Some notes on relation between taxon and character in taxonomy (regarding the paper of A.A. Stekol'nikov "A problem of truth...", Zhurnal Obshchei Biologii. 2003.V.64. No 4. P.367-368)

Under brief consideration is the problem of primary or secondary status of the judgments about taxa relative to the judgments about characters in the biological classifications. The following formal definition of taxonomic system (classification) TS is provided: TS = BT[T, C(t), R(t), R(c), R(tc)], where BT is a biological theory constituting content-wise background of the system, T is a set of taxa, C(t) is a set of taxonomic characters, R(t) is a set of relationships among taxa (similarity, kinship, etc.), R(c) is a set of relationships among characters (homology, etc.), and R(tc) is a set of correspondences among taxa and characters. The latter correspondences may be complete or incomplete. At ontological level, there two basical traditions exist in biological systematics regarding R(tc) according to which the biological diversity is patterned either as a set of groups of organisms (taxa) or as a set of their properties (characters). In the first case, taxon is "primary" relative to character (in cladistics); in its opposite, character is "primary" relative to taxon (in scholasticism, classical typology, classical phylogenetics). At epistemological level, incompleteness of the taxon-character correspondence makes classificatory procedure iterative and taxonomic diagnoses context-dependent. The interative nature of classificatory procedure makes the "primary" or "secondary" status of both taxa and characters relative and alternating. This makes it necessary to introduces a kind of uncertainty relation in biological systematics which means impossibility of simultaneous definition of both extensional and intentional parameters of the taxonomic system at each step of classificatory iterations.     

中国高山鼠平亚属(Subgenus Alticola)的系统分类与分布

高山鼠平亚属(Alticola)广布于中亚山地,即从喜马拉雅山、兴都库什经帕米尔、天山、西藏而至图瓦、抗爱山和贝加尔湖一带。中国过去仅记录2种：银色高山鼠平(Alticola argentatus Severtsov;有时定作劳氏高山鼠平A.roylei的一亚种)和斯氏高山鼠平(A.stoliczkanus Blanford).本文主要依据形态学资料和采用判别函数分析的方法,对该亚属进行了研究。我们认为中国高山鼠平至少有3个以上的物种存在,现概述于后。     

Contemporary concepts of homology in biology (a theoretical review)

A brief review of the contemporary theoretical concepts of homology being developed basically in systematics and phylogenetics as well as in developmental biology is presented. Ontologically, both homology and analogy represent a kind of correspondence considered from the standpoint of nominalism, realism, and conceptualism. According to their nominalistic treatment, both are described by a set-theory approximation which makes them classes (in the logical sense). The realistic treatment provides their holistic view according to which a homologue is an anatomical or evolutionary singular while analogue remains a class. The conceptualistic treatment means that there are real (objective) correspondences existing among real (objective) entities while fixation of any of them is based on certain theoretical presumptions adopted by a researcher; homology as a natural kind (including homeostatic property cluster) seems to be most consistent with such a treatment. Realistic view of homology makes it "absolute", while two others make discrimination of homology and analogy strictly relative. Two basic general homology concepts have been developed in recent literature--taxic and transformational ones; the first considers respective correspondences as structure relations, the second as process relations. The taxic homology is nearly the same as classical typological one (Owen), while transformational homology unites all its phylogenetic, ontogenetic (developmental) and transformation-typological definitions. Process-structuralistic approach seems to unite both taxic and transformational ones. The latter makes it possible to apply general homology concept not only to structures but to processes as well. It is stressed that homology is not identical to the similarity, the latter being just the means for revealing the former. Some closer consideration is given to phylogenetic, ontogenetic and genetic treatments of homology; significant uncertainty is shown to exist between them which causes the "homology problem". Epistemologically, any homology statement has a status of hypothesis which makes such a statement theory-dependent according to the hypothetic-deductive argumentation scheme. This dependence allows to stress once more the relative nature of homology and analogy correspondences. Some questions concerning operational concepts and criteria of homology are considered. A hierarchical concept of homology seems to be the most promising prospect of future development of the "homology problem".     

Concepts of rational taxonomy

The problems are discussed related to development of concepts of rational taxonomy and rational classifications (taxonomic systems) in biology. Rational taxonomy is based on the assumption that the key characteristic of rationality is deductive inference of certain partial judgments about reality under study from other judgments taken as more general and a priory true. Respectively, two forms of rationality are discriminated--ontological and epistemological ones. The former implies inference of classifications properties from general (essential) properties of the reality being investigated. The latter implies inference of the partial rules of judgments about classifications from more general (formal) rules. The following principal concepts of ontologically rational biological taxonomy are considered: "crystallographic" approach, inference of the orderliness of organismal diversity from general laws of Nature, inference of the above orderliness from the orderliness of ontogenetic development programs, based on the concept of natural kind and Cassirer's series theory, based on the systemic concept, based on the idea of periodic systems. Various concepts of ontologically rational taxonomy can be generalized by an idea of the causal taxonomy, according to which any biologically sound classification is founded on a contentwise model of biological diversity that includes explicit indication of general causes responsible for that diversity. It is asserted that each category of general causation and respective background model may serve as a basis for a particular ontologically rational taxonomy as a distinctive research program. Concepts of epistemologically rational taxonomy and classifications (taxonomic systems) can be interpreted in terms of application of certain epistemological criteria of substantiation of scientific status of taxonomy in general and of taxonomic systems in particular. These concepts include: consideration of taxonomy consistency from the standpoint of inductive and hypothetico-deductive argumentation schemes and such fundamental criteria of classifications naturalness as their prognostic capabilities; foundation of a theory of "general taxonomy" as a "general logic", including elements of the axiomatic method. The latter concept constitutes a core of the program of general classiology; it is inconsistent due to absence of anything like "general logic". It is asserted that elaboration of a theory of taxonomy as a biological discipline based on the formal principles of epistemological rationality is not feasible. Instead, it is to be elaborated as ontologically rational one based on biologically sound metatheories about biological diversity causes.     

Classical and non-classical taxonomy: where does the boundary pass?

Rise of non-classical science during XX century had certain influence upon development of biological taxonomy. Scientific pluralism (especially normative naturalism of Laudan), contrary to positivist and early post-positivist treatments, made taxonomy acknowledged scientific discipline of its own right. The present state of some schools of taxonomy makes it possible to consider them as a part of non-classical science and constituting the non-classical taxonomy. The latter is characterized by the following most important features. Ontological substantiation of both classificatory approaches and particular classifications is requested which invalidates such formal approaches as nominalistic and phenetic (numerical) schools. This substantiation takes a form of content-wise background preferably causal models which include certain axioms and presumptions about taxonomic diversity being studied, together with its causes, and thus define initial conditions of classificatory procedures. From this viewoint, phylogenetic classificatory approach is the most developed part of non-classical taxonomy. The entire taxonomic diversity is structured into several aspects of different levels of generality, each being outlined by a particular consideration aspect. The latter makes personal knowledge constituting an irremovable part of any scientific statement about taxonomic diversity, thus opposition of "objectively" and "subjectively" elaborated classifications becomes vague. Interrelation of various species concepts corresponding to its different consideration aspects is described by uncertainty relation principle. Classificatory algorithms are to be compatible with the conditions of a background model to ensure particular classifications obtained by their means are interpretable within the same model: this is provided by the correspondence principle. Classification is considered as a taxonomic hypothesis, i.e. a conjectural judgement about structure of particular fragment of taxonomic diversity considered within given consideration aspect; wich is to be forwarded and tested according to certain rules. Recognition of different aspects of taxonomic diversity makes it "legal" to elaborate several classifications of equal status, each reflecting a particular aspect of a fixed fragment of that diversity. This viewpoint makes classical ideas of the "ultimate" Natural (whatever might be its definition) or the best reference systems futile. In general, any pretension of an approach to be "the best" in reflecting taxonomic divesrity is contr-productive. Instead, elaboration of particular spectra of complementary classifications becomes the main task of non-classical taxonomy which describes in sum the entire taxonomic diversity. So, not opposition but correct mutual interpretation of such classifications and uniting them into the comprehensive picture of taxonomic diversity become focal points of non-classical taxonomy.     

Concepts of taxonomy and concepts of biodiversity: the problem of interaction

There is, or there should be, an interaction between concepts of taxonomy and biodiversity. On the one hand, taxonomy develops some general and particular classificatory paradigms, which own diversity is to be taken into account to understand the nature of variety of natural kinds. On the other hand, analysis of the properties of biodiversity may put forward nontrivial problems for taxonomy that cannot be deduced directly from its own statements. From the point view of taxonomy, it is argued that the current concept of biodiversity based entirely on the species concept is deeply rooted in reductionistic view of nature. It is outdated epistemologically and should be replaced by the modern taxonomic concept of the hierarchical phylogenetic pattern. Operationally, the latter presumes a possibility for each species to be assigned a certain "phylogenetic weight", according to its phylogenetic uniqueness. From the point view of biodiversity, it is argued that the global biodiversity is a three component entity, as it includes, in addition to phylogenetic and ecological hierarchies, a biomorphic hierarchy, as well. This calls for taxonomy to elaborate the general principles of classification of biomorphs.     

Phylogenetic thinking in the modern biology

Any research activity is conducted within the framework of a cognitive situation which is defined by certain basic assumptions about ontology of the portion of the objective world under investigation. From the standpoint of the non-classical scientific epistemology, a part of that situation is constituted by personal knowledge which is formed by a set of thinking (cognitive) styles. The scholastic thinking existing in taxonomy and phylogenetics is considered as an example showing unavoidability of such styles in the natural history knowledge. It is initially rooted in the antic, mythological by its essence, persuasion of isomorphism between movements of the objective reality and of the mind. The instrumentalism entailed by scholastic thinking is based on the mythologeme according to which the "right method" par excellence can lead to the "right knowledge". That is why any disputes between different numerical methods of phylogenetic reconstructions are vain: their validity could be assessed not formally but within particular cognitive situations formed by particular basic models of the phylogenesis. Phylogenetic thinking is of the key importance in evolutionary biology and has great impact on various fields of biology based on it. It is pretty mythological because of non-observability of the phylogenesis: the latter is rather "thinked-in" in the objective world then is induced from the observed facts. It constitutes a part of the evolutionary thinking considering mainly macroevolutionary trends and stressing the initial causes in the structure of causal relations in the analyses of the diversity of organisms. The "tree thinking" of O'Hara is its rough operational equivalent. Relation between phylogenetic thinking and some other styles are considered, which are population, phenetic, typological, and epigenetic ("developmental" of O'Hara). Phylogenetic thinking makes it obliged inclusion of the initial causes in the explanatory models which underlie adaptive and functional peculiarities of organisms, as well as of the entire structure of the biodiversity. It manifests itself in such kind of models through uncovering the phylogenetic signal. This thinking style has great effect on understanding of the ontology of taxa and acknowledges the objective status of the phylogenetic pattern. It is intrinsically included in the argumentation schemes of constructional morphology, comparative phylogenetics. The central metaphor of the phylogenetics is the Tree of Life. Emagination of its unity and uniquiness is of naturphilosophical nature. From the contemporary epistemological standpoint, it should be considered as a generalization upon partial hypotheses of evolution of particular structures each corresponding to certain consideration aspect of the global phylogenesis. Acknowledging of multi-aspectness of the phylogenesis constitutes one of the important points of modern phylogenetic thinking. As different semogeneses are incompletely congruent, the Tree of Life is less certain than each of the initial hypotheses. Any attempt to make it more resolved would lead to its reduction to any of the particular semogenetic scheme (i.e. to a "gene tree") or to its "decay" into several trees each corresponding to a particular consideration aspect of the global Tree.     

On the significance of presumptions in phylogenetics (regarding the paper of Pesenko, 2005. Zhurnal Obshchei Biologii. V. 66. No 2)

Under brief consideration is the uses of presumptions, as a kind of a priori judgments, in phylogenetics in light of their critics by Pesenko (2005). It is shown that the concept of presumption is fully compatible with the hypothetic-deductive argumentation scheme allowing to realize the parsimony principle in its epistemic interpretation. System of phylogenetic presumptions deserves future development in the framework of construing phylogenetics as a kind of the informal axiomatics.     

Foundations of the new phylogenetics

Evolutionary idea is the core of the modern biology. Due to this, phylogenetics dealing with historical reconstructions in biology takes a priority position among biological disciplines. The second half of the 20th century witnessed growth of a great interest to phylogenetic reconstructions at macrotaxonomic level which replaced microevolutionary studies dominating during the 30s-60s. This meant shift from population thinking to phylogenetic one but it was not revival of the classical phylogenetics; rather, a new approach emerged that was baptized The New Phylogenetics. It arose as a result of merging of three disciplines which were developing independently during 60s-70s, namely cladistics, numerical phyletics, and molecular phylogenetics (now basically genophyletics). Thus, the new phylogenetics could be defined as a branch of evolutionary biology aimed at elaboration of "parsimonious" cladistic hypotheses by means of numerical methods on the basis of mostly molecular data. Classical phylogenetics, as a historical predecessor of the new one, emerged on the basis of the naturphilosophical worldview which included a superorganismal idea of biota. Accordingly to that view, historical development (the phylogeny) was thought an analogy of individual one (the ontogeny) so its most basical features were progressive parallel developments of "parts" (taxa), supplemented with Darwinian concept of monophyly. Two predominating traditions were diverged within classical phylogenetics according to a particular interpretation of relation between these concepts. One of them (Cope, Severtzow) belittled monophyly and paid most attention to progressive parallel developments of morphological traits. Such an attitude turned this kind of phylogenetics to be rather the semogenetics dealing primarily with evolution of structures and not of taxa. Another tradition (Haeckel) considered both monophyletic and parallel origins of taxa jointly: in the middle of 20th century it was split into phylistics (Rasnitsyn's term; close to Simpsonian evolutionary taxonomy) belonging rather to the classical realm, and Hennigian cladistics that pays attention to origin of monophyletic taxa exclusively. In early of the 20th century, microevolutionary doctrine became predominating in evolutionary studies. Its core is the population thinking accompanied by the phenetic one based on equation of kinship to overall similarity. They were connected to positivist philosophy and hence were characterized by reductionism at both ontological and epistemological levels. It led to fall of classical phylogenetics but created the prerequisites for the new phylogenetics which also appeared to be full of reductionism. The new rise of phylogenetic (rather than tree) thinking during the last third of the 20th century was caused by lost of explanatory power of population one and by development of the new worldview and new epistemological premises. That new worldview is based on the synergetic (Prigoginian) model of development of non-equilibrium systems: evolution of the biota, a part of which is phylogeny, is considered as such a development. At epistemological level, the principal premise appeared to be fall of positivism which was replaced by post-positivism argumentation schemes. Input of cladistics into new phylogenetics is twofold. On the one hand, it reduced phylogeny to cladistic history lacking any adaptivist interpretation and presuming minimal evolution model. From this it followed reduction of kinship relation to sister-group relation lacking any reference to real time scale and to ancestor-descendant relation. On the other hand, cladistics elaborated methodology of phylogenetic reconstructions based on the synapomorphy principle, the outgroup concept became its part. The both inputs served as premises of incorporation of both numerical techniques and molecular data into phylogenetic reconstruction. Numerical phyletics provided the new phylogenetics with easily manipulated algorithms of cladogram construing and thus made phylogenetic reconstructions operational and repetitive. The above phenetic formula "kinship = similarity" appeared to be a keystone for development of the genophyletics. Within numerical phyletics, a lot of computer programs were elaborated which allow to manipulate with evolutionary scenario during phylogenetic reconstructions. They make it possible to reconstruct both clado- and semogeneses based on the same formalized methods. Multiplicity of numerical approaches indicates that, just as in the case of numerical phenetics, choice of adequate method(s) should be based on biologically sound theory. The main input of genophyletics (= molecular phylogenetics) into the new phylogenetics was due to completely new factology which makes it possible to compare directly such far distant taxa as prokaryotes and higher eukaryotes. Genophyletics is based on the theory of neutral evolution borrowed from microevolutionary theory and on the molecular clock hypothesis which is now considered largely inadequate. The future developments of genophyletics will be aimed at clarification of such fundamental (and "classical" by origin) problems as application of character and homology concepts to molecular structures. The new phylogenetics itself is differentiated into several schools caused basically by diversity of various approaches existing within each of its "roots". Cladistics makes new phylogenetics splitted into evolutionary and parsimonious ontological viewpoints. Numerical phyletics divides it into statistical and (again) parsimonious methodologies. Molecular phylogenetics is opposite by its factological basis to morphological one. The new phylogenetics has significance impact onto the "newest" systematics. From one side, it gives ontological status back to macrotaxa they have lost due to "new" systematics based on population thinking. From another side, it rejects some basical principles of classical phylogenetic (originally Linnean) taxonomy such as recognitions of fixed taxonomic ranks designated by respective terms and definition of taxic names not by the diagnostic characters but by reference to the ancestor. The latter makes the PhyloCode overburdened ideologically and the "newest" systematics self-controversial, as concept of ancestor has been acknowledged non-operational from the very beginning of cladistics. Relation between classical and new phylogenetics is twofold. At the one hand, general phylogenetic hypothesis (in its classical sense) can be treated as a combination of cladogenetic and semogenetic reconstructions. Such a consideration is bound to pay close attention to the uncertainty relation principle which, in case of the phylogenetics, means that the general phylogenetic hypothesis cannot be more certain than any of initial cladogenetic or semogenetic hypotheses. From this standpoint, the new phylogenetics makes it possible to reconstruct phylogeny following epistemological principle "from simple to complex". It elaborates a kind of null hypotheses about evolutionary history which are more easy to test as compared to classical hypotheses. Afterward, such hypotheses are possible to be completed toward the classical, more content-wise ones by adding anagenetic information to the cladogenetic one. At another hand, reconstructions elaborated within the new phylogenetics could be considered as specific null hypotheses about both clado- and semogeneses. They are to be tested subsequently by mean of various models, including those borrowed from "classical" morphology. The future development of the new phylogenetics is supposed to be connected with getting out of plethora of reductionism inherited by it from population thinking and specification of object domain of the phylogenetics. As the latter is a part of an evolutionary theory, its future developments will be adjusted with the latter. Lately predominating neodarwinism is now being replaced by the epigenetic evolutionary theory to which phylistics (one of the modern versions of classical phylogenetics) seems to be more correspondent.