Skip to main content
Log in

Phylogenetic definitions and taxonomic philosophy

  • Published:
Biology and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Bibliography

  • Ax, P.: 1987, The Phlogenetic System. The Systematization of Organisms on the Basis of Their Phylogenesis, John Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beatty, J.: 1982, ‘Classes and Cladists’, Systematic Zoology 31, 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckner, M.: 1959. The Biological Way of Thought, Columbia University Press, New York (reprinted by University of California Press, Berkeley, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernier, R.: 1984, ‘The Species as an Individual: Facing Essentialism’, Systematic Zoology 33, 460–469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, R. C. and D. L. Hull: 1966, ‘The Logical Structure of the Linnaean Hierarchy’, Systematic Zoology 15, 97–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, R. C. and D. L. Hull: 1969, ‘Reply to Gregg’, Systematic Zoology 18, 354–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, A. L.: 1981. ‘Back to Class: A Note on the Ontology of Species’, Philosophy of Science 48, 130–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, I. J.: 1974, ‘Professor Hull and the Evolution of Science’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25, 334–336.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C.: 1859, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, John Murray, London (reprinted by Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1964).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky, T.: 1937, Genetics and the Origin of Species, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldredge, N. and J. Cracraft: 1980, Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estes, R., J. Gauthier, and K. de Queiroz: 1988, ‘Phylogenetic Relationships within Squamata’, in R. Estes and G. Pregill (eds.), Phylogenetic Relationships of the lizard Families, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 119–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, J.: 1986, ‘Saurischian Monophyly and the Origin of Birds’, in K. Padian (ed.), The Origin of Birds and the Evolution of Flight, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, pp. 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, J., R. Estes, and K. de Queiroz: 1988a, ‘A Phylogenetic Analysis of Lepidosauromorpha’, in R. Estes and G. Pregill (eds.), Phylogenetic Relationships of the Lizard Families, Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 15–98.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. T.: 1966a, ‘An Application of the Theory of Definitions to Systematic Principles’, Systematic Zoology 15, 127–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. T.: 1966b, ‘On Psychologism in the Logic of Taxonomic Controversies’, Systematic Zoology 15, 207–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. T.: 1969, The Triumph of the Darwinian Method, University of California Press, Berkeley (reprinted by University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. T.: 1974, ‘A Radical Solution to the Species Problem’, Systematic Zoology 23, 536–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. T.: 1980, ‘Natural Kinds and Literary Accomplishments’, The Michigan Quarterly Review 19, 73–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. T.: 1981, ‘Categories, Life, and Thinking’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4, 269–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. T.: 1984, ‘“Definition”, “Character”, and Other Equivocal Terms’, Systematic Zoology 33, 104–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M. T.: 1985, ‘Narrow Approaches to Phylogeny: A Review of Nine Books of Cladism’, Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology 1, 209–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, J. R.: 1950, ‘Taxonomy, language and reality’, The American Naturalist 84, 419–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, J. R.: 1954, The Language of Taxonomy. An Application of Symbolic Logic to the Study of Classificatory Systems, Columbia University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, J. R.: 1968, ‘Buck and Hull: A Critical Rejoinder’, Systematic Zoology 17, 342–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, G. C. D.: 1974, ‘On the Foundations of Biological Systematics’, Acta Biotheoretica 23, 85–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W.: 1965, ‘Phylogenetic Systematics’, Annual Review of Entomology 10, 97–116.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W.: 1975, ‘“Cladistic Analysis or Cladistic Classification?” A Reply to Ernst Mayr’, Systematic Zoology 24, 244–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himmelfarb, G.: 1968, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopson, J. A. and A. W. Crompton: 1969, ‘Origin of Mammals’, Evolutionary Biology 3, 15–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, A. T.: 1950, ‘Animal Classification from Linnaeus to Darwin’, in Lectures on the Development of Taxonomy, Linnean Society, London, pp. 46–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L.: 1965, ‘The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy — Two Thousand Years of Stasis (I)’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15, 314–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L.: 1976, ‘Are Species Really Individuals’, Systematic Zoology 25, 174–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L.: 1977, ‘The Ontological Status of Species as Evolutionary Units’, in R. E. Butts and J. Hintikka (eds.), Foundational Problems in the Special Sciences, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jardine, N.: 1969, ‘A logical basis for biological classification’, Systematic Zoology 18, 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P.: 1984, ‘Species’, Philosophy of Science 51, 308–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitts, D. B.: 1983, ‘Can Baptism Alone Save a Species’, Systematic Zoology 32, 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitts, D. B.: 1984, ‘The Names of Species: A Reply to Hull’, Systematic Zoology 33, 112–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitts, D. B. and D. J. Kitts: 1979, ‘Biological Species as Natural Kinds’, Philosophy of Science 46, 613–622.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J. B.: 1981, ‘What Does Ghiselin Mean by “Individual”?’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4, 294–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Losonsky, M.: 1987, ‘Individual Essences’, American Philosophical Quarterly 24, 253–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løvtrup, S.: 1986, ‘On the Existence and Definition of Taxa’, Rivista di Biologia 79, 265–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løvtrup, S.: 1987a, ‘On Species and Other Taxa’, Cladistics 3, 157–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Løvtrup, S.: 1987b, ‘On the Species Problem and Some Other Taxonomic Issues’, Environmental Biology of Fishes 20, 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr, E.: 1982, The Growth of Biological Thought, Belknap Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaux, B., C. S. White, and D. M. Lambert: 1990, ‘Organisms not Species Evolve: A Reply to Ghiselin ’, Systematic Zoology 39, 79–80.

    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 

  • Muir, J. W.: 1968, ‘The Definition of Taxa’, Systematic Zoology 17, 345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, G.: 1985, ‘Class and Individual: A Reply to M. Ghiselin’, Cladistics 1, 386–389.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Hara, R. J.: 1988, ‘Homage to Clio, or, Toward an Historical Philosophy for Evolutionary Biology’, Systematic Zoology 37, 142–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E. C.: 1959, ‘The Evolutionof Mammalian Characters’, Evolution 13, 344–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C.: 1978, ‘Verifiability in Systematics’, Systematic Zoology 27, 218–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R.: 1950, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Princeton University Press, Princeton [Fifth Edition, 1966].

    Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, K.: 1987, ‘Phylogenetic Systematics of Iguanine Lizards. A Comparative Osteological Study’, University of California Publications in Zoology 118, 1–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, K.: 1988, ‘Systematics and Darwinian Revolution’, Philosophy of Science 55, 238–259.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, K. and M. J. Donoghue: 1990, ‘Phylogenetic Systematics or Nelson's Version of Cladistics’, Cladistics 6, 61–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, K. and J. Gauthier: 1990, ‘Phylogeny as a Central Principle in Taxonomy: Phylogenetic Definitions of Taxon Names’, Systematic Zoology 39, 307–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz, K. and J. Gauthier: 1991, ‘Principles of Phylogenetic Taxonomy: Reorganizing the Taxonomic System around the Central Tenet of Common Descent’, submitted to Systematic Biology.

  • Ridley, M.: 1986, Evolution and Classification. The Reformation of Cladism, Longman, London.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, T.: 1988, ‘Definition, Diagnosis, and Origin of Mammalia’, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 8, 241–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M.: 1973, The Philosophy of Biology, Hutchinson University Library, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, G. G.: 1959, ‘Mesozoic Mammals and the Polyphyletic Origin of Mammals’, Evolution 13, 405–414.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sneath, P. H. A.: 1962, ‘The Construction of Taxonomic Groups’, in G. C. Ainsworth and P. H. A. Sneath (eds.), Microbial Classification, 12th Symposium of the Society for General Microbiology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 289–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E.: 1988, Reconstructing the Past. Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference, MIT Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, P. E.: 1984, ‘Metaphors and Typology in the Development of Botanical Systematics 1690–1960, Or the Art of Putting New Wine in Old Bottles’, Taxon 33, 169–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F.: 1974, ‘Some Philosophical Problems in Biological Speciation and Taxonomy’, in J. A. Wojciechowski (ed.), Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, Verlag Dokumentation, Pullach/München, pp. 190–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F.: 1989, The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valen, L.: 1976, ‘Individualistic Classes’, Philosophy of Science 43, 539–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O.: 1979, ‘An Annotated Linnaean Hierarchy, with Comments on Natural Taxa and Competing Systems’, Systematic Zoology 28, 308–337.

    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, Phylogenetics. The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, John Wiley and Sons, New Yor.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E. O.: 1989, ‘Kinds, Individuals, and Theories’, in M. Ruse (ed.), What the Philosophy of Biology Is, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodger, J. H.: 1952, ‘From Biology to Mathematics’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 3, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

de Queiroz, K. Phylogenetic definitions and taxonomic philosophy. Biol Philos 7, 295–313 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129972

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00129972

Key words

Navigation