Chair of Nature Conservation and Landscape Ecology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
J Hist Biol. 2024 Sep;57(3):423-443. doi: 10.1007/s10739-024-09782-8. Epub 2024 Aug 30.
Tree diagrams are the prevailing form of visualization in biological classification and phylogenetics. Already during the time of the so-called Systematist Wars from the mid-1960s until the 1980s most journal articles and textbooks published by systematists contained tree diagrams. Although this episode of systematics is well studied by historians and philosophers of biology, most analyses prioritize scientific theories over practices and tend to emphasize conflicting theoretical assumptions. In this article, I offer an alternative perspective by viewing the conflict through the lens of representational practices with a case study on tree diagrams that were used by numerical taxonomists (phenograms) and cladists (cladograms). I argue that the current state of molecular phylogenetics should not be interpreted as the result of a competition of views within systematics. Instead, molecular phylogenetics arose independently of systematics and elements of cladistics and phenetics were integrated into the framework of molecular phylogenetics, facilitated by the compatibility of phenetic and cladistic practices with the quantitative approach of molecular phylogenetics. My study suggests that this episode of scientific change is more complex than common narratives of battles and winners or conflicts and compromises. Today, cladograms are still used and interpreted as specific types of molecular phylogenetic trees. While phenograms and cladograms represented different forms of knowledge during the time of the Systematist Wars, today they are both used to represent evolutionary relationships. This indicates that diagrams are versatile elements of scientific practice that can change their meaning, depending on the context of use within theoretical frameworks.
树状图是生物分类学和系统发生学中最主要的可视化形式。早在 20 世纪 60 年代中期到 80 年代所谓的“系统学者之战”时期,系统学者发表的大多数期刊文章和教科书都包含树状图。尽管这段系统学历史已经被生物历史学家和哲学家进行了深入研究,但大多数分析都优先考虑科学理论而不是实践,并且往往强调相互冲突的理论假设。在本文中,我通过考察数值分类学家(phenograms)和分支分类学家(cladograms)使用的树状图的案例研究,从表现实践的角度提供了一个替代视角。我认为,目前的分子系统发育学状态不应该被解释为系统学内部观点竞争的结果。相反,分子系统发育学是独立于系统学产生的,分支分类学和表型学的元素被整合到分子系统发育学的框架中,这得益于表型学和分支分类学实践与分子系统发育学的定量方法的兼容性。我的研究表明,这一科学变化的插曲比常见的战斗和胜利者或冲突和妥协的叙述要复杂得多。今天,分支图仍然被使用并被解释为特定类型的分子系统发育树。虽然 phenograms 和 cladograms 在“系统学者之战”时期代表了不同形式的知识,但今天它们都被用来表示进化关系。这表明图表是科学实践的多功能元素,它们可以根据在理论框架内使用的上下文改变其含义。