Advertisement

Margins of Cladistics: Identity, Difference and Place in the Emergence of Phylogenetic Systematics 1864 – 1975

  • Robin Craw
Part of the Australasian Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 11)

Abstract

In 1929 the Russian emigre writer Vladimir Nabokov received the equivalent of US$8000 from contracts and newspaper articles. In his own words “he blew it all” on a butterfly collecting trip, his first in ten years. In February, 1930 Nabokov and his partner traveled south to the Pyrenees, collected Lepidoptera for 4 months, returning to Berlin in June. Nabokov took his specimens to be identified at the Deutsches Entomlogisches Institut at Dahlem on the outskirts of Berlin. In his paper describing this expedition he thanked Dr Walter Horn, the Director for his help.1 But Nabokov was less than flattering about German entomological systematics. In his autobiography “Speak, Memory” he writes:

“Great upheavals were taking place in the development of systematics. Since the middle of the [19th] century, Continental lepidopterology had been, on the whole, a simple and stable affair, smoothly run by the Germans. Its high priest, Dr Staudinger, was also the head of the largest firm of insect dealers. Even now, half a century after his death, German lepidopterists have not quite managed to shake off the hypnotic spell occasioned by his authority. He was still alive when his school began to lose ground as a scientific force in the world.

Keywords

Phylogenetic Reconstruction Argumentation Scheme Gall Midge Continental Drift Extant Taxon 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    V. Nabokov, 1931, Notes on the Lepidoptera of the Pyrenees orientales andtheAriege. Entomologist 64: 255–257,268–271.Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    Nabokov’s trip and his relationship with staff at the Deutches Entomologisches Institut are described in A. Field, 1986, VN The Life and Art of Vladimir Nabokov, Crown Publishers Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. 1b.
    and B. Boyd, 1990, Vladimir Nabokov: the Russian Years, Chatto and Windus, London.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    V. Nabokov, 1957, Butterflies, pp. 18–19 in P. Matthews (ed.), The Pursuit of Moths and Butterflies, Chatto and Windus, London.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    W. Horn, 1936, Introduction to P. Matthew “On naval timber and Arboriculture”, Arb. Morph, taxon. Ent. 3: 233–237.Google Scholar
  6. 3a.
    Details of Walter Horn’s life and work can be found in R. Korschefsky, 1939, Dr. Walter Harn, Ent. Blatter 35:177–184Google Scholar
  7. 3b.
    and A. Sachtleben, 1939, Dr. Walter Horn zum Gedachtnis, Arb. Morph, tax. Ent. 6: 201–222.Google Scholar
  8. 3c.
    The early history of the Deutsches Etomologisches Institut is summarized by Anon., 1930, 25 Jahre Deutsches Entomologists Institut, Wien. Ent. Zeit. 47: 60–61.Google Scholar
  9. 4.
    See e.g., C. Dupuis, 1984, Willi Hennig’s impact on taxonomic thought, Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 15: 1–24Google Scholar
  10. 4a.
    and E. Sober, 1988, Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution anna Inference. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. 4b.
    Details of Willi Hennig’s life, career and bibliography can be found in G. W. Byers, 1977, In memoriam Willi Hennig (1913–1976), //. Kansas Ent. Soc. 50: 272–274Google Scholar
  12. 4c.
    D. Schlee, 1978, In memoriam Willi Hennig 1913–1976. Einne biographische Skizze, Entomological Germ. 4(3–4): 377–391 and Anon., 1978, In memoriam Willi Hennig [bibliography only], Beitr. Ent. 28: 169–177.Google Scholar
  13. 4d.
    An important and insightful study of the recent history of cladistics in Europe and North America has been provided by C. Dupuis, 1979, Permanence et actualité de la Systématique: La «Systématique phyogénétique» de W. Hennig (Historique, discussion, choix de références), Cahiers des Naturalistes, N.S. 34: 1–69.Google Scholar
  14. 5.
    Standard accounts of phylogenetic systematics/cladistics are W. Hennig, 1966, Phylogenetic Systematics, University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  15. 5a.
    G. Nelson and N. Platnick, 1981, Systematics and Biogeography: cladistics and vicariance, Columbia Univeristy Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. 5b.
    E. O. Wiley, 1981, Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, John Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. 5c.
    and N. Eldredge and J. Cracraft, 1980, Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. 6.
    See e.g., V.A. Funk and D. R. Brooks, 1990, Phylogenetic Systematics as the basis of Comparative Biology, Smithsonian Contributions to Botany 73.Google Scholar
  19. 7.
    D. Hull, 1988, Science as a Process, The Universty of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.Google Scholar
  20. 8.
    See e.g., D. Hull, ibid, pp. 130–131: “Science is supposed to be international, and to some extent it is, but language differences can form very real barriers. In 1950, an East German entomologist Willi Hennig published a formidable treatise entitled “Grundzuge einer Theorie der Phylogenetischen Systematik”. In this work Hennig took seriously the claim that phylogenetic classifications are to represent phylogeny. “Initially Hennig had little impact on taxonomic disputes among English speaking systematists”, and p. 363: “Nelson initiated the Hennigian revolution among English speaking systematists” and p. xi: “While I was studying the pheneticists, I realized that Nelson, without intending to, had given rise to a new “school” -the cladists or phylogeneticists”. So Hull claims a prominent role for Nelson in the late 1960s to early 1970s as the major disseminator of cladistics. These events are fortuitously connected to publication of the English language book by Hennig in 1966.Google Scholar
  21. 9.
    See, e.g. G. De Beer, (ed.) 1960, Darwin’s notebooks on the transmutation of Species Part 1. First Notebook (July 1837 — February 1838). Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Historical series 2 (2); C. Darwin, 1859, On the origin of species. John Murray, London and ‘Taxonomical tree showing hypothetical relation of man to other primates “drawn by Darwin on April 21, 1868 figured in S. S. Schweber, 1989, John Herschel and Charles Darwin: A study in parallel lives, //. Hist. Biol. 22 (1): 1–71.Google Scholar
  22. 10.
    Pre- and post-Darwinian tree diagrams have been illustrated and discussed by H. J. Lam, 1936, Phylogenetic symbols, past and present (Being an apology for Genealogical trees), Acta Biotheoretica 2: 153–194Google Scholar
  23. 10a.
    G. Nelson and N. Platniick, 1981, Phylogenetic symbols, past and present (Being an apology for Genealogical trees), Acta Biotheoretica 2: 153–194Google Scholar
  24. 10b.
    R. J. O’Hara, 1988, Diagramatic classifications of birds, 1819–1901: views of the natural system in 19th-century British ornithology, pp. 2746–2759 in Acta XIX Congress Internationalis Ornithologici (H. Ouellet, ed.) and 1990 Representations of the natural system in the nineteenth century, Biology and Philosophy 6: 255–274;Google Scholar
  25. 10c.
    P. F. Stevens, 1983, Augustun Augier’s “Arbre botanique” (1801), a remarkable early botanical representation of the natural system, Taxon 32: 203–211.Google Scholar
  26. 10d.
    The theoretical differences signified by pre- and post-Darwinian trees are discussed in P. J. Bowler, 1989, The non-Darwinian revolution: reinterpreting a historical myth, The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.Google Scholar
  27. 11.
    F. Mueller, 1864, Für Darwin, Leipzig [English translation 1869, Facts and Arguments for Darwin, John Murray, London]. Mueller is best known for his discovery of the phenomenon known as Muellerian mimicry.Google Scholar
  28. 12.
    C. Spence-Bate 1865, Crustacea, pp. 257–311 in The record of Zoological Literature, Volume the First. John van Voorst, London.Google Scholar
  29. 13.
    See e.g., A. Dohrn 1867, Eugeron Boeckingi und die Genealogie der Arthropoden, Stett. Ent. Zeit., 1867: 145–153Google Scholar
  30. 13a.
    A. Speyer 1870, Zur genealogie der Schmetterlinge, Stett. Ent. Zeit., 1870: 202–223Google Scholar
  31. 13b.
    P. Mayer, 1876, Ueber Ontogenie und Phylogenie der insekten, Jenaische Zeit, fur Naturwissenschraft 10: 125–221Google Scholar
  32. 13c.
    F. Brauer, 1885, Systematischzoologische Studien, Sitzb. der. kais. Akad. der Wissensch. XCI: 237–384 and 1887, Beziehungen der Descendenzlehre zur Systematik, Adolf Holzhausen, WeinGoogle Scholar
  33. 13d.
    C. Boerner, 1904, Zur Systematik der Hexapoden, Zool. Anz. 27: 511–533Google Scholar
  34. 13e.
    and P. Speiser, 1908, Die geographische Verbreitung der Diptera pupiparia und ihre Phylogenie, Zeit. fur. wiss. Instekten. 13: 241–246, 301–305, 420–427, 437–447.Google Scholar
  35. 14.
    A. Handlirsch, 1908, Die Fossilen Insekten und die Phylogenie der rezenten formen, Wilhelm Englemann, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  36. 14a.
    The Standard account of Handlirsch’s life including a bibliography is by M. Beier, 1935, Anton Handlirsch, Konowia 14: 340–347.Google Scholar
  37. 15.
    See e.g.; F. Heikertinger, 1925, Monographie der Halticinengattung Derocrepis Weise (Coleopt,. Chrysomelidae), Wein. Ent. Zeit. 42: 95–178Google Scholar
  38. 15a.
    H. Hoffman, 1929, Zur Kenntnis der Onddiien (Gastrop. pulmón.). Ein Beitrag zur geographischen Vebreitung, Phylogenie und Systematik dieser Familie, n Tiel. Phylogenie und Verbreitung. Zool. Jahrb. Jena Abt. Syst. 57: 253–302Google Scholar
  39. 15b.
    K. Eller, 1939, Fragen und Probleme zur Zoogeographie und zur Rassen- und Artbildung in der Papilio machaon-Gruppe, Verh. VII Int. Kog. für Ent. 1: 74–101Google Scholar
  40. 15c.
    E. Fischer, 1937, Der Basaldorn der Schmetterlinge und seine phylogenetische Bedeutung, Ent. Zeit. 50: 290–295Google Scholar
  41. 15d.
    G. Save-Soderbergh, 1934, Some points of view concerning the evolution of the vertebrates and the classification of the group, Arkivfur Zoologi 26 (A): 1–20Google Scholar
  42. 15e.
    and H. V. Boetticher, 1943, Die phylogenetisch-systematische Stellung von Anseranas, Zool. Anz. 142: 55–58Google Scholar
  43. 16.
    W. Hennig, 1934, Revision der Tyliden (Dipt., Acalypt). Stett. Ent. Zeit. 95: 65–108,294–330; 1935, Revision der Tyliden (Dipt., Acalypt.). IL Teit. Konowia 14:68–93,192–216,289–310; 1936, Beziehungen zwischen geographischer Verbreitug und systematischer Gliederung bei einigen Dipterenfamilien:ein Beitrag zum Problem der Gliederung systematischer Kategorien hoherer Ordnung. Zool. Anz. 116: 161–175.Google Scholar
  44. 17.
    W. Hennig, 1966, Phylogenetic systematics, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, p. 9.Google Scholar
  45. 18.
    F. van Emden and W. Horn (eds.) 1929 3. Wanderversammlung Deutscher Entomologen in dessen. Berlin-Dahlem.Google Scholar
  46. 19.
    See e.g., F. Ruschkamp, 1927, Systematik und Stammesgeschichte, Ent. Mitt. 16: 420–422.Google Scholar
  47. 20.
    Geographic distributions of taxa are mapped onto a phylogenetic tree by G. Grimpe and H. Hoffman, 1925, Die Nacktschnecken von Neu-Caledonien, den Loyalty-Inseln und den Neuen-hebriden, Nova Caledonica A. Zoologie, 3: 339–476, and gymnosperm hosts are mapped onto a phylogenetic tree of their associated rust fungi by P. Dietel, 1938, Betrachtungen zur Entwicklung des Stammbaums der Pucciniastreen, Annales Mycologici 36: 1–8. Google Scholar
  48. 21.
    W. Zimmermann 1931, Arbeitsweise der botanischen Phylogenetik, pp. 941–1053 in E. Abderhalden (ed), Handbuch der biologischen Arbeitsmethoden. Abt. IX, Teil 3.Google Scholar
  49. 22.
    K. Lorenz, 1941, Vergleichende Bewegungsstudien an Anatinen, II. fur Ornith., Erganzungsband III: 194–293; and 1953, Comparative studies on the behaviour of Anatinae, Avicultural Magazine 59: 80–91.Google Scholar
  50. 23.
    W. Zimmermann, 1962, Kritische Beitrage zu Einigen Biologischen Problemen. IV. Die Ursachen der Evolution, Acta Biotheoretica 14: 121–206, and 1965, Familie Ranunculaceae, In Hegi, Illustrierte Flora von Mitteleuropa. Bd. III/3,2 Aufl. -Minchen.Google Scholar
  51. 24.
    The most comprehensive account of Rosa’s work is G. Colosi, 1961, L’Opera di Daniele Rosa e la dottrina dellevoluzione (con cenni biografici e bibliografici). Mem. Acad. Sci. Torino Serie 3, Tomo 4: 329–368.Google Scholar
  52. 25.
    The relevance of Rosa’s work has been discussed by G. Nelson, 1973, Coments on Leon Croizat’s biogeography, Syst. Zol. 22: 312–319 and 1974, Historical biogeography: an alternative formalization, Ibid 23: 555–558;C. Baroni Urbani, 1977,Hologenesis,phylogeneticsystematics and evolution, Ibid 26: 343–346; 1979, The causes of evolution: converging orthodoxy and heresay, Ibid 28: 622–624; 1990, Searching for the evolutionary roots of cladistics (A simplified conspectus of Hologenetic theory), Newsletter of the OSAKA GROUP for the study of Dynamic Structures, Nov. 1990: 1–8,Google Scholar
  53. 25a.
    R. Craw and M. Heads 1988, Reading Croizat: on the edge of biology, Riv. Biol./Biology Forum 81 (4): 499–532.Google Scholar
  54. 26.
    D. Rosa 1918 Ologenesi: Nuova teoria dellevoluzione e delia distrituzione geografica dei viventi. Bemporad and Figilio, Firenze.Google Scholar
  55. 27.
    The similiarity between Hennig’s and Rosa’s views has been discussed by G. Colosi, 1956, Filogensi e Sistematica, Boll. Zool. 23: 787–824Google Scholar
  56. 27a.
    G. Nelson and N. Platnick, 1981, Filogensi e Sistematica, Boll. Zool. 23: , pp. 325–236Google Scholar
  57. 27b.
    and L. Croizat, 1975, Biogeografia analítica y sintetica (“Panbiogeografia”) de las Americas, Tomo H, Biblioteca de la Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Mathematicas y Naturales, pp. 609–613, 824–828.Google Scholar
  58. 28.
    Peter J. Bowler, 1989, Development and Adaptation: Evolutionary Concepts in British Morphology, 1870–1914. :283–297.Google Scholar
  59. 29.
    E. Meyrick, 1985, A Handbook of the British Lepidoptera, MacMillan and Co., London, p. 13. Meyrick’s scientific work is discussed in Gaden S. Robinson, 1986, Edward Meyrick: an unpublished essay on phylogeny. Jl. Nat Hist 20: 359–367.Google Scholar
  60. 30.
    Dollo’s law is discussed in S. J. Gould. 1970, Dollo on Dollo’s law: Irreversibility and the Status of Evolutionary Law’s, Jl. Hist. Bio. 3: 189–212.Google Scholar
  61. 31.
    E. Meyrick, 1884, On the classification of the Australian Pyralidina. Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1884, p. 277. A more extended treatment by the same worker is 1889, On the interpretation of neural structure, Entomol. Mon. Mag. 25: 175–178.Google Scholar
  62. 31a.
    Meyrick’s priority over Dollo was noted by H. Sachtleben, 1951, Zur Prioritat des Satzes von der Irreversibilitat der Entwicklung, Bet. Ent. 1: 93.Google Scholar
  63. 32.
    A. Dendy, 1912, Outlines of Evolutionary Biology, Constable and Co. Ltd., London.Google Scholar
  64. 33.
    J. W. Tutt, 1895, An attempt to correlate the results arrived at in recent papers on the classification of Lepidoptera, Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1895, p. 343.Google Scholar
  65. 34.
    J. W. Tutt, 1898, Some considerations of natural genera, and incidental references to the nature of species, Proc. South Lond. Ent. Nat. Hist. Soc, 1898: 20–30, and 1899, The Lasiocampids, Proc. South Lond. Ent. Nat. Hist. Soc., 1899: 1–11.Google Scholar
  66. 35.
    See e.g., P. Chalmers Mitchell, 1901, On the intestinal tract of birds, with remarks on the valuation and nomenclature of zoological characters, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond.,Zool.,ser. 2, 8:173–275. The term Mitchell’s Theorum was coined by R. Carolin, 1984, Mitchell’s Theorum and its impact on biology, Cladistics, Systematics and Phytogeny Symposium, Canberra, Abstracts, p. 1.Google Scholar
  67. 36.
    P. Chalmers Mitchell, 1905, On the intestinal tract of mammals, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond., 17, pp. 528–529.Google Scholar
  68. 37.
    P. R. Lowe, 1924, On the anatomy and systematic position of the Madagascan bird Mesites (Mesoaenas), Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1924:1131–1152 and 1928, Studies and observations bearing on the phylogeny of the Ostrich and its allies, Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1928: 185–247.Google Scholar
  69. 38.
    T. J. Parker, 1883, On the structure of the head in Palinurus, with special reference to the classification of the genus, N. Z. Jl. Sci. 1: 584–585.Google Scholar
  70. 39.
    See e.g.; F. W. Hutton, 1884, On the origin of the fauna and flora in New Zealand, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (5) 13: 425–448.Google Scholar
  71. 40.
    See e.g. L. Harrison, 1928, The composition and origins of the Australian fauna, with special reference to the Wegener hypothesis, Report 18t meeting ANZAAS, pp. 332–396Google Scholar
  72. 40a.
    and L. King, 1944, On palaeogeography, S. Afr. Geogr. Jl. 26: 1–13.Google Scholar
  73. 41.
    See e.g.; G. H. Hardy, 1922, The geographical distribution of genera belonging to the Diptera Brachyera of Australia, Aust. Zool. 2: 143–147Google Scholar
  74. 41a.
    and I. M. Mackerras, 1925, The Nemestrinidae (Diptera) of the Australasian region, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 50: 489–561, and 1927, Notes on Australian mosquitoes (Diptera, Culiculidae). Partii, the zoogeography of the subgenus Ochlerotatus, with notes on the species, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 52: 284–298.Google Scholar
  75. 41b.
    This work is reviewed in G. H. Hardy, 1951, Theories of the World distribution of Diptera, Ent. Mon. Mag. 87: 99–102.Google Scholar
  76. 42.
    N. D. Riley, 1940, Dr. F. W. Edwards, F.R.S., Nature 146: p. 740.See also F. W. Edwards, 1928, An account of a collecting trip to Patagonia and Southern Chile, Proc. 4th Int. Congr. Ent.: 416–417.Google Scholar
  77. 43.
    See e.g.; C. P. Alexander, 1929, Díptera of Patagonia and South Chile. Part 1-Crane-flies. British Museum (Natural History), London.Google Scholar
  78. 44.
    F. W. Edwards, 1926, The phylogeny of Nematocerous Díptera: a critical review of some recent suggestions. Proc. 3rd Int. Congr. Ent. 2: 114–115.Google Scholar
  79. 45.
    Details of Tillyard’s life and work can be found in A. D. Imms, 1938, Robin John Tillyard, 1881–1937, Obituary Notices of the Royal Society of London 2(6): 339–345Google Scholar
  80. 45a.
    J. W. Evans, 1946, Robin John Tillyard, 1881–1937. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 71: 252–256Google Scholar
  81. 45b.
    and T. K. Crosby, 1977, Robin John Tillyard-the man behind the book, N. Z. Ent. 6(3): 305–308.Google Scholar
  82. 45c.
    Tillyards approach to phylogenetic reconstruction and polarization of character states is most comprehensively covered in R. J. Tillyard, 1917, A study of the rectal breathing-apparatus in the larvae of Anisopterid dragon-flies. J. Linn. Soc. (Zoo.) 33: 127–196; 1918, The Panorpid Complex: A study of the phylogeny of the Holometabolous Insects, with special reference to the subclasses Panorpoidea and Neuropteroidea [Introduction], Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 43: 265–284; and 1921, A new classification of the order Perlaria, Canad. Ent 53: 35–43.Google Scholar
  83. 46.
    J. G. Myers, 1929, The taxaonomy, phylogeny and distribution of New Zealand cicadas (Homoptera), Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1929: 29–60.Google Scholar
  84. 47.
    Withycombe’s correspondence with Tillyard is noted in Anon., 1927, Cyril Luckes Withycombe, M.Sc, Phd., Ent. Mon. Mag. 63: 16–17.Google Scholar
  85. 48.
    C. L. Withycombe, 1924, Some aspects of the biology and morphology of the Neuroptera. With special reference to the immature stages and their possible phylogenetic significance, Trans. Ent. Soc. Lond., 1924: 403.Google Scholar
  86. 49.
    See e.g.; A. S. Packard, 1883, The genealogy of Insects, Amer. Nat., 1883: 932Google Scholar
  87. 49a.
    H. Osborn, 1895, The phylogeny of Hemiptera, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 3:185–190Google Scholar
  88. 49b.
    W. H. Ashmead, 1896, The phylogeny of the Hymneoptera, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 3: 323–336Google Scholar
  89. 49c.
    and A. Radcliffe Grote, 1897, An attempt to classify the Holarctic Lepidoptera by means of specialization of the wings, Jl. N.Y. Ent. Soc. 5: 151–160.Google Scholar
  90. 50.
    See e.g.; H. Dyar, 1901, Life history of Callidapteryx dryopterata Grt., Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 6: 414–418Google Scholar
  91. 50a.
    H. Osborn, 1908, The habits of insects as a factor in classification, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 1: 70–84Google Scholar
  92. 50b.
    C. L. Turner, 1916, BreedinghabitsoftheOrthoptera, Anw. Ent. Soc. Amer. 9:117–135Google Scholar
  93. 50c.
    J. A. Hyslop, 1917, The phylogeny of the Elateridae, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 10: 241–263Google Scholar
  94. 50d.
    E. M. Walker, 1922, The terminal structures of orthopteroid insects: Aphylogeneticshidy, Ann.Ent.Soc. Amer. 15: 1–89Google Scholar
  95. 50e.
    H.E. Ewing, 1922, The phylogeny of the gall mites and a new classification of the suborder Prostigmata of the order Acarina, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 15: 213–222Google Scholar
  96. 50f.
    and H. Good, 1925, Wing venation of the Buprestidae, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 28: 251–276.Google Scholar
  97. 51.
    A. Busck, 1909, Notes on Microlepidoptera, with descriptions of new North American species, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 11: 87–103.Google Scholar
  98. 52.
    See. e.g., H. Osborn, 1908, Notes on Microlepidoptera, with descriptions of new North American species, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 11: 87–103Google Scholar
  99. 52a.
    C. L. Turner, 1916, Notes on Microlepidoptera, with descriptions of new North American species, Proc. Ent. Soc. Wash. 11: 87–103Google Scholar
  100. 52b.
    C. W. Leng, 1920, Catalogue of the Coleoptera of American, North of Mexico, J. D. Shermman, New York, [see pp. 7–25]Google Scholar
  101. 52c.
    and M. H. Hatch, 1925, The phylogeny and phylogenetic tendencies of Gyrinidae, Pap. Mich. Acad. Sci. Arts. Letters 5: 429–467.Google Scholar
  102. 53.
    A. Braun, 1919, Wing structure of Lepidoptera and the phylogenetic and taxonomic value of certain persistant trichopterous characters, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 12: 349–366.Annette Braun’s studies on phylogenetic systematics and her anticipation of contemporary cladistics have been reviewed by M. Alma Solis, Annette Frances Braun: Early concepts in Lepidoptera phylogenetics, Am. Entomol. 36: 122–126.Google Scholar
  103. 54.
    S. M Moody, 1985, Charles L. Camp and his 1923 Classification of Lizards: an early cladist?, Syst. Zool. 34: 216–222.Google Scholar
  104. 55.
    J. C. Chamberlain, 1923, A systematic monograph of the Tachardiinae or lac insects, Bull. Ent. Res. 14: 147–212.Google Scholar
  105. 56.
    W. T. M. Forbes1933, A grouping of the argotine genera, Ent. Amer. 14: 1–30Google Scholar
  106. 56a.
    W. T. M. Forbes1936, The classification of the Tyatiridae, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 29: 779–803Google Scholar
  107. 56b.
    W. T. M. Forbes 1939, Revisional notes on the Danainae(Lepidoptera), Ent. Amer. 19: 101–139.Google Scholar
  108. 56c.
    The similarities between Forbes’ method and contemporary cladistics has been discussed by P. R. Ackery and R. I. Vane-Wright, 1984, Milkweed butterflies: their cladistics and biology, Dept. of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London.Google Scholar
  109. 57.
    Short accounts of Ross’ life are given by G. Byers, 1978, In memory of Herbert H. Ross, 1908–1978,//. Kansas Ent. Soc. 52 (1): 92,108Google Scholar
  110. 57a.
    and J.C. Morse and R.T. Allen, 1979, Herbert Holdsworth Ross, Syst. Zool. 28:413–414.Google Scholar
  111. 57b.
    His more important works are H. H. Ross, 1937, A generic classification of the Nearctic sawflies (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Illinois Biological Mongraphs 15(2); 1956, Evolution and Classification of the Mountain Caddisflies, University of Uinois Press, Urbana; 1958, The relationships of systematics and the principles of organic evolution, Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Ent. 1: 423–429; and 1974, Biological Systematics, Addison Wesley Pub. Co., Inc. Mass.Google Scholar
  112. 58.
    See e.g.; S. Kramer, 1950, The morphology and phylogeny of Auchenorhynchous Homoptera (Insecta), Ill. Bio. Mon. 20(4); S. S. Roback, 1951, A classfication of the muscoid calyptrate Diptera, Ann. Ent. Soc. Amer. 44: 327–361; L. J. Stanard, 1957, The phylogeny and classification of the North American genera of the suborder Tubulif era (Thysanoptera),!//. Bio. Mon. 25 Google Scholar
  113. 58a.
    E. L. Mockford, 1965, The genus Caecilus (Psocoptera : Caeciliidae). Part 1. Species groups and the North American species of the falvidus group. Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc. 91: 121–166Google Scholar
  114. 58b.
    and R. T. Allen, 1972, A revision of the genus Loxandrus LeConte (Coleoptera : Carabidae) in North America, Ent. Amer. 46: 1–184.Google Scholar
  115. 59.
    M. L. Aczel, 1951, Morfologia externa y Division Sistematica de las “Tanypezidiformes”, Acta Zoo. Lilloana 11: 483–589.Google Scholar
  116. 59a.
    Hennig is mentioned by N. Kusnezov, 1951, El genero “Vogonomyrmex” Mayr (Hym., Formicidae), Acta Zoo Lilloana 11: 227–333.Google Scholar
  117. 60.
    R. T. Schuh and H. Herman, 1988, Petr Wolfgang Wygodzinsky (1916–1987), /. New York Ent. Soc. 96: 227–232.Google Scholar
  118. 61.
    This seminar is noted in J. A. Slater and J. T. Polhemus, 1990, Peter D. Ashlock 1929–1989, J. New York Ent. Soc. 98: 113–118.Google Scholar
  119. 62.
    M. Mackerras, 1964, The classification of animals, Proc. Linn. Soc. N. S.W. 88: 324–335.Google Scholar
  120. 63.
    W. Hennig, 1960, Die Dippteren-Fauna von Neuseeland als systematisches und tiergeographisches Problem, Beit. Ent. 10: 221–329. [Translated by P. Wygodzinsky as 1966, The Diptera fauna of New Zealand as a problem in systematics and zoogeography, by Willi Hennig, Pacific Insects Monogr. 9: 1–81.Google Scholar
  121. 64.
    Papers and letters inserted inside translation of Hennig, I960, DSIR Plant Protection reprint collection no. 35046.Google Scholar
  122. 65.
    See e.g. E. Handschin, 1958, Die systematische Stellung der CoUembolen, Proc. 10th Int. Congr. Ent. 1: 499–516.Google Scholar
  123. 66.
    See e.g.; F. L van Emden, 1957, The taxonomic significance of the characters of immature insects, Ann. Rev. Ent. 2: 91–106Google Scholar
  124. 66a.
    H. E. Hinton, 1958, The phylogeny of the panorpoid orders Ann. Rev. Ent. 3: 181–206Google Scholar
  125. 66b.
    J. L. Gressitt, 1958, Zoogeography of insects, Ann. Rev. Ent. 3: 182–230.Google Scholar
  126. 67.
    H. Sachtleben, 1958, The activity of the German Entomological Institute of the German Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Berlin, Ent. Rev. 37: 665–670.Google Scholar
  127. 68.
    W. Hennig, 1969, Neue Gattungen Arten der Acalyptratae (Diptera:Cyclorrhapha), Canad. Ent. 101: 589–633.Google Scholar
  128. 69.
    C. W. Sabrosky, 1978, The family position of the peculiar genus Horaismoptera (Diptera:Tethinidae), Ent. Germ. 4: 327–336. Sabrosk’s and Hennig’s attendance at the 7th International Congress of Entomology, Berlin, 21–26 August, 1938 is noted in Verh. Vll Int. Kong, für Ent. 5 : pp XLIII, LXIV.Google Scholar
  129. 70.
    This group of workers included W. Besch, J. lilies and P. Zwick. This group appears to have influenced at least one English speaking sys-tematist W.D. Williams to adopt Hennig’s phylogenetic systematics, see the acknowledgements and the citation of Hennig’s “Grundzüge” in W.D. Williams, 1970, A revision of North American Epigean Species of Asellus (Custacea : Isopoda), Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 49: 74–77.Google Scholar
  130. 71.
    L. Brundin, 1956, Zur Systematik der Orthocladiinae (Dipt., Chironomidae), Rep. Inst. Freshwat. Res. Drottningholm, t. 37: 1–185.Google Scholar
  131. 72.
    See e.g.; Lindeberg, B. 1962, The abdominal spiracles in Chironomidae (Diptera) with some notes on the phylogeny of the family, Ann. Ent. Soc. Venn. 28: 1–10Google Scholar
  132. 72a.
    R. Tuomikoski, 1966, Generic taxonomy of the Exechiini (Dipt, Mycetophildae), Ann. Ent. Soc. Fenn. 32: 159–194. A synthesis of Hennig’s phylogenetic systematics and Mayr/Simpson evolutionary systematics is suggested by S. Panelius, 1965, A revision of the European gall midges of the Porricondylinae (Diptera, Insecta), Acta Zollogica Fennica 113.Google Scholar
  133. 73.
    see e.g., W. Hennig, 1953, Kritische Bermerkungen zum phylogenetischen System der Insekten, Beit. Ent. 3 : 1–85Google Scholar
  134. 73a.
    see e.g., W. Hennig, 1957, Systematik und Phylogenese, Bericht üb. Hundertjahrfeier Dtsch. ent. Gesellsch., Berlin, pp 50–71.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robin Craw
    • 1
  1. 1.DSIR Plant Protection UnitAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations