On the integrated frameworks of species concepts: Mayden's hierarchy of species concepts and de Queiroz's unified concept of species


Abstract
Richard L. Mayden and Kevin de Queiroz have devised and developed ‘a hierarchy of species concepts’ and ‘a unified species concept’, respectively. Although their integrated frameworks of species concepts are rather different as to how to integrate the diverse modern concepts of species, the end result is that they are likely to agree on species recognition in nature, because they virtually share the same major components (i.e. evolutionary or lineage concept of species; same way of delimiting species), and have the same important consequences. Both the hierarchical and unified frameworks, however, are interpreted to have shortcoming regarding the way of integrating the modern species concepts. I reformulate these ideas into a framework of species concepts as follows: It treats the idea of species as population-level evolutionary lineages (sensuWiley 1978) as the concept for species category, and it adopts the contingent biological properties of species (e.g. internal reproductive isolation, diagnosability, monophyly) as operational criteria in delimiting species. I also suggest that existing and revised versions of the integrated framework of species concepts all are not new species concepts, but versions of the evolutionary species concept, because they treat the evolutionary (or lineage) species concept as the concept for species category.
Keywords Evolutionary species concept  integrated framework of species concepts  hierarchy of species concepts  unified species concept  E. O. Wiley  R. L. Mayden  K. de Queiroz
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 45,545
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Species Pluralism Does Not Imply Species Eliminativism.Ingo Brigandt - 2002 - Philosophy of Science 70 (5):1305–1316.
The Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem.Mark Ridley - 1989 - Biology and Philosophy 4 (1):1-16.
Species Concepts and Species Delimitation.Kevin de Quieroz - 2007 - Systematic Biology 56 (6):879-886.
A Hierarchy of Species Concepts: The Denouement in the Saga of the Species Problem.R. L. Mayden - 1997 - In M. F. Claridge, H. A. Dawah & M. R. Wilson (eds.), Species: The units of diversity,. Chapman & Hall. pp. 381–423.
On the Failure of Modern Species Concepts.Jody Hey - 2006 - Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21 (8):447-450.
Species Concepts Should Not Conflict with Evolutionary History, but Often Do.Joel D. Velasco - 2008 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 39 (4):407-414.
Are Biological Species Real?Hugh Lehman - 1967 - Philosophy of Science 34 (2):157-167.
Species Pluralism.John Alan Holmes - 2000 - Dissertation, Michigan State University
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.
What is a Species, and What is Not?Ernst Mayr - 1996 - Philosophy of Science 63 (2):262-277.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-06-11

Total views
16 ( #550,148 of 2,280,489 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #833,382 of 2,280,489 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature