The Poverty of the Linnaean Hierarchy: A Philosophical Study of Biological Taxonomy

279 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.

Concept annotation in the CRAFT corpus (2012, methodology): “The difficulties in ontological representation of biological taxa has been discussed elsewhere [76,77]; for this project, we have regarded the entries of the NCBI Taxonomy database as denotations of organisms since its taxonomic relationships hold for organisms ( e.g. , a rodent is a kind of…”
When Traditional Essentialism Fails: Biological Natural Kinds (2007, background): “This objection does not turn on supposing a restrictive conception of what an individual is, and so it stands even once one loosens the notion of individual to include reference to historical entities (Ereshefsky 2001).”
The importance of homology for biology and philosophy (2007, background): “Forty years of philosophical interest in the 'species problem' means that the taxic approach of homology is also the best known amongst philosophers (see e.g. Ereshefsky 1991, 2001; Hull 1970, 1997; Sober 1988; Wilson 1999).”