Recent experimental work on “natural” kind terms has shown evidence of both descriptive and nondescriptive reference determination. This has led some to propose ambiguity or hybrid theories, as opposed to traditional description and causal-historical theories of reference. Many of those experiments tested theories against referential intuitions. We reject this method, urging that reference should be tested against usage, preferably by elicited production. Our tests of the usage of a biological kind term confirm that there are indeed both descriptive and causal-historical elements to the reference determination of some natural kind terms. We argue that to accommodate our results and earlier ones, we should abandon the common assumption that any one theory of reference fits all natural kind terms. Rather, it is likely that some terms are descriptive, some causal-historical, some ambiguous, and some hybrid. This substantive conclusion is accompanied by a methodological one. Our experiments, like some earlier ones, found participants contradicting both each other and themselves. We argue that these contradictions indicate a lack of linguistic competence with the term. We conclude that these experiments have been faulty, because they test terms that are novel to participants and/or use fantastical vignettes. We provide some suggestions for future research.

中文翻译：

---

测试生物种类术语的参考

最近关于“自然”种类术语的实验工作显示了描述性和非描述性参考确定的证据。这导致一些人提出歧义或混合理论，而不是传统的描述和因果历史参考理论。这些实验中有许多是根据参考直觉来检验理论的。我们拒绝这种方法，敦促应该针对使用情况对参考进行测试，最好是通过引出生产。我们对生物种类术语使用的测试证实，某些自然种类术语的参考确定确实存在描述性和因果历史因素。我们认为，为了适应我们的结果和早期的结果，我们应该放弃任何一种指称理论都适合所有自然种类术语的普遍假设。相反，有些术语可能是描述性的，有些是因果历史的，有些是模棱两可的，有些是混合的。这一实质性结论伴随着一个方法论结论。我们的实验和之前的一些实验一样，发现参与者彼此矛盾，也与他们自己矛盾。我们认为，这些矛盾表明该术语缺乏语言能力。我们得出结论，这些实验是错误的，因为它们测试了对参与者来说是新的术语和/或使用了奇幻的小插曲。我们为未来的研究提供一些建议。我们得出结论，这些实验是错误的，因为它们测试了对参与者来说新颖的术语和/或使用了奇幻的小插曲。我们为未来的研究提供一些建议。我们得出结论，这些实验是错误的，因为它们测试了对参与者来说新颖的术语和/或使用了奇幻的小插曲。我们为未来的研究提供一些建议。