Search

Biological types, including holotypes and reference genomes, are particular biological entities that represent an entire class of biological entities. This paper presents a feminist analysis of biological typing by asking whether we have reason to criticize the practices of selecting holotypes and reference genomes for being androcentric. I offer three distinct reasons why androcentrism can be objectionable: androcentric practices may inadequately account for traits or experiences of women/females, reinforce male/female dichotomies, or overgeneralize from particulars. I then evaluate whether the practices of selecting holotypes and genomes are objectionably androcentric in these three ways. These typing practices, especially as applied to the case of humans, are objectionably androcentric in some ways but not others. Whether a typing practice problematically ignores the traits or experiences of women depends on whether the typing practice involves non-accidentally taking the traits or experiences of male humans as typical, which, I argue, is true both in the case of holotypes and genomes. Neither holotypes nor genomes reinforce male/female dichotomies, although some features of these practices may appear to do so. Finally, both holotypes and genomes are criticizable for overgeneralizing from particulars, although this criticism does not depend on these practices being androcentric. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Measuring the climates of the deep past requires the use of paleoclimate proxies. I describe two proxy data and measurement practices, regarding proxy calibration and proxy data infrastructure. I document how at least some data and measurement practices in paleoclimatology are disunified: these practices do not involve intercalibration or otherwise statistical combination of multiple proxy records, and metadata necessary for proxy data to be reused or intercompared is often not provided. I argue that, perhaps counterintuitively, this lack of standardization and unification of proxy data and measurements has several benefits, especially related to the management of error and uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Caitlin Donahue Wylie's book, "Preparing Dinosaurs: The Work Behind the Scenes," explores the role of fossil preparators in vertebrate paleontology. The book highlights the often unrecognized and autonomous work of preparators in transforming fossils into researchable specimens. Wylie's ethnographic study reveals the shared values and methodological concerns within preparator communities, as well as the impact of technology on fossil preparation techniques. The book also discusses the negotiation between preparators and scientists in prioritizing research goals and the portrayal of scientific practice in museum exhibitions. Wylie's work sheds light on the importance of metadata in paleontological research and the trade-offs between collecting workflow metadata and preserving preparators' autonomy. [Extracted from the article]

The original article[1] listed the location of the author's affiliation incorrectly.The online version has since been updated. The publisher apologizes for this error.By Aja WatkinsReported by Author [Extracted from the article]

Living fossils, taxa with similar members now and in the deep past, have recently come under scrutiny. Those who think the concept should be retained have argued for its epistemic and normative utility. This article extends the epistemic utility of the living fossils concept to include ways in which a taxon's living fossil status can serve as evidence for other claims about that taxon. I will use insights from developmental biology to refine these claims. Insofar as these considerations demonstrate the epistemic utility of the living fossils concept, they support retaining the concept and using it in biological research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]