Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T17:17:25.135Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discussion: Axiomatics and Individuality: A Reply to Williams' “Species are Individuals”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Marc Ereshefsky
Marc Ereshefsky*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy University of Wisconsin, Madison
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In her “Species Are Individuals” (1985), Mary Williams offers informal arguments and a sketched proof which allegedly show that species are individuals with respect to evolutionary theory. In this paper, I suggest that her informal arguments are insufficient for showing that clans are not sets and that species are individuals. I also argue that her sketched proof depends on three questionable assumptions.

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 1988 , pp. 427 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by 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

†

The author wishes to thank Elliott Sober for his help and encouragement, and Mary B. Williams for her comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, D. M. (1980), “Identity Through Time”, in P. Van Inwagen (ed.), Time and Cause. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 67–78.10.1007/978-94-017-3528-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, P. R., and Raven, P. H. (1969), “Differentiation of Populations”, Science 165: 1228–1232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elderedge, N., and Gould, S. J. (1972), “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism”, in T. J. M. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper, and Company, pp. 82–115.Google Scholar
Guyot, K. (1985), “Specious Individuals”, unpublished.Google Scholar
Hull, D. L., (1965), “The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy”, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15: 314–326.10.1093/bjps/XV.60.314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, J. R., and Davies, N. B. (1981), An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. London: Blackwell Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1969), Populations, Species and Evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mishler, B., and Donoghue, M. (1982), “Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism”, Systematic Zoology 31: 491–503.10.2307/2413371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shoemaker, S. (1979), “Identity, Properties, and Causality”, in P. French, T. Uehling Jr. and H. Wettstein (eds.), Midwestern Studies in Philosophy, Volume IV, Studies in Metaphysics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 321–342.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1980), “Evolution, Population Thinking, and Essentialism”, Philosophy of Science 47: 350–383.10.1086/288942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, E. (1984), The Nature of Selection. Cambridge, Mass.: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Splitter, L. (1988), “Species and Identity”, Philosophy of Science 55: 323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiley, E. O. (1981), Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Williams, M. B. (1985), “Species Are Individuals: Theoretical Foundations for the Claim”, Philosophy of Science 52: 578–590.10.1086/289276CrossRefGoogle Scholar