“进化纲”和进化纲:一个分类学的奥德赛。

IF 1.3 4区 生物学 Q3 BIOLOGY Theory in Biosciences Pub Date : 2021-02-01 Epub Date: 2020-10-23 DOI:10.1007/s12064-020-00326-2
P Tassy, M S Fischer
{"title":"“进化纲”和进化纲:一个分类学的奥德赛。","authors":"P Tassy,&nbsp;M S Fischer","doi":"10.1007/s12064-020-00326-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The fate of \"clade,\" both as concept and word, is reconstructed here beginning with its first appearance in 1866 as \"Cladus,\" in Haeckel's Generelle Morphologie, continuing up to the present. Although central to phylogenetics, the concept of clade is paradoxical since it has been ambiguously understood or even misunderstood by its own promoters. Writings by Ernst Haeckel, Lucien Cuénot, and Julian Huxley, the three authors who discussed the notion of clade at length, are analyzed here in detail as a means of exploring this paradox. First conceived as a rank for a higher-level category, and later as a taxon, the clade is understood today in connection with Hennig's definition of a monophyletic group rather than through Huxley's successful but somehow ambiguous formalization. The inability of these authors to formulate a clear-cut exposition of the concept is considered here within three contexts: firstly, the burden of pre-Darwinian classifications based on similarity; secondly, the underestimation of Darwin's description of a genealogical group; and thirdly, the predominance of thinking in process (vs thinking in pattern), which was the basis of evolutionary systematics in the mid-twentieth century.</p>","PeriodicalId":54428,"journal":{"name":"Theory in Biosciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12064-020-00326-2","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"\\\"Cladus\\\" and clade: a taxonomic odyssey.\",\"authors\":\"P Tassy,&nbsp;M S Fischer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12064-020-00326-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The fate of \\\"clade,\\\" both as concept and word, is reconstructed here beginning with its first appearance in 1866 as \\\"Cladus,\\\" in Haeckel's Generelle Morphologie, continuing up to the present. Although central to phylogenetics, the concept of clade is paradoxical since it has been ambiguously understood or even misunderstood by its own promoters. Writings by Ernst Haeckel, Lucien Cuénot, and Julian Huxley, the three authors who discussed the notion of clade at length, are analyzed here in detail as a means of exploring this paradox. First conceived as a rank for a higher-level category, and later as a taxon, the clade is understood today in connection with Hennig's definition of a monophyletic group rather than through Huxley's successful but somehow ambiguous formalization. The inability of these authors to formulate a clear-cut exposition of the concept is considered here within three contexts: firstly, the burden of pre-Darwinian classifications based on similarity; secondly, the underestimation of Darwin's description of a genealogical group; and thirdly, the predominance of thinking in process (vs thinking in pattern), which was the basis of evolutionary systematics in the mid-twentieth century.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54428,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Theory in Biosciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12064-020-00326-2\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Theory in Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-020-00326-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/10/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theory in Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12064-020-00326-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/10/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

“进化枝”的命运,无论是作为概念还是作为单词,都在这里被重建,从1866年它第一次出现在海克尔的《一般形态学》(Generelle Morphologie)中的“克拉多斯”开始,一直持续到现在。虽然是系统发育的中心,但进化的概念是矛盾的,因为它被自己的启动子模糊地理解甚至误解了。恩斯特·海克尔(Ernst Haeckel)、吕西安·库萨梅特(Lucien cusamunot)和朱利安·赫胥黎(Julian Huxley)这三位详细讨论过进化支概念的作者的著作,在这里被详细分析,作为探索这一悖论的一种手段。这个支系最初被认为是一个高级范畴的等级,后来被认为是一个分类单元,今天人们对它的理解与亨尼格对单系群的定义有关,而不是通过赫胥黎成功的、但多少有些模棱两可的形式化。这些作者无法明确阐述这一概念,在以下三种情况下考虑:首先,基于相似性的前达尔文分类的负担;其次,低估了达尔文对系谱群体的描述;第三,过程思维(相对于模式思维)的优势,这是20世纪中期进化系统学的基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"Cladus" and clade: a taxonomic odyssey.

The fate of "clade," both as concept and word, is reconstructed here beginning with its first appearance in 1866 as "Cladus," in Haeckel's Generelle Morphologie, continuing up to the present. Although central to phylogenetics, the concept of clade is paradoxical since it has been ambiguously understood or even misunderstood by its own promoters. Writings by Ernst Haeckel, Lucien Cuénot, and Julian Huxley, the three authors who discussed the notion of clade at length, are analyzed here in detail as a means of exploring this paradox. First conceived as a rank for a higher-level category, and later as a taxon, the clade is understood today in connection with Hennig's definition of a monophyletic group rather than through Huxley's successful but somehow ambiguous formalization. The inability of these authors to formulate a clear-cut exposition of the concept is considered here within three contexts: firstly, the burden of pre-Darwinian classifications based on similarity; secondly, the underestimation of Darwin's description of a genealogical group; and thirdly, the predominance of thinking in process (vs thinking in pattern), which was the basis of evolutionary systematics in the mid-twentieth century.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Theory in Biosciences
Theory in Biosciences 生物-生物学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
21
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Theory in Biosciences focuses on new concepts in theoretical biology. It also includes analytical and modelling approaches as well as philosophical and historical issues. Central topics are: Artificial Life; Bioinformatics with a focus on novel methods, phenomena, and interpretations; Bioinspired Modeling; Complexity, Robustness, and Resilience; Embodied Cognition; Evolutionary Biology; Evo-Devo; Game Theoretic Modeling; Genetics; History of Biology; Language Evolution; Mathematical Biology; Origin of Life; Philosophy of Biology; Population Biology; Systems Biology; Theoretical Ecology; Theoretical Molecular Biology; Theoretical Neuroscience & Cognition.
期刊最新文献
Do concepts of individuality account for individuation practices in studies of host–parasite systems? A modeling account of biological individuality Spaces of mathematical chemistry Prioritizing cervical cancer candidate genes using chaos game and fractal-based time series approach. Application of network pharmacology in synergistic action of Chinese herbal compounds. Rethinking life and predicting its origin.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1