Skip to main content
Log in

The Edges and Boundaries of Biological Objects

  • Guest Editorial
  • Published:
Biological Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

References

  • Bouchard F (2009) Understanding colonial traits using symbiosis research and ecosystem ecology. Biological Theory 4: 228–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd R (1999) Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In: Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays (Wilson RA ed), 141–185. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell DT (1969) Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In: Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences (Sherif M, Sherif CW, eds), 328–348. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Devitt M (2008) Resurrecting biological essentialism. Philosophy of Science 75: 344–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ereshefsky M (2009) Homology: Integrating phylogeny and development. Biological Theory 4: 213–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerson EM (2009) Specialty boundaries, compound problems, and collaborative complexity. Biological Theory 4: 235–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin M (1966) On psychologism in the logic of taxonomic controversies. Systematiz Zoology 15: 207–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin M (1974) A radical solution to the species problem. Systematic Zoology 23: 536–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin MT (2009) Metaphysics and classification: Update and overview. Biological Theory 4: 241–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths GC (1974) On the foundations of biological systematics. Acta Biotheoretica 23: 85–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths PE (1999) Squaring the circle: Natural kinds with historical essences. In: Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays (Wilson RA ed), 209–228. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton A, Smith, NR, Haber MH (2009) Social insects and the individuality thesis—cohesion and the colony as a selectable individual. In: Organization of Insect Societies: From Genome to Sociocomplexity (Gadau J, Fewell J, eds), 570–587. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris ES, Mishler BD (2009) The delimitation of phylogenetic characters. Biological Theory 4: 218–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hölldobler B, Wilson EO (2008) The Superorganism: The Beauty, Elegance, and Strangeness of Insect Societies. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull DL (1976) Are species really individuals? Systematic Zoology 25: 174–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher P (1989) Some puzzles about species. In: What the Philosophy of Biology Is: Essays for David Hull (Ruse M, ed), 183–208. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte J (2005) Is there a single objective, evolutionary tree of life? Journal of Philosophy 102: 357–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte J (2009) On systematists’ single objective tree of ancestors and descendants. Biological Theory 4: 248–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laubichler MD (2000) Homology in development and the development of the homology concept. American Zoologist 40: 777–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millstein RL (2009) Populations as individuals. Biological Theory 4: 255–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Odenbaugh J (2007) Seeing the forest and the trees: Realism about communities and ecosystems. Philosophy of Science 74: 628–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck SL (2009) Whose boundary? An individual species perspectival approach to borders. Biological Theory 4: 262–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piotrowska M (2009) The theoretical costs of DNA barcoding. Biological Theory 4: 223–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O (2005) Modules, kinds and homology. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution 304B: 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterner B (2009) Object spaces: An organizing strategy for biological theorizing. Biological Theory 4: 268–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuma JR (2009) Biological boundaries and the vertebrate immune system. Biological Theory 4: 275–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner G (2007) The developmental genetics of homology. Nature Reviews Genetics 8: 473–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson RA (1999) Realism, essence, and kind: Resuscitating species essentialism? In: Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays (Wilson RA ed), 187–207. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt WC (1976) Complexity and organization. In: PSA 1974 (Cohen RS, Hooker CA, Michalos AC, van Evra JW, eds), 67–86. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matt H. Haber.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haber, M.H., Odenbaugh, J. The Edges and Boundaries of Biological Objects. Biol Theory 4, 219–224 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2009.4.3.219

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2009.4.3.219

Navigation