The present review is neither bibliographical nor historical. I hope merely to overview the methodological strengths and weaknesses of Hennigian taxonom ical thought and of some recent works devoted to theoretical questions that have been revived by an increasing interest in that thought. A FASCINATING EPISTEMOLOGICAL VENTUREWilli Hennig ) was a German insect taxonomist who was known during his life time among Diptera specialists for numerous monographs assignable at first sight to alpha systematics (100). Although he published a major work on theoretical taxonomy in German as early as 1950 (74), he became famous only after the publication in 1966 of the English translation of a second book (77), which was not published in its original language until 1982 (82). Initially, his work engendered fierce attacks on his "phylogenetic sys tematics" by members of other taxonomic schools (41). Recently, however, Hennig's ideas have come to form the foundation of the fashionable cladistic school. The epistemological analysis of this venture will be a task for the future, provided that the original works are not forgotten. Hennig and His WorksOn this topic, we only need to supplement a previous review (4 1). Besides a first theoretical paper based on Diptera (70) , in 1936 Hennig published works on the Rassenkreis and the biogeography of the lizard genus Draco (7 1, 72). A criticism of the first paper (169) led Hennig to extend his study of Diptera larvae and to refine the notion of larva-imaginal incongruence (73). From this time on, 0066-4 162/841 1 120-000 1 $02.00Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1984.15:1-25 1968 (79). but it has been overlooked. In 1969, Hennig's treatise on fossil insects (80) opened with a chapter representing "the most complete, the most balanced, and perhaps the most felicitous expression of his thought" (41, p. 10). Since Hennig's death, his two fundamental books have been reprinted (74,77). His treatise of 1969 has been translated (perhaps with too many interpola tions and comments (81)], and his son, Professor Wolfgang Hennig, has edited three posthumous works: the most useful authentic German text of the first American book (82). a classification of Chordata (83). and-largely echoing a 1974 polemic with Mayr-a synopsis of the problems of phylogcnetic research (84). Hennig Today, Through Words and WorksHennig's ideas, commonly considered part of what is called cladism. continue to be discussed in many writings. Some words. such as c1adism. have to be explained, and a choice made among the various writings. SOME POL YSEMIC WORDSWhen coining the word clade from "cladogenesis .. . taken over directly from Rensch," Huxley intended to denote "delimitable monophyletic units" (96. p. 454) or. more precisely. "monophyletic units of whatever magnitude" (97, p. 27). He seems not to have known of an older use of this word (36) referring to a group of great magnitude possessing a particular structural type. i.e. simultaneously applied to a taxon. a higher taxonomic category, and a grade sensu Huxley!The In Hennig's ...
This article discusses the conditions of validity of customary phylogenetic (not phenetical) procedures. It starts not from the ‘species’, but from the internal allomorphy of proved short lineages. The requisites of homogeneity and completeness for such lineages seem satisfied by the Hennigian procedure but not by the Haeckelian one. The epistemological antinomy of the two procedures is emphasized for the first time. It appears analogous to the one existing between preformation and epigenesis, and its reduction will depend on the progress of developmental genetics. The conclusions argue in favour of a sound awareness of the procedure underlying a given phylogenetic construct. Moreover, precise questions related to conditionality would seem to advocate an extensive use of propositional logic which, last year, discreetly entered the phylogenetical arena.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.