Serrelli E (2012). The challenge of tree-thinking and network-thinking: conceptual issues across biological and cultural domains. Paper at 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, November 14-18, 2012, San Francisco, CA. see http://www.epistemologia.eu This talk gives a reflexive outlook on the employment of tree and network thinking to conceptualize and model vertical descent and horizontal transmission of cultural traits. In biology, evolutionary trees are more than tools for researchers across disciplines: they are the main framework within which evidence for evolution is evaluated (Baum et al. 2005). However, several biologists have recognized "tree thinking" as a challenge for students (Gregory 2008, Meisel 2010), lay people (Baum, cit.), and scientists alike (O'Hara 1992), going against our spontaneous cognitive tendencies, e.g., reading along the tips, locating evolution only at nodes, projecting living species backwards to internal nodes. Moreover, common descent, represented by trees, is not the only way in which biological traits are shared: the ubiquity of phenomena like lateral gene transfer is increasing the need for network-based analyses, introducing the conceptual challenge of "network thinking" (Proulx et al. 2005), and the further complexity of conceiving trees and networks together. I focus on which strategies, used and developed in biology, can be implemented in anthropology to address cultural relatedness and common ancestry relationships. Baum DA et al. (2005). The tree-thinking challenge. Science 310(5750):979-980. Gregory TR (2008). Understanding evolutionary trees. Evolution: Education and Outreach 1(2):121-137. Meisel RP (2010). Teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate biology students. Evolution: Education and Outreach 3(4):621-628. O'Hara RJ (1992). Telling the tree: Narrative representation and the study of evolutionary history. Biology and Philosophy 7(2):p.135–160. Proulx SR et al. (2005). Network thinking in ecology and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(6):345-53.

1. Session “Cultural transmission studies: tree and network
models of micro- and macro-evolution”
At the 111th AAA meeting
November 15th, 2012
The challenge of tree-thinking and network-thinking:
conceptual issues across biological and cultural domains
Emanuele Serrelli
• “Riccardo Massa” Department of Human Sciences
University of Milano Bicocca, ITALY
• Lisbon Applied Evolutionary Epistemology Lab
Universidade de Lisboa
emanuele.serrelli@unimib.it
http://www.epistemologia.eu
1

2. Cultural evolution
• Advanced methods of biology • Data from:
(devised for species, individuals,
genes, phenotypes...):
• linguistics
• mathematical methods
• anthropology
• computer-aided analysis
• archaeology
protocols
• sociology
• massive public databases
• economics
• computer simulations
• etc.
2

3. Cultural evolution
Existing approaches within anthropology and archaeology demonstrate a
good match with the macroevolutionary methods of systematics,
paleobiology, and biogeography, whereas mathematical models derived
from population genetics have been successfully developed to study cultural
microevolution. Much potential exists for experimental simulations and field
studies of cultural microevolution, where there are opportunities to borrow
further methods and hypotheses from biology. Potential also exists for the
cultural equivalent of molecular genetics in ‘social cognitive neuroscience’,
although many fundamental issues have yet to be resolved
3

4. Cultural evolution
• Advanced methods of biology • Data from:
(devised for species, individuals,
genes, phenotypes...):
• linguistics
• mathematical methods
• anthropology
• computer-aided analysis
• archaeology
protocols
• sociology
• massive public databases
• economics
• computer simulations
• etc.
4

5. Cultural evolution
Fig. Mesoudi (2007), A Darwinian Theory of Cultural Evolution, p. 265, modified from Mesoudi, Whiten & Laland (2006), Towards a unified science of cultural evolution, p. 331 5

6. Conclusion
We suggest that human culture exhibits key Darwinian
evolutionary properties, and argue that the structure of
a science of cultural evolution should share
fundamental features with the structure of the science
of biological evolution.
Fig. Mesoudi (2007), A Darwinian Theory of Cultural Evolution, p. 265, modified from Mesoudi, Whiten & Laland (2006), Towards a unified science of cultural evolution, p. 331 6

7. Cultural evolution
• Population thinking (Ernst Mayr 1955
sgg., cf. Chung 2003, O’Hara 1998)
• Typological thinking (Lewens 2009)
• Tree thinking (O’Hara 1998, Baum et al.
2005, Omland et al. 2008)
• Network thinking (Papin et al. 2004,
Proulx et al. 2005)
• Homology thinking (Ereshefsky 2012)
• Landscape thinking (Svensson &
Calsbeek 2012)
• Hierarchy thinking (Eldredge 1986)
• ...
Fig. Mesoudi (2007), A Darwinian Theory of Cultural Evolution, p. 265, modified from Mesoudi, Whiten & Laland (2006), Towards a unified science of cultural evolution, p. 331 7

8. Tree thinking: epistemology
Alonso de Proaza, De logica nova, Valéncia edition (1512)
8

9. Tree thinking: epistemology
Alonso de Proaza, De logica nova, Valéncia edition (1512)
• Gontier (2011), “Depicting the
Tree of Life”
8

10. Tree thinking: epistemology
Alonso de Proaza, De logica nova, Valéncia edition (1512)
• Gontier (2011), “Depicting the
Tree of Life”
• Baum, DeWitt Smith & Donovan
(2005), The Tree-Thinking
Challenge
8

11. Tree thinking: epistemology
Alonso de Proaza, De logica nova, Valéncia edition (1512)
• Gontier (2011), “Depicting the
Tree of Life”
• Baum, DeWitt Smith & Donovan
(2005), The Tree-Thinking
Challenge
• Proulx, Promislow & Phillips
(2005), Network thinking in
ecology and evolution
8

12. Thinking: epistemology
9

13. Thinking: epistemology
• Godfrey-Smith (2008), Model-
based science
• Ankeny & Leonelli (2011),
What’s so special about model
• Beatty (1980),
• Morgan & Morrison organisms?
What’s wrong with • Serrelli (2012), What’s wrong
eds. (1999), Models
the received view of
as Mediators with the semantic view of
evolutionary theory? scientific theories?
9

14. Tree thinking: conceptual issues
A B C D
• O’Hara (1992), Telling the tree
• O’Hara (1998), Population thinking and tree thinking in systematics
• Baum et al. 2005, The Tree-Thinking Challenge
• Omland et al. 2008, Tree thinking for all biology
• ...
10

15. Tree thinking: conceptual issues
A B C D
• O’Hara (1992), Telling the tree
• O’Hara (1998), Population thinking and tree thinking in systematics
• Baum et al. 2005, The Tree-Thinking Challenge
• Omland et al. 2008, Tree thinking for all biology
• ...
10

16. Tree thinking: conceptual issues
PROTEOBACTERIA
A B C D sii ica
tt er oli
ns ke nt c
pie ric a
e
hia
sa sia ell ic
o et
t on h er
k
H om Ri
c
S alm E sc
• O’Hara (1992), Telling the tree
• O’Hara (1998), Population thinking and tree thinking in systematics
• Baum et al. 2005, The Tree-Thinking Challenge
• Omland et al. 2008, Tree thinking for all biology
• ...
10

17. Tree thinking: conceptual issues
PROTEOBACTERIA
A B C D sii ica
tt er oli
ns ke nt c
pie ric a
e
hia
sa sia ell ic
o et
t on h er
k
H om Ri
c
S alm E sc
• O’Hara (1992), Telling the tree
• O’Hara (1998), Population thinking and tree thinking in systematics
• Baum et al. 2005, The Tree-Thinking Challenge
• Omland et al. 2008, Tree thinking for all biology
• ...
10

18. Tree thinking: conceptual issues
P L A C E N T A L S
m ur ey
su m
s Le o nk
po r d
O ea a ile sM AN
ini
a rB g-
t su
irg ola n he UM
V P Ri R H
• Omland et al. 2008,
Tree thinking for all
biology
11

19. Tree thinking: conceptual issues
P L A C E N T A L S
m ur ey
su m
s Le o nk
po r d
O ea a ile sM AN
ini
a rB g-
t su
irg ola n he UM
V P Ri R H
• Omland et al. 2008,
Tree thinking for all
biology
11

20. Tree thinking: conceptual issues
P L A C E N T A L S
m ur ey
su m
s Le o nk
po r d
O ea a ile sM AN
ini
a rB g-
t su
irg ola n he UM
V P Ri R H
M A R S U P I A L S
u m m
um ss ss
u
ro
o
o ss O po po
a
ng Op r n a
O
AN Ka se he ini
ou ut g
H UM Re
d
M So Vi
r
• Omland et al. 2008,
Tree thinking for all
biology
11

21. Tree thinking: conceptual issues
P L A C E N T A L S
m ur ey
su m
s Le o nk
po r d
O ea a ile sM AN
ini
a rB g-
t su
irg ola n he UM
V P Ri R H
M A R S U P I A L S
u m m
um ss ss
u
ro
o
o ss O po po
a
ng Op r n a
O
AN Ka se he ini
ou ut g
H UM Re
d
M So Vi
r
• Omland et al. 2008,
Tree thinking for all
biology
11

22. Tree thinking
“ R E P T I L E S ” B I R D S
snake gecko crocod. (T. Rex). raven duck emu kiwi
S S S S F F F F
F
S
Body Covering
S = scales
F = feathers
• Omland et al. 2008,
Tree thinking for all
biology
12

23. Tree thinking
“ R E P T I L E S ” B I R D S
snake gecko crocod. (T. Rex). raven duck emu kiwi
S S S S F F F F
F
S
Body Covering P L A C E N T A L S
S = scales m ur y
su Le
m ke
F = feathers
p os r d on
a
O
B ea t ail
e
u sM AN
ini lar ng
-
he
s
UM
rg i
Vi Sh Po Lo R Lo R Lo H Lo
• Omland et al. 2008, Development
Tree thinking for all Lo = long
biology Sh = short
12

24. Tree thinking
“ R E P T I L E S ” B I R D S
snake gecko crocod. (T. Rex). raven duck emu kiwi
S S S S F F F F
F
S
Body Covering P L A C E N T A L S M A R S U P I A L S
S = scales opossum koala
lion tiger wolf cow kangaroo wombat
F = feathers Lo Lo Lo Lo Sh Sh Sh Sh
Development
• Omland et al. 2008, Lo = long
Tree thinking for all Sh = short Long / Short?
(equivocal)
biology
13

25. Tree thinking
“ R E P T I L E S ” B I R D"Which of the species is the oldest? Which is the
S
snake gecko crocod. (T. Rex). raven duck emu youngest? Which is most ancestral? Most derived?
kiwi
S S S S F F F Most primitive? Most simple? Most complex? The
F
answer is that a phylogeny provides no information
about any of these questions!"
F
S
Body Covering P L A C E N T A L S M A R S U P I A L S
S = scales opossum koala
lion tiger wolf cow kangaroo wombat
F = feathers Lo Lo Lo Lo Sh Sh Sh Sh
Development
• Omland et al. 2008, Lo = long
Tree thinking for all Sh = short Long / Short?
(equivocal)
biology
13

26. Tree thinking
P L A C E N T A L S
m ur ey
su m
s Le o nk
po r d
O ea a ile sM AN
ini
a rB g-
t su
irg ola n he UM
V P Ri R H
Although generally evolution has not stopped in any lineage, a
progressionist tendency brings some researchers to "continue to
incorrectly describe certain present-day species as 'primitive' and
to incorrectly imply that extant species may be ancestral to other
extant species" (p. 855).
• Omland et al. 2008,
Tree thinking for all
biology
14

27. Tree thinking
P L A C E N T A L S
m ur ey
su m
s Le o nk
po r d
O ea a ile sM AN
ini
a rB g-
t su
irg ola n he UM
V P Ri R H
• Omland et al. 2008,
Tree thinking for all
biology
15

28. Tree thinking
P L A C E N T A L S
m ur ey
su m
s Le o nk
po r d
O ea a ile sM AN
ini
a rB g-
t su
irg ola n he UM
V P Ri R H
PROTEOBACTERIA
ii ic a
tts er oli
ns ke nt c
pie ric a
e
hia
sa tsi
a ell r ic
o ke
t on e
om c alm ch
H Ri S Es
• Omland et al. 2008,
Tree thinking for all
biology
16

29. Tree thinking
P L A C E N T A L S
m ur ey
su m
s Le o nk
po r d
O ea a ile sM AN
ini
a rB g-
t su
irg ola n he UM
V P Ri R H
P L A C E N T A L S
um ur y
s m ke
os Le on r
Op ile
d
AN sM B ea
a t a su r
g ini ng
- UM he ola
Ri H
Vir R P
• Omland et al. 2008,
Tree thinking for all
biology
17

30. Tree-thinking training
• Gregory, T.R., 2008. Understanding • Thanukos, A., 2010. Evolutionary Trees
Evolutionary Trees. Evolution: Education from the Tabloids and Beyond. Evolution:
and Outreach, 1(2), pp.121–137. Education and Outreach, 3(4), pp.563–
572.
• Thanukos, A., 2009. A Name by Any
Other Tree. Evolution: Education and • Halverson, K.L., 2011. Improving Tree-
Outreach, 2(2), pp.303–309. Thinking One Learnable Skill at a Time.
Evolution: Education and Outreach, 4(1),
pp.95–106.
• Meisel, R.P., 2010. Teaching Tree-
Thinking to Undergraduate Biology
Students. Evolution Education & • Torrens, E. & Barahona, A., 2012. Why
Outreach, 3(4), pp.621–628. Are Some Evolutionary Trees in Natural
History Museums Prone to Being
Misinterpreted? Evolution: Education and
• McLennan, D. a., 2010. How to Read a
Outreach.
Phylogenetic Tree. Evolution: Education
and Outreach, 3(4), pp. 506–519.
• Follow the links...
18

31. Network thinking: conceptual issues...?
• Papin, Reed, Palsson (2004),
Hierarchical thinking in network
biology
19

32. Conclusion
We suggest that human culture exhibits key Darwinian
evolutionary properties, and argue that the structure of
a science of cultural evolution should share
fundamental features with the structure of the science
of biological evolution.
Fig. Mesoudi (2007), A Darwinian Theory of Cultural Evolution, p. 265, modified from Mesoudi, Whiten & Laland (2006), Towards a unified science of cultural evolution, p. 331 20

33. people associated with them, and revealing the evolution- Kimura 1970) to account for “stylistic variation” in arti-
ary relationships between these lineages. The basic meth- facts. For example, Neiman (1995) demonstrated that
odology – extracting specimens from the ground – is also changes in decorative styles of Illinois Woodland ceramics
similar. It is only recently, however, that some archaeolo- can be predicted by a model incorporating the selectively
gists have begun to adopt explicitly evolutionary models neutral but opposing forces of drift and innovation.
and tools (for overviews, see O’Brien & Lyman 2002b; Bentley and Shennan (2003) found that the frequencies
Shennan 2002). The key assumption underlying both of West German pottery decorations over the course of
Conclusion: think by ways of thinking
paleobiology and archaeology is that similar forms that 400 years can be predicted by a similar model of unbiased
vary through time are causally connected by inheritance cultural transmission, with some anti-conformist bias in
(which O’Brien & Lyman [2000] term the assumption of later periods.
“heritable continuity”). Such sequences of causally con- As well as prehistoric artifacts, past cultures – unlike
nected forms constitute evolutionary lineages. Simpson past species – have often left detailed written records or
(1961) proposed that evolutionary lineages should be
used as a means of defining a species, rather than requiring
reproductive isolation (Mayr 1963), and this “evolutionary
species” concept is increasingly being used in evolutionary
biology (Wiens 2004). The same lineage-based-species
concept has been suggested by Hull (1982) for culture,
and extended by O’Brien and Lyman (2000) specifically
for prehistoric artifacts.
O’Brien and Lyman (2000) have argued that evolution-
ary lineages can be reconstructed using the method of
seriation, in which a collection of artifacts is ordered
according to their similarity: the more features two arti-
facts share, the closer they are in the order; the fewer
they share, the further apart they are placed. Where
“ R E P T I L such S ”
E orderings exhibit gradual, R
B I D S
overlapping change, it
can be assumed that the seriation represents an evolution-
snake gecko crocod.ary (T. Rex). raven duck cultural transmission.
lineage causally connected by emu kiwi
S S S S F F F
Early archaeologists used the method of seriation to
identify lineages of coins (Evans 1850), stone tools (Pitt-
F
Rivers 1875), and Egyptian pottery (Petrie 1899). The
method fell out of favour, however, in the mid-twentieth
century, which O’Brien and Lyman (2000) attribute to
the increased popularity of an essentialist stance in archae-
ology, in which types are perceived to have distinct
“essences” and change occurs only when one type sud-
F
denly transforms into another. This contrasts with evol-
utionary “population thinking” (Mayr 1982), which
S
recognises naturally occurring variation within populations
rather than focusing on typological essences. O’Brien and
Body Covering Lyman (2000) have consequently made efforts to reintro-
duce seriation into archaeology as a method of studying
S = scales evolutionary change in artifacts. This is demonstrated by
their analysis of projectile points from the Southwestern
F = feathers United States, which, they show, exhibit continuous,
gradually changing variation rather than a small number
of distinct types. O’Brien and Lyman (2000) argue that
forcing artifacts into distinct categories often distorts
their true phylogenetic relationships.
The method of seriation is nonetheless vulnerable to the
same problem as similar methods in paleobiology: dis-
tinguishing between homologies and analogies. Hence,
O’Brien et al. (2001) and O’Brien and Lyman (2003)
have argued that it is also necessary to adopt the cladistic
methods described above to reconstruct evolutionary Figure 2. A phylogenetic tree of 17 projectile points from the
lineages accurately. For example, O’Brien et al. (2001) Southeastern United States, from O’Brien and Lyman (2003),
and O’Brien and Lyman (2003) carried out a phylogenetic illustrating divergence from a single common ancestor. 21
334 BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2006) 29:4

34. people associated with them, and revealing the evolution- Kimura 1970) to account for “stylistic variation” in arti-
ary relationships between these lineages. The basic meth- facts. For example, Neiman (1995) demonstrated that
odology – extracting specimens from the ground – is also changes in decorative styles of Illinois Woodland ceramics
similar. It is only recently, however, that some archaeolo- can be predicted by a model incorporating the selectively
gists have begun to adopt explicitly evolutionary models neutral but opposing forces of drift and innovation.
and tools (for overviews, see O’Brien & Lyman 2002b; Bentley and Shennan (2003) found that the frequencies
Shennan 2002). The key assumption underlying both of West German pottery decorations over the course of
Conclusion: think by ways of thinking
paleobiology and archaeology is that similar forms that 400 years can be predicted by a similar model of unbiased
vary through time are causally connected by inheritance cultural transmission, with some anti-conformist bias in
(which O’Brien & Lyman [2000] term the assumption of later periods.
“heritable continuity”). Such sequences of causally con- As well as prehistoric artifacts, past cultures – unlike
nected forms constitute evolutionary lineages. Simpson past species – have often left detailed written records or
(1961) proposed that evolutionary lineages should be
used as a means of defining a species, rather than requiring
reproductive isolation (Mayr 1963), and this “evolutionary
species” concept is increasingly being used in evolutionary
biology (Wiens 2004). The same lineage-based-species
concept has been suggested by Hull (1982) for culture,
and extended by O’Brien and Lyman (2000) specifically
"Our conception of evolution and our interpretation of
for prehistoric artifacts.
O’Brien and Lyman (2000) have argued that evolution-
phylogenetic trees are intimately linked - each affects
ary lineages can be reconstructed using the method of
seriation, in which a collection of artifacts is ordered
the other" (854)
according to their similarity: the more features two arti-
facts share, the closer they are in the order; the fewer
they share, the further apart they are placed. Where
“ R E P T I L such S ”
E orderings exhibit gradual, R
B I D S
overlapping change, it
can be assumed that the seriation represents an evolution-
snake gecko crocod.ary (T. Rex). raven duck cultural transmission.
lineage causally connected by emu kiwi
S S S S F F F
Early archaeologists used the method of seriation to
identify lineages of coins (Evans 1850), stone tools (Pitt-
F
Rivers 1875), and Egyptian pottery (Petrie 1899). The
method fell out of favour, however, in the mid-twentieth
century, which O’Brien and Lyman (2000) attribute to
the increased popularity of an essentialist stance in archae-
ology, in which types are perceived to have distinct
“essences” and change occurs only when one type sud-
F
denly transforms into another. This contrasts with evol-
utionary “population thinking” (Mayr 1982), which
S
recognises naturally occurring variation within populations
rather than focusing on typological essences. O’Brien and
Body Covering Lyman (2000) have consequently made efforts to reintro-
duce seriation into archaeology as a method of studying
S = scales evolutionary change in artifacts. This is demonstrated by
their analysis of projectile points from the Southwestern
F = feathers United States, which, they show, exhibit continuous,
gradually changing variation rather than a small number
of distinct types. O’Brien and Lyman (2000) argue that
forcing artifacts into distinct categories often distorts
their true phylogenetic relationships.
• Omland et al. 2008, The method of seriation is nonetheless vulnerable to the
same problem as similar methods in paleobiology: dis-
Tree thinking for all tinguishing between homologies and analogies. Hence,
O’Brien et al. (2001) and O’Brien and Lyman (2003)
biology have argued that it is also necessary to adopt the cladistic
methods described above to reconstruct evolutionary Figure 2. A phylogenetic tree of 17 projectile points from the
lineages accurately. For example, O’Brien et al. (2001) Southeastern United States, from O’Brien and Lyman (2003),
and O’Brien and Lyman (2003) carried out a phylogenetic illustrating divergence from a single common ancestor. 21
334 BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2006) 29:4

35. people associated with them, and revealing the evolution- Kimura 1970) to account for “stylistic variation” in arti-
ary relationships between these lineages. The basic meth- facts. For example, Neiman (1995) demonstrated that
odology – extracting specimens from the ground – is also changes in decorative styles of Illinois Woodland ceramics
similar. It is only recently, however, that some archaeolo- can be predicted by a model incorporating the selectively
gists have begun to adopt explicitly evolutionary models neutral but opposing forces of drift and innovation.
and tools (for overviews, see O’Brien & Lyman 2002b; Bentley and Shennan (2003) found that the frequencies
Shennan 2002). The key assumption underlying both of West German pottery decorations over the course of
Conclusion: think by ways of thinking
paleobiology and archaeology is that similar forms that 400 years can be predicted by a similar model of unbiased
vary through time are causally connected by inheritance cultural transmission, with some anti-conformist bias in
(which O’Brien & Lyman [2000] term the assumption of later periods.
“heritable continuity”). Such sequences of causally con- As well as prehistoric artifacts, past cultures – unlike
nected forms constitute evolutionary lineages. Simpson past species – have often left detailed written records or
(1961) proposed that evolutionary lineages should be
used as a means of defining a species, rather than requiring
reproductive isolation (Mayr 1963), and this “evolutionary
species” concept is increasingly being used in evolutionary
biology (Wiens 2004). The same lineage-based-species
concept has been suggested by Hull (1982) for culture,
and extended by O’Brien and Lyman (2000) specifically
"Our conception of evolution and our interpretation of
for prehistoric artifacts.
O’Brien and Lyman (2000) have argued that evolution-
phylogenetic trees are intimately linked - each affects
ary lineages can be reconstructed using the method of
seriation, in which a collection of artifacts is ordered
the other" (854)
according to their similarity: the more features two arti-
facts share, the closer they are in the order; the fewer
they share, the further apart they are placed. Where
“ R E P T I L such S ”
E orderings exhibit gradual, R
B I D S
overlapping change, it
can be assumed that the seriation represents an evolution-
snake gecko crocod.ary (T. Rex). raven duck cultural transmission.
lineage causally connected by emu kiwi
S S S S F F F
Early archaeologists used the method of seriation to
identify lineages of coins (Evans 1850), stone tools (Pitt-
F
Rivers 1875), and Egyptian pottery (Petrie 1899). The
method fell out of favour, however, in the mid-twentieth
century, which O’Brien and Lyman (2000) attribute to
the increased popularity of an essentialist stance in archae-
ology, in which types are perceived to have distinct
“essences” and change occurs only when one type sud-
F
denly transforms into another. This contrasts with evol-
utionary “population thinking” (Mayr 1982), which
S
recognises naturally occurring variation within populations
rather than focusing on typological essences. O’Brien and
Body Covering Lyman (2000) have consequently made efforts to reintro-
duce seriation into archaeology as a method of studying
S = scales evolutionary change in artifacts. This is demonstrated by
their analysis of projectile points from the Southwestern
F = feathers United States, which, they show, exhibit continuous,
gradually changing variation rather than a small number
of distinct types. O’Brien and Lyman (2000) argue that
"Improved tree thinking will not only help us to better
forcing artifacts into distinct categories often distorts
their true phylogenetic relationships.
• Omland et al. 2008, understand the evolution of the particular characters
The method of seriation is nonetheless vulnerable to the
same problem as similar methods in paleobiology: dis-
Tree thinking for all we are studying, but will also improve our fundamental
tinguishing between homologies and analogies. Hence,
O’Brien et al. (2001) and O’Brien and Lyman (2003)
biology understandingphylogenetic tree of 17 projectile points from the
have argued that it is also necessary to adopt the cladistic
methods described above to reconstruct evolutionary Figure 2. A
of evolution" (856)
lineages accurately. For example, O’Brien et al. (2001) Southeastern United States, from O’Brien and Lyman (2003),
and O’Brien and Lyman (2003) carried out a phylogenetic illustrating divergence from a single common ancestor. 21
334 BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2006) 29:4

36. References
• Baum DA, DeWitt Smith S, Donovan SSS (2005). The Tree-Thinking Challenge. • Mayr, E. (1959a). Darwin and the evolutionary theory in biology. In J. Meggers (Ed.),
Science 310:979-980. Evolution and anthropology: A centennial appraisal (pp. 1–10). Washington, DC:
Anthropological Society of Washington.
• Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process. University of
Chicago Press. • Mayr, E. (1959b). Agassiz, Darwin, and evolution. Harvard Library Bulletin, 13, 165–
194.
• Cavalli-Sforza LL, Feldman MW (1981). Cultural Transmission and Evolution.
Princeton University Press. • Mayr, E. (1959c). Where are we? Cold Spring Harbor Symposium on Quantitative
Biology, 24, 409–440. Reprinted in adapted form in Mayr (1976). Evolution and the
Diversity of Life (pp. 307–328). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Chung C (2003). On the origin of the typological/population distinction in Ernst Mayr’s
changing views of species, 1942–1959. Stud. Hist. Phil. Biol. & Biomed. Sci. 34: 277–
296. • Mesoudi A, Whiten A, Laland KN (2006). Towards a unified science of cultural
evolution. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29:329-383.
• Eldredge N (1986). Information, economics, and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics 17:351-369. • O’Hara RJ (1992). Telling the tree: narrative representation and the study of
evolutionary history. Biology and Philosophy 7:135-160.
• Ereshefsky M (2012). Homology thinking. Biol Philos 27:381–400.
• O’Hara RJ (1998). Population thinking and tree thinking in systematics. Zoological
Scripta 26(4):323-329.
• Gontier N (2011). Depicting the Tree of Life: the philosophical and historical roots of
evolutionary tree diagrams. Evo Edu Outreach 4:515-538.
• Omland KE, Cook LG, Crisp MD (2008). Tree thinking for all biology: the problem with
reading phylogenies as ladders of progress. BioEssays 30:854-867.
• Lewens T (2009). What’s wrong with typological thinking? Philosophy of Science
76(3):355-371.
• Papin A, Reed JL, Palsson BO (2004). Hierarchical thinking in network biology: the
unbiased modularization of biochemical networks. Trends in Biochemical Sciences
• Mesoudi A (2007). A Darwinian theory of cultural evolution can promote an 29(12):641-647.
evolutionary synthesis for the social sciences. Biological Theory 2(3):263-275.
• Proulx SR, Promislow DEL, Phillips PC (2005). Network thinking in ecology and
• Mayr, E. (1955). Karl Jordan’s contribution to current concepts in systematics and evolution. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(6):345-53.
evolution. In Evolution and the diversity of life (pp. 297–306). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. Reprinted in E. Mayr (1976).
• Svensson EI, Calsbeek R (2012). Adaptive Landscapes in Evolutionary Biology.
Oxford University Press.
• Mayr, E. (1957). Species concepts and definitions. In E. Mayr (Ed.), The species
problem. Reprinted in E. Mayr (1976) (pp. 1–22). Washington, DC: American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
22