Chapter 7 Chapter 4 Macro Taxonomy, Taxonomy-2

4.2 Classification of plants by ancient people and herbalists Aristotle also wrote on plants, but it has been lost.Therefore, the history of botany starts from the "Plant Survey" written by his student Theophrastus (371-287 BC). Theophrastus' main contribution was in plant morphology and plant biology. He did not adopt a formal plant classification system. The growth type of plants (trees, shrubs, small shrubs, grasses) was the main basis for his classification; with or without thorns , Whether it is cultivated by people, etc. are also used as one of the basis.Many of the botanical groups he mentions are obviously derived from folk custom, so that some are quite natural (oak, willow) and others are taxonomically quite artificial, such as "laurel" which is a general term for some evergreen trees.

The most important figure in terms of history directly concerned with botany is Dioscorides (c. 60 AD). He was a Greek physician in the Roman army. He traveled to many places and collected a very rich botanical knowledge that was useful to people.His Materia medica contained descriptions of five or six hundred species of plants.These plants are either used medicinally or provide spices, oils, resins or fruits.In the five books he wrote, the plants are mainly arranged by practical use (such as medicine, condiment, spice, etc.), but he also sometimes lists related plants together in order, such as his mention of Lamiaceae 22 species of Apiaceae and 36 species of Umbelliferae.He did criticize some scholars of the past for putting plants in alphabetical order because this separated related plants with the same properties. Dioscoridos occupies an important place in the history of botany mainly because his Pharmacopoeia has been the main botany textbook for a long historical period of 1500 years (Magdefrau, 1973: 4-11).He is recognized as the absolute authority on all matters concerning plants, especially their medicinal properties.Yet, like Galen's anatomy, his tradition became more and more bookish and divorced from the realities of nature and plant organisms.

However, from the thirteenth century onwards a large number of floras were published, in which a tendency to return to the observation of nature in the field could be detected, which was greatly accelerated by the invention of the new printing press. A Latin translation of Dioscorides' work was published in 1478, followed by a Latin translation of Thecphrastus' work in 1483, and the first printed manuscripts of the flora of previous centuries were also published during this period.The growing interest in plant identification, the numerous discoveries of native plants unknown to Dioscorides, and the study of new medicinal properties of newly discovered plants led to the establishment of professorial lectures in European medical schools, the first such The lectures were established in Padua, Italy in 1533.

Due to the research work of "Father of German Botany" Brunfels (1488-1534), Bock (1484-1554), Fuchs (1501-1566), a new era was created.These naturalists represent a trend toward going back to nature and seeing for yourself.Their writings are no longer lists of stereotypes and repeated plagiarism of myths and fables, but real and living descriptions of plants observed in the wild.They also represented an effort to describe and depict native flora; the illustrations were produced by the excellent draftsmen and woodcutters they employed with a precision and mastery unsurpassed by subsequent generations.These illustrations are to botany what Visanius' illustrations are to anatomy. The original title of Brunfels' book Herbarum Vivae Eicones (1530) also emphasizes that the plants described in the book were drawn in situ in the field (drawn by Hans Weiditz).Three flora descriptions written by each of them.and depicts many plant species of Central Europe completely unknown to ancient botanists. Brunfels described 200 species of plants, Fuchs no fewer than 500.

Bock is the most creative of the three.All his descriptions, written in accurate and vivid colloquial German, are undoubtedly based on his own observations.And he also publicly opposed the alphabetical order of other flora, and he put "all related and related, or otherwise similar plants to each other, but preserving differences" as the principle of his method.Not only does he write an excellent description, but he also notes the location and habitat (including soil properties) of the plants he describes, as well as other aspects of flowering and life history.In this way BOCk's work became the model for all future local flora, and became a bestseller of the era along with other flora printed in France and England.

Perhaps one of the most striking aspects of the "categories" of herbalists is that they have no coherent system.Herbalists are not concerned with classification at all but with the properties of the various plants. The taxonomic order of Brunfels (1530) is quite arbitrary, at least as far as plant genera are concerned.However, some closely related species, such as Plantagomajor in the genus Plantago, P. minor and P.rubea are arranged one after the other. Fuchs (1542) is mainly arranged in alphabetical order, and the contents of the first four chapters are: Absinthium, Abrotonum, Asarum, Acorum.This order is retained in the German version (1543), although the German names of the four genera are Wermut, Taubwurtz, HacelwurtZ, DrachenwurtZ, in reverse alphabetical order.It's funny that Fuehs mentioned in his talk that he didn't take this into account in the greatly simplified German version because "ordinary people" don't need to know.

There are three points worth mentioning separately in the taxonomy of flora.First of all, the understanding of species (species) and class (genus) is vague. Secondly, many known classes, such as grass, are quite natural, but they are often expanded by adding some superficially similar species.For example, among nettles one should distinguish the true nettle (Urtica) from the labiatae (Pseudo-nettle) which has similar leaves.For another example, after wheat (grass) is buckwheat (dicot), just because there is a word "wheat" in their common names.Such an arrangement, while valuable in botanical identification, has no basis for a complete classification.Finally, attempts to develop higher taxa have been limited.For example, Gerard wrote in the first chapter of his Flora (Hetball, 1597. According to Dodoens, Lobel) "Grasses, rushes, calamus, bulbs or onions", that is, mostly monocots.The second chapter covers "all plants used for food, medicine or spice" - botanically speaking, it is a complete hodgepodge.

The flora tradition reached its zenith with the publication of Caspar Bauhin's Illustrated Book (Pinax, 1623).It shows remarkable progress in the ninety years since the publication of Brunfels' Atlas.It describes a total of about 6,000 species of plants in 12 volumes and 72 parts, and all determine the genus and species, although there is no identifying characteristic of the genus.According to the overall similarity or common nature, related plants are often arranged together.The plant categories constituted in this way are not assigned the name of the taxonomic unit, and the identification basis of the advanced taxonomic unit is not listed.However, the monocots were vaguely recognized, and the species and genera of the dicots in nine or ten families and subfamilies were grouped together.Although Bauhin never specified his method, it is clear that he considered many different traits simultaneously and grouped together the genera that shared most of the traits.Given that the main purpose of the Illustrated Book is to provide a convenient catalog of plants, Bauhin's talent for discovering and grouping related genera is truly astonishing.

The beginnings of almost every subsequent development of botanical systematics can be found in the writings of herbalists: attempts to group plants according to similarity or shared traits; the beginnings of binary or even binary keys; the search for new traits; strive to provide a more accurate and detailed description.Perhaps the most valuable contribution of herbalists is their empiricism.They were no longer content with simply copying the works of Dioscorides and Theophrastus; they actually studied plants in nature and "descried, by species and genus, how each plant grew, at what season of the year how it bloomed and set fruit, and in what soil It is easiest to find on the ground." (BOCK, 1539) But each herbalist has his own method of work, and all of them are not exactly the same whatever method they use.

Because the number of known plants was not large at that time, as long as you look through the flora and come across plants that are similar in some aspects, then read the description and look at the illustrations carefully to ensure that the identification is correct, and you can find out the species in this way. However, by the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the number of known plants was growing almost exponentially, so this simple method was no longer applicable. Fuchs (1542) knew only about 500 species of plants, Bauhin (1623) 6,000, and Rui (1682) 18,000.Alphabetical or other random arrangements are no longer appropriate.To accommodate the avalanche of new plant "species" it was necessary to more carefully distinguish species within broader "kinds" (genera) and to group related genera into higher taxa.In addition, there is a need for a method or system that can identify a specimen relatively quickly.

4.3 Downstream Classification of Logical Classification The theory of taxonomy seems very simple: organize the things to be classified according to their similarities.The question immediately arises when dealing with biological organisms, how is similarity determined or measured?The answer is a careful analysis of traits (traits).Therefore selection and evaluation of traits has become a central issue of discussion in recent years.Yet if traits are considered at the outset, it is impossible to appreciate the difference between the taxonomy that dominated from Cechapino to Linnaeus and that that has prevailed since Darwin.It is therefore necessary first to discuss what classifications are possible. In fact, classification according to similarity was not the basis for the classification of the Renaissance.Identification was a prominent need at the time, and to meet this need the first comprehensive methodology of plant taxonomy was developed.The Italian anatomy-physiologist Cechapino (1519-1603) is recognized as the first scholar to consistently do so in his famous book De Plantis (1583).He considered himself the successor of Theophrastus, and like the latter he divided plants into trees, shrubs, shrubs (perennials), and grasses.But in search of an easily identifiable system he turned to Aristotle and borrowed from him the logical classifications familiar to everyone who went to school from the Middle Ages to the end of the eighteenth century (see previous section, Aristotle Germany). The principle of descending classification according to logical classification is basically simple.Yet in the writings of taxonomists from Cechapino to Linnaeus these principles were buried in such a complex of scholastic dogmas and obscure jargon (e.g. "essence," "universal," "accidental ", "distinction", "characteristics" and so on), which require special study to understand them. Logical classification did not start with Aristotle.Plato had long been interested in the distinction between general classes and their subgenres, but it did not show its full importance until Aristotle followed—such as the classification tree of porphyry, also called the Ramean classification tree (Jevons, 1877:702 ).The most prominent feature of this method is the division of a "genus" into two "species".This is called dichotomy.This approach is best suited for the development of keys, but it also tends to lead to overly artificial and unbalanced classifications.Aristotle himself scoffed at the idea of ​​classification based on dichotomies, but his logical use of zoological examples led his followers astray. There are several reasons for the prevalence of descending classifications from Chechapino to the nineteenth century.Its most important practical significance is that it starts with some easily identifiable classes (for example, trees, shrubs, grasses for plants; birds, butterflies, beetles for animals), and then uses appropriate distinguishing characteristics (characters) to divide this class into subclasses. some of its subcategories.This requires no prior knowledge of the species, just the ability to carry out logical classification procedures, which any layman can do. It would be a mistake, however, to think that the only reason for the prevalence of logical classification is its practicality.It flourished most during those centuries when everyone expected order and logical reason in the world God created.Therefore, if the world represents an ordered system, what better way to study it and analyze it than by the procedures and tools of logic?A classification properly reflects the order of nature only if it is based on the true essences of living organisms.It is the method of logical classification that helps to discover and define (definition) these essences.This approach then adequately reflected the dominant essentialist philosophy of that period. In the whole method of logical classification nothing is more important than the selection of distinguishing features (traits).The implicit reliance on single traits in this approach requires careful "weighting" (adding weighting values ​​to) the traits (Weighting characters).Cechapino was fully aware of this and devoted a great deal of energy to the careful study of plant morphology. He discovered many useful characters and was one of the first scholars to recognize the taxonomic significance of fruiting (Gesner before him). But Cechapino went completely wrong in his theory of weighting traits.A great follower of Aristotle, he selected traits based on their biological importance.He believes that the most important performance of plants is related to nutrition and development. The nutritional aspect (growth) is the most important, which is why he first divided the plants into trees, shrubs, grasses and so on.The importance of development is reflected in his emphasis on the fruit, the seed, the shoot (similar to Aristotle's emphasis on the embryo of animals). Comparison was an important part of his method, but he took it to ludicrous extremes, trying to match the most functionally important structures of plants and animals.He thus equated the roots of plants with the stomachs and intestines of animals, and attributed the stems and stalks of plants to the reproductive system because they produced seeds and fruits. Considering the frequency of convergence, parallelism, loss of traits, and other aberrations in the evolution of traits, one would think that a logical taxonomy based on a single trait would be utterly confusing.However, a study of Cechapino's plant taxonomy shows that the 32 plant groups he identified are generally quite normal.It is clear that Ceczapino would not have been able to formulate such a classification using only logical classification.As Stafleu (1969:23) rightly points out, Cechapino apparently starts with some natural categories that he knows intuitively or conventionally, plus an entirely irrelevant and unimportant superstructure of logical classifications.Cechapino's approach was thus a two-step approach: first by examining the divisions of plants into more or less natural categories, and then by looking for key traits that would allow him to arrange these categories according to logical taxonomic principles.Only in this way can he achieve two goals at the same time; provide a handy key and group plants into groups according to their "similarity" (see below).He was not entirely successful in reconciling the contradictions of the two methods, for instance the principles of logical classification compelled him to divide the herbaceous and woody leguminous plants into two families. Despite the flaws in his taxonomic system, Cechapino would have a profound impact on botany for the next two hundred years.All plant classification systems up to and including Linnaeus were developed with changes and improvements on the basis of the system he first adopted.Their classification is based on logical classification methods and on certain established weighting traits.Cechapino was influential not because his classifications were particularly useful but because he was the first scholar to come up with more or less coherent classifications.It will be used until someone comes up with a better way. Different selection of traits in the early steps of classification will inevitably form a completely different classification system.This is why the taxonomic systems of some famous and not-so-famous botanists who followed Cechapino in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries differed so markedly from each other.These botanists have different understandings of plant knowledge, which affects their selection of traits in the first step of classification.Similarly, in the classification of animals, whether to choose blood or bloodless, hairy or hairless, or biped or quadruped as the first basis for classification will form a completely different classification system. Another problem with the downward taxonomy is that it cannot be improved gradually and bit by bit.Substituting a trait for a different one yields an entirely new classification.The number of different classifications in such a classification system is virtually unlimited.Yet somehow these botanists managed to adjust the selection and order of characters so as not to disturb some of the well-known natural classes of plants. Larson has pointed out (1971: 41) that "many plant families, such as conifers, crucifers, grasses, and umbelliferae, were established in the sixteenth century and have survived competition among various taxonomic systems Intact and unchanged." Later such groups were more and more recognized, especially when genera of apparently isolated European plants were found to belong to tropical families. Seventeenth-century botanists differed from each other in weighting different characters, whether their primary interest was in genus or species, and in their adherence to logical principles of classification and weighting of traits that were thought to be Aristotelian. Rui and Tiyu Lev, two famous botanists at the end of the 17th century, had obvious differences in these points. Ray (John Ray, 1627-1705) was of course far more than just a botanist.He was the co-editor of one of the most famous treatises on zoology of his time and wrote important works on natural theology.But he was also a practical Englishman whose main purpose was to write a book capable of identifying plants with impeccable and indisputable identification.He therefore paid special attention to the nature of species.In his "History of Plants" involved 18,655 plant species and defined the species (level), which was mostly adopted for the next 150 years.He was almost the only one among the early botanists who had no medical education, and he was less influenced by the scholastic tradition than his contemporaries (even Tiyu Lev, who was educated at the Academy of Jesus).It is not surprising, then, that Ray, from his earliest writings, consistently employs dichotomies less often, and far less so than Cechapino or Tiulev.Not only did he use different secondary traits in his different classes, but he did not hesitate to switch from fruitiness to vegetative traits (such as whether there were stems or bulbs) when it seemed convenient to him.Tiulev and Rivinus have lashed out at him for these unorthodox practices, but Rivinus answers this criticism with a pragmatic admonition: "A satisfactory classification is one that combines similarities, plants that are uniform in general appearance, or that are uniform in general appearance, separate those that differ in these respects” (Synopsis, 1690: 33). He repeated this guiding principle in his subsequent writings.For example, "The first condition of the natural (classification) method must be that classes of plants which are apparently similar in nature are never separated, and classes which are naturally different are never mixed together" ("Sylloge", 1694:17).Of course, Cechapino and others who support logical classification would say that's exactly what their classification method wants.So Rui was forced to go one step further.In his book "De Variis" (1696) he pointed out that there is indeed no objective way of determining which characters reflect essence and which ones are accidental.In other words, he implicitly repudiates established weighting methods. (It should be noted that he was not opposed to the concept of essence or the distinction between essential and accidental characters.) From this he argued that not only flowers and fruits but other parts of the plant could reflect essence as well.He even went a step further, arguing that species may differ from each other by their accidental characters (Ornithology, 1678). Sloan (1972) suggested that Ray had these heretical views as a result of his study of the philosopher Locke.There are, however, many instances where Ray made unconventional valuations of characters in a purely pragmatic manner, and delved into the "philosophical works" (letter to Robinson, April 29, 1696) in order to refute Tiulev.Since it is very doubtful that a single character can reflect the essence of a genus, Ray, in his Law of Plant Research (Methcdus Plantarum, 1703: 6-7) puts forward: "The best arrangement of plants is that all genera, from the highest to the lowest, have certain properties in common, or agree in some parts, or Consistent with incidental properties.” He even goes as far as classifying ecological traits that have been strictly “forbidden” since Cechapino classification traits.In fact Magnol (1689) has long suggested the use of compound traits (multiple traits). Ray's contribution to the actual taxonomy of plants was modest.He, like Masnus, Pena, Lobel, Bauhin, and others, separated monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous colonies without understanding the nature of the difference between the two.He still maintains Theophrastus' point of view, dividing plants into trees, shrubs, grasses, and so on.In addition, his classification of Caryophyllaceae and Solanaceae is obviously inferior to that of Bauhin and others.The history of plant taxonomy also shows that Ray's influence was limited.What cannot be doubted, however, is his contribution to the loosening of the stubborn bastion of logical taxonomy. In France, Ray's eminent contemporary, Joseph Pitton de Tournefort (1656-1708), was perhaps the first botanist to fully appreciate how rich exotic plants are.Mere practical considerations were therefore far more important to him than the development of a general or natural classification.His aim was to provide a concise key to the diversity of plants: "To know a plant is to know the exact names according to the structure of some of its parts" (Tournefort: Institutiones, 1694:1).Since there were not many genera of plants at that time, he specialized in this level of genera.Contrary to most botanists of the past, he used a single word for the genera.Tiyu Lev's greatest achievement is that he first determined the concept of genus and carefully distinguished and clearly described 698 genera, most of which (sometimes changed names) were later adopted by Linnaeus.Thus some well-known generic names of plants actually come from Tiu Lev.As flowers and fruits furnish the most readily observable characters, these two parts of the plant form the basis of the vast majority of his descriptions, but he occasionally employs other structures whenever they are helpful.Tizi Lefu is more focused on practical needs than Linnai.In the case of plants without flowers or fruits, or where the flowers and fruits are too small to be observed by the naked eye, he suggested that "in order to correctly determine such a genus, not only all the other parts of the plant, but also their accidental (secondary ) character, mode of reproduction, general character and appearance” (Institutiones: 61). Although Tiyu Lev analyzed and studied the traits in detail, his classification of advanced taxa was more or less artificial. Of the 22 classes he drew up, only 6 belonged to the natural category.However, in terms of identification, his "Method" is more applicable than that of Rui, Morison, or Rivinus at the same time, and it was widely popular not only in France but also in Holland, England, and Germany. The identification systems of Boerhaave (1710), Magnol (1729), and Siesesbeck (1739) et al. are all variants of Tiulev's system; the main difference lies in the selection of the most important traits they consider to be the most important.The main purpose of the above-mentioned identification systems is to carry out identification by means of logical classification.None of them was able to achieve a coherent limit to the natural classes, since it is indeed impossible to do so by logical classification. Downward classification was not a wrong strategy in Cechapino's day, when everything about classification was still vague.A realistic concept of species has not yet been established, while the number of newly discovered biological species has increased exponentially.In an age when natural history is scarcely understood, correct identification is urgently needed, and logical classification fits the bill.Looking back now, it is clear that downward classification was an appropriate first step, if not inevitable, towards a better taxonomy. Botanists of this period are often referred to pejoratively as "Aristotelian," meaning the blind worship of tradition and authority and the use of deductive reasoning.This is very unfair.It is true that they used logical classification because it was the system most suitable for successful identification, but their work was not at all dependent on authority but was carried out on field sites, on extensive travel and careful analysis of research specimens .They established a solid empirical basis for Linnaeus's improved classification system in the later period. It should be mentioned here that attention must be paid to the striking difference between natural history and the historical development of the physical sciences.In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Western world experienced the so-called scientific revolution, however this revolution was mainly limited to the physical sciences and to a lesser extent involved parts of functional biology.Natural history and systematics were hardly affected by this great change in the neighboring sciences.From Cechapino, via Tiulev, Ray to Linnaeus, the tradition of essentialism and the influence of logical classification have never ceased.It is not unreasonable to think that natural history, almost until the time of Darwin, continued to be dominated by the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle.But it should be added that natural history is also dominated by another strand of Aristotle's thought: the naturalist spirit, that is, the joy of observing nature and the strong love for variety.This legacy of Aristotle continues to this day, and Aristotle's metaphysical influence in systematics was greatly weakened in the transition period from Adanson to 1859, and completely eradicated by Darwin. The rapid accumulation of plant taxonomic knowledge in the period from the early fifteenth century to Linnaeus would not have been possible without the important technological advance of the herbarium invention. (Lanjouw and Stafleu, 1956).The idea of ​​drying and pressing plants seems to have come from Luca Ghini (1490-1556), his student Cibo (whose herbarium specimens from 1532 still exist), Turner, Aldrovandi, and Cechapino all made herbarium specimens.Wax leaf specimens are an absolute must for collections of exotic and foreign plants.For example, Linnaeus' descriptions of most plants not in Sweden are based on wax leaf specimens.At present, there are 3 million to 6 million specimens in the world's herbarium, and botanists use these specimens for description and identification.The rapid development of plant taxonomy in the second half of the sixteenth century was due in large part to the new technology of wax leaf specimens, which allowed botanists to check specimens throughout the year.Another important technological advance was woodcutting. Luca Ghini is also a great innovator in another way.He established the first university botanical garden in Pisa, Italy, in 1543 (or 1544), the second at Padua (1545).When wax leaf specimens were still rare and illustrations were still rough, botanical gardens played an important role in teaching. At the end of the 16th century, public botanical gardens were established successively in Florence, Bilonia, France, Paris and Montnier in Italy. 4.4 Zoologists before Linnaeus When science was revived during the Renaissance, the taxonomy of animals was quite ahead of the taxonomy of plants. Although flowering plants are all alike in their structure, the same is not true among animals.There are clear distinctions between vertebrates, insects, jellyfish, and even within vertebrates, between mammals, birds, frogs, and fish, and no advanced theory is required to identify them.So it is not surprising that the main animal groups were separated long before Aristotle.Because there are such stark differences between well-defined animal taxa, zoologists tend to specialize in one type of animal as a result, such as Turner, Belon specializing in mammals, birds, and Rondelet in fish. But there are more important differences when dealing with animals and plants.There are so many types of plants, and while some of them look similar, certain species have specific therapeutic properties, so accurate identification becomes an overriding requirement.While identification has its place and role in animal books, everyone knows lions, foxes, hares, crows, and how they are classified doesn't seem particularly important or interesting.There was a tradition of assigning moral meaning to animals and a climate of interest in their behavior, so that the new zoology focused from the outset on what is now called ethology and ecology.Indeed, there was still a tradition of faithfully citing classic authors and Shen Diqian's linguistic analysis of the meaning of animal names; in addition, credulity in the absurd stories told by travelers and the existence of demons and monsters was still quite popular.Nevertheless, zoologists of the time showed great interest in living animals and there was clear evidence that they were studying them in the wild.But they were not interested in classification, and animal taxonomy soon fell behind plant taxonomy. Five naturalists in the early 16th century made important contributions to the resurgence of zoology after the Middle Ages; they were: William Turner (1508-1568), Pierre Belon (1517-1564), Guillaume Rondelet (1507-1566), Konrad Gesner (1516, 1565), Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522-1605). Although Turner is British, he spent most of his youth in Europe. In Cologne in 1544 he published the Avium Historia, an account of the life histories of many birds, apparently based on his own observations. Turner also published some works on botany, but is not as famous as he is on ornithology. Belon's Lhistoire de la nature des oyseaux (Lhistoire de la nature des oyseaux), published in 1555, is a more important work. Belon has been to some countries in the Levant and Near East.He used some traits of ecology and morphology to divide birds into raptors, water birds with webbed feet, marsh birds without warm feet, land birds, forest birds, small birds, and so on.Therefore, adaptation to habitat became his main basis for classification. Certain classifications of Belon were used well into the late nineteenth century, especially in French ornithological literature.Belon also published on fish and other aquatic animals (1551, 1553), but was soon replaced by Rondelet's "Complete Fish" published in 1554. (De Piscibus Libri 18), which describes two hundred or so species of true fish.It also includes whales, cephalopods, crustaceans, hard-shelled molluscs, annelids, coelenterates, echinoderms, sea brocades and so on.The book also includes some grotesque animals, as if they were also normal creatures in the Mediterranean Sea. In 1551, Gesner's "Historia Animalium" (Historia Animalium) was published.This is an encyclopedia-style masterpiece with more than 4,000 pages.Geissler compiled all the information he could gather from the literature on various animals.He apparently took Pliny, not Aristotle, as his model.Gessler himself was too busy compiling to provide information on the animals he observed in person, but many of his correspondents provided a wealth of original records.Although Geisler was interested in all aspects of animals in all aspects, he was not interested in classification.In each volume of Zoology the animal species are arranged alphabetically "for ease of use".In two other works, Atlas (Icones, 1553), in "Nomenclator, 1560", he systematically classified animal species, but compared with the classification of Aristotle and Rondelet, it did not show any progress.His excellent work on botany was not published until long after his death (1751-1771), so had little impact. gessler.The animal zone, the volume on birds, was expanded by Aldrovandi into three volumes, adding no new original observations except some anatomical information provided by his friends and students. Aldrovandi's Ornithologia (Ornithologia, 1599, 1600, 1603) is nothing but huge; no wonder Buffon says: In the future, this book can be compressed to one-tenth of its original length.” The difference between this book and Geisler’s Animal History is that the species are not arranged in alphabetical order but on a completely artificial classification basis. For example, birds with hard beaks, birds that bathe in dust or in dust and water, birds that can sing, waterfowl, etc.This is not a classification but an irony of classification.Even in classification he does not employ the principles of logical classification. One hundred years after Gessler, plant taxonomy has made great progress, while animal taxonomy has stagnated without any progress.直到功能和生境被结构取代作为分类依据之后动物分类才有所前进。这首先表现在FrancisWillughby（1635－1672）的着作《鸟类志》（Ornitholosiae libri tres，1676。这书于他死后才出版）中。他在这书中依据结构性状将鸟分类，例如乌噪和鸟足的形状，躯体大小。虽然他也运用了逻辑分类原则，但是Willughbyb显然对鸟类很熟悉，他所确认的绝大多数类别按现在的标准衡量仍然是合理的（Stresemann，1975）。我们无法知道他的这一分类有多少是由他的朋友瑞（Willughby手稿的编辑人）提出的。无论怎样说，瑞本人后来也出版了关于哺乳动物和爬虫类（1693）以及昆虫（1705）纲要，他的鸟类纲要（1713）和鱼类纲要（1713）是在去世后出版的。尽管瑞的分类方法很多是人为的，然而他的分类不仅在当时是最合理的，而且在某些细节方面甚至还要超过后来林奈的分类。 17世纪“发现了”昆虫界之后动物分类就成为迫切的问题。很快就认识到昆虫的种数远远超过植物，因而某些博物学家如Swammerdam，Merian，Reaumur，de Geer，Roesel等就将注意力转向昆虫及其分类的研究。这些人之中Rene AntoineFerchault deReaumur（1683－1757）最着名。他的六卷本名着昆虫志，虽然其中一部分效仿了JanSwammerdam（1637-1680），但在其它几个方面都具有开拓性。他对活昆虫的细致入微的观察为布丰的《自然史》（Histoire naturelle）提供了范例，他着重高级分类单位（而不是种的繁琐描述）被居维叶在其《回忆录》（Memoir，1795）中奉为圭臬。虽然Reaumur对分类并不特别感兴趣，但他作过无数欢锐敏的观察，例如尽管缺乏对硬翅鞘的鉴别性状，他认为雌萤火虫不过是甲虫的一种。他认识到自然类别的区分并不取决于单一鉴别性状。Reaumur的观点清楚地表明了对逻辑分类法日益增长的反对，并会同Adanson的着作为拟订上行分类原则（见下文）开拓了道路。Reaumu的研究工作由C·deGeer继承了下来，后者对昆虫分类作出了重要贡献，并显然对林奈的昆虫分类产生了相当大的影响。 16世纪到18世纪的博物学并不像19世纪那样严格的分成动物学和植物学。当时的学者如Turner，盖斯勒，瑞，阿丹森，林奈以及拉马克等既编写关于动物的书，也从事植物学方面的着述。然而即使在这三个世纪中大多数学者还是有所专注，或专重动物（如Belon，Rondelet，Swammerdam，Reaumur，布丰），或专攻植物（如切查皮诺，Bauhin，Morison，悌宇列弗）。1800年以后再也没有分类学家能够兼顾这两个方面。尽管Ray和林奈将植物学方法部分地引用到动物界，然而由于动物学与植物学日益分离，因此动物分类学和植物分类学逐渐形成了彼此大不相同的传统，也就毫不奇怪了。 动物学家的专业化从一开始就很明显，而植物学家的情况就不同。由于显花植物（被子植物）结构上的一致性，很容易从研究一个科转向研究任何另一个科而不需要学习其他任何新技术或专业术语。直到19世纪末期很晚的时候一些植物学家才开始成为某些科的专家，不论是兰科，禾本科，还是棕榈科。这种趋势在过去五十年中才变得很明显。动物学家的专业化在研究昆虫及水生动物时更加强化。（当然这并不排斥偶尔一位动物学家同时是几个极不相同分类单位的专家。例如，法国节肢动物学家Eugene Simon（1848－1924）又是一位蜂鸟科专家。这样的只在某一高级分类单位的专业化就分散了对分类方法和原则的注意力。不能否认直到18世纪末期动物分类学一直落后于植物分类学。 动物学之所以落后。还有另一个原因：植物远比动物易于保存。自从16世纪中叶以后腊叶标本已经相当普遍，然而直到18世纪末叶才发明了保护动物标本防止虫害的适当方法。长期采用的是在乙醇（酒精）中保存，但是谁又能研究在乙醇中保存的鸟类标本？ 这方法适用于鱼类和某些海洋生物以及供解剖用的标本，但是不适用于鸟类，因为它的颜色很重要。曾经一度用盐和明矾保存鸟和哺乳动物的毛皮，但直到Becoeur在17世纪50年代发明了含砷肥皂之后才能永久保存鸟皮（Farber，1977）。这一单项的技术进步就使得大量的现代鸟和哺乳动物标本得以保存。 昆虫也同样特别容易被咬食皮毛的甲虫破坏，直到引用了萘和密闭的标本盒以及偶尔的烟薰以后才能长期保存昆虫标本。此外还必须有管理人员经常检查。对植物来说虽然在原则上也有同样问题，但是实际的危害却小得多，制作与保存也相应地比较容易。 1800年以后动物系统学之所以能迅速兴起，一部分原因是由于动物标本保存技术进步的结果。 动物与植物之间还有两项主要区别必须指出。当居维叶和拉马克发现了无脊椎动物的内部解剖极端复杂（见下文）之后引起了一股比较解剖学热潮。而这又促使动物学家重视纲与门的分类。植物内部结构更大的一致性，或者更正确地说，解释植物解剖更困难，这就阻碍了植物学像动物学那样发展。其次，种在植物中较之在动物（至低限度就高级动物来说）中是更为复杂的现象，因而动物学家所具有的种的概念和植物学家的大不相同。 在撰写系统学历史时如果笼统地把植物学家和动物学家的论述搅合在一起就会引起误解。后面即将介绍并加以解释的这两类生物学家的观点不仅是他们观点的实质性变化也是他们的概念发展。但是即使在分类学中的同一领域内不同的概念也可能同时存在。 例如在植物分类学中林奈学派在一段长时间里是如此地占有统治地位以致不顺从他们的学者如果不是受压制也是有意识地被忽略或歧视。这就是像Masnol和Adanson这样一些植物学家遭到歧视的部分原因，他们在某些方面来说是比林奈更伟大的科学家。即使在今天，当把尽人皆知的动物类别（如鸟类）的专家的观点拿来和很少人知道的昆虫或其它无脊椎动物的专家的观点相比较，他们的分类学说和种的概念通常就大不相同。 4.5林奈 卡尔·林奈（Carl Linnaeus，1707一1778）当他在世的时候就享有盛誉，被称为“分类学之父”。这是其它博物学家所没有博得的。但是在他去世一百年之后又被普遍地认为他不过只是一个心胸狭隘的学究。通过Cain，von Hofsten，Stearn，Larson，Stafleu以及其他林奈学家的研究，现在我们才能够对他作出公允持平的评论。这并不是一件容易的事，因为林奈是一个极其复杂的人物，具有似乎非常矛盾的个性。在方法论上他的确是个学究式的实用主义者，然而却又具有杰出的文学才能。他是一个算八字的命理学家（特别钟爱5，12，365这几个数字），尤其是在他的晚年，在很大程度上成为了一个神秘主义者；然而他又是勤奋实干的分类学家的范例。他在荷兰住过几年并访问过德国、法国和英国。他只会讲瑞典和拉丁语言，对其它外国语懂得很少。当他到达荷兰的时候（1735），他的方法论和概念结构已经相当成熟，尽管他的方法随后变化极小（林奈并不认为后来二名制（双名制）的发明是对他的体系的重大修正），然而他的哲学思想却发生了决定性的转变。他只对个别物种生物学的一个方面，性（生殖）生物学，具有浓厚兴趣（Ritterbush，1964：109－122），对生物地理学和生态学的广泛论题却极为关注。但是他的主要兴趣是分类，他对分类竟然着迷到如此程度，凡是接触到的东西地都要加以分类，甚至还把植物学家分成如下几类：植物学家，植物爱好家，收藏家，演说家，辩论家等等（《植物哲学》6－52节）。 林奈在1753年知道的植物大约有六千种，他认为植物总计可能为一万种左右，动物种的数字（1758年他列出的数目是四千种）也大致与此相同（他的同时代人Zimmermann于1778年估计最终将会发现有十五万种植物，七百万种动物）。他的整个方法是根据只有少数分类单位的假定（他提出每位植物学家必须熟记每一属的鉴别性状！）；然而现在我们知道单是显花植物就有20万种。林奈当时知道瑞典的藻类，地农和真菌总计只有236种，而现在知道的已经有一万三千种。他还认为世界各个热带地区的植物十分一致。 然而知识的不足还不如概念的矛盾那样对他的方法论的发展更为有害。下面即将知道，林奈在一方面是经院哲学逻辑的追随者和坚定的本质论者，另一方面他又承认强调连续性的完满原则（Principle of Plenitude）。他的方法的主要目的是保证对植物和动物作出正确的鉴定，实用性很强；然而为了达到这目的为程序却又是高度人为的逻辑分类。 无怪乎批评他的人在他的着乍中能找出很多前后不一致的地方。 然而，林奈所得到的赞誉也是他应得的。他在学术上的创新（包舌发明双名制），他创导引用了电报式鉴别特征的严格体系，也对植物形态学细致命名法的发展（Bremekamp，1953a），他对同义词的标准化，以及在分类学研究中各个方面的标准化使分类学及其命名恢复一致性和简单化（前此曾有全面混乱的危险）；这些都是他取得成功并得到普遍赞誉的原因。由于他的权威性使得林奈能够将他的方法着根于系统学中，这正是18世纪和19世纪前期动物和植物分类学研究得以空前繁荣的主要原因。 但是，林奈以后的一些动、植物学家却认为林奈的工作过做强调分类和命名，结果是博物学的其它方面几乎完全被抹杀，“特别是活动物的研究完全被压制……而且不仅变种，甚至已知种的幼体和幼虫也被描述为单独的种“（Siebold，1854）。对Kolreuter的歧视以及在动、植物学领域中为生理学和胚胎学争取人才的竞争也都支持这种看法。 现代学者之所以非常难于理解林奈的原因还在于他所使用的一些词如“属”，“种”，“名”，“自然系统”，”认识“等等，在经院哲学逻辑系统中都有其特殊涵义。林奈在学校中逻辑成绩突出，显然对这种方法的精确性印象很深。自切查皮诺以来，每位植物学家多少都一贯运用逻辑分类法，这方法也支配了林奈（Cain，1958）。 林奈有一点和他以前的先行者不同。在他们的下行分类中，一有需要就运用二分法来取得他们所寻找的“属”或“种”，与此对映，林奈只是在属这一级严格地运用这种方法，他对属以上阶元不太感兴趣，对种内变异很含混并且前后不一致。 林奈没有采用一贯的下行二分法体系（系统）而是采用在一个界（kingdom）之内只含有四个阶元层次：纲（class），目（order），属（genus），种（species）的等级结构的体系。将自然界的全部多样性加以分类成为这四个层次的分类单位使他的体系清晰，明确而又前后一贯，这是他以前的繁琐累赘的二分法所不具备的。 现代分类学家都赞赏一个缜密的高级阶元等级结构。从种到界这一完整系列往往被称为林奈等级结构（Simpson，1961；Mayr，1969），虽然林奈并不是承认属以上阶元的第一位学者。前面曾经提到，亚里斯多德在安排动物的类别时曾模糊地涉及到等级结构。他把一切动物分成无血动物和有血动物，后者又细分为多足的，四足者，无足的等等。这些类别绝大多数都是借助于单一的鉴别性状划分的，亚里斯多德的后继者通常把他的这种安排解释为鉴定检索。然而前面已经提到过，亚里斯多德本人就对二分法这种人为方法抱嘲讽态度。例如他认识到他的分类依据之一“胎生”（与“卵生”相对应）就不能形成自然类别。亚里斯多德对高级阶元各个层次的名称也从来没有加以区别。 当亚里斯多德传统在文艺复兴时期重新抬头时，也包括不注重高级阶元在内。草药医生和百科全书式的编辑人或者根本不承认属以上的高级阶元，或者将他们按逻辑分类得到的类别定名为“卷”，“章”或其它非分类名称。瑞的属以上类别也同样完全是非正式名称。悌宇列弗显然是拟订出属以上阶元正式分类的”第一位植物学家。他将植物分为22个纲，这些纲又依次地细分为122个亚纲（sections）。 这些高级阶元的命名（名称）从一开始就因人而异。悌宇列弗称为亚纲的被Maanol和阿丹森称为“科”（family），林奈则称之为“目”（order）。随着植物的属和种的数目增多，就需要有更缜密的等级结构，并将所有的这些备用名称统一成单一的专用术语。科这个阶元在1800年就相当一致地用来指属与目之间的层次。但是居维叶在其随后的着作中仍然没有一贯地使用这些术语。它们只是在昆虫学家Latreille的着作中才完全正规化。 林奈为他的阶元目、纲、界下定义完全是独自完成的。他引用这些高级阶元好像不是为了学术原因而完全出于实际理由。的确，他曾坦率地谈到纲和目不如属那样“自然”。正如他在《植物哲学》（160节）中所写的：“纲是几个属在它们的结实（fructifications）方面按自然和艺术原则取得的一致。”换句话说。纲在一定程度上是人为的，但是林奈也暗示当植物所有的属都被发现并描述了之后它们将会被“自然纲”代替。就林奈来说目则更是为了选择方便：“目是为了防止把超过易于处理的许多属放在一起而将纲再细分一次“（同书161节）。很明显高级阶元对林奈来说主要是一个方便的信息检索器。他对高级阶元缺乏兴趣也可以由下面的事实证明；林奈所确认的动物高级阶元远远比不上二千多年以前亚里斯多德所划分的那样均一。 林奈对高级阶元的态度也是不一致的。属就最好不过地代表了他的本质论思想，一切的属都被严格的不连续性分隔开。但是他对纲和目却又采取唯名论者的态度，他遵循的是莱布尼茨的格言：自然（界）不知道跳跃。发现的植物越多，高级阶元之间的空缺也就逐个地被填补，一直到纲与目之间的界限最后完全消失。他还认为植物的所有分类单位和各个方面都有关系，正如相邻的一些国家在世界地图中一样。这就表明他又崇尚完备原则（同书，77节，Greene，1959：135）。 现代分类学家把属看作是最低级的集合阶元，是具有某些共同性质的种的集群。这并不是遵从逻辑分类的早期分类学者的关于属的概念。他们认为属是具有一定本质并可以依据特异性划分成种的一个门类。属在阶元等级结构中并不占有固定的等级位置，属“名”往往是多名式的，特别是在低层次中。起初在属的用法上并不一致，亚里斯多德有的时候用“genos”这个词指的是现在所说的种。“属”这个词的涵义转变成现在称之为属的阶元层次是一个缓慢的进程。它从草药医生和百科全书编纂者开始，其中Cordus（1541）和盖斯勒（1551）早就按接近于现代的方式使用属名，而德国的草药医生则往往在应当用“种”的时候用了Geschlecht（属）这个词。在17世记着名的分类学家瑞和悌宇列弗的着作中，“种”与“属”混用的情况开始引起了分类学家的注意。 就林奈看来属是分类的基石。当在周围环境中建立秩序时，人们所要区分的不是物件而是它们的“本质”。林奈的箴言是；自然属是存在的，自然属（即“本质”）被创造出来时就是这样，可以依据它们的结实性状来认识自然属。他认为结实结构相同的、不同的种有多少，属就有多少。他还认为不是分类学家“制造”属，分类学家只是发现那些一开始就被创造出来了的属。林奈的分类学说是神创论教义与本质论哲学的结合产物。 在林奈的最早期着作中他仍然遵从逻辑的严格规则，所以他将整个植物界称为“总属”（summum genus），它的种就是植物的种类。1735年以后他放弃了这种用法，并将“属”这个术语限制在紧接于种之上的等级结构层次。1764年他列出了1239个属的植物。 林奈对他的方法很强调，并在他的《植物哲学》中作了详细介绍，属的定义就说明了这方法的实质。“性状就是属的定义，这定义是三重的：人为的，基本的，自然的。属的性状就是属的定义（《植物哲学》，186节）。属的基本定义是赋予属以只限于它的、特殊的性状。基本定义（性状）依靠一种独特的思想把每个属从在同一自然序列（等级）相邻的属区别开”（同书，187节）。 如果有某种方法能够确定某一个属的基本性状是什么，那就只需要有基本定义就够了。但是林奈含蓄地承认并没有这样的方法。由于这个原因就还必须提出人为定义以便“把在一个人为序列中的各个属彼此区分开”（同书，188节）。最后，“自然定义列出了一切可能的属的性状；因而它既包含基本定义，又包括人为定义”（同书，189节）。 虽然林奈在其全部科学生涯中大大改变了他关于种的严格分界和固定不变的思想，但在属的问题上他从来也没有摇摆不定踌躇不前。给人的印像是他（通过观察）直觉地觉察、理解了属，并促使他提出了他的着名格言。“并不是性状（鉴别）产生属，而是属产生性状。”确实，他拄往忽略某些略有异常的物种的偏离常轨，只要这些偏离仍旧“显然”限于某一个属之内。对林奈来说，属是最方便的信息检索器，因为在他所知道的有限动、植物中，从总体来说，各个属彼此之间是由毫不含糊的不连续性分隔开的。 然而更加重要的是，出于他的本质论哲学思想，属（连同它的本质）是上帝赐予的多样性的真正单位。 在某些方面，最低限度在概念上，林奈的属（就其本质论的、统一的、独立存在的意义来说）是从悌宇列弗的属后退了一步；后者是种的集合，因而是一个集合阶元。属是一种手段，悌宇列弗说过，“就像在一束礼花中一样，把彼此相似的植物理在一起，把和它们不相似的分开”（《植物学原理》，（Elemens de botaniaue，1694：13）。 因此现代属的概念应当回溯到悌字列弗而不是林奈。Stafleu（1971：74）曾正确地指出“实际上并不是林奈首次提出了关于属的一贯自信的定义（鉴别）以及属的比较叙述。 这个荣誉应当归于经验主义者悌宇列弗。 " 就林奈来说分类是使植物学家能“认识”植物的系统，所谓““认识”就是肯定而又迅速地叫出它们的名字。只有运用明确、稳定的性状才能制订这样的系统。植物的营养器官对特殊条件表现多方面的适应因而受到趋同倾向的影响（例如仙人掌与大戟之间），这就使得早期的植物分类学家无所适从。林奈选择来作为性状主要来源的花的主要优点是雌、雄蕊数目的差别（以及某些其它性状）并不特别具有适应性（但是，我们现在可以说这可能一是其遗传型的附带产物，或者是与生境无关的、有利于传粉作用的适应）。 林奈将他的这种方法叫做“性系统”，很容易引起误解。使用这个术语反映了他特别重视生殖作用的突出重要性。在他看来，生殖作用显示了造物主的秘密工作计划。当然，雌、雄蕊数目的不同固然可以用来进行鉴定，但实际上并没有什么功能意义。林奈可能觉得坦率地承认这一点会很难堪，为了替他的系统找寻哲学上的籍口，于是便称之为性系统。它首次出现在1735年出版的《自然系统》（第一版）的一份检索表上。他选用了四个基本依据：数目、形状、比例、位置。因此数目只是林奈的性状组之中的一个性状。究竟花是可见的（后来称为显花植物）还是不可见的？有多少雌雄蕊？是否并合的？雌性和雄性部分是否在同一花中？这些都是林奈用来划分24个纲（如单雄蕊、双雄蕊等等）的性状。利用其它的性状再把纲分为目。 这个系统虽然是人为的，但为了鉴定和信息贮存与检索的实际目的却很有用。任何植物学家只要运用性系统就能得到与林奈相同的结果。他只要知道花和果实结构的少数名称就能鉴定任何植物。因此几乎所有的植物学家都采用林奈的这个系统也就不足为怪了。早在1739年，当法国植物学界的领袖人物Bernard deJussieu声称，由干林奈的方法更准确，因而比他的法国同胞悌宇列弗的方法更好，更适用时，林奈在这一方面就取得了彻底的胜利。 在根据共同祖先的分类中任何物种（或高级分类单位）都只能出现一次，在等级结构中占有独特位置。在人为的检索表中就没有这种约束。一个可变的分类单位以不同的二元组合（Couplet）形式可以反复进入检索表。在涉及到林奈对甲壳无脊椎动物分类时这一点必须记住。他将具有甲壳的（软体动物、蔓脚动物以及某些多毛动物）置于介壳目中，而将软体动物，即没有甲壳的软体动物（如蛞蝓，头足类动物），腔肠动物以及大多数多毛动物放在软体目。但是当他列举介壳目动物的属时，他又在括弧内给软体动物加上软体动物的属名。例如：Chiton（Doris），Cypraea（Limax），Nautilus（Sepia），Lepas（Triton）等等。Doris，Limax，Sepia，Triton这些属在软体目中又列为明确有效的属。林奈最关心的是实际的鉴定，他的复式系统（double－eetrySystem）也正是为了有利于进行鉴定（von Hofsten，1963）。这显然是一种折衷办法，介壳（目）供鉴定用，括弧内的动物则指明在系统中的真正位置。这当然也可以解释为试图同时作出人为的和自然的分类。 虽然逻辑分类法看上去是人为的，但是奇怪的是林奈确定的很多属是由具有鲜明特征的种的类群组成的，其中有很多今天仍然看作是属或科。仔细地研究一下这些分类就能够解开这个谜。很明显，林奈和切查皮诺一样，先是通过眼睛观察确定这些种的类群，然后才审慎地下定义。关于这一点林奈在他的《植物哲学》（168节）中公开地谈到过，他说“为了避免形成不正确的属，必须暗中（可以这样说，在桌子下面秘密地）向习惯请教。”当林奈的儿子被问及，尽管他父亲的方法是人为的，但为什么能够得出这样多的自然属，秘密在什么地方时，他回答道：“这没有别的，只靠他从外观上认识植物的经验。因此只要能保持住属的性状他往往偏离自己的方法以免被植物结构部分的数目变化搅得心神不定。”结果是，林条有时甚至把雄蕊数目不同的种放在一个属之内，有时竟然进到他的性系统的不同纲之内！而且他往往将一个属的鉴别特征部分只字不变地转到他的着作的新版本中去，虽然随后增补的种所具有的特征与原先的属鉴别特征并不一致。林奈在动物分类上也是同样地不拘常规。例如无翅的羊虱蝇就被他毫不犹疑地归到双翅目中。在林奈的动物学着作中类似的例子很多，在这些地方实用主义的考虑总是战胜了他的哲学原则。