Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Problem of Biological Individuality

  • Published:
Biological Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Darwin described forces of selection acting upon individuals, but there remains a great deal of controversy about the exact status and definition of a biological individual. Recently some authors have argued that the individual is dispensable—that an inability to pin it down is not problematic because little rests on it anyway. The aim of this article is to show that there is a real problem of biological individuality, and an urgent need to arbitrate among the current plethora of solutions to it.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aanen DK, Hoekstra RF (2007) The evolution of obligate mutualism: If you can’t beat’em, join’em. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22: 506–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergson H (1907) L’ Évolution Créatrice. Paris: Félix Alcan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boden MA (2008) Autonomy: What is it? Biosystems 91: 305–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard F (2007) Ideas that stand the [evolutionary] test of time. A&R webconference: http://www.interdisciplines.org/adaptation/papers/12

  • Bouchard F (2008) Causal processes, fitness, and the differential persistence of lineages. Philosophy of Science 75: 560–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd R, Richerson PJ (1992) Punishment allows the evolution of cooperation (or anything else) in sizable groups. Ethology and Sociobiology 13(3): 171–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandon RN (1999) The units of selection revisited: The modules of selection. Biology and Philosophy 14: 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brasier C (1992) A champion thallus. Nature 356: 382–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun A, Stone CF (1853) The vegetable individual, in its relation to species. American Journal of Science and Arts 19: 297–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnet FM (1969) Self and Not-Self: Cellular Immunology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss LW (1983) Evolution, development, and the units of selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 80: 1387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss LW (1987) The Evolution of Individuality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleland CE, Chyba CF (2002) Defining “life.” Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere 32: 387–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook RE (1979) Asexual reproduction: A further consideration. American Naturalist 113: 769–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • CooperWS (1984) Expected time to extinction and the concept of fundamental fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology 107: 603–629.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummins R (1975) Functional analysis. Journal of Philosophy 72: 741–765.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. New York: Appleton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1982) The Extended Phenotype. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sousa R (2005) Biological individuality. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 14: 195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donoghue MJ (1985) A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist: 172–181.

  • Dunn CW (2005) Complex colony-level organization of the deep-sea siphonophore Bargmannia elongata (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) is directionally asymmetric and arises by the subdivision of pro-buds. Developmental Dynamics 234: 835–845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn CW (2009) Siphonophores. http://www.siphonophores.org/

  • Dupré J (2010) The polygenomic organism. Sociological Review 58: 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwick J (2007) Styles of Reasoning in the British Life Sciences: Shared Assumptions, 1820–1858. London: Pickering and Chatto.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerström T (1992) The meristem-meristem cycle as a basis for defining fitness in clonal plants. Oikos 63: 449–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1930) The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folse 3rd HJ, Roughgarden J (2010) What is an individual organism? A multilevel selection perspective. The Quarterly Review of Biology 85: 447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank SA (1995) Mutual policing and repression of competition in the evolution of cooperative groups. Nature 377: 520–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank SA (1997) Models of symbiosis. The American Naturalist 150: 80–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank SA (2003) Repression of competition and the evolution of cooperation. Evolution 57: 693–705.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner A (2009) Adaptation as organism design. Biology Letters 5: 861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner A, Grafen A (2009) Capturing the superorganism: A formal theory of group adaptation. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 22: 659–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith P (2009) Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin B (1994) How the Leopard Changed its Spots. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1980) Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology 6: 119–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1991) The Flamingo’s Smile. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ (1992) A humongous fungus among us. Natural History 101(7): 10–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ, Lloyd EA (1999) Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: How shall we name and generalize the unit of Darwinism? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96: 11904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (2006) Optimization of inclusive fitness. Journal of Theoretical Biology 238: 541–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (2007) The formal Darwinism project: A mid-term report. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 20: 1243–1254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (2008) The simplest formal argument for fitness optimisation. Journal of Genetics 87: 421–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griesemer J (2000) Development, culture, and the units of inheritance. Philosophy of Science 67: 348–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper JL (1977) Population Biology of Plants. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper JL (1985) Modules, branches, and the capture of resources. In: Population Biology and Evolution of Clonal Animals (Jackson JBC, Buss LW, Cook RE, eds), 1–33. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoekstra RF (2000) Evolutionary origin and consequences of uniparental mitochondrial inheritance. Human Reproduction 15(2): 102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull DL (1978) A matter of individuality. Philosophy of Science 45: 335–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull DL (1980) Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11(1): 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull DL (2001) Science and Selection: Essays on Biological Evolution and the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley TH (1852, April 30) Upon animal individuality. Proceedings of the Royal Institute of Great Britain 11: 184–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley TH (1878) A Manual of the anatomy of invertebrated animals. American Naturalist 12(6): 383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxley JS (1912) The Individual in the Animal Kingdom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janzen DH (1977) What are dandelions and aphids? American Naturalist 111: 586–589.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeuken M (1952) The concept “individual” in biology. Acta Biotheoretica 10(1): 57–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laubichler MD, Wagner GP (2000) Organism and character decomposition: Steps towards an integrative theory of biology. Philosophy of Science 67: 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh EG (1971) Adaptation and Diversity. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leigh EG (2010) The group selection controversy. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23: 6–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd E (1995) Units and Levels of Selection. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/selection-units/

  • Loeb L (1921) Transplantation and individuality. The Biological Bulletin 40(3): 143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loeb L (1937) The Biological Basis of Individuality. Science 73: 403–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margulis L (1970) Origin of Eukaryotic Cells. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Szathmary E (1995) The Major Transitions in Evolution. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1994) Typological versus population thinking. In: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology (Sober E, ed), 157–160. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McShea DW (2000) Functional complexity in organisms: Parts as proxies. Biology and Philosophy 15: 641–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Medawar PB (1957) The Uniqueness of the Individual. New York: Dover.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metchnikoff E (1907) Immunity in Infectious Diseases (Binnie FG, trans). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michod RE (1999) Darwinian Dynamics: Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michod RE (2007) Evolution of individuality during the transition from unicellular to multicellular life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 104(Suppl 1): 8613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michod RE, Herron MD (2006) Cooperation and conflict during evolutionary transitions in individuality. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 19: 1406–1409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michod RE, Nedelcu AM (2003) On the reorganization of fitness during evolutionary transitions in individuality. Integrative and Comparative Biology 43(1): 64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michod RE, Roze D (1997) Transitions in individuality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 264: 853–857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michod RE, Roze D (2001) Cooperation and conflict in the evolution of multicellularity. Heredity 86(1): 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okasha S (2003) Recent work on the levels of selection problem. Human Nature Review 3: 349–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okasha S (2006) Evolution and the Levels of Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen R (1849) On Parthenogenesis: Or the Successive Production of Procreating Individuals from a Single Ovum. London: John van Voorst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen B, Tuomi J (1995) Hierarchical selection and fitness in modular and clonal organisms. Oikos 73(2): 167–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pepper JW, Herron MD (2008) Does biology need an organism concept? Biological Reviews 83: 621–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradeu T (2010) What is an organism? An immunological answer. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 32: 247–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradeu T, Carosella ED (2006a) The self model and the conception of biological identity in immunology. Biology and Philosophy 21: 235–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pradeu T, Carosella ED (2006b) On the definition of a criterion of immunogenicity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 103: 17858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queller DC (1997) Review: Cooperators since life began. The Quarterly Review of Biology 72(2): 184–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Queller DC, Strassmann JE (2009) Beyond society: The evolution of organismality. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 364: 3143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Mirazo K, Etxeberria A, Moreno A, Ibánez J (2000) Organisms and their place in biology. Theory in Biosciences 119(3): 209–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse M (1989) Do organisms exist? Integrative and Comparative Biology 29: 1061.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santelices B (1999) How many kinds of individual are there? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 14(4): 152–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlosser G, Wagner GP (2004) Modularity in Development and Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith ML, Bruhn JN, Anderson JB (1992) The fungus Armillaria bulbosa is among the largest and oldest living organisms. Nature 356: 428–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober E (2010) Realism, conventionalism, and causal decomposition in units of selection: Reflections on Samir Okasha’s evolution and the levels of selection. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82: 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober E, Wilson DS (1999) Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spencer H (1864) The Principles of Biology, Vol. 1. London: Williams and Norgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stearns SC (1992) The Evolution of Life Histories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenstrup JJS (1845) On the Alternation of Generations. London: Ray Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny K, Griffiths PE (1999) Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strassmann JE, Queller DC (2010) The social organism: Congresses, parties and committees. Evolution 64: 605–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tauber AI (2009) The biological notion of self and non-self. In: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Zalta EN, ed). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biology-self/

  • Travisano M, Velicer GJ (2004) Strategies of microbial cheater control. Trends in Microbiology 12(2): 72–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valen L (1989) Three paradigms of evolution. Evolutionary Theory 9: 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher PK (1996) Reproductive conflict in honey bees: A stalemate of worker egg-laying and policing. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 39(4): 237–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrba ES (1984) What is species selection? Systematic Biology 33: 318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP, Laubichler MD (2000) Character identification in evolutionary biology: The role of the organism. Theory in Biosciences 119: 20–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weismann A (1885) The continuity of the germ-plasm as the foundation of a theory of heredity. In: Essays Upon Heredity and Kindred Biological Problems, (Poulton EB, Schön-Land S, and Shipley AE, eds), 161–254. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weismann A (1893) The Germ-Plasm: A Theory of Heredity (Parker WN, trans). London: Walter Scott.

    Google Scholar 

  • West SA, Kiers ET (2009) Evolution: What is an organism? Current Biology 19: R1080–R1082.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DS (2003) Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DS, Sober E (1989) Reviving the superorganism. Journal of Theoretical Biology 136: 337–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson DS, Sober E (1994) Reintroducing group selection to the human behavioral-sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17: 606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson EO ([1975] 2000) Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson J (1999) Biological Individuality: The Identity and Persistence of Living Entities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson J (2000) Ontological butchery: Organism concepts and biological generalizations. Philosophy of Science 67: 301–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson R (2007, August 9) The biological notion of individual. In: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research, Altenberg, Austria

    Ellen Clarke

Authors
  1. Ellen Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ellen Clarke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clarke, E. The Problem of Biological Individuality. Biol Theory 5, 312–325 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1162/BIOT_a_00068

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/BIOT_a_00068

Keywords

Search

Navigation