Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-22T03:31:49.473Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Character Individuation in Phylogenetic Inference

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Richard Richards
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ontological questions in biology have typically focused on the nature of species: what are species; how are they identified and individuated? There is an analogous, but much neglected concern: what are characters; how are they identified and individuated? Character individuation is significant because biological systematics relies on a parsimony principle to determine phylogeny and classify taxa, and the parsimony principle is usually interpreted to favor the phylogenetic hypothesis that requires the fewest changes in characters. But no character individuation principle identified so far is adequate. For biological systematics we need a better way of conceiving characters.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 264 - 279
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

‡

I wish to thank Peter Achinstein and Karen Neander for their helpful criticism and support. David Weishampel and Richard Mayden have both been invaluable in helping me to better understand phylogenetic inference and the associated philosophical issues. The helpful comments of the anonymous referees are also appreciated. The views presented here, and any mistakes, are my own.

References

Ax, Peter (1987), The Phylogenetic System. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Cracraft, Joel (1981), The use of functional and adaptive criteria. Phylogenetic Systematics, Amer. Zoo. 21:2–36.Google Scholar
Eldredge, Niles (1979), “Cladism and Common Sense” in Cracraft, Joel and Eldredge, Niles (eds.), Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. New York: Columbia University Press, 165–195.10.7312/crac92306-007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, Niles, and Cracraft, Joel (1980), Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Farris, James (1984), “Current Concepts in Plant Taxonomy”, in Systematics Association Special Volume No. 25. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, Joseph (1985), “The Statistical Approach to Inferring Evolutionary Trees, and What it Tells Us about Parsimony and Compatibility”, in Duncan, Thomas, Stuessy, Tod F. (eds.), Cladistics: Perspectives on the Reconstruction of Evolutionary History. New York: Von Nostrand Reihold Co., 169–191.Google Scholar
Futuyma, Douglas (1979), Evolutionary Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Assoc.Google Scholar
Gaffney, Eugene S. (1979), “An Introduction to the Logic of Phylogeny Reconstruction” in Cracraft, Joel and Eldredge, Niles, (eds.), Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology. New York: Columbia University Press, 79–111.10.7312/crac92306-005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grand, Lance, and Rieppel, Olivier (1994), Interpreting the Hierarchy of Nature, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, Harry W. (1994), “Homology and Behavioural Repertoires”, in Hall, Brian K., (ed.), Homology. London: Academic Press, 369–391.Google Scholar
Janvier, Philippe (1984), “Cladistics: Theory, Purpose and Evolutionary Implications”, in Pollard, Jeffrey (ed.), Evolutionary Theory. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 39–76.Google Scholar
Mayden, Richard (1997), “A Hierarchy of Species Concepts: the Denouement in the Saga of the Species Problem”, in Claridge, Michael F., Dawah, Hassan A., and Wilson, Michael R. (eds.), Species: The Units of Biodiversity. London: Chapman & Hall, 381–424.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1942), Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Minelli, Alessandro (1993), Biological Systematics. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Novacek, Michael J. (1994), “Morphological and Molecular Inroads to Phylogeny”, in Grande, Lance and Rieppel, Olivier (eds.), Interpreting the Hierarchy of Nature. London: Academic Press, 85–131.Google Scholar
Ridley, Mark (1986), Evolution and Classification. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Schuh, Randall T. (2000), Biological Systematics. Boston: Birkhauser Verlag.Google Scholar
Sokal, Robert R., and Sneath, Peter H.A. (1963), Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. London: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Wake, Marvalee H. (1994) “The Use of Unconventional Morphological Characters in the Analysis of Systematic Patterns and Evolutionary Processes”, in Grand, Lance and Rieppel, Olivier, (eds.), Interpreting the Hierarchy of Nature. London: Academic Press, 173–200.Google Scholar
Wiley, Edward O. (1981), Phylogenetics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar