Biology and Philosophy

, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp 295–313 | Cite as

Phylogenetic definitions and taxonomic philosophy

  • Kevin de Queiroz


An examination of the post-Darwinian history of biological taxonomy reveals an implicit assumption that the definitions of taxon names consist of lists of organismal traits. That assumption represents a failure to grant the concept of evolution a central role in taxonomy, and it causes conflicts between traditional methods of defining taxon names and evolutionary concepts of taxa. Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names (de Queiroz and Gauthier 1990) grant the concept of common ancestry a central role in the definitions of taxon names and thus constitute an important step in the development of phylogenetic taxonomy. By treating phylogenetic relationships rather than organismal traits as necessary and sufficient properties, phylogenetic definitions remove conflicts between the definitions of taxon names and evolutionary concepts of taxa. The general method of definition represented by phylogenetic definitions of clade names can be applied to the names of other kinds of composite wholes, including populations and biological species. That the names of individuals (composite wholes) can be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient properties provides the foundation for a synthesis of seemingly incompatible positions held by contemporary individualists and essentialists concerning the nature of taxa and the definitions of taxon names.

Key words

Clade class composite whole definition defining property essentialism evolution individual intension name ostensive definition phylogeny population set species taxon taxonomy 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ax, P.: 1987, The Phlogenetic System. The Systematization of Organisms on the Basis of Their Phylogenesis, John Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  2. Beatty, J.: 1982, ‘Classes and Cladists’, Systematic Zoology 31, 25–34.Google Scholar
  3. Beckner, M.: 1959. The Biological Way of Thought, Columbia University Press, New York (reprinted by University of California Press, Berkeley, 1968).Google Scholar
  4. Bernier, R.: 1984, ‘The Species as an Individual: Facing Essentialism’, Systematic Zoology 33, 460–469.Google Scholar
  5. Buck, R. C. and D. L. Hull: 1966, ‘The Logical Structure of the Linnaean Hierarchy’, Systematic Zoology 15, 97–111.Google Scholar
  6. Buck, R. C. and D. L. Hull: 1969, ‘Reply to Gregg’, Systematic Zoology 18, 354–357.Google Scholar
  7. Caplan, A. L.: 1981. ‘Back to Class: A Note on the Ontology of Species’, Philosophy of Science 48, 130–140.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, I. J.: 1974, ‘Professor Hull and the Evolution of Science’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25, 334–336.Google Scholar
  9. Cracraft, J.: 1987, ‘Species Concepts and the Ontology of Evolution’, Biology and Philosophy 2, 329–346.Google Scholar
  10. Darwin, C.: 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, John Murray, London (reprinted by Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1964).Google Scholar
  11. Dobzhansky, T.: 1937, Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Eldredge, N. and J. Cracraft: 1980, Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Estes, R., J. Gauthier, and K. de Queiroz: 1988, ‘Phylogenetic Relationships within Squamata’, in R. Estes and G. Pregill (eds.), Phylogenetic Relationships of the lizard Families, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 119–281.Google Scholar
  14. Gauthier, J.: 1986, ‘Saurischian Monophyly and the Origin of Birds’, in K. Padian (ed.), The Origin of Birds and the Evolution of Flight, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, pp. 1–55.Google Scholar
  15. Gauthier, J., R. Estes, and K. de Queiroz: 1988a, ‘A Phylogenetic Analysis of Lepidosauromorpha’, in R. Estes and G. Pregill (eds.), Phylogenetic Relationships of the Lizard Families, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 15–98.Google Scholar
  16. Gauthier, J., A. G. Kluge, and T. Rowe: 1988b, ‘Amniote Phylogeny and the Importance of Fossils’, Cladistics 4, 105–209.Google Scholar
  17. Ghiselin, M. T.: 1966a, ‘An Application of the Theory of Definitions to Systematic Principles’, Systematic Zoology 15, 127–130.Google Scholar
  18. Ghiselin, M. T.: 1966b, ‘On Psychologism in the Logic of Taxonomic Controversies’, Systematic Zoology 15, 207–215.Google Scholar
  19. Ghiselin, M. T.: 1969, The Triumph of the Darwinian Method, University of California Press, Berkeley (reprinted by University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).Google Scholar
  20. Ghiselin, M. T.: 1974, ‘A Radical Solution to the Species Problem’, Systematic Zoology 23, 536–544.Google Scholar
  21. Ghiselin, M. T.: 1980, ‘Natural Kinds and Literary Accomplishments’, The Michigan Quarterly Review 19, 73–88.Google Scholar
  22. Ghiselin, M. T.: 1981, ‘Categories, Life, and Thinking’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4, 269–313.Google Scholar
  23. Ghiselin, M. T.: 1984, ‘“Definition”, “Character”, and Other Equivocal Terms’, Systematic Zoology 33, 104–110.Google Scholar
  24. Ghiselin, M. T.: 1985, ‘Narrow Approaches to Phylogeny: A Review of Nine Books of Cladism’, Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 1, 209–222.Google Scholar
  25. Gregg, J. R.: 1950, ‘Taxonomy, language and reality’, The American Naturalist 84, 419–435.Google Scholar
  26. Gregg, J. R.: 1954, The Language of Taxonomy. An Application of Symbolic Logic to the Study of Classificatory Systems, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Gregg, J. R.: 1968, ‘Buck and Hull: A Critical Rejoinder’, Systematic Zoology 17, 342–344.Google Scholar
  28. Griffiths, G. C. D.: 1974, ‘On the Foundations of Biological Systematics’, Acta Biotheoretica 23, 85–131.Google Scholar
  29. Hennig, W.: 1965, ‘Phylogenetic Systematics’, Annual Review of Entomology 10, 97–116.Google Scholar
  30. Hennig, W.: 1966, Phylogenetic Systematics, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  31. Hennig, W.: 1975, ‘“Cladistic Analysis or Cladistic Classification?” A Reply to Ernst Mayr’, Systematic Zoology 24, 244–256.Google Scholar
  32. Himmelfarb, G.: 1968, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Hopson, J. A. and A. W. Crompton: 1969, ‘Origin of Mammals’, Evolutionary Biology 3, 15–72.Google Scholar
  34. Hopwood, A. T.: 1950, ‘Animal Classification from Linnaeus to Darwin’, in Lectures on the Development of Taxonomy, Linnean Society, London, pp. 46–59.Google Scholar
  35. Hull, D. L.: 1965, ‘The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy — Two Thousand Years of Stasis (I)’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15, 314–326.Google Scholar
  36. Hull, D. L.: 1976, ‘Are Species Really Individuals’, Systematic Zoology 25, 174–191.Google Scholar
  37. Hull, D. L.: 1977, ‘The Ontological Status of Species as Evolutionary Units’, in R. E. Butts and J. Hintikka (eds.), Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 91–102.Google Scholar
  38. Hull, D. L.: 1978, ‘A Matter of Individuality’, Philosophy of Science 45, 335–360.Google Scholar
  39. Jardine, N.: 1969, ‘A logical basis for biological classification’, Systematic Zoology 18, 37–52.Google Scholar
  40. Kitcher, P.: 1984, ‘Species’, Philosophy of Science 51, 308–333.Google Scholar
  41. Kitts, D. B.: 1983, ‘Can Baptism Alone Save a Species’, Systematic Zoology 32, 27–33.Google Scholar
  42. Kitts, D. B.: 1984, ‘The Names of Species: A Reply to Hull’, Systematic Zoology 33, 112–115.Google Scholar
  43. Kitts, D. B. and D. J. Kitts: 1979, ‘Biological Species as Natural Kinds’, Philosophy of Science 46, 613–622.Google Scholar
  44. Kruskal, J. B.: 1981, ‘What Does Ghiselin Mean by “Individual”?’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4, 294–295.Google Scholar
  45. Losonsky, M.: 1987, ‘Individual Essences’, American Philosophical Quarterly 24, 253–260.Google Scholar
  46. Løvtrup, S.: 1986, ‘On the Existence and Definition of Taxa’, Rivista di Biologia 79, 265–268.Google Scholar
  47. Løvtrup, S.: 1987a, ‘On Species and Other Taxa’, Cladistics 3, 157–177.Google Scholar
  48. Løvtrup, S.: 1987b, ‘On the Species Problem and Some Other Taxonomic Issues’, Environmental Biology of Fishes 20, 3–9.Google Scholar
  49. Mayr, E.: 1982, The Growth of Biological Thought, Belknap Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  50. Michaux, B., C. S. White, and D. M. Lambert: 1990, ‘Organisms not Species Evolve: A Reply to Ghiselin ’, Systematic Zoology 39, 79–80.Google Scholar
  51. Mishler, B. D. and R. N. Brandon: 1987, ‘Individuality, Pluralism, and the Phylogenetic Species Concept’, Biology and Philosophy 2, 397–414.Google Scholar
  52. Muir, J. W.: 1968, ‘The Definition of Taxa’, Systematic Zoology 17, 345.Google Scholar
  53. Nelson, G.: 1985, ‘Class and Individual: A Reply to M. Ghiselin’, Cladistics 1, 386–389.Google Scholar
  54. Nelson, G. and N. Platnick: 1981, Systematics and Biogeography. Cladistics and Vicariance, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  55. O'Hara, R. J.: 1988, ‘Homage to Clio, or, Toward an Historical Philosophy for Evolutionary Biology’, Systematic Zoology 37, 142–155.Google Scholar
  56. Olson, E. C.: 1959, ‘The Evolutionof Mammalian Characters’, Evolution 13, 344–353.Google Scholar
  57. Patterson, C.: 1978, ‘Verifiability in Systematics’, Systematic Zoology 27, 218–222.Google Scholar
  58. Popper, K. R.: 1950, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Princeton University Press, Princeton [Fifth Edition, 1966].Google Scholar
  59. de Queiroz, K.: 1987, ‘Phylogenetic Systematics of Iguanine Lizards. A Comparative Osteological Study’, University of California Publications in Zoology 118, 1–203.Google Scholar
  60. de Queiroz, K.: 1988, ‘Systematics and Darwinian Revolution’, Philosophy of Science 55, 238–259.Google Scholar
  61. de Queiroz, K. and M. J. Donoghue: 1988, ‘Phylogenetic Systematics and the Species Problem’, Cladistics 4, 317–338.Google Scholar
  62. de Queiroz, K. and M. J. Donoghue: 1990, ‘Phylogenetic Systematics or Nelson's Version of Cladistics’, Cladistics 6, 61–75.Google Scholar
  63. de Queiroz, K. and J. Gauthier: 1990, ‘Phylogeny as a Central Principle in Taxonomy: Phylogenetic Definitions of Taxon Names’, Systematic Zoology 39, 307–322.Google Scholar
  64. de Queiroz, K. and J. Gauthier: 1991, ‘Principles of Phylogenetic Taxonomy: Reorganizing the Taxonomic System around the Central Tenet of Common Descent’, submitted to Systematic Biology.Google Scholar
  65. Ridley, M.: 1986, Evolution and Classification. The Reformation of Cladism, Longman, London.Google Scholar
  66. Rowe, T.: 1987, ‘Definition and Diagnosis in the Phylogenetic System’, Systematic Zoology 36, 208–211.Google Scholar
  67. Rowe, T.: 1988, ‘Definition, Diagnosis, and Origin of Mammalia’, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 8, 241–264.Google Scholar
  68. Ruse, M.: 1973, The Philosophy of Biology, Hutchinson University Library, London.Google Scholar
  69. Simpson, G. G.: 1959, ‘Mesozoic Mammals and the Polyphyletic Origin of Mammals’, Evolution 13, 405–414.Google Scholar
  70. Simpson, G. G.: 1961, Principles of Animal Taxonomy, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  71. Sneath, P. H. A.: 1962, ‘The Construction of Taxonomic Groups’, in G. C. Ainsworth and P. H. A. Sneath (eds.), Microbial Classification, 12th Symposium of the Society for General Microbiology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 289–332.Google Scholar
  72. Sober, E.: 1988, Reconstructing the Past. Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  73. Stevens, P. E.: 1984, ‘Metaphors and Typology in the Development of Botanical Systematics 1690–1960, Or the Art of Putting New Wine in Old Bottles’, Taxon 33, 169–211.Google Scholar
  74. Suppe, F.: 1974, ‘Some Philosophical Problems in Biological Speciation and Taxonomy’, in J. A. Wojciechowski (ed.), Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, Verlag Dokumentation, Pullach/München, pp. 190–243.Google Scholar
  75. Suppe, F.: 1989, The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
  76. Van Valen, L.: 1976, ‘Individualistic Classes’, Philosophy of Science 43, 539–541.Google Scholar
  77. Wiley, E. O.: 1979, ‘An Annotated Linnaean Hierarchy, with Comments on Natural Taxa and Competing Systems’, Systematic Zoology 28, 308–337.Google Scholar
  78. Wiley, E. O.: 1980, ‘Is the Evolutionary Species Fiction? — A Consideration of Classes, Individuals, and Historical Entities’, Systematic Zoology 29, 76–80.Google Scholar
  79. Wiley, E. O.: 1981a, Phylogenetics. The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, John Wiley and Sons, New Yor.Google Scholar
  80. Wiley, E. O.: 1981b, ‘Convex Groups and Consistent Classifications’, Systematic Botany 6, 346–358.Google Scholar
  81. Wiley, E. O.: 1989, ‘Kinds, Individuals, and Theories’, in M. Ruse (ed.), What the Philosophy of Biology Is, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 289–300.Google Scholar
  82. Woodger, J. H.: 1952, ‘From Biology to Mathematics’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 3, 1–21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kevin de Queiroz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Vertebrate Zoology Division of Amphibians and Reptiles United States National Museum of Natural HistorySmithsonian InstitutionWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations