TAXONOMIC PRINCIPLES 9 



Fortunately, however, the dog-catcher is not concerned with semantic 

 problems, and, though not trained in taxonomy, he finds no difficulty 

 in recognizing Canis familiaris despite its modern polymorphism. 



The professional biological classifier has been said to arrive at 

 his classification through a process popularly known as the taxonomic 

 method. Several attempts have been made to define or otherwise ex- 

 plain the taxonomic method, but most definitions or descriptive 

 attempts fall short of their mark. While most taxonomists have a 

 fairly good idea what is meant by this method, they find it difficult to 

 express. Essentially, it can be defined as an attempt to make taxo- 

 nomic interpretations using pattern data from any source. Rogers and 

 Tanimoto (1960) among many others have clearly recognized the in- 

 herent complexities of this multiple correlate method and hence have 

 suggested the use of computer programs,^ using punch cards, for 

 classifying plants, since in making comparisons of many variables 

 when he studies his specimens the taxonomist is often unable to con- 

 vert his mental picture of these variables into a system which can be 

 communicated readily. 



Anderson (1957) attempted to evaluate the objectivity of the 

 "taxonomic method" (he used the term "taxonomic intuition") by 

 sending pressed plant material to several specialists in different parts 

 of the world and asking these workers to classify the material as to 

 the number of taxa involved, particularly as concerned their designa- 

 tion as genus, species, and variety. The results of the study are 

 significant in that most of the workers were in essential agreement 

 as regards the degree of relationships expressed, and, in particular, 

 there was remarkable extent of agreement as to the generic status of 

 the material considered. To most taxonomists the nature of this ex- 

 periment would appear rather trivial. We think it can be fairly stated 

 that most taxonomists working today who might be working with the 

 same biological entities and using basically the same data will come 

 to essentially the same conclusions with respect to the recognition 

 and relative reink of the biological entities considered. The differences 

 that one might expect are the actual hierarchies assigned to the 

 categories recognized. For example, one worker might recognize ten or 

 fifteen genera in a given family, while another might designate only 

 a single genus for the same group, but recognize, instead, ten or 

 fifteen species within this major taxon. They both agree as to the 

 number of biological entities involved. The difference is one of rank 



2 Grant (1959) has expressed little hope "at the prospects of purely mechanical 

 methods in systematics, such as the punching of cards and their classification by IBM ma- 

 chines. ... If the more obvious characters are selected for scoring . . . [then] . . . Conven- 

 ience is apt to go hand in hand with artificiahty in the classification of complex groups." 



