Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:44:18.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Founding of Numerical Taxonomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Keith Vernon
Keith Vernon
Affiliation:
Department of Science and Technology Policy, University of Manchester.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is based on my M.Sc. dissertation: ‘The Origins of Numerical Taxonomy’ 1985, submitted to the University of Leicester during the tenure of a D.E.S. State Studentship. For this work I drew extensively on interviews with Professors A. J. Cain, G. A. Harrison, R. R. Sokal and P. H. A. Sneath. I am very grateful to them for their time, interest and encouragement. Without the indefatigable assistance of Jon Harwood, this paper would never have been finished.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 143 - 159
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Michener, C.D. and Sokal, R.R., ‘A Quantitative Approach to a Problem in Classification’, Evolution, (1957), 11, pp. 130–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCain, A.J. and Harrison, G.A., ‘An Analysis of the Taxonomist's Judgement of Affinity’, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1958), 131, pp. 85–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSneath, P.H.A., ‘Some Thoughts on Bacterial Classification’, J. Gen. Microbiol. (1957a), 17, pp. 184–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed ‘The Application of Computers to Taxonomy’, J. Gen. Microbol. (1957b), 17, pp. 201–26.Google ScholarRogers, D.J. and Tanimoto, T.T., ‘A Computer Program for Classifying Plants’, Science, (1960), 132, pp. 1115–1118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMedSneath, P.H.A. and Sokal, R.R., ‘Numerical Taxonomy’, Nature, (1962), 193, pp. 855–860.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

2 See Hull, D.L. ‘Thirty-one Years of Systematic Zoology’, Systematic Zool. (1983), 32, pp. 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar ‘Bias and Commitment in Science: Phenetics and Cladistics’, Annals of Science, (1985), 42, pp. 319–338.Google Scholar

3 For a thorough survey of numerical taxonomy see Sneath, P.H.A. and Sokal, R.R., Numerical Taxonomy, San Francisco, 1973.Google Scholar

4 Goodfellow, M., Jones, D. and Priest, F.G. (eds), Computer-assisted Bacterial Systematics. Special Publications of the Society for General Microbiology 15. London, 1985Google Scholar, dedication. The scope of this paper has, deliberately, been kept narrow, to enable a detailed examination of the founding of the numerical taxonomy position, achieved by these three groups. There is, of course, a much wider background of earlier attempts at a ‘quantitative taxonomy’, parallel developments in other fields, and taxonomy generally, in the twentieth century, which is cursorily summarized here. The background is considered in much greater depth in my Ph.D.thesis. In that work I also follow the subsequent development of numerical taxonomy and some of the controversies which surrounded its earlier history.

5 Sneath, , op. cit. (1).Google ScholarMichener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1).Google ScholarSokal, R.R. and Michener, C.D., ‘A Statistical Method for Evaluating Systematic Relationships’, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. (1958), 38, pp. 1409–1438.Google ScholarCain, A.J. and Harrison, G.A., op. cit. (1).Google Scholar

6 E.g., Mayr, E., The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, Mass. 1982, pp. 221–225.Google ScholarSokal, R.R., ‘The Principles of Numerical Taxonomy: Twenty-five Years Later’Google Scholar, in Goodfellow, James, and Priest, , op. cit. (4), pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

7 Stevens, P. F., ‘Metaphors and Typology in the Development of Botanical Systematics 1690–1960, or the Art of Putting New Wine in Old Bottles’, Taxon. (1984), 33, pp. 169–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 Darwin, C., The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, 6th edn. Reprint, Oxford.Google Scholar

9 E.g., Mayr, , op. cit. (6), pp. 222–226.Google ScholarCain, A.J., ‘Deductive and Inductive Methods in Post-Linnaean Taxonomy’, Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (1959), 170, pp. 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 Allen, G.E., Life Sciences in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge, 1975, p. xxiii.Google Scholar

11 Huxley, J.S. (ed.) The New Systematics, Oxford, 1940.Google Scholar

12 Mayr, E., ‘The New Systematics’, in Taxonomic Biochemistry, Physiology and Serology, Leone, C.A. (ed.), New York, 1963, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar

13 The new systematics was the approach to taxonomy which taxonomists derived from the volume of the same name, op. cit. (11).

14 Mayr, E. and Provine, W.B. (eds), The Evolutionary Synthesis, Cambridge, Mass., 1982.Google Scholar

15 Huxley, , op. cit. (11), p. 2.Google Scholar

16 Cain, A.J., personal communication.Google Scholar

17 E.g., Gilmour, J.S.L., ‘The Development of Taxonomic Theory Since 1951’, Nature, (1951), 168, pp. 400–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18 Blackwelder, R.E. and Boyden, A.A., ‘The Nature of Systematics’, Systematic Zool. (1952), 1, pp. 26–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBigelow, R.S., ‘Monophyletic Classification and Evolution’, Systematic Zool. (1956), 5, pp. 145–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBorgmeier, T., ‘Basic Questions of Systematics’, Systematic Zool. (1957), 6, pp. 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

19 Sneath, , op. cit. (1).Google Scholar

20 Sneath, P.H.A., Whelan, J.P.F., Bhagwan-Singh, R. and Edwards, D., ‘Fatal Infection by Chromobacterium violaceum’, Lancet, (1953), ii, pp. 276–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21 Sneath, P.H.A., ‘Putrescine as an Essential Growth Factor for a Mutant of Apsergillus nidulans’, Nature, (1955), 175, p. 818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSneath, P.H.A., ‘Failure of Chromobacterium violaceum to Grow on Nutrient Agar, Attributed to Hydrogen Peroxide’, J. Gen. Microbiol. (1955), 13, p. i.Google ScholarSneath, P.H.A., ‘Spontaneous Nature of Heritable Change to Production of Penicillinase’, Heredity, (1955), 9, p. 290.Google Scholar

22 Sneath's M.D. thesis was published in full in Iowa State Journal of Science, (1960), 34, pp. 243–500.Google Scholar

23 Sneath, P.H.A., ‘Cultural and Biochemical Characteristics of the Genus Chromobacterium’, (1956), 15, p. 70.Google Scholar

24 Sneath, P.H.A., ‘Conservation of the Generic Name Chromobacterium and Designation of Type Species and Type Strains’, International Bulletin of Bacteriological Nomenclature and Taxonomy, (1956), 6, pp. 65–91.Google Scholar

25 Sneath, P.H.A., ‘The Change from Polar to Peritrichous Flagellation in Chromobacterium, J. Gen. Microbiol. (1956), 15, pp. 99–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

26 Chester, F.D., A Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, New York, 1901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Sneath, , op. cit. (25), p. 104.Google Scholar

28 Cowan, S.T., ‘Ordnung in Das Chaos “Migula”’, Canad.J. Micro. (1956), 2, pp. 212–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Sneath, , op. cit. (1). a.Google Scholar

30 Bissett, K.A., Bacteria, Edinburgh, 1952.Google Scholar

31 Sneath, P.H.A., personal communication.Google Scholar

32 Sporne, K.R., ‘The Phylogenetic Classification of the Angiosperms’, Biol. Rev. (1956), 31, pp. 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Gilmour, J.S.L., ‘Taxonomy and Philosophy’Google Scholar in Huxley, , op. cit. (11), p. 461–474.Google Scholar

34 Gilmour, J.S.L., ‘A Taxonomic Problem’, Nature, (1937), 139, pp. 1040–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and op. cit. (33) and (17).

35 Gilmour was strongly influenced by positivist epistemology and cited Pringle, H., ‘The Rational and Empirical Elements in Physics’, Philosophy, (1938), 13, pp. 148–165.Google Scholar

36 Turrill, , op. cit. (17).Google Scholar

37 Bather, F.A., ‘Biological Classification: Past and Future’, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. Lond. (1927), 831, pp. ixii–civ.Google Scholar

38 Adanson, M., Families des Plantes, 2 vols. Paris, 1763, Vol. 1, Preface.Google Scholar

39 Sneath, P.H.A., ‘Early Experience with Computers’, Binary, the Society for General Microbiology Computer Club Newsletter, (1984), 1, pp. 5–7.Google Scholar

40 Sneath, , op. cit. (1), a.Google Scholar

41 Sneath, , op. cit. (1), b.Google Scholar

42 Michener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1)Google Scholar, Sokal, and Michener, , op. cit. (5).Google Scholar

43 Michener, C.D., ‘Comparative External Morphology, Phylogeny and a Classification of the Bees’, Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. (1944), 82, pp. 151–326.Google Scholar

44 Sokal, R.R. to Mayr, E., 25 09 1967.Google Scholar

45 Michener, C.D., ‘The Biology of a leaf-cutter Bee (M. brevis) and its Associates’, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull, (1953), 35, pp. 1659–1748.Google Scholar

46 Michener, C.D., ‘Comparative Morphology and Systematic Studies of Bee Larvae with a Key to the Families of Hymenopteran larvae’, Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., (1953), 35, pp. 987–1102.Google Scholar

47 Michener, to Author, , 27 01 1985.Google Scholar

48 Stroud, C.P., ‘An Application of Factor Analysis to the Systematics of Kaloternes’, Systematic Zool. (1953), 2, pp. 76–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 Thurstone, L.L., Multiple Factor Analysis, Chicago, 1947.Google Scholar

50 Sokal, R.R., ‘Variation in a Local Population of Pemphigus’, Evolution, (1952), 6, pp. 296–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSokal, R.R., ‘An Apparently Genetic Inhibition of Antennal Differentiation in the Aphid Pemphigus populi-transversus’, J. Hered. (1953), 44, pp. 219–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

51 Sokal, R.R. and Hunter, P.E., ‘A Morphometric Analysis of DDT Resistant and Non-resistant House-fly Strains’, Ann. Ent.Soc.Amer., (1955), 48, pp. 444–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Sokal, R.R., personal communication.Google Scholar

53 Hurd, P.D. and Michener, C.D., ‘The Megachiline Bees of California’, Bull. Calif. Insect Survey, (1955), 3, pp. 1–247.Google Scholar

54 Sturtevant, A.H., ‘The Classification of the Genus Drosophila with Descriptions of Nine New Species’, Univ. Texas Publ. (1942), 4213.Google Scholar

55 Sokal, R.R., personal communication.Google Scholar There was, however, a body of statistical literature relating to classification which Sokal would have known about, e.g., Pearson's Coefficient of Racial Likeness (Biometrika, (1926), 18, pp. 105–117)Google Scholar, Fisher's discriminant functions (Ann. Eugen. (1936), 7, pp. 179–188)Google Scholar and the work of the Indian statisticians and anthropometricians Mahalnobis and Rao (see Rao, , C.R., ‘Utilization of multiple Measurements in Problems of Biological Classification’, J. Roy. Statist. Soc., Ser. B, (1948), 10, pp. 159–193).Google Scholar These had not been adopted by taxonomists very widely but they formed part of the pool of statistical resources on which numerical taxonomy drew in subsequent years. Sokal especially made use of standard statistical procedures and adopted them to biological classification; later numerical taxonomists devised completely new methods.

56 Sokal, and Michener, , op. cit. (5).Google Scholar

57 Michener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1), pp. 130–131.Google Scholar

58 Ibid., p. 133.

59 Sokal, to Mayr, 3 04 1956Google Scholar, Mayr, to Sokal, 18 04 1956Google Scholar, Sokal, to Mayr, 9 05 1956Google Scholar, Sokal, to Simpson, 3 04 1956Google Scholar, Simpson, to Sokal, 16 04 1956Google Scholar, Sokal, to Simpson, 6 05 1956.Google Scholar Letters held by Sokal.

60 Michener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1).Google Scholar

61 Sokal, and Michener, , op. cit. (5).Google Scholar

62 Michener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1), p. 161.Google Scholar

63 Ibid., pp. 154–156.

64 Ibid. p. 157.

65 Cain, and Harrison, , op. cit. (1).Google ScholarCain, A.J. and Harrison, G.A., ‘Phylogenetic Weighting’, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. (1960), 135, pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66 Cain, A.J., ‘Demonstration of Lipine in the Golgi Apparatus in Gut Cells of Glossiphonia’, Quart. J. Sci. (1947), 88, pp. 151–157.Google ScholarPubMed

67 E.g., Cain, A.J. and Sheppard, P.M., ‘The Effects of Natural Selection on Body Colour in the Land Snail Cepaea nemoralis’, Heredity, (1952), 6, pp. 217–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCain, A.J. and Shepard, P.M., ‘Selection in the Polymorphic Land Snail Cepaea nemoralis’, Heredity, (1950), 4, pp. 279–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

68 Cain cited Carter, G., Animal Evolution, London, 1951Google Scholar, and objected to it specifically because it gave C. nemoralis as an example of random drift.

69 Cain, A.J., ‘So-called Non-Adoptive or Neutral Characters in Evolution’, Nature, (1951), 168, p. 424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarCain, A.J., ‘Nonadaptive or Neutral Characters in Evolution’, Nature, (1951), 168, p. 1049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 Cain, A.J., ‘Subdivisions of the Genus Ptilinopus, (Aves, Columbae)’, Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Zoology, (1954), 2, pp, 267–284.Google ScholarCain, A. J., ‘Affinities of the Fruit Pigeon Ptilinopus perousii, Peale’, Ibis, (1954), 96, pp. 104–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

71 See, e.g., Mayr, E., (ed.), The Species Problem, Washington, D.C., 1957.Google Scholar

72 Mayr, E., Systematics and the Origin of Species, New York, 1947.Google Scholar

73 See Cain, A.J., Animal Species and their Evolution, London, 1954.Google Scholar

74 E.g. Cain, , op. cit. (70).Google Scholar

75 Cain, A.J., ‘Chromosomes and Taxonomic Importance’, Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. (1958), 169, pp. 125–128.Google Scholar

76 Cain, A.J., personal communication.Google Scholar

77 Harrison, G.A., personal communication.Google Scholar

78 E.g., K. Pearson's Co-efficient of Racial Likeness. Pearson, K., ‘On the Co-efficient of Racial Likeness’, Biometrika, (1926), 18, pp. 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

79 Cain, and Harrison, , op. cit. (1).Google Scholar

80 Cain, and Harrison, , op. cit. (65).Google Scholar

81 See Tryon, R.C., Cluster Analysis, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1934.Google Scholar

82 Holzinger, K.J. and Harmon, H.H., Factor Analysis, Chicago, 1941.Google Scholar

83 There is some debate about the actual similarities between Adanson and what he was trying to achieve and what Sneath was trying to do. See Stafleu, F.A., ‘Adanson and the “families des Plantes”’ in Lawrence, G.H.M. (ed.) Adanson, the Bicentennial of Michel Adanson's ‘families des Plantes’, Pittsburgh, Part 1, pp. 123–264, 1963.Google Scholar

84 E.g., Sokal, , op. cit. (6).Google Scholar Computers became increasingly available and more powerful during the subsequent development of numerical taxonomy and much work was devoted to programming numerical taxonomy for computers. Although some early numerical taxonomic work was done by hand, with the volume of data required for measurements of overall similarity it was virtually inviable without using a computer.

85 Michener, and Sokal, , op. cit. (1), p. 161.Google Scholar

86 Merton, R.K., ‘Singletons and Multiples in Scientific Discovery’, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. (1961), 105, pp. 470–486.Google Scholar

87 Mulkay, M.J., ‘Conceptual Displacement and Migration in Science: A Prefaratory Paper’, Sci. Studies, (1974), 4, pp. 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

88 Schon, D., Displacement of Concepts, London, 1963.Google Scholar

89 Sokal, , personal communication.Google Scholar

90 Sneath, , personal communication.Google Scholar