Species as family resemblance concepts: the (dis-)solution of the species problem?

The so-called "species problem" has plagued evolutionary biology since before Darwin's publication of the aptly titled Origin of Species. Many biologists think the problem is just a matter of semantics; others complain that it will not be solved until we have more empirical data. Yet, we don't seem to be able to escape discussing it and teaching seminars about it. In this paper, I briefly examine the main themes of the biological and philosophical literatures on the species problem, focusing on identifying common threads as well as relevant differences. I then argue two fundamental points. First, the species problem is not primarily an empirical one, but it is rather fraught with philosophical questions that require-but cannot be settled by-empirical evidence. Second, the (dis-)solution lies in explicitly adopting Wittgenstein's idea of "family resemblance" or cluster concepts, and to consider species as an example of such concepts. This solution has several attractive features, including bringing together apparently diverging themes of discussion among biologists and philosophers. The current proposal is conceptually independent (though not incompatible) with the pluralist approach to the species problem advocated by Mishler, Donoghue, Kitcher and Dupré, which implies that distinct aspects of the species question need to be emphasized depending on the goals of the researcher. From the biological literature, the concept of species that most closely matches the philosophical discussion presented here is Templeton's cohesion idea.

[1]  M. Noor Is the biological species concept showing its age , 2002 .

[2]  S. Gould The Structure of Evolutionary Theory , 2002 .

[3]  J. Hey,et al.  The mind of the species problem. , 2001, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[4]  A. Templeton,et al.  Gene trees: A powerful tool for exploring the evolutionary biology of species and speciation , 2000 .

[5]  M. Gazzaniga Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? , 2000, Brain : a journal of neurology.

[6]  G. Roderick,et al.  Endless Forms – Species and Speciation , 2000, Heredity.

[7]  J. Powell,et al.  A MOLECULAR PHYLOGENY OF THE DROSOPHILA WILLISTONI GROUP: CONFLICTS BETWEEN SPECIES CONCEPTS? , 1998, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[8]  M. Solms,et al.  What Is Consciousness? , 1997, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association.

[9]  C. Horvath Discussion: Phylogenetic Species Concept: Pluralism, Monism, and History , 1997 .

[10]  E. Mayr What Is a Species, and What Is Not? , 1996, Philosophy of Science.

[11]  T. Sorell Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science , 1994 .

[12]  R. Persaud Philosophy of science , 1992, The Lancet.

[13]  Kevin de Queiroz,et al.  Phylogenetic definitions and taxonomic philosophy , 1992 .

[14]  K. Nixon,et al.  AN AMPLIFICATION OF THE PHYLOGENETIC SPECIES CONCEPT , 1990 .

[15]  J. Endler,et al.  Speciation and Its Consequences , 1989 .

[16]  L. Splitter Species and Identity , 1988, Philosophy of Science.

[17]  Robert M. Zink,et al.  Species Concepts in Ornithology , 1988 .

[18]  Robert N. Brandon,et al.  Individuality, pluralism, and the phylogenetic species concept , 1987 .

[19]  M. Donoghue,et al.  Species Concepts: A Case for Pluralism , 1982 .

[20]  E. F. Giray An Integrated Biological Approach to the Species Problem* , 1976, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[21]  P. Sneath,et al.  PHENETIC TAXONOMY AT THE SPECIES LEVEL AND ABOVE , 1976 .

[22]  L. V. Valen,et al.  Ecological Species, Multispecies, and Oaks , 1976 .

[23]  S. Stanley A theory of evolution above the species level. , 1975, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[24]  M. Ruse Definitions of Species in Biology , 1969, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[25]  M. A. Simon VI.—WHEN IS A RESEMBLANCE A FAMILY RESEMBLANCE? , 1969 .

[26]  David L. Hull,et al.  THE EFFECT OF ESSENTIALISM ON TAXONOMY—TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF STASIS (I) * , 1965, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[27]  T. Morrison-Scott,et al.  Principles of Animal Taxonomy , 1962, Nature.

[28]  P. A. Meglitsch On the Nature of the Species , 1954 .

[29]  George Gaylord Simpson,et al.  CRITERIA FOR GENERA, SPECIES, AND SUBSPECIES IN ZOOLOGY AND PALEOZOOLOGY , 1943 .

[30]  E. Mayr Speciation Phenomena in Birds , 1940, The American Naturalist.

[31]  M. Pigliucci Are ecology and evolutionary biology "soft" sciences? , 2002 .

[32]  K. Queiroz The General Lineage Concept of Species and the Defining Properties of the Species Category , 1999 .

[33]  K. Queiroz**,et al.  The General Lineage Concept of Species, Species Criteria, and the Process of Speciation , 1998 .

[34]  H. Dawah,et al.  Species :the units of biodiversity , 1997 .

[35]  Ron Dare,et al.  The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations of the disunity of science , 1997 .

[36]  D. Dennett Darwin's Dangerous Idea , 1995 .

[37]  Mark Ridley,et al.  The cladistic solution to the species problem , 1989 .

[38]  L. V. Valen,et al.  Species, sets, and the derivative nature of Philosophy , 1988 .

[39]  P. Sneath,et al.  Numerical Taxonomy , 1962, Nature.