Function, Homology, and Character Individuation*

By Paul E. Griffiths. Philosophia Scientiæ, 2006

103 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Moral Psychology Handbook (2010, background): “, the human eye and the eye of humans’ and chimpanzees’ last common ancestor) (for discussion, see Brigandt, 2003; Griffiths, 2006).”
Typology now: homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability (2007, unknown): “And the phylogeny of activity-functions can be studied and assessed for homology (Amundson and Lauder 1994; Griffiths 1996, 2006).”
The importance of homology for biology and philosophy (2007, background): “The function of a trait in this descriptive sense need not be the same as the function for which it was selected, and more importantly, biologists do not need to know the evolutionary purpose of a trait in order to describe its function (Griffiths 2006).”
Microbiology and the species problem (2010, background): “Given the nature of prokaryotes, the idea that there is a common species phenomenon (Brigandt 2003; Griffiths 2006 ) does not save the species category, nor does the suggestion that ‘species’ is a family resemblance concept (Pigliucci 2003; Wilson et al. 2009).”