scholarly journals Group selection and the development of the biological species concept

2010 ◽  
Vol 365 (1547) ◽  
pp. 1853-1863 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Mallet

The development of what became known as the biological species concept began with a paper by Theodosius Dobzhansky in 1935, and was amplified by a mutualistic interaction between Dobzhansky, Alfred Emerson and Ernst Mayr after the second world war. By the 1950s and early 1960s, these authors had developed an influential concept of species as coadapted genetic complexes at equilibrium. At this time many features of species were seen as group advantages maintained by selection to avoid breakdown of beneficial coadaptation and the ‘gene pool’. Speciation thus seemed difficult. It seemed to require, more so than today, an external deus ex machina , such as allopatry or the founder effect, rather than ordinary within-species processes of natural selection, sexual selection, drift and gene flow. In the mid-1960s, the distinctions between group and individual selection were clarified. Dobzhansky and Mayr both understood the implications, but their views on species changed little. These group selectionist ideas now seem peculiar, and are becoming distinctly less popular today. Few vestiges of group selectionism and species-level adaptationism remain in recent reviews of speciation. One wonders how many of our own cherished views on evolution will seem as odd to future biologists.

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 281-297
Author(s):  
Tito Carvalho

Abstract Theodosius Dobzhansky has been studied for how he integrated field naturalism and laboratory experimentation in ways that helped produce the Modern Synthesis, as well as how he leveraged biological expertise to support liberal and cosmopolitan values amidst Second World War and the Cold War. Moreover, Dobzhansky has been central in analyses of the institutionalization of genetics in Brazil, where he spent several years. This article situates Dobzhansky’s Brazilian research within the science of variation and the politics of diversity. I conclude by raising questions about how the ways in which science figured in politics depended on ideas about the role of scientists in society whichwere advanced in parallel, suggesting research on the “co-production” of natural and social orders.


2006 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-173 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. TOWNSEND PETERSON

Alpha taxonomy involves delineation of the basic unit of biology: the species. The concepts by which we define species, however, have been controversial, with several alternatives competing at present, some creating fewer and some more species units, depending on interpretation of species limits. Although it is tempting to assume that species concepts would have little interaction with the geographic foci of species richness and endemism — and some have so argued — this assumption does not withstand careful analysis. In this paper, I develop a first-pass assessment of Philippine bird taxonomy under an alternative species concept, and compare the results with the traditional biological species concept lists. Differences between the two lists were dramatic, but not just in numbers of species; rather, new, previously unrecognized or previously underappreciated foci of endemism were noted. A thorough understanding of the taxonomic basis of species lists is therefore critical to conservation planning.


Author(s):  
Corinna Peniston-Bird ◽  
Emma Vickers

2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (185) ◽  
pp. 543-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingo Schmidt

This article draws on Marxist theories of crises, imperialism, and class formation to identify commonalities and differences between the stagnation of the 1930s and today. Its key argument is that the anti-systemic movements that existed in the 1930s and gained ground after the Second World War pushed capitalists to turn from imperialist expansion and rivalry to the deep penetration of domestic markets. By doing so they unleashed strong economic growth that allowed for social compromise without hurting profits. Yet, once labour and other social movements threatened to shift the balance of class power into their favor, capitalist counter-reform began. In its course, global restructuring, and notably the integration of Russia and China into the world market, created space for accumulation. The cause for the current stagnation is that this space has been used up. In the absence of systemic challenges capitalists have little reason to seek a major overhaul of their accumulation strategies that could help to overcome stagnation. Instead they prop up profits at the expense of the subaltern classes even if this prolongs stagnation and leads to sharper social divisions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document