Philosophy of Science 58 (1):84-101 (1991)
A number of authors argue that while species are evolutionary units, individuals and real entities, higher taxa are not. I argue that drawing the divide between species and higher taxa along such lines has not been successful. Common conceptions of evolutionary units either include or exclude both types of taxa. Most species, like all higher taxa, are not individuals, but historical entities. Furthermore, higher taxa are neither more nor less real than species. None of this implies that there is no distinction between species and higher taxa; the point is that such a distinction is more subtle than many authors have claimed.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
What is Analytic Metaphysics For?James Maclaurin & Heather Dyke - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (2):291-306.
Why Was Darwin's View of Species Rejected by Twentieth Century Biologists?James Mallet - 2010 - Biology and Philosophy 25 (4):497-527.
On the Nature of the Species Problem and the Four Meanings of 'Species'.Thomas A. C. Reydon - 2005 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 36 (1):135-158.
Similar books and articles
Discussion: Phylogenetic Species Concept: Pluralism, Monism, and History. [REVIEW]Christopher D. Horvath - 1997 - Biology and Philosophy 12 (2):225-232.
Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa.Richard Boyd - 1999 - In R. A. Wilson (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. MIT Press. pp. 141-85.
Large-Scale Biological Entities and the Evolutionary Process.Niles Eldredge - 1984 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:551-566.
Units and Passages: A View for Evolutionary Biology and Ecology. [REVIEW]Masakado Kawata - 1987 - Biology and Philosophy 2 (4):415-434.
Taxonomy, Polymorphism, and History: An Introduction to Population Structure Theory.Marc Ereshefsky & Mohan Matthen - 2005 - Philosophy of Science 72 (1):1-21.
What's Wrong with the New Biological Essentialism.Marc Ereshefsky - 2010 - Philosophy of Science 77 (5):674-685.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads64 ( #82,448 of 2,172,658 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #172,670 of 2,172,658 )
How can I increase my downloads?