Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
Related content
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Homology: Homeostatic Property Cluster Kinds in Systematics and Evolution

Full text
Author(s):
Assis, Leandro C. S. [1] ; Brigandt, Ingo [2]
Total Authors: 2
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Bot, Lab Sistemat Vegetal, BR-05508090 Sao Paulo - Brazil
[2] Univ Alberta, Dept Philosophy, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E7 - Canada
Total Affiliations: 2
Document type: Review article
Source: Evolutionary Biology; v. 36, n. 2, p. 248-255, JUN 2009.
Web of Science Citations: 24
Abstract

Taxa and homologues can in our view be construed both as kinds and as individuals. However, the conceptualization of taxa as natural kinds in the sense of homeostatic property cluster kinds has been criticized by some systematists, as it seems that even such kinds cannot evolve due to their being homeostatic. We reply by arguing that the treatment of transformational and taxic homologies, respectively, as dynamic and static aspects of the same homeostatic property cluster kind represents a good perspective for supporting the conceptualization of taxa as kinds. The focus on a phenomenon of homology based on causal processes (e.g., connectivity, activity-function, genetics, inheritance, and modularity) and implying relationship with modification yields a notion of natural kinds conforming to the phylogenetic-evolutionary framework. Nevertheless, homeostatic property cluster kinds in taxonomic and evolutionary practice must be rooted in the primacy of epistemological classification (homology as observational properties) over metaphysical generalization (series of transformation and common ancestry as unobservational processes). The perspective of individuating characters exclusively by historical-transformational independence instead of their developmental, structural, and functional independence fails to yield a sufficient practical interplay between theory and observation. Purely ontological and ostensional perspectives in evolution and phylogeny (e.g., an ideographic character concept and PhyloCode's `individualism' of clades) may be pragmatically contested in the case of urgent issues in biodiversity research, conservation, and systematics. (AU)