It is a very interesting – and still underexplored – research topic. Generally, the Soviet taxonomists were rather hostile towards cladism (= phylogenetic systematics). Hennig’s classical book on foundations of cladistics is still not translated into Russian, and the first benevolent surveys of this taxonomic phylosophy did not appear in the USSR until the late 1980s. Of course, now the situation is quite another. Cladistic methodology is accepted by anybody who wants to use it, and it is almost impossible to find a theoretical paper written in Russian to reject cladism as a ‘wrong’ methodology. However, most taxonomists of old generations are still working within pre-Hennigian paradygm. But I would like to place your question in a wider context. Generally speaking, any attitude towards cladism concerned with a problem: “should phylogeny be taken as a foundation of the system?” I have to note that there was a long tradition of decoupling taxonomy and phylogeny on theoretical basis in the Russian taxonomy. As long ago as in the 1920s, some prominent systematists of Russia insisted that the phylogeny cannot serve as the basis of a system. I mean chiefly zoologists since I am not very familiar with the works of Russian botanists on this subject. Some of these Russian authors who rejected phylogeny published not only in Russian. I’d recommend you to read two papers of Eugene Smirnov, a very interesting Russian theorist of taxonomy:Smirnoff E.S. 1924. Probleme der exakten Systematik und Wege zu ihrer Lösung. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 61: 1-14.

Smirnov E.S. 1925. The theory of type and the natural system. Ztschr. indukt. Abstannmungs- und Vererbungsiehre, 37: 28-66.

These texts contains explanation why the ‘phylogenetic taxonomy’ is wrong (according to Smirnov).

Another prominent Russian author of that time, Vladimir Beklemishev, also insisted that systematics must not use phylogenetic data at all. Unfortunately, his theoretical views were not published in language other than Russian.

Concerning the post-Hennigian time, the most articulated theoretical work aimed to bring arguments against cladism is:

Skarlato O.S., Starobogatov Ya.I. 1974. Phylogenetics and the building of a natural system. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta AN SSSR, 43: 30-46. (in Russian only).

Discussing Hennig (1950), the authors conclude that his attempt to reform taxonomy “leads to a complete elimination of taxonomy as a scientific discipline” (Skarlato & Starobogatov, 1974: 32). I may add that Starobogatov was among the most influential theorist of taxonomy in USSR, and his methodological views have been read widely.

Well, it is a top of iceberg, of course. If you like to get more information about the Russian theoretical taxonomy (very peculiar and very interesting if to view it in comparison with the Western European thinking), please ask me more. I am sure that the hostility towards cladism in the Soviet taxonomic community has deep philosophical roots and cannot be viewed as a over-simmplified picture of ideological confrontational between ‘East’ and ‘West’.

It's really a shame I can't read russian... Thank you for your testimony. This Plato thing seems weird because Marxism is not compatible with fixed categories. Also, it is still possible to endorse the philosophy of cladism (the dogma "all taxa must be holophyletic") without approving numerical methods of cladistics or BI or ML. I am more interested in the perception of the former (the dogma), rather than the latter (the methods), although they are related topics.

OK, I will see that, thank you.

It is a very interesting – and still underexplored – research topic. Generally, the Soviet taxonomists were rather hostile towards cladism (= phylogenetic systematics). Hennig’s classical book on foundations of cladistics is still not translated into Russian, and the first benevolent surveys of this taxonomic phylosophy did not appear in the USSR until the late 1980s. Of course, now the situation is quite another. Cladistic methodology is accepted by anybody who wants to use it, and it is almost impossible to find a theoretical paper written in Russian to reject cladism as a ‘wrong’ methodology. However, most taxonomists of old generations are still working within pre-Hennigian paradygm. But I would like to place your question in a wider context. Generally speaking, any attitude towards cladism concerned with a problem: “should phylogeny be taken as a foundation of the system?” I have to note that there was a long tradition of decoupling taxonomy and phylogeny on theoretical basis in the Russian taxonomy. As long ago as in the 1920s, some prominent systematists of Russia insisted that the phylogeny cannot serve as the basis of a system. I mean chiefly zoologists since I am not very familiar with the works of Russian botanists on this subject. Some of these Russian authors who rejected phylogeny published not only in Russian. I’d recommend you to read two papers of Eugene Smirnov, a very interesting Russian theorist of taxonomy:Smirnoff E.S. 1924. Probleme der exakten Systematik und Wege zu ihrer Lösung. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 61: 1-14.

Smirnov E.S. 1925. The theory of type and the natural system. Ztschr. indukt. Abstannmungs- und Vererbungsiehre, 37: 28-66.

These texts contains explanation why the ‘phylogenetic taxonomy’ is wrong (according to Smirnov).

Another prominent Russian author of that time, Vladimir Beklemishev, also insisted that systematics must not use phylogenetic data at all. Unfortunately, his theoretical views were not published in language other than Russian.

Concerning the post-Hennigian time, the most articulated theoretical work aimed to bring arguments against cladism is:

Skarlato O.S., Starobogatov Ya.I. 1974. Phylogenetics and the building of a natural system. Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta AN SSSR, 43: 30-46. (in Russian only).

Discussing Hennig (1950), the authors conclude that his attempt to reform taxonomy “leads to a complete elimination of taxonomy as a scientific discipline” (Skarlato & Starobogatov, 1974: 32). I may add that Starobogatov was among the most influential theorist of taxonomy in USSR, and his methodological views have been read widely.

Well, it is a top of iceberg, of course. If you like to get more information about the Russian theoretical taxonomy (very peculiar and very interesting if to view it in comparison with the Western European thinking), please ask me more. I am sure that the hostility towards cladism in the Soviet taxonomic community has deep philosophical roots and cannot be viewed as a over-simmplified picture of ideological confrontational between ‘East’ and ‘West’.

Indeed, history of science is very often history of western science only...

While theory of types seems to be the opposite to evolution in western thinking, it's interesting to read that it was not the case in the russian tradition and that phylogeny and taxonomy were seen as distinct topics. It seems like a defense of a kind of pheneticism, am I right?

Of course I'd like to read more.

The topic is certainly oversimplified, I guess there were several competiting shades in taxonomy in Soviet Union. Any counterpart of Simpsonian evolutionary systematics for example? Did dialectic materialists wrote anything about the interplay between phylogeny and taxonomy, or about cladism? Were there any kind of "taxonomic wars" after the fall of USSR like it occured in the west?

Yes, you are right. Smirnov and his co-thinkers defended a strictly phenetic approach to taxonomy based on sophisticated (in that time) biometrical methods. I see Smirnov as an apparent predecessor of the Western 'numerical systematics' of the 1950-1960s. Smirnov was a very interesting figure almost not known beyond Russia (despite his English and German papers). I must add he was an ardent Neolamarckist and throughout his scientific career (he died in the 1970s) he supported the inheritance of acquired characters in animals. 

In the Soviet Union, the school of the 'Evolutionary Taxonomy' of Mayrian and Simpsonian style was the most influential. The monographs of both these authors were tranlated and widely read. However, I can't say anything about the dialectic materialust phiolosophers attitude towards cladism. It needs a special study of the Soviet philosophical literature. 

As concerns the 'taxonomic wars', formally we did not have them. As it was stated above, most old researchers continued to be 'evolutionary systematists', whereas younger taxonomists (not all, of course) to use the cladistic approach in the 1990s. I am not able to recall any strong confrontation in published works of the last 20-30 years, though informally, in private discussions and scientific meetings, some strong discussions had place. Though it is my own perception (I started to work as a taxonomist in the 2000s), possibly, you must ask systematists of older age. 

just a short note for the sake of completeness (did not read all your conversation, maybe my note is a repetition): cladistics was "Born" 1950 in Eastern Germany (Friedrichshagen, East Berlin, Deutsches Entomologisches Institut). Later on, Hennig moved to Western Germany, but at the beginning he was in the east. It was just after the war - so Hennig was "conincidentally" living there.

Thank you for this precision Lutz.

I am Cuban and I studied several years in the University of Brasov, of the Socialist Romania, before Ceaucescu. There the programs were very similar to the Soviet Union. In this University it was prohibited the mathematical applications to the biology. This did not have relation with the Marxist philosophy (in these universities it(he) was obligatory to study this philosophy, for what I know her very well) but it(he) was related to an obligation imposed by Stalin. The reasons of this imposition are very interesting, and it(he,she) cost the life to one of the biggest geneticists of the history, Nicolae Vavilov.

Later of my doctorate I had many relations with the Institute Komarov of Leningrad (Sanint Petersburg), Soviet Union. All'estuve you change times and I knew some of the most prominent botanists about the 20th century. In this institution it(he,she) was following with this thought, though already Stalin's prohibition had disappeared.

I did my PhD in Socialist Poland, Botaniki Wladislaw Szafer Institute of Cracow, in the seventies of the 20th century. At this Institute to follow the rules of the University of Krakow. The University boasts to always follow the most advanced global Sciences since the times of Nicolae Copernicus, father of World Science. Copernicus studied at this University. There my tutor made me to follow the numerical taxonomy, and I studied dozens of existing indices. The most flexible, which I did not use, is the square of Manhattan, Pythagoras upside down. This method is based on the cladistics.

When Henning began to popularize the cladistics invited me to participate in this current. I refused because what seemed to me to be rigid was forcing into a dichotomous schema processes which could be reticulate. Then in biogeography, to what I do currently, dichotomous outcomes are inconceivable. The evolution of the Earth if it is cross-linked, in addition all vital processes depend on that variable, never the reverse. How to use a dichotomous schema from the dependent variable to explain the independent variable.  Unfortunately this is the sacred current basis of biogeography, and their gods do not support another.

Well, as biogeographer (tot Mayerian - Simpsonian etc.) I do not agree at all with Antonio concerning the opposition dichotomyc / reticulate processes in historical biogeography. Very often an apparently reticulate process results fron the superposition of allochronic dichotomic events

Now I have a confusion: two processes vicariants major on the planet, the breakdown of the two Pangea, can be considered part of dichotomous processes. In addition, their causes would be altogether phylogenesis which have taken place and have in the living planet

Well, may I recommend to Antonio to look on the book "Biogeografía. La dimensión espacial de la evolución" by myself and A. Zullini? a Spanish version, as well as a Russian one, is available on ResearchGate. Until now, I did'nt change my standpoint about the question.

Cheers to all people . M

This is all very interesting. Finally, it does not seem there has been such a huge lag (here with the example of numerical methods) between West and East, as it is often assumed in the West.

May I ask you Antonio why the "square of Manhattan" distance? (I guess, used with UPGMA). Why not simply Manhattan distance? Or the reverse, the square root of Manhattan?

Cladism is perceived negatively almost everywhere in Russia (et least among my numerous colleagues - zoologists and paleontologists from St Petersburg, Moscow, Rostov-on-Don etc.). Cladists are often named as "people with dichotomous thinking". I can look for criticism of cladism in contemporary Russian literature.

This is in sharp contrast with the Western world Maxim, it is very interesting. Yes, if you can get some contempary Russian criticism and sum it up here, I am interested.

See works of Pavlinov Igor zoologist from Zoological museum of the Moscow State University

Beyond any book or work, consciously or unconsciously most of the analyzes on vicariates are made are made on the basis of the fractionation of Pangea II. If there were two Pangea, we are dealing with circular processes, or as suggested by Engel's dialectic of Hegel: the fractionation of both Pangea have a heliocoidal pattern. The same as the volcanoes, earthquakes, climatic changes, etc. That means that it is not a dichotomous process, so we are dealing with a general law. Each one can think what he wants, I collaborate with many defenders of the cladistica, but not change of thought.

I think that recent situation in perception of cladistics in Russia has seriously changed as compared to 90-ies. Nowdays among middle aged and young scientiscts the attitude is pretty  much the same as in Western countries. This shift to a great extent was promoted by the application of molecular methods and tree-building thinking to classical zoology.

Dear Damien,

since later 1980es, cladistics was being activaly explored and propagated by two persons in Zoological Museum of Moscow Unversity, namely Anatole Shatalkin and myself. There few books and review papers were published on this subject, all in Russian.

Shatalkin's book of 1988 entitled  "Biologicheskaya sistematika" (Biological taxonomy = Биологическая систематика) is easy to find in pdf format in the web. My publications are upoladed onto my web-page  http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov_eng1.htm 

If uou have some more particular questions, please write me direcly using e-mail  [email protected].

Cheers,

Igor

I visited the Komarov Institute, Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) several times from 1971 to 1991. At that time I met people as important in botany and biogeography as Takjtajan and Tolmachov. I always visited the Institute Vavilov, to review the works of that author, the father of agricultural biogeography. At that time the authors I mentioned still maintained the theories of Lishenko, so in one way or another they rejected the use of mathematics in biology. Today Russia is rapidly opening up to many Western ideas, although distances in the use of these ideas are still distinguishable. However, what strikes me is the little that many works of the Russian and Soviet authors are taken into account. For example we can mention the biogeographic regionalization of Takjtajan, which Cox recognizes as the most coherent that has been carried out, or the use of Tolmachov top-level taxa, which allows the characterization of prairies according to their composition in families . Vavilov's work, as it is the only biogeographic regionalization of crops, the only one that exists, is not remembered except the publication of Zeven & Wet in 1982

You call cladism what I call holophyletism. Holophyletists require that taxa ought to be whole clades, which is absurd. Evolution is essentially paraphyletic and fuzzy due to hybridization. Phylogenetic systematics is something completely different. It requires that taxa ought to be compatible with evolution. This mathematically means that taxa ought to be connected subsets in evolution trees. The trees constructed by available cladistical methods and published in literature are of course artefacts and not evolution trees.

Thank you for all your answers.

Aside from how we may call it, cladism or holophyletism, I totally agree with you Josef Niederle.