Biology and Philosophy 13 (2):233-244 (1998)
|Abstract||Although naming biological clades is a major activity in taxonomy, little attention has been paid to what these names actually refer to. In philosophy, definite descriptions have long been considered equivalent to the meaning of names and biological taxonomy is a scientific application of these ideas. One problem with definite descriptions as the meanings of names is that the name will refer to whatever fits the description rather than the intended individual (clade). Recent proposals for explicit phylogenetic definitions of clade names suffer from similar problems and we argue that clade names cannot be defined since they lack intension. Furthermore we stress the importance of tree-thinking for phylogenetic reference to work properly.|
|Keywords||reference meaning individual class definition clade evolution phylogeny phylogenetic taxonomy systematics tree-thinking cladistics intention extension|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Carlo Semenza (2009). The Neuropsychology of Proper Names. Mind and Language 24 (4):347-369.
Ora Matushansky (2008). On the Linguistic Complexity of Proper Names. Linguistics and Philosophy 31 (5):573-627.
M. W. Pelczar (2001). Names as Tokens and Names as Tools. Synthese 128 (1-2):133 - 155.
Edward Kanterian (2009). Puzzles About Descriptive Names. Linguistics and Philosophy 32 (4):409-428.
Eros Corazza (2002). Description-Names. Journal of Philosophical Logic 31 (4):313-325.
Kurtis Hagen (2002). Xunzi's Use of Zhengming: Naming as a Constructive Project. Asian Philosophy 12 (1):35 – 51.
Kevin Queiroz (1992). Phylogenetic Definitions and Taxonomic Philosophy. Biology and Philosophy 7 (3):295-313.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads11 ( #107,422 of 722,929 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,929 )
How can I increase my downloads?