Morphology between Type Concept and Descent Theory

Coleman, William

doi:10.1093/jhmas/xxxi.2.149

Cited by 55 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Typological thought is certainly more compatible with evolutionary ideas than is horizontal classification (cf. Coleman, 1976). Indeed, one is inclined to agree with Nelson and Platnick's assertion (1981, p. 325), that taxonomists "always have been, are, will be, and should be" typologists, at least in the sense that I have been discussing (see also Sokal, 1962).…”

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Vicq d'Azyr, Cuvier, and others were finding so much information about organisms that it became easier to see discrete, rather than continuous, groups (Vicq d'Azyr, 1786, pp. 199, 312;translated in Stresemann, 1975, p. 173; see also Coleman, 1964;Farber, 1982). Ideas of types might further suggest themselves (Vicq d' Azyr, 1786, p. 32) since there was now perceptible unity in these groups (although this was less true ofCuvier, for whom the structure of an organ depended primarily on its function).…”

Section: The Development Of Typological Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That comparative anatomy and embryology tended to go out offashion at the end of the nineteenth century (Allen, 1975) did not cause the vertical, typological approach to taxonomy to be discontinued. Systematists were not affected by such changes in fashion, although systematics as a discipline was (Coleman, 1976).…”

Section: The Development Of Typological Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Metaphors and Typology in the Development of Botanical Systematics 1690–1960, or the Art of Putting New Wine in Old Bottles

Stevens

1984

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

from classification to phylogeny and the generally "unscientific" nature of systematics, but did not focus on the fundamental problem of horizontal methodology and vertical explanation. Attempts to make taxonomy more "scientific" emphasized the adoption of objective numerical methods and the avoidance of a priori weighting of characters. These attempts led to the development of the phenetic school. Classifications were to be general purpose using all characters, not special purpose (this included phylogenetic classification) using few characters. However, the uses of a general purpose classification were never really discussed in the context of mid-twentieth century biology. Additional concerns over stability of classification and the failure to see a uniform result of the various and decidedly nonuniform speciation mechanisms then known seem to have influenced these deliberations. Attempts were also made to produce classifications that more clearly reflected phylogenetic relationships. These attempts were affected by the feeling that taxonomy should become more "scientific," but otherwise they did not address the particular concerns that motivated the development of the phenetic school.From Linnaeus onwards, the development oftaxonomy can be seen as a complex interaction between groups more or less intuitively formed on the basis of rather restricted evidence and the subsequent theoretical j ustification of these groups. In the early 1800's, the general adoption of horizontal analogies in the discussion of the relationships of groups influenced the methodology of group formation. However, both the methodology and style of discussion of relationships persisted largely unchanged into the post-1859 era in which a different method of group formation and a different style of discussion were required. The tensions arising in systematics from this unperceived conflict, as well as other perceived problems with phylogenetic systematics, led to two reactions: one in some sense strengthened the connection of twentieth century taxonomy with an early nineteenth century pre-evolutionary world view, the other led to an attempt to reform taxonomy so that it became consistent with evolutionary ideas."But if he kick away the Ladder, the phylogeneticist cannot fall back on the Net: a species or genus cannot be connected in all directions: the emblem of a phylogeneticist is a Tree" (Bather, 1927, p. Ixxxiv).

show abstract

Section: Summary and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: The Development Of Typological Thoughtmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Metaphors and Typology in the Development of Botanical Systematics 1690–1960, or the Art of Putting New Wine in Old Bottles

Stevens

1984

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, even Gegenbaur worked in a pre-Darwinian methodological framework. What he identified by his comparative analysis were the`types' of Georges Cuvier (1769± 1832) (Coleman 1964(Coleman , 1976. The study of variations within that`types' could be interpreted as illustrating a historical process.…”

Section: Bauplan and Evolutionary Morphology ± Carl Gegenbaurmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post-Haeckelian comparative biology — Adolf Naef’s idealistic morphology

Breidbach

2003

Theory Biosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study describes the conceptual framework of Adolf Naef's idealistic morphology as presented at the onset of the 20 th century. According to Naef, Haeckel's and Gegenbaur's approaches towards a phylogenetic biology were insufficient. He made it clear that Haeckel's ideas were based on typological morphology. Thus, Haeckel's views on comparative biology pointed back to pre-Darwinian concepts. Naef's consequence was not to work out his own evolutionary morphology but to systematize the earlier typological concept. Consequently, he separated comparative morphology from phylogenetic studies. This idea was adopted by Hennig and was even imported into modern cladism.

show abstract

“…The archetype of early morphologists was replaced by the ancestor, and the concept of homology was reappraised in genealogical terms (Haeckel, 1874 ). As stated by Karl Gegenbaur, a leading morphologist converted to evolutionism, “the theory allowed what previously had been designated as Bauplan or Typus to appear as the sum of structural elements of animal organization which are propagated by means of inheritance” (cited in Coleman, 1976 ). The explanation for sameness changed from shared organizational rules to shared genealogy, and the “homolog” became defined as “the same trait in different lineages due to common ancestry” (Lankester, 1870 ).…”

Section: Introduction: the Problem Of Homologymentioning

confidence: 99%

On the hodological criterion for homology

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Owen's pre-evolutionary definition of a homolog as “the same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function” and its redefinition after Darwin as “the same trait in different lineages due to common ancestry” entail the same heuristic problem: how to establish “sameness.”Although different criteria for homology often conflict, there is currently a generalized acceptance of gene expression as the best criterion. This gene-centered view of homology results from a reductionist and preformationist concept of living beings. Here, we adopt an alternative organismic-epigenetic viewpoint, and conceive living beings as systems whose identity is given by the dynamic interactions between their components at their multiple levels of composition. We posit that there cannot be an absolute homology criterion, and instead, homology should be inferred from comparisons at the levels and developmental stages where the delimitation of the compared trait lies. In this line, we argue that neural connectivity, i.e., the hodological criterion, should prevail in the determination of homologies between brain supra-cellular structures, such as the vertebrate pallium.

show abstract

Morphology between Type Concept and Descent Theory

Cited by 55 publications

References 0 publications

Metaphors and Typology in the Development of Botanical Systematics 1690–1960, or the Art of Putting New Wine in Old Bottles

Metaphors and Typology in the Development of Botanical Systematics 1690–1960, or the Art of Putting New Wine in Old Bottles

Post-Haeckelian comparative biology — Adolf Naef’s idealistic morphology

On the hodological criterion for homology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About