Book contents
- Cladistics
- The Systematics Association Special Volume Series
- Cladistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Carving Nature at Its Joints, or Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs and Men Are Not Apes
- Part I The Interrelationships of Organisms
- Part II Systematics: Exposing Myths
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
Introduction: Carving Nature at Its Joints, or Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs and Men Are Not Apes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 July 2020
Book contents
- Cladistics
- The Systematics Association Special Volume Series
- Cladistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction: Carving Nature at Its Joints, or Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs and Men Are Not Apes
- Part I The Interrelationships of Organisms
- Part II Systematics: Exposing Myths
- Part III The Cladistic Programme
- Part IV How to Study Classification
- Part V Beyond Classification
- Afterword
- Index
- Systematics Association Special Volumes
- References
Summary
The phrase in the title above – ‘carving nature at its joints’ – comes from Plato’s Phaedrus asking how and why people ‘carve-up’ and partition the organic world in the way they do. In short: “How do we classify the world?” There are, of course, many ways to classify, but the central question for biology is why are some groups of organisms, such as birds, recognised as real groups, when others, such as invertebrates, are rejected as such? This, of course, begs an additional question as to what ‘real’ might mean in terms of classification.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- CladisticsA Guide to Biological Classification, pp. 1 - 10Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Appel, TA. 1987. The Cuvier-Geoffrey Debate: French Biology in the Decades before Darwin. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bik, HM. 2017. Let’s rise up to unite taxonomy and technology. PLoS Biology 15(8): e2002231CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brundin, L. 1966. Transantarctic relationships and their significance as evidenced by chironomid midges. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlinger 11 (Series 4): 1–472.Google Scholar
Cartmill, M. 2018. A sort of revolution: systematics and physical anthropology in the 20th century. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 165: 677–687.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, Essex.Google Scholar
Greenwood, PH., Miles, RS. & Patterson, C. (eds) 1973. Interrelationships of Fishes. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Grimaldi, DA. & Engel, MS. 2007. Why descriptive science still matters. BioScience 57(8): 646–647.Google Scholar
Halstead, LB. 1978. The cladistic revolution: can it make the grade? Nature 276: 759–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennig, W. 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher Zentralverlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Hug, LA., Baker, BJ., Anantharaman, K., Brown, CT., Probst, AJ., Castelle, CJ., Butterfield, CN., Hernsdorf, AW., Amano, Y., Ise, K., Suzuki, Y., Dudek, N., Relman, DA., Finstad, KM., Amundson, R., Thomas, BC. & Banfield, JF. 2016. A new view of the tree of life. Nature Microbiology 1: 16048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huxley, TH. 1854. On the common plan of animal forms. Annals and Magazine of Natural History 14 (2nd ser.): 72–74.Google Scholar
Kluge, AG. & Farris, JS. 1969. Quantitative phyletics and the evolution of Anurans. Systematic Zoology 18: 1–32.Google Scholar
Lecointre, G. & Le Guyader, H. 2007. The Tree of Life: A Phylogenetic Classification. Belknap Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Le Guyader, H. 2004. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire: A Visionary Naturalist. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
McTavish, EJ., Drew, BT., Redelings, B. & Cranstom, KA. 2017. How and why to build a unified tree of life. BioEssays 2017: 1700114. https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.201700114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. 1979. Cladistic analysis and synthesis: principles and definitions, with a historical note on Adanson’s Familles des Plantes. Systematic Zoology 28: 1–21.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. 1989. Species and taxa: systematics and evolution. In: Otte, D & Endler, J (eds), Speciation and Its Consequences. Sinauer, Sunderland, pp. 60–81.Google Scholar
Nelson, GJ. 2004. Cladistics: its arrested development. In: Williams, DM & Forey, PL (eds), Milestones in Systematics. CRC Press, Florida, pp. 127–147.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. & Platnick, NI. 1981. Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Ogilvie, BW. 2006. The Science of Describing: Natural History in Renaissance Europe. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Pavord, A. 2005. The Naming of Names: The Search for Order in the World of Plants. Bloomsbury, London.Google Scholar
Puigbò, P., Wolf, YI. & Koonin, EV. 2009. Search for a ‘Tree of Life’ in the thicket of the phylogenetic forest. Journal of Biology 8: 59. https://doi:10.1186/jbiol159Google Scholar
Richards, R. 2008. The Tragic Sense of Life: Ernst Haeckel and the Struggle over Evolutionary Thought. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Ruse, M. 1997. From Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Schmitt, M. 2003. Willi Hennig and the rise of cladistics. In: Legakis, A., Stenthourakis, S., Polymeni, R. & Thessalou-Legaki, M. (eds), The New Panorama of Animal Evolution. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Moscow, pp. 369–379.Google Scholar
Wade, N. 1981. Dinosaur battle erupts in British Museum. Science 211 (4477): 35–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wanntorp, H-E. 1993. Lars Brundin 30 May 1907 – 17 November 1993. Cladistics 9: 357–367.Google Scholar
Wiley, EO. & Liebermann, BS. 2011. Phylogenetics: Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 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: 685–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, DM. & Ebach, MC. 2017. What is intuitive taxonomic practice? Systematic Biology 66: 637–643.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by