Article contents
Discussion: Species Are Individuals—Or Are They?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2022
Abstract
Recently Coleman and Wiley presented a new defense of the species-are-individuals thesis, based on an analysis of the use of binomial species names by biologists. Here I point out some problems in their defense and I argue that although in some domains of biological science species are best understood as individuals, Coleman and Wiley fail to establish that this is true for the whole of biology.
- Type
- Discussion
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association
References
Boyd, Richard (1989), “What Realism Implies and What It Does Not”, What Realism Implies and What It Does Not 43:5–29.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1999), “Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa”, in Wilson 1999, 141–185.Google Scholar
Coleman, Keith A., and Wiley, E. O. (2001), “On Species Individualism: A New Defense of the Species-as-Individuals Hypothesis”, On Species Individualism: A New Defense of the Species-as-Individuals Hypothesis 68:498–517.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1935), “A Critique of the Species Concept in Biology”, A Critique of the Species Concept in Biology 2:344–355.Google Scholar
Dupré, John (1993), The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (1991), “Species, Higher Taxa, and the Units of Evolution”, Species, Higher Taxa, and the Units of Evolution 58:84–101.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1999), “Squaring the Circle: Natural Kinds with Historical Essences”, in Wilson 1999, 209–228.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay (2002), The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, David L. (1980), “Individuality and Selection”, Individuality and Selection 11:311–332.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip S. (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
Kluge, Arnold G. (1990), “Species as Historical Individuals”, Species as Historical Individuals 5:417–431.Google Scholar
Kornet, D. J. (1993), “Permanent Splits as Speciation Events: A Formal Reconstruction of the Internodal Species Concept”, Permanent Splits as Speciation Events: A Formal Reconstruction of the Internodal Species Concept 164:407–435.Google Scholar
Lidén, Magnus,and Bengt Oxelman (1989), “Species—Pattern or Process?”, Species—Pattern or Process? 38:228–232.Google Scholar
Mahner, Martin, and Bunge, Mario (1997), Foundations of Biophilosophy. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1961), “Cause and Effect in Biology”, Cause and Effect in Biology 134:1501–1506.Google ScholarPubMed
Millikan, Ruth G. (1999), “Historical Kinds and the ‘Special Sciences’”, Historical Kinds and the ‘Special Sciences’ 95:45–65.Google Scholar
Muller, F. A. (2001), “Sets, Classes, and Categories”, Sets, Classes, and Categories 52:539–573.Google Scholar
Ruse, Michael (1987), “Biological Species: Natural Kinds, Individuals, or What?”, Biological Species: Natural Kinds, Individuals, or What? 38:225–242.Google Scholar
Shaw, Kerry L. (1998), “Species and the Diversity of Natural Groups”, in Howard, Daniel J. and Berlocher, Stewart H. (eds.), Endless Forms: Species and Speciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 44–56.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. (1989), “Kinds, Individuals and Theories”, in Ruse, Michael (ed.), What the Philosophy of Biology Is—Essays Dedicated to David Hull. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Robert A. (ed.) (1999), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
A correction has been issued for this article:
- 10
- Cited by
Linked content
Please note a has been issued for this article.