Graduate studies at Western
Biology and Philosophy 7 (3):295-313 (1992)
|Abstract||An examination of the post-Darwinian history of biological taxonomy reveals an implicit assumption that the definitions of taxon names consist of lists of organismal traits. That assumption represents a failure to grant the concept of evolution a central role in taxonomy, and it causes conflicts between traditional methods of defining taxon names and evolutionary concepts of taxa. Phylogenetic definitions of taxon names (de Queiroz and Gauthier 1990) grant the concept of common ancestry a central role in the definitions of taxon names and thus constitute an important step in the development of phylogenetic taxonomy. By treating phylogenetic relationships rather than organismal traits as necessary and sufficient properties, phylogenetic definitions remove conflicts between the definitions of taxon names and evolutionary concepts of taxa. The general method of definition represented by phylogenetic definitions of clade names can be applied to the names of other kinds of composite wholes, including populations and biological species. That the names of individuals (composite wholes) can be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient properties provides the foundation for a synthesis of seemingly incompatible positions held by contemporary individualists and essentialists concerning the nature of taxa and the definitions of taxon names.|
|Keywords||Clade class composite whole definition defining property essentialism evolution individual intension name ostensive definition phylogeny population set species taxon taxonomy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Thomas A. C. Reydon (2009). Gene Names as Proper Names of Individuals: An Assessment. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (2):409-432.
Kirk Fitzhugh (forthcoming). Species as Explanatory Hypotheses: Refinements and Implications. Acta Biotheoretica.
Kevin De Queiroz (1988). Systematics and the Darwinian Revolution. Philosophy of Science 55 (2):238 - 259.
Joel D. Velasco (2009). When Monophyly is Not Enough: Exclusivity as the Key to Defining a Phylogenetic Species Concept. Biology and Philosophy 24 (4):473-486.
Joel D. Velasco (2008). Species Concepts Should Not Conflict with Evolutionary History, but Often Do. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 39 (4):407-414.
Kevin Queiroz (1995). The Definitions of Species and Clade Names: A Reply to Ghiselin. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 10 (2):223-228.
Christopher D. Horvath (1997). Discussion: Phylogenetic Species Concept: Pluralism, Monism, and History. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 12 (2):225-232.
Kevin De Queiroz (1992). Phylogenetic Definitions and Taxonomic Philosophy. Biology and Philosophy 7 (3):295-313.
Mikael Härlin & Per Sundberg (1998). Taxonomy and Philosophy of Names. Biology and Philosophy 13 (2):233-244.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #170,270 of 739,401 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?