Homage to Clio, or, Toward an Historical Philosophy for Evolutionary Biology

O’Hara, Robert J.

doi:10.2307/2992272

Cited by 237 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The output of this profession has become prodigious: It has been suggested that phylogeneticists as a group publish an average of 15 new evolutionary trees per day (Rokas 2006). Little surprise, then, that it has been argued that evolutionary biology as a whole has undergone a shift to "tree thinking" (O'Hara 1988), akin to the earlier movement toward "population thinking" that helped to shape the Neo-Darwinian synthesis around the mid-twentieth century (Mayr and Provine 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Evolutionary Trees

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Charles Darwin sketched his first evolutionary tree in 1837, and trees have remained a central metaphor in evolutionary biology up to the present. Today, phylogenetics-the science of constructing and evaluating hypotheses about historical patterns of descent in the form of evolutionary trees-has become pervasive within and increasingly outside evolutionary biology. Fostering skills in "tree thinking" is therefore a critical component of biological education. Conversely, misconceptions about evolutionary trees can be very detrimental to one's understanding of the patterns and processes that have occurred in the history of life. This paper provides a basic introduction to evolutionary trees, including some guidelines for how and how not to read them. Ten of the most common misconceptions about evolutionary trees and their implications for understanding evolution are addressed.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Evolutionary Trees

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 historical component of evolutionary biology, realizing that macroevolutionary patterns should only be examined in an explicitly phylogenetic context. Such "tree thinking" (O'Hara, 1988) began in the field of historical biogeography (Rosen, 1978;Platnick and Nelson, 1978) and was increasingly espoused by the early 1980's (e.g., Cracraft, 1981;Gittleman, 1981;Lauder, 1981;Ridley, 1983;Clutton-Brock and Harvey, 1984;Brooks, 1985), but the key turning point was the publication of Felsenstein's (1985) paper in the American Naturalist presenting the issue of shared ancestry as a difficulty in comparative analysis and the independent contrasts method as the solution. 4 Followed by a paper by Huey and Bennett (1987) proposing another method, evolutionary biologists had the analytical means to incorporate phylogenies into comparative analyses.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Seeing the Forest for the Trees: The Limitations of Phylogenies in Comparative Biology

Losos

2011

The American Naturalist

244

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last 30 years have seen a revolution in comparative biology. Prior to that time, systematics was not at the forefront of the biological sciences, and few scientists considered phylogenetic relationships when investigating evolutionary questions. By contrast, systematic biology is now one of the most vigorous disciplines in biology, and the use of phylogenies is not only requisite in macroevolutionary studies, but has been applied to a wide range of topics and fields that no one could possibly have envisioned 30 years ago. My message is simple: phylogenies are fundamental to comparative biology, but they are not the be all and end all. Phylogenies are powerful tools for understanding the past, but like any tool, they have their limitations. In addition, phylogenies are much more informative about pattern than they are about process. The best way to fully understand the past-both pattern and process-is to integrate phylogenies with other types of historical data as well as with direct studies of evolutionary process. 3I start with two observations about evolutionary biology. First, as attendance at the 2010 joint meeting of the American Society of Naturalists, the Society for the Study of Evolution, and the Society of Systematic Biologists attests, evolutionary biology is a thriving science. One sign of the health of this science, evident to any participant at the meeting, is the number of young people entering the field. This leads to my second observation. Evolutionary biology is inherently about history, the progression of life through time.Given these two points, I begin my essay by providing a service to the younger members of the field. In my ASN Presidential Address (from which this essay is adapted), I asked all members of the audience born since 1980 to raise their hands. My estimate, looking out upon the assembled masses, was that approximately 61.31% of the audience (was in this fledgling class. 1 These young workers, then, do not personally know the field of evolutionary biology before the year 2000 or so, much less what it was like in the 1970's, before their birth. So, in the spirit of a historical science, I briefly review what life was like in that ancient time. A Short History of Modern Comparative ApproachesAhh, the 1970's: bell bottoms and big hair. Disco, Abba and Led Zep. Happy Days, Grease, and Star Wars. Tricky Dick and Watergate. Not to mention the Oil Embargo (the result of a time when we relied on oil imported from the Middle East for much of our energy).But what about evolutionary biology? In particular, the more historical, systematic, macroevolutionary side of the field, which is so vibrant today. What was it like? In a word, it was non-existent. The importance of a historical, evolutionary perspective was realized, at least by some (e.g., Mayr, 1976), but systematics itself was a scientific backwater. The construction of phylogenies often was more an art than a science; evolutionary trees were constructed using simplistic algorithms or none at all. The use of phylogenies t...

show abstract

“…Second, he pointed out that historical explanations can be tested with "new archeological evidence" (Trigger, 1973, p. 108). These two characteristics are precisely those used by O'Hara (1988) and Brandon (1990) to describe historical explanations provided by evolutionary biologists (Cooper, 2002;Gould, 1986Gould, , 1989Moore, 2002).…”

Section: Idiographic and Nomothetic Archaeology Polemicmentioning

confidence: 98%

Nomothetic science and idiographic history in twentieth‐century Americanist anthropology

Lyman

O’Brien

2004

J History Behavioral Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For over a century, Americanist anthropologists have argued about whether their discipline is a historical one or a scientific one. Proponents of anthropology as history have claimed that the lineages of human cultures are made up of unique events that cannot be generalized into laws. If no laws can be drawn, then anthropology cannot be a science. Proponents of anthropology as science have claimed that there indeed are laws that govern humans and their behaviors and cultures, and these laws can be discovered. Interestingly, both sides have the same narrow view of what science is. The same sorts of debates over science and history were played out in evolutionary biology over a half-century ago, and what emerged was the view that that discipline and its sister discipline, paleontology, were both history and science-hence the term "historical sciences." Anthropology and its sister discipline, archaeology, have only recently begun to realize that they too are historical sciences.

show abstract

Homage to Clio, or, Toward an Historical Philosophy for Evolutionary Biology

Cited by 237 publications

References 30 publications

Understanding Evolutionary Trees

Understanding Evolutionary Trees

Seeing the Forest for the Trees: The Limitations of Phylogenies in Comparative Biology

Nomothetic science and idiographic history in twentieth‐century Americanist anthropology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About