Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 709–725

Typology now: homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability

Article

Abstract

By linking the concepts of homology and morphological organization to evolvability, this paper attempts to (1) bridge the gap between developmental and phylogenetic approaches to homology and to (2) show that developmental constraints and natural selection are compatible and in fact complementary. I conceive of a homologue as a unit of morphological evolvability, i.e., as a part of an organism that can exhibit heritable phenotypic variation independently of the organism’s other homologues. An account of homology therefore consists in explaining how an organism’s developmental constitution results in different homologues/characters as units that can evolve independently of each other. The explanans of an account of homology is developmental, yet the very explanandum is an evolutionary phenomenon: evolvability in a character-by-character fashion, which manifests itself in phylogenetic patterns as recognized by phylogenetic approaches to homology. While developmental constraints and selection have often been viewed as antagonistic forces, I argue that both are complementary as they concern different parts of the evolutionary process. Developmental constraints, conceived of as the presence of the same set of homologues across phenotypic change, pertain to how heritable variation can be generated in the first place (evolvability), while natural selection operates subsequently on the produced variation.

Keywords

Developmental constraints Evolutionary developmental biology Evolvability Explanation Homology Organization Theoretical integration 

References

  1. Abouheif E (1997) Developmental genetics and homology: a hierarchical approach, Trends Ecol Evol 12:405–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abouheif E, Akam M, Dickinson WJ, Holland PWH, Meyer A, Patel NH, Raff RA, Roth VL, Wray GA (1997) Homology and developmental genes. Trends Genet 13:432–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amundson R (1994) Two concepts of constraint: adaptationism and the challenge from developmental biology. Philos Sci 61:556–578Google Scholar
  4. Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: roots of evo-devo. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Amundson R, Lauder G (1994) Function without purpose: the uses of causal role functions in evolutionary biology. Biol Philos 9:443–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolker JA (2000) Modularity in development and why it matters to evo-devo. Am Zool 40:770–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolker JA, Raff RA (1996) Developmental genetics and traditional homology. Bioessays 18:489–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brigandt I (2003) Homology in comparative, molecular, and evolutionary developmental biology: the radiation of a concept. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 299B:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brigandt I (2006) Homology and heterochrony: the evolutionary embryologist Gavin Rylands de Beer (1899–1972). J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 306B:317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brigandt I (in press) Natural kinds in evolution and systematics: metaphysical and epistemological considerations. Acta BiotheoreticaGoogle Scholar
  11. Cracraft J (2005) Phylogeny and evo-devo: characters, homology, and the historical analysis of the evolution of development. Zoology 108:345–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Beer GR (1971) Homology, an unsolved problem. Oxford University Press, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickinson WJ (1995) Molecules and morphology: where’s the homology? Trends Genet 11:119–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donoghue MJ (1992) Homology. In: Keller EF, Lloyd EA (eds) Keywords in evolutionary biology, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 170–179Google Scholar
  15. Gerhart J, Kirschner M (1998) Evolvability. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:8420–8427Google Scholar
  16. Gilbert SF, Bolker JA (2001) Homologies of process and modular elements of embryonic construction. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 291:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilbert SF, Opitz JM, Raff RA (1996) Resynthesizing evolutionary and developmental biology. Dev Biol 173:357–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gilbert SF, Sarkar S (2000) Embracing complexity: organicism for the 21st century. Dev Dyn 219:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B 205:581–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffiths PE (1996) The historical turn in the study of adaptation. Br J Philos Sci 47:511–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths PE (2006) Function, homology, and character individuation. Philos Sci 73:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall BK (1995) Homology and embryonic development. In: Hecht MK, MacIntyre RJ, Clegg MT (eds) Evolutionary biology, vol 28. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–37Google Scholar
  23. Kirschner M, Gerhart J (2005) The plausibility of life: resolving Darwin’s dilemma. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  24. Laubichler M (2000) Homology in development and the development of the homology concept. Am Zool 40:777–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lauder GV (1986) Homology, analogy, and the evolution of behavior. In: Nitecki MH, Kitchell JA (eds) Evolution of animal behavior: paleontological and field approaches. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 9–40Google Scholar
  26. Lauder GV (1994) Homology, form, and function. In: Hall BK (eds) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 151–196Google Scholar
  27. Love AC (2006) Evolutionary morphology and evo-devo: hierarchy and novelty. Theory Biosci 124:317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Love AC, Raff RA (2006) Larval ectoderm, organizational homology, and the origins of evolutionary novelty. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 306B:18–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maynard Smith J, Burian R, Kauffman S, Alberch P, Campbell J, Goodwin B, Lande R, Raup D, Wolpert L (1985) Developmental constraints and evolution. Q Rev Biol 60:265–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayr E (1959) Where are we? In: Wooldridge C (ed) Genetics and twentieth century Darwinism (Cold Spring Harbor symposia on quantitative biology, vol 24). The Biological Laboratory, New York, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  31. Mayr E (1982) The growth of biological thought. Belknap Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. Mayr E (1994) Response to John Beatty. Biol Philos 9:357–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Minelli A (2003) The development of animal form: ontogeny, morphology, and evolution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Müller GB (1991) Developmental mechanisms at the origin of morphological novelty: a side-effect hypothesis. In: Nitecki MH (ed) Evolutionary innovations. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 99–130Google Scholar
  35. Müller GB (2003) Homology: the evolution of morphological organization. In: Müller GB, Newman SA (eds) Origination of organismal form: beyond the gene in developmental and evolutionary biology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 52–69Google Scholar
  36. Müller GB, Newman SA (1999) Generation, integration, autonomy: three steps in the evolution of homology. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology. John Wiley & Sons, Chicester, pp 65–73Google Scholar
  37. Müller GB, Wagner GP (1991) Novelty in evolution: restructuring the concept. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22:229–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Müller GB, Wagner GP (1996) Homology, hox genes, and developmental integration. Am Zool 36:4–13Google Scholar
  39. Müller GB, Wagner GP (2003) Innovation. In: Hall BK, Olson WM (eds) Keywords and concepts in evolutionary developmental biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 218–227Google Scholar
  40. Newman SA (2006) The developmental genetic toolkit and the molecular homology-analogy paradox. Biol Theor Integr Dev Evol Cogn 1:12–16Google Scholar
  41. Nielsen C, Martinez P (2003) Patterns of gene expression: homology or homocracy? Dev Genes Evol 213:149–154Google Scholar
  42. Oster G, Alberch P (1982) Evolution and bifurcation of developmental programs. Evolution 36:444–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Owen R (1843) Lectures on the comparative anatomy and physiology of the invertebrate animals, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons in 1843. Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Patterson C (1982) Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey KA, Friday AE (eds) Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic Press, London pp 21–74Google Scholar
  45. Rieppel O (2006) Modules, kinds, and homology. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 304B:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roth VL (1988) The biological basis of homology. In: Humphries CJ (ed) Ontogeny and systematics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  47. Simpson GG (1961) Principles of animal taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Stadler BMR, Stadler PF, Wagner GP, Fontana W (2001) The topology of the possible: formal spaces underlying pattern of evolutionary change. J Theor Biol 213:241–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. von Dassow G, Munro E (1999) Modularity in animal development and evolution: elements for a conceptual framework for EvoDevo. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 285:307–325Google Scholar
  50. Wagner GP (1989a) The biological homology concept. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wagner GP (1989b) The origin of morphological characters and the biological basis of homology. Evolution 43:1157–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wagner GP (1994) Homology and the mechanisms of development. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego pp 273–299Google Scholar
  53. Wagner GP (1996) Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity. Am Zool 36:36–43Google Scholar
  54. Wagner GP (2000) What is the promise of developmental evolution? Part I: why is developmental biology necessary to explain evolutionary innovations? J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 288:95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wagner GP (2007a) How wide and how deep is the divide between population genetics and developmental evolution? Biol Philos 22:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wagner GP (2007b) The developmental genetics of homology. Nat Rev Genet 8:473–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wagner GP, Laubichler M (2000) Character identification in evolutionary biology: the role of the organism. Theory Biosci 119:20–40Google Scholar
  58. Wagner GP, Misof BY (1993) How can a character be developmentally constrained despite variation in developmental pathways? J Evol Biol 6:449–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wagner GP, Stadler PF (2003) Quasi-independence, homology and the unity of type: a topological theory of characters. J Theor Biol 220:505–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wallace B (1986) Can embryologists contribute to an understanding of evolutionary mechanisms? In: Bechtel W (ed) Integrating scientific disciplines. M. Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 149–163Google Scholar
  61. Winther RG (2001) Varieties of modules: kinds, levels, origins and behaviors. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 291:116–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wouters A (2003) Four notions of biological function. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 34:633–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy University of Alberta EdmontonCanada

Personalised recommendations