Species Concepts

Any biological species of biparental organisms necessarily includes, and is fundamentally dependent on, sign processes between individuals. In this case, the natural category of the species is based on family resemblances (in the Wittgensteinian sense), which is why a species is not a natural kind. We describe the mechanism that generates the family resemblance. An individual recognition window and biparental reproduction almost suffice as conditions to produce species naturally. This is due to assortativity of mating which is not based on certain individual traits, but on the difference between individuals. The biosemiotic model described here explains what holds a species together. It also implies that boundaries of a species are fundamentally fuzzy, and that character displacement occurs in case of sympatry. Speciation is a special case of discretisation that is an inevitable result of any communication system in work. The biosemiotic mechanism provides the conditions and communicative restrictions for the origin and persistence of diversity in the realm of living (communicative and semiotic) systems.

Summary of research topics and projects:
As a field naturalist, my doctoral research in plant ecology has focused on the biodiversity of open Mediterranean environments, conducted in parallel with a professional activity in a design office. This knowledge of botany, extended to the entire western Mediterranean, has subsequently allowed me to write chapters of books (monographs, identification keys, synonymic indexes, catalogs) on the flora of France and North Africa, then of the Middle East.
In collaboration with various European teams and Maghreb researchers, I started work on new lines of research (integrative systematics, biogeography and phylogeny). I diversified biological models (molluscs) and assimilated new methods (biochemistry, molecular genetics). Various endemic species have served as integrative models that we are studying at all levels, from in situ inventory and conservation, to the phylogenetic and paleo-ecological origins of endemism, works done in the context of several Ph.D. I participated and/or co-directed.
Within the research unit AMAP, I collaborated with Tela Botanica on the Pl@ntNet project (https://plantnet.org/) which continues through the Floris'Tic project (http://floristic.org/), with activities dedicated to the flora of North Africa and the Middle East. I refocused my research on descriptive botany and biodiversity cataloguing, through collaborative networking and the use of computerised information storage and taxonomic identification tools on the Mediterranean flora. I now focus on describing the unknown biodiversity in the Mediterranean hotspot, combining classical (morphological) and modern (molecular) approaches.
My research project is to continue the momentum that I initiated over the last dozen years. This project deals with biogeography, taxonomy and conservation in the service of knowledge, protection and promotion of biodiversity in the Mediterranean, particularly in the countries of the southern and eastern shores. It aims in the medium and long term to participate in the filling of the taxonomic deficit in areas of biodiversity hotspots but coldspots of knowledge, such as the Maghreb and the Mediterranean Middle East. The objective is the reappropriation, by the Maghrebian and Middle Eastern scientific corps, of a long and rich history of the biodiversity knowledge, partially interrupted for half a century, and whose historical collections of Montpellier (MPU), Paris (P), Geneva (G) or Barcelona (B) herbaria are its precious memory. The project draws its regional coherence through a natural biogeographic convergence and integrates all the disciplines from the biodiversity inventory to the decision support tools.
The project is structured around three objectives: 1) Improvement and capitalization of fundamental knowledge on Mediterranean botany in the Maghreb and the Middle East; 2) Training and assistance, in southern countries, of field teams, mixing professionals and amateurs; 3) Production of practical identification tools, classical or modern, adapted to the needs of botanists and ecologists.

The most common questions made by committees in undergraduate and graduate defenses, focusing on systematic and taxonomic reviews of any taxon are regarding the species concept employed in methodology. Students' difficulty in applying species concept is greater when they use multiple datasets for species delimitation analyses. Here, we presented a way to clarify for students what are the assumptions of integrative taxonomy and how it can interact with the different species concepts and operational criteria. Rather than defining which concept to use and how to apply it, this essay aims to assist students in discuss their results and to find elements to justify their choices. Here, we briefly summarized the history of integrative taxonomy and cite species concepts most commonly used in mammalogy. In addition, we compiled information on 122 descriptions of new rodent species from South America over the past 20 years in order to analyze how these descriptions are using species concepts and the principles of Integrative Taxonomy. Only 23 descriptions made explicit their species concept, being the Genetic Species Concept followed by the Phylogenetic Species Concept the most applied concepts in the descriptions. The datasets used in Integrative Taxonomy were the morphological (100% of new descriptions), molecular (52.46%), cytogenetic (43.44%), followed by the ecological (3.28%) one. We suggested that rather than using only one method to quantify differences and to delimit species, the ideal would be to use multiple methods and datasets to infer, not only discontinuities, but independence among potential species. Resumo: Conceitos de espécies e a prática taxonômica na era da Taxonomia Integrativa: um exemplo usando roedores sul-americanos. A pergunta mais recorrente em trabalhos de sistemática e de taxonomia, especialmente em bancas na graduação e na pós-graduação, é com relação ao conceito de espécie utilizado. A dificuldade dos alunos em aplicar a ideia de um conceito de espécies aumenta quando se utiliza vários conjuntos de dados diferentes para as análises de delimitação de espécies. Pensando nisso, nós apresentamos neste ensaio as premissas da taxonomia integrativa e como ela pode ser associada com os diferentes conceitos e critérios de espécies existentes. Mais do que definir qual conceito usar e como aplicá-los, este ensaio visa auxiliar os alunos na discussão de seus resultados. Aqui nós fizemos um breve resumo da história da Taxonomia Integrativa e dos conceitos de espécies mais utilizados em mastozoologia. Além disso, compilamos a informação de 122 descrições de novas espécies de roedores da América do Sul nos últimos 20 anos, a fim de analisar como essas descrições estão usando os conceitos de espécies e os princípios da Taxonomia Integrativa. Apenas 23 descrições explicitaram o conceito de espécie, sendo o Conceito Genético e Filogenético os mais aplicados nas descrições. Os conjuntos de dados mais utilizados nas descrições foram os morfológicos (100% das descrições), moleculares (52,46%), citogenéticos (43,44%), seguidos pelos dados ecológicos (3,28%). No fim, sugerimos que melhor do que usar apenas uma quantificação ou um método para delimitar espécies, o ideal seria usar múltiplos métodos e conjuntos de dados para inferir, não apenas descontinuidades, mas a independência entre as espécies potenciais. Palavras-Chave: Conceitos ontológicos; Critérios operacionais; Delimitação de espécies; Neotropical; Rodentia. ENSAIOS 36 Boletim da Sociedade Brasileira de Mastozoologia, 88: 36-54, 2020

The last Tasmanian wolf, a male popularly named "Benjamin," died in captivity in 1936. Thylacinus cynocephalus, the species that Benjamin represented, was soon thereafter declared extinct; however, one may advance the argument that the species was already extinct when the last of Benjamin's conspecifics died, leaving him a member of an extinct species. This raises the "species problem": what, if anything, is a species?

Resolution of the species problem is complicated by the fact that species are considered "fundamental units" of biological theories in at least two senses. Species are units of taxonomy: they are the smallest "real" groups into which organisms can be classified. Species are also units of evolution: they are the entities that change over time due to Natural Selection. Following Darwin, philosophers of biology traditionally argue that these units can only be identified if species are nominal entities.

More recently, paleontologists suggest that species may be "fundamental units" in a third sense: as units of selection in a higher-order process of differential speciation and extinction. Species selection would therefore have a place in a hierarchy of selection processes.

At lower levels of selection, units of selection emerge from former units of evolution due to intrinsic functional integration. If species emerge as units of selection in the same way, then the species that participate in species selection would not be coextensive with units of evolution: since functional integration had broken down within T. cynocephalus, Benjamin would be part of the latter unit, but not the former. Nominal entities are defined by extension, and so—contrary to the received view—species meeting these criteria cannot be nominal entities.

I therefore argue that species must be natural kinds if they emerge as units of selection in a hierarchy of selection processes. Given the simultaneous identity of units of selection, units of evolution, and units of taxonomy, I suggest an application of the Kripke/Putnam model of natural kinds that is consistent with the theory of Natural Selection. I also consider a reading of Darwin's work that demonstrates the viability of this model.

¿Son las especies categorías reales o meras convenciones? ¿Son las especies clases naturales? ¿Son los enunciados teleológicos un rasgo distintivo de la biología como ciencia? Estas preguntas y otras muchas son una constante en la filosofía de la biología. En este artículo se pretende mostrar que difícilmente se puede dar respuesta a alguna de ellas sin adquirir una posición respecto a las otras, pues existe una relación histórica entre las cuestiones acerca del concepto de especie y las cuestiones acerca de la finalidad. Para escenificar dicho vínculo se acudirá a una perspectiva histórica, donde se indagará en el desarrollo de esta ligazón entre las nociones de especie y finalidad. El centro y desembocadura de este trabajo será la teoría darwinista. El objetivo, por tanto, es realizar dicho análisis hasta la teoría de Darwin. Tras realizar este trayecto centrado en el pensamiento de Aristóteles, Linneo, Buffon y Lamarck, se examinará la peculiar postura de Darwin acerca de la teleología y la relación que esto tiene con sus ideas acerca de las especies. A pesar de que Darwin inicia la caída de los grandes esencialismos teleológicos dentro de la reflexión sobre lo vivo, hay rastros de un finalismo en su obra. Palabras clave: teleología, adaptación, transformismo, selección natural, Darwin.

As a field naturalist, my doctoral research in plant ecology has focused on the biodiversity of open Mediterranean environments, conducted in parallel with a professional activity in a design office. This knowledge of botany, extended to the entire western Mediterranean, has subsequently allowed me to write chapters of books (monographs, identification keys, synonymic indexes, catalogs) on the flora of France and North Africa, then of the Middle East.
In collaboration with various European teams and Maghreb researchers, I started work on new lines of research (integrative systematics, biogeography and phylogeny). I diversified biological models (molluscs) and assimilated new methods (biochemistry, molecular genetics). Various endemic species have served as integrative models that we are studying at all levels, from in situ inventory and conservation, to the phylogenetic and paleo-ecological origins of endemism, works done in the context of several Ph.D. I participated and/or co-directed.
Within the research unit AMAP, I collaborated with Tela Botanica on the Pl@ntNet project (https://plantnet.org/) which continues through the Floris'Tic project (http://floristic.org/), with activities dedicated to the flora of North Africa and the Middle East. I refocused my research on descriptive botany and biodiversity cataloguing, through collaborative networking and the use of computerised information storage and taxonomic identification tools on the Mediterranean flora. I now focus on describing the unknown biodiversity in the Mediterranean hotspot, combining classical (morphological) and modern (molecular) approaches.
My research project is to continue the momentum that I initiated over the last dozen years. This project deals with biogeography, taxonomy and conservation in the service of knowledge, protection and promotion of biodiversity in the Mediterranean, particularly in the countries of the southern and eastern shores. It aims in the medium and long term to participate in the filling of the taxonomic deficit in areas of biodiversity hotspots but coldspots of knowledge, such as the Maghreb and the Mediterranean Middle East. The objective is the reappropriation, by the Maghrebian and Middle Eastern scientific corps, of a long and rich history of the biodiversity knowledge, partially interrupted for half a century, and whose historical collections of Montpellier (MPU), Paris (P), Geneva (G) or Barcelona (B) herbaria are its precious memory. The project draws its regional coherence through a natural biogeographic convergence and integrates all the disciplines from the biodiversity inventory to the decision support tools.
The project is structured around three objectives: 1) Improvement and capitalization of fundamental knowledge on Mediterranean botany in the Maghreb and the Middle East; 2) Training and assistance, in southern countries, of field teams, mixing professionals and amateurs; 3) Production of practical identification tools, classical or modern, adapted to the needs of botanists and ecologists.

Резюме. Возрождение номогенетических моделей эволюции связано с изучением предпочтительных направлений развития, созданных системной природой эволюционирующих объектов и «надстраивающихся» над стохастикой селектогенеза. Она бы действовала без видоизменения или изъятия, если бы каждый вид был представлен «россыпью» особей (ещё лучше — «эгоистичных репликаторов» без тел), друг с другом никак связанных и взаимодействующих= исключительно эксплуатационной конкуренцией через среду. Увы, они связаны, причём двояко — через тела, общевидовая морфология которых «строится» в ходе онтогенеза; и социальными и т.д. отношениями в популяцию, пространственно-этологическая структура которых «строится» в ходе коммуникации. А дальше «построенное» устойчиво воспроизводится, для чего управляет перемещениями, взаимодействиями и формированием поведения особей. И чем лучше это делает, тем больше включает сортировку и исключает отбор как творческий фактор в появлении нового (что и есть эволюция).
Summary. Revival nomogenetic  models of evolution associated with the study of the preferred directions of development, created by a system nature of evolving objects and "overbuild" above selektogenez stochastic. Selektogenetic concept would operate without modification or withdrawal if each species has been submitted as "bulk" of individuals (even better - "selfish replicators" without bodies), with each other in no way connected and interacting exclusively through competitive environment. Alas, individuals relate to each other, with two ways - through the body, in which the common morphology "built" in the course of ontogenesis; and through social, etc. attitudes in the population, for which the space-ethological structure "built" in the course of communication. This building consistently reproduces itself below and for this reproduction controls movements, interactions and formation of behavior of individuals. The better the construction does, the more it involves sorting and eliminates selection as a creative factor in the emergence of new (that is, evolution).

Исследованы концептуальные основания модели «усиления» (reinforcement), играющей важную роль в объяснительных схемах эволюционной теории. Согласно современным представлениям, «усиление» (препятствий к скрещиванию под действием отбора при вторичном контакте с гибридизацией двух существенно дивергировавших форм до уровня, обеспечивающего их нескрещиваемость, с прекращением начавшейся гибридизации) должно быть обычным или даже часто встречающимся явлением. На деле же оно редко, отдельные случаи приходится специально выискивать, все они достаточно сомнительны и т.д. Анализируются эмпирические данные «за» и «против» «усиления», преимущественно на орнитологическом (и другом зоологическом) материале. Показано, что в подавляющем большинстве ситуаций, согласно теории требующих «усиления», оно тем не менее не происходит. Напротив, наблюдается нечто прямо противоположное – отбор на увеличение нескрещиваемости не только не «затыкает течь» в генофондах форм, созданную их гибридизацией в зоне вторичного контакта, но формируется  устойчивая гибридная зона, служащая каналом обмена генами между формами. Последние могут «заимствовать» чужие гены через гибридизацию, не теряя при этом обособленности видового уровня. Это достигается действием системы распознавания «своих» и «чужих» в контактирующих популяционных системах обоих форм. В зоне вторичного контакта, как правило, условия таковы, что особи постоянно «ошибаются», образуют смешанные пары и производят гибридов, т.е. распознавание «своих» и «чужих» на уровне особей часто неэффективно, и особенно на краю ареала, в зоне вторичного контакта и пр. Эффективное же распознавание, обеспечивающее обособленность видового уровня даже в условиях продолжающейся гибридизации, происходит при включении особей разного происхождения – фенотипически «чистых», гибридов и бэккроссов – в пространственно-этологическую структуру популяций той и другой формы, при приобретении территорий в сложившихся группировках, включении в стаи и другие внутрипопуляционные объединения резидентных особей. Причём в группировки обеих форм предпочтительно включаются фенотипически «свои» («чистые») особи и отторгаются «чужие», включая гибридов с промежуточным фенотипом. Если формы достигли видового уровня обособленности, гибридные особи не формируют собственных устойчивых группировок, а поодиночке пытаются встроиться  в поселения обоих родителей, что у них получается существенно хуже фенотипически «чистых» особей данной формы. Таким образом, гибриды направленно исключаются из популяционных систем обеих форм даже в случае, когда гибридизация продолжается, продуцируя их в достаточном количестве, а сами гибриды с беккроссами не уступают «чистым» особям ни в выживаемости, ни в репродуктивном успехе (те, которые стали резидентами, заняли территории и размножаются). Показано, что обычные примеры «усиления» не только немногочисленны, но находят иное объяснение. В том числе «расщепление» популяционных систем, порождающее две формы с разной экологией, с последующим укреплением/усилением данной дивергенции половым отбором лучше объясняется нашей моделью распознавания «своих» и чужих, нежели «усилением». На этом основании сделан вывод, что модель «усиления» нескрещиваемости в зонах вторичного контакта с гибридизацией не поддерживается данными, так же как следующая из неё модель «смещения признаков» (сharacter displacement). Причины её популярности, по всей видимости, заключаются в соответствии «идеологии» более общей теории, разделяемой большинством исследователей и в целом соответствующей фактам (в данном случае синтетической теории эволюции).

Natural hybridization is a common process in plants, but in most groups of animals, diversification over time is interpreted as a series of branching events, in which hybridization occurs rarely (Harrison, 1993). In some cases, a hybrid zone could arise as a consequence of secondary contact between two populations that have evolved in sympatry (Barton & Hewitt, 1989).

Different concepts define species at the pattern-level grouping of organisms into discrete clusters, the level of the processes operating within and between populations leading to the formation and maintenance of these clusters, or the level of the inner-organismic genetic and molecular mechanisms that contribute to species cohesion or promote speciation. I argue that, unlike single level approaches, a multi-level framework takes into account the complex sequences of cause effect reinforcements leading to the formation and maintenance of various patterns, and allows for revisions and refinements of pattern-based characterizations in light of the gradual elucidation of the causes and mechanisms contributing to pattern formation and maintenance.

The species concept in the works of Ukrainian biologists actively developed in the centers of accumulation of biological materials. Among them the oldest centers were natural history museums, including the Zoological Museum of AS. The contribution of researchers (S. Panochini, G. Mashtaler, S. Paramonov, etc.) into the development of species concepts and development of scientific centers is considered. Trends in paradigm shifts were analysed, including the gradual narrowing of the species concept and blurring of species criteria.

The molecular nature of reproductive isolation (RI) is classically studied in hybrids of Drosophila species. Trying to understand the causes hybrid sterility and/or inviability, researchers have evidenced specific molecular incompatibilities between genes that avoid reproduction with fertile offspring between hybrids of different fly species. The present paper presents a new model on the origin and evolution of RI based on the evolution of Dobzhansky-Muller heteromers. It is suggested that RI is achieved when alleles from genes forming heteromeric protein complexes, mainly those acting during embryogenesis or gametogenesis, accumulate mutations in such a way that some heteromeric proteins become unable to interact with others in the multimeric complex. The failure in the production of a functional heteromer interrupts the developmental process and produces inviable or sterile offspring, even inside sexual-reproducing biological species. This is one of the most remarkable derivations of the Dobzhansky-Muller allele evolution model presented here: RI is common even inside populational interbreeding groups and so its molecular nature is suggested to be studied, from now on, also inside these groups. However, evidences of intra-population RI are today scarce since it seems that no one has suggested this hypothesis earlier and it is so that the data available are not formatted for the ones considering it. Even though, humans living in a monogamous society have shown to be a good source of data for the study of intra-population RI. Reproductive medicine data about a so-called ‘impaired fecundity’ fertility problem in humans has shown to be a strong example of the theory here presented. At last, the evolution of heteromeric Dobzhansky-Muller-like allele incompatibilities may substance a gradual theory of speciation and provides a glimpse about the molecular basis of mosaic evolution, outbreeding depression and sympatric speciation.

Pseudo-nitzschia is a marine cosmopolitan genus of chain-forming planktonic diatoms. As for the vast majority of phytoplankton organisms, species identification within this genus mostly relies upon morphological features. Taxa were initially identified based on cell shape and gross morphology of their composite silica cell wall, called the frustule. Yet, observations of the frustule in electron microscopy showed many additional characters for species identification and results of molecular
studies have demonstrated that genetically distinct groups might exist within morpho-species. However,thesestudieshavenot addressedthebiologicalmeaningofthesegeneticdifferences.Here,
webridgethatgapbycomparingultrastructuralfeaturesandsequencedata(threeribosomalandone plastid marker) of 95 strains with results of mating experiments among these strains. Experiments
were performed on two morphologically distinct entities: P. delicatissima and P. pseudodelicatissima. Each of the two entities consisted of multiple genetically distinct and reproductively isolated taxa, all occurring in sympatry: P. delicatissima was composed of three phylogenetic and reproductively distinct groups, whereas P. pseudodelicatissima consisted of up to five. Once these taxa had been defined both genetically and biologically, subtle ultrastructural differences could be detected as well. Our findings not only show that cryptic genetic variants abound in sympatry, but also that they are reproductively isolated and, therefore, biologically distinct units.

There have been recent disagreements as to how many taxa of titi monkeys, genus Callicebus, occur in the region between the Purus and Madeira rivers in western Brazilian Amazonia. Three parapatric taxa were proposed for the area: Callicebus caligatus, Callicebus stephennashi, and Callicebus dubius, but the latter has recently been considered a synonym of C. caligatus, even though both form monophyletic groups and are morphologically distinct. We analyzed the geographic variation in the pelage of Callicebus occurring between the Madeira and Purus rivers and concluded that the phenotypes attributed to C. caligatus and C. dubius are not individual morphs, but rather well-marked and geographically restricted varieties. For this reason, we classify Callicebus caligatus as a polytypic species with two subspecies: Callicebus caligatus caligatus and Callicebus caligatus dubius. This classification is corroborated by molecular evidence as well. The morphological and distributional data indicate that Callicebus stephennashi is a hybrid form of C. c. caligatus and C. c. dubius, due to the presence of intermediate characters. Therefore, until more precise locality records are provided and further evidence is presented, we consider Callicebus stephennashi to be a homonym of the two parental forms.

The species concept in the works of Ukrainian biologists ac¬tively developed in the centers of accumulation of biological materials. Among them the oldest centers were natural history museums, including the Zoological Museum of AS. The contribution of researchers (S. Panochini, G. Mashtaler, S. Paramonov, etc.) into the development of species concepts and development of scientific centers is considered. Trends in paradigm shifts were analysed, including the gradual narrowing of the species concept and blurring of species criteria.

What has Athens to do with the Galapagos?

Why the Concept of ‘Human Nature’ has nothing to
fear from Evolutionary Biology (and vice-versa)


§I. The Evolutionary Challenge to Concepts of Human Nature Deployable in Essentialist Ethics

Several prominent philosophers of science including John Dupré, David Hull, and Philip Kitcher have made the case that the conceptions of “human nature” (hereafter ‘HN’) used by perfectionist or essentialist ethical theories including (Neo-)Aristotelianism and contemporary Virtue Ethics are incompatible with any modern, biologically informed understanding of species. Identifying the fact that heritable variations within a population is a necessary ingredient for selection, evolutionary biology is adduced to refute the traditional conception of species as natural kinds carved out by their members’ common possession of a unique and identical distinguishing characteristic, i.e. a real essence or universal such as rationality for Homo sapiens.

Ergo, the idea that human beings constitute a species in virtue of mutual possession of rationality or any other essential attributes is to be rejected. Thus we should also reject any theory of the human good that depends on the attribution of such essential characteristics to our species in order to enumerate a set of excellences, ends, virtues, needs, etc. that will be universally necessary for any human being to cultivate or pursue in order to develop a moral character, to act responsibly, or to flourish.

§II. The First Version of the Evolutionary Challenge

There are two ways in which evolutionary biology is taken to challenge human essentialism. The first method, which has been developed by Philip Kitcher, argues that those relying on a concept of HN to develop a putatively objective notion of the human good or human virtue face a reductivist challenge that they cannot answer. The HN-Essentialist cannot reduce his or her putative objective human goods to a descriptive, non-normative statement of HN that is not challenged by the myriad counter-examples of ‘abnormal specimens’. Such variation is to be expected according to the Neo-Darwinian synthesis of evolutionary biology and genetics; mutation is integral, and copying errors are indelible.

We should be suspicious of the claim that this problem actually derives from modern biology, as it was one advanced by Gassendi and Locke, and it was familiar even to Aristotle. “Monstrosities” were often adduced to challenge the alleged real essence of the Rational Animal or the concept of HN. Such arguments at most prove that traditional, metaphysically essentialist conceptions of kinds cannot cope with the differences we find even in the essential attributes of their members. If an alternative, conceptual (rather than metaphysical) notion of so-called essences lacking this problem can be offered, then the first challenge will be answered.

§III. The Second Version of the Evolutionary Challenge

According to the ‘Evolutionary Concept’ of species developed by Hull and Ghiselin, species are not kinds at all, but individuals. A species is a monophyletic branch of the tree of life; a species is a population that shares common ancestors. When the branches “split”, speciation events occur and two or more new species diverge. The relationship been the members of a species is historical and descent-based rather than essential and trait-based. Consequently, it is a category mistake to even look for common traits among species members, much less an essence. Furthermore, evolutionary biology teaches us that continuous variation is the norm throughout the living world, including among the members of a population, so commonalities will be a rarity. Finally, Hull suggests that even if there were, by rare chance, some common feature spread across a population, it will be unstable and subject to rapid changes.

However, it has been noted that the evolutionary conception is parasitic upon independent criteria of species membership in order to define speciation events. I raise an even more thoroughgoing version of this objection: in order to even determine which organisms belong to a given branch on the tree of life some sorting criteria are needed to select between members and non-members. Hence even between speciation events, the phylogenetic, evolutionary concept that identifies species as individuals is parasitic on a kind-based approach to species populations.

Therefore, what is left of this objection is: 1. The same challenge that first approach collapsed into, to find a notion of essence or HN that is compatible with differences and “abnormal specimens” within biological kinds, especially mankind, and 2. The need to explain how such kinds are stable enough across time to be suitable for grounding normative claims.

§IV. The Solution of Epistemic Essentialism: An alternative concept of species and their natures

In answer to both the first and second challenges, I present an alternative approach to species that regards them as concepts united by rich similarity relationships rather than as natural kinds. I argue that this alternative accommodates claims about essential features or the basic, shared natures of kind members (e.g. HN) without positing or relying on “real essences”.  I call this position epistemic essentialism.

Given the epistemic essentialist view, a basic concept of HN with possible normative implications is in no way incompatible with modern biology, especially evolutionary biology. Disabled offspring still count as species members, but do not challenge essences that are epistemological rather than metaphysical. However, the approach to species and their essences on offer from the epistemic approach may constrain what such a conception of HN can offer to normative, essentialist programs.

§V. Conclusion

I conclude with a brief observation. On a more reasonable understanding of species, Hull’s worry that HN is too fragile, biologically speaking, to ground a normative conception of the human being collapses into absurdity. Homo sapiens emerged in the Middle Paleolithic period roughly 200,000 years ago, but, for example, women first gained the right the vote in 1893, a mere 118 years ago, which is somewhere between 1/1500th and 1/2000th of the age of our species. If we are “essentially” the same as our Paleolithic ancestors, then it is not HN but our norms and institutions that are fragile and prone to rapid evolution.

Резюме. Предложено восстановление биологической концепции вида «на повышенном основании». Показаны преимущества определения вида через обособленность соответствующей популяционной системы вовне, от популяционных систем близких форм, и через сохранение целостности популяционной системы вида внутри себя. Первое значимо в условиях вторичного контакта с гибридизацией, второе - в условиях нестабильности среды, ведущей к локальным депрессиям численности и отдельным разрывам в «кружеве ареала». Показано, что вид как система взаимодействующих популяций сохраняет обособленность вовне и поддерживает целостность популяционной системы внутри себя благодаря одним и тем же коммуникативным механизмам распознавания «своих» и «чужих».
Summary. The restoration of biological species concept on the excited level (terms by Alexander Lyubithshev) is substantiated. The advantages of species defining through mechanisms which supported shutdown the population organization this species from influences of population systems the near related forms. It is shown that this mechanisms works on population level, not on level interaction between simple individuals. They effectively “close” the population systems (if this form achieve the status of different species) even if usually isolating mechanisms are not capable of functioning. There are situations of secondary contacts with hybridization and long-term disjunctions of area.

Geo&Bio, volume 19 (2020) ***** Theoretical and material species and the concept of speciesness (about the reality of species, types of species and their diversity). - I. Zagorodniuk. - A consistent system of transitions between the concepts of species as ideas and species as forms of differentiation of living things is considered, in the form of subsequent steps from the primary nominalistic to the modern understanding of species as a level of separateness and differentiation of living things. The scheme includes 24 gradual steps in the development of knowledge, divided into several blocks. The first of them is the section "21 steps to understanding the species-from the species-idea to the species-individual", which includes three groups of 7 positions: the first seven positions analyse the species as an idea and as a phenomenon, the next seven-situations of the cycle "species-semi-species-non-species", and the next seven present ways to restructure knowledge (3) and the content of a new synthesis (4). The second part includes three final sections important for the new synthesis: "Keys to understanding: types of species?", "Keys to understanding: autonomous reproductive systems", and "Towards a new paradigm". To explain the system of transitions between the species as a name and morphological species, the concept of eidological hexagon is proposed, which reflects the links between all components of the nominalistic and typological concepts of the species. It is shown that species as concepts and as units of description of biotic diversity should be recognised as two different modi of evolutionary development of populations-in relation to phylogenetics as a level of evolutionary separateness, and in relation to biotic communities as a level of ecological separateness. At the heart of the new idea, it is proposed to consider the evolution of phyla in the composition of communities as another plane relative to the phylogenetic (and morphogenetic) component of the evolutionary process, as the evolution of states of speciesness. "Types of species" are recognised as a normal state of diversity of living things, and in the process of development of taxa and communities (eventually, phyla and ecosystems), the living matter at different phases and in different conditions of its existence can pass through different states of speciesness. The latter allows us to talk about the evolution of species as states of differentiation of living things, along with the "normal" phyletic evolution, which is manifested in changes in morphology, genetics, and biogeography of populations. The idea of polyspecies can be seen as a new step in the development of the idea of pluralism of species concepts, the essence of which is to recognise the diversity of species in different groups, different contexts, and different situations. However, the idea of "types of species" is related not so much to concepts as to the real diversity of speciesness. ***** Види-ідеї, матеріальні види та концепт видовості (про реальність виду, типи видів та їх різноманіття). — І. Загороднюк. — Розглянуто послідовну систему переходів між концептами видів як ідей та видів як форм диференціації живого, у формі послідовних кроків від первинного номіналістичного до сучасного розуміння виду як рівня окремішності і диференціації живого. Схема включає 24 послідовні сходинки у розвитку знання, розділені на кілька блоків. Перший з них — розділ «21 крок до розуміння виду — від виду-ідеї до виду-окремішності», який включає три групи з 7 позицій: перші сім позицій аналізують вид як ідею та як феномен, наступні сім — ситуації циклу «вид-недовид-невид», подальші сім — шляхи до перебудови знань (3) та зміст нового синтезу (4). Друга частина включає три підсумкові розділи, важливі для нового синтезу, — «Ключі до розуміння: види видів?», «Ключі до розуміння: автономні репродуктивні системи», «На шляху до нової парадигми». Для пояснення системи переходів між видом-назвою та морфовидом сформовано поняття ейдологічного гексагону, який відображає зв’язки між всіма складовими номіналістичної та типологічної концепцій виду. Показано, що види як концепти та як одиниці опису біотичного різноманіття мають бути визнані як два рі-зні модуси еволюційного розвитку популяцій — в площині філогенетики як рівень еволюційної окремішності, в площині біотичних угруповань як рівень екологічної окремішності. В основі нової ідеї пропонується розглядати еволюцію філумів у складі угруповань як ще одну площину відносно філогенетичної (та морфогенетичної) складової еволюційного процесу, власне як еволюцію станів видовості. «Типи видів» визнаються як нормальний стан різноманіття живого, а в процесі розвитку таксонів та угруповань (врешті й філумів та екосистем) жива матерія на різних фазах і в різних умовах свого існування може проходити через різні стани видово-сті. Останнє дозволяє говорити про еволюцію видів як станів диференціації живого, нарівні з «нормальною» філетичною еволюцією, що проявляється в змінах морфології, генетики та біогеографії популяцій. Ідея полівидовості може розглядатися як новий крок у розвитку ідеї плюралізму концепцій виду, суть якої полягає у визнанні різності видів у різних групах, різних контекстах та різних ситуаціях. Проте ідея «типів видів» пов’язана не стільки з концепціями, скільки з реальним різноманіттям проявів видовості.

The species concept is actively developed in the works of Ukrainian biologists especially of those related to centres of accumulation of biological materials. The oldest centres among them were natural history museums, including the Zoological Museum of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. The contribution of research schools into the development of eidological trends, science in Ukraine, and species concepts facilitated the development of scientific centres and the formation of paradigms. Among the main features of the development of eidology in Ukraine was the repeated retreat from the typological paradigm (with numerous returns to it), the increasing impact of population knowledge and variability assessment, the transition to a predominantly geographical component in the analysis of existing biotic diversity, the gradual restriction of the species concept and blurring of species criteria. The author consistently develops the idea that the taxon as construct of taxonomists (as a classification hypothesis for describing diversity) is actually unambiguous only at the level of local communities , i.e. in one-dimensional models, beyond the issue of differentiation of populations in space and time. While preparing this review, considerable attention was paid to the contribution of Ukrainian researchers into the development of the "species" issue and related problems of eidology, including the concept and criteria of "species", various interpretations of its scope and the variety of designations that have become part of "species pluralism". The processes of increased grinding of "species" as concepts, categories, and taxa are analysed. Attention is paid to the modern trends of splitting, mainly due to technological progress and new systems of identification of specimens and determination of the heterogeneity of biological material. Progress in species splitting ususally ends with revisions that naturally rest on the shoulders of lumpers. The idea that the certainty (reality) of species as a concept, category, and taxon exists only within the limits of biotic communities, i.e. complexes of sympatric interacting population systems, is consistently followed. Key words : species concepts, species criteria, morphology, large and small species, natural history museums. ***** Концепція виду в працях українських біологів (надто зоологів) активно розвивалася в центрах накопичення й класифікування біологічних матеріалів, якими від початку стали природничі музеї, зокрема й зоологічний музей Української Академії Наук. Розглянуто внесок дослідницьких шкіл у становлення ейдологічних напрямків розвитку науки в Україні та розвиток концепцій виду, а тим самим у розвиток наукових центрів та у формування парадигм. Головними особливостями розвитку ейдології в Україні стало багаторазове відходження від типологічної парадигми (з численними поверненнями до неї), посилення впливу популяційних знань та оцінки мінливості, перехід до переважно географічної компоненти аналізу наявного біотичного різноманіття, все більше звуження поняття вид і одночасно все більше розмивання його критеріїв. Автор послідовно розвиває ідею про те, що таксон як конструкт систематиків і фактично (як класифікаційна гіпотеза для опису різноманіття) є однозначним тільки на рівні локальних угруповань, тобто у одновимірних моделях, поза темою диференціації популяцій у просторі й часі. При підготовці цього огляду значну увагу приділено висвітленню внесків українських дослідників у розвиток теми «виду» та суміжних питань ейдології, включно з концепцією та критеріями «виду», різними тлумаченнями його обсягу та різноманіттям позначень, що стали частиною «видового плюралізму». Проаналізовано процеси дедалі більшого подрібнення «видів» як концептів, як категорій та як таксонів. Приділено увагу сучасним тенденціям сплітерства, переважно завдяки технічному прогресу і новим системам ідентифікації зразків та визначення гетерогенності біологічного матеріалу. Прогрес у сплітерстві закономірно завершується ревізіями, які так само закономірно лягають на плечі ламперів. Послідовно проводиться думка про те, що визначеність (реальність) виду як концепту, категорії й таксону існує тільки в межах біотичних угруповань, тобто комплексів симпатричних популяційних систем, що взаємодіють.

http://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/1685
 
 









 

 
   

  
    



 


 
 



 



 
 
 








 



 
 




 





 




! 

 
 
 


"

# 

 


! #



 


$%
&
 




 
'

 #

 

   

 
   (




 


%#  
'









#


 
)* +
 


 #



%# 


 



#

 

 



 




#



  

 
#


 





 



 
#


 

 




 
 



# 









 
 
 

  



 







  ,



#


#

  -

 
.
/
! #




#  *
 0 

.
 -1  
! 

 
 
% 
 

# 

 


Keywords: