There is long-standing conflict between genealogical and developmental accounts of homology. This paper provides a general framework that shows that these accounts are compatible and clarifies precisely how they are related. According to this framework, understanding homology requires both (a) an abstract genealogical account that unifies the application of the term to all types of characters used in phylogenetic systematics and (b) locally enriched accounts that apply only to specific types of characters. The genealogical account serves this unifying role by relying on abstract notions of ‘descent’ and ‘character’. As a result, it takes for granted the existence of such characters. This requires theoretical justification that is provided by enriched accounts, which incorporate the details by which characters are inherited. These enriched accounts apply to limited domains (e.g. genes and proteins, or body parts), providing the needed theoretical justification for recognizing characters within that domain. Though connected to the genealogical account of homology in this way, enriched accounts include phenomena (e.g. serial homology, paralogy, and xenology) that fall outside the scope of the genealogical account. They therefore overlap, but are not nested within, the genealogical account. Developmental accounts of homology are to be understood as enriched accounts of body part homology. Once they are seen in this light, the conflict with the genealogical account vanishes. It is only by understanding the fine conceptual structure undergirding the many uses of the term ‘homology’ that we can understand how these uses hang together.
KeywordsHomology Character identity Phylogenetic systematics Scientific concepts Evo-devo Gene regulatory networks
The author thanks Günter Wagner, James Lennox, Sandra Mitchell, Mark Wilson, Mark Rebeiz, James Woodward, Nora Boyd, David Colaço, Adrian Currie, Karen Kovaka, Liam Kofi Bright, Catherine Kendig, Maureen O’Malley, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and discussion.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares he has no conflict of interest.
- De Beer G (1971) Homology, an unsolved problem. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Goethe JWV (2009) The metamorphosis of plants. Miller GL (ed, trans) MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Gray GS, Fitch WM (1983) Evolution of antibiotic resistance genes: the DNA sequence of a kanamycin resistance gene from Staphylococcus aureus. Mol Biol Evol 1(1):57–66. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a040298 Google Scholar
- Hall BK (ed) (1994) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- Hennig W (1966). In: Davis DD, Zangerl R (eds) Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
- Kendig C (2016) Homologizing as kinding. In: Kendig C (ed) Natural kinds and classification in scientific practice. Routledge, London, pp 106–125Google Scholar
- Laublichler M (2014) Homology as a bridge between evolutionary morphology, developmental evolution, and phylogenetic systematics. In: Hamilton A (ed) The evolution of phylogenetic systematics. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 63–85Google Scholar
- 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, pp 51–69Google Scholar
- Müller GB, Newman SA (1999) Generation, integration, autonomy: three steps in the evolution of homology. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) homology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 65–79Google Scholar
- Müller GB, Wagner GP (1991) Novelty in evolution: restructuring the concept. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 22(1):229–256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.22.110191.001305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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
- Owen R (2007). In: Amundson R (ed) On the nature of limbs: a discourse. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Panchen AL (1999) Homology—history of a concept. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 5–23Google Scholar
- Peter IS, Davidson EH (2015) Genomic control process: development and evolution. Academic Press, Saint LouisGoogle Scholar
- Spencer WP (1963) Gene homologies and the mutants of Drosophila hydei. In: Jepsen GL, Simpson GG, Mayr E (eds) Genetics, paleontology and evolution. Atheneum, New York, pp 23–44Google Scholar
- Strimmer K, von Haeseler A, Salemi M (2009) Genetic distances and nucleotide substitution models. In: Lemey P, Salemi M, Vandamme AM (eds) The phylogenetic handbook: a practical approach to phylogenetic analysis and hypothesis testing, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 111–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wagner GP (1999) A research programme for testing the biological homology concept. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 125–134Google Scholar