Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 159–177 | Cite as

Pheneticism reconsidered

  • Tim LewensEmail author
Article

Abstract

The pheneticist philosophy holds that biological taxa are clusters of entities united by a form of all-things-considered resemblance. This view of taxonomy has come in for almost universal criticism from philosophers, and has received little praise from biologists, over the past 30 years or so. This article defends a modest pheneticism, understood as part of a pluralist view of taxonomy. First, phenetic approaches to taxonomy are alive and well in biological practice, especially in the areas of microbiology and botany. Second, the pheneticist notion of overall similarity is defensible, and is implicitly endorsed even by those (such as Quine) usually implicated in attacks on similarity. Third, there are limited biological domains within which pheneticism’s conception of species as kinds (rather than heterogeneous individuals) remains applicable.

Keywords

Taxonomy Pheneticism Pluralism Species Microbiology 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ ERC Grant agreement no 284123. A version of this paper was presented at the CLMPS, Nancy, in July 2011. I am grateful to the organisers and the audience for comments. For more detailed feedback I would like to thank an anonymous referee, Kim Sterelny, Jonathan Birch, Joeri Witteveen, and especially Nick Jardine, to whom this article is dedicated.

References

  1. Boyd R (1991) Realism, anti-foundationalism, and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philos Stud 61:127–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd R (1999) Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In: Wilson R (ed) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 141–187Google Scholar
  3. Boyd R (2010) Homeostatis, higher taxa, and monophyly. Phil Sci 77:686–701Google Scholar
  4. Doolittle WF, Bapteste E (2007) Pattern pluralism and the tree of life hypothesis. PNAS 104:2043–2049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dupré J (2001) In defence of classification. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 32:203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ereshefsky M (2001) The poverty of the Linnean hierarchy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Ereshefsky M (2008) Systematics and taxonomy. In: Sarkar S, Plutynski A (eds) The Blackwell companion to the philosophy of biology. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 99–118Google Scholar
  8. Ereshefsky M (2010) Microbiology and the species problem. Biol Philos 25:553–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ereshefsky M, Matthen M (2005) Taxonomy, polymorphism and history: an introduction to population structure theory. Phil Sci 72:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ghiselin M (1999) Natural kinds and supraorganismal individuals. In: Medin D, Atran S (eds) Folk biology. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilmour J (1937) A taxonomic problem. Nature 139:1040–1042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodman N (1972) Seven strictures on similarity. In: Problems and projects. Bobbs-Merrill, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  13. Hull D (1988) Science as a process. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Jardine N, Sibson R (1971) Mathematical taxonomy. Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis D (1983) New work for a theory of universals. Australas J Phil 61(4):343–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maclaurin J, Sterelny K (2008) What is biodiversity?. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Mallet J (1995) A species definition for the modern synthesis. TREE 10(7):294–299Google Scholar
  18. Mallet J (2007) Species, concepts of. In: Levin (ed) Encyclopedia of biodiversity. Elsevier, pp 1–15 (online update)Google Scholar
  19. Matthen M (2009) Chickens, eggs and speciation. Nous 43:94–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mayr E (1965) Numerical phenetics and taxonomic theory. Syst Zool 14:73–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Quine WVO (1969) Natural kinds. In: Ontological relativity and other essays. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 114–138Google Scholar
  22. Ridley M (1986) Evolution and classification: the reformation of cladism. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Ridley M (1996) Evolution, 2nd edn. Blackwell, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Rieseberg L, Wood T, Baack E (2006) The nature of plant species. Nature 440:524–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rossello-Mora R, Amann R (2001) The species concept for prokaryotes. FEMS Microbiol Rev 25:39–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sapp J (2009) The new foundations of evolution: on the tree of life. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Sneath P (1995) Thirty years of numerical taxonomy. Syst Biol 44:281–298Google Scholar
  28. Sneath P, Sokal R (1973) Numerical taxonomy: the principles and practice of numerical classification. WH Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  29. Sober E (1993) Philosophy of biology. Westview, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  30. Sokal R, Sneath P (1963) Principles of numerical taxonomy. WH Freeman, San FransiscoGoogle Scholar
  31. Sokal R, Crovello P (1970) The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. Am Nat 104:127–135Google Scholar
  32. Stackebrandt E, Goebel BM (1994) Taxonomic note: a place for DNA–DNA reassociation and 16S rRNA sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 44:846–849Google Scholar
  33. Sterelny K, Griffiths P (1999) Sex and death: an introduction to the philosophy of biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  34. Stuessy T (2009) Plant taxonomy: the systematic evaluation of comparative data. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Woese C, Fox G (1977) Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms. PNAS 74:5088–5090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woese C, Kandler O, Wheelis M (1990) Towards a natural system of organisms: proposal for the domains Archaea, Bacteria and Eucarya. PNAS 87:4576–4579CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations