The nature of science (NOS) is a primary goal in school science. Most teachers are not well-prepared for teaching NOS, but a sophisticated and in-depth understanding of NOS is necessary for effective teaching. Some authors emphasize the need for teaching NOS in context. Species, a central concept in biology, is proposed in this article as a concrete example of a means for achieving increased understanding of NOS. Although species are commonly presented in textbooks as fixed entities with a single definition, the concept of species is a highly discussed one in the science and the philosophy of biology. A multitude of species concepts exist, reflecting both the views and interests of researchers and their utility in different organism groups. The present study serves to address the following questions: How do textbooks in Norwegian primary and lower secondary schools present the concept of species? Can inquiries into the concept of “species” serve to highlight aspects of NOS? A review of the available literature on species and species concepts in school is also performed. In the schoolbooks, the biological species concept is commonly used as the main definition, whereas the morphological species concept is represented by additional remarks of similarity. The potential and pitfalls of using the species concept for teaching NOS are discussed, with NOS being discussed both as a family resemblance concept and as a consensus list. Teacher education is proposed as a starting point for inducing a more sophisticated view of biology into schools.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
The textbook Gaia 5 is written in Norwegian, and the excerpt is translated by the first author.
The textbook Globus 5 is written in Norwegian, and the excerpt is translated by the first author.
The textbook Globus 6 is written in Norwegian, and the excerpt is translated by the first author.
The textbook Eureka! 10 is written in Norwegian, and the excerpt is translated by the first author.
The textbook Natur og Univers 8 is written in Norwegian, and the excerpt is translated by the first author.
The textbook Natur og Univers 9 is written in Norwegian, and the excerpt is translated by the first author.
The textbook Nova 8 is written in Norwegian, and the excerpt is translated by the first author.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012a). Examining the sources for our understandings about science: enduring conflations and critical issues in research on nature of science in science education. International Journal of Science Education, 34(3), 353–374.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2012b). Nature of science in science education: toward a coherent framework for synergistic research and development. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.). Second International Handbook of Science Education (Vol. 1, pp. 1041–1060, Springer International Handbooks of Education, Vol. 24). Dordrecht: Springer.
Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Waters, M., & Le, A. P. (2008). Representations of nature of science in high school chemistry textbooks over the past four decades. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(7), 835–855.
Abd-El-Khalick, F., Myers, J. Y., Summers, R., Brunner, J., Waight, N., Wahbeh, N., et al. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of the extent and manner of representations of nature of science in U.S. high school biology and physics textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 82–120.
Altheide, D. L., & Schneider, C. J. (2013a). Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Media Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 23–37). London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Altheide, D. L., & Schneider, C. J. (2013b). Process of qualitative document analysis. Qualitative Media Analysis (2nd ed., pp. 38–74). London: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
Ault, C. R. J. (2010). Tracking the footprints puzzle: the problematic persistence of science-as-process in teaching the nature and culture of science. Science Education, 94, 1092–1122.
Baetu, T. M. (2012). Defining species: a multi-level approach. Acta Biotheoretica, 60(3), 239–255.
Berti, A. E., Toneatti, L., & Rosati, V. (2010). Children’s conceptions about the origin of species: a study of Italian children’s conceptions with and without instruction. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(4), 506–538.
Besterman, H., & La Velle, L. B. (2007). Using human evolution to teach evolutionary theory. Journal of Biological Education, 41(2), 76–81.
Binns, I. C. (2013). A qualitative method to determine how textbooks portray scientific methodology. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks. Evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 239–258). Dordrecht: Springer.
Catley, K. M. (2006). Darwins’s missing link—a novel paradigm for evolution education. Science Education, 90(5), 767–783.
Chiappetta, E. L., & Fillman, D. A. (2007). Analysis of five high school biology textbooks used in the United States for inclusion of the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1847–1868.
Clifford, P. (2002). The pressure-flow hypothesis of phloem transport: misconceptions in the A-level textbooks. Journal of Biological Education, 36(3), 110–112.
Clough, M. P., & Olson, J. K. (2012). Impact of a nature of science and science education course on teachers’ nature of science classroom practices. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research. Concepts and methodologies (pp. 247–266). Dordrecht: Springer.
Crawford, B. A., Zembal-Saul, C., Munford, D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2005). Confronting prospective teachers’ ideas of evolution and scientific inquiry using technology and inquiry-based tasks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(6), 613–637.
Dagher, Z. R., & Boujaoude, S. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the nature of evolutionary theory. Science Education, 89(3), 378–391.
Dagher, Z. R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 25(1–2), 147–164.
de Meeûs, T., Durand, P., & Renaud, F. (2003). Species concepts: what for? Trends in Parasitology, 19(10), 425–427.
de Queiroz, K. (2005). Different species problems and their resolution. BioEssays, 27(12), 1263–1269.
Devetak, I., & Vogrinc, J. (2013). The criteria for evaluating the quality of the science textbooks. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Critical analysis of science textbooks. Evaluating instructional effectiveness (pp. 3–15). Dordrecht: Springer.
Dunk, R. D. P., Petto, A. J., Wiles, J. R., & Campbell, B. C. (2017). A multifactorial analysis of acceptance of evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 10(1), 4.
Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.
Eastwood, J. L., Sadler, T. D., Zeidler, D. L., Lewis, A., Amiri, L., & Applebaum, S. (2012). Contextualizing nature of science instruction in socioscientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 34(15), 2289–2315.
Eflin, J. T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: a perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107–116.
Ellis, M. W., & Wolf, P. G. (2010). Teaching “species”. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(1), 89–98.
Erduran, S., & Dagher, Z. R. (2014). Reconceptualizing the nature of science for science education. scientific knowledge, practices and other family categories (Vol. 43, Contemporay Trends and Issues in Science Education). Dordrecht: Springer.
Ericsson, K. A. (2002). Attaining excellence through deliberate practice: insights from the study of expert performance. In M. Ferrari (Ed.), The pursuit of excellence through education (pp. 21–55): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Evans, E. M. (2000). The emergence of beliefs about the origins of species in school-age children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 46(2), 221–254.
Ferlin, M., & Sundberg, P. (2015). 12 to 15 year old pupils’ perceptions of the concept species related to formulations in textbooks in biology. NorDiNa, 11(1), 3–18.
Flodin, V. S. (2009). The necessity of making visible concepts with multiple meanings in science education: the use of the gene concept in a biology textbook. Science & Education, 18(1), 73–94.
Flodin, V. S. (2017). Characterisation of the context-dependence of the gene concept in research articles. Science & Education, 26(1), 141–170.
Fox, C. (2014). Wittgenstein on family resemblance. In K. D. Jolley (Ed.), Wittgenstein key concepts (pp. 51–62). Durham: Routledge.
Funk, D. J., & Omland, K. E. (2003). Species-level paraphyly and polyphyly: frequency, causes, and consequences, with insights from animal mitochondrial DNA. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 34, 397–423.
Geake, J. (2011). Position statement on motivations, methodologies, and practical implications of educational neuroscience research: fMRI studies of the neural correlates of creative intelligence. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43(1), 43–47.
Geary, D. C. (2007). Educating the evolved mind. Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology. In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Educating the evolved mind. Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology (pp. 1–99). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc..
González-Forero, M. (2009). Removing ambiguity from the biological species concept. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 256(1), 76–80.
Grajkowski, W. (2011). Building a phylogenetic tree. BioScience Explained, 6(2), 1–8.
Grindeland, J. M. (2015). Plant blindness in Norwegian school. Blyttia, 73(1), 5–12.
Grindeland, J. M., Lyngved, R., & Tandberg, C. (2012). Biologi for lærere. Naturfag i grunnskolelærerutdanningen 5. - 10. trinn. Oslo: Gyldendal Akademisk.
Ha, M., Baldwin, B. C., & Nehm, R. H. (2015). The long-term impacts of short-term professional development: science teachers and evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 8(11), 23 pages.
Haggarty, L., & Pepin, B. (2002). An investigation of mathematics textbooks and their use in English, French and German classrooms: who gets an opportunity to learn what? British Educational Research Journal, 28(4), 567–590.
Halldén, O. (1988). The evolution of the species: pupil perspectives and school perspectives. International Journal of Science Education, 10(5), 541–552.
Halverson, K. L., Pires, C. J., & Abell, S. K. (2011). Exploring the complexity of tree thinking expertise in an undergraduate systematics course. Science Education, 95(5), 794–823.
Hey, J. (2001a). Genes, categories and species: the evolutionary and cognitive causes of the species problem. Cary: Oxford University Press.
Hey, J. (2001b). The mind of the species problem. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 16(7), 326–329.
Hey, J. (2006). On the failure of modern species concepts. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 21(8), 447–450.
Hey, J., Waples, R. S., Arnold, M. L., Butlin, R. K., & Harrison, R. G. (2003). Understanding and confronting species uncertainty in biology and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(11), 597–603.
Hörandl, E. (1998). Species concepts in agamic complexes: applications in the Ranunculus auricomus complex and general perspectives. Folia Geobotanica, 33(3), 335–348.
Hull, D. (1965). The effect of essentialism on taxonomy—two thousand years of stasis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 15(60), 314–326.
Irez, S. (2009). Nature of science as depicted in Turkish biology textbooks. Science Education, 93(3), 422–447.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2011). A family resemblance approach to the nature of science for science education. Science & Education, 20(7), 591–607.
Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (pp. 999–1021). Dordrecht: Springer.
Janssen, F. J. J. M., & van Berkel, B. (2015). Making philosophy of science education practical for science teachers. Science & Education, 24(3), 229–258.
Jenkins, E. W. (2009). Reforming school science education: a commentary on selected reports and policy documents. Studies in Science Education, 45(1), 65–92.
Jiménez-Tejada, M.-P., Sánchez-Monsalve, C., & González-García, F. (2013). How Spanish primary school students interpret the concepts of population and species. Journal of Biological Education, 47(4), 232–239.
Kampourakis, K. (2016). The “general aspects” conceptualization as a pragmatic and effective means to introducing students to nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(5), 667–682.
Kargbo, D. B., Hobbs, E. D., & Erickson, G. L. (1980). Children's beliefs about inherited characteristics. Journal of Biological Education, 14(2), 137–146.
Kaya, E., & Erduran, S. (2016). From FRA to RFN, or how the family resemblance approach can be transformed for Science curriculum analysis on nature of Science. Science & Education, 25(9), 1115–1133.
Keil, F. C. (2008). Adapted minds and evolved schools. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 196–202.
Khishfe, R. (2014). Explicit nature of science and argumentation instruction in the context of socioscientific issues: an effect on student learning and transfer. International Journal of Science Education, 36(6), 974–1016.
Krogh, L. B., & Nielsen, K. (2013). Introduction: how science works—and how to teach it. Science & Education, 22(9), 2055–2065.
Kuckartz, U. (2013). Qualitative text analysis: a guide to methods, practice & using software (research methods). Sage.
Kutluca, A. Y., & Aydın, A. (2017). Changes in pre-service science teachers’ understandings after being involved in explicit nature of science and Socioscientific argumentation processes. Science & Education, 26(6), 637–668.
LaPorte, J. (2007). In defense of species. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38(1), 255–269.
Leden, L., Hansson, L., Redfors, A., & Ideland, M. (2015). Teachers’ ways of talking about nature of science and its teaching. Science & Education, 24(9–10), 1141–1172.
Leden, L., Hansson, L., & Redfors, A. (2017). From black and white to shades of grey. A longitudinal study of teachers’ perspectives on teaching sociocultural and subjective aspects of science. Science & Education, 26(5), 483–511.
Lederman, N. G. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: a review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331–359.
Lederman, N. G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R. L., & Schwartz, R. S. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: toward valid and meaningful assessment of learners’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497–521.
Liebers, D., Knijff, P. d., & Helbig, A. J. (2004). The herring gull complex is not a ring species. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 271(1542), 893–901.
Lindemann-Matthies, P. (2005). ‘Loveable’ mammals and ‘lifeless’ plants: how children’s interest in common local organisms can be enhanced through observation of nature. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 655–677.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., & Bose, E. (2008). How many species are there? Public understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland. Human Ecology, 36, 731–742.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Remmele, M., & Yli-Panula, E. (2017). Professional competence of student teachers to implement species identification in schools—a case study from Germany. CEPS Journal: Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 7(1), 29–47.
Magnus, D. (1996). Theory, practice, and epistemology in the development of species concepts. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 27(4), 521–545.
Martens, J., & Päckert, M. (2007). Ring species—do they exist in birds? Zoologischer Anzeiger—A Journal of Comparative Zoology, 246(4), 315–324.
Matthews, M. R. (2012). Changing the focus: from nature of science (NOS) to features of science (FOS). In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Advances in nature of science research. Concepts and methodologies (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Springer.
Mayden, R. L. (2002). On biological species, species concepts and individuation in the natural world. Fish and Fisheries, 3(3), 171–196.
Mayr, E. (1942). Systematics and the origin of species. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mayr, E. (1996). What is a species, and what is not? Philosophy of Science, 63(2), 262–277.
Mayr, E. (2001). Wu’s genic view of speciation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14(6), 866–867.
Meisel, R. P. (2010). Teaching tree-thinking to undergraduate biology students. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(4), 621–628.
Ministry of Education and Research (2013). Natural Science subject curriculum. https://www.udir.no/kl06/NAT1-03?lplang=eng. Accessed 1 June 2017.
Mishler, B. D., & Brandon, R. N. (1987). Individuality, pluralism, and the phylogenetic species concept. Biology and Philosophy, 2(4), 397–414.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269.
Munson, B. H. (1994). Ecological misconceptions. Journal of Environmental Education, 25(4), 30–34.
Nadelson, L. S. (2009). Preservice teacher understanding and vision of how to teach biological evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 2(3), 490–504.
Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2010a). Adaptive memory: ancestral priorities and the mnemonic value of survival processing. Cognitive Psychology, 61(1), 1–22.
Nairne, J. S., & Pandeirada, J. N. S. (2010b). Adaptive memory: nature’s criterion and the functionalist agenda. The American Journal of Psychology, 123(4), 381–390.
Noor, M. A. F. (2002). Is the biological species concept showing its age? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 17(4), 153–154.
Nyléhn, J., Hamre, E., & Nordal, I. (2003). Facultatice apomixis and hybridization in arctic Potentilla section Niveae (Rosaceae) from Svalbard. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 142(4), 373–381.
Osborne, J., Collins, S., Ratcliffe, M., Millar, R., & Duschl, R. (2003). What “ideas-about-science” should be taught in school science? A Delphi study of the expert community. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(7), 692–720.
Padian, K. (2010). How to win the evolution war: teach macroevolution! Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(2), 206–214.
Palmberg, I. (2012). Student teachers’ knowledge of and interest in species. NorDiNa, 8(3), 244–257.
Patrick, P., & Tunnicliffe, S. D. (2011). What plants and animals do early childhood and primary students’ name? Where do they see them? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20, 630–642.
Peters-Burton, E. E. (2018). Strategies for learning nature of science knowledge: a perspective from educational psychology. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), History, philosophy and science teaching. New perspectives (pp. 167–193, Science: Philosophy, History and Education). Dordrecht: Springer.
Pigliucci, M. (2003). Species as family resemblance concepts: the (dis-)solution of the species problem? BioEssays, 25(6), 596–602.
Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
Pugh, K. J., Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Koskey, K. L. K., Stewart, V. C., & Manzey, C. (2010). Motivation, learning, and transformative experience: a study of deep engagement in science. Science Education, 94(1), 1–28.
Pugh, K. J., Koskey, K. L. K., & Linnenbrink-Garcia, L. (2014). High school biology students’ transfer of the concept of natural selection: a mixed-methods approach. Journal of Biological Education, 48(1), 23–33.
Reydon, T. A. C. (2013). Classifying life, reconstructing history and teaching diversity: philosophical issues in the teaching of biological systematics and biodiversity. Science & Education, 22(2), 189–220.
Richards, R. A. (2016). Biological classification: a philosophical introduction (Cambridge introductions to philosophy and biology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rule, A. C., & Olsen, B. D. (2016). Use of analogy and comparative thinking in scientific creativity and gifted education. In M. K. Demetrikopoulos & J. L. Pecore (Eds.), Interplay of creativity and giftedness in science (pp. 301–320). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Ryder, J. (2001). Identifying science understanding for functional scientific literacy. Studies in Science Education, 36(1), 1–44.
Samarapungavan, A., & Wiens, R. W. (1997). Children’s thoughts on the origin of species: a study of explanatory coherence. Cognitive Science, 21(2), 147–177.
Schizas, D., Psillos, D., & Stamou, G. (2016). Nature of science or nature of the sciences? Science Education, 100(4), 706–733.
Schizas, D., Papatheodorou, E., & Stamou, G. (2018). Transforming “ecosystem” from a scientific concept into a teachable topic: philosophy and history of ecology informs science textbook analysis. Research in Science Education, 48(2), 267–300.
Shome, S. (2013). Exploring students’ understanding of species: a study with class VIII students. In G. Nagarjuna, J. Arvind, & S. Ebie (Eds.), epiSTEME–5, Mumbai, 2013: HBCSE, TIFR.
Shtulman, A. (2006). Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution. Cognitive Psychology, 52(2), 170–194.
Shtulman, A., & Schulz, L. (2008). The relation between essentialist beliefs and evolutionary reasoning. Cognitive Science, 32(6), 1049–1062.
Sinatra, G. M., Doutherland, S. A., McConaughy, F., & Demastes, J. W. (2003). Intentions and beliefs in students’ understanding and acceptance of biological evolution. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(5), 510–528.
Sites, J. W. J., & Marshall, J. C. (2003). Delimiting species: a renaissance issue in systematic biology. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(9), 462–470.
Sites, J. W. J., & Marshall, J. C. (2004). Operational criteria for delimiting species. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 35(1), 199–227.
Sjøberg, S. (2017). «O-fagssyndromet». Et skolefags vekst og fall. In M. Roos & J. Tønnesson (Eds.), Sann opplysning? Naturvitenskap i nordiske offentligheter gjennom fire århundrer (pp. 471–506). Oslo: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.
Stern, L., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Can middle-school science textbooks help students learn important ideas? Findings from project 2061’s curriculum evaluation study: life science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(6), 538–568.
Sternkopf, V., Liebers-Helbig, D., Ritz, M. S., Zhang, J., Helbig, A. J., & de Knijff, P. (2010). Introgressive hybridization and the evolutionary history of the herring gull complex revealed by mitochondrial and nuclear DNA. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 10(1), 348.
Taber, K. S. (2008). Towards a curricular model of the nature of science. Science & Education, 17(2), 179–218.
Taber, K. S. (2016). Chemical reactions are like hell because…. In M. K. Demetrikopoulos & J. L. Pecore (Eds.), Interplay of creativity and giftedness in science (pp. 321–349). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Taber, K. S. (2017). Knowledge, beliefs and pedagogy: How the nature of science should inform the aims of science education (and not just when teaching evolution). Cultural Studies of Science Education, 12(1), 81–91.
Tala, S., & Vesterinen, V.-M. (2015). Nature of science contextualized: studying nature of science with scientists. Science & Education, 24(4), 435–457.
Thanukos, A. (2010). Communicating evolution as science. Evolution: Education and Outreach, 3(2), 254–260.
Urhahne, D., Kremer, K., & Mayer, J. (2011). Conceptions of the nature of science—are they general or context specific? International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(3), 707–730.
van Dijk, E. M. (2011). Portraying real science in science communication. Science Education, 95(6), 1086–1100.
van Valen, L. M. (1988). Species, sets, and the derivative nature of philosophy. Biology and Philosophy, 3(1), 49–66.
Velasco, J. D. (2008). Species concepts should not conflict with evolutionary history, but often do. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 39(4), 407–414.
Vosniadou, S. (2012). Reframing the classical approach to conceptual change: preconceptions, misconceptions and synthetic models. In B. J. Fraser, K. G. Tobin, & C. J. McRobbie (Eds.), Second international handbook of science education (Vol. 1, pp. 119–130, Springer International Handbooks Of Education, Vol. 24). Dordrecht: Springer.
Wallace, C. S. (2004). Framing new research in science literacy and language use: authenticity, multiple discourses, and the “third space”. Science Education, 88(6), 901–914.
Wiens, J. J., & Servedio, M. R. (2000). Species delimitation in systematics: inferring diagnostic differences between species. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, 267(1444), 631–636.
Wilkins, J. S. (2009a). Defining species. A sourcebook from antiquity to today (American University studies, Vol. V. Philosophy). New York: Peter Lang.
Wilkins, J. S. (2009b). Species. A history of the idea (species and systematics): University of California Press.
Wilkins, J. S. (2013). Biological essentialism and the tidal change of natural kinds. Science & Education, 22(2), 221–240.
Wilkins, J. S. (2018). Species. The evolution of the idea (species and systematics): Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Wilson, C. M., & Oldham, J. H. (1984). Teaching the species concept using hybrid plants and habitats. Journal of Biological Education, 18(1), 45–56.
Winsor, M. P. (2006). The creation of the essentialism story: an exercise in Metahistory. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 28(2), 149–174.
Wu, C.-I. (2001). The genic view of the process of speciation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14(6), 851–865.
Zachos, F. E. (2016). Species concepts in biology. Historical development, theoretical foundations and practical relevance. Basel: Springer.
The authors sincerely thank Anja Gabrielsen, Kirsti Klette, Erik Knain, Stein Dankert Kolstø and three anonymous reviewers for comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Nyléhn, J., Ødegaard, M. The “Species” Concept as a Gateway to Nature of Science. Sci & Educ 27, 685–714 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-018-0007-7