Skip to main content
Log in

Species as historical individuals

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The species category is defined as thesmallest historical individual within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent. The use of historical individual in this definition is consistent with the prevailing notion that speciesper se are not involved in processes — they are effects, not effectors. Reproductive isolation distinguishes biparental historical species from their parts, and it provides a basis for understanding the nature of the evidence used to discover historical individuals.

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

Access this article

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

  • Arnold, E. N.: 1981, ‘Estimating Phylogenies at Low Taxonomic Levels’,Zeitschrift für zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung 19, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barigozzi, C. (ed.): 1982,Mechanisms of Speciation, Liss, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne, J. A., H. A. Orr, and D. J. Futuyma: 1988, ‘Do We Need a New Species Concept?’Systematic Zoology 37, 190–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cracraft, J.: 1983, ‘Species Concepts and Speciation Analysis’, in R. F. Johnston,Current Ornithology 1, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 159–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cracraft, J.: 1987, ‘Species Concepts and the Ontology of Evolution’,Biology and Philosophy 2, 329–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cracraft, J.: 1989a, ‘Species as Entities of Biological Theory’, in M. Ruse,What the Philosophy of Biology Is — Essays for David Hull, Kluwer, Netherlands, pp. 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cracraft, J.: 1989b, ‘Speciation and Its Ontology: The Empirical Consequences of Alternative Species Concepts for Understanding Patterns and Processes of Differentiation’, in D. Otte and J. A. Endler,Speciation and Its Consequences, Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp. 28–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damuth, J.: 1985, ‘Selection among ‘Species’: A Formulation in Terms of Natural Functional Unit’,Evolution 39, 1132–1146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damuth, J. and I. L. Heisler: 1988, ‘Alternative Formulations of Multilevel Selection’,Biology and Philosophy 3, 407–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, K. and M. J. Donoghue: 1988, ‘Phylogenetic Systematics and the Species Problem’,Cladistics 4, 317–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J.: 1910,The Influence of Darwin on Philosophy and Other Essays in Contemporary Thought, Holt, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donoghue, M. J.: 1985, ‘A Critique of the Biological Species Concept and Recommendations for a Phylogenetic Alternative’,Bryologist 88, 172–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donoghue, M. J., J. A. Doyle, J. Gauthier, A. G. Kluge, and T. Rowe: 1989, ‘The Importance of Fossils in Phylogeny Reconstruction’,Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20, 431–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Echelle, A. A.: 1990, ‘Nomenclature and Non-Mendelian (“Clonal”) Vertebrates’,Systematic Zoology 39, 70–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N.: 1985,Unfinished Synthesis. Biological Hierarchies and Modern Evolutionary Thought, Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ereschefsky, M.: 1988, ‘Individuality and Macroevolutionary Theory’,Philosophy of Science Association 1, 216–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ereschefsky, M.: 1989, ‘Where's the Species? Comments on the Phylogenetic Species Concepts’,Biology and Philosophy 4, 89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ereschefsky, M.: ms. ‘Species, Higher Taxa, and the Units of Evolution’, submitted.

  • Frost, D. R. and D. M. Hillis: 1989, ‘Species in Concept and Practice: Herpetological Applications’,Herpetological 46, 87–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, D. R. and J. W. Wright: 1988, ‘The Taxonomy of Uniparental Species, with Special Reference to ParthenogeneticCnemidophorus (Squamata: Teiidae)’,Systematic Zoology 37, 200–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma, D. J.: 1987, ‘On the role of Species in Anagenesis’,American Naturalist 130, 465–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, J., A. G. Kluge, and T. Rowe: 1988, ‘Amniote Phylogeny and the Importance of Fossils’,Cladistics 4, 105–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. J.: 1974, ‘A Radical Solution to the Species Problem’,Systematic Zoology 23, 536–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. J.: 1987, ‘Species Concepts, Individuality, and Objectivity’,Biology and Philosophy 2, 127–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. J.: 1988, ‘The Individuality Thesis, Essences, and Laws of Nature’,Biology and Philosophy 3, 467–474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. J.: 1989, ‘Sex and the Individuality of Species: A Reply to Mishler and Brandon’,Biology and Philosophy 4, 73–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gingerich, P. D.: 1979, ‘The Stratophenetic Approach to Phylogeny Reconstruction in Vertebrate Paleontology’, in J. Cracraft and N. Eldredge,Phylogenetic Analysis and Paleontology, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 41–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W.: 1966,Phylogenetic Systematics, University of Illinois Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennlg, W.: 1981,Insect Phylogeny, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, D. J.: 1988, ‘The Species Problem’,Evolution 42, 1111–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L.: 1964, ‘Consistency and Monophyly’,Systematic Zoology 13, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L.: 1978, ‘A Matter of Individuality’,Philosophy of Science 45, 335–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L.: 1980, ‘Individuality and Selection’,Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11, 311–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L.: 1987, ‘Genealogical Actors in Ecological Roles’,Biology and Philosophy 2, 168–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonski, D.: 1987, ‘Heritability at the Species Level: Analysis of Geographic Ranges of Cretaceous Mollusks’,Science 238, 360–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawata, M.: 1987, ‘Units and Passages: A View for Evolutionary Biology and Ecology,’Biology and Philosophy 2, 415–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G.: 1969, ‘The Evolution and Geographical Origin of the New WorldHemidactylus mabouia-brookii Complex (Gekkonidae, Sauna)’,Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, No. 138, 1–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G.: 1971, ‘A Quantitative Approach to the Biological Species Concept’,American Philosophical Society Year Book 1971, 329–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G.: 1988, ‘The Characterization of Ontogeny’, in C. J. Humphries,Ontogeny and Systematics, Columbia Univeristy Press, New York, pp. 57–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G.: 1989a, ‘Metacladistics’,Cladistics 5, 291–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G.: 1989b, ‘Parsimony in Vicariance Biogeography: A Quantitative Method and a Greater Antillean Example’,Systematic Zoology 37, 315–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G.: 1989c, ‘A Concern for Evidence and a Phylogenetic Hypothesis of Relationships amongEpicrates (Boidae, Serpentes)’,Systematic Zoology 38, 7–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A. G.: ms. ‘Species Theories from Aristotle to Cladistics’, in preparation.

  • Levinton, J.: 1988,Genetics, Paleontology, and Macroevolution, Cambridge University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewtonin, R. C.: 1970, ‘The Units of Selection’,Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margalef, R.: 1968,Perspectives in Ecological Theory, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1942,Systematics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1963,Animal Species and Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKitrick, M. C. and R. M. Zink: 1988, ‘Species Concepts in Ornithology’,Condor 90, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, B. D.: 1985, ‘The Morphological, Developmental, and Phylogenetic Basis of Species Concepts in Bryophytes’,Bryologist 88, 207–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, B. D. and R. N. Brandon: 1987, ‘Individuality, Pluralism, and the Phylogenetic Species Concept’,Biology and Philosophy 2, 397–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, B. D. and R. N. Brandon: 1989, ‘Sex and the Individulity of Species: A Response to Ghiselin’,Biology and Philosophy 4, 77–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue: 1982, ‘Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism’,Systematic Zoology 31, 491–503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G.: 1983, ‘Reticulation in Cladograms’, in N. I. Platnick and V. Funk,Advances in Cladistics II, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 105–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G.: 1989a, ‘Species and Taxa: Systematics and Evolution”, in D. Otte and J. A. Endler,Speciation and Its Consequences, Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts, pp. 60–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G.: 1989b, ‘Cladistics and Evolutionary Models’,Cladistics 5, 275–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G.: and N. I. Platnick: 1981,Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paterson, H. E. H.: 1985, ‘The Recognition Concept of Species’, in E. S. Vrba,Species and Speciation, Transvaal Museum Monograph, No. 4, Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, pp. 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C.: 1988, ‘The Impact of Evolutionary Theories on Systematics,’ in D. L. Hawksworth,Prospects in Systematics. Systematics Association Special Volume, No. 36, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 59–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, M.: 1989, ‘The Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem’,Biology and Philosophy 4, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O.: 1986, ‘Species Are Individuals: A Review and Critique of the Argument’,Evolutionary Biology 20, 283–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, D. E.: 1978, ‘Vicariant Patterns and Historical Explanation in Biogeography’,Systematic Zoology 27, 159–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, D. E.: 1979, ‘Fishes from the Uplands and Intermontane Basin of Guatemala: Revisionary Studies and Comparative Geography’,Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 162, 267–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, T.: 1987, ‘Definition and Diagnosis in the Phylogenetic System’,Systematic Zoology 36, 208–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1987, ‘Biological Species: Natural Kinds, Individuals, or What?’,British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38, 225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, M. P. and D. R. Lindberg: 1988, ‘Real and Random Patterns Associated with Molluscan Spatial and Temporal Distributions’,Paleobiology 14, 322–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoch, R. M.: 1986,Phylogeny Reconstruction in Paleontology, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. G.: 1955,The Major Features of Evolution, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. G.: 1961,Principles of Animal Taxonomy, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E.: 1984a, ‘Sets, Species, and Evolution: Comments on Philip Kitcher's “Species”,Philosophy of Science 51, 334–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E.: 1984b,The Nature of Selection. Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, S.: 1975, ‘A Theory of Evolution above the Species Level’,Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 72, 646–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrba, E. S.: 1980, ‘Evolution, Species and Fossils: How Does Life Evolve?’,South African Journal of Science 76, 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrba, E. S. (ed.): 1985,Species and Speciation, Transvaal Museum Monograph, No. 4, Transvaal Museum, Pretoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O.: 1978, ‘The Evolutionary Species Concept Reconsidered’,Systematic Zoology 27, 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O.: 1980, ‘Is the Evolutionary Species Fiction? — A Consideration of Classes, Individuals, and Historical Entities’,Systematic Zoology 29, 76–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O.: 1981a, ‘Convex Groups and Consistent Classifications’,Systematic Botany 6, 346–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O.: 1981b,Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, Wiley, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C.: 1966,Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kluge, A.G. Species as historical individuals. Biol Philos 5, 417–431 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02207380

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02207380

Key words

Navigation