Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 26, Issue 6, pp 857–870 | Cite as

Drakes, seadevils, and similarity fetishism

Article

Abstract

Homeostatic property clusters (HPCs) are offered as a way of understanding natural kinds, especially biological species. I review the HPC approach and then discuss an objection by Ereshefsky and Matthen, to the effect that an HPC qua cluster seems ill-fitted as a description of a polymorphic species. The standard response by champions of the HPC approach is to say that all members of a polymorphic species have things in common, namely dispositions or conditional properties. I argue that this response fails. Instances of an HPC kind need not all be similar in their exhibited properties. Instead, HPCs should instead be understood as unified by the underlying causal mechanism that maintains them. The causal mechanism can both produce and explain some systematic differences between a kind’s members. An HPC kind is best understood not as a single cluster of properties maintained in stasis by causal forces, but as a complex of related property clusters kept in relation by an underlying causal process. This approach requires recognizing that taxonomic systems serve both explanatory and inductive purposes.

Keywords

Species Polymorphism Homeostatic property cluster Natural kind 

References

  1. Boyd RN (1999a) Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In: Wilson, pp 141–185Google Scholar
  2. Boyd RN (1999b) Kinds, complexity and multiple realization. Philos Stud 95:67–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Craver CF (2009) Mechanisms and natural kinds. Philos Psychol 22(5):575–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Douglas HE (2009) Reintroducing prediction to explanation. Philos Sci 76(4):444–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eldredge N, Stephen J (1972) Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism. In: Schopf TJM (ed) Models in paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper and Company, San Francisco, pp 82–115Google Scholar
  6. Ereshefsky M (1992) Eliminative pluralism. Philos Sci 59(4):671–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ereshefsky M (2007) Foundational issues concerning taxa and taxon names. Syst Biol 56(2):295–301. doi:10.1080/10635150701317401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ereshefsky M, Matthen M (2005) Taxonomy, polymorphism, and history: an introduction to population structure theory. Philos Sci 72:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Griffiths PE (1999) Squaring the circle: natural kinds with historical essences. In: Wilson (ed). pp 209–228Google Scholar
  10. Hull DL (1978) A matter of individuality. Philos Sci 45(3):335–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pietsch TW (2005) Dimorphism, parasitism, and sex revisited: modes of reproduction among deep-sea ceratoid anglerfishes. Ichthyol Res 52:207–236. doi:10.1007/s10228-005-0286-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pietsch TW (2009) Oceanic anglerfishes: extraordinary biodiversity in the deep sea. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  13. Pietsch TW, Kenaley CP (2010) Ceratioidei. seadevils, devilfishes, deep-sea anglerfishes. http://tolweb.org/Ceratioidei/22000/2007.10.02 in The Tree of Life Web Project, http://tolweb.org/, October 2007. Accessed 15 Sept 2010
  14. Rouse GW, Goffredi SK, Vrijenhoek RC (2004) Osedax: bone-eating marine worms with dwarf males. Science 305(5684):668–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rouse G, Wilson N, Goffredi S, Johnson S, Smart T, Widmer C, Young C, Vrijenhoek R (2009) Spawning and development in Osedax boneworms (siboglinidae, annelida). Mar Biol 156:395–405. doi:10.1007/s00227-008-1091-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rouse GW, Worsaae K, Johnson SB, Jones WJ, Vrijenhoek RC (2008) Acquisition of dwarf male “harems” by recently settled females of osedax roseus n. sp. (siboglinidae; annelida). Biol Bull 214(1):67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Samuels R, Ferreira M (2010) Why dont concepts constitute a natural kind?. Behav Brain Sci 33:222–223. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000452 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wilson RA (ed) (1999) Species: new interdisciplinary essays. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Wilson RA, Barker MJ, Brigandt I (2007) When traditional essentialism fails: biological natural kinds. Philos Topics 35:189–215Google Scholar
  20. Worsaae K, Rouse GW (2010) The simplicity of males: dwarf males of four species of osedax (Siboglinidae; Annelida) investigated by confocal laser scanning microscopy. J Morphol 271:127–142. doi:10.1002/jmor.10786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity at Albany, State University of New YorkAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations