Species are not Uniquely Real Biological Entities

Mishler, Brent D.

doi:10.1002/9781444314922.ch6

Cited by 31 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1 Darwin, who addressed the species question, clearly thought species were simply less transient varieties and left the species problem at that; evolution did not license ranking. Many subsequently concluded (erroneously) that Darwin thought were no such things as species, when what he really thought was that the species rank was arbitrary (Mishler 2010;Wilkins 2018).…”

Section: Background About Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 All of these factors can potentially confound process studies. Thus phylogenies and rankless phylogenetic taxonomies provide a better theoretical framework than species do for all of these disciplines, and better practical methods for such purposes as conservation assessment as well (Mishler 2010).…”

Section: Using Snarcs In Systematic Evolutionary and Ecological Stumentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both criticisms result from the fact that the use of monophyly for species needs some criteria external to monophyly to decide which "level" of monophyletic group to rank as species. These external criteria vary from group to group (Mishler and Donoghue 1982), and under this view it is difficult to see species as a unique level in the tree of life (Mishler 1999(Mishler , 2010.…”

Section: Theoretically Defined Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This consensus comes from several important criteria of classification (Mishler 2009;Wilkins and Ebach 2013), including information content (summarizing what is known about organisms), predictivity (what is not yet known about organisms), and function in theories (capturing entities involved in important natural processes). The latter tracks causal relations (e.g., evolution from common ancestors) even in the absence of detailed knowledge of those causes.…”

Section: Rankless Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, they are theoretically unstable as well; discussions over what counts as a species, and what criteria are to be used to delineate one from another, show no signs of abating (Hausdorf 2011;Naomi 2011;Staley 2013;Wilkins 2011). Some have suggested the other extreme: that species are no more fundamental than monophyletic taxa (that is, those having a single common ancestor) at any rank (Mishler 2010), and furthermore that the species rank should disappear as part of a general move to rankless taxonomy (Ereshefsky 1999;Mishler 1999;Pleijel 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Hunting of the SNaRC: A Snarky Solution to the Species Problem

Mishler¹,

Wilkins²

2018

Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We argue that the logical outcome of the cladistics revolution in biological systematics, and the move towards rankless phylogenetic classification of nested monophyletic groups as formalized in the PhyloCode, is to eliminate the species rank along with all the others and simply name clades. We propose that the lowest level of formally named clade be the SNaRC, the Smallest Named and Registered Clade. The SNaRC is an epistemic level in the classification, not an ontic one. Naming stops at that level because there is no currently acceptable evidence for clades within it, not because no smaller clades exist. Later, included clades may be named. They would then become the SNaRCs, while the original SNaRC would keep its original name. We argue that all theoretical tasks of biology, in evolution and ecology, as well as practical tasks such as conservation assessment, are better approached using this rankless phylogenetic approach.

show abstract

Section: Background About Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Using Snarcs In Systematic Evolutionary and Ecological Stumentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretically Defined Speciesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rankless Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Hunting of the SNaRC: A Snarky Solution to the Species Problem

Mishler¹,

Wilkins²

2018

Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Generic classification of Amaryllidaceae tribe Hippeastreae

Garcı́a

Meerow

Arroyo-Leuenberger

et al. 2019

TAXON

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A robust generic classification for Amaryllidaceae has remained elusive mainly due to the lack of unequivocal diagnostic characters, a consequence of highly canalized variation and a deeply reticulated evolutionary history. A consensus classification is proposed here, based on recent molecular phylogenetic studies, morphological and cytogenetic variation, and accounting for secondary criteria of classification, such as nomenclatural stability. Using the latest sutribal classification of Hippeastreae (Hippeastrinae and Traubiinae) as a foundation, we propose the recognition of six genera, namely Eremolirion gen. nov., Hippeastrum, Phycella s.l., Rhodolirium s.str., Traubia, and Zephyranthes s.l. A subgeneric classification is suggested for Hippeastrum and Zephyranthes to denote putative subclades. In Hippeastrum, we recognize H. subg. Hippeastrum and H. subg. Tocantinia. In Zephyranthes, Z. subg. Eithea, Z. subg. Habranthus, Z. subg. Myostemma (= core Rhodophiala clade), Z. subg. Neorhodophiala subg. nov., and Z. subg. Zephyranthes are recognized. Descriptions, synonymy, taxonomic keys, and new combinations are provided for each genus and subgenus.

show abstract

Are Species Good Units for Biodiversity Studies and Conservation Efforts?

Reydon

2019

History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While species have long been seen as the principal units of biodiversity, with prominent roles in biodiversity research and conservation practice, the longstanding debate on the nature of species deeply problematizes their suitability as such units. Not only do the metaphysical questions remain unresolved what kinds of things species are, and whether species are at all real, there also is considerable disagreement on how to define the notion of species for use in practice. Moreover, it seems that different organism groups are best classified using different definitions of 'species', such that species of organisms in very different domains of biodiversity are not generally comparable units. In this chapter I will defend and elaborate the claim that species are not good units of biodiversity, focusing in the issue of species realism. I will sketch a pragmatic notion of 'species' that can be used as an epistemic tool in the context of biodiversity studies, without however involving a view of species as basic units of biodiversity or as the focal, real entities in biodiversity conservation. Keywords Species • Species concepts • Species problem • Units of biodiversity 8.1 Introduction Biodiversity studies and conservation biology are rapidly growing fields of work, aimed, among other things, at mapping the diversity of life on our planet, studying its origins, assessing how humanity benefits from its presence, and achieving clarity about possible ways of preserving it (Ehrlich and Wilson 1991). 1 The growth of both 1 Conservation biology is a well-defined discipline with its own textbooks, journals, scientific societies, and so on. Biodiversity studies, in contrast, is a loose collection of disciplines (or perhaps

show abstract

Species are not Uniquely Real Biological Entities

Cited by 31 publications

References 41 publications

The Hunting of the SNaRC: A Snarky Solution to the Species Problem

The Hunting of the SNaRC: A Snarky Solution to the Species Problem

Generic classification of Amaryllidaceae tribe Hippeastreae

Are Species Good Units for Biodiversity Studies and Conservation Efforts?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About