Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-qc88w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-23T10:27:02.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Mushroom Individuality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Dan Molter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Genidentity coupled with material continuity is proposed as a minimum conception of biological individuality, and then theoretical individuation is employed to identify multiple kinds of biological individuals in a single example from mycology, a patch of chanterelle mushrooms. Of the many candidate materially continuous genidenticals found in a mushroom patch, only those with functional roles in biological theory are notable as biological individuals. Evolutionary and physiological theories pick out multiple kinds of functional individuals in mushrooms, so a pluralistic account of mushroom individuality is warranted.

Information

Type
Biology
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 84 , Issue 5 , December 2017 , pp. 1117 - 1127
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexopoulos, C., Mims, C., and Blackwell, M. 1996. Introductory Mycology. 4th ed. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Booth, Austin. 2014. “Populations and Individuals in Heterokaryotic Fungi: A Multilevel Perspective.” Philosophy of Science 81 (4): 612–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauvier, Stéphane. 2016. “Why Individuality Matters.” In Guay and Pradeu 2016a, 25–45.Google Scholar
Clarke, Ellen. 2012. “Plant Individuality: A Solution to the Demographer’s Dilemma.” Biology and Philosophy 27 (3): 321–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupré, John, and O’Malley, Maureen. 2009. “Varieties of Living Things: Life at the Intersection of Lineage and Metabolism.” Philosophy and Theory in Biology 1:e003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter. 2009. Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesemer, James. 2001. “The Units of Evolutionary Transition.” Selection 1 (1–3): 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guay, Alexandre, and Pradeu, Thomas, eds. 2016a. Individuals across the Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guay, Alexandre, and Pradeu, Thomas, eds 2016b. “To Be Continued.” In Guay and Pradeu 2016a, 317–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haber, Matthew. 2016. “The Biological and the Mereological: Metaphysical Implications of the Individuality Thesis.” In Guay and Pradeu 2016a, 295–316.Google Scholar
Hull, David. 1976. “Are Species Really Individuals?” Systematic Biology 25 (2): 174–91.Google Scholar
Hull, David 1992. “Individual.” In Keywords in Evolutionary Biology, ed. Keller, Evelyn Fox and Lloyd, Elisabeth A., 181–87. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip. 1984. “Species.” Philosophy of Science 51 (2): 308–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewin, Kurt. 1922. Der Begriff der Genese in Physik, Biologie and Entwicklungsgeschichte: Eine Untersuchung zur vergleichenden Wissenschaftslehre. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. 1970. “The Units of Selection.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 1:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pepper, John W., and Herron, Matthew D. 2008. “Does Biology Need an Organism Concept?” Biological Reviews 83 (4): 621–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pradeu, Thomas. 2012. The Limits of the Self: Immunology and Biological Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalchian-Tabrizi, K., Minge, M., Espelund, M., Orr, R., Ruden, T., Jakobsen, K., and Cavalier-Smith, T. 2008. “Multigene Phylogeny of Choanozoa and the Origin of Animals.” PLoS ONE 3 (5): e2098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sober, Elliott. 1984. “Sets, Species, and Evolution: Comments on Philip Kitcher’s ‘Species.’” Philosophy of Science 51 (2): 334–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar