Loevtrup Soeren
Department of Zoophysiology, University of Umea, S-901 87, Sweden.
Cladistics. 1987 Jun;3(2):157-177. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.1987.tb00504.x.
Abstract- It is argued that taxa, whether Linnaean or phylogenetic, belong to Popper's worlds 2 and 3, the worlds of knowledge, but that they represent entities residing in world 1, the world of objects, namely, classes of living beings. The Linnaean taxa are concepts, and thus untestable, whereas phylogenetic taxa are statements, the monophyletic taxa being true, and the paraphyletic and polyphyletic ones false statements. The taxa are neither strictly nor numerically universal statements, but probabilistic ones which cannot be falsified by single observations. It is suggested that the classical "species problem" is due to the fact that "species" has been used in three different senses. First, traditionally it has been assumed that the specific "essence" of an organism is that by which it is what it is. When we know the species, we know the organism. Second, the species are terminal taxa in the phylogenetic hierarchy. This implies that it is only a very small part of the "essence" of the organism which distinguishes the species. The remaining part characterizes the succession of superior taxa in the phylogenetic lineage which ends with the species in question. Third, the species has been regarded to be the "evolutionary unit." This idea may be refuted for two reasons: (1) since concepts and statements cannot evolve, species cannot evolve either, and (2) it is generally in very small isolated populations that evolutionary innovations are first established. In Linnean systematics the superior taxa are allotted categorical rank. The fact that the classification is constrained by this conventional stipulation implies that the superior taxa are often man-made artifacts. In the phylogenetic hierarchy, composed of monophyletic taxa, the ontological states of the taxa is completely independent of their numerical rank; the kingdom is as "real" as the species.
摘要——有人认为,分类单元,无论是林奈式的还是系统发育的,都属于波普尔的世界2和世界3,即知识世界,但它们代表的实体存在于世界1,即对象世界,也就是生物类别。林奈分类单元是概念,因此不可检验,而系统发育分类单元是陈述,单系分类单元是真陈述,而并系和多系分类单元是假陈述。这些分类单元既不是严格意义上的也不是数值上的全称陈述,而是概率性陈述,不能被单个观察结果证伪。有人提出,经典的“物种问题”是由于“物种”在三种不同意义上被使用。首先,传统上认为生物体的特定“本质”是使其成为自身的东西。当我们知道物种时,我们就知道了生物体。其次,物种是系统发育层次结构中的终端分类单元。这意味着区分物种的只是生物体“本质”的很小一部分。其余部分则表征了以该物种结束的系统发育谱系中更高级分类单元的序列。第三,物种被视为“进化单元”。这个观点可能因两个原因而被反驳:(1)由于概念和陈述不能进化,物种也不能进化;(2)进化创新通常首先在非常小的孤立种群中确立。在林奈分类学中,更高级分类单元被赋予分类等级。分类受到这种传统规定的限制这一事实意味着更高级分类单元往往是人为的产物。在由单系分类单元组成的系统发育层次结构中,分类单元的本体状态完全独立于它们的数值等级;界与物种一样“真实”。