538 
Telopea Vol. 6(4): 1996 
The chief difference between the numerical taxonomists and cladists on this score is 
that the numerical taxonomists wanted to represent overall similarity in their 
classifications while the cladists wanted to represented cladistic relations. As it turns 
out, overall similarity disappeared under analysis, while the notion of cladistic 
relations became increasingly clear. 
Johnson (1989:103) distinguishes between two scientific attitudes: 
Some scientists are analysts, strongly influenced by recent philosophies of 
science and concerned to demonstrate their purity of method, however 
inadequate the method may be in its coverage of the phenomena of nature. 
Others are synthesists, less concerned with rigour or the appearance of it, but 
certainly not less concerned with truth. The latter are interested in forming a 
picture of what really happens, or happened, in the light of all reasonably 
reliable evidence that they can bring to bear. 
Both sorts of scientists are needed if science is to progress. Johnson (1968: 41) clearly 
sees himself as of the second sort. 
Acknowledgement 
Thanks are owed to an anonymous referee who read and commented on this paper. 
References 
Camin, J.H. & Sokal, R.R. (1968) A method for deducing branching sequences in phylogeny. 
Evolution 19:311-326. 
Carnap, R. (1928) Der logische Aufbau der Welt (Meiner: Leipzig). 
Ehrlich, RE. & Ehrlich, A.H. (1967) The phonetic relationships of the butterflies. Systematic Zoology 
16: 301-317. 
Ghiselin, M.T. (1969) The principles and concepts of Systematic Biology Pp. 45-55, in C.G.S. Sibley 
(ed.). Systematic Biology (National Academy of Sciences: Washington). 
Grande, L. & Rieppel, O. (1994) Summary and comments on systematic patterns and evolutionary 
process. Pp. 227-255, in L. Grande and O. Rieppel (eds.). Interpreting the Hierarchy of Nature: 
From Systematic Patterns to Evolutionary Process Theories (Academic Press: New York). 
Hull, D.L. (1968) The operational imperative: sense and nonsense in operationism. Systematic 
Zoology 17:438-457. 
Hull, D.L. (1979) The limits of cladism. Systematic Zoology 38: 416-440. 
Johnson, L.A.S. (1968) Rainbow's End: the quest for an optimal classification. Proceedings of the 
Linnean Society of Nau South Wales 93: 8-45. 
Johnson, L.A.S. (1970) Rainbow's End: the quest for an optimal classification. Systematic Zoology 
19: 203-239. 
Johnson, L.A.S. (1972) Evolution and classification in Eucalyptus. Proceedings of the Linnean Society 
of New South Wales 97: 11-29. 
Johnson, L.A.S. (1976) Problems of species and genera in Eucalyptus (Myrtaceae). Plant Syst. Evol. 
125: 155-167. 
Johnson, L.A.S. (1989) Models and reality: doctrine and practicality in classification. Plant Syst. 
Evol. 168: 95-108. 
Johnson, L.A.S. & Briggs, B.G. (1963) Evolution in the Proteaceae. Australian lournal of Botany 11: 
21-61. 
Johnson, L.A.S. & Briggs, B.G. (1975) On the Proteaceae — the evolution and classification of a 
southern family. Botartical Journal of the Linnean Society: 83-182. 
Nelson, G. (1971) 'Cladism' as a philosophy of classification. Systematic Zoology 20: 373-376. 
Nelson, G. & Platnick, N. (1981) Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance (Columbia 
University Press. New York). 
