Abstract
I welcome the “Comment” from Hatert et al. (2021) related to the proposal for an “Evolutionary system of mineralogy” (Hazen 2019) and thank them for their historically informed, conceptually nuanced, and consistently constructive contribution. They offer corrections related to two facets of my paper that seemed unfairly to criticize aspects of the International Mineralogical Association’s Commission on New Minerals, Nomenclature and Classification (IMA-CNMNC) protocols for classifying minerals.
First, they note an unfortunate inferred ambivalence with respect to the relationship between the IMA system and the new evolutionary system. If I was once ambivalent, that view has changed. Having spent the past two years in an ongoing effort to develop this new historical approach, I am struck every day by the power of the IMA-CNMNC system of species classification and nomenclature, which is fundamental and indispensable to the science of mineralogy. As Hatert et al. suggest, any new approach to organizing natural solids, including one focused on planetary evolution, must rest on the foundation provided by the IMA-CNMNC and its many volunteers who selflessly bring order to the mineral kingdom. In the best scenario, the evolutionary system may one day emerge as one of several useful approaches that complement and amplify but in no way replace this core IMA-CNMNC foundation, as clearly stated in the abstract of Hazen (2019).
Second, Hatert et al. (2021) offer corrections regarding the IMA-CNMNC approach to classification, in particular a mischaracterization of the formal process to incorporate amorphous phases, poorly crystalline materials, and loosely defined “mineraloids.” I am grateful for the clarifications, as well as the implication that IMA protocols may facilitate the embrace of additional such phases in the future.
Finally, I welcome the chance to explore further the emerging concept of “natural kinds” as applied to the mineral kingdom. Here, our thoughts differ. I suggest that minerals, considered in their information-rich, idiosyncratic, paragenetic contexts (in contrast to IMA-CNMNC species), have the potential to represent quintessential examples of “natural kinds.” Furthermore, when viewed in their evolutionary context, minerals offer an intriguing opportunity to expand the concept of “historical natural kinds” beyond its present limited and, at times, controversial use in biology, into the realm of the co-evolving geosphere and biosphere.
Funding source: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
Funding source: W.M. Keck Foundation
Funding source: John Templeton Foundation
Funding statement: Studies of mineral evolution and mineral ecology have been supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the W.M. Keck Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, the NASA Astrobiology Institute ENIGMA team, a private foundation, and the Carnegie Institution for Science. Any opinions, findings, or recommendations expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Acknowledgments
I am deeply grateful to Carol Cleland, Edward Grew, Margaret Hazen, Peter Heaney, and Shaunna Morrison for useful discussions and thoughtful suggestions.
References cited
Bird, A., and Tobin, E. (2018) Natural kinds. In E.N. Zalta, Ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/natural-kinds/Search in Google Scholar
Bowen, N.L. (1928) The Evolution of the Igneous Rocks. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.Search in Google Scholar
Cleland, C.E. (2019) The Quest for a Universal Theory of Life. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781139046893Search in Google Scholar
Cleland, C.E., Hazen, R.M., and Morrison, S.M. (2021) Historical natural kinds in mineralogy: Systematizing contingency in the context of necessity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, in press.10.1073/pnas.2015370118Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
Elder, C. (2008) Biological species are natural kinds. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 6, 339–362.10.1111/j.2041-6962.2008.tb00123.xSearch in Google Scholar
Ellis, B. (2001) Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge Studies in Philosophy. Cambridge Univesity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Ellis, M.W. (2011) The problem with the species problem. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 22, 343–363.Search in Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. (2014) Species, historicity, and path dependency. Philosophy of Science, 81, 714–726.10.1086/677202Search in Google Scholar
Gastil, G. (1960) The distribution of mineral dates in space and time. American Journal of Science, 258, 1–35.10.2475/ajs.258.1.1Search in Google Scholar
Godman, M. (2019) Scientific realism with historical essences: The case of species. Synthese, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-02034-310.1007/s11229-018-02034-3Search in Google Scholar
Griffiths, P.E. (1999) Squaring the circle: Natural kinds with historical essences. In R. Wilson, Ed., Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1991) A tradition of natural kinds. Philosophical Studies, 61, 109–126. ——— (1999) The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press.10.1007/BF00385836Search in Google Scholar
Hatert, F., Mills, S.J., Hawthorne, F.C., and Rumsey, M.S. (2021) A comment on “An evolutionary system of mineralogy: Proposal for a classification of planetary materials based on natural kind clustering.” American Mineralogist, 106, 150–153.10.2138/am-2021-7590Search in Google Scholar
Hazen, R.M. (2019) An evolutionary system of mineralogy: Proposal for a classification of planetary materials based on natural kind clustering. American Mineralogist, 104, 810–816.10.2138/am-2019-6709CCBYNCNDSearch in Google Scholar
Hazen, R.M., and Morrison, S.M. (2020) An evolutionary system of mineralogy, Part I: Stellar mineralogy (>13 to 4.6 Ga). American Mineralogist, 105, 627–651.10.2138/am-2020-7173Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
Hazen, R.M., and Morrison, S.M. (2021) An evolutionary system of mineralogy, Part V: Planetesimal Aqueous and thermal alteration of planetesimals (4.565 to 4.550 Ga). American Mineralogist, in press.Search in Google Scholar
Hazen, R.M., Papineau, D., Bleeker, W., Downs, R.T., Ferry, J., McCoy, T., Sverjensky, D.A., and Yang, H. (2008) Mineral evolution. American Mineralogist, 93, 1693–1720.10.2138/am.2008.2955Search in Google Scholar
Hazen, R.M., Morrison, S.M., and Prabhu, A. (2021) An evolutionary system of mineralogy, Part III: Primary chondrule mineralogy (4.566 to 4.561 Ga). American Mineralogist, in press.Search in Google Scholar
Hawley, K., and Bird, A. (2011) What are natural kinds? Philosophical Perspectives, 25, 205–221.10.1111/j.1520-8583.2011.00212.xSearch in Google Scholar
Heck, P.R., Greer, J., Kööp, L., Trappitsch, R., Gyngard, F., Busemann, H., Maden, C., Ávila, J.N., Davis, A.M., and Wieler, R. (2020) Lifetimes of interstellar dust from cosmic ray exposure ages of presolar grains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(4), 1884–1889. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1904573117.10.1073/pnas.1904573117Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
Laporte, J. (2004) Natural Kinds and Conceptual Change. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511527319Search in Google Scholar
Laznicka, P. (1973) Development of nonferrous metal deposits in geological time. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 10, 18–25.10.1139/e73-002Search in Google Scholar
Magnus, P.D. (2012) Scientific Enquiry and Natural Kinds: From Mallards to Planets. Palgrave MacMillan.10.1057/9781137271259Search in Google Scholar
Meyer, C. (1981) Ore-forming processes in the geologic history of the Earth. Economic Geology, 75th Anniversary Volume, 6–41.Search in Google Scholar
Millikan, R.G. (1999) Historical kinds and the special sciences. Philosophical Studies, 95, 45–65.10.1023/A:1004532016219Search in Google Scholar
Morrison, S.M., and Hazen, R.M. (2020) An evolutionary system of mineralogy, Part II: Interstellar and solar nebula primary condensation mineralogy (>4.565 Ga). American Mineralogist, 105, 1508–1535 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2138/am-2021-7447Search in Google Scholar
Morrison, S.M., and Hazen, R.M. (2021) An evolutionary system of mineralogy, Part IV: Planetesimal differentiation and impact mineralization (4.566 to 4.560 Ga). American Mineralogist, in press.Search in Google Scholar
Okasha, S. (2002) Darwinian metaphysics: Species and the question of essentialism. Synthese, 131, 191–213.10.1023/A:1015731831011Search in Google Scholar
Quine, V.W. (1969) Natural kinds. In V.W. Quine, Ed., Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, p.114–138. Columbia University Press.10.7312/quin92204Search in Google Scholar
Santana, C. (2019) Mineral misbehavior: why mineralogists don’t deal in natural kinds. Foundations of Chemistry, 21, 333–343.10.1007/s10698-019-09338-3Search in Google Scholar
Zhabin, A.G. (1979) Is there evolution of mineral speciation on Earth? Doklady Akademii Nauk, 247, 199–202 (in Russian).Search in Google Scholar
Zhabin, A.G. (1981) Is there evolution of mineral speciation on Earth? Doklady Earth Science Sections, 247, 142–144 [translation of Zhabin (1979)].Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
