Nicolai Hartmann and the Metaphysical Foundation of Phylogenetic Systematics

  title={Nicolai Hartmann and the Metaphysical Foundation of Phylogenetic Systematics},
  author={Fr{\'e}d{\'e}ric Tremblay},
  journal={Biological Theory},
  • F. Tremblay
  • Published 5 January 2013
  • Biology
  • Biological Theory
When developing phylogenetic systematics, the entomologist Willi Hennig adopted elements from Nicolai Hartmann’s ontology. In this historical essay I take on the task of documenting this adoption. I argue that in order to build a metaphysical foundation for phylogenetic systematics, Hennig adopted from Hartmann four main metaphysical theses. These are (1) that what is real is what is temporal; (2) that the criterion of individuality is to have duration; (3) that species are supra-individuals… Expand
On the Typology of Relations
A supertree approach that, if combined with the methodology of three-taxon statement analysis (3TA), may be seen as a powerful heuristic alternative to the application of conventional matrix/optimization-based methods used for the analysis of systematic data, and which currently forms the mainstream of contemporary phylogenetics. Expand


From types to individuals: Hennig’s ontology and the development of phylogenetic systematics
Understanding Hennig’s ontology illuminates his responses to objections to phylogenetic systematics from both sides of the Atlantic and sheds substantial light on the extinction part of the dichotomy rule. Expand
Semaphoronts, cladograms and the roots of total evidence
The philosophical background of phylogenetic systematics as proposed by Willi Hennig is found to espouse logical positivism and phenomenology, and the concept of a semaphoront is phenomenological, and attributes to immediate sense data the same primacy as logical empiricism. Expand
The metaphysics of Hennig's phylogenetic systematics: Substance, events and laws of nature
Some of this philosophical background is quite counterintuitive, which explains not only early criticisms of Hennig's writings, but also misunderstandings in contemporary debates on the nature of taxa, homologues and transformation series. Expand
On concept formation in systematics
It will here be argued that Hennig attacked idealistic morphology (synonymous with “systematic” morphology) for its mode of concept formation, and argued that the “generic”, “thing” or “class” concept of traditional nomothetic science must be replaced with Cassirer's “relation concept. Expand
The development of phylogenetic concepts in Hennig's early theoretical publications (1947-1966)
In this paper, we describe the development of Hennig's most important phyloge? netic concepts, which culminated in the publication of the now famous Phylogenetic Systematics in 1966, Hennig proposedExpand
Individuals, kinds, phylogeny and taxonomy
Monophyletic taxa as kinds are composed by a cluster of shared-causal properties, viz. synapomorphies or homologies, due to common ancestry, thus permitting homeostasis and modification, and to conceptualize taxa both as individuals and as kinds is ontologically compatible, rather than mutually exclusive. Expand
The Philosophy of Nicolai Hartmann
Nicolai Hartmann was one of the most original twentieth century German philosophers. Yet, he did not compromise clarity and rigor for proficiency and originality. Brought up as a neo-Kantian, heExpand
Hennig’s enkaptic system
The concept of enkapsis is explored, and the way Hennig used it as a basis for the unification of his phylogenetic system, which was characterized as an enkaptic hierarchy. Expand
Plant Morphology: The Historic Concepts of Wilhelm Troll, Walter Zimmermann and Agnes Arber
The present paper deals with the historic concepts of Troll, Zimmermann and Arber, which are based on Goethe's morphology, which, in part, are basic views of current plant morphology, phylogenetic systematics and developmental genetics. Expand
On the history of Ludwig von Bertalanffy's “General Systemology”, and on its relationship to cybernetics
The context of “general crisis” in which he developed his intellectual schemes; his “perspectivist” philosophy of knowledge; his elaboration of an “organismic” theoretical biology; his non-reductionist approach to the problem of mathematization of biology and his theory of organic growth. Expand