Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T09:41:10.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Philip Kitcher
Philip Kitcher*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of Minnesota
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I defend a view of the species category, pluralistic realism, which is designed to do justice to the insights of many different groups of systematists. After arguing that species are sets and not individuals, I proceed to outline briefly some defects of the biological species concept. I draw the general moral that similar shortcomings arise for other popular views of the nature of species. These shortcomings arise because the legitimate interests of biology are diverse, and these diverse interests are reflected in different legitimate approaches to the classification of organisms. In the final section, I show briefly how the pluralistic approach can help to illuminate some areas of biological and philosophical dispute.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 1984, pp. 308 - 333
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1984

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

An earlier version of the present paper was given at the Eastern Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association in December 1982. I am very grateful to my commentator, Elliott Sober, for some helpful criticisms and suggestions, and to Alex Rosenberg, who chaired the session and later supplied me with valuable written comments. I would also like to thank David Hull for his detailed response to a much longer manuscript on this topic (Species, eventually to be published in revised and expanded form by Bradford Books). Finally, I want to acknowledge the enormous amount I have learned from correspondence and conversations with numerous biologists and philosophers, most notably: John Beatty, Jonathan Bennett, Bill Fink, Sara Fink, Steve Gould, Marjorie Grene, Kent Holsinger, Dick Lewontin, Gregory Mayer, Ernst Mayr, Brent Mishler, Michael Ruse, Husain Sarkar, Laurance Splitter, and Ernest Williams. Residual errors are probably my own.

References

Boyd, R. (1979), “Metaphor and Theory Change: What is ‘Metaphor’ a Metaphor for?”, in A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1976), The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. (1982), The Extended Phenotype. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Dupré, J. (1981), “Natural Kinds and Biological Taxa”, Philosophical Review XC: 66–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. (1978), “The Universality of Laws”, Philosophy of Science 45: 173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Cracraft, J. (1980), Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Eldredge, N. and Gould, S. J. (1972), “Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism”, in T. J. M. Schopf (ed.), Models in Paleobiology. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, M. (1974), “A Radical Solution to the Species Problem”, Systematic Zoology 23: 536–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1954), “A Logical Appraisal of Operationism”, in Hempel (1965).Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1965), Aspects of Scientific Explanation. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1966), Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hennig, W. (1966), Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1968), “The Operational Imperative—Sense and Nonsense in Operationism”, Systematic Zoology 16: 438–57.Google Scholar
Hull, D. (1976), “Are Species Really Individuals?”, Systematic Zoology 25: 174–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1978), “A Matter of Individuality”, Philosophy of Science 45: 335–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1980), “Individuality and Selection”, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 11: 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, D. (1981), “Kitts and Kitts and Caplan on Species”, Philosophy of Science 48: 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. S. (1981), “Explanatory Unification”, Philosophy of Science 48: 507–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitcher, P. S. (1982), “Genes”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 33: 337–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitts, D. B., and Kitts, D. J. (1979), “Biological Species as Natural Kinds”, Philosophy of Science 46: 613–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. (1980), Naming and Necessity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1942), Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1961), “Cause and Effect in Biology”, in Mayr (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1963), Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayr, E. (1969), Principles of Systematic Zoology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1970), Populations, Species, and Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1976), Evolution and the Diversity of Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, G., and Platnick, N. (1981), Systematics and Biogeography: Cladistics and Vicariance. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Oster, G., and Alberch, P. (1982), “Evolution and Bifurcation of Developmental Programs”, Evolution 36: 444–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, E. D., and Selander, R. (1976), “The Organization of Genetic Diversity in the Parthenogenetic Lizard Cnemidophorus Tesselatus”, Genetics 84: 791–805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parker, E. D. (1979), “Phenotypic Consequences of Parthenogenesis in Cnemidophorus Lizards. I. Variability in Parthenogenetic and Sexual Populations”, Evolution 33: 1150–1166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Putnam, H. (1975), Philosophical Papers, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. (1979), “Fishes from the Upland Intermontane Basins of Guatemala: Revisionary Studies and Comparative Geography”, Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 162: 269–375.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A. (1981), Sociobiology and the Pre-Emption of Social Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Schopf, T. J. M. (1981), “Punctuated Equilibrium and Evolutionary Stasis”, Paleobiology 7: 156–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1961), Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, P., and Sokal, R. (1973), Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Sober, E. (1980), “Evolution, Population Thinking, and Essentialism”, Philosophy of Science 47: 350–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R., and Sneath, P. (1961), Principles of Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
van Valen, L. (1976), “Ecological Species, Multispecies, and Oaks”, Taxon 25: 233–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, M. J. D. (1978), Modes of Speciation. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Wiley, E. O. (1981), Phylogenetics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Williamson, P. (1981), “Paleontological Documentation of Speciation in Cenozoic Molluscs from Turkana Basin”, Nature 293: 437–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar