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
Accommodationism Accommodating Science overview 13 Mar 2014 I have done quite a lot of blogging under this heading lately so I thought it might be useful to get all the posts used in order: On beliefs Why do believers believe silly things? The function of denialism Why do believers believe THOSE silly things? The “developmental hypothesis” of… Read More
Evolution Meanderings and messages 8 Feb 200818 Sep 2017 So, it seems that 44 is the median age of depression. Old news, or at least it is for me. Although for 44 to be the median age of depression for me, I’d have to live until my late 70s. Right now, after a week of working on a grant… Read More
Cognition New thinking 4 Jul 20124 Jul 2012 Phil Trans has a special issue (‘New thinking: the evolution of human cognition’ compiled and edited by Cecilia Heyes and Uta Frith) on new ways of thinking about thinking, which is a recent response to evolutionary psychology and insistence upon there being modules. One of the essays, by Nicholas Shea, is… 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