Skip to main content

Introduction to the Species Problem

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Species Concepts in Biology

Abstract

Species concepts, or more generally, the species problem, are among the most debated issues in biology. Answers to the questions of what a species is, in what ways species really exist (if in fact they do) and how species can not only be defined but also recognized and delimited, belong at least as much, and some of them rather more, to the realm of philosophy than to that of biology, but at the same time they are of utmost relevance to biologists. There may be biologists who think that philosophy is purely theoretical and perhaps even, at times, somewhat aloof, or in short, providing some underpinning for the big picture, but largely irrelevant to their daily work as scientists. That is not quite true, particularly when it comes to the issue of species. Philosophy of science is not just philosophy about science but also for science. Whether biologists can or should learn more from philosophers about species than vice versa I don’t know, and perhaps it is not an interesting question anyway, but I think it is fair to say that it is more relevant from a practical point of view for biologists to get the philosophy right than for philosophers to get the biology right. If philosophers neglect the biology of species, their theoretical treatment of species might become hollow and detached from biological reality, but they are unlikely to suffer any practical consequences because biological species are first and foremost entities of biology. It is biologists who describe species, count them, use them as proxies for different biological phenomena and analyse their phylogenetic relationships. In that regard (and that one only), philosophy of species and biology are a bit like mathematics and engineering—engineers should know their mathematics, or else whatever they want to build won’t work. Unlike failures in engineering, which are very obvious, the case with species and biology is, unfortunately, much more difficult: biologists may continue to use flawed or inconsistent notions of species without ever being aware of it, producing spurious results in, for instance, biodiversity assessments or ecological studies. These flawed applications of species notions in turn may then be the basis of flawed decisions in “real life”—prioritization of habitats based on species richness or the conservation status of species taxa are just two obvious examples. There is probably hardly any other biological concept that is used so differently and inconsistently as that of species, with sometimes disquieting consequences that have largely gone unnoticed by many biologists.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”.

Albert Einstein

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Stamos (2003, p. 5), for example , says that “it is generally admitted that any speciation analysis presupposes a species concept”.

  2. 2.

    Ghiselin suggests this when he explains that one can define species by means of speciation (as its result) which of course means that one then has to define speciation without reference to species to avoid circularity. Ghiselin , being a proponent of the Biological Species Concept , emphasizes reproductive isolation, but the argument is independent of the particular species concept one adheres to.

  3. 3.

    This holds regardless of the availability of intraspecific categories such as subspecies or evolutionarily significant units ; rather, it applies to these categories just as much as it does to the species category .

  4. 4.

    Evolutionary or E species in this context must not be confused with species according to the Evolutionary Species Concept ! The term E species has a much more general meaning.

  5. 5.

    “… the phenetic species as normally described and whose definition may be improved by numerical taxonomy is the appropriate concept to be associated with the taxonomic category ‘species,’ while the local population may be the most useful unit for evolutionary study” (Sokal and Crovello 1970, p. 149).

  6. 6.

    Endler (1989) also distinguishes between taxonomic and evolutionary species (T species and E species , see Sect. 1.3.2). The snapshot or synchronic view of species vs the historical or diachronic view he calls contemporaneous and clade species concepts. He considers these two groups (contemporaneous and clade concepts) as the two main subgroups of the E species with the contemporaneous concepts particularly popular in evolutionary biology and the clade concepts in phylogenetic systematics, “with palaeontology falling somewhere in between” (p. 627).

  7. 7.

    See also the title of one of his other publications: “Speciation as a stage in evolutionary divergence” (Dobzhansky 1940). This is also in accordance with de Queiroz (1998, p. 70f.) who, within his General Lineage Species Concept , views many traditional species concepts as criteria not for the status as species but for different stages in the existence of species (see Sect. 5.2).

  8. 8.

    This ship is constantly under repair so that eventually every single of its original planks has been replaced by a new one. The question now is whether the ship is still numerically the same or not. And what if the old planks had been repaired later and used to build a new ship? Would that new ship then be the ‘real’ ship of Theseus? This paradox about what makes sameness has been discussed by philosophers from Greek antiquity through to the modern era.

  9. 9.

    Things are not as simple as this dichotomy might suggest, of course. In Sect. 3.1 I will briefly mention that a trichotomy (realism, conceptualism and nominalism) may be more correct.

  10. 10.

    Wilkins (2009a, p. 221) bemoans that Mayr and others have called species nominalism the opposite view to species taxon realism (this nominalism is then species taxon nominalism) because in philosophy, from which the term is taken, nominalism typically is assigned to a view denying universal reality, and therefore the logical usage would be for species category nominalism . Wilkins suggests species deniers for those who think that species taxa are not real.

References

  • Audi R (gen ed) (2009) The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum DA (1998) Individuality and the existence of species through time. Syst Biol 47:641–653

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baum DA, Shaw KL (1995) Genealogical perspectives on the species problem. In: Hoch PC, Stephenson AG (eds) Experimental and molecular approaches to plant biosystematics. Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden, vol 53. Missouri Botanical Graden, St. Louis, pp 289–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock WJ (1989) Principles of biological comparisons. Acta Morphol Neerl-Scand 26:17–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock WJ (2004) Species: the concept, category and taxon. J Zool Syst Evol Res 42:178–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler CR, Gromko MH (1989) On the relationship between species concepts and speciation processes. Syst Zool 38:116–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz K (1998) The general lineage concept of species, species criteria, and the process of speciation. In: Howard D, Berlocher SH (eds) Endless forms: species and speciation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 57–75

    Google Scholar 

  • de Queiroz K (2005a) Different species problems and their resolution. BioEssays 27:1263–1269

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky T (1937) Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky T (1940) Speciation as a stage in evolutionary divergence. Am Nat 74:312–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Endler JA (1989) Conceptual and other problems in speciation. In: Otte D, Endler JA (eds) Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, pp 625–648

    Google Scholar 

  • Ereshefsky M (2001) The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy. A philosophical study of biological taxonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Farber P (1976) The type-concept in zoology during the first half of the nineteenth century. J Hist Biol 9:93–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin MT (1997) Metaphysics and the origin of species. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin MT (2001) Species concepts. In: Encyclopedia of life sciences. Wiley, New York, www.els.net

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig W (1966) Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey J (2001a) Genes, categories, and species. The evolutionary and cognitive causes of the species problem. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey J (2001b) The mind of the species problem. Trends Ecol Evol 16:326–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey J, Waples RS, Arnold ML, Butlin RK, Harrison RG (2003) Understanding and confronting species uncertainty in biology and conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 18:597–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maan ME, Seehausen O, van Alphen JJM (2010) Female mating preferences and male coloration covary with water transparency in a Lake Victoria cichlid fish. Biol J Linn Soc 99:398–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1942) Systematics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendívil-Giró J-L (2006) Languages and species: limits and scope of a venerable comparison. In: Martín J, Rosselló J (eds) The biolinguistic turn. Issues on language and biology. Publicacions de la Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona, pp 82–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Pagel M, Atkinson QD, Calude AS, Meade A (2013) Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across Eurasia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110:8471–8476

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Reydon TAC (2005) On the nature of the species problem and the four meanings of ‘species’. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 36:135–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richards RA (2010) The species problem – a philosophical analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Seehausen O (2006) Conservation: losing biodiversity by reverse speciation. Curr Biol 16:R334–R337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seehausen O, van Alphen JJM, Witte F (1997) Cichlid fish diversity threatened by eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science 277:1808–1811

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Crovello TJ (1970) The biological species concept: a critical evaluation. Am Nat 104:127–153 (reprinted in Ereshefsky 1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamos DN (2002) Species, languages, and the horizontal/vertical distinction. Biol Philos 17:171–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stamos DN (2003) The species problem. Biological species, ontology, and the metaphysics of biology. Lexington Books, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamos DN (2007) Darwin and the nature of species. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins JS (2009a) Species. A history of the idea. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins JS (2009b) Defining species. A sourcebook from antiquity to today. Peter Lang Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins JS (2011) Philosophically speaking, how many species concepts are there? Zootaxa 2765:58–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams MB (1992) Species: current usages. In: Keller EF, Llyod EA (eds) Keywords in evolutionary biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, pp 318–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Vonlanthen P, Bittner D, Hudson AG, Young KA, Müller R, Lundsgaard-Hansen B, Roy D, Di Piazza S, Largiader CR, Seehausen O (2012) Eutrophication causes speciation reversal in whitefish adaptive radiations. Nature 482:357–362

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grant PR, Grant BR (2014) Speciation undone. Nature 507:178–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer S, O’Connor JA, Dudaniec RY, Myers SA, Robertson J, Sulloway FJ (2014) Species collapse via hybridization in Darwin’s tree finches. Am Nat 183:325–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zachos, F.E. (2016). Introduction to the Species Problem. In: Species Concepts in Biology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44966-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics