Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:16:38.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Metaphysics of Species*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Judith K. Crane
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explains the metaphysical implications of the view that species are individuals (SAI). I first clarify SAI in light of the separate distinctions between individuals and classes, particulars and universals, and abstract and concrete things. I then show why the standard arguments given in defense of SAI are not compelling. Nonetheless, the ontological status of species is linked to the traditional “species problem,” in that certain species concepts do entail that species are individuals. I develop the idea that species names are rigid designators and show how this provides additional motivation for SAI.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 156 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

For helpful comments and discussions, I thank Berit Brogaard, John Danley, Graeme Forbes, Chris Horvath, Skip Larkin, Tom Paxson, Jim Stone, Jim Van Cleve, Bob Wolf, Gideon Yaffe, Dean Zimmerman, and two anonymous referees for Philosophy of Science.

References

Caplan, Arthur (1981), “Back to Class: A Note on the Ontology of Species”, Back to Class: A Note on the Ontology of Species 48:130–140.Google Scholar
Cook, Monte (1980), “If ‘Cat’ is a Rigid Designator, What Does it Designate?”, If ‘Cat’ is a Rigid Designator, What Does it Designate? 37:61–64.Google Scholar
de Sousa, Ronald (1989), “Kinds of Kinds: Individuality and Biological Species”, Kinds of Kinds: Individuality and Biological Species 3:119–135.Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith (1983), “Kripke and Putnam on Natural Kind Terms”, in Ginet, Carl and Shoemaker, Sydney (eds.), Knowledge and Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 84–104.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc ([1991], 1992), “Species, Higher Taxa, and the Units of Evolution”, in Ereshefsky 1992, 381–398. Originally published in Philosophy of Science 58:84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (ed.) (1992), The Units of Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Forbes, Graeme (1981), “An Anti–Essentialist Note on Substances”, An Anti–Essentialist Note on Substances 41:32–37.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael ([1974] 1992), “A Radical Solution to the Species Problem”, in Ereshefshy 1992, 279–291. Originally published in Systematic Zoology 23:536–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael (1997), Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson, and Leonard, Henry S. (1940), “The Calculus of Individuals and its Uses”, The Calculus of Individuals and its Uses 5:45–55.Google Scholar
Grene, Marjorie (1989), “Interaction and Evolution”, in Ruse 1989, 67–73.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1976), “Are Species Really Individuals?”, Are Species Really Individuals? 25:174–191.Google Scholar
Hull, David ([1978] 1992), “A Matter of Individuality”, in Ereshefshy 1992, 293–316. Originally published in Philosophy of Science 45:335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, David (1981), “Kitts and Kitts and Caplan on Species”, Kitts and Kitts and Caplan on Species 48:141–152.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1989), The Metaphysics of Evolution. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip ([1984] 1992), “Species”, in Ereshefshy 1992, 317–341. Originally published in Philosophy of Science 51:308–333.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1987), “Ghostly Whispers: Mayr, Ghiselin, and the ‘Philosophers’ on the Ontological Status of Species”, Ghostly Whispers: Mayr, Ghiselin, and the ‘Philosophers’ on the Ontological Status of Species 2:184–192.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1989), “Some Puzzles about Species”, in Ruse 1989, 183–208.Google Scholar
Kripke, Saul (1980), Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1986), On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1970), Populations, Species, and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1987), “The Ontological Status of Species: Scientific Progress and Philosophical Terminology”, The Ontological Status of Species: Scientific Progress and Philosophical Terminology 2:145–166.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst, and Ashlock, Peter D. (1991), Principles of Systematic Zoology, 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1975), “The Meaning of Meaning”, in Putnam, Hilary, Mind, Language and Reality: Philosophical Papers, Volume II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 215–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, Michael ([1987] 1992), “Biological Species: Natural Kinds, Individuals, or What?”, in Ereshefshy 1992, 344–361. Originally published in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38:225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, Michael (ed.) (1989), What the Philosophy of Biology Is: Essays Dedicated to David Hull. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, Nathan (1981), Reference and Essence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sider, Theodore (2001), Four-Dimensionalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simons, Peter (1987), Parts: A Study in Ontology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Stephen P. (1981), “Natural Kinds”, Natural Kinds 4:301–302.Google Scholar
Simpson, G.G. (1961), Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1984), “Sets, Species, and Evolution: Comments on Philip Kitcher's ‘Species’”, Sets, Species, and Evolution: Comments on Philip Kitcher's ‘Species’ 51, 334–341.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (2000), Philosophy of Biology, 2d ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar