Five Kingdoms, More or Less: Robert Whittaker and the Broad Classification of Organisms

Robert Whittaker's five-kingdom system was a standard feature of biology textbooks during the last two decades of the twentieth century. Even as its popularity began to wane at the end of the century, vestiges of Whittaker's thinking continued to be found in most textbook accounts of biodi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Bioscience 2012-01, Vol.62 (1), p.67-74
Main Author: Hagen, Joel B
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Animals
Biodiversity
Biology
Biology in History
Botany
Careers
cell biology
Classification
Cold War
Community Relations
Cytology
DEPARTMENTS
Ecological function
Ecological genetics
Ecological research
Ecologists
Ecology
evolution
Fungi
Graduate Students
history
Molecular Biology
Ornithology
Peer Acceptance
Plants
Prokaryotes
Science education
Science Instruction
Taxonomy
Textbooks
Vegetation
War
World War II
Zoology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Robert Whittaker's five-kingdom system was a standard feature of biology textbooks during the last two decades of the twentieth century. Even as its popularity began to wane at the end of the century, vestiges of Whittaker's thinking continued to be found in most textbook accounts of biodiversity. Whittaker's early thinking about kingdoms was strongly shaped by his ecological research, but later versions were also heavily influenced by concepts in cell biology. This historical episode provides insights into important intellectual, institutional, and social changes in biology after World War II. Consideration of the history of Whittaker's contributions to the classification of kingdoms also sheds light on the impact of Cold War politics on science education and educational reforms that continue to shape the presentation of biological topics in introductory textbooks today.
ISSN:0006-3568
1525-3244
DOI:10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.11