What do you think?
Rate this book
Systematics and the Origin of Species: On Ernst Mayr's 100th Anniversary
In December 2004, the National Academy of Sciences sponsored a colloquium on “Systematics and the Origin of Species” to celebrate Ernst Mayr’s 100th anniversary and to explore current knowledge concerning the origin of species. In 1942, Ernst Mayr, one of the twentieth century’s greatest scientists, published Systematics and the Origin of Species, a seminal book of the modern theory of evolution, where he advanced the significance of population variation in the understanding of evolutionary process and the origin of new species. Mayr formulated the transition from Linnaeus’s static species concept to the dynamic species concept of the modern theory of evolution and emphasized the species as a community of populations, the role of reproductive isolation, and the ecological interactions between species. In addition to a preceding essay by Edward O. Wilson, this book includes the 16 papers presented by distinguished evolutionists at the colloquium. The papers are organized into sections covering the origins of species barriers, the processes of species divergence, the nature of species, the meaning of “species,” and genomic approaches for understanding diversity and speciation.
382 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1942
6 people are currently reading
177 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 5, 2021
One of the early nexuses of 20th century evolutionary thought, Systematics and the Origin of Species was amongst the first texts to draw focus to modern synthesis, and is fairly noted for being the template of modern zoological systematics. It is generally considered a forerunner of its time, but that time is long past, and really - it wasn't that innovative in the first place.
Systematics collects the then novel statistics of J.B.S. Haldane, R.A. Fisher and Sewall Wright (while weathering the acerbic attacks of Lancelot Hogben, the dissenting fourth member of the biostatistical giants motivated largely, perhaps, by his period-atypical antagonism against eugenics). However, Systematics brought little new to the table. Its emphasis on allopatric speciation was mathematically preceded by Theodosius Dobzhansky's 1937 publication Genetics and the Origin of Species, which also preceded it in the proposal that the answer to the species question ought to be both reproductive compatibility and reproductive isolation. Furthermore, Systematics was conceptually eclipsed earlier the same year by Julian Huxley's 1942 publication Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (which was twice the length of Mayr's Systematics with twice the prophetic content, although featuring - perhaps out of populist concerns - a paucity of actual mathematics.)
I suggest reading Huxley instead of Mayr for an overview of early modern synthesis, assuming a historical exercise of scientific understanding and that none are here to research simply contemporary models of evolutionary biology. Modern synthesis, while retaining a few scattered towers threaded together by the burst appendix of an ambulatory, has largely been eroded by recent advances in genomics and the rise of evo-devo. The more updated sprawl of 'post-modern' synthesis is better sought after in the work of contemporary science communicators (Gould, Dawkins, Wilson, Lane, Carroll), all much more enjoyable reads than Ernst Mayr, who somehow manages to combine the dry prose of the fustiest academic philosopher with the demagogue's tautological hammerings - repeating himself at intervals to echo rather than to resonate, and bogging down the work with a viscous meadow of peripatetic cruft. This illness, known as 'being very boring', 'should take Adderall' and 'is a windbag', will be observed to progress chronically over the sixty years of Mayr's pursuant literary output.
P.S. For Mayr's most recent contribution to the discussion, and for some relaxing torture akin to a gentle bastinado of the mind, pick up his incredibly insecure and onanistic 'biophilosophy' book (the scientific equivalent of looking at an old photograph of yourself and wanking off to it. Amongst constant referrals to accolades, it cites Systematics as having "surprised myself at how advanced it was. It was quite ahead of its time") entitled with the question: What Makes Biology Unique? - The answer, as far as this one has managed to gather - is apparently Ernst Mayr.
Systematics collects the then novel statistics of J.B.S. Haldane, R.A. Fisher and Sewall Wright (while weathering the acerbic attacks of Lancelot Hogben, the dissenting fourth member of the biostatistical giants motivated largely, perhaps, by his period-atypical antagonism against eugenics). However, Systematics brought little new to the table. Its emphasis on allopatric speciation was mathematically preceded by Theodosius Dobzhansky's 1937 publication Genetics and the Origin of Species, which also preceded it in the proposal that the answer to the species question ought to be both reproductive compatibility and reproductive isolation. Furthermore, Systematics was conceptually eclipsed earlier the same year by Julian Huxley's 1942 publication Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (which was twice the length of Mayr's Systematics with twice the prophetic content, although featuring - perhaps out of populist concerns - a paucity of actual mathematics.)
I suggest reading Huxley instead of Mayr for an overview of early modern synthesis, assuming a historical exercise of scientific understanding and that none are here to research simply contemporary models of evolutionary biology. Modern synthesis, while retaining a few scattered towers threaded together by the burst appendix of an ambulatory, has largely been eroded by recent advances in genomics and the rise of evo-devo. The more updated sprawl of 'post-modern' synthesis is better sought after in the work of contemporary science communicators (Gould, Dawkins, Wilson, Lane, Carroll), all much more enjoyable reads than Ernst Mayr, who somehow manages to combine the dry prose of the fustiest academic philosopher with the demagogue's tautological hammerings - repeating himself at intervals to echo rather than to resonate, and bogging down the work with a viscous meadow of peripatetic cruft. This illness, known as 'being very boring', 'should take Adderall' and 'is a windbag', will be observed to progress chronically over the sixty years of Mayr's pursuant literary output.
P.S. For Mayr's most recent contribution to the discussion, and for some relaxing torture akin to a gentle bastinado of the mind, pick up his incredibly insecure and onanistic 'biophilosophy' book (the scientific equivalent of looking at an old photograph of yourself and wanking off to it. Amongst constant referrals to accolades, it cites Systematics as having "surprised myself at how advanced it was. It was quite ahead of its time") entitled with the question: What Makes Biology Unique? - The answer, as far as this one has managed to gather - is apparently Ernst Mayr.
August 24, 2009
Ernst Mayr is one of the most important theorists of Systematics and the "New Synthesis." Written in 1942, a few years after his associate Theodosius Dobzhansky's "Genetics and the Origin of Species," it remains one of the foundation documents of modern biological thought.
September 27, 2024
ANOTHER IMPORTANT WORK FROM A RENOWNED EVOLUTIONARY THEORIST
Ernst Mayr (1904-2005) was one of the leading evolutionary biologists, whose concept of speciation as a key to evolutionary development was critical for such persons as Stephen Jay Gould.
Mayr notes that "It is quite true ... that Darwin's book was misnamed, because it is a book on evolutionary changes in general and the factors that control them (selection, and so forth), but not a treatise on the origin of species."
His basic idea is that "No special evolutionary processes need to be postulated, even in groups where such missing links have not het been found and where the primitive roots of the various stems always seem to be missing. Aberrant types can be produced only in effective isolation and in rather small distributional areas. The number of individuals in such populations is small and the probability that they will leave a fossil record is very small."
He rejects Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" theory (proposed in Goldschmidt's book The Material Basis of Evolution yet notes that "The fact that an eminent contemporary geneticist (Goldschmidt) can come to conclusions which are diametrically opposed to those of most other geneticists is striking evidence of the extent of our ignorance." He says that theorists like Goldschmidt "fail to define what THEY consider a species."
He suggests that "geographic variation is of very common occurrence among animals and that it affects, so far as known, all taxonomic characters, that is, all the actual and potential differences between species." "geographic variation is not too slow a process to account for the present multitude and diversity of animal life."
He concludes by stating, "all the available evidence indicates that the origin of the higher categories is a process which is nothing but an extrapolation of speciation. All the processes and phenomena of macroevolution and of the origin of the higher categories can be traces back to intraspecific variation, even though the first steps of such processes are usually very minute."
This book is of great interest for anyone interested in the development of evolutionary theory.
Ernst Mayr (1904-2005) was one of the leading evolutionary biologists, whose concept of speciation as a key to evolutionary development was critical for such persons as Stephen Jay Gould.
Mayr notes that "It is quite true ... that Darwin's book was misnamed, because it is a book on evolutionary changes in general and the factors that control them (selection, and so forth), but not a treatise on the origin of species."
His basic idea is that "No special evolutionary processes need to be postulated, even in groups where such missing links have not het been found and where the primitive roots of the various stems always seem to be missing. Aberrant types can be produced only in effective isolation and in rather small distributional areas. The number of individuals in such populations is small and the probability that they will leave a fossil record is very small."
He rejects Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" theory (proposed in Goldschmidt's book The Material Basis of Evolution yet notes that "The fact that an eminent contemporary geneticist (Goldschmidt) can come to conclusions which are diametrically opposed to those of most other geneticists is striking evidence of the extent of our ignorance." He says that theorists like Goldschmidt "fail to define what THEY consider a species."
He suggests that "geographic variation is of very common occurrence among animals and that it affects, so far as known, all taxonomic characters, that is, all the actual and potential differences between species." "geographic variation is not too slow a process to account for the present multitude and diversity of animal life."
He concludes by stating, "all the available evidence indicates that the origin of the higher categories is a process which is nothing but an extrapolation of speciation. All the processes and phenomena of macroevolution and of the origin of the higher categories can be traces back to intraspecific variation, even though the first steps of such processes are usually very minute."
This book is of great interest for anyone interested in the development of evolutionary theory.
to-finish-reading
August 16, 2022Finally, and literally definitively, 83† years after TOOS was published:
"A biological species definition[*], . . . :
A species consists of a group of populations which replace each other geographically or ecologically and of which the neighboring ones intergrade or interbreed [but do not crossbreed] wherever they are in contact or which are potentially capable of doing so (with one or more of the population) in those cases where contact is prevented by geographical or ecological barriers.
Or shorter: Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated form other such groups." Ch. 5, Pg. 120
†81 years for the original definition (Speciation Phenomena in Birds, 1940); 83 years for the shorter definition.
*"It is doubtful whether this species definition applies equally well to plants." ibid, Pg. 122
However, I prefer my own definition, to wit: Species: all the forms within a particular group which can produce fertile hybrids (crossbreeding inclusive viz. artificially induced breeding inclusive).
Note: There are four degrees of crossbreeding, as follows:
1. Natural and fully spontaneous i.e. when separated populations meet (this is the only acceptable definition of crossbreeding according to Mayr; ibid, Pg. 119).
2. Natural insular or lacustrine inducement e.g. islands, mountaintops, caves, or lakes.
3. Artificial isolation e.g. aviaries, kennels, terraria, or aquaria.
4a. Artificial insemination without mechanical prohibition.
4b. Artificial insemination with mechanical prohibition.
Ernst Mayr accepted only degrees 1 & 2 which he defined as interbreeding; rejecting degrees 3 & 4 which he defined as crossbreeding. I accept all four, though a divide species into two tiers or levels, A or B, as determined by degree 4.
Subspecies:
"The terms subspecies and geographic race will be considered, in the meantime, as synonymous." Ch. 5, Pg. 107
"species splitters" ibid Pg. 109
"Genetic distinction is not a species criterion, since it is a sine qua non condition." ibid Pg. 118
"A biological species definition[*], . . . :
A species consists of a group of populations which replace each other geographically or ecologically and of which the neighboring ones intergrade or interbreed [but do not crossbreed] wherever they are in contact or which are potentially capable of doing so (with one or more of the population) in those cases where contact is prevented by geographical or ecological barriers.
Or shorter: Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated form other such groups." Ch. 5, Pg. 120
†81 years for the original definition (Speciation Phenomena in Birds, 1940); 83 years for the shorter definition.
*"It is doubtful whether this species definition applies equally well to plants." ibid, Pg. 122
However, I prefer my own definition, to wit: Species: all the forms within a particular group which can produce fertile hybrids (crossbreeding inclusive viz. artificially induced breeding inclusive).
Note: There are four degrees of crossbreeding, as follows:
1. Natural and fully spontaneous i.e. when separated populations meet (this is the only acceptable definition of crossbreeding according to Mayr; ibid, Pg. 119).
2. Natural insular or lacustrine inducement e.g. islands, mountaintops, caves, or lakes.
3. Artificial isolation e.g. aviaries, kennels, terraria, or aquaria.
4a. Artificial insemination without mechanical prohibition.
4b. Artificial insemination with mechanical prohibition.
Ernst Mayr accepted only degrees 1 & 2 which he defined as interbreeding; rejecting degrees 3 & 4 which he defined as crossbreeding. I accept all four, though a divide species into two tiers or levels, A or B, as determined by degree 4.
Subspecies:
"The terms subspecies and geographic race will be considered, in the meantime, as synonymous." Ch. 5, Pg. 107
"species splitters" ibid Pg. 109
"Genetic distinction is not a species criterion, since it is a sine qua non condition." ibid Pg. 118
January 25, 2015
He was less of a prick in his youth, or at least more humble. Either way, systematics today wouldn't be how it is without it . . .
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews