As the science of order ("taxonomy"), Systematics is a pure science of relations, unconcerned with time, space, or cause. Unconcerned with time: systematics is non-historic and essentially static; it knows only a simple juxtaposition of different conditions of form. Unconcerned with space: geographical factors are not primary criteria in the definition of taxonomic units. Unconcerned with cause: systematics has no explanatory function as far as the origin of the system is concerned; it is merely comparing, determining, and classifying.
Borgmeier, Thomas. 1957. Basic Questions of Systematics. Systematic Zoology 6 (2):53-69.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Following my previous post there has been discussion in the comments on "which graph to believe". Sadly this becomes ideological, for some. I think the major point is that the HPS '97 graph (the one here) just isn't used anymore by anyone, except the septics who want to see a MWP. The graph has…
Historians and some scientists argue that it is a relevant and important pursuit to understand more about the history of science. I agree; in part this is what my day job is. But why exactly does it matter? To whom is it important? In what way? What will they get from it? How do historians…
I don’t usually do blog carnivals but Linnaeus’ Legacy #4 is up at The Other 95% and mentions a post of mine. Wander on over to see the current best posts on taxonomy and systematics.
Eric over at that brilliant invertablog, The Other 95%, is hosting the next edition of Linnaeus' Legacy. It is a blog carnival about taxonomy, biodiversity and systematics. The current edition is at A DC Birding Blog. You have 1 week to get in those submissions! Go here to submit.
Amen. Ah, the great Father Thomas Borgmeier (1892-1975).
Wow, you are really into ancient history! That was published nine years before I joined the Society.
I have just written a response to your post on Borgmeier (1957) here.