, Volume 79, Issue 3, pp 701–727 | Cite as

Venomous Dinosaurs and Rear-Fanged Snakes: Homology and Homoplasy Characterized

  • Adrian Mitchell CurrieEmail author
Original Article


I develop an account of homology and homoplasy drawing on their use in biological inference and explanation. Biologists call on homology and homoplasy to infer character states, support adaptationist explanations, identify evolutionary novelties and hypothesize phylogenetic relationships. In these contexts, the concepts must be understood phylogenetically and kept separate: as they play divergent roles, overlap between the two ought to be avoided. I use these considerations to criticize an otherwise attractive view defended by Gould, Hall, and Ramsey & Peterson. By this view, homology and homoplasy can only be delineated qua some level of description, and some homoplasies (parallelisms) are counted as homologous. I develop an account which retains the first, but rejects the second, aspect of that view. I then characterize parallelisms and convergences in terms of their causal role. By the Strict Continuity account, homology and homoplasy are defined phylogenetically and without overlaps, meeting my restriction. Convergence and parallelisms are defined as two types of homoplasy: convergent homoplasies are largely constrained by external factors, while parallelisms are due to internal constraints.


Venom Gland Alpha Male Internal Constraint Maxillary Tooth Developmental Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Many thanks to Russell Powell and Brian Hall for comments on earlier drafts. Versions of this paper has been presented at both the ANU and Otago Philosophy departments, I am grateful for the discussion and comments I received.


  1. Amundson, R., & Lauder, G. (1994). Function without purpose: The uses of causal role function in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy, 9(4), 443–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arendt, J., & Reznick, D. (2007). Convergence and parallelism reconsidered: What have we learned about the genetics of adaptation? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(1), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brigandt, I. (2007). Typology now: Homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability. Biology and Philosophy, 22, 709–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brigandt, I., & Griffiths, P. (2007). The importance of homology for biology and philosophy. Biology and Philosophy, 22(5), 633–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brigandt, I., & Love, A. (2012). Conceptualizing evolutionary novelty: Moving beyond definitional debates. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 318(6), 417–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, R. (2013). What evolvability really is. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 64(3), 1–24.Google Scholar
  7. Conway Morris, S. (2003). Life’s solution: Inevitable humans in a lonely universe. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Currie, A. (2012a). Convergence as evidence. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (online first).Google Scholar
  9. Currie, A. (2012b). Convergence, contingency & morphospace. Biology and Philosophy, 27(4), 583–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Currie, A., & Levy, A. (forthcoming). Model species are not (theoretical) models. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Google Scholar
  11. Gianechini, F. A., Agnolı′n F. L., & Ezcurra, M. D. (2011). A reassessment of the purportedly venom delivery system of the bird-like raptor Sinornithosaurus. Pala¨ontologische Zeitschrift , 85(1), 103–107.Google Scholar
  12. Godfrey-Smith, P. (1996). Complexity and the function of mind in nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gong, E., Martin, L. D., Burnham, D. A., & Falk A. R. (2011). Evidence for a venomous Sinornithosaurus. Paläontologische Zeitschrift, 85, 109–111.Google Scholar
  14. Gong, E., Martin, L. D., Burnham, D. A., & Falk, A. R. (2009). The birdlike raptor Sinornithosaurus was venomous. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 766–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gould, S. J. (1989). Wonderful life: The burgess shale and the nature of history. New York: W W Norton & co.Google Scholar
  16. Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Griffiths, P. E. (1994). Cladistic classification and functional explanation. Philosophy of Science, 61(2), 206–227.Google Scholar
  18. Griffiths, P. E. (2006). Function, homology, and character individuation. Philosophy of Science, 73(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  19. Griffiths, P. E. (2007). The phenomena of homology. Biology and Philosophy, 22(5), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, B. K. (2003). Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 78(3), 409–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hall, B. K. (2005). Consideration of the neural crest and its skeletal derivatives in the context of novelty/innovation. Journal of Experimental Zoology, Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 304(6), 548–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hall, B. K. (2007). Homoplasy and homology: Dichotomy or continuum? Journal of Human Evolution, 52(5), 473–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hall, B. K. (2012). Parallelism, deep homology, and evo-devo. Evolution & Development, 14, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leander, B. (2008). Different modes of convergent evolution reflect phylogenetic distance: A reply to Arendt and Reznik. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 9, 481–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis, D. (2000). Causation as influence. The Journal of Philosophy, 97(4), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lockwood, C. A. (1999). Homoplasy and adaptation in the atelid postcranium. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 108, 459–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGhee, G. R. (2011). Convergent evolution: Limited forms most beautiful. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neander, K. (2002). Types of traits: The importance of functional homologues. In A. Ariew, R. Cummins, & M. Perlman (Eds.), Functions: New essays in the philosophy of psychology and biology (pp. 390–415). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pearce, T. (2011). Evolution and constraints on variation: Variant specification and range of assessment. Philosophy of Science, (78), 739–751.Google Scholar
  30. Pearce, T. (2012). Convergence and parallelism in evolution: A Neo-Gouldian account. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Powell, R. (2007). Is convergence more than an analogy? Homoplasy and its implications for macroevolutionary predictability. Biology and Philosophy, 22(4), 565–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Powell, R. (2012). Convergent evolution and the limits of natural selection. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2(3), 355–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramsey, G., & Peterson, A. (2012). Sameness in biology. Philosophy of Science, 79(2), 255–275.Google Scholar
  34. Rosenberg, A. (2006). Darwinian reductionism; or, how to stop worrying and love molecular biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenberg, A., & Neander, K. (2009). Are homologies (selected effect or causal role) function free? Philosophy of Science, 76(3), 307–334.Google Scholar
  36. Salmon, W. (1984). Scientific explanation and the causal structure of the world. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Sansom, R. (2003). Constraining the adaptationism debate. Biology and Philosophy, 18, 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Scotland, R. W. (2011). What is parallelism? Evolution & Development, 13(2), 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wagner, G. P. (1994). Homology and the mechanisms of development. In B. K. Hall (Ed.), Homology: The heirarchical basis of comparative biology (pp. 273–299). San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wake, D. B., Wake, M. H., & Specht, C. D. (2011). Homoplasy: From detecting pattern to determining process and mechanism of evolution. Science, 331, 1032–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Waters, K. (2007). Causes that make a difference. Journal of Philosophy, 104, 551–579.Google Scholar
  42. West-Eberhard, M. J. (2003). Developmental plasticity and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: A theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Woodward, J. (2010). Causation in biology: Stability, specificity, and the choice of levels of explanation. Biology and Philosophy, 25(3), 287–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.c/o RSSS Philosophy DepartmentAustralia National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations