↓ Skip to main content

On the Origins of the Quinarian System of Classification

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the History of Biology, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
On the Origins of the Quinarian System of Classification
Published in
Journal of the History of Biology, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10739-015-9419-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aaron Novick

Abstract

William Sharp Macleay developed the quinarian system of classification in his Horæ Entomologicæ, published in two parts in 1819 and 1821. For two decades, the quinarian system was widely discussed in Britain and influenced such naturalists as Charles Darwin, Richard Owen, and Thomas Huxley. This paper offers the first detailed account of Macleay's development of the quinarian system. Macleay developed his system under the shaping influence of two pressures: (1) the insistence by followers of Linnaeus on developing artificial systems at the expense of the natural system and (2) the apparent tension between the continuity of organic nature and the failure of linear classification schemes (which continuity seemed to require). Against what he perceived as dogmatic indolence on the part of the Linnaeans, Macleay developed a philosophy of science in which hypotheses that exceeded the available evidence should be proposed and subjected to severe tests. He also developed a novel comparative anatomical methodology, the method of variation, to aid in his search for the natural system. Using this method, he developed an intricate system that showed how organic nature could be continuous without being linear. A failure to appreciate these facets of Macleay's thought has led to several misunderstandings of him and his work, most notably that he was an idealist. These misunderstandings are here rebutted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 22%
Other 1 11%
Lecturer 1 11%
Student > Master 1 11%
Other 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 44%
Arts and Humanities 2 22%
Philosophy 1 11%
Social Sciences 1 11%
Unknown 1 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 December 2023.
All research outputs
#7,642,062
of 25,055,009 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the History of Biology
#158
of 511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,760
of 269,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the History of Biology
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,055,009 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 269,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.