systematic Botany 4: 41–58 [addendum: 5: 247].

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1994. Three-item consensus: Empirical test of fractional weighting. Pp. 193–209in R. W. Scotland, D. J. Sieben & D. M. Williams (eds.), Models in phylogeny reconstruction. Systematics Association Special Volume No. 52. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1996. Paralogy in cladistic biogeography and analysis of paralogy-free subtrees. American Museum Novitates 3167: 1–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C. &G. D. Johnson. 1995. The intermuscular bones and ligaments of teleostean fishes. Smithsonian Contributions in Zoology 559: 1–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swofford, D. L. 1993. PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.1.1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Udovicic, F., G. I. Mcfadden &P. Y. Ladiges. 1995. Phylogeny ofEucalyptus andAngophora based on 5s rDNA spacer sequence data. Molecular Phylogeny and Evolution 4: 247–256.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Botany, The Natural History Museum, SW7 5BD, London, UK

    David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach

  2. Laboratoire Informatique et Systematic, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 12 Rue Cuvier, UMR 5143, 75005, Paris, France

    Malte C. Ebach

Authors
  1. David M. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Malte C. Ebach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Williams, D.M., Ebach, M.C. Drowning by numbers: Rereading Nelson’s “Nullius in Verba”. Bot. Rev 71, 415–447 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2005)071[0415:DBNRNN]2.0.CO;2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1663/0006-8101(2005)071[0415:DBNRNN]2.0.CO;2

Keywords

Search

Navigation