Hennig and Rosa

[John Grehan]

In an earlier posting one person (if I recall correctly) characteriaed Croizat's
comments on Rosa and Hennig as intemperate. I display below an english
translation (followed by the Spannish original) of a commentary by Croizat
on this matter and I am hard put to find
it "intemperate". Perhaps there are other comments that might qualify, but this
piece seems quite cautious. Croizat makes reference to the similarities in
several
figures, and right or wrong, feels that the similarities warrant some
questioning of
the matter of a possible connection.

The translation was made by a colleague who has no direct involvement in these
matters so please accomodate any impoverishment in the translation. [] - word
not translated. Any suggested improvements are welcome.

So far the general response has been that the possibility of plagiarism has no
direct proof, but as far as I am able to discern at present, there is nothing to
proove otherwise either, while there is at least curcumstantial evidence of
the possiblity. Rather than sweeping the issue under the rug, I suggest that
the inferences by Croizat should at least be acknowledged, if not investigated
properly.

Hennig (1950) does cite Rosa 1903, so he was at least aware of this person.
There
are instances of people citing Croizat's marginal work while ignoring his
principle
works on biogeography. Perhaps this is a parallel. Hennig was aware of
Croizat's panbiogeography but did not cite it (to my present knowledge).

John Grehan


Croizat 1976  Biogeograpfia Analytica y Sintetica ("Panbiogeografia")
de las Americas. p. 828.

I do not intend,when exhibiting Hennig´s schemes and diagrams that obey to
the same "inspiration", to imply that Hennig plagiarized Rosa. If the
"cladism" forms as much for Rosa as for Hennig an essential element of the
taxonomic evolution this coincidence does not imply inmediate compilation
or plagiarism.

However, Hennig does not refer to Rosa 1918: and, in view of those that
exhibit our Fig. 164, 165, 166 is not easy at all to reject Hennig´s
idea,even if he does not make a citation, he knows well the Ologenesis of
Rosa 1918 (see referring to Colosi).

Both, Rosa and Hennig treat "cladism" mainly in a theoretical tone; but
Rosa is clear and restrained; Hennig overflows confusely going on a
[maremagnum] of neologisms of doubtful application to the concrete case, of
definitions that has himself to prune and re-prune down to the roots, to
such an extreme that of what was said at page n near anything, or anything
at all remains at page n+1.ricas. p. 828.


No me propogono, al exhibir esquemas y diagrams de Hennig que obedecen por
lo visto a la misma "inspiración", insinuar que Hennig plagiara a Rosa. Si
el "cladismo" forma tanto por Rosa cmo por Hennig un elemento esencial de
al evolución taxonómica esta coincidencia no implica ipso facto compilación
solapada o plagio. Sin embargo, Hennig no se refiere a Rosa 1918: y, en
vista de los que exhiben nuestras Fig. 164, 165, 166 es nada fácil rchazar
la idea de Hennig, pese a que no la cita, muy bien conoce la Ologenesis de
Rosa, 1918 (ver en cuanto a Colosi, p. 609 del texto principal). Tanto Rosa
como Hennig se ocupan de "cladismo" en tono fundametalmente teórico; mas
Rosa es diáfano y se contiene; Hennig se desborda confusamente dando curso
a un maremagnum de neologismos de dudosa aplicación al caso concreto, de
definiciones que él mismo debe luego podar y re-podar hasta las raíces, a
tal extremo que de lo dicho a pág. n casi nada, o nada del todo queda a
pág. n + 1; etc.