Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 353–367 | Cite as

Taxa, individuals, clusters and a few other things

Article

Abstract

The recognition of species proceeds by two fairly distinct phases: (1) the sorting of individuals into groups or basic taxa (‘discovery’) (2) the checking of those taxa as candidates for species-hood (‘justification’). The target here is a rational reconstruction of phase 1, beginning with a discussion of key terms. The transmission of ‘meaning’ is regarded as bimodal: definition states the intension of the term, and diagnosis provides a disjunction of criteria for recognition of its extension. The two are connected by a spectrum, with purely theoretical definition at one pole and purely ‘operational’ diagnosis at the other, with the more operational elements explained by the more theoretical. The current plethora of species concepts provides a good example. Accepting the Ghiselin–Hull thesis, that a species is an individual, a basic taxon is therefore also an individual with organisms as its parts. In a generalised synchronic individual its parts are conceptually integrated by an integrating principle (IP), which consists of a relation applying within a plan or rule. Fully developed, such an IP ensures the maximisation of the information content of the individual. A diachronic individual is then the set of its component synchronic parts, and its IP is provided by near-identity in an appropriate space-time (not necessarily physical).

The integration of parts of an individual is illuminated by Gasking's concept of a proper group (in this case a chain-group), whose members are related by the relation serially fitting together with, the IP completed by an appropriate plan or rule. Gasking also applied the term cluster to a proper group persisting over a substantial period of time, individuated by any member acting as focus. A basic taxon is therefore a cluster of individuals, integrated by the relation significantly taxonomically similar and the rule in character-space-time. The nature of those concepts is discussed and defended. A species will inherit certain of the attributes of the preceding basic taxon (taxa). In at least the synchronic version its parts (individuals) will resemble each other significantly, providing the intuitive applicability of ‘members of’ and ‘instances of’ a species. Also, the notion that a species’ name is given by pure ostension, via a name-bearer (holotype) is empirically incoherent: the name cannot be applied in practice without an appropriate set of diagnostic traits.

Key words

Cluster Individual Meaning Parts Similarity Species 

References

  1. Baum, D.A. 1998Individuality and the existence of species through timeSyst. Biol.47641653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boniolo, G., Carrara, M. 2004On biological identityBiol. Philos.19443457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckner M. 1959. The Biological Way of Thought. Columbia, UP.Google Scholar
  4. Brogaard, B. 2004Species as individualsBiol. Philos.19223242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caplan, A.L. 1981Back to class: a note on the ontology of speciesPhilos. Sci.48130140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Claridge M.A., Dawah H.A. and Wilson M.R. (eds) 1997. Species; The Units of Diversity. Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Colless, D.H. 1969The phylogenetic fallacy revisitedSyst. Zool.18116126Google Scholar
  8. Colless, D.H. 1972‘Basic taxa’ and the ‘unit of classification’Syst. Zool.216568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colless, D.H. 1985On ‘Character’ and related termsSyst. Zool.34229233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Colless, D.H. 1986

    Classification et Information

    Tassy, P. eds. L’Ordre et la Diversité du Vivant. Nouvelle Encyclopédie des Sciences et des TechniquesFondation Diderot/FayardParis121
    Google Scholar
  11. Colless, D.H. 1994aA new family of muscoid diptera from AustralasiaInverterbr. Taxonomy8471534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Colless, D.H. 1994bTwo new species of Corethrella from AustraliaJ. Aust. Entomol. Soc.3305109Google Scholar
  13. Colless, D.H. 1998Morphometrics in the genus Amenia and revisionary notesRecords of The Australian Museum5085123Google Scholar
  14. De Queiroz K. 1999. The general lineage concept of species and the defining properties of the species category. p. 49, in Wilson (1999).Google Scholar
  15. Gasking, D. 1960ClustersAust. J. Philos.38136Google Scholar
  16. Ghiselin, M.T. 1966aAn application of the theory of definitions to systematic principlesSyst. Zool.15127130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghiselin, M.T. 1966bOn psychologism in the logic of taxonomic controversiesSyst. Zool.15207215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghiselin, M.T. 1975A radical solution to the species problemSyst. Zool.23536544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghiselin, M.T. 1997Metaphysics and the Origin of SpeciesSUNYAlbanyGoogle Scholar
  20. Grant, T., Kluge, A.G. 2004Transformation series as an ideographic character conceptCladistics202331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths P.E. 1999. Squaring the circle: Natural kinds with historical essences. In Wilson(1999).Google Scholar
  22. Hennig, W. 1966Phylogenetic SystematicsUniversity of Illinois PressUrbanaGoogle Scholar
  23. Holsinger, K.E. 1984The nature of biological speciesPhilos. Sci.51293307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horvath, C.D. 1995Some questions about identifying individuals: failed intuitions about organisms and speciesPhilos. Sci.64654668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hull D.L. 1965. The effect of essentialism on taxonomy: two thousand years of stasis. Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 15: 314–326, 16:1–18.Google Scholar
  26. Hull, D.L. 1976Are species really individualsSyst. Zool.25174191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hull, D.L. 1978A matter of individualityPhilos. Sci.45335360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hull D.L. 1997. The ideal species concept – and why we can’t get it. p. 357 in Claridge et al (1997).Google Scholar
  29. Kaplan, A. 1964The Conduct of EnquiryChandlerSan FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  30. Kitts, D.B., Kitts, D.J. 1979Biological species as natural kindsPhilos. Sci.46613622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lee, M., Wolsan, M. 2002Integration, individuality, and species conceptsBiol. Philos.17651660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Levine, A. 2001Individualismtype specimens, and the scrutability of species membershipBiol. Philos.16325338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lipton P. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Maynard Smith, J. 1999The concept of information in biologyPhilos. Sci.67177194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mishler, B.D., Brandon, R.N. 1987Individuality, pluralismand the phylogenetic species conceptBiol. Philos.2397414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nickles, T. 1985Beyond divorce: current status of the discovery debatePhilos. Sci.52177206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pratt, V. 1972Biological classificationBrit. J. Philos. Sci.23305327Google Scholar
  38. Rieppel, O. 1986Species are individualsEvol. Biol.20283317Google Scholar
  39. Rieppel, O., Kearney, M. 2002SimilarityBiol. J. Linn. Soc.755982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ruse, M. 1987Biological species: natural kinds, individuals, or what?Brit. J. Philos. Sci.38225242Google Scholar
  41. Sarkar, S. 1999Information in genetics and developmental biologyPhilos. Sci.67208213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Simpson G.H.L. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia, UP.Google Scholar
  43. Sneath P.H.A. 1962. The construction of taxonomic groups. In: Ainsworth G.C. and Sneath P.H.A. (eds). Microbial Classification. Cambridge, UP.Google Scholar
  44. Stamos, D.N. 2002Species, languages, and the horizontal/vertical distinctionBiol. Philos.17171198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sterelny K. 1999. Species as ecological mosaics. p. 119 in Wilson (1999).Google Scholar
  46. Suppe F. 1974. Some philosophical problems in biological speciation and taxonomy. In: Wojciechowsky J.A. (eds). Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge. Proceedings of the Ottawa Conference on the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, October 1st to 5th1971. Verlag Dokumentation, Pullach/München, 190 pp.Google Scholar
  47. Toulmin S. 1970. From logical systems to conceptual populations. PSA 1970. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  48. Valen, L. 1976Individualistic classesPhilos. Sci.43539541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Von Baeyer, H.C. 2003Information: The New Language of ScienceWeidenfeld and NicolsonLondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Waismann F. 1945. Verifiability. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Suppl. Vol. 19: 119–150. Reprinted in Parkinson, G.H.R. (eds). 1968. The Theory of Meaning Oxford.Google Scholar
  51. Wheeler Q.D. and Meier R. (eds). 2000. Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory. Columbia, UP.Google Scholar
  52. Wiley, E.O. 1980Is the evolutionary species fiction?Syst. Zool.297680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilson, R.A. eds. 1999Species. New Interdisciplinary EssaysMITCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Wirth, M., Estabrook, G.F., Rogers, D.J. 1966A graph theory model for systematic biology, with an example for the Oncidiinae (Orchidaceae)Syst. Zool.155969CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of EntomologyCSIROCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations