Multiplicity of Research Programs in the Biological Systematics: A Case for Scientific Pluralism

Understanding chemistry: from "heuristic (soft) explanations and reasoning by analogy" to "quantum chemistry"

"Soft theories," i.e., "heuristic models based on reasoning by analogy" largely drove chemistry understanding for 150 years or more. But soft theories have their limitations and with the expansion of chemistry in the mid-20th century, more and more inexplicable (by soft theory) experimental results were being obtained. In the past 50 years, quantum chemistry, most often in the guise of applied theoretical chemistry including computational chemistry, has provided (a) the underlying "hard evidence" for many soft theories and (b) the explanations for chemical phenomena that were unavailable by soft theories. In this publication, we define "hard theories" as "theories derived from quantum chemistry." Both soft and hard theories can be qualitative and quantitative, and the "Houk quadrant" is proposed as a helpful categorization tool. Furthermore, the language of soft theories is often used appropriately to describe quantum chemical results. A valid and useful way of doing science is the appropriate use and application of both soft and hard theories along with the best nomenclature available for successful communication of results and ideas.

Ontogeny, Phylotypic Periods, Paedomorphosis, and Ontogenetic Systematics

The key terms linking ontogeny and evolution are briefly reviewed. It is shown that their application and usage in the modern biology are often inconsistent and incorrectly understood even within the “evo-devo” field. For instance, the core modern reformulation that ontogeny not merely recapitulates, but produces phylogeny implies that ontogeny and phylogeny are closely interconnected. However, the vast modern phylogenetic and taxonomic fields largely omit ontogeny as a central concept. Instead, the common “clade-” and “tree-thinking” prevail, despite on the all achievements of the evo-devo. This is because the main conceptual basis of the modern biology is fundamentally ontogeny-free. In another words, in the Haeckel’s pair of “ontogeny and phylogeny,” ontogeny is still just a subsidiary for the evolutionary process (and hence, phylogeny), instead as in reality, its main driving force. The phylotypic periods is another important term of the evo-devo and represent a modern reformulation of Haeckel’s recapitulations and biogenetic law. However, surprisingly, this one of the most important biological evidence, based on the natural ontogenetic grounds, in the phylogenetic field that can be alleged as a “non-evolutionary concept.” All these observations clearly imply that a major revision of the main terms which are associated with the “ontogeny and phylogeny/evolution” field is urgently necessarily. Thus, “ontogenetic” is not just an endless addition to the term “systematics,” but instead a crucial term, without it neither systematics, nor biology have sense. To consistently employ the modern ontogenetic and epigenetic achievements, the concept of ontogenetic systematics is hereby refined. Ontogenetic systematics is not merely a “research program” but a key biological discipline which consistently links the enormous biological diversity with underlying fundamental process of ontogeny at both molecular and morphological levels. The paedomorphosis is another widespread ontogenetic-and-evolutionary process that is significantly underestimated or misinterpreted by the current phylogenetics and taxonomy. The term paedomorphosis is refined, as initially proposed to link ontogeny with evolution, whereas “neoteny” and “progenesis” are originally specific, narrow terms without evolutionary context, and should not be used as synonyms of paedomorphosis. Examples of application of the principles of ontogenetic systematics represented by such disparate animal groups as nudibranch molluscs and ophiuroid echinoderms clearly demonstrate that perseverance of the phylotypic periods is based not only on the classic examples in vertebrates, but it is a universal phenomenon in all organisms, including disparate animal phyla.

EvoDevo: Past and Future of Continuum and Process Plant Morphology

Plants and animals are both important for studies in evolutionary developmental biology (EvoDevo). Plant morphology as a valuable discipline of EvoDevo is set for a paradigm shift. Process thinking and the continuum approach in plant morphology allow us to perceive and interpret growing plants as combinations of developmental processes rather than as assemblages of structural units (“organs”) such as roots, stems, leaves, and flowers. These dynamic philosophical perspectives were already favored by botanists and philosophers such as Agnes Arber (1879–1960) and Rolf Sattler (*1936). The acceptance of growing plants as dynamic continua inspires EvoDevo scientists such as developmental geneticists and evolutionary biologists to move towards a more holistic understanding of plants in time and space. This review will appeal to many young scientists in the plant development research fields. It covers a wide range of relevant publications from the past to present.