Holobionts: Ecological communities, hybrids, or biological individuals? A metaphysical perspective on multispecies systems

Vanessa Triviño , Javier Suárez
{"title":"Holobionts: Ecological communities, hybrids, or biological individuals? A metaphysical perspective on multispecies systems","authors":"Vanessa Triviño ,&nbsp;Javier Suárez","doi":"10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Holobionts are symbiotic assemblages composed by a macrobe host (animal or plant) plus its symbiotic microbiota. In recent years, the ontological status of holobionts has created a great amount of controversy among philosophers and biologists: are holobionts biological individuals or are they rather ecological communities of independent individuals that interact together? Chiu and Eberl have recently developed an eco-immunity account of the holobiont wherein holobionts are neither biological individuals nor ecological communities, but <em>hybrids</em> between a host and its microbiota. According to their account, the microbiota is not a proper part of the holobiont. Yet, it should be regarded as a set of scaffolds that support the individuality of the host. In this paper, we approach Chiu and Eberl's account from a metaphysical perspective and argue that, contrary to what the authors claim, the eco-immunity account entails that the microorganisms that compose the host's microbiota are proper parts of the holobiont. Second, we argue that by claiming that holobionts are hybrids, and therefore, not biological individuals, the authors seem to be assuming a controversial position about the ontology of hybrids, which are conventionally characterized as a type of biological individual. In doing so, our paper aligns with the contemporary tendency to incorporate metaphysical resources to shed light on current biological debates and builds on that to provide additional support to the consideration of holobionts as biological individuals from an eco-immunity perspective.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48557,"journal":{"name":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences","volume":"84 ","pages":"Article 101323"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.shpsc.2020.101323","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C-Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848620301345","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

Holobionts are symbiotic assemblages composed by a macrobe host (animal or plant) plus its symbiotic microbiota. In recent years, the ontological status of holobionts has created a great amount of controversy among philosophers and biologists: are holobionts biological individuals or are they rather ecological communities of independent individuals that interact together? Chiu and Eberl have recently developed an eco-immunity account of the holobiont wherein holobionts are neither biological individuals nor ecological communities, but hybrids between a host and its microbiota. According to their account, the microbiota is not a proper part of the holobiont. Yet, it should be regarded as a set of scaffolds that support the individuality of the host. In this paper, we approach Chiu and Eberl's account from a metaphysical perspective and argue that, contrary to what the authors claim, the eco-immunity account entails that the microorganisms that compose the host's microbiota are proper parts of the holobiont. Second, we argue that by claiming that holobionts are hybrids, and therefore, not biological individuals, the authors seem to be assuming a controversial position about the ontology of hybrids, which are conventionally characterized as a type of biological individual. In doing so, our paper aligns with the contemporary tendency to incorporate metaphysical resources to shed light on current biological debates and builds on that to provide additional support to the consideration of holobionts as biological individuals from an eco-immunity perspective.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全息生物:生态群落、杂交体还是生物个体?多物种系统的形而上学观点
整体共生体是由大型宿主(动物或植物)及其共生微生物群组成的共生组合。近年来,全息体的本体论地位在哲学家和生物学家之间引起了大量的争论:全息体是生物个体,还是由相互作用的独立个体组成的生态群落?Chiu和Eberl最近发展了一种全息生物的生态免疫解释,其中全息生物既不是生物个体也不是生态群落,而是宿主与其微生物群之间的杂交体。根据他们的说法,微生物群不是全息生物的一个适当的组成部分。然而,它应该被看作是一套支撑宿主个性的支架。在本文中,我们从形而上学的角度来看待Chiu和Eberl的解释,并认为,与作者所声称的相反,生态免疫解释需要构成宿主微生物群的微生物是全息生物的适当组成部分。其次,我们认为,通过声称全息生物是杂交体,因此不是生物个体,作者似乎对杂交体的本体假设了一个有争议的立场,杂交体通常被描述为一种生物个体。在这样做的过程中,我们的论文与当代的趋势保持一致,即结合形而上学的资源来阐明当前的生物学辩论,并以此为基础,从生态免疫的角度为将全息生物视为生物个体提供额外的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences is devoted to historical, sociological, philosophical and ethical aspects of the life and environmental sciences, of the sciences of mind and behaviour, and of the medical and biomedical sciences and technologies. Contributions are from a wide range of countries and cultural traditions; we encourage both specialist articles, and articles combining historical, philosophical, and sociological approaches; and we favour works of interest to scientists and medics as well as to specialists in the history, philosophy and sociology of the sciences.
期刊最新文献
Incidentally detected primary squamous cell carcinoma of the kidney: Case series with review of the literature. A Ordem do Universo no Séc. XII: Harmonia e Epistemologia na Tradição Neoplatónica Dynamics of non-structural carbohydrates following a full masting event reveal a role for stored starch in relation to reproduction in Fagus crenata. Postmodern Theory with Historical Intent Tales of Im/mobility
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1