Advertisement

Trees of Life pp 165-209 | Cite as

Death of the Gene: Developmental Systems Strike Back

  • Russell Gray
Part of the Australasian Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 11)

Abstract

“Story-telling is a serious concept, but one happily without the power to claim unique or closed readings”1

Keywords

Developmental System Genic Selectionism Genetic Determinism Innate Behaviour Extended Phenotype 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. A dapted from Bateson, P. (1983) ‘Genes, Environment and the Development of Behaviour’, in Animal Behaviour: Genes, Development and Learning, Slater, P. & Halliday, T. (eds) Blackwell, by permission of the publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Adapted from Clausen, J., Keck, D.D., & Hiesey, W. M. (1948) Experimental Studies in the Nature of Species Vol. 3, Environmental Responses of Climatic Races of Achillea Carnegie Institute of Washington Publications, No. 581, p80, by permission of the publishers.Google Scholar
  3. 18.
    Haraway, D. (1989) Primate Visions: Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science, Routledge. p8.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    Sterelny, K. & Kitcher, P. (1988) The Return of the Gene’, The Journal of Philosophy LXXXV, p339–361.Google Scholar
  5. 3.
    This debate has produced some truly wonderful papers and exchanges — see Kuo, Z.-Y. (1921) ‘Giving up Instincts in Psychology’. Journal of Philosophy XVIII, p645–664;Google Scholar
  6. 3a.
    Kuo, Z.-Y. (1976) The Dynamics of Behavior Development (enlarged ed.), Random House;Google Scholar
  7. 3.
    Hebb, D.O. (1953) ‘Heredity and Environment in Animal Behaviour’, British Journal of Animal Behaviour 1, p43–47;Google Scholar
  8. 3b.
    Lehrman, D.S. (1953) ‘A Critique of Konrad Lorenz’s Theory of Instinctive Behaviour’, The Quarterly Review of Biology 28, p337–363;Google Scholar
  9. 3c.
    Lehrman, D.S. (1970) ‘Semantic and Conceptual Issues in the Nature-Nurture Problem’, in Developmen t and Evolution of Behavior, Aronson, L.R., Tobach, E., Lehrman, D.S., & Rosenblatt, J.S. (eds.), Freeman;Google Scholar
  10. 3d.
    Schneiria, T.C. (1956) Interrelationships of the “Innate” and the “Acquired” in Instinctive Behavior’, in L Instinct dans le Comportement des Animaux et de L’Homme, P.-P. Grasse (ed.), Masson, p387–452;Google Scholar
  11. 3e.
    Hinde, R.A. (1968) ‘Dichotomies in the Study of Development, in Genetic and Environmental Influences on Behaviour, Thoday, J.M. & Parkes, A.S. (eds.), Oliver & Boyd, p3–14;Google Scholar
  12. 3f.
    Gottlieb, G. (1976) ‘Conceptions of Prenatal Development: Behavioral Embryology’, Psychological Review 83, p215–234;Google Scholar
  13. 3g.
    Bateson, P. (1983) ‘Genes, Environment and the Development of Behaviour’ in Animal Behaviour: Genes, Development and Learning, Slater, P. & Halliday, T. (eds.), Blackwell, p52–81;Google Scholar
  14. 3h.
    Oyama, S. (1985) The Ontogeny of Information: Developmental Systems and Evolution, Cambridge University Press;Google Scholar
  15. 31.
    Johnston, T.D. (1987). ‘The Persistance of Dichotomies in the Study of Behavioral Development, Developmental Review 7, pl49–182.Google Scholar
  16. 4Most,butnotall. See Johnston, T.D. (1988) ‘Developmental explanation and the Ontogeny of Birdsong: Nature-Nurture redux’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11, p617–663 for a critique of the recent view that there are innate templates underlying the development of birdsong.Google Scholar
  17. 5.
    This list of objectives is based on the arguments of Kuo, Hebb, Lehrman, Schneirla, Hinde, Gottlieb, Bateson, Oyama and Johnston in the papers listed above.Google Scholar
  18. 6.
    Bateson, P. (1991). ‘Are there Principles of Behavioural Development, in The Development and Integration of Behaviour, Bateson, P. (ed) Cambridge University Press, p21.Google Scholar
  19. 7.
    Hailman, J.P. (1967) The Ontogeny of an Instinct. The Pecking response in Chicks of the Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla L.) and Related Species’, Behaviour Supplement 15, pl-159.Google Scholar
  20. 8.
    e.g., Lehrman (1970) The Ontogeny of an Instinct. The Pecking response in Chicks of the Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla L.) and Related Species’, Behaviour Supplement 15, pl-159.Google Scholar
  21. 9.
    See Lehrman (1970) The Ontogeny of an Instinct. The Pecking response in Chicks of the Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla L.) and Related Species’, Behaviour Supplement 15, pl-159.Google Scholar
  22. 9a.
    Bateson (1983) The Ontogeny of an Instinct. The Pecking response in Chicks of the Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla L.) and Related Species’, Behaviour Supplement 15, pl-159, pl-159.,Google Scholar
  23. 9b.
    Johnston (1987) The Ontogeny of an Instinct. The Pecking response in Chicks of the Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla L.) and Related Species’, Behaviour Supplement 15, pl-159, pl-159..Google Scholar
  24. 10.
    See Bateson, P.P.G. (1976). ‘Specificity and the Origins of Behaviour’, Advances in the Study of Behavior 6, pl-20, and Bateson (1983) op. cit.Google Scholar
  25. 11.
    For interesting discussions of the problems of genetic determinism and the complexity of developmental processes at the molecular level see Stent, G. (1981) ‘Strength and Weakness of the Genetic Approach to the Development of the Nervous System’ in Studies in Developmental Neurobiology, Cowan, W.M. (ed.), Oxford University Press;Google Scholar
  26. 11a.
    Tapper, R. (1989) ‘Changing messages in the Genes,’ New Scientist 25 March, p53–55;Google Scholar
  27. 11b.
    Nijhout, H.F. (1990) ‘Metaphors and the Role of Genes in Development’, BioEssays 12, p441–446.Google Scholar
  28. 12.
    See Lickliter, R. & Berry, T.D. (1990) ‘The Phylogeny Fallacy: Developmental Psychology’s Misapplication of Evolutionary Theory,’ Developmental Review 10, p348–364.Google Scholar
  29. 13.
    See Gottlieb, G. (1981) ‘Roles of Early Experience in Species-specific Perceptual Development’ in Development of Perception, 1, Aslin, R.N., Alberts, J.R., & Petersen, M.P. (eds.), Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. 14.
    For a good discussion of the importance of these general experiential inputs into development see Bateson (1976) ‘Roles of Early Experience in Species-specific Perceptual Development’ in Development of Perception, 1, Aslin, R.N., Alberts, J.R., & Petersen, M.P. (eds.), Academic Press..Google Scholar
  31. 15.
    Dudai, Y., Jan, Y. -N., Byers, D., Quinn, W.G. & Benzer, S. (1976) ‘dunce, a mutant of Drosophils Deficient in Learning’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 73, pl684–1688.Google Scholar
  32. 16.
    Sackett, G.P., Ruppenthal, G.C., Fahrenbruch, CE. & Holm, R.A. (1981) Social Isolation Rearing Effects in Monkeys vary with Genotype, Development Psychology 17, p313–318.Google Scholar
  33. 17.
    See Oyama (1985), Social Isolation Rearing Effects in Monkeys vary with Genotype, Development Psychology 17, p313–318Google Scholar
  34. 17a.
    Johnston (1987), Social Isolation Rearing Effects in Monkeys vary with Genotype, Development Psychology 17, p313–318Google Scholar
  35. 18.
    A major section of a recent issue of the journal Bioscience was devoted to norms of reaction. Bioscience 1989, 39.Google Scholar
  36. 19.
    Lewontin, R.C. (1982) Human Diversity. Scientific American, p21.Google Scholar
  37. 20.
    Lewontin (1982), Human Diversity. Scientific American, p22.Google Scholar
  38. 21.
    Ho, M.-W. (1986) ‘Heredity as Process: Towards a Radical Reformulation of Heredity’, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 79, p407–447.Google Scholar
  39. 22.
    See Lewontin, R.C. (1983) The Organism as the Subject and Object of Evolution/ Scientia 118, p65–82,Google Scholar
  40. 22a.
    Gray, R.D. (1988) ‘Metaphors and Methods: Behavioural Ecology, Panbiogeography and the Evolving Synthesis/ in Evolutionary Processes and Metaphors, Ho, M.-W. & Fox, S.W. (eds.), Wiley, for a discussion of the importance of these modifications.Google Scholar
  41. 23.
    Although this view is really quite different from past perspectives, it obviously builds on the insights of the past.Google Scholar
  42. 24.
    I have taken this label from the work of Lewontin and Oyama. A list of papers that present a constructionist view might include Stent (1981) Although this view is really quite different from past perspectives, it obviously builds on the insights of the past.Google Scholar
  43. 24a Lewontin (1983) Although this view is really quite different from past perspectives, it obviously builds on the insights of the past.;Google Scholar
  44. 24b Oyama (1985) Although this view is really quite different from past perspectives, it obviously builds on the insights of the past.;Google Scholar
  45. 24c.
    Oyama, S. (1988) ‘Stasis, Development and Heredity’ in Evolutionary Processes and Metaphor, Ho, M.-W. & Fox, S. W. (eds.), Wiley;Google Scholar
  46. 24d.
    Oyama, S. (1989) ‘Ontogeny and the Central Dogma: Do we Need the Concept of Genetic Programming in Order to have an Evolutionary Perspective?’, in Systems and Development. The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, 22, Gunnar, M. R. & Thelen, E. (eds.), Erlbaum;Google Scholar
  47. 24e.
    Oyama, S. (in press) Transmission and Construction: Levels and the Problem of Heredity’, in Critical Analyses of Evolutionary Theories of Social Behavior: Genetics and Levels, Greenberg, G. & Tobach, E. (eds.), Shapolsky;Google Scholar
  48. 24e.
    Ho (1986) Levels and the Problem of Heredity’, in Critical Analyses of Evolutionary Theories of Social Behavior: Genetics and Levels, Greenberg, G. & Tobach, E. (eds.), Shapolsky;Google Scholar
  49. 24f.
    Ho (1988); Gray, R. D. (1987). ‘Faith and foraging: A Critique of the “Paradigm Argument from Designs’“in Foraging Behavior, Kamil, A. C, Krebs, J.R. & Pulliam, H.R. (eds.), Plenum;Google Scholar
  50. 24f.
    Johnston, T. & Gottlieb, G. (1990) TMeophenogenesis: A Developmental Theory of Phenotypic Evolution/ Journal of Theoretical Biology 147, p471–495;Google Scholar
  51. 24g.
    Lickliter & Berry (1990) TMeophenogenesis: A Developmental Theory of Phenotypic Evolution/ Journal of Theoretical Biology 147, p471–495;Google Scholar
  52. 25.
    Richard Dawkins, who is not always the crude genetic determinist his critics sometimes claim, notes something like this. “Genetic causes and environmental causes are in principle no different from each other,” Dawkins, R. (1982) The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection, p 13, Freeman. It is worth pointing out, however, that the phrase developmental context includes a lot more factors than just the “environment” (e.g., cytoplasmic factors, self-stimulation, etc.).Google Scholar
  53. 26.
    Stent (1981) The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection, p 13Google Scholar
  54. 26a.
    Lewontin (1982), The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection, p 13Google Scholar
  55. 26b.
    Nijhout (1990) The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection, p 13Google Scholar
  56. 27.
    Lewontin (1982) The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection, p 13. This example is based on the work of Conrad Waddington.Google Scholar
  57. 27a.
    See Waddington, C.H. (1975) The Evolution of an Evolutionist, Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  58. 28.
    This is, of course, just one example of the general phenomena of sensitive periods in development. For a review see Bateson, P.P.G. (1979). ‘How do sensitive periods arise and what are they for?’, Animal Behaviour 27, p470–486.Google Scholar
  59. 29.
    See Shaw, R. & Turvey, M. T. (1991) ‘Coalitions as models for ecosystems: a realist perspective on perceptual organisation’ in Perceptual Organisation, Kubany, M. & Pomerantz, J.R. (eds.), Erlbaum; Lewontin (1983), op. cit, and Gray (1988), op. cit for a more detailed account of this.Google Scholar
  60. 30.
    Oyama (1985) ‘Coalitions as models for ecosystems: a realist perspective on perceptual organisation’ in Perceptual Organisation, Kubany, M. & Pomerantz, J.R. (eds.), Erlbaum; Lewontin (1983), op. cit, and Gray (1988), op. cit for a more detailed account of this.Google Scholar
  61. 31.
    This figure is adapted from Wilden, A. (1980) System and Structure: Essays in Communication and Exchange, 2nd ed., Tavistock, by permission of the publishers.Google Scholar
  62. 32.
    The importance of this expanded view of inheritance is emphasised by Oyama (1985) and (1989) System and Structure: Essays in Communication and Exchange, 2nd ed., Tavistock, by permission of the publishers., Gray (1987) and (1988) op. cit andGoogle Scholar
  63. 32a.
    Socha, R. (1990) ‘Beyond Genocentric Concept of Heredity and Evolution’ in Evolutionary Biology: Theory and Practice, Part II. Leonovicova, V.V., Novak, V.J.A., Slipha, J. & Zemek, K. (eds.), Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  64. 33.
    Cohen, J. (1979) Maternal Constraints on Development, Maternal Effects in Development, Newth, D.R. & Balls, M. (eds.), Cambridge University Press;Google Scholar
  65. 33a.
    Ho, M.-W. (1984) ‘Environment and Heredity in Development and Evolution’, Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolutionary Paradigm, Ho, M.-W. & Saunders, P.T. (eds.), Academic Press;Google Scholar
  66. 33b.
    Galef, B.G.(Jr) & Henderson, P.W. (1972) ‘Mother’s Milk: A Determinant of the Feeding Preferences of Weaning Rat Pups’, Journal Comparative and Physiological Psychology 78, p213–219;Google Scholar
  67. 33c.
    Corbet, S.A. (1985) ‘Insect Chemosensory Responses: A Chemical Legacy Hypothesis’, Ecological Entomology 10, pl47–153;Google Scholar
  68. 33d.
    Hepper, P.G. (1988) ‘Adaptive Foetal Learning: Prenatal Exposure to Garlic Affects Postnatal Preferences’, Ammal Behaviour 36 p935–936;Google Scholar
  69. 33e.
    Mattson, W.J.(Jr)(1980) ‘Herbivory in Relation to Plant, Nitrogen Content’, Annual Review Ecology Systematics 11, p119–161;Google Scholar
  70. 33f.
    Jones, G.R., Aldrich, J.R.& Blum, M.S. (1981) ‘Baldcypress Allelochemicals and the Inhibition of Silkworm Enteric Microorganisms, Some Ecological Considerations’, Journal of Chemical Ecology 7, pl03–114;Google Scholar
  71. 33g.
    Fisher, J. & Hinde, R.A. (1949) The Opening of Milk Bottles by Birds’, British Birds 42, p347–357;Google Scholar
  72. 33g.
    Norton-Griffiths, M. (1968) The Feeding Behaviour of the OystercatcheriHaemotopus ostralegus), Ph.D. Thesis, Oxford University;Google Scholar
  73. 33i.
    Van Denburgh, J. (1914) The Gigantic Land Tortoises of the Galapagos Archipelago’, Proceedings of the Californian Academy of Sciences, San Francisco 4th ser. 2, p203–374;Google Scholar
  74. 33j.
    Helfman, G.S. & Schultz, E.T. (1984) ‘Social Transmission of Behavioural Traditions in a Coral Reef Fish’, Animal Behaviour 32, p 379–384;Google Scholar
  75. 33k.
    Neal, E. (1948) The Badger, Collins;Google Scholar
  76. 33l.
    Carrick, R. (1963) ‘Ecological Significance of Territory in the Australian Magpie, Gynorhina tibicen’, Proceedings of the International Ornithological Congress, 2, p740–753;Google Scholar
  77. 33m.
    Jolly, A. (1972) The Evolution of Primate Behaviour, Macmillan;Google Scholar
  78. 33n.
    Woolfenden, G.E. & Fitzpatrick, J.W. (1978) The Inheritance of Territory in Group Breeding Birds’, Bioscience 28, p104–108;Google Scholar
  79. 33o.
    Harris, M.A. & Murie, J.O. (1984) ‘Inheritance of Nest Sites in Female Columbian Ground Squirrels’, Behavioral Ecology Sociobiology 15, p97–102;Google Scholar
  80. 33p.
    Cheney, D.L. (1977) The Acquisition of Rank and the Development of Reciprocal Alliances Among Free-Ranging Immature Baboons’, Behavioral Ecology Sociobiology 2, p303–318;Google Scholar
  81. 33q.
    Harrocks, J. & Hunte, W. (1983) Maternal Rank and Offspring Rank in Vervet Monkeys: An Appraisal of the Mechanisms of Rank Acquisition’, Animal Behaviour 31, p772–782;Google Scholar
  82. 33r.
    Jenkins, P.F. (1978) ‘Cultural Transmission of Song Patterns and Dialect Development in a Free-Living Bird Population’, Animal Behaviour 25, p50–78;Google Scholar
  83. 33s.
    Croizat, L. (1964) Space, Time, Forum: The Biological Synthesis, published by the author;Google Scholar
  84. 33.
    Rosen, D.E. (1978) ‘Vicariant Patterns and Historical Explanation in Biogeography’, Systematic Zoology 27, pl-16.,Google Scholar
  85. 33t.
    Jablonski, D. (1987) Heritability at species level: Analysis of Geographic ranges of Cretaceous Molluscs, Science 238, p360–363.Google Scholar
  86. 34.
    See Vygotsky, L. (1978) Mind in Society, Harvard University Press;Google Scholar
  87. 34a.
    Kaye, K. (1982) The Mental and Social Life of Babies, University of Chicago Press;Google Scholar
  88. 34b.
    Valsiner, J. (1987) Culture and the Development of Children’s Action, Wiley.Google Scholar
  89. 35.
    The extent to which earth and life function as a co-evolutionary unit is currently a hot topic in the field of historical biogeography. For a New Zealand perspective on the debate see the special issue of the New Zealand Journal of Zoology on panbiogeography, 16 (1989).Google Scholar
  90. 36.
    Compare with Boyd, R. & Richerson, P.J. (1985). Culture and the Evolutionary Process, University of Chicago Press;Google Scholar
  91. 36a.
    Odling-Smee, F.J. (1988) ‘Niche-Constructing Phenotypes’, in The Role of Behavior in Evolution, Plotkin, H.C. (ed.), MIT Press.Google Scholar
  92. 37.
    This cake analogy has been used by Bateson (1976) ‘Niche-Constructing Phenotypes’, in The Role of Behavior in Evolution, Plotkin, H.C. (ed.), MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  93. 37a.
    Dawkins, R. (1981) In Defense of Selfish Genes’, Philosophy 56, p556–573 to emphasise that there is no one-to-one correspondence between developmental ingredients and the phenotypic cake. The cake analogy, while often useful, also has its limitations. Once again the ghost of pre-existing design could rear its head. There are recipes for cakes, just as it is claimed that there are genes for phenotypes. If development is like baking a cake, then it is in an unusual kitchen where there are no recipes and the cake constructs itself (i.e. the cake is self-organising).Google Scholar
  94. 38.
    Stent (1981) In Defense of Selfish Genes’, Philosophy 56, p556–573 to emphasise that there is no one-to-one correspondence between developmental ingredients and the phenotypic cake. The cake analogy, while often useful, also has its limitations. Once again the ghost of pre-existing design could rear its head. There are recipes for cakes, just as it is claimed that there are genes for phenotypes. If development is like baking a cake, then it is in an unusual kitchen where there are no recipes and the cake constructs itself (i.e. the cake is self-organising)Google Scholar
  95. 39.
    Oyama (1985) In Defense of Selfish Genes’, Philosophy 56, p556–573 \ to emphasise that there is no one-to-one correspondence between developmental ingredients and the phenotypic cake. The cake analogy, while often useful, also has its limitations. Once again the ghost of pre-existing design could rear its head. There are recipes for cakes, just as it is claimed that there are genes for phenotypes. If development is like baking a cake, then it is in an unusual kitchen where there are no recipes and the cake constructs itself (i.e. the cake is self-organising) (1989) op. cit.Google Scholar
  96. 40.
    See Dobzhansky, T. (1951) Genetics and the Origin of Species, 3rd ed., Columbia University Press, pl6Google Scholar
  97. 40a.
    Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, p48.Google Scholar
  98. 41.
    See Oyama (1985) The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, p48.,Google Scholar
  99. 41a.
    Oyama (1989) The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, p48.Google Scholar
  100. 41b.
    Gray (1987) The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, p48.Google Scholar
  101. 41c.
    Gray (1988) The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, p48Google Scholar
  102. 41d.
    Johnston and Gottlieb (1990) The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, p48Google Scholar
  103. 41e.
    Lichliter and Berry (1990) The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, p48Google Scholar
  104. 41f.
    Socha (1990) The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, p48Google Scholar
  105. 42.
    See Costall, A. (1986) ‘Evolutionary Gradualism and the Study of Development7. Human Development 29, p4-ll.Google Scholar
  106. 43.
    The phenotype here is an extended phenotype that includes relevant features of the environment.Google Scholar
  107. 44.
    Lewontin, R.C. (1974) The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, Columbia University Press, pl9.Google Scholar
  108. 45.
    See Johnston and Gottlieb (1990) The Selfish Gene. for a more detailed argument.Google Scholar
  109. 46.
    Dawkins, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  110. 47.
    See Hamilton, W.D. (1964) The Genetic Theory of Social Behavior’, I & II, Journal of Theoretical Biology 7, pl-32;Google Scholar
  111. 47a.
    Williams, G.C. (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  112. 48.
    Dawkins (1976) Adaptation and Natural Selection, Princeton University Press, p21.Google Scholar
  113. 49.
    Dawkins, R. (1982). The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  114. 50.
    Dawkins, R. (1984) “Replicator Selection and the Extended Phenotype’ in Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, Sober, E. (ed.), MIT Press, pl38.Google Scholar
  115. 51.
    Dawkins (1984) “Replicator Selection and the Extended Phenotype’ in Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Biology, Sober, E. (ed.), MIT Press, pl39.Google Scholar
  116. 52.
    Gould, SJ. (1980) The Panda’s Thumb, W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  117. 53.
    Bateson, P.P.G. (1978) ‘Book Review: The Selfish Gene’. Animal Be-haviour 26, p316–318.Google Scholar
  118. 54.
    Dawkins (1982) ‘Book Review: The Selfish Gene’. Animal Be-haviour 26, p 89–99.Google Scholar
  119. 55.
    Hull, D.L. (1988) Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Socialand Conceptual Development of Science, University of Chicago Press, p413.Google Scholar
  120. 56.
    See Williams, G.C. (1986) ‘Comments by George C. Williams on Sober’s The Nature of Selection’, Biology and Philosophy 1, pi 14–122 andGoogle Scholar
  121. 56a.
    Sober, E. (1984) The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  122. 57.
    Williams (1986) ‘Comments by George C. Williams on Sober’s The Nature of Selection’, Biology and Philosophy 1, pi 14–122 andGoogle Scholar
  123. 58.
    Hull (1988) ‘Comments by George C. Williams on Sober’s The Nature of Selection’, Biology and Philosophy 1, pi 14–122 andGoogle Scholar
  124. Sober, E. (1984) The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus, MIT Press, p409.Google Scholar
  125. 59.
    Sober (1984) ‘Comments by George C. Williams on Sober’s The Nature of Selection’, Biology and Philosophy 1, pi 14–122 anGoogle Scholar
  126. 59a.
    Sober, E. (1984) The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  127. 60.
    Sober, E. (1984) ‘Force and Disposition in Evolutionary Theory’ in Minds, Machines and Evolution, Hooking, C. (ed.), Cambridge University Press, p50–51.Google Scholar
  128. 61.
    In adopting Sober’s terminology I am not necessarily endorsing his more general views on causation.Google Scholar
  129. 62.
    Lloyd, E.A. (1988) The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory, Greenwood Press, p136.Google Scholar
  130. 63.
    Sterelny & Kitcher (1988) The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory, Greenwood Press, p350.Google Scholar
  131. 64.
    Lloyd (1988) The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory, Greenwood Press, p350.Google Scholar
  132. 65.
    Bateson (1978) The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory, Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  133. 66.
    Dawkins (1984) The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory, Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  134. 67.
    Sterelny & Kitcher (1988) The Structure and Confirmation of Evolutionary Theory, Greenwood Press, p358.Google Scholar
  135. 68.
    For more on eucalypts and bushfires see Pryer, L.D. (1976) Biology of Eucalypts, Edward Arnold;Google Scholar
  136. 68a.
    and Pate, J.S. & McComb, A.J. (1981) The Biology of Austraiian Plants, University of Western Australia Press.Google Scholar
  137. 69.
    Patrick, B. (1989), ‘Panbiogeography and the Amateur Naturalist with reference to Conservation Implication’, New Zealand Journal of Zoology 16, p749–755.Google Scholar
  138. 70.
    Sterelny & Kitcher (1988) ‘Panbiogeography and the Amateur Naturalist with reference to Conservation Implication’, New Zealand Journal of Zoology 16, p360–361.Google Scholar
  139. 71.
    Haraway (1989) ‘Panbiogeography and the Amateur Naturalist with reference to Conservation Implication’, New Zealand Journal of Zoology 16, p358.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Russell Gray
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OtagoNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations