Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 26, Issue 4, pp 501–515 | Cite as

Agents and acacias: replies to Dennett, Sterelny, and Queller

  • Peter Godfrey-Smith
Discussion Note


The commentaries by Dennett, Sterelny, and Queller on Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection (DPNS) are so constructive that they make it possible to extend and improve the book’s framework in several ways. My replies will focus on points of disagreement, and I will pick a small number of themes and develop them in detail. The three replies below are mostly self-contained, except that all my comments about genes, discussed by all three critics, are in the reply to Queller. Agential views of evolution, discussed by Queller and Dennett, are addressed in my reply to Dennett.


Evolution Genes Symbiosis Individuals 


  1. Bergstrom CT, Rosvall M (2011) The transmission sense of information. Biol Philos. doi: 10.1007/s10539-010-9233-3
  2. Booth A (forthcoming) Selection, symbiosis, and individualityGoogle Scholar
  3. Burt A, Trivers R (2006) Genes in conflict: the biology of selfish genetic elements. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Calcott B (2008) The other cooperation problem: generating benefit. Biol Philos 23:179–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Dennett DC (1978) A cure for the common code. In: Brainstorms: philosophical essays on mind and psychology. Bradford Books, Cambridge, pp 90–108Google Scholar
  7. Fletcher JA, Doebeli M (2009) A simple and general explanation for the evolution of altruism. Proc Royal Soc B 276(2009):13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Francis R (2004) Why men Won’t ask for directions: the seductions of sociobiology. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Gallistel CR, King A (2009) Memory and the computational brain: why cognitive science will transform neuroscience. Blackwell/Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Godfrey-Smith P (2000) On the theoretical role of ‘Genetic Coding’. Philos Sci 67:26–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godfrey-Smith P (2010) Senders, receivers, and genetic information: comments on Bergstrom and Rosvall. Biol Philos. doi: 10.1007/s10539-010-9206-6
  12. Grafen A (2007) The formal Darwinism project: a mid-term report. Evolut Biol 20:1243–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hull DL (1980) Individuality and selection. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:311–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lewens T (2005) Organisms and artifacts: design in nature and elsewhere. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis DK (1969) Convention: a philosophical study. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewontin RC (1970) The units of selection. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 1:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewontin RC (1985) Adaptation. In: Levins R, Lewontin RC (eds) The dialectical biologist. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 65–84Google Scholar
  18. Matsuura K, Toshihisa Y (2006) Aphid egg protection by ants: a novel aspect of the mutualism between the tree-feeding Aphid Stomaphis hirukawai and its attendant ant Lasius productus. Naturwissenschaften 93:506–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McKey D (1984) Interaction of the ant-plant Leonardoxa africana (Caesalpiniaceae) with its obligate inhabitants in a rainforest in cameroon. Biotropica 16:81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Millikan R (1984) Language, thought, and other biological categories. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Nyholm S, McFall-Ngai MJ (2004) The winnowing: establishing the squid-vibrio symbiosis. Nat Rev Microbiol 2:632–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Palmer T, Young T, Stanton M, Wenk E (2000) Short-term dynamics of an acacia ant community in Laikipia, Kenya. Oecologia 123:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Queller DC (1997) Cooperators since life began (Review of the major transitions in evolution, by J. Maynard Smith and E. Szathmary). Q Rev Biol 72:184–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raine N, Gammans N, MacFadyen I, Scrivner G, Stone G (2004) Guards and thieves: antagonistic interactions between two ant species coexisting on the same ant-plant. Ecol Entomol 29:345–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ruby E, Asato L (1993) Growth and flagellation of Vibrio fischeri during initiation of the sepiolid squid light organ symbiosis. Arch Microbiol 159:160–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shea N (2007) Representation in the genome, and other inheritance systems. Biol Philos 22:313–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Skyrms B (2010) Signals: evolution, learning, and communication. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Sperber D, Wilson D (1986) Relevance: communication and cognition. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Trivers RL (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46:35–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wheeler WM (1913) Observations on the central American acacia ants. In: Jordan K, Eltringham H (eds) International conference of entomology, oxford, August 1912, vol 2 Transactions. Hazell Watson and Viney, London, pp 109–139Google Scholar
  31. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  32. Wollenberg M, Ruby EG (2009) Population structure of Vibrio fischeri within the light organs of Euprymna scolopes squid from two oahu (Hawaii) populations. App Environ Microbiol 75:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations