The science of systematics

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.

More like this

Here is a working list of species concepts presently in play. I quote "Concepts" above because, for philosophical reasons, I think there is only one concept - "species", and all the rest are conceptions, or definitions, of that concept. I have christened this the Synapormorphic Concept of Species…
Continuing with the Thursday series of the BIO101 lecture notes. Check for errors of fact. Suggest improvements (June 01, 2006): ---------------------------------------- BIO101 - Bora Zivkovic - Lecture 4, Part 1 Adaptation vs. Diversity Biology is concerned with answering two Big Questions: how…
In honour of Linnaeus' 300th birthday, and to rescue him from the canard that he merely applied Aristotelian logic to biology, I offer up this essay on his view of classification and species. I do not think Linnaeus was an essentialist in the Mayrian sense - he nowhere specifies that species have…
This post is part of The Pump Handle's Public Health Classics series. By Sara Gorman Does cigarette smoking cause cancer? Does eating specific foods or working in certain locations cause diseases? Although we have determined beyond doubt that cigarette smoking causes cancer, questions of disease…

Wow, you are really into ancient history! That was published nine years before I joined the Society.

By Jim Thomerson (not verified) on 10 May 2009 #permalink

I have just written a response to your post on Borgmeier (1957) here.

By Malte C. Ebach (not verified) on 11 May 2009 #permalink