David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):489-515 (2005)
A naturalistic account of the strengths and limitations of cladistic practice is offered. The success of cladistics is claimed to be largely rooted in the parsimony-implementing congruence test. Cladists may use the congruence test to iteratively refine assessments of homology, and thereby increase the odds of reliable phylogenetic inference under parsimony. This explanation challenges alternative views which tend to ignore the effects of parsimony on the process of character individuation in systematics. In a related theme, the concept of homeostatic property cluster natural kinds is used to explain why cladistics is well suited to provide a traditional, verbal reference system for the evolutionary properties of species and clades. The advantages of more explicitly probabilistic approaches to phylogenetic inference appear to manifest themselves in situations where evolutionary homeostasis has for the most part broken down, and predictive classifications are no longer possible.
|Keywords||Classification Congruence test Evolutionary homeostasis Homology Natural kinds Parsimony Phylogeny Projectibility Reference Taxonomy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Miles MacLeod (2013). Limitations of Natural Kind Talk in the Life Sciences: Homology and Other Cases. [REVIEW] Biological Theory 7 (2):109-120.
Miles MacLeod (2011). How to Compare Homology Concepts: Class Reasoning About Evolution and Morphology in Phylogenetics and Developmental Biology. Biological Theory 6 (2):141-153.
Similar books and articles
Michael F. Whiting & Lawrence M. Kelly (1995). Synamorphy, Monophyly, and Cladistic Analysis: A Reply to Wilkinson. Acta Biotheoretica 43 (3).
Mark Wilkinson (1990). A Commentary on Ridley's Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem. Biology and Philosophy 5 (4):433-446.
P. E. Griffiths (1994). Cladistic Classification and Functional Explanation. Philosophy of Science 61 (2):206-227.
Richard Richards (2003). Character Individuation in Phylogenetic Inference. Philosophy of Science 70 (2):264-279.
Kirk Fitzhugh (2006). The 'Requirement of Total Evidence' and its Role in Phylogenetic Systematics. Biology and Philosophy 21 (3):309-351.
Arnold G. Kluge (forthcoming). Explanation and Falsification in Phylogenetic Inference: Exercises in Popperian Philosophy. Acta Biotheoretica.
Leandro Assis & Ingo Brigandt (2009). Homology: Homeostatic Property Cluster Kinds in Systematics and Evolution. Evolutionary Biology 36:248-255.
Elliott Sober (1987). Parsimony, Likelihood, and the Principle of the Common Cause. Philosophy of Science 54 (3):465-469.
Mark Ridley (1989). The Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem. Biology and Philosophy 4 (1):1-16.
Richard C. Richards (2002). Kuhnian Values and Cladistic Parsimony. Perspectives on Science 10 (1):1-27.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #133,580 of 1,100,123 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #304,144 of 1,100,123 )
How can I increase my downloads?