The first phylogeny 30 Sep 202030 Sep 2020 The only diagram in the Origin is famously the hypothetical series of species forming a tree structure, but it isn’t an actual classification based on his principles. I have previously noted the rise of cladograms towards the end of the 19th century, but in a talk by Ian Hesketh, I was drawn to the following cladogram by Fritz Müller in his Für Darwin, in 1864, a mere 5 years after the Origin was published. And it even uses a distinction between homologous ancestral characters in distinction to what we now call conversantly evolved characters. Here it is in the English translation paid for by Darwin himself in 1869. The organisms being discussed here are amphipods of the genus Melita, of which there are around 80 species known today. Müller points out that genera are often created using characters like the secondary flagella of the antenna, which is variable, while the asymmetric clasping structure is shared by five species. So he classifies the relationships between the species using the clasp rather than the antennae. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first classification using common descent as the principle, making a distinction between what we now call apomorphies and plesiomorphies, after Hennig. Darwin sketched a few, but did not publish them, and anyway his methodology was not so clear as Müller’s. By contrast with Muller, Haeckel’s grandiose trees in the Generelle Mophologie in 1866 showed no evidence of understanding clearly what Müller had done. So is this the earliest cladogram? Can anyone point to another? Thanks Evolution Natural Classification Systematics
Biology Darwin was not badly received by the church 26 Nov 2009 Robert J. Berry is a geneticist at University College London. He is also an evangelical Christian and has written a number of works on the compatibility of religion (his kind, anyway) and evolution. He has a quite accurate letter in today’s Nature. Since that is behind a paywall, I have… Read More
Evolution Ruse on Hull: a memoir 13 Aug 2010 The following memoir of David Hull is from Michael Ruse, who has graciously given permission to post it on this blog: DAVID HULL (1935–2010) I first met David Hull in the fall of 1968, at the first meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, being held in Pittsburgh. He was… Read More
Evolution The “design” mistake 18 Feb 2008 Back when Darwin was a student at Cambridge, he read, and almost memorised the Rev William Paley’s Natural Theology, and thereafter remained impressed by the obvious adaptiveness of the parts of organisms and their interrelations. As is well known, he gave an explanation differently to Paley’s external intelligence that designs… Read More
A year on, 1865, Mivart made a decent stab at it, covered in detail here: http://www.isita-org.com/jass/Contents/2011vol89/e-pub/21368345.pdf and Craw wrote about Muller’s work, Craw, RC (1992). “Margins of cladistics: Identity, differences and place in the emergence of phylogenetic systematics”. In Griffiths, PE (ed.). Trees of life: Essays in the philosophy of biology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. pp. 65–107. Another year, 1866, and there is Albert Gaudry (Tassy writes about him: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annpal.2005.09.003) And in a new book: https://materiologiques.com/en/histoire-des-sciences-et-des-techniques/301-levolution-au-museum-albert-gaudry-9782373612264.html But this does all really rather depend on what a cladogram is, or means. To contrast Muller (1864), Mivart (1865) and Gaudry (1866) might be a worthwhile exercise. But method to one side, if anything branches, isn’t it a cladogram? We did not do that contrast but a peek in this might add to the tale (or confusion): https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cladistics/D3C3FC2E69F52FB3BDBDBA219157E625