Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 643–658 | Cite as

The phenomena of homology

  • Paul E. GriffithsEmail author


Philosophical discussions of biological classification have failed to recognise the central role of homology in the classification of biological parts and processes. One reason for this is a misunderstanding of the relationship between judgments of homology and the core explanatory theories of biology. The textbook characterisation of homology as identity by descent is commonly regarded as a definition. I suggest instead that it is one of several attempts to explain the phenomena of homology. Twenty years ago the ‘new experimentalist’ movement in philosophy of science drew attention to the fact that many experimental phenomena have a ‘life of their own’: the conviction that they are real is not dependent on the theories used to characterise and explain them. I suggest that something similar can be true of descriptive phenomena, and that many homologies are phenomena of this kind. As a result the descriptive biology of form and function has a life of its own—a degree of epistemological independence from the theories that explain form and function. I also suggest that the two major ‘homology concepts’ in contemporary biology, usually seen as two competing definitions, are in reality complementary elements of the biological explanation of homology.


Homology Function Selected effects Experimental phenomenon Descriptive biology Compositional biology 



I thank Alan Love, Mohan Matthen, Marc Ereshefsky, and especially Ingo Brigandt for detailed feedback on earlier drafts of this paper.


  1. Amundson R, Lauder GV (1994) Function without purpose: the uses of causal role function in evolutionary biology. Biol Philos 9(4):443–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey WJ, Slighthorn JL, Goodman M (1992) Rejection of the ‘flying primate’ hypothesis by phylogenetic evidence from the e-globin gene. Science 256:86–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) (1999) Homology, Novartis Foundation Symposium, 222. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandon RN (1994) Theory and experiment in evolutionary biology. Synthese 99(1):59–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brigandt I (2002) Homology and the origin of correspondence. Biol Philos 17:389–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brigandt I (2003a) Homology in comparative, molecular and evolutionary biology. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 299B:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brigandt I (2003b) Species pluralism does not imply species eliminativism. Philos Sci 70(5):1305–1316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Camardi G (2001) Richard Owen, morphology and evolution. J History Biol 34:481–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craver CF, Darden L (2005) Introduction to special issue on mechanisms in biology. Stud History Philos Biol Biomed Sci 36(2):233–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Darwin C (1964) On the origin of species: a facsimile of the first edition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  12. Devos KM, Gale MD (2000) Genome relationships: the grass model in current research. Plant Cell 12(5):637–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franklin A (1986) The neglect of experiment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, xii, 290 pGoogle Scholar
  14. Franklin A (1990) Experiment, right or wrong. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, x, 230 p Google Scholar
  15. Gale MD, Devos KM (1998) Comparative genetics in the grasses. Proce Nat Acad Sci USA 95:1971–1974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gilbert SF (ed) (1991) A conceptual history of modern embryology. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodman N (1954) Fact, fiction and forecast, 1st ed. Athlone Press, University of London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Griffiths PE (1994) Cladistic classification & functional explanation. Philos Sci 61(2):206–227Google Scholar
  19. Griffiths PE (1996) The historical turn in the study of adaptation. Brit J Philos Sci 47(4):511–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Griffiths PE (2006) Function, homology and character individuation. Philos Sci 73(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Griffiths PE (in preparation). In what sense does ‘nothing in biology make sense except in the light of evolution’?Google Scholar
  22. Griffiths PE, Stotz K (2007) Gene. In: Ruse M, Hull D (eds) Cambridge companion to philosophy of biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 85–102Google Scholar
  23. Hacking I (1981) Do we see through a microscope? Pacific Philos Quarter 62:305–322Google Scholar
  24. Hacking I (1983) Representing and intervening: introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Hall BK (ed) (1994) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  26. Hall BK (2003) Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution. Biol Rev 78:409–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall BK, Olson WM (eds) (2003) Keywords and concepts in evolutionary developmental biology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA and LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Harvey PH, Pagel MD (1991) The comparative method in evolutionary biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford & NYGoogle Scholar
  29. Hull DL (1987) Genealogical actors in ecological roles. Biol Philos 2:168–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jarvis ED et al (Avian Brain Nomenclature Consortium) (2005) Avian brains and a new understanding of vertebrate brain evolution. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:151–159Google Scholar
  31. Kripke S (1980) Naming & necessity. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  32. Lankester ER (1870) On the use of the term homology in modern zoology, and the distinction between homogenetic and homoplastic agreements. Ann Magaz Nat History 6(Series 4):34–43Google Scholar
  33. Laubichler MD, Maienschein J (2007) From embryology to evo-devo: a history of developmental evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  34. Lenoir T (1989) The strategy of life: teleology and mechanics in nineteenth century german biology. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  35. Love A (2001) Evolutionary morphology, innovation, and the synthesis of evolution and development. Biol Philos 18(2):309–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Love A (2007) Morphological and paleontological perspectives for a history of evo-devo. In: Laubichler MD, Maienschein J (eds) From embryology to evo-devo: a history of developmental evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 267–307Google Scholar
  37. Machamer P, Darden L, Craver C (2000) Thinking about mechanisms. Philos Sci 67(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Matthen M (1998) Biological universals and the nature of fear. J Philos XVC(3):105–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matthen M (2000) What is a hand? What is a mind? Revue Internationale de Philosophie 214:653–672Google Scholar
  40. Mattick JS (2003) Challenging the dogma: the hidden layer of non-protein-coding RNAs in complex organisms. BioEssays 25(10):930–939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mattick JS (2004) RNA regulation: a new genetics? Nat Rev: Genet 5:316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayo DG (1996) Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  43. Millikan RG (1984) Language, thought & other biological categories. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  44. Millikan RG (2002) Biofunctions: two paradigms. In: Cummins R, Ariew A, Perlman M (eds) Functions: new readings in the philosophy of psychology and biology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 113–143Google Scholar
  45. Müller GB (1991) Evolutionary transformation of limb pattern: heterochrony and secondary fusion. In: Hinchcliffe JR et al (eds) Developmental patterning of the vertebrate limb. Plenum Press, New York, pp 395–405Google Scholar
  46. Müller GB, Alberch P (1990) Ontogeny of the limb skeleton in Alligator mississippiensis: developmental invariance and change in the evolution of archosaur limbs. J Morphol 203:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Neander K (1983) Abnormal psychobiology. Unpublished PhD Thesis, LaTrobe UniversityGoogle Scholar
  48. Neander K (1991) Functions as selected effects: the conceptual analyst’s defense. Philos Sci 58:168–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Neander K (1995) Misrepresenting and malfunctioning. Philosop Stud 79:109–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Neander K (2002) Types of traits: the importance of functional homologues. In: Ariew A, Cummins R, Perlman M (eds) Functions: new essays in the philosophy of biology and psychology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 390–415Google Scholar
  51. Owen R (1843) Lectures on the comparative anatomy and physiology of the vertebrate animals, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons, in 1843. Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Raff RA (1996) The shape of life: genes, development and the evolution of animal form. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  53. Remane A (1952) Die Grundlagen des Natürlichen Systems, der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Otto Koeltz, KönigssteinGoogle Scholar
  54. Richards RJ (1992) The meaning of evolution: the morphological construction and ideological reconstruction of Darwin’s theory. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  55. Riedl R (1978) Order in living systems: a systems analysis of evolution. Wiley, Chichester, NYGoogle Scholar
  56. Rosenberg A (2001) The character concept: Adaptationalism to molecular developments. In: Wagner GP (ed) The character concept in evolutionary biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 201–216Google Scholar
  57. Rosenberg A (2006) Darwinian reductionism or, how to stop worrying and love molecular biology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  58. Roth VL (1984) On homology. Biol J Linnean Soc 22(1):13–29Google Scholar
  59. Snyder M, Gerstein M (2003) Defining genes in the genomics era. Science 300(5617):258–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sober E (1985) Putting the function back into functionalism. In: Lycan WG (ed) Mind and cognition: a reader. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 97–106Google Scholar
  61. Sober E (1988) Reconstructing the past: parsimony, evolution and inference. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  62. van Valen L (1982) Homology and causes. J Morphol 73:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wagner GP (1989) The biological homology concept. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 20:51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wagner GP (1994) Homology and the mechanisms of development. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, New York, pp 273–299Google Scholar
  65. Wagner GP (1999) A research programme for testing the biological homology concept. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester and New York, pp 125–134Google Scholar
  66. Wagner GP (ed) (2001) The character concept in evolutionary biology. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  67. Wagner GP (2007) The developmental genetics of homology. Nat Rev Genet 8(6):473–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wagner GP, Misof BY (1993) How can a character be developmentally constrained despite variation in developmental pathways? J Evol Biol 6(3):449–455Google Scholar
  69. Weber M (2005) Philosophy of experimental biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  70. Williams DM (2004) Homologues and homology, phenetics and cladistics: 150 years of progress. In: Williams DM, Forey PL (eds) Milestones in systematics. Systematics Association/CRC Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Winther RG (2006) Parts and theories in compositional biology. Biol Philos 21(4): 471–499Google Scholar
  72. Wouters A (2003) Four notions of biological function. Stud Hist Philos Biol Biomed Sci 34:633–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wouters A (2005) The functional perspective in evolutionary biology. In: Reydon TAC, Hemerik L (eds) Current themes in theoretical biology. Springer, pp 33–69Google Scholar
  74. Wouters A (2007) Design explanation: determining the constraints on what can be alive. Erkenntnis 67(1):65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.ESRC Centre for Genomics in SocietyUniversity of ExeterExeterUK

Personalised recommendations