We are not able to resolve this OAI Identifier to the repository landing page. If you are the repository manager for this record, please head to the Dashboard and adjust the settings.
Systematists have become increasingly aware of the limits imposed by the
current system of nomenclature for accurately representing evolutionary relationships and
managing efficiently names associated with clades. In reaction, a new system of
nomenclature, the PhyloCode is being developed that fully recognizes the historical
nature of taxonomy and the importance of the cladistics revolution. As a consequence,
questions emerge about the new historical entities of systematics, questions that can be
apprehended through the lens of epistemology, philosophy of language and metaphysics.
What is the ontological nature of entities that lack any other essential features
besides spatiotemporal properties? How to depart from the fixed realm of immutable and
transcendental essence into a worldview wherein all biological entities are characterized
by their temporality and materiality? What are the consequences of nomenclatural
decisions on other sectors of biology? With the ever growing sequencing capacity and
tree reconstructing abilities, our conceptualization of phylogenetic relationships is
changing at an unprecedented pace. Then it begs the question, what prevents
communication break down when the references of clades’ names are changing almost on
a daily basis. These are some of the fundamental issues I am tackling in the present work.
Addressing the ontological issue, I argue that species and clades are best
perceived as mereological sums of individuals, which means that each biological
individual is the unique individual composed of all its less inclusive individuals and
nothing more.
I propose to separate the meanings of “clade” and “monophyletic group”. I
suggest to use “monophyletic” for an epithet referring to a defining property of a set (a
natural kind) and “clade” for a noun which corresponds to a historical entity (an
individual) resulting from evolutionary process. I present the idea that a phyloname is not
attached to a single clade but to a natural kind containing as members the clades that
would be selected in counterfactual phylogenies. The defining properties of this natural
kind are provided by the phylogenetic definition.
Finally I stress that taxonomists are also driven by the will to narrate the same sort
of history, when they adjust the reference of names in light of new phylogenetic data,
which leads me to submit that taxa can also be perceived as narratives
Is data on this page outdated, violates copyrights or anything else? Report the problem now and we will take corresponding actions after reviewing your request.