| Palæos: | ![]() |
Systematics |
| Systematics | Systematics Home |
| Page Back | Unit Back | Up | Unit Home |
| Page Next | Unit Next | Down | Systematics |
StatusThe coverage of the Systematics section is about as deep as its going to be. Although we treat Linnean taxonomy with a sympathetic hand, this is essentially a cladistically-organized site. Particular problems in systematics are treated in detail at so many points -- particularly in the vertebrate area -- that it would be impractical to summarize it all here. The vertebrate section also contains a fairly non-technical defense of the cladistic approach (not methodology) which may be worth consulting. See Cladograms. IndexSystematics: This
summary and introduction The Linnean System:
its rationale and approach of a similarity-based system Phenetics: a compromise system that never really got off the ground Cladistics:
a system based only on descent |
Systematics is the branch of biology that deals with classifying living beings: the diversity and interrelationships of living beings, both current organisms ("neontology") and prehistoric ones ("palaeontology"). It can be divided into three parts.
Taxonomy - the describing and naming new taxa (a taxon is any specifically defined group of organisms). Taxonomic groups are used to categorize similar taxa for identification-like field guides. These do not necessarily represent evolutionary trends. Smaller taxonomic groups used to relate organisms at greater levels of similarities.
Classification - the organization of information about diversity arranging them into a convenient, formal classification into a hierarchical system, and providing means of identifying them (e.g., diagnostic keys). [see e.g. the Linnean system]
Phylogeny - determination of the ancestral relationships of organisms, and the group's evolutionary history through time. Phylogenetics is the field of biology concerned with identifying and understanding the evolutionary relationships between the many different kinds of life on earth.
Symbolic Correspondences
The Scala Natura
Aristotle and the dawn of science
The Linnean System
The Darwinian Revolution
The Cladistic revolution
In pre-modern cultures, the world (including living organisms and
inanimate objects) was classified according to the archetypal mandala -
the four cardinal points, each associated with an element,
a season, a deity, an animal, and so on, which constituted the underlying
structure of the world (much as the elementary particles and forces in quantum physics is considered nowadays). This system of
symbolic correspondences
by association, which is metaphysical rather than scientific, reached great sophistication in the Chinese system of
Five
States of Change, the traditional Indian (Samkhyan and Tantric) doctrine of
tattwas,
and more recently (late 19th century) in
Hermetic Kabbalah, as well as in "New Age" thought in general.
A different slant on things was given by
Aristotle, who introduced the idea of the scala natura - the ladder of nature - according to which the natural world is interpreted in terms of the principle of plenitude, the overflowing abundance of the first principle or Godhead
which creates successive beings. The further the beings are from
the source the more ontologically impoverished they are. So you have
formless matter right at the bottom, then rocks, plants, lower animals,
higher animals, man, and finally spiritual and divine beings. This
hierarchical view of the world - the
Great
Chain of Being [see Arthur Lovejoy's classic coverage of this topic], persisted through the middle ages and up until the scientific revolution of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when it was replaced by a sort of
monotheistic
dualism - there is the material world or creation, and there is God in his heaven.
Though Aristotle's work in zoology was not without errors, it was the greatest biological synthesis of the time, and remained the ultimate authority for many centuries after his death. Animals could be classified by their way of life, their actions, or by their parts. His observations on the anatomy of octopus, cuttlefish, crustaceans, and many other marine invertebrates are remarkably accurate, and could only have been made from first-hand experience with dissection. Aristotle described the embryological development of a chick; he distinguished whales and dolphins from fish; he described the chambered stomachs of ruminants and the social organization of bees; he noticed that some sharks give birth to live young -- his books on animals are filled with such observations, some of which were not confirmed until many centuries later.
Aristotle's classification of animals grouped together animals with similar characters into genera (used in a much broader sense than the current Linnean definition) and then distinguished the species within the genera. He divided the animals into two types: those with blood, and those without blood (or at least without red blood). These distinctions correspond closely to our distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates. The blooded animals, corresponding to the vertebrates, included five genera: viviparous quadrupeds (mammals), birds, oviparous quadrupeds (reptiles and amphibians), fishes, and whales (which Aristotle did not realize were mammals). This basic division (except for the whales) was to be adopted by Linneus (for whom the "genera" became classes). The bloodless animals were classified as cephalopods (such as the octopus); crustaceans; insects (which included the spiders, scorpions, and centipedes, in addition to what we now define as insects); shelled animals (such as most molluscs and echinoderms); and "zoophytes," or "plant-animals," (e.g. corals) which supposedly resembled plants in their form.
In the 18th century the Swedish botanist Carl von Linne, better known under the Latinized form of his name, Linnaeus, developed what's known as the binomial system of classification, in order to simplify the chaotic state of affairs around at his time. (Some plants were given names ten words long for example). He used Latin because that was the academic language of the time. The modern system of classification in current widespread use is the binomial hierarchical system introduced by Linnaeus.
While Linneus founded taxonomy and classification, it was left to Charles Darwin in the 19th century to introduce the theory of evolution and hence make possible phylogenetic reconstruction; that is, the evolutionary relationships and history of the various groups of organisms through geological time (millions of years). That's where things really get interesting, because life as a dynamic process is much more fascinating than life as a static series of unchanging types.
Evolutionary Systematics
"Vertical" and "Horizontal" Classification
Over the last few decades there has been a major paradigm shift in biology and systematics, with the Linnean system being pretty much superseded by the cladistic one. Cladistics is based not on morphological similarity (as in the Linnean system) but on ancestor and descent relationship (phylogeny).
|
an example of the distinction between the Linnean and the Phylogenetic (cladistic) arrangements |
The difficulty of reconciling the Linnean and the Cladistic systems |
Proceedings
of a Mini-Symposium on Biological Nomenclature in the 21st Century
- suggests replacing the Linnean system with a cladistic phylogenetic system
of nomenclature. However R. K. Brummitt in Quite
Happy with the Present Code, Thank You - argues against the tendency
to reduce the Linnean system to the Cladistic one by eliminating paraphyletic
taxa.
Dinosaurs
and Evolution part 4 - by Jeff
Polling, Points out weaknesses of the Linnean scheme and argues for
the cladistic, with reference to Mononykus, a prehistoric animal that,
like Archaeopteryx,
was transitional between dinosaurs and birds (note: this page is part of
a longer discussion regarding evolution and creationism)
Phylogenetics
Databases and Information
It should be pointed out here that - as with fields of
science
in general - all of these biotic classification schemes are in a sense
arbitrary, dependent on the incomplete state of knowledge at present.
Systematic classifications are supposed to convey phylogenetic information
according to ancestry and descent, as well as being names for organisms
or groups of organisms. But there still is (and perhaps never will
be) a complete consensus on the phylogenetic relationships of organisms
on Earth. As research progresses, phylogenetic concepts change, and
the names that are tied to these concepts change as well. Research also
discovers numerous instances of wrongly applied labels, such as when two
or more species are found hiding under a single species name, and identifies
previously undescribed creatures and lineages for which new names are needed.
[note - part of above paragraph from
About
Protist Image Data]
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
Taxonomy: Classifying Life - John Kimball - excellent overview (part of
Kimball's Biology Pages)
![]()
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record - Keith B. Miller - online essay, makes some interesting observations
Biological Systematics : Principles and Applications
by Randall T. Schuh
| Page Back | Page Up | Page Top | Page Next |