Phylogeny of Spyderco Models

I am thinking that the Native gave birth to the larger Manix, Manix XL, and the Chaparral. The resemblance is too much to be an accident.
 
bearfacedkiller said:
I would say that the Military is the Patriarch of its own family and that the Manix and Sages are part of the Native family. If you compare a Native to either one you can see it.

The skus are not all in order. The Tusk just came out but they had been saving that one. Also, I would say that is irrelevant since the Tusk may be a stand alone model in this discussion.

The ATR was a Golden knife moved to Japan for a sprint.
Click to expand...

I don't know that I agree about the Military. It's definitely a new species, apart from the rest, but there are definite design elements and cues from other Spydercos. Honestly, models like the Military are where things get would get complicated. I would argue the Military is descended from the Police, but it obviously incorporated some tricks the Police didn't have and spawned a lineage all its own.
 
DocT said:
I am thinking that the Native gave birth to the larger Manix, Manix XL, and the Chaparral. The resemblance is too much to be an accident.
Click to expand...

I would say you have the Native as the original and then you could branch a number of 'families' off that, including the ones you mentioned, but also the Sage group and the occasional single outlier like the Super Leaf (although, then you're mixing in DNA from the Superhawk, which is clearly a descendant of the hawkbilled Spydies). Then you have more complicated connections like the Native to the Caly series. I would say the original Calypso is descended directly from the Police, but that current gen Caly 3 and 3.5 models have been influenced by some branch of the Native family.
 
The Salts are a bit of a conundrum as a subgroup. The Salt 1, Pacific and Caspian are very much their own knives, but could easily be grouped with the Delica, Endura and Swick, respectively, rather than with a Salt specific branch. Dragonfly, Ladybug and Assist Salt are more obvious, but I'm not sure where to place the Aqua.
 
50an6xy06r6n said:
Yeah this is sort of what I'm getting at, but I'd like to be a little more precise about the chronology of design influences and evolutions. It's fun to see what design cues propagate, and what design cues fizzle out.
Click to expand...

I feel like a lot of this may actually just come down to opinions of the eye and visual cues... like you mentioned about seeing between Dragonfly and R in shape. But the old R shares similar features to Q, etc...

This is going to be difficult to accomplish without putting some strong opinion into some relations.

If you just go chronological, it will lead to a nicely organized historical tree, but I think many design relations may go missed... just my view. :)



DocT said:
I am thinking that the Native gave birth to the larger Manix, Manix XL, and the Chaparral. The resemblance is too much to be an accident.
Click to expand...


Native goes back to BlackHawk.
And also larger Renegade of that era...
Then now to the Chief, and Shaman!
 
Last edited:
Insipid Moniker said:
The Salts are a bit of a conundrum as a subgroup. The Salt 1, Pacific and Caspian are very much their own knives, but could easily be grouped with the Delica, Endura and Swick, respectively, rather than with a Salt specific branch. Dragonfly, Ladybug and Assist Salt are more obvious, but I'm not sure where to place the Aqua.
Click to expand...
Pac Salt handle = Endura 3 handle. Same except the name on the side
 
I think that, opposed to a true phylogenetic analysis, in which there is a factual line of descent and branching over time, you're going to have to develop this phylogenetic tree based off of just physical traits, since the "ancestors" to certain product lines in terms of concept may actually release after its "descendants", ruling out use of release date as a way to structure the tree. I think I would structure the phylogenic tree predominantly based on blade shape and handle shape rather than locking mechanism, since it's fairly easy to have a single body type be modified to accommodate different locking forms (such as the Sage series).
 
Sorry, but I have to insist. It's all about the choil.

When you're using a blade, you're not thinking about what kind of lock it has.
 
kubelik said:
I think that, opposed to a true phylogenetic analysis, in which there is a factual line of descent and branching over time, you're going to have to develop this phylogenetic tree based off of just physical traits, since the "ancestors" to certain product lines in terms of concept may actually release after its "descendants", ruling out use of release date as a way to structure the tree. I think I would structure the phylogenic tree predominantly based on blade shape and handle shape rather than locking mechanism, since it's fairly easy to have a single body type be modified to accommodate different locking forms (such as the Sage series).
Click to expand...
Obviously it's not exactly like evolutionary biology, since the knives can be designed from scratch, unlike new species. However, I bring up phylogeny because I think there is value in knowing the sequence in which models are designed. If we pay attention to that, I think we can extract some more insight into why certain design aspects are passed down from earlier models to later ones, and why others die out, so to speak. A lot of models clearly take design cues from their predecessors, and from that you get a short of evolution.

The relationship might be better represented as a general directed graph instead of a tree, but I think it can be done with some degree of certainty. Of course, the best way to do it be to interview the designers, but until the Glessers chime in we can have some fun speculating, right?
 
sparky2016 said:
Sorry, but I have to insist. It's all about the choil.

When you're using a blade, you're not thinking about what kind of lock it has.
Click to expand...
I agree that the choil is a crucial aspect of Spyderco designs especially. However, i think the type of lock used does substantially affect the design of the knife. The compression lock, for example requires the use of an external stop pin, and a liner tall enough to accommodate the lock. Mid locks and slipits all require closed back construction to function, and liner/frame locks are necessarily right or left handed.

Both are important aspects of design, but I argue that in most cases it's probably easier to incorporate a choil than to change the lock type. I'm trying to think of this primarily from the perspective of the designer rather than purely as a user, since that seems more relevant when talking about design progression.
 
50an6xy06r6n said:
Obviously it's not exactly like evolutionary biology, since the knives can be designed from scratch, unlike new species. However, I bring up phylogeny because I think there is value in knowing the sequence in which models are designed. If we pay attention to that, I think we can extract some more insight into why certain design aspects are passed down from earlier models to later ones, and why others die out, so to speak. A lot of models clearly take design cues from their predecessors, and from that you get a short of evolution.

The relationship might be better represented as a general directed graph instead of a tree, but I think it can be done with some degree of certainty. Of course, the best way to do it be to interview the designers, but until the Glessers chime in we can have some fun speculating, right?
Click to expand...

oh, don't get me wrong - I love the idea. I'm just pointing out that you can do it with time as an "evolutionary" factor or you could do it more the way that naturalists did it back in the 18th century, where it's purely based on observed physical traits rather than any knowledge of the developmental process, and both ways would be valid means of sorting since it's not really animal or plant species we're talking about.

I think the other cool thing that will happen here as opposed to a true evolutionary tree is that, unlike a forever-branching phylogenetic tree, here we could see some branches re-combine. for instance, the Mantra and Mantra 2 as "genetic" hybrids of the Sage 2, the Delica (and even the Southard in the instance of the Mantra 2). anyway, yeah, it's a cool idea, and would certainly be cool to build this with input from the Glessers on the history behind the design process for each knife, but it would certainly be a messy/convoluted chart (in a fun way) and would look quite unique from a typical phylogeny of species.
 
50an6xy06r6n said:
Also, why were the Delica and Endura designed without the choil? From my rudimentary observations, it seems like one could be incorporated with very little modification to the existing design, and would make them even more versatile than they already are.
Click to expand...


I am pretty ANTI-choil and think that there are already too many knives with choils in the lineup, but that's my opinion. Yours is clearly that they are always needed because you state it there like it's an oversight or something to be incorporated after more thought.

There are some of us who think that taking away cutting edge (ESPECIALLY at the place you get the most leverage for the cut) makes a knife LESS "versatile."

I think of knives like those from the Far East or Finland and Scandinavia where people REALLY use them (as opposed to taking pics of them, posting them on the Internet with their EDC "loadout", etc.) and note you hardly ever see a "choil". I see choils costing a goodly chunk of primary cutting edge (on small knives it can be almost 20%; on some fixed blades I've seen these cutouts be over an inch) just so your finger can have an identity crisis. :D

Also note that from a legal standpoint the blade starts at the guard-not cutting edge-so for all these reasons why not have the maximum cutting edge?
 
David From NC said:
I am pretty ANTI-choil and think that there are already too many knives with choils in the lineup, but that's my opinion. Yours is clearly that they are always needed because you state it there like it's an oversight or something to be incorporated after more thought.
Click to expand...

This ain't a choil or no choil thread. It's the Spyderco version of a Jerry Springer show, a la "Who's yo daddy?" No real need to start picking fights. ;)

I'm a fan of this project. I'm almost wondering if it'd be better to start with the current lineup or those in recent production and work backwards. Trying to suss out the original progenitors of the entire Spyderco family tree may prove too overwhelming to actually go anywhere... At least with my ADD tendencies on a new project. :D

Maybe begin by taking the general correlations already stated in this thread and start grouping? I dunno. I'd like to see it happen one way or another!
 
Last edited:
FriarPhenn said:
This ain't a choil or no choil thread. It's the Spyderco version of a Jerry Springer show, a la "Who's yo daddy?" No real need to start picking fights. ;)

I'm a fan of this project.
Click to expand...

I should have stated I'm a fan of the idea and project, but I did feel a deep need to jump in and "represent" on behalf of us "nochoilers" (already imagining a Photoshopped "Oilers" jersey we can wear to our conventions :D ) since the original poster opened the door on ADDING choils to the Endura and Delica line-perish the thought! :eek:
 
David From NC said:
I should have stated I'm a fan of the idea and project, but I did feel a deep need to jump in and "represent" on behalf of us "nochoilers" (already imagining a Photoshopped "Oilers" jersey we can wear to our conventions :D ) since the original poster opened the door on ADDING choils to the Endura and Delica line-perish the thought! :eek:
Click to expand...

I hear dat. :thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top