Skip to main content
Log in

Symbiosis, selection, and individuality

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A recent development in biology has been the growing acceptance that holobionts, entities comprised of symbiotic microbes and their host organisms, are widespread in nature. There is agreement that holobionts are evolved outcomes, but disagreement on how to characterize the operation of natural selection on them. The aim of this paper is to articulate the contours of the disagreement. I explain how two distinct foundational accounts of the process of natural selection give rise to competing views about evolutionary individuality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. My use of the term “macrobe” follows Dupré and O’Malley (2012b).

  2. This section relies on the following reviews: (Baumann et al. 1995; Moran 2006).

  3. This section relies on the following sources: (Nyholm and McFall-Ngai 2004; Moran 2006).

  4. In pointing out the fact that branching cell-level lineages are inevitable I’m not taking sides in the debate about whether the “tree of cells” has some special importance for understanding prokaryotic evolution (see Lerat et al. 2005; Doolittle and Bapteste 2007; Doolittle 2009; Dupré 2012a).

  5. Zilber-Rosenberg and Rosenberg suggest that holobionts play the role of the interactor as well as the role of the replicator in evolution (Zilber-Rosenberg and Rosenberg 2008, 731). Replicators are typically taken to be entities that make high-fidelity copies of themselves (Dawkins 1976); it is hard to see how to make a case that holobionts fit the bill.

  6. It is worth noting the terminological nuances here: Dupré understands the lineage-based category to pick out, “the more traditionally conceived organisms,” whereas Godfrey-Smith understands traditional organismality in terms of metabolism, regardless of a metabolizer’s capacity to form lineages.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Austin Booth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Booth, A. Symbiosis, selection, and individuality. Biol Philos 29, 657–673 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-014-9449-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-014-9449-8

Keywords

Navigation