Skip to main content
Log in

Discussion: Phylogenetic Species Concept: Pluralism, Monism, and History

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Species serve as both the basic units of macroevolutionary studies and as the basic units of taxonomic classification. In this paper I argue that the taxa identified as species by the Phylogenetic Species Concept (Mishler and Brandon 1987) are the units of biological organization most causally relevant to the evolutionary process but that such “units” exist at multiple levels within the hierarchy of any phylogenetic lineage. The PSC gives us no way of identifying one of these levels as the privileged level on which taxonomic classifications can be based.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashlock, P.: 1984, 'Monophyly: its Meaning and Importance', in T. Duncan and T. Stuessy (eds.), Cladistics: Perspectives on the Reconstruction of Evolutionary History, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J.: 1982, 'Classes and Cladists', Syst. Zool. 31, 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, Leo: 1987, The Evolution of Individuality, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cracraft, J.: 1987, 'Species Concepts and the Ontology of Evolution', Biology and Philosophy 2, 329–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, K. and Donoghue, M.: 1990, 'Phylogenetic Systematics and Species Revisited', Cladistics 6, 83–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, J.: 1993, The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Echelle, A.: 1990, 'In Defense of the Phylogenetic Species Concept and the Ontological Status of Hybridogenetic Taxa', Herpetologica 46, 109–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ereshefsky, M.: 1992, 'Eliminative Pluralism', Philosophy of Science 59, 671–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J. S.: 1974, 'Formal Definitions of Paraphyly and Polyphyly', Syst. Zool. 23, 248–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, D. R. and Hillis, D. M.: 1990, 'Species in Concept and Practice: Herpetological Applications', Herpetologica 46(1), 87–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. T.: 1974, 'A Radical Solution to the Species Problem', Syst. Zool. 23, 536–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grande, L. and Rieppel, O.: 1994, 'Summary and Comments on Systematic Pattern and Evolutionary Process', in Grande and Rieppel (eds.), Interpreting the Hierarchy of Nature: From Systematic Pattern to Evolutionary Process Theories, Academic Press, New York, pp. 227–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W.: 1966, Phylogenetic Systematics, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D.: 1978, 'A Matter of Individuality', Philosophy of Science 45, 335–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D.: 1987, 'Genealogical Actors in Ecological Roles', Biology and Philosophy 2, 168–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerszberg, M.: 1989, 'Developmental Canalization Can Enhance Species Survival', J. Theor. Biol. 139, 287–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P.: 1984, 'Species', Philosophy of Science 51, 308–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P.: 1989, 'Some Puzzles about Species', in M. Ruse (ed.), What the Philosophy of Biology is: Essays Dedicated to David Hull, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 183–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liden, M. and Oxelman, B.: 1989, 'Species-Pattern or Process?', Taxon 38, 328–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1976, 'Is the Species a Class or an Individual?', Syst. Zool. 25, 192.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDade, L.: 1990, 'Hybrids and Phylogenetic Systematics I: Patterns of character expression in hybrids and their implications for cladistic analysis', Evolution 44, 1685–1700.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDade, L.: 1992, 'Hybrids and Phylogenetic Systematics II: The impact of hybrids on cladistic analysis', Evolution 46, 1329–1346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, B. D. and Donoghue, M.: 1982, 'Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism', Syst. Zool. 31, 491–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, B. D. and Brandon, R.: 1987, 'Individuality, Pluralism, and the Phylogenetic Species Concept', Biology and Philosophy 2, 397–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G. and Platnick, N. I.: 1981, Systematics and Biogeography:Cladistics and Vicariance, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nixon, K. and Wheeler, Q.: 1990, 'An Amplification of the Phylogenetic Species Concept', Cladistics 6, 211–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1987, 'Biological Species: Natural Kinds, Individuals, or What?', British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 38, 225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal, R. R.: 1973, Numerical Taxonomy, W.H. Freeman Inc., San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneath, P.: 1995, 'Thirty Years of Numerical Taxonomy', Systematic Biology 44, 281–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanford, P.: 1995, 'For Pluralism and Against Realism about Species', Philosophy of Science 62, 70–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.: 1988, 'The Influence of Variation and of Developmental Constraints on the Rate of Multivariate Phenotype Evolution', Journal of Evolutionary Biology 1, 45–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O.: 1981, Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

HORVATH, C.D. Discussion: Phylogenetic Species Concept: Pluralism, Monism, and History. Biology & Philosophy 12, 225–232 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006597910504

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006597910504

Keywords

Navigation