Natural theology and nature's disguises

Blaisdell, Muriel L.

doi:10.1007/bf00233013

Cited by 14 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be remembered that the distinction between homologous and analogous characters was one of the important achievements of biology in the first half of the nineteenth century (e.g. Boyden, 1947;Ospovat, 1981, p. 105;Blaisdell, 1982;Stevens, 1984, for references). After 1859, interest in distinguishing between the two may have increased since they became interpretable in evolutionary terms, but the criteria for distinguishing between them did not change.…”

Section: Methodology Of Group Formation and Problems With Homologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stresemann, 1975, Chapter 10;Sloan, 1979, p. 119; see below) and persisted well into the nineteenth century (Coleman, 1976, p. 156). In the first part of the nineteenth century William Macleay's quinarian system became very popular (see Stresemann, 1975;Winsor, 1976, Chapter 4;Blaisdell, 1982;Stevens, 1984, for references). In this system both the continuity and multiplicity of relationships were allowed for.…”

Section: Metaphors and Analogies Of Relationships Between Natural Groupsmentioning

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

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: Methodology Of Group Formation and Problems With Homologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Metaphors and Analogies Of Relationships Between Natural Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…Naturphilosophie: Stresemann (1975), McOuat (1996, Endersby (2005). Stevens (1984) and Blaisdell (1982) consider Macleay an idealist but do not tie him explicitly to either tradition. about treating chains of affinity as circular.…”

Section: Macleay's System Was Not Idealisticmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Origins of the Quinarian System of Classification

Novick

2015

J Hist Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

William Sharp Macleay developed the quinarian system of classification in his Horæ Entomologicæ, published in two parts in 1819 and 1821. For two decades, the quinarian system was widely discussed in Britain and influenced such naturalists as Charles Darwin, Richard Owen, and Thomas Huxley. This paper offers the first detailed account of Macleay's development of the quinarian system. Macleay developed his system under the shaping influence of two pressures: (1) the insistence by followers of Linnaeus on developing artificial systems at the expense of the natural system and (2) the apparent tension between the continuity of organic nature and the failure of linear classification schemes (which continuity seemed to require). Against what he perceived as dogmatic indolence on the part of the Linnaeans, Macleay developed a philosophy of science in which hypotheses that exceeded the available evidence should be proposed and subjected to severe tests. He also developed a novel comparative anatomical methodology, the method of variation, to aid in his search for the natural system. Using this method, he developed an intricate system that showed how organic nature could be continuous without being linear. A failure to appreciate these facets of Macleay's thought has led to several misunderstandings of him and his work, most notably that he was an idealist. These misunderstandings are here rebutted.

show abstract

“…Ordish (1976:124–126) summarizes Kirby and Spence's discussion of insects that attack crops, but he comments that their approach was that of natural history, not eradication, and Kirby even inserted his view (not shared by Spence) that pest attacks were Divine judgment on human victims. However, preacher Kirby's emphasis was different in his 1833 two‐volume Bridgewater treatise, On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifested in the Creation of Animals and in their History, Habits and Instincts (Blaisdell 1982:166–172).…”

Section: Europementioning

confidence: 99%

History of Ecological Sciences, Part 45: Ecological Aspects of Entomology During the 1800s

Egerton¹

2013

Bulletin Ecologic Soc America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natural theology and nature's disguises

Cited by 14 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

On the Origins of the Quinarian System of Classification

History of Ecological Sciences, Part 45: Ecological Aspects of Entomology During the 1800s

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About