Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:17:02.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taxonomy, Polymorphism, and History: An Introduction to Population Structure Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Marc Ereshefsky  and
Mohan Matthen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Homeostatic Property Cluster (HPC) theory suggests that species and other biological taxa consist of organisms that share certain similarities. HPC theory acknowledges the existence of Darwinian variation within biological taxa. The claim is that “homeostatic mechanisms” acting on the members of such taxa nonetheless ensure a significant cluster of similarities. The HPC theorist's focus on individual similarities is inadequate to account for stable polymorphism within taxa, and fails properly to capture their historical nature. A better approach is to treat distributions of traits in species populations as irreducible facts, explained in terms of selection pressures, genealogy, and other evolutionary factors. We call this view Population Structure Theory (PST). PST accommodates the view, implicit in biological systematics, that species are identified by reference to particular historical populations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 1 , January 2005 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Authors are listed alphabetically. Both authors are pleased to acknowledge (separate) financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

References

Atran, Scott (1990), Cognitive Foundations of Natural History: Towards an Anthropology of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ayers, Michael (1981), “Locke versus Aristotle on Natural Kinds”, Locke versus Aristotle on Natural Kinds 78:247–272.Google Scholar
Bonner, John (1993), Life Cycles: Reflections of an Evolutionary Biologist. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1991), “Realism, Anti-foundationalism, and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds”, Realism, Anti-foundationalism, and the Enthusiasm for Natural Kinds 61:127–148.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1999a), “Kinds, Complexity and Multiple Realization: Comments on Millikan’s ‘Historical Kinds and the Special Sciences’”, Kinds, Complexity and Multiple Realization: Comments on Millikan’s ‘Historical Kinds and the Special Sciences’ 95:67–98.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard (1999b), “Homeostasis, Species, and Higher Taxa”, in R. Wilson 1999a, 141–186.Google Scholar
Colless, Donald (1967), “An Examination of Certain Concepts in Phenetic Taxonomy”, An Examination of Certain Concepts in Phenetic Taxonomy 16:6–27.Google Scholar
de Queiroz, Kevin (1999), “The General Lineage Concept of Species and the Defining Properties of the Species Category”, in R. Wilson 1999a, 49–90.Google Scholar
Endler, John (1986), Natural Selection in the Wild. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (2001), The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael (1974), “A Radical Solution to the Species Problem”, A Radical Solution to the Species Problem 23:536–544.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul (1999), “Squaring the Circle: Natural Kinds with Historical Essences”, in R. Wilson 1999a, 209–228.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1991), “A Tradition of Natural Kinds”, A Tradition of Natural Kinds 61:109–126.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1978), “A Matter of Individuality”, A Matter of Individuality 45:335–360.Google Scholar
Matthen, Mohan (1998), “Biological Universals and the Nature of Fear”, Biological Universals and the Nature of Fear 95:105–132.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1963), Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1970), Populations, Species, and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1976), Evolution and the Diversity of Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth (1999), “Historical Kinds and the ‘Special Sciences’”, Historical Kinds and the ‘Special Sciences’ 95:45–65.Google Scholar
Ridley, Mark (1989), “The Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem”, The Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem 4:1–16.Google Scholar
Ridley, Mark (1993), Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1980), “Evolution, Population Thinking and Essentialism”, Evolution, Population Thinking and Essentialism 47:350–383.Google Scholar
Splitter, Lawrence (1988), “Species and Identity”, Species and Identity 55:323–348.Google Scholar
Templeton, Alan (1989), “The Meaning of Species and Speciation: A Genetic Perspective”, in Otte, Daniel and Endler, John A (eds.), Speciation and Its Consequences. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer, 3–27.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, Bas (1980), The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Edward O. (1968), “The Ergonomics of Caste in the Social Insects”, The Ergonomics of Caste in the Social Insects 102:41–66.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edward O. (1975), Sociobiology: The Abridged Version. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, Robert A. (ed.) (1999a), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Robert A. (1999b), “Realism, Essence, and Kind: Resuscitating Species Essentialism?”, in R. Wilson 1999a, 187–208.Google Scholar
Wu, Chung-I, and Ting, Chau-Ti (2004), “Genes and Speciation”, Genes and Speciation 5:114–122.Google ScholarPubMed