Современная систематика методологические аспекты - Павлинов И.Я.
Скачать (прямая ссылка):
35. No 1. P. 110-123.
Panchen A.L. Classification, evolution, and the nature of biology. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1992. 398 p.
Patterson C. The impact of evolutionary theories on systematics//Prospects in
systematics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. P. 59-91.
Patterson C., Smith A.B. Periodicity in extinction: the role of systematics//Eco-
logy, 1989, 70,4: 802-811.
Pavlinov I.Ja., Hoffmann R.S. On the reality and structure of biodiversity // Abstr.
4th Internal. Congr. Syst. Evol. Biol. College Park (MD, USA): 119.
Pavlinov I.Ja., Puzachenko Yu.G. et al. To zipf or not to zipf, or why are there
so few scientists supposing there are no genera in the nature at а!1?//Журн.
общ. биол., 1995, 56, 1: 152-158.
Purvis A., Gittleman J.L., Luh H.-K. Truth or consequences: effect of phyloge-
52
netic accuracy on two comparative methods//!. Theor. Biol., 1994, 67, 1:
293-300.
Rosenberg A. The structure of biological Science. N.Y.: Cambridge Univ. Press,
1985. 280 p.
Schroeder M. Fractals, chaos, power laws: minutes from an infinite paradise.
N.Y.: Freeman & Co, 1991. 41 Op.
Simpson G.G. Principles of animal taxonomy. N.Y.: Columbia Univ. Press,
1961. 247 p.
Sokal R.R., Sneath P.H.A. The principles of numerical taxonomy. San Francisco:
Freeman & Co., 1963. 359 p.
Vaupel K.J.S. Phylogenetic analysis and its foundations //Systematics and
evolution: a matter of diversity. Utrecht: Utrecht Univ. Press, 1987. P.
159-172.
Wiley E.O. Phylogenetics: the theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics.
N.Y.: John Wiley & sons. 1981. 439 p.
Woodger J.H. The axiomatic method in biology. Cambrodge: Cambridge Univ.
Press, 1937. 174 p.
Arch. Zool. Mus. Moscow Univ., 1996, v. XXXIV
A WORD ABOUT THE MODERN SYSTEMATICS
I. Ja. Pavlinov
SUMMARY
There fundamental methodological difference exists between classificati-
on-as-means and classification-as-aim of cognitive activity. It is the second
one that constitutes a body of biological systematics.
For the biological systematics, as a branch of science, to be modern means
to correspond to requests of modern methodology of scientific research.
According to this, classification could be considered as a kind of hypothesis,
namely "taxonomic hypothesis". Adopting this makes systematics theory-de-
pendent: there have to be a non-formal theory in which an object to be
hypothesised (classified) is defined intentionally, that is by indicating its
essential properties. Such a theory serves to elaborate contentwise (non-for-
mal) model-(C-model) that provides operational conceptual framework for
respective classification.
The natural diversity is manyfold in its properties, which assumes there
have to be as many C-models, each describing a particular aspect of diversity
outlined by the given non-formal theory. Consequently, there have to be
several classificatory approaches, each consistent with requirements of parti-
cular C-model. Conditions of correct comparison and mutual interpretation
of classifications based on different C-models depend on degree of overlapping
of the latters by their thesauruses. There also could be several classifications
based on the same C-model and differing by their adequacy to the particular
aspect of natural diversity.
53
The theory in question defines first of all ontological statuse of the object
of biological systematics, which is taxonomic diversity. Its principal property
is interconnection of its elements by kinship (phylogenetic) relationships,
which "is a particular case of causal relatioships. Due to this, these elements
are by no means classes (in logical sense), which separates systematics from
other classificatory approaches studying other aspect of biological diversity.
The C-models could be of three types, dependency on their contents:
processual (evolutionary), structural (paternal), and combined ones. Evolutionary
models include statements about causes of origin of the diversity being classified
(they are evolutionary scenaria), so that they are principally inconsistent with
classifications. Structural models define paterm properties only, thus they are
incomplete respective to the world, which is not "being" but "becoming".
Combined models define both process and pattern properties. One of their formal
representation could be fractal, that is pattern and generating its process
simultaneously. According to this, classification is also a fractal.
At operational level, the link between C-model and classification is
provided by correspondence between algorithm that generates classification
and one that generates real taxic diversity. This means that technical tools
employed by a systematist are to be consistent with respective C-model. This
involves selection (weighting) of characters, of similarity measure (for instan-
ce, synapomorphy principle in cladistics), clasterisation procedure. Biologi-
cally sound methods are preferable over strictly formal ones. As C-models are
