 Pluralism about biological individuals has also been motivated by the general idea that particular epistemic practices, rather than or additional to high-level biological theory, should drive one’s ontological commitments (Kovaka 2015, Chen 2016, Love 2018; for interplay of theory and experimental practice in this connection, see Fagan 2016). Just as practices of the individuation of species might vary with the differential practices of (say) ciliatologists and ornithologists, so too might the very individuative criteria for being a (relevant) biological individual differ according to the varying epistemic practices across the biological sciences. How radical the resulting form of pluralism is will depend in part on how fine-grained one’s view of the relevant practices is and the expanse of the range of those practices. For example, are all of the practices in developmental biology clustered, or are distinctions to be drawn between those relevant to the experimental investigation of growth and those relevant to homology? Are biological individuals that are posited in community ecology and are constituted by organisms, other living things, and non-living things including soils, included, as Roberta Millstein (2018) has recently done when discussing the land community (see also Eliot 2011)? Whether this results in what Alan Love calls strong individuality pluralism, the view that “for a given situation, individuality can be modeled correctly in more than one way” (2018: 187), turns on answers to such questions. 