The Utility of the Proximate‐Ultimate Dichotomy in Ethology
- 12 January 1994
- Vol. 96 (1) , 58-62
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1994.tb00881.x
Abstract
We defend the organizing principle that there are fundamentally different levels of analysis in biology, notably proximate and ultimate. Despite recent claims to the contrary, the proximate‐ultimate distinction is a true dichotomy, not an artificial division of a continuum. Acceptance of this dichotomy does not imply that ultimate questions are of greater importance than those dealing with proximate mechanisms, nor does it result in confusion of current reproductive consequences with evolutionary causes.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Behavioural mechanisms in evolutionary perspectiveTrends in Ecology & Evolution, 1993
- Constraints on Phenotypic EvolutionThe American Naturalist, 1992
- Structure of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase/DNA complex at 7 Å resolution showing active site locationsNature, 1992
- On Pluralism and Competition in Evolutionary ExplanationsAmerican Zoologist, 1992
- Homoplasy: The Result of Natural Selection, or Evidence of Design Limitations?The American Naturalist, 1991
- Levels of cause and effect as organizing principles for research in animal behaviourCanadian Journal of Zoology, 1991
- The clitoris debate and the levels of analysisAnimal Behaviour, 1989
- Levels of analysis or analyses at the same levelAnimal Behaviour, 1989
- The levels of analysisAnimal Behaviour, 1988
- Natural Selection and Ecological TheoryThe American Naturalist, 1962