Assis Leandro C S
Cladistics. 2009 Oct;25(5):528-544. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00261.x. Epub 2009 Jul 9.
The decline in morphological phylogenies has become a pronounced trend in contemporary systematics due to a disregard for theoretical, methodological, conceptual, and philosophical approaches. The role and meaning of morphology in phylogenetic reconstruction and classification have been undermined by the following: (i) the ambiguous delineation of morphological characters; (ii) the putative "objectivity" of molecular data; (iii) that morphology has not been included in data matrices; (iv) that morphology has been mapped onto molecular cladograms; and (v) a separation of a paradigmatic relationship among morphology, phylogeny, and classification. Historical/philosophical arguments including the synthesis of coherence (coherentism) and correspondence (foundationalism) theories-i.e. "foundherentism" as a theory of epistemic justification-provide support for a renaissance of morphology in phylogenetic systematics. In the language of systematics, coherence theory corresponds to the logical/operational congruence of character states translated into a hierarchical/relational system of homologues and monophyletic groups as natural kinds. Correspondence theory corresponds to the empirical/causal accommodation of homologues and monophyletic groups as natural kinds grounded in the concept of semaphoront, and in developmental biology, genetics, inheritance, ontogenesis, topology, and connectivity. The role and meaning of morphology are also discussed in the context of separate and combined analyses, palaeontology, natural kinds, character concepts, semaphoront, modularity, and taxonomy. Molecular systematics suffers from tension between coherence and correspondence theories, and fails to provide a pragmatic language for predicates in science and in everyday life. Finally, the renaissance of morphology is not only dependent on a scientific/philosophical perspective but also depends on political, economic, social, and educational reforms in contemporary systematics. © The Willi Hennig Society 2009.
由于忽视理论、方法、概念和哲学方法，形态学系统发育学的衰落已成为当代系统学中一个明显的趋势。形态学在系统发育重建和分类中的作用及意义已受到以下因素的削弱：（i）形态特征的界定模糊；（ii）分子数据所谓的“客观性”；（iii）形态学未被纳入数据矩阵；（iv）形态学被映射到分子系统发育树上；（v）形态学、系统发育学和分类学之间范式关系的分离。包括连贯（连贯主义）和对应（基础主义）理论综合的历史/哲学论证——即作为一种认知辩护理论的“基础连贯主义”——为形态学在系统发育系统学中的复兴提供了支持。在系统学语言中，连贯理论对应于字符状态的逻辑/操作一致性，转化为同源物和单系类群作为自然类别的层次/关系系统。对应理论对应于同源物和单系类群作为自然类别的经验/因果调适，其基础是信号个体概念，以及发育生物学、遗传学、遗传、个体发生、拓扑学和连通性。还在单独和联合分析、古生物学、自然类别（自然类）、特征概念、信号个体、模块性和分类学的背景下讨论了形态学的作用和意义。分子系统学在连贯理论和对应理论之间存在张力，并且未能为科学和日常生活中的谓词提供一种实用的语言。最后，形态学的复兴不仅依赖于科学/哲学视角，还取决于当代系统学中的政治、经济、社会和教育改革。©威利·亨尼希协会2009年。
