Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 569–586 | Cite as

Naming and contingency: the type method of biological taxonomy

  • Joeri Witteveen
Article

Abstract

Biological taxonomists rely on the so-called ‘type method’ to regulate taxonomic nomenclature. For each newfound taxon, they lay down a ‘type specimen’ that carries with it the name of the taxon it belongs to. Even if a taxon’s circumscription is unknown and/or subject to change, it remains a necessary truth that the taxon’s type specimen falls within its boundaries. Philosophers have noted some time ago that this naming practice is in line with the causal theory of reference and its central notion of rigid designation: a type specimen fixes the reference of a taxon name without defining it. Recently, however, this consensus has come under pressure in the pages of this journal. In a series of articles by Alex Levine, Joseph LaPorte, and Matthew Haber, it has been argued that type specimens belong only contingently to their species, and that this may bode problems for the relation between type method and causal theory. I will argue that this ‘contingency debate’ is a debate gone wrong, and that none of the arguments in defense of contingency withstand scrutiny. Taxonomic naming is not out of step with the causal theory, but conforms to it. However, I will also argue that this observation is itself in need of further explanation, since application of the type method in taxonomic practice is plagued by errors and ambiguities that threaten it with breaking down. Thus, the real question becomes why taxonomic naming conforms to the causal theory in the first place. I will show that the answer lies in the embedding of the type method into elaborate codes of nomenclature.

Keywords

Taxonomy Nomenclature Type method Type specimen Necessity Contingency Causal theory Rigid designation Codes of nomenclature 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at ISHPSSB 2013 in Montpellier, PBUK 2014 in Cambridge, and Utrecht University. I am grateful to these audiences for helpful feedback. Two anonymous reviewers, Matt Haber, Michael Devitt, and (especially) Kim Sterelny provided many thoughtful comments on earlier versions of the manuscript.

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 Zoolog Nomencl 55(4):224–228Google Scholar
  2. Bolton CJ (1996) Proper names, taxonomic names and necessity. Philos Q 46(183):145–157CrossRefGoogle 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 1:236–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. de Blainville MHD (1835) Description de quelques espèces de reptiles de la Californie, précédée de l’analyse d’un system général d’erpétologie et d’amphibiologie. Nouvelles Annales du Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris 3(4):233–296Google Scholar
  5. Ereshefsky M (2004) The poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: a philosophical study of biological taxonomy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  6. Ereshefsky M (2007) Foundational issues concerning taxa and taxon names. Syst Biol 56(2):295–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greuter W, Garrity G, Hawksworth DL, Jahn R, Kirk PM, Knapp S, McNeill J, Michel E, Patterson DJ, Pyle R, Tindall BJ (2011) Draft BioCode (2011): principles and rules regulating the naming of organisms. Taxon 60(1):201–212Google Scholar
  8. Haber MH (2012) How to misidentify a type specimen. Biol Philos 27(6):767–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hull DL (1976) Are species really individuals? Syst Zool 25(2):174–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hull DL (1982) Exemplars and scientific change. PSA Proc Bienn Meet Philos Sci Assoc 2:479–503Google Scholar
  11. Hull DL (1988) Science as a Process. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Jørgensen PM (1998) What shall we do with the blue-green counterparts? Lichenologist 30(4–5):351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kripke SA (1980) Naming and necessity. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Lapage SP, Sneath PHA, Lessel EF, Skerman VBD, Seeliger HPR, Clark WA (eds) (1992) International code of nomenclature of bacteria. ASM Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. LaPorte J (2003) Does a type specimen necessarily or contingently belong to its species? Biol Philos 18(4):583–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Levine A (2001) Individualism, type specimens, and the scrutability of species membership. Biol Philos 16(3):325–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mayr E (1989) Attaching names to objects. In: Ruse M (ed) What the philosophy of biology is. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McNeill J, Barrie FR, Buck WR, Demoulin V, Greuter W, Hawksworth DL, S HP, Knapp S, Marhold K, Prado J, Prud’homme van Reine WF, Smith GF, Wiersema JH (eds) (2012) International Code of nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants (Melbourne Code). Koeltz Scientific Books. http://www.iapt-taxon.org/nomen/main.php
  20. 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, pp 131–193Google Scholar
  21. Rossman DA, Ford NB, Seigel RA (1996) The garter snakes: evolution and ecology. University of Oklahoma Press, NormanGoogle Scholar
  22. Stanford PK, Kitcher P (2000) Refining the causal theory of reference for natural kind terms. Philos Stud 97(1):99–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Whewell W (1840) The philosophy of the inductive sciences: founded upon their history, vol 1, 2nd edn. John W Parker, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Witteveen J (in progress) Suppressing synonymy with a homonym: the emergence of the nomenclatural type concept in nineteenth century natural historyGoogle Scholar
  25. 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. Report upon Geographical and Geological Explorations and Surveys West of the 100th Meridian, vol 5 (Zoology). Government Printing Office, Washington, pp 509–584Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Descartes Centre for the History and Philosophy of the Sciences and the HumanitiesUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy and Religious StudiesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations