Palæos: Systematics
Systematics Systematics
 Home

Page Back Unit Back Unit Home
Page Next Down Systematics

Systematics


Status

The 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.

Index

Systematics: This summary and introduction
     Grade and Clade: the conceptual problem -- similarity or descent?
     Cladistics: a Really, Really Short Introduction
     Glossary: some useful terms

The Linnean System: its rationale and approach of a similarity-based system
     Evolutionary Systematics: an attempt to mix descent with similarity
     The Linnean Ranks: Kingdom: a group of pages discussing the Linnean ranks

Phenetics: a compromise system that never really got off the ground

Cladistics: a system based only on descent
     Introduction
     Key Definitions: Apomorphy: a group of pages defining the key cladistic concepts
     Incompatibility with Linnean Taxonomy: why they can't be reconciled
     Molecular Phylogenies: the new wave.

Systematics - a definition

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.

Systematics - history

Symbolic Correspondences
The Scala Natura
Aristotle and the dawn of science
The Linnean System
The Darwinian Revolution
The Cladistic revolution

Symbolic Correspondences

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 Kheper Site symbolic correspondences by association, which is metaphysical rather than scientific,  reached great sophistication in the Chinese system of Kheper Site Five States of Change, the traditional Indian (Samkhyan and Tantric) doctrine of Kheper Site tattwas, and more recently (late 19th century) in Kheper Site Hermetic Kabbalah, as well as in "New Age" thought in general.

The Scala Natura

A different slant on things was given by External Link 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 Kheper Site 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 Kheper Site monotheistic dualism - there is the material world or creation, and there is God in his heaven.

Aristotle and the dawn of science

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.

The Linnean System

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.

internal link The Linnean system

The Darwinian Revolution

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.

internal link Evolutionary Systematics

internal link "Vertical" and "Horizontal" Classification

The Cladistic revolution

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).

internal link Cladistics



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 Phylogenetics Databases and Information

It should be pointed out here that - as with fields of Kheper Site 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 external link About Protist Image Data]


 

Linnean taxonomy

evolutionary systematics

cladistics

 

Kheper Site The Scala Natura

The Linnean system

Evolutionary Systematics

Cladistics

Phenetics


Web links

Links

Web links

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

cover
Biological Systematics : Principles and Applications

by Randall T. Schuh

Page Back Page Top Page Next

 


images not loading? | error messages? | broken links? | suggestions? | criticism?
contact me

content by M. Alan Kazlev - all original text on this page is open source and free for use
checked ATW051008
page uploaded 28 April 2002, last modified MAK050104