Abstract
Exploring whether clades can reproduce leads to new perspectives on general accounts of biological development and individuation. Here we apply James Griesemer’s general account of reproduction to clades. Griesemer’s account of reproduction includes a requirement for development, raising the question of whether clades may be meaningfully said to develop. We offer two illustrative examples of what clade development might look like, though evaluating these examples proves difficult due to the paucity of general accounts of development. This difficulty, however, is instructive about what a general account of development should look like and how it may usefully be applied to research problems (further suggesting a means for evaluating general accounts of development). Reproduction also requires individuation of parent and offspring. We argue that there is no special problem of individuating older and younger clades. The vagaries involved with determining when clades begin, mature, and end are precisely the same as those that arise when the same questions are asked of cells, organisms, or species. Though the question of clade reproduction and selection may still be open, the process of discovery presents new insights into old problems.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baum D (1998) Individuality and the existence of species through time. Systematic Biology 47: 641–653.
Boyd R (1999) Homeostasis, species and highertaxa. In: Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays (Wilson RA, ed), 141–185. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Coyne JA, Orr HA (2004) Speciation. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.
De Queiroz K (1998) The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation. In: Endless Forms: Species and Speciation (Howard D, Berlocher S, eds), 57–75. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eldredge N, Cracraft J (1980) Phylogenetic Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. New York: Columbia University Press.
Ereshefsky M, ed (1991) The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ereshefsky M (2001) The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gánti T, Griesemer J, Szathmáry E (2003) The Principles of Life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ghiselin M (1974) A radical solution to the species problem. Systematic Zoology 23: 536–544.
Ghiselin M (1987) Hierarchies and their components. Paleobiology 13: 108–111.
Ghiselin M (1997) Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Ghiselin M (2002) Species concepts: The basis for controversy and reconciliation. Fish and Fisheries 3: 151–160.
Griesemer J (2000) Development, culture, and the units of inheritance. Philosophy of Science 67: S348–S368.
Goodman N (1972) Seven strictures on similarity. In: Problems and Projects (Goodman N, ed), 437–447. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.
Haber MH (2005) The Centrality of Phylogenetic Thinking. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Davis.
Haber MH, Hamilton A (in press 2006) Coherence, consistency, and cohesion: Clade selection in Okasha and beyond. Philosophy of Science.
Harrison RG (1998) Linking evolutionary pattern and process: The relevance of species concepts for the study of speciation. In: Endless Forms: Species and Speciation (Howard D, Berlocher S, eds), 19–31. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hull D (1978) A matter of individuality. Philosophy of Science 45: 335–360.
Kellert S, Longino H, Waters CK, eds (forthcoming) The pluralist stance. In: Scientific Pluralism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 19. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
LaPorte J (2005) Is there a single objective, evolutionary tree of life? Journal of Philosophy 102 (7): 357–374.
Lewontin RC (1970) The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1: 1–18.
Lewontin RC (1974) The analysis of variance and the analysis of cause. American Journal of Human Genetics 26: 400–411.
Maynard Smith J (1987) How to model evolution. In: The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality (Dupré J, ed), 119–131. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maynard Smith J (1988) Evolutionary progress and levels of selection. In: Evolutionary Progress (Nitecki MH, ed), 219–236. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the Origin of Species. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mishler B, Donoghue M (1982) Species concepts: A case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology 31: 491–503.
Okasha S (2003) Does the concept of ‘clade selection’ make sense? Philosophy of Science 70: 739–751.
Okasha S (forthcoming) The Levels of Selection Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oyama S, Griffiths P, Gray R (2001) Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ridley M (1989) The cladistic solution to the species problem. Biology and Philosophy 4: 1–16.
Szathmary E, Maynard Smith J (1997) From replicators to reproducers: The first major transitions leading to life. Journal of Theoretical Biology 187: 555–571.
Sober E (1984) The Nature of Selection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental Plasticity. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wheeler QD, Meier R, eds (2000) Species Concepts and Phylogenetic Theory: A Debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wiley EO (1981) Phylogenetics: The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. New York: Wiley.
Wilkinson M (1990) A commentary on Ridley’s cladistic solution to the species problem. Biology and Philosophy 5: 433–446.
Wilson RA, ed (1999) Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Winston JE (1999) Describing Species: Practical Taxonomic Procedure for Biologists. New York: Columbia University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hamilton, A., Haber, M.H. Clades Are Reproducers. Biol Theory 1, 381–391 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2006.1.4.381
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/biot.2006.1.4.381