@article{Pedroso2012-PEDEHA,number = {1},year = {2012},abstract = {de Queiroz (1995), Griffiths (1999) and LaPorte (2004) offer a new version of essentialism called "historical essentialism". According to this version of essentialism, relations of common ancestry are essential features of biological taxa. The main type of argument for this essentialism proposed by Griffiths (1999) and LaPorte (2004) is that the dominant school of classification, cladism, defines biological taxa in terms of common ancestry. The goal of this paper is to show that this argument for historical essentialism is unsatisfactory: cladism does not assume that relations of common ancestry are essential attributes of biological taxa. Therefore, historical essentialism is not justified by cladism.},pages = {182--190},title = {Essentialism, History, and Biological Taxa},author = {Makmiller Pedroso},volume = {43},journal = {Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C}}@