Biology and Philosophy 30 (4):569-586 (2015)

Authors
Joeri Witteveen
University of Copenhagen
Abstract
Biological taxonomists rely on the so-called ‘type method’ to regulate taxonomic nomenclature. For each newfound taxon, they lay down a ‘type specimen’ that carries with it the name of the taxon it belongs to. Even if a taxon’s circumscription is unknown and/or subject to change, it remains a necessary truth that the taxon’s type specimen falls within its boundaries. Philosophers have noted some time ago that this naming practice is in line with the causal theory of reference and its central notion of rigid designation: a type specimen fixes the reference of a taxon name without defining it. Recently, however, this consensus has come under pressure in the pages of this journal. In a series of articles by Alex Levine, Joseph LaPorte, and Matthew Haber, it has been argued that type specimens belong only contingently to their species, and that this may bode problems for the relation between type method and causal theory. I will argue that this ‘contingency debate’ is a debate gone wrong, and that none of the arguments in defense of contingency withstand scrutiny. Taxonomic naming is not out of step with the causal theory, but conforms to it. However, I will also argue that this observation is itself in need of further explanation, since application of the type method in taxonomic practice is plagued by errors and ambiguities that threaten it with breaking down. Thus, the real question becomes why taxonomic naming conforms to the causal theory in the first place. I will show that the answer lies in the embedding of the type method into elaborate codes of nomenclature
Keywords Taxonomy  Nomenclature  Type method  Type specimen  Necessity  Contingency  Causal theory  Rigid designation  Codes of nomenclature
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2015
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10539-014-9459-6
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,214
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Meaning of 'Meaning'.Hillary Putnam - 1975 - Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7:131-193.
Naming and Necessity.S. Kripke - 1972 - Tijdschrift Voor Filosofie 45 (4):665-666.
Naming and Necessity.Saul A. Kripke - 1985 - Critica 17 (49):69-71.

View all 17 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Individual Essentialism in Biology.Michael Devitt - 2018 - Biology and Philosophy 33 (5-6):39.
Objectivity, Historicity, Taxonomy.Joeri Witteveen - 2018 - Erkenntnis 83 (3):445-463.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Comments on David Hull's Paper on Exemplars and Type Specimens.Ernst Mayr - 1982 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:504 - 511.
What is the Type-1/Type-2 Distinction?Nick Chater - 1997 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20 (1):68-69.
Type Physicalism and Causal Exclusion.Joseph A. Baltimore - 2013 - Journal of Philosophical Research 38:405-418.
Non-Essentialist Methods in Pre-Darwinian Taxonomy.Mary P. Winsor - 2003 - Biology and Philosophy 18 (3):387-400.
Models of Group Selection.Deborah G. Mayo & Norman L. Gilinsky - 1987 - Philosophy of Science 54 (4):515-538.
On Bishops and Donkeys.Nicky Kroll - 2008 - Natural Language Semantics 16 (4):359-372.
Phylogenetic Definitions and Taxonomic Philosophy.Kevin Queiroz - 1992 - Biology and Philosophy 7 (3):295-313.
Phylogenetic Definitions and Taxonomic Philosophy.Kevin de Queiroz - 1992 - Biology and Philosophy 7 (3):295-313.
Storage Operators and ∀‐Positive Types in TTR Type System.Karim Nour - 1996 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 42 (1):349-368.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2014-07-18

Total views
153 ( #76,506 of 2,507,555 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,983 of 2,507,555 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes