Philosophy of Biological
Classification
Marc Ereshefsky, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
Essentialism was the prominent philosophy of classification until Darwin’s time.
Essentialism has been replaced with two philosophies based on evolutionary theory:
evolutionary taxonomy and cladism.
Introduction
The general aim of biological taxonomy is to provide
empirically accurate classifications of the organic world.
Classifications contain information about the relations
among biological taxa. For example, a classification will
tell us whether two species belong to the same genus, or
whether a genus is part of a particular family.
The importance of classifications extends beyond their
containing information about the relations among taxa.
Classifications also provide vital information for under-
standing the course of evolution. A classification shows the
evolutionary history of a taxon by displaying its relations
to its close relatives. Consider debates over the ancestry of
Homo sapiens. An accurate classification of Homo sapiens
would display our relations to other species in the genus
Homo as well as Homo’s relation to Australopithecus.
Classifications can also provide information about evolu-
tionary relations among biological traits. For example, we
might want to know whether human eyes and octopus eyes
derive from a common evolutionary origin, or whether
they are the result of separate evolutionary paths. To
answer that question we need to know the history of eyes in
the ancestors of humans and octopuses. That history is
captured by the proper classification of those organisms.
Biological taxonomists tend to agree on the aim of their
discipline: to provide empirically accurate classifications.
They disagree, however, on how that aim is best achieved.
Their disagreement stems from different philosophical
views concerning how classifications should be con-
structed. Since Aristotle, biologists have offered different
philosophies of classification. Taxonomists still disagree
on the correct philosophy of classification. Three impor-
tant philosophies of biological classification are essential-
ism, evolutionary taxonomy, and cladism.
Essentialism
Essentialism was the predominant philosophy of classifi-
cation until the Darwinian revolution. Philosophers Plato,
Aristotle and John Locke were essentialists. Biologists
John Ray, Linnaeus, Buffon and Lamarck were also
ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE SCIENCES © 2001, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. www.els.net
Introductory article
. Introduction
Article Contents
. Essentialism
. Evolution and Classification
. Evolutionary Taxonomy
. Cladism
essentialists. Essentialism is characterized by two tenets.
First, all and only the members of a taxon have a common
essence. In other words, a member of a taxon must have
that essence, and that essence cannot occur in the members
of any other taxon. Second, knowing the essence of a taxon
allows us to explain and predict the other characteristics
typically found among the members of a taxon. Knowing
the essence of a taxon will help us explain, for example, why
the members of that taxon tend to behave in a certain way.
These tenets of essentialism can be illustrated using
Linnaeus’s version of essentialism. According to Linnaeus,
the essence of a plant genus is its unique reproductive
organs, namely, its flower and seed. Linnaeus called this
the ‘fructification structure’ of a plant. Following the first
tenet of essentialism, Linnaeus believed that all and only
the members of a plant genus have a particular fructifica-
tion structure. Second, he held that knowing the fructifica-
tion of a plant allows one to explain and predict other
characteristics typically found among the members of a
genus. For instance, knowledge of the flower structure of a
plant helps explain why some pollinators but not others
frequent that type of plant, and it allows us to predict which
pollinators are more likely to visit. From this example, we
see that essences can be used for identifying an organism’s
taxon as well as making inferences about the traits typically
found among a taxon’s members.
Biologists, however, have been unable to find an
essential trait that occurs in all and only the members of
a particular taxon. Consider the difficulty in finding a trait
that must occur in all the organisms of a species. Every trait
has a genetic basis. Yet all genes are vulnerable to
mutation. Mutations frequently occur, and all it takes is
one mutation to kill the universality of a trait among the
members of a species. If a trait is not universal among the
members of a species, then it cannot be its essence.
Essences must occur in all the members of a species, and
they must occur in only the members of a species. So even if
a theoretically significant trait occurred in all the members
of a species, that would not suffice to show that it is a
species’ essence. A species’ essence must be unique to the
members of that species as well. But biological forces work
against the uniqueness of a trait in only the members of a
species. The members of different species are often exposed
1
 Philosophy of Biological Classification

to similar environments, causing the selection of similar view called ‘evolutionary taxonomy’. Evolutionary tax-
traits. Convergent evolution is a common occurrence. In onomists draw on the insights of evolutionary biology and
addition, different species frequently share similar genes, population genetics. Prominent evolutionary taxonomists
and these genes cause members of different species to have include Theodore Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr and George
similar traits. Essences are hard to come by in the biological Gaylord Simpson.
world, and this is one reason taxonomists have rejected Evolutionary taxonomy has two main tenets. First, the
essentialism as a philosophy of biological classification. members of a taxon must be genealogically connected to a
common ancestor. Groups of organisms whose members
are not descendants of a common ancestor are not natural
and should not be included in classifications. According to
Evolution and Classification the second tenet of evolutionary taxonomy, we should
classify taxa that are the result of the two major
Darwin’s introduction of evolutionary theory ushered in a
evolutionary processes responsible for life’s diversity:
new approach to classification. Membership in a taxon
cladogenesis and anagenesis. In cladogenesis, a single
does not depend on its organisms sharing a common
lineage is split into two or more branches (Figure 1a). For
essence. Organisms are members of a particular taxon
instance, a population of a species may become isolated
because they are appropriately related to one another.
from the rest of the species. If that population is exposed to
More specifically, what causes organisms to be members of
new selection forces it may undergo a genetic revolution
the same taxon is their being genealogically connected to a
and become a new species. In anagenesis, speciation occurs
common and unique ancestor. Consider membership in the
in a single lineage (Figure 1b). Suppose a species enters a new
species Homo sapiens. Each one of us is a Homo sapiens
environment and acquires a radically new set of adapta-
because our parents are Homo sapiens. Our parents are
tions. If the change is drastic enough, then the lineage has
members of that species because their parents are Homo
evolved into a new species.
sapiens, and so on until we arrive at the original population
Because evolutionary taxonomists believe that specia-
of Homo sapiens. Being part of that genealogical nexus is
tion can occur through either cladogenesis or anagenesis,
what causes each of us to be a member of our species.
they believe that classifications should highlight the two
The roles of similarity and causal relatedness are quite
types of taxa that arise from those processes: monophyletic
different for essentialists and evolutionists. Essentialists
taxa and paraphyletic taxa. A monophyletic taxon
require that the members of a species share an important
contains an ancestor and all and only its descendants. In
similarity, namely, a common essence; whether the
Figure 2, the group containing crocodiles and birds is
members of a species are genealogically connected does
monophyletic, as is the group containing lizards, croco-
not matter. For evolutionists, two organisms are members
diles and birds. Monophyletic taxa are the result of
of the same species if they have the proper genealogical
cladogenesis or what some biologists call ‘branching
connections, independent of how similar they are to one
events’. A paraphyletic taxon contains an ancestor and
another. For example, a male and female of the same
some but not all of its descendants. The group Reptilia,
mosquito species may look quite different, but they are
which contains lizards and crocodiles but not birds, is
members of the same species because they come from the
paraphyletic. Paraphyletic taxa are the result of anagen-
same stock.
esis. The lineage leading to birds has significantly diverged
The evolutionary approach to classification helps us
from lizards and crocodiles. Therefore, evolutionary
understand why essentialism has failed as a philosophy of
classification. Species are evolving entities, and higher taxa
are the products of evolution. Evolution often involves the
introduction and elimination of traits among the members
of a species. Variability not uniformity is the norm among Species B Species B
the members of a species, especially among the members of
a higher taxon. Despite the occurrence of such variation, a t
taxon remains the same so long as it continues as a distinct
genealogical lineage. Essentialism requires taxa to be Species A
stable; evolution causes variation and change within taxa.
Species A
Essentialism and evolution are incompatible.
(a) (b)

Evolutionary Taxonomy Figure 1 (a) A case of speciation through cladogenesis. A population of

species A becomes isolated from the rest of the species. It undergoes a
genetic revolution and becomes a distinct species, B. (b) A case of
In the first half of the twentieth century, the evolutionary speciation through anagenesis. Species A gradually evolves until it
approach to classification was codified in a philosophical becomes a new species, B.

2

Lizards Crocodiles
Figure 2 The taxon Reptilia contains lizards and crocodiles but not birds.
taxonomists exclude birds from Reptilia. Stepping back,
we see that for evolutionary taxonomists, classifications
should highlight only genealogical taxa, and those taxa can
be either monophyletic or paraphyletic.
Cladism
In the second half of the twentieth century another
evolutionary approach to classification was introduced.
This philosophical view varies from evolutionary taxon-
omy and is called ‘cladism’. The word ‘cladism’ is based on
the Greek word for branch. According to Willi Hennig, the
founder of cladism, we should recognize only those taxa
that are the result of cladogenesis, or branching events. If
two taxa originate at the same branching event, then they
have an ancestor not shared by any other taxon. For
example, crocodiles and birds have a common ancestor not
shared by lizards (Figure 2). A cladistic classification of
these taxa shows that crocodiles and birds are more closely
related to one another than either is to lizards. Cladists
believe that classifications should reflect common ancestry
and nothing else.
This view of classification has implications concerning
which types of taxa should be represented in classifications.
Monophyletic taxa are defined in terms of common
ancestry: a monophyletic taxon contains all and only the
descendants of a common ancestor. So monophyletic taxa
are represented in cladistic classifications. Paraphyletic
taxa are not represented in cladistic classifications. A
paraphyletic taxon does not contain all of the descendants
of a common ancestor. Consider the case of Reptilia
Philosophy of Biological Classification
Birds (Figure 2). Reptilia does not contain all the descendants of
its most recent ancestor because birds are excluded from
Reptilia.
We can now see the difference between cladism and
evolutionary taxonomy. Cladists believe that classifica-
tions should highlight only monophyletic groups because
such groups reflect common ancestry and nothing else.
Paraphyletic groups are excluded from cladistic classifica-
tions because they reflect degree of ancestry and how much
a lineage has evolved from its neighbouring lineages.
Evolutionary taxonomists believe that classifications
should capture both types of information: genealogical
relations among taxa as well as how much they have
diverged from one another. Cladists respond that while
there are objective ways of measuring how closely taxa are
related to one another, there is no objective method for
determining when a single lineage has evolved into a new
taxon. This is one reason why many taxonomists have
rejected evolutionary taxonomy and adopted cladism in
the last 25 years.
Cladists and evolutionary taxonomists disagree on the
types of taxa that should be classified. However, they agree
that taxa should be genealogical entities. Cladism and
evolutionary taxonomy stand in stark contrast to essenti-
alism, the reigning philosophy of classification prior to
Darwin. Taxa are no longer seen as immutable kinds with
static essences. According to cladism and evolutionary
taxonomy, taxa are genealogical entities that evolve over
time. The philosophy of biological classification has
changed drastically since Darwin’s time. Taxonomists are
still investigating the implications of the Darwinian
revolution for biological classification.
Further Reading
Atran S (1990) Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards an
Anthropology of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ereshefsky M (ed.) (1992) The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of
Species. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Press.
Ereshefsky M (2001) The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: A
Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hennig W (1966) Phylogenetic Systematics. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Hull D (1988) Science as a Process. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Mayr E (1982) The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Panchen A (1992) Classification, Evolution, and the Nature of Biology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ridley M (1986) Evolution and Classification: The Reformation of
Cladism. New York: Longman.
Sober E (ed.) (1994) Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, 2nd edn.
Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Wiley E (1981) Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic
Systematics. New York: Wiley.