thirty-one years of systematic zoology-by david l. hull. systematic zoology, vol. 32, no. 4 (dec.,...
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
1/29
Society of Systematic iologists
Thirty-One Years of Systematic ZoologyAuthor(s): David L. HullSource: Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315-342Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.for the Society of Systematic BiologistsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2413161.
Accessed: 21/07/2014 16:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd.and Society of Systematic Biologistsare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Systematic Zoology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancishttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ssbiolhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2413161?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2413161?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ssbiolhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
2/29
Syst.
ool.,
32(4):315-342, 1983
THIRTY-ONE
YEARS
OF
SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY
DAVID L.
HULL
Department f
Philosophy,niversity
f
Wisconsin-Milwaukee,
Milwaukee,Wisconsin3201
Abstract.-The number
nd percentageof
pages devoted to
various topics n
Systematicoology
are traced from he
inception
of the
ournal
to the
present.
The
categories
used
include
papers
that:
a)
are
largely
descriptive; b) argue
for or
against
a
particular
axonomic
philosophy; (c)
apply
the
methods of a
particular
taxonomic
philosophy; (d) are
primarily
quantitative; e)
discuss
nomenclatural
problems,
nd are either
theoretical r
applied papers
in
(f)
evolutionary
theory, g)
phylogeny
reconstruction,
r
(h)
biogeography.
Changes
in
proportions
of contri-
butions
in
these
categories
are
mapped
onto
changes
in
editorship
of
the
journal to see what
effects
uch
changes
have
had
on the
sorts f
papers published.
The
changes
in
Editorof
primary
concern
nvolve the move from he
American Museum of
Natural
History
to the
University
f
Kansas in
1963 and the return o the
AmericanMuseum 10
years
ater n
1973.
Systematicoology;
taxonomic
philosophy;
evolutionary
ystematics; henetics;
cladistics;
numerical
taxonomy.]
In 1947
at a
meeting
of
the
American
Association for
the
Advancement of Sci-
ence,
the
Society of
Systematic
Zoology
was
formed nd had its
first nnual
busi-
ness
meetingthenext
year n
Washington,
D.C.
In
1952 the
Society
began
to
publish
Systematicoology.
R.
E.
Blackwelder
pro-
duced the first
umber.
Thereafter,he ed-
itorshippassed to John L. Brooks of Yale
University,
who
served as Editot
for
61/2
years.
In
1958 the
journal moved to
the
American
Museum of
Natural
History,
where Libbie H.
Hyman became
Editor
pro
tem
and, a
year ater, ditor.After
1/2ears
in
New
York,
the
journal
moved to the
University
f
Kansas,
where it
was edited
successively by George
W.
Byers
(three
years),
RichardF.
Johnstonfour
years)
nd
A.
J.Rowell
(threeyears). n
1973 the our-
nal returned to the American Museum,
where Niles
Eldredge and
Gareth
Nelson
edited it for
three
years,
succeeded
by
Randall T.
Schuh
for
another
threeyears.
In
1980
James Dale
Smith
of the
Natural
History Museum
of Los
Angeles
County
took
over
fora
three-year
erm.
Everyonewho has
read
Systematic
ool-
ogy
through
the
years
has
his or her
own
ideas about
the
effects hat
these changes
in editorshiphave had on the contentof
the
journal,
but
such
casual, haphazard
observations are
notoriously untrustwor-
thy.
In
this paper
I
trace the
historyof
Systematic
oologyfrom its
inception
in
1952 to the
present.
What percentage of
papers have been
largely
descriptive?Of
those
papers
that
have
actually
concerned
taxonomic
philosophy, what
percentage
have
favored particular
hilosophy; how
many
opposed? How have the
ratios of
positive
to negative
papers
dealing
with
particular schools changed through the
years?
What percentage of
papers have
been
largely applications of
particular
taxonomic
philosophies,
and how
many
general discussions of
quantitative meth-
ods?
Distinguishing
between
theoretical
and
applied
papers,
what
percentagehave
concerned the
evolutionary
process,
bio-
geography
and
phylogeny
reconstruc-
tion?
What
percentage
of
papers through
the
years
have dealt with
nomenclatural
issues? Finally, how have the books re-
viewed
in
Systematic
oology
ared?
The
question
of
greatest interest
is,
however,
have
changes
in
Editor
been ac-
companied
by
changes
in
the constitution
of the
ournal?
Sociologists
of science
claim
thateditors nd their
preferences
re
very
significant actors
n
the
publishing pro-
cess. For
example,
W. D.
Garvey 1979:84)
stated
that,
like
most
scientists,
most ed-
itorshave attitudes bout whatconstitutes
quality
n their
ournal.
These
attitudes
re
influenced by their
theoretical
bias,
their
methodological
preferences, tc.,
nd
they
315
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
3/29
316
SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY
VOL. 32
tend to select consulting editors
and ref-
erees who share them." Has
this been true
of the Editors f Systematicoology?
would
be less than candid to
not
admit
that ex-
pected significant hanges when System-atic Zoology moved to Kansas and again
when
it
leftKansas
forthe American
Mu-
seum, while
I
did not anticipate any rad-
ical changes in editorial policy when the
journal
moved across
the
continent from
New
York to Los
Angeles. Why
is this?
The obvious answer is that the shiftto
Kansas was accompanied by the rise
n the
United States of
a
particular
chool of
tax-
onomy
centered at
Kansas,
and the move
to the American Museum happened to co-
incide with the rise
in
the United States
of
yet
another
philosophy
of
systematics,
this time
emanating
from the American
Museum.
Although
one event cannotcause
another unless the two events are coinci-
dent,
coincidence does
not
guarantee
causation.
Perhaps
these correlationswere
merelyaccidental. After ll, Allen Press is
in
Lawrence, Kansas. Perhaps that was ac-
tually
the most relevant causal
factorfor
the move to Kansas. However, I thinkthat
it
s
verydifficulto discount
the
roles that
the
early leaders
of
these
two schools
of
taxonomy played. Protests
to
the
officers
of
the Society of Systematic oology
from
Robert R. Sokal about Hyman's treatment
of
papers
with numbers
in
them was
in-
strumental
n
transferring
he
journal
to
Kansas,
while
Nelson's
complaints
to
Rowell were an
instigating
cause for the
move to
New
York.
Systematicoology
had
been at Kansas long enough. It was time
fora
change.
One
chief difference etween the two
situations s thatSokal was never Editor
of
the journal, and Byers can hardly
be
termed
a
strong
advocate
for either
phe-
netics
or
numerical
taxonomy. Although
Johnston
nd Rowell were somewhat
more
committed to the
phenetics movement,
neitherof themwas
extremely
ocal
in his
position. Yet, my
nitial
suspicion
was that
having a journal at one's own institution
is liable to make access to its
pages
a bit
easier.
The
situation
afterthe move
from
Kansas is somewhat
clearer.
All four sub-
sequent Editors
were
openly
committed
o
the cause
of
cladistic analysis,
and one of
them was Gareth Nelson.
One
minor
but irritatingdifficulty
n
deciding theeffecthatchanges in editor-ship had on editorial policy in Systematic
Zoology
s
that some Editorswilled quite a
few papers to their successors,while oth-
ers cleared out their files before leaving
office. second
complication
s
that,
t the
end
of 1975, Eldredge and Nelson insti-
tuteda
system
f
Associate Editors.As
this
system usually worked, Associate Editors
could
reject paper
on their wn but
could
accept
one
only contingent pon
the
Man-
aging Editor's approval. On occasion, an
Associate Editor disagreed with the Man-
aging
Editor.
A few
cases
of
such
disagree-
ments are fairly well
known.
However,
because no
figures
exist
concerning
the
number of these disagreements or their
eventual
resolution,
I
have
ignored
this
complication.
I
have divided papers ac-
cording to Managing Editors,not Associ-
ate
Editors, ttributing ossibly too much
influence to the former. also have not
distinguishedbetween Eldredgeand Nel-
son.
The majoromission
in
thispaper is that
I
do not discuss the refereeingprocess. In
the
early years, rejection
rates were
quite
low, rarely xceeding 10%. Under such cir-
cumstancesone cannot attribute oo much
influence to the Editor.
But,
as the size
of
the
ournal ncreased,
o did
rejection
ates.
Under
Johnston hey ranged
from20% to
over 30%.
Thereafter, hey
continued to
rise until theyreached as high as 50% to
60%.
The
higher
the
rejection rates,
the
more influence
an
Editor can have. One
might
also
expect
author dissatisfaction o
correlate
trongly
with increased
rejection
rates.ButrejectionratesfromEditortoEd-
itor are notstrictly omparable because of
the
different
eporting rocedures
used
by
different
ditors,
some
including papers
sent
back
for
revision,
others not.
I
have
omitted
any
reference to the
refereeing
process chieflyfortwo reasons. First, t is
confidential,
nd second the relevant
data'
are
not available.
(The Systematic oology
archives
at
the Smithsonian Museum
are
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
4/29
1983
ANALYSIS OF
SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY
317
very sparse until
the tenure of Eldredge
and Nelson.)
A few
examples of disputes
over the handling
of
papersare legendary,
but
I think t
would detract
from he pur-
poses of this paper
to
discuss
them here.
Any impressions I mightgive would be
just that-impressions and nothing
more.
As dissatisfying s my
decision is likely to
be
to
certain
readers,
n this
paper
I deal
only withthepublic face
of
Systematic
o-
ology, he
resultsof the
refereeing rocess
and not that process itself.
Categorizing
the
papers
in
Systematic
Zoology
for a
period
of 31
years during
which
issues,
alliances, nterests,
nd
even
terminology ave changed drastically
s
far
from easy. I had always been convinced
thattheway one categorizes subjectmat-
ter strongly nfluences he results
of
one's
investigations,but
the current tudy has
driven this truth
home to me
more
con-
vincingly than any
general arguments
could have.
For
example,
n the
earlyyears,
the Kansas school
was pushing two, t east
partially ndependent,positions-phenet-
ics and
numerical taxonomy. Phenetics
concerned
a
philosophy
of classification.
According to one overly condensed char-
acterization of
this
philosophy,
classifica-
tions
should
be
constructed
on the basis
of
numerous, unweighted (or equally
Weighted) characters,
t least
initially,
o
that
organisms
are clustered according to
overall
similarity.
Numerical taxonomy
embodies the conviction
that the
proce-
dures
of classification hould
be
as
quan-
titative s
possible.
Early
dvocates of these
twoviews saw a close connection between
them.
n
order
to be
sufficientlyuantita-
tive and
objective,
a classificationhad to
be
phenetic-at
least
initially.
As it
turns out,
there s a large overlap
between
papers advocating phenetic phi-
losophyand quantitativemethods, t least
in
the
early years,
but then the
two seem
to
have
gone
their
eparate
ways.
The con-
troversy
ver
phenetics
ubsided
while the
number
of
papers utilizing
or
discussing
quantitativemethods remained high. In
this
paper
I
treat
the
controversies over
taxonomic
philosophy
as
primary
nd
the
use
of
quantitative
methods
as
secondary.
My ustification
or hisdecision
is thatob-
jections
to quantitative methods were
short-lived,
while
the
controversies
over
taxonomic
philosophy
continue.
Rather
quickly the question became
not
whether
to use quantitative methods but which
ones.
Classing
all
quantitative
papers
to-
gether
year afteryear would
not
be very
instructive. Papers advocating quantita-
tive methods
appeared
in
Systematic
ool-
ogy ong
before the Kansas
group got
to-
gether,
ncluding
a
posthumous
paper by
Stroud
1953),
a close friend f
Sokal's
from
college. And
many
of
the
quantitative
pa-
pers
after the advent of
Numerical Tax-
onomy had
no
apparent
connection
to the
efforts f Sokal and his group. In thispa-
per
I am
not
interested
n
the
frequency
of
disembodied
ideas but in the influence
of
particular
esearch
programs
n
the
sys-
tematics
community.However, ignoring
all the
papers
in
Systematicoologywhich
advocated
quantitativemethods,
but did
not
happen to mention pheneticphiloso-
phy,would also be
misleading.
The
efforts
of the
group of workers
initially
located
at
Kansas did
give
increased
impetus
to
the use ofquantitativemethods n system-
atics.
My
decision was to
score
papers
first
on
professed systematic
philosophy
and
then to
add later
two
additional sorts of
papers-those
applying phenetic methods
and those that discuss
quantitative meth-
ods.
Although
this
compromise
s
farfrom
ideal,
it is the best I could do.
Cladistics
also
provided
some
problems.
Cladistics as
a taxonomic
philosophy
had
two independent origins in the United
States-J.
S.
Farris,
first t the
University
of
Michigan
and
then
at
Stony Brook,
nd
Gareth
Nelson
at the
American Museum.
Initially,
Farris was concerned
with de-
veloping quantitative
methods for
infer-
ring phylogenies.
Later
he became
in-
creasingly involved
in
debates
over
taxonomic
philosophy,becoming
the
chief
critic of
phenetic
taxonomy.
Of
course,
otherworkerswere also
writingpapers on
numericalcladisticsat thetime, ncluding
Sokal himself.The
question
s how to
score
these
papers.
To
begin
with,
most of
the
papers
in numerical
cladistics do
not
con-
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
5/29
318
SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY
VOL.
32
cern taxonomic
philosophy
but
phyloge-
ny
reconstruction
Fitch and
Margoliash,
1967;
Fitch,1971). The
two, of
course, are
not
unconnected.
Anyone who argues
that
phylogenies are
impossible to
reconstruct
is not likely to argue that classifications
should
be based on
phylogeny.However,
devising methods for
reconstructing
hy-
logeny can be
and usually
has been
dis-
tinctfrom
heformulation
f
methods for
translating
hylogenetic
nformation nto
classifications.
n
thispaper,
I
distinguish
between the two.
Many
numericalcladists
emphasize the
numerical
side of their
work.
I
have
scored these
papers
as con-
tributing o "numericaltaxonomy" n thebroad
sense
(quantitative
methods). Other
numerical
cladists
emphasize the
cladistic
side of
their work
in
opposition to
phe-
netics.
I
have scored these
papers
as con-
tributions to
cladistic
philosophy,
not
"numerical
taxonomy."
Subdividing nu-
merical
cladistics
in
this
way
is
likely
to
strike
ome as unnatural. f
my goal were
to show
the
continuinguse of
quantitative
methods n
systematics,
t
would
be,
but
I
see no real point in documentingthe ob-
vious.
A
significant
number
of
practicing
systematists
se
quantitative
methods.
In
this
sense, "numerical
taxonomy"
has
triumphed. The
interesting
question is,
how
about
phenetics?
I
have
made
a parallel
decision for cla-
distics and
vicariance
biogeography.
Whether
or not there
is
a
necessary
con-
nection
between
these two sets of
deas,
it
just
so
happens
that
nearly
all
the
papers
arguing for vicariance biogeography are
by
cladists, nd these
papers
have
contrib-
uted
indirectly o the
cladistic
movement.
Ignoring
them
would
be
misleading.
In-
cluding them with
papers
arguingfor the
principles
of cladistic
systematics
would
be
just
as
misleading.
I
have
opted
to
add
two
additional sortsof
papers
to the
ist of
papers
classified as
cladistics-those
ap-
plying
cladistic
methods
and those
advo-
cating
vicariance
biogeography.
As
in
the
case ofphenetics, have represented hese
three
classes of
papers
so
that
nyone
who
disagrees
with
the
decisions
I
have made
can
tell which
papers
are which.
By now it should be
obvious that have
not employed a pure strategy
n categoriz-
ing the papers that have
appeared in Sys-
tematic oology.
have not classifiedthem
entirely n terms of similarity
f content
or entirely in terms of the people who
wrote
them and their professional
alle-
giances. Instead,
I
have
attemptedto bal-
ance
these two
considerations,paying
at-
tention both to the content
of
the papers
and
to their authors. As
dissatisfying
s
this compromise may be,
the
strictutili-
zation of
"pure"
methods
of
classification
produced monstrous
categories-group-
ing together papers
by deadly enemies.
Scientists ike to thinkof science as an en-
tirely
erebral
process,
a
conflictbetween
disembodied
ideas,
but scientists re
sup-
posed
to
be
partial
to
evidence,
and
all
evi-
dence indicates
thatthis view of science is
mistaken.
At least
in
the short run, who
presents an idea
matters s well as what
this idea happens
to be.
Perhaps
science
should not be
this
way,
but it is.
Finally,
a
list
of
warnings.
I
have limit-
ed
myself
almost
entirely
to the contro-
versies that have takenplace in the pages
of
Systematicoology
nd thegroupslocat-
ed
in the
United States.
I
mention books
and
papers
that
ppeared
in
other
ournals
only
in
passing.
Phenetics was also an
is-
sue
in
GreatBritain,
nd
cladistics
origi-
nated
in
Germany.
have
largely gnored
these
aspects
of the controversies.
Hence,
when
I
talk of "cladistics"
or
"phenetics,"
I
always
mean to
imply
"in the United
States" even when
I
do not mention the
restriction.Many papers also dealt with
more than one
topic
and were classed
in
more
than
one
category
e.g.,
a
given pa-
per might
count as
a contribution o cla-
distics, biogeography
and
phylogeny
re-
construction). Hence,
most
percentages
across
categories
tend to add
up
to more
than 100%.
Many papers
were,
as one
might expect,
borderline cases and could
have
been
scored as naturally
n one
cat-
egory
as
in another.
Others
might
have
preferred thercategories nd have scored
particular apers
differently.
ecause
of the
number
of decisions that went into the
tabulations
I
present
in
this
paper, they
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
6/29
1983
ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY
319
Pages
600
Yale I
American
Kansas
I
American L A
YaleMuseum
KansasMuseum
Msu
550 I
I
500
I
I I I I
I
I
450
I I
I I I I
I
40011III
350
1
1
1
I I
I
3001IIII
250
200
A1r 1E
1cu1 mi1
150 1 1
lEdredgel
100
Brooks Hyman j Byers
Johnston
j
Rowell akNelson j
501
I
POINTS
OF
VIEW
/
I
I
-,J
,,A
0 L - -. -
l \8
REVIEWS
52 53
54 55
56 57 58 59
60 61 62 63 64 65 66
67 68 69 70
71
72 73
74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81
82
FIG.
1.
Number
of pages per
year devoted to articles,
pointsof view, and
reviews in Systematic
oology.
should
be taken
with a
grain of
salt. As
numbers,they
may look
exact,
objective,
etc.,
but they
are not.
As a result,
he
only
trends
and
differences
hat can
bear any
weight are
those
that are
extremely
marked. To
give the
readera feel
for
how
I
classified
papers, my
classification for
1975 is
included in
the
Appendix.
GROWTH OF THE
JOURNAL
During the first
ozen
years of its
exis-
tence, Systematic
oology
veraged
roughly
200
pages a
year.While it
was at
Kansas,
the
journal
expanded
steadily
to its
cur-
rent size of
roughly 500
pages a
year.
Within
few
ssues,
Systematic
oology et-
tled down
to its
current
format-articles,
points
of
view, book
reviews
and news.
Initially,
one
difference
between articles
and
points
of
view was
length.
Through
1977, ong points ofview tended to aver-
age
about
eight
pages.
In
1978
points
of
view increased in
length;
one
by Farris
n
1980was
the
longest at 22
pages. A second
difference etween articlesand points of
view
is
tone. From
the
start, oints
of
view
have tended to
be somewhat
more polem-
ical than
articles nd their
one a good deal
sharper.
The
percentage
of
pages devoted
to
articles
climbed
steadily
in
the
early
years
until
the
journal moved
back
to
the
American
Museum
in
1974,
when it
began
to decline.
In
1980,
the
number of
pages
taken
up by points
of
view and reviews
equaled thatfor rticles see Fig. 1 and Ta-
ble 1).
If
ncreases
n the
size of the
points
of
view
section
are
any
indication
of
pe-
riods of
increased controversy, he
peak
years
were
1969,1975 and
1978-1982. Tone
to one
side, articles and
points
of
view
have
dealt with
exactly the
same topics.
Furthermore,
the
policy
regarding
re-
sponses
in
Systematic
oology
during most
of its existence was
that an author
could
respond
to an
article,
the
author
of
the
originalarticle could thenrespondto that
response, and that was that. As a
result,
papers
that amounted to
responses
to re-
sponses
were
submitted as
independent
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
7/29
320 SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY VOL.
32
TABLE 1.
Percentageof pages devoted
to each sub-
division
of
Systematic
oologyduring
the tenure of
each
Editor.
Points
Editor Articles
of view
Reviews
Brooks, 85 8 2
Hyma'n
92 7 1
Byers
87
8 2
Johnston
81
12 3
Rowell 86
7 3
Eldredge and Nelson 79
10 7
Schuh
65 19
10
Smith
58
29
11
articles, further
blurring
the distinction
between articles
nd points
of view. In all
subsequent tabulations, have classed ar-
ticles
and points
of view together. Book
reviews are treated eparately.
Both membershipand circulation fig-
ures for he ournal
have also reflected p-
surges
n
controversy.
n
1948,
the
Society
had 343 chartermembers. By
1952 mem-
bership had surpassed 1,200,
and
371
ad-
vanced subscriptionshad been
placed for
the journal. Figure 2 shows the fluctua-
tions
in
circulation
nd
membership
from
1962
to the present. The firstpeak
oc-
curred
n
1968-1969
at the height
of
the
controversyver phenetic taxonomy.
Dur-
ing theearly1970s,both membership
nd
circulationbegan to sag, only
to pick up
again
as
the controversy ver cladistics
be-
gan
to heat
up.
In
1982
the
figures
began
to
drop
once again.
If
these figures
re any
indication,controversy
as been good for
the Societyand its journal, at least as far
as
numbers are concerned.
These statistics
notwithstanding,ontributors
o the our-
nal have frequently omplained
of
what
2900
Kan
sas
American
Museum
2800L
2700 Museum
2600
2500
2400
2300
2200
2100
2000
1900
1800
1700
1600
1500
|
/M
EMBERSHIP
1400
1300 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 78 79
80
81
82
FIG.
.
Figures
for
membership
n the
Society
of
Systematic
oology
and
subscriptions
o
Systematic
oology
between
1964
and
1982.
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
8/29
1983 ANALYSIS OF
SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY
321
they perceived to be
excessive polemics.
Such objectionssurfaced
early.
For
exam-
ple,
beforethe
ournalwas a year old,
one
subscriber
wrote,"Enclosed please find a
one-dollar bill ($1.00), my dues for 1952;
and, also accept my resignation fromthe
above Society, s
its principles do not ap-
peal to
me.
We need more old-fashioned
constructive fforts, ot the communistic
'tearing down of all old established rules
and
methods"' (Syst.Zool., 1:138, 1952). It
is quite easy to
determinehow much dues
have
increased since 1952, less easy to
gauge the rise and fall ofpolemics.
PURPOSES OF THE
JOURNAL
According othe nitial tatement n the
inside back cover of
Systematicoology, he
purpose
of
the
journal
was
to
encourage
the preparationof"contributions n basic
aspects
of all fields
of
systematics, rinci-
ples and problems;to
provide a suitable
forum for
discussion
of the
problems of
the
systematist
nd
his methods; and to
report as news the other activities of the
Society
of
Systematic
Zoology."
Listed
among
the
topics
solicited were
"princi-
ples and the applicationsof principlesof
wide implicationand
general
interest n
any phase
of
systematics,
uch as
compar-
ative anatomy,
zoogeography, paleontol-
ogy, taxonomy,
lassification,volution,or
genetics."
As
explicit
s
this statement
was,
Blackwelder
(1952:92),
as
Secretary-Trea-
surer of the
Society,
had to
publish
the
followingreminder
n the
second number
of
the
journal:
Ithas perhaps not been sufficientlymphasized
that
Systematicoology
s
not ntended for he
pub-
lication of
descriptive
papers.
The
Council
sees its
field
as the
philosophic aspect
of
systematics,
ts
principles
and
problems,
as well as
news
of
sys-
tematists,
heir
nstitutions, ourses,
and
publica-
tions.
Systematic
material s not
completelyruled
out,
but
it
must be subordinate to the
discussion
of
principles.
A
year
after
Byers
took over the editor-
ship
of
the
journal
in
1963,
its statement
of
purpose
was made even more
pointed:
Contributions
elating
to
principles
and
method-
ology
of
systematics,
s well as
articles
in
such
fields as
evolution,
morphology, zoogeography,
paleontology, genetics
and
classification
hat
bear
directlyon systematics, nd other papers of
gen-
eral interest to
systematists
re
particularly de-
sired. Taxonomic
descriptions, evisions, nd
keys,
or papers on
anatomy, physiology, ecology, etc.,
having
little or
nothing
to do with
systematics
cannot be accepted [Syst. ool., 1964].
When
Rowell became
Editor n
1971,he
dropped the final sentence
of
the above
description,
and
finally,
when
Eldredge
and Nelson assumed the
editorship
three
years ater, hey
substituted he
following
brief
statement
n
1975
from
the
Consti-
tution
of the
Society:
The
object of this
ociety
hall be the
advancement
of
the
science of
systematic oology
in
all its as-
pects of theory,principles, methodology, and
practice,
for
both
living
and fossil animals with
emphasis
on areas of common interest o all
tax-
onomists
regardless
of individual
specialization.
Throughout he
history
f
Systematic
o-
ology,
he
intent of
the Council
and suc-
cessive Editors has been
clear. The main
purpose
of the
journal was to
publish pa-
pers
on
taxonomic
theory
first nd
fore-
most,
and
papers
on other
topics only to
the extent hat
they
bore
directly
n taxo-
nomic theory.Such good intentionswere
easier to
proclaim
than to
practice. No
sooner had
Blackwelder
reminded
the
readers
of
the journal
that t did not pub-
lish descriptive
papers than
Brooks
had to
ask
the Council
to
authorize him to
pub-
lish just such
papers
in
order to
keep the
journal up
to
size
(Blackwelder,
1977:114).
Although
such
categories
are difficult o
define and even more
difficult
o
apply
in
particularcases,
the
only
conclusion
that
one can draw afterreading through 31
years
of
the
ournal
s that
more
pages
have
been
devoted
to
descriptive
work than to
any
other
topic.
From
its
inception
until
Schuh took
over
as Editor n
1977,
roughly
50% of
the
pages
of
Systematicoology
ave
been taken
up
with
descriptions
of chro-
mosome
numbers, geographic
distribu-
tions, particular
phylogenies,
classifica-
tions and the
like
(see Fig.
3
and Table
2).
Giventheprofessedgoals ofthe ournal,
authors tried
to
make their
papers appear
as theoreticaland
philosophical
as
possi-
ble, but
in most cases
they
were not
very
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
9/29
322
SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY
VOL. 32
100
%
Brooks Hymon
Byers
Johnston Rowell
ldredge
Schuh
Smith
90%
RoIweIllaNelsoni
Scu
Smt
80%X0
1
I
I
I
I
l
I
20%
~
~
~~~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
70
0/
60%
I
I
50%1
I
40%
30%
Lii
20
/IIIIIII
0%
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
0
%
52 53 54
55
56 57 58
59 60 61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69 70 71
72 73 74 75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
FIG.
3.
The
percentage of
pages per
year
that
are
largely
descriptive.
successful.
For
example,the
first
aper
to
appear in
the
journal, by
Alexander Pe-
trunkevitch
1952), the
first
President
of
the
Society, was
entitled
"Principles of
Classification s Illustratedby Studies ofArachnida."
Although
Petrunkevitch
be-
gan and
ended his
paper
with
allusions
to
"unraveling
the
mysteryof
evolution,"
there s
little n
his
paper that
can
count
as
principles
of
classification.
Similarly,
most
papers entitled
something ike
"The
Evolution
of the
House
Mouse"
were
straightforward
escriptions
of
particular
taxonomic
groups,
their
characteristics,
distributions, hromosome
numbers,
etc.
TABLE 2.
Percentage of
pages during
the
tenure
of each
Editor
devoted
largely to
the presentation
f
data and
descriptions.
Editor
Percent
Brooks
50
Hyman
58
Byers
44
Johnston
50
Rowell
55
Eldredge and Nelson 62
Schuh
35
Smith
28
They
might
conclude
witha
paragraph or
two on
gene
flow,but
that
usually
was
about it.
Most of the
papers
listed as
de-
scriptive re
ust
that,
escriptive, ut
some
also containedenough general discussion
to
count
as
theoretical
s
well.
In
classifying
paper
as
"descriptive,"
have no
intention of
denigrating t.
De-
scription s a
necessary
part
of
science. In
fact,
n
a
poll of
the
members of
the So-
ciety of
Systematic
Zoology published
in
1981
(Syst.Zool.,
30:224,
1981),
17.8% of
those
responding
wanted the
journal to
publish
more
"substantive,
empirical
pa-
pers
including
materials,
the use of
ex-
amples in theoreticalpapers with appli-
cation to actual
cases."
The
preferences
f
many
readers
notwithstanding, ystematic
Zoologywas not
founded to
publish
pri-
marily
descriptive
work.
Until the
editor-
ships
of
Schuh and
Smith, when the
fig-
ures
dropped
to 35%
and
28%,
respectively,
it did
(see
Fig.
3
and
Table
2). Even
though
taxonomic
philosophy
was to
be the
main
focus of the
journal,
papers
dealing pri-
marily
with
taxonomic
philosophy
aver-
aged only 17% under Brooks, gradually
climbing
to
a
high
of 30%
under
Johnston,
and
dropping
again
to
a low
of 10%
under
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
10/29
1983
ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY 323
50
/0
rooks
Hyman
Byers Johnston
I
Rowell
I
Eldredgel
Schuh
I
Smith
BroksH mola
jNelsoni
400/
I
35/
I
25
%
20
%II
15
%II
100/
ILi
52 53 54 55
56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 6465 6667 68 69
70
71
72 73 74 75 76
77
7879 80 81 82
FIG. 4.
The
percentage
ofpages per yeardiscussing
taxonomic
philosophy.
Eldredge and Nelson, o'nlyto rise again
abruptlyunder
Schuh and Smith
see Fig.
4 and
Table 3).
During the early
years of
the
ournal, the
first eally big
debate was
over the
subspeciesquestion
(see later dis-
cussion);
the
issues
turned s much on dif-
ferences n
beliefs
about the
evolutionary
processas about
taxonomicphilosophy. If
papers
concerning this
controversy are
disregarded,the
percentages of
pages de-
voted to taxonomicphilosophy are even
TABLE
3. Percentageof pages
during
the
tenure
of each Editor
devoted
to
taxonomic
philosophy.
Editor Percent
Brooks
17
Hyman
22
Byers 25
Johnston
30
Rowell 17
Eldredge
and
Nelson
10
Schuh
32
Smith 33
lower (e.g., Brooks 9%, Hyman 14% and
Byers 23%).
Others might
well score individual pa-
pers
differently
han
I
have,
but
it
would
be difficult o avoid
the conclusion that
papers
dealing primarily
with taxonomic
philosophy have
not
been
as
prominent
n
the pages of
Systematic oology
s succes-
sive statements
f
purpose
might
ead one
to
expect.
Looking
back
over
the first 5
yearsof the ournal,Blackwelder1977:207)
raised
just
this objection,complaining
of
so
many
studies
of
"evolution,
statistics,r
the revisionary taxonomy
of animals."
Even so, Slater (1978) responded
thatthe
journal
has been the chief medium
through
which the
great conceptual
de-
bates between various schools
of taxono-
my
have been aired. Slater
is
surely right,
but this
end has been accomplished
in
roughly
23%
of the
pages
of
the ournal.
TAXONOMIC PHILOSOPHIES
The
question
that
s
likely
to be of
great-
est interest
o
long-time
readers of System-
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
11/29
324
SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY
VOL.
32
aticZoology
s how
many
pages
ofthe our-
nal have
been
devoted
to
the various
taxonomic
philosophies.
Once
again, de-
finingthe
relevant
categories
s not
easy,
especially
n
the
earlyyearswhen
the
ines
were notclearlydrawn.For example,dur-
ing thefirst
ecade of
the
ournal,the
pre-
vailing view
was,
roughly
speaking,
that
the evolutionary
process
and phylogeny
were
somehow
relevant
to classification.
Species
had
to be the units
delimited
by
reproductive
isolation,
and
higher
taxa
should
reflect
phylogeny.
The only
real
opponents
of this view
were
Blackwelder,
Alan
Boyden,
R. S.
Bigelow,
and Thomas
Borgmeier.
According
to Blackwelder
and
Boyden (1952:31), the "grand object of
classification verywhere
s the same.
It is
to
group
theobjects
ofstudy
n accordance
with their
essential
natures."
Borgmeier
(1957:53)
agreed, contending
that,
as the
science of
order, systematics
s a pure
sci-
ence
of
relations,
unconcerned
with time,
space,
or
cause."
These
systematists
greed
that evolution
has occurred
and that the
distribution
forganisms
now
apparent
s
the resultof phylogeny,but theysaw no
reason
to allow
such
considerations
to in-
trude
into
taxonomy,
nd numerous
rea-
sons
to exclude
them.
Phylogeny
s
too dif-
ficult
to reconstruct,
the
little
fossil
evidence
available
is too
spotty,
our un-
derstanding
of the evolutionaryprocess
is
highly
contentious,
nd characters
re ba-
sic
anyway.
f
the
only
data that
a
system-
atisthas available
are characters,
f
every-
one
always
begins
with
characters,
hen
why not just stick with charactersand
abandon
idle speculation
about
phyloge-
ny
and the evolutionary
process,
at
least
in
conjunction
with
classification?
If
all
I
were
doing
was classifying
to-
gether
papers
urging
similar views,
these
early
objections
to the
prevalent
"evolu-
tionary"philosophy
might
well
be
count-
ed
as contributions
o
phenetic
taxonomy
or even to
certain
varieties
of
cladistics.
The
criticisms
ound
very
imilar.
But these
authorswould rightly bject.Neitherphe-
netics
nor
cladistics
as scientific
move-
ments
existed
at
the time
in
the United
States
and,
even
after
they
did
emerge,
TABLE 4. Percentage
of
pages
devoted to each
taxonomicphilosophy during
the tenure
of each Ed-
itor.
Evolu-
tionary Phenetic Cladistic
Editor taxonomy taxonomy
taxonomy
Brooks 16
-
-
Hyman
16
11
-
Byers 20
16 7
Johnston
12 19
8
Rowell
11
9
9
Eldredge
and
Nelson
5
1 8
Schuh
14
9
30
Smith 6 15 30
these early critics
of
evolutionarytaxono-
my kept their distance. Blackwelder for
one
claimed
to be
urging quite
a
different
philosophy
of
classification,
he
philoso-
phy implicit
in the
practice
of
most tax-
onomists,
a
philosophy
which he termed
"omnispective."
n
this
paper
I
ignore
om-
nispectivetaxonomy
or he
simple
reason
that the number
of
pages
devoted to it in
Systematicoology,
oth
pro
and
con,
is so
small that
ncluding
t would not make
any
difference nd would complicatediagrams
that are
already
too
difficult
o
read.
As Table
4
indicates,papers arguingthe
virtues
and vices of
evolutionary system-
atics have remained
a
constant feature
of
the
journal.
The
low
figure
for
Eldredge
and
Nelson is
a
reflection fthe few
pages
devoted
to
taxonomic
philosophy
during
their
tenure. The low
figure
under
Smith
is not. When thesepapers are divided
into
those
that
defend
evolutionary systemat-
ics and those that attack it, a pattern
emerges,
but
it
does
not
coincide
with
any
putative philosophical preferences
of
the
Editors
(see Fig. 5). Instead,
it
exhibits a
lag
effectbetween attacks
and defenses.
The
first nti-evolutionist
nslaughtby the
pheneticists
ook
place
in
1961duringthe
tenure of
Hyman.
The
evolutionists re-
sponded
in 1962
and
then,
fter
ontinued
criticism,
aunched a
massive defense
in
1965
during Byers'
tenure as
Editor. t was
followed by another attack in 1967 met
immediatelyby
an
evolutionary
counter-
attack
in
1968,
both while
Johnston
was
Editor.
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
12/29
1983
ANALYSIS
OF SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY 325
PageOs
Brooks
I
Hyman
'Byers 'Johnston 'Rowell
EldredgelSchuh
'Smith
70
1~~~II
laNelson
60
ProEvolutionary
I
I
I
I
I
I
Systematics
40
30
210
Ic
0
I0
20
5
Evolutionary
s
4 0
Systematics
50
6 0
52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82
FIG. 5.
The number
of
pages
each
year
arguing
for or
against evolutionary
ystematics.
The first int of the phenetics research
programto appear in the pages of System-
aticZoologywas a paper by Michener 1957:
166) in which he wondered "whether or
not it would be desirable to change from
the traditional approaches emphasizing
phylogeny to approaches utilizing only
static relationship." In that same year,
Michener
published
a
paper
with
Sokal
on
a quantitative approach to classification,
and Sneath published two papers urging
similar views
(Michener
and
Sokal, 1957;
Sneath, 1957a, b),
but
these
papers
did
not
appear
in
Systematic oology.
Most
of
the
early papers
in
Systematicoology dvocat-
ing phenetics (as well as quantitative
methods) were measured
in
their criti-
cisms of traditional evolutionary system-
atics and subdued
in
theirpolemics (e.g.,
Sneath, 1961; Sokal, 1961;
Rohlf nd
Sokal,
1962; Michener, 1963; Rohlf, 1963).
It
was
left to Ehrlich (1958, 1961, 1964) to goad
advocates of traditional taxonomic meth-
ods.
At this
time, Simpson (1961) pub-
lished his Principles f Animal Taxonomy
and, shortly hereafter, okal
and
Sneath
(1963) published their Principles fNumer-
ical Taxonomy.n response to these attacks,
Mayr (1965) published
his
major critique
of
phenetic taxonomy. Simpson (1964,
1965) published his responses to phenetics
elsewhere. Finally,
the
pheneticists oined
forcesto issue collective
responses (Sokal
and
Camin, 1965;
Sokal
et
al., 1965).
Strangely enough,
one of the earliest
critics of phenetics was Kiriakoff 1962,
1963), a disciple of Hennig who thought
of
himself
as
defending
a
single alterna-
tive taxonomic philosophy subscribed to
equally by Simpson, Mayr and Hennig.
However,
Sokal
and
Sneath
(1963)
even-
tually convinced
Kiriakoff
1965:63) that
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
13/29
326
SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY
VOL.
32
Pages
80
Brooks
Hyman IByers
IJohnston I
Rowell
lEIdredgel
Schuh
ISmith
70
laI
I INelsoni
60
Pro
PheneticsI
I
40
II
30I
I
I
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
I
20II
30I
I
40II
I
50II
I
An/i
Phene/ics
I
II
60
IIII
70IIIII
52 54
56
58
60 62 64
66 68 70
72 74
76 78
80
82
FIG.
6. The number
of
pages
each
year
arguing
for
or
against phenetic
taxonomy.
phylogenetic
lassifications re
usually
not
possible
"owing
to
lack of
necessaryin-
formation" nd thatonly "ersatz" classi-
fications re
possible.
Comments
made by
Mayr 1965)
further orced
Kiriakoff
1966:
93) to
distinguish
etween
Hennig's
views
and
those of
Simpson and
Mayr,
realizing
that
"cladists are but
a rather
are subspe-
cies of
taxonomists."That
state of
affairs
was not to
last
for
ong.
Nelson
(1972)
went
on to
subdivide
the
evolutionists
further,
pointing
out
significant
ifferencesn
the
philosophies of
systematics set out
by
Simpson and Mayr.
As
Table 4
indicates,papers
concerning
phenetics
reached their
peak
under
John-
ston,began to
drop
under
Rowell
while
the journal
was still
at
Kansas,
dropped
even
lower
under
Eldredge and
Nelson,
and then began to climb again under
Schuh and
Smith. The
same
seesawing
patternfound
in
connection
with
evolu-
tionary
ystematics an
be seen in
the
data
for
phenetics
Fig.
6),
in
part
because
many
attacks
on
the
evolutionistswere
also de-
fenses of
phenetics,
and
vice
versa.
The
firstmajor
attacks on
phenetics came in
1965, a
series of
responses
appeared in
1967, more
attacks
in
1968,
defenses
in
1969,
attacks again
in
1970, and so
on.
Mayr's (1969) PrinciplesfSystematicool-
ogy lso
appeared
at this
time.The
rise
and
the fall of
papers
dealing with
phenetics
occurred while
Systematic
oologywas
at
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
14/29
1983
ANALYSIS
OF
SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY
327
Kansas, theoriginal home of phenetic tax-
onomy. (Sokal and Rohlf moved to the
State Universityof New York at Stony
Brook n 1969.)
Phenetics
was hardly discussed while
Eldredge and Nelson were Editors, but
then
neitherwere any of the other taxo-
nomic philosophies. If the percentage of
pages devoted to taxonomicphilosophy
n
Systematic oology during
this
period
is
any indication,
axonomic
philosophy
had
fallen on
lean times. Sneath
and
Sokal
published their second edition
in
1973,
while the volume by Hecht et al.
did
not
appear
until
1977.
Were theoretical tax-
onomists
publishing extensively else-
where? Not that could discover.The phe-
neticists urned their ttention way from
taxonomic
philosophy
and toward devel-
oping
and
applying
a
variety
of
mathe-
matical techniques.The cladists forsome
reason published little on taxonomicphi-
losophyduringthisperiod.
The
major pa-
pers
on
taxonomicphilosophy
to
appear
at this time
were notpublished
in
System-
atic
ZoologyMayr, 1974; Sokal, 1974). Un-
der Schuh and Smith, things happilypicked up again-happily at least from he
perspective
of those of us who make a
professionof
arguing systematic hiloso-
phy.
The firstmentionof
Hennig
in the
pages
of
Systematic
oology
was a
translation
by
Steyskal 1953:41)
of
Hennig's (1950:4, 10)
contention that
the
goal
of
systematics
s
to
provide
a "universal reference
ystem"
for
biology.
With the
exception
of Kiria-
koff's apers,Crowson 1965) was thechief
early
defender of
Hennig's system.Mayr
(1965) objected
to
particular aspects
of
Hennig's
(1950, 1957) system
in his cri-
tique
of
phenetic
taxonomy. However,
it
was
Sokal
and
Camin
(1965)
who
pre-
sented the most sustained criticisms of
Hennig's system.
At
the
time,
Brundin's
(1966, 1968)
exposition
of
Hennig's prin-
ciples
received
little
attention.Even Hen-
nig's (1966)
Phylogeneticystematics
eemed
not to rouse much immediate response.
Cladistics
as a scientific
movement
n
the
United
States
really began
with the work
of
Kluge
and Farris
(1969)
and
Nelson
(1970).
However, the
issues were not
all
that
clear in the
early years. For
example,
Kluge
and Farris
1969:14)
can be found
saying that "it is quite
reasonable to
state,
'Mammals are derived from
reptiles,'
m-
plying merely that all mammals had a
commonancestor
thatwas a reptile,
quite
independently of the
factthat
Mammalia
and
Reptilia are both
'modern'
classes."
This
beliefwas to be
short-livedFarris et
al., 1970).
As
Table
4
indicates, apersdealing
with
cladistics
ncreasedsteadily
while System-
atic
Zoology
was at
Kansas, dropping
slightly
under
Eldredge and
Nelson, and
then
climbing
significantly
nder
Schuh
and Smith.The seesawing of attacks and
defenses s not
as apparent
withrespectto
the cladists as it
was
for
evolutionary
ys-
tematics and
phenetics (see
Fig. 7).
Al-
though Crowson's
(1970) Classification
nd
Biology ppeared justas the
controversy f
cladistics
was
getting
underway,
it
had
surprisingly
ittle
mpact.
A
second
surge
of
activity
ccurred n
1973,
but the
main
attacks
1977
and
1979)
as well
as
defenses
(1978-1982) occurred under the editor-ships ofSchuh and Smith.
One
surprisingfeature f
Figures 6 and
7 is that
both of the
emergingschools
of
taxonomy got
reasonably good starts
un-
der
Editors
that one
mightsuspect were
not
especially
"sympathetic" to
these
movements. It
is
certainly
true that
Hy-
man was far from
enthusiasticabout
pa-
pers
with
numbers
n
them,
s the
follow-
ing comment
n
her
1961 Editor's
report
indicates:
One article
was
rejected
because
[it was]
written
in
incredibly
bad
English
and
another
because
[it
was]
too mathematical.
nquiries
among
subscrib-
ers
indicate that the
journal
has
had
enough
for
the
present
of articles bout
numerical
taxonomy.
However,
further
pinions
on this
matter re de-
sired. An articleof
this nature s scheduled
for he
March, 1962,
ssue but
that will be the
last
of
this
nature
forthe
present Smithsonian
Archives].
However,
if
one looks at the
papers
that
Hyman published during her final three
years
as
Editor,
neither
quantitative
meth-
ods nor
phenetic
philosophy
s
absentfrom
the
pages
of
Systematicoology.
uring
this
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
15/29
328 SYSTEMATIC ZOOLOGY
VOL. 32
Pages
*0
|Brooks
I
Hyman
IByers JohnstonlRowell
Eldredgel
chuh Smith
160
1
r
I
jaNelson
i
140
III
120
F00
Pro
C/dis tics
80I
III
60III
I
70IIIII
20
120
L
Anti Cladistics
80I
100
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _1
I
52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82
FIG.
7. The number of
pages
each
year
arguing
for or
against
cladistic
taxonomy.
period,
six
papers
utilizing quantitative
techniquesappeared
for total
of 76 pages.
Three of these
papers,
however,were not
phenetic.
Instead
the authorsof
these pa-
pers
saw
no reason why quantitative
methods
could not be
used to study evo-
lution and to contributeto evolutionary
systematics.
As
James 1963) argued,
"nu-
merical
taxonomy"
concerns
methodol-
ogy,
not philosophy
of systematics.
Dur-
ing
this same period,
nine papers arguing
in
favor
of phenetics appeared
fora total
of
113
pages.
As
far
s
percentages
re con-
cerned,
these totals
re not
high (see
Table
4),
but
if
Hyman's
percentages
indicate
bias,
then
Rowell's
even
lower percentage
mustindicate even greaterbias. (Perhaps
I
can
be forgiven personal
aside
at this
point.
One
of the
papers
thatHyman
re-
jected,
withoutreview,
was submittedby
a philosophy
graduate
student
criticizing
Simpson's
definition
f
"monophyly."
Af-
ter Simpson's
intercession
the paper
was
published
[see
Hull, 1964].)
As Table
4 also
shows,
the average
per-
centage
of pages
arguing
the merits
f cla-
disticshardlychanged for he 10 yearsbe-
tween
1967
and 1977,
hovering
round
8%.
In
general,
Figure
7 does
not reveal
any
major
shift
fromJohnston's
asttwo
years,
through
Rowell's
tenure,
to Eldredge and
Nelson.
The
major
change
occurred
when
Schuh
became
Editor.During
the
editor-
ships of
Schuh
and Smith,
cladistics
be-
came one
of the
major
themes
n
Systematic
Zoology,
urpassing
phenetics
at its
height
under Johnston see Table 4). The move
from
Kansas
to the
American
Museum
did
signal
a change
in the philosophical
ori-
entation
of
the ournal's
Editors,
ut
itwas
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
16/29
1983
ANALYSIS
OF SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY
329
Ratios
4.5
4.0
3,5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0
B J R E/N c
Sm
B
J R E/N c
Sm
B
J R
E/N
c Sm
EVOLUTIONARY
PHENETICS
CLADISTICS
SYSTEMATICS
FIG. 8. The
ratios of positive
to
negative
papers
foreach of the taxonomic
philosophies
under the
tenure
as
Editor
of
Byers
B), Johnston
J),
Rowell
(R),
Eldredge
and Nelson
(E/N),
Schuh
(Sc)
and
Smith
Sm).
not accompanied by an immediate hift n
the distributions
of
papers dealing
with
the various systematic hilosophies.
Short
of
having figures
or
rejection
ates
of papers supporting
or attacking partic-
ular taxonomic philosophies, the
relevant
figures
for
our purposes are the
ratios of
positive to negative pages published (see
Fig. 8). Because the issues werenot all that
clear in the early years,
I
have excluded
data for Brooks and Hyman, beginning
with
Byers' tenure
in
office.As Figure 8
shows,
more
papers supporting volution-
ary systematics
were
published
by
the
Kansas Editors than opposed. The ratios
were inverted after he journal moved
to
the American Museum. The one dramatic
feature
of
the tabulation
for
phenetics
is
the 1.7 ratio under Eldredge and Nelson.
However, the numbers of pages devoted
to
phenetics under Eldredge
and Nelson
were so
low that the ratio does
not
mean
much (19 pages
pro
to
11
pages con).
Oth-
erwise,
the
ratios forphenetics
were con-
sistently
below unity.
Aftera slow
start
under Byers,
the ratios
of positive
pages
to n`egative
for the
cladists were
consis-
tently
bove one. Once
again, the
dramat-
ic departure
under
Eldredge
and Nelson
is due
in partto small
numbers
95 pro to
23 con). The low ratiounder Byers s also
not
strictly omparable
to the others
be-
cause the controversy
ver
cladistics was
only
just getting
tarted.
Although
the
preceding
figures
do not
measure
directly
the matters
of greatest
concern, hey
do indicate that the
connec-
tions between
an
Editor'sputativebiases
and
the
representation
f
these
views
in
the
pages
of his or her journal
are not as
simple as one mightexpect.The ratiosfoi
evolutionary systematics
dropped
notice-
ably
when
the
ournal
moved
to
the
Amer-
ican
Museum,
but pheneticists
and cla-
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
17/29
330 SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY VOL.
32
dists alike
are opposed to evolutionary
systematics.
n the average, the
ratios for
phenetics
were higher nder the
cladists
than they
had been
when the ournalwas
at Kansas
(0.7 to 0.85) When allowances
are made for Eldredge and Nelson's arti-
ficiallyhigh ratio,
the ratio forphenetics
under the cladists
is probably somewhat
lower. The ratios for
Byers, Rowell
and
Smith
are not
appreciably
different. he
ratios for
cladists were highest
under
Johnston,
ldredgeand
Nelson,and Smith;
they
dropped a bit
under Rowell and
Schuh. Although
Schuh was
predisposed
to the
principles
of
cladistic analysis
and
Rowell was not, the
ratios of
positive to
negative pages under the tenureof these
two
Editors
re
roughly
he same.
Similar-
ly, although Johnston
nd Smith hardly
held the same philosophical
preferences,
their ratios
forcladisticsturned
out to be
approximately
alike.
The
philosophical
preferences
of Editors may well make a
difference
o
a
journal, but other factors
are also
clearly
at
work. But one
thing
is
clear;
cladists have had
their
say
in the
pages
of
Systematic
oology.
The
average
cumulative ratiofor the last six Editors of
the ournal
for he threepredominant
phi-
losophies
of systematics
re evolutionary
systematics
1.03),
phenetics (0.78), and
cladistics
1.77).
Another
measure
of
the success
of a
par-
ticular
chool
of
systematics
s
the number
of
papers
that
appear
which
simply
take
these
principles
for
granted
and
apply
them
without
especiallyarguing
for
hem.
In Figure9,I have added "applied" papers
to theoretical
papers
for both
phenetics
and
cladistics.
I
have
also included
for
phenetics
all the
quantitative
papers
that
were
not
explicitly
ostile
to
phenetics.
For
cladistics,
have added
papers
arguing
in
favor
of vicariance
biogeography
as well
as those
applying
methods
of
cladistic
analysis.
In
each
case,
I
have
diagrammed
these
data so that the
various
categories
can be
distinguished.
The reader should
be warned,however,thatthesefigures re
the
most
mpressionistic
f
any
presented
in
this
paper.
Given
the data recorded
in
Figure 9,
phenetics
was atits height under
Johnston
and Rowell.
The drop in theoretical
pa-
pers that
occurredunder
Rowell was com-
pensated
for
by papers
in
applied phenet-
ics as well as papers
discussingquantitative
techniques. ncluded in the latter re most
papers
on
numerical
cladistics.Papers
on
applied phenetics
ll but
disappeared
from
the
pages
of
Systematicoology
n
the atter
part
of
Schuh's
tenure and
early
n
that
of
Smith. Applied
and
quantitative
papers
reappeared
during Smith's
finaltwo years.
Papers on applied cladistics
nd vicariance
biogeography
gradually
ncreased through
the years,
dropping
only
in
1981. When
papers
that
give
indirect
support
to the
pheneticists nd cladistsare included, the
representation f the
cladistic viewpoint
in
recent
years becomes even
more
marked.
EVOLUTION,
PHYLOGENY,
BIOGEOGRAPHY
AND NOMENCLATURE
Taxonomy has hardly
been the only
topic
of interest
n
Systematicoology.Just
as much
space
has been devoted
to dis-
cussing
evolutionary theory, phylogeny
reconstruction,iogeographyand nomen-
clature.
In this section
I
present
data
for
each
of these
subjects,
distinguishing
be-
tween
those
papers
thatwere
largely gen-
eral
discussions
of the relevant theoretical
and methodological
issues and those that
were
primarily pplications.
Needless
to
say,the
borderline between
"theoretical"
and
"applied"
in each
of
these
categories
is
far
from
harp.
In
each
case,
I
have also
presentedone example
of
the
sort of dis-
pute
thattook
place
under each of these
rubrics.
As I understand
t,evolutionarytheory
concerns
the evolutionary process-how
does evolution
occur?
A
theoretical
paper
mightaddress
such issues as
the effect f
gene
flow between
populations
on
the
ge-
netic differences
between
them. An
ap-
plied paper
might ctually ample
the
gene
flow betweenpopulations,possibly
to
test
a particularhypothesis bout the effects f
gene
flow. As
indicated
earlier,
the
first
major
ontroversy
o
break
out
in
the
pages
of
Systematic
oology
was the
greatsubspe-
This content downloaded from 142.51.1.212 on Mon, 21 Jul 2014 16:34:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp -
8/10/2019 Thirty-One Years of Systematic Zoology-by David L. Hull. Systematic Zoology, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 315
18/29
1983
ANALYSIS
OF
SYSTEMATIC
ZOOLOGY
331
Pages
L5
i
Pro
Clodistics
I
I
125
App//edC/ad/stics
I
l
00
V
/car/nc
Biogeography
I
50
25
0
r-
----1
'-
25I
Byers
Johnston
Rowell Eldredge
a
Schuh
Smith
Pages
Nelson
50
L_
25
0
2 5
5
0
70
100II
125II
150
I
.,,
ro
Phenetics
I
175
III
App//ed
henetf/cs
200
I
uant/tative
Methods
225
I
64 65 66
67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74
75 76 77
78 79 80 8 1
82
FIG.
9. Three categories
of
papers
are
presented
forcladistics
nd
phenetics:
the number of
pages
arguing
in favor of cladistics white above the abscissa), applying cladisticmethods shaded), and arguingforvicar-
iance
biogeography white
below
the
abscissa);
and
the number
of
pages arguing
for
phenetics
white
above
the
abscissa), applying
phenetic
methods
(shaded),
and
discussing quantitative
methods
(white
below
the
abscissa).
cies
debate.
It
began with
a
paper
by
Wil-
son
and
Brown
(1953)
condemning
the
subspecies
concept.
Although
admitting
some
problemsexisted
with respect
o
dis-
cerning species, especially in establishinglower limits and estimating he conspeci-
ficity of
allopatric populations,
they
nevertheless
oncluded
thatMayr'sspecies
concept
s
theoretically ell-grounded
nd
sufficientlyperational
to deservethe
cen-
tral role
it
plays
in both taxonomic
philos-
ophyand
evolutionary
heory.
Wilsonand
Brown (1953:100)
came
to very different
conclusions about
the subspecies
concept
and
its
nomenclatural
correlate,
the tri-
nomen. "From our experience in the lit-
eraturewe
are convinced
that the subspe-
cies concept
is the
mos