The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Biological Classification: Toward a Synthesis of Opposing Methodologies
Abstract
Currently a controversy is raging as to which of three competing methodologies of biological classification is the best: phenetics, cladistics, or evolutionary classification. The merits and seeming deficiencies of the three approaches are analyzed. Since classifying is a multiple-step procedure, it is suggested that the best components of the three methods be used at each step. By such a synthetic approach, classifications can be constructed that are equally suited as the basis of generalizations and as an index to information storage and retrieval systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Toward a System for Classifying Business Strategies
Chrisman, J. J., Hofer, C. W., & Boulton, W. R. (1988) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1988.4306963 · Cited by 347
Notes sur la classification des Ranidae (Amphibiens, Anoures)
Dubois, A. (1992) · Bulletin mensuel de la Société linnéenne de Lyon · doi:10.3406/linly.1992.11011 · Cited by 319
O'Brien, M. J., Darwent, J., & Lyman, R. L. (2001) · Journal of Archaeological Science · doi:10.1006/jasc.2001.0681 · Cited by 205
Lilienfeld, S. O., Ritschel, L. A., Lynn, S. J., Cautin, R. L., & Latzman, R. D. (2014) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691614535216 · Cited by 191
Methodological Issues in Americanist Artifact Classification
DUNNELL, R. C. (1986) · Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-003109-2.50007-6 · Cited by 87
Metadata
- Authors
- Mayr, E.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 1981-10-30
- Volume
- 214
- Issue
- 4520
- Pages
- 510-516
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W2086729818
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 39.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biological Classification: Toward a Synthesis of Opposing Methodologies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1126/science.214.4520.510
- The paper
- Mayr, E. (1981). Biological Classification: Toward a Synthesis of Opposing Methodologies. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.214.4520.510
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
