Amongst them, who classify all living organisms into
five kingdoms?
(1) Ernst Haeckel (2) Robert Whittaker
(3) Carl Woese (4) Charles Darwin
Answers
Answered by
4
2) Robert Whitaker classified living organisms into five kingdoms.
I hope it will help you
I hope it will help you
Answered by
4
Robert Whittaker's five-kingdom system was a standard feature of biology textbooks during the last two decades of the twentieth century. Even as its popularity began to wane at the end of the century, vestiges of Whittaker's thinking continued to be found in most textbook accounts of biodiversity. Whittaker's early thinking about kingdoms was strongly shaped by his ecological research, but later versions were also heavily influenced by concepts in cell biology. This historical episode provides insights into important intellectual, institutional, and social changes in biology after World War II. Consideration of the history of Whittaker's contributions to the classification of kingdoms also sheds light on the impact of Cold War politics on science education and educational reforms that continue to shape the presentation of biological topics in introductory textbooks today.
Issue Section:
Biology in History
During the late twentieth century, Robert Whittaker's five-kingdom system was a standard feature of biology textbooks, serving as an important organizing scheme for discussing biodiversity. Even as its popularity waned at the end of the century, vestiges of Whittaker's thinking continued to be found in textbooks. Beginning with the germ of an idea in 1957, Whittaker significantly revised his concept in a series of articles published during the subsequent decade. He started with a three-kingdom system that challenged the traditional plant–animal dichotomy, quickly proposed an alternative four-kingdom system, and arrived at his well-known five-kingdom system only after a decade of critical reflection. At last, Whittaker had crafted a system that biologists and educators found attractive because it seemed to capture fundamental properties of living organisms. At its roots, the five-kingdom system was an ecological idea, but Whittaker increasingly relied on cell biology—particularly, the distinction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes—as a central organizing principle for later versions of his system. Thus, the five-kingdom system reflected important intellectual developments in biology during the post–World War II era. Equally important, the success of Whittaker's system owed much to changes in the institutional structure of biology and in science education during the Cold War. Although some of Whittaker's ideas eventually fell victim to molecular systematics, cladistics, and other recent biological developments, the persistence of his system testifies to its broad appeal.
Whittaker's classification of communities and kingdoms
Robert Whittaker (1920–1980) was one of the most influential modern ecologists and made important contributions to a wide range of fields (Westman and Peet 1985). Although the five-kingdom system was only a minor part of his work, it reflected two of Whittaker's fundamental interests. The first was the structure and function of communities and ecosystems. Whittaker's early research on biogeochemical cycles was focused on trophic levels, which provided the initial idea for his kingdom system. The second interest was what Whittaker referred to as “broad classification”—classifying communities and kingdoms in a rigorous way (Whittaker 1948, 1959, 1962, 1972, 1978).
Early in his career, Whittaker became known as one of the critics responsible for overthrowing Frederic Clements' idea that plant communities are highly organized systems comparable to organisms (Westman and Peet 1985, Nicolson and McIntosh 2002, Kohler 2008). Clements' organismic idea implied that the boundaries between communities were quite sharp and well defined, but Whittaker's dissertation on the vegetation of the Smoky Mountains demonstrated that populations and communities were independently scattered along environmental gradients (Whittaker 1948, 1956). Ecotones between communities were usually gradual and ill defined. In his dissertation, Whittaker struggled with his research's implications for classifying communities. The philosophical position that he took was a form of nominalism. Although he believed that populations and species were real, Whittaker argued that communities had only a “low degree of reality” (pp. 168–170); indeed, they were simply names applied by ecologists to areas with similar vegetation (Whittaker 1948). In the field, the ecologist was faced by a multitude of plant populations with broadly overlapping distributions. The task for the ecologist was to analyze these distributions and then impose subdivisions on what was, in fact, a continuum (Whittaker 1948
Issue Section:
Biology in History
During the late twentieth century, Robert Whittaker's five-kingdom system was a standard feature of biology textbooks, serving as an important organizing scheme for discussing biodiversity. Even as its popularity waned at the end of the century, vestiges of Whittaker's thinking continued to be found in textbooks. Beginning with the germ of an idea in 1957, Whittaker significantly revised his concept in a series of articles published during the subsequent decade. He started with a three-kingdom system that challenged the traditional plant–animal dichotomy, quickly proposed an alternative four-kingdom system, and arrived at his well-known five-kingdom system only after a decade of critical reflection. At last, Whittaker had crafted a system that biologists and educators found attractive because it seemed to capture fundamental properties of living organisms. At its roots, the five-kingdom system was an ecological idea, but Whittaker increasingly relied on cell biology—particularly, the distinction between prokaryotes and eukaryotes—as a central organizing principle for later versions of his system. Thus, the five-kingdom system reflected important intellectual developments in biology during the post–World War II era. Equally important, the success of Whittaker's system owed much to changes in the institutional structure of biology and in science education during the Cold War. Although some of Whittaker's ideas eventually fell victim to molecular systematics, cladistics, and other recent biological developments, the persistence of his system testifies to its broad appeal.
Whittaker's classification of communities and kingdoms
Robert Whittaker (1920–1980) was one of the most influential modern ecologists and made important contributions to a wide range of fields (Westman and Peet 1985). Although the five-kingdom system was only a minor part of his work, it reflected two of Whittaker's fundamental interests. The first was the structure and function of communities and ecosystems. Whittaker's early research on biogeochemical cycles was focused on trophic levels, which provided the initial idea for his kingdom system. The second interest was what Whittaker referred to as “broad classification”—classifying communities and kingdoms in a rigorous way (Whittaker 1948, 1959, 1962, 1972, 1978).
Early in his career, Whittaker became known as one of the critics responsible for overthrowing Frederic Clements' idea that plant communities are highly organized systems comparable to organisms (Westman and Peet 1985, Nicolson and McIntosh 2002, Kohler 2008). Clements' organismic idea implied that the boundaries between communities were quite sharp and well defined, but Whittaker's dissertation on the vegetation of the Smoky Mountains demonstrated that populations and communities were independently scattered along environmental gradients (Whittaker 1948, 1956). Ecotones between communities were usually gradual and ill defined. In his dissertation, Whittaker struggled with his research's implications for classifying communities. The philosophical position that he took was a form of nominalism. Although he believed that populations and species were real, Whittaker argued that communities had only a “low degree of reality” (pp. 168–170); indeed, they were simply names applied by ecologists to areas with similar vegetation (Whittaker 1948). In the field, the ecologist was faced by a multitude of plant populations with broadly overlapping distributions. The task for the ecologist was to analyze these distributions and then impose subdivisions on what was, in fact, a continuum (Whittaker 1948
Similar questions