The idea of a solipsistic ego, without body, culture and we, which goes back to Catholic dogma, also largely prevented the perception of “psychonomic species” in contrast to “bionomic species”.
It was E.H. Erikson, who coined the term “pseudo-species” in “Ontogeny of Ritualization in Man” in 1966 and described their origin.
In ethology (e.g. K. Lorenz, I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, B. Hassenstein, N. Tinbergen …) both the term and explanations of how these pseudo-species arise can be found.
What seems sensible from a biological point of view, namely to designate this form of species as pseudo-species, is untenable from a psychonomic point of view.
That’s why I make a distinction in
Bionomic species, which arise through biological processes and are determined on the basis of morphology and nowadays also genetic analyses, as well as
Psychonomic species that are culturally generated and socially transmitted through psychological processes, whether conscious and/or unconscious.
Psychonomic species form (and are at the same time defined by them) different, very stable frames of meaning and frames of practice (see e.g. Thurnwald, even if he assigned the differences to “races“, since the concept of “psychonomic species” too did not exist at the time).
How stable these frames of meaning are can be seen, for example, in the longevity of myths and dogmas within psychology. And explain the resulting blindness as in autism, institutionalized abuse and in cynology.