The Origins of Species Concepts

Dissertation, University of Melbourne (2003)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The longstanding species problem in biology has a history that suggests a solution, and that history is not the received history found in many texts written by biologists or philosophers. The notion of species as the division into subordinate groups of any generic predicate was the staple of logic from Aristotle through the middle ages until quite recently. However, the biological species concept during the same period was at first subtly and then overtly different. Unlike the logic sense, which relied on definitions of the essence of both genus and species, biological species from the time of Epicurus were consistently considered to involve a reproductive element: in short, living species relied not on essential definitions, but on the generative cause, which might not be definable. I term this the generative conception of species: species were the generation by reproduction of form. This undercuts the claim that species before Darwin were essentialist, and divorces the notion of a type from that of essence. In fact, as late as the end of the nineteenth century, logicians explicitly treated biological “species” as a homonym only of logical essentialist species, and permitted considerable deviation from the type or form. At every point, species in logic were thought to be a subset, in effect, of some more general notion. I sketch a history of both philosophical and biological traditions of the species concept, before turning to the current conceptions. These are reconsidered in the light of this history, and in particular Mayr’s changing views are shown to be somewhat Whiggish, historiographically. Of the many touted biological species concepts, only one of which (Mayr’s) is called _the_ Biological Species Concept, none appears to capture all the relevant facts, intuitions, and operational requirements of biology. Cladistic conceptions, however, have much in common with the older philosophical literature, in that the natural group of cladism is the clade, or monophyletic group. After considering the Individuality Thesis, and the metaphysics of species, we see that species are the most particular terminal taxa in a clade, and that they are “defined” in terms of the particular synapomorphies, or evolved characters, that are causally responsible for keeping the lineages that organisms form distinct from one another. In this way, we can remain within the generative conception of species that has been in play for over two millennia, and yet avoid the pitfalls of prior attempts to find a universal conception of species.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The cladistic solution to the species problem.Mark Ridley - 1989 - Biology and Philosophy 4 (1):1-16.
Species concepts and the ontology of evolution.Joel Cracraft - 1987 - Biology and Philosophy 2 (3):329-346.
Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species.Kevin de Queiroz - 2005 - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (1):6600-6607.
The Metaphysics of Evolution.David L. Hull - 1967 - British Journal for the History of Science 3 (4):309-337.
The concept and causes of microbial species.John S. Wilkins - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 28 (3):389-408.
What is a species? Essences and generation.John S. Wilkins - 2010 - Theory in Biosciences 129:141-148.
Not So Human, After All?Brendan Shea - 2016 - In Courtland Lewis & Kevin McCain, Red Rising and Philosophy. Chicago: Open Court. pp. 15-25.
Are biological species real?Hugh Lehman - 1967 - Philosophy of Science 34 (2):157-167.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-06-01

Downloads
5,432 (#1,401)

6 months
112 (#59,378)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

John S. Wilkins
University of Melbourne

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations