On the beauty of Linnean systematics

The beauty of the Linnean system is that it acknowledges the fundamental orthogonality of reality.

That this fact is not merely a coincidence is shown by Linné's statement that "it is not the characters that make the genus, but the genus that gives the characters". This statement points at the two facts that (1) there is a difference between a genus (ie, process) and its characters (ie, patterns), and (2) a genus (process) is not defined by its characters (patterns), but defines its characters. It thus points at the fact that a genus is the opposite to entity (in this case a "biological species"), which instead is defined by its characters per definition (in our conceptualization of reality).

Malte Ebach uses this statement in Darwin's interpretation that:"Such expressions as that famous one of Linnaeus, and which we often meet with in a more or less concealed form, that the characters do not make the genus, but that the genus gives the characters, seem to imply that something more is included in our classification than mere resemblance. I believe that something more is included, and that propinquity of descent, - the only known cause of the similarity of organic beings, - is the bond, hidden as it is by various degrees of modification, which is partially revealed to us by our classifications" (Darwin, 1859, p. 413f.

However, Darwin's interpretation of Linnaeus' statement is an unfortunate conflation of conceptualization and facts.The "something more" that is included in classification than mere resemblance is difference: the difference between species and genus in that whereas characters make the species, they don't make the genus; they make the species that the genus consist of. The statement just points at the fundamental difference between genera and the entities (in this case "biological species) it consists of. The genus and its species do together form a totality wherein both only exist in terms of the other. Linnaeus' statement thus points at the difference between genus and species.

What Darwin forgot in his interpretation of Linnaeus' statement, and also cladists of today forget, is that classification includes both resemblances (ie, similarities) and differences, and that it does this at the same time. For example, distinguishing humans and chimps as two classes of primates on resemblances does at the same time distinguish primates and non-primates by differences. Classification uses both resemblances and differences at the same time. For Darwin, and today's cladists, differences in classification appear given, whereas resemblances, and the reason for them, appear to be the issue. For Linnaeus, classification of reality itself was the issue.

The fundamental question in biological systematics is how to classify the biological diversity consistently, and that question did Linnaeus answer. Darwin's theory that resemblances among biological organisms may be due to "propinquity of descent" may be true or not, its truthfulness is not critical for Linnaeus answer to the fundamental question in biological systematics. The reason for the resemblances does not actually matter, Linnaeus system holds independently of the reason for the resemblances. Nothing can be classified consistently without an orthogonal system such as Linnaeus', because classification, and also ultimately reality itself, is orthogonal.

Linnaeus' system does thus not depend on the reason for resemblances (ie, similarities), but is, instead, the only kind of system (ie, an orthogonal system) that can classify (anything) consistently. It is actually the solution of Russell's paradox by bridging this paradox. Darwin appears to be right about the source for many resemblances among biological organisms, but he misunderstood Linnaeus. Linnaeus system does not contradict what Darwin proposes, but is just one kind of the only possibility to classify his proposal consistently, that is, in terms of an orthogonal classification. Malte Ebach (and cladists in general) appears to interpret Darwin's misunderstanding as supporting an inconsistent classification like cladistics. I'm sure that Darwin would rotate in his grave if he could hear this interpretation of his misunderstanding of Linnaeus statement.

The beauty of the Linnean system is thus that it acknowledges the fundamental orthogonality of reality. It is actually the first application of object-oriented programming that is so common today in the form of apps for iPhones and iPads. All of them starts with a void, which is the truth cladistics searches (ie, the true tree of life). Darwin could not find a consistent illustration for his theory, and cladists (like Malte Ebach) uses his inconsistent illustration as axiom. Cladists (like Malte Ebach) thus acknowledge consistent inconsistency instead of consistency.