Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:43:27.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coherence, Consistency, and Cohesion: Clade Selection in Okasha and Beyond

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Matthew H. Haber  and
Andrew Hamilton
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Samir Okasha argues that clade selection is an incoherent concept, because the relation that constitutes clades is such that it renders parent-offspring (reproduction) relations between clades impossible. He reasons that since clades cannot reproduce, it is not coherent to speak of natural selection operating at the clade level. We argue, however, that when species-level lineages and clade-level lineages are treated consistently according to standard cladist commitments, clade reproduction is indeed possible and clade selection is coherent if certain conditions obtain. Despite clade selection's logical coherence, however, we share some of Okasha's pessimism. Whether or not clades are a unit of selection is ultimately a question of empirical support and theoretical import.

Type
Topics in Evolutionary Theory
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2005 , pp. 1026 - 1040
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

‡

Thanks are due to Jim Griesemer, the Philosophical Pizza Munchers, and Samir Okasha for helpful discussions of the issues under consideration here. Matthew Haber was supported by NSF Research Grant #0137255. This work is fully collaborative: the authors are listed alphabetically.

References

Baum, David (1998), “Individuality and the Existence of Species through Time”, Individuality and the Existence of Species through Time 47:641–653.Google ScholarPubMed
Ereshefsky, Mark (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
Ghiselin, Michael (1997), Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael (2002), “Species Concepts: The Basis for Controversy and Reconciliation”, Species Concepts: The Basis for Controversy and Reconciliation 3:151–160.Google Scholar
Griesemer, James (2000a), “Development, Culture, and the Units of Inheritance”, Development, Culture, and the Units of Inheritance 67 (Proceedings): S348–S368.Google Scholar
Griesemer, James (2000b), “The Units of Evolutionary Transition”, The Units of Evolutionary Transition 1:67–80.Google Scholar
Hennig, Willi (1966), Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1976), “Are Species Really Individuals?”, Are Species Really Individuals? 25:174–191.Google Scholar
Hull, David (1980), “Individuality and Selection”, Individuality and Selection 11:311–332.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard (1970), “The Units of Selection”, The Units of Selection 1:1–18.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (1987), “How to Model Evolution”, in Dupré, John (ed.), The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 119–131.Google Scholar
Mishler, Brent D. (1999), “Getting Rid of Species”, in Wilson, Robert (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 307–315.Google Scholar
Mishler, Brent D., and Theriot, Edward C. (2000), “The Phylogenetic Species Concept (sensu Mishler and Theriot): Monophyly, Apomorphy, and Phylogenetic Species Concepts”, in Wheeler, Quentin D. and Meier, Rudolf (eds.), Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, 44–54, 119–132, 179–184.Google Scholar
Okasha, Samir (2003), “Does the Concept of `Clade Selection' Make Sense?”, Does the Concept of `Clade Selection' Make Sense? 70:739–751.Google Scholar
Ridley, Mark (1989), “The Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem”, The Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem 4:1–16.Google Scholar
Sober, Elliot. (1991), Reconstructing the Past: Parsimony, Evolution, and Inference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. (1981), Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. New York: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, Mark (1990), “A Commentary on Ridley’s Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem”, A Commentary on Ridley’s Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem 5:433–446.Google Scholar