Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 767–784 | Cite as

How to misidentify a type specimen

  • Matthew H. HaberEmail author
Article

Abstract

Type specimens are used to designate species. What is the nature of the relation between a type specimen and the species it designates? If species names are rigid designators, and type specimens ostensively define species, then that relation is, at the very least, a close one. Levine (Biol Philos 16(3):325–338, 2001) argues that the relationship of type specimen to a named species is one of necessity—and that this presents problems for the individuality thesis. Namely, it seems odd that a contingently selected specimen should belong to a species of necessity. In considering Levine’s argument, LaPorte (Biol Philos 18:583–588, 2003) suggests that recognizing the distinction between de re and de dicto necessity resolves Levine’s worries. I reconsider the motivating question: does a type specimen belong of necessity to the species that it designates? In light of taxonomic cases and practice the answer is clear: definitively not. This is particularly clear in the case of re-designation of types by taxonomic decree. I explain how this helps reveal how taxonomists prioritize competing (and sometimes conflicting) theoretical commitments, and offer a defense of the individuality thesis as applied to these particular cases. In short, I demonstrate how to misidentify a type specimen.

Keywords

Taxonomy Type specimens Proper names Rigid designation Individuality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Sean Barry for sharing details of petitioning the ICZN and the case in question; Joseph LaPorte; Alex Levine; Michael Ghiselin; Arthur Shapiro; Matthew Slater; Elijah Millgram; Spring 2012 PHIL 5400/6400; Sarah George; Randall Irmis; Natural History Museum of Utah Faculty, Staff & Volunteers; Sam Murray for images of T. s. infernalis and T. s. tetrataenia; and the participants and organizers of POBAM 2012.

References

  1. Barry SJ, Jennings MR (1998) Coluber infernalis Blainville, 1835 and Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia Cope in Yarrow, 1875 (currently Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis and T. s. tetrataenia; reptilia, squamata): proposed conservation of the subspecific names by the designation of a neotype for T. s. infernalis. Bull Zool Nomencl 55(4):224–228Google Scholar
  2. Barry SJ, Jennings MR, Smith HM (1996) Current subspecific names for western Thamnophis sirtalis. Herpetol Rev 27(4):172–173Google Scholar
  3. Boundy J, Rossman DA (1995) Allocation and status of the garter snake names Coluber infernalis Blainville, Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia Cope and Eutaenia imperialis Coues and Yarrow. Copeia 1995(1):236–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brasier C (1992) A champion thallus. Nature 356(6368):382–383. doi: 10.1038/356382a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cantino PD, de Queiroz K (2010) International code of phylogenetic nomenclature, version 4c. http://www.ohio.edu/phylocode/preface.html. Accessed 20 April 2012
  6. Cope, ED in Yarrow, HC (1875) Report upon the collections of batrachians and reptiles made in portions of Nevada, Utah, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona, during the years 1871, 1872, 1873 and 1874, pp 509–584. In: Engineer Dept, USA (ed) Report upon geographical and geological explorations and surveys west of the one hundredth meridian, vol 5 (Zoology), part 4, p 546Google Scholar
  7. Darwin C (1964 [1859]) On the origin of species, 1st edn. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. de Blainville H (1835) Description de quelques espèces de reptiles de californie: précédée de l’analyse d’un système général d’erpétologie et d’amphibiologie. Nouvelles Annales du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle 3(4):291Google Scholar
  9. de Queiroz K (1992) Phylogenetic definitions and taxonomic philosophy. Biol Philos 7:295–313. doi: 10.1007/BF00129972 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Queiroz K (1995) The definitions of species and clade names: A reply to Ghiselin. Biol Philos 10:223–228. doi: 10.1007/BF00852247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dupré J (2010) The polygenomic organism. Sociol Rev 58:19–31. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01909.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ereshefsky M (2001) The poverty of the linnaean hierarchy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511498459 Google Scholar
  13. Ereshefsky M (2007) Foundational issues concerning taxa and taxon names. Syst Biol 56(2):295–301 doi: 10.1080/10635150701317401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ereshefsky M (2010) What’s wrong with the new biological essentialism. Philos Sci 77(5):674–685. doi: 10.1086/656545 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ereshefsky M, Matthen M (2005) Taxonomy, polymorphism, and history: an introduction to population structure theory. Philos Sci 72(1):1–21. doi: 10.1086/426848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gauthier J (1986) Saurischian monophyly and the origin of birds. In: Padian K (ed) The origin of birds and the evolution of flight. California Academy of Sciences Memoir No. 8, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, pp 1–55Google Scholar
  17. Ghiselin MT (1966) On psychologism in the logic of taxonomic controversies. Syst Zool 15(3):207–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ghiselin MT (1974) A radical solution to the species problem. Syst Zool 23(4):536–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ghiselin MT (1984) “Definition,” “character,” and other equivocal terms. Syst Zool 33(1):104–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ghiselin MT (1995) Ostensive definitions of the names of species and clades. Biol Philos 10:219–222. doi: 10.1007/BF00852246 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghiselin MT (1997) Metaphysics and the origin of species. SUNY series in philosophy and biology, SUNY Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  22. Haber MH (2013) Colonies are individuals: revisiting the superorganism revival. In: Bouchard F, Huneman P (eds) From groups to individuals: perspectives on biological associations and emerging individuality. The Vienna series in theoretical biology. MIT Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Hull DL (1976) Are species really individuals? Syst Zool 25(2):174–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hull DL (1978) A matter of individuality. Philos Sci 45(3):335–360. doi: 10.1086/288811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hull DL (1986) On human nature. PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the philosophy of science association, pp 3–13Google Scholar
  26. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1999) International code of zoological nomenclature, 4th edn. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1999. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/. Accessed 20 April 2012
  27. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (2000) Opinion 1961: Coluber infernalis Blainville, 1835 and Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia Cope in Yarrow, 1875 (currently Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis and T. s. tetrataenia; reptilia, serpentes): subspecific names conserved by the designation of a neotype for T. s. infernalis. Bull Zool Nomencl 57(3):191–192Google Scholar
  28. Johnston M (1998) Are manifest qualities response-dependent? Monist 81(1):3–43Google Scholar
  29. Jubien M (2009) Possibility. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Kitcher P (1984) Species. Philos Sci 51(2):308–333. doi: 10.1086/289182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kitcher P (1987) Ghostly whispers: Mayr, Ghiselin, and the “philosophers” on the ontological status of species. Biol Philos 2:184–192. doi: 10.1007/BF00057962 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kripke SA (1980) Naming and necessity, 2nd edn. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. LaPorte J (2003) Does a type specimen necessarily or contingently belong to its species? Biol Philos 18:583–588. doi: 10.1023/A:1025559319279 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levine A (2001) Individualism, type specimens, and the scrutability of species membership. Biol Philos 16(3):325–338. doi: 10.1023/A:1010674915907 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nixon KC, Carpenter JM (2000) On the other “phylogenetic systematics”. Cladistics 16(3):298–318. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-0031.2000.tb00285.x Google Scholar
  36. Putnam H (1973) Meaning and reference. J Philos 70(19):699–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Putnam H (1975) The meaning of ‘meaning’. In: Gunderson K (ed) Language, mind and knowledge, Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science VII. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN, pp 131–193Google Scholar
  38. Smith HM (1999) Comment on the proposed conservation of Coluber infernalis Blainville, 1835 and Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia Cope in Yarrow, 1875 (currently Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis and T. s. tetrataenia; Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the subspecific names by the designation of a neotype for T. s. infernalis. Bull Zool Nomencl 56(1):71–72Google Scholar
  39. Smith ML, Bruhn JN, Anderson JB (1992) The fungus Armillaria bulbosa is among the largest and oldest living organisms. Nature 356(6368):428–431. doi: 10.1038/356428a0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sober E (1980) Evolution, population thinking, and essentialism. Philos Sci 47(3):350–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sober E (1984) Sets, species, and evolution: Comments on Philip Kitcher’s “species”. Philos Sci 51(2):334–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Varzi AC (2006) A note on the transitivity of parthood. Appl Ontol 1(2):141Google Scholar
  43. Winston JE (1999) Describing species: practical taxonomic procedure for biologists. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Yu N, Kruskall MS, Yunis JJ, et al (2002) Disputed maternity leading to identification of tetragametic chimerism. N Engl J Med 346(20):1545–1552. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa013452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations