Advertisement

Developmental Homology

  • James DiFriscoEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Homology is the fundamental determinant of the sameness of biological characters or traits. When two characters stand in a relation of homology, they belong to the same character kind. For example, the eyes of humans and birds are homologous as vertebrate eyes – that is, they are the same kind of character: vertebrate eyes. Although the concept of homology originated in pre-Darwinian comparative anatomy, it was subsequently revealed to be an evolutionary phenomenon caused by common descent. Contemporary investigators work roughly within the following generic evolutionary conception of homology:
  • Homology: Two characters in distinct organisms or taxa are homologous if they are genealogically connected by continuous descent from a common ancestor that had the same character.

Keywords

Homology Developmental homology Biological characters Character identity 

References

  1. Abouheif E (1999) Establishing homology criteria for regulatory gene networks: prospects and challenges. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology, novartis foundation symposium, vol 222. Wiley, Chichester, pp 207–225Google Scholar
  2. Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: roots of Evo-Devo. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bock WJ (1974) Philosophical foundations of classical evolutionary classification. Syst Zool 22:375–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) (1999) Homology, novartis foundation symposium, vol 222. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. Brigandt I (2007) Typology now: homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability. Biol Philos 22:709–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilbert SF, Bolker JA (2001) Homologies of process and modular elements of embryonic construction. In: Wagner G (ed) The character concept in evolutionary biology. Academic, San Diego, pp 437–456Google Scholar
  7. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 205:581–598Google Scholar
  8. Hall BK (2003) Decent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution. Biol Rev 78:409–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jardine N (1969) The observational and theoretical components of homology: a study based on the morphology of the dermal skull-roofs of rhipidistian fishes. Biol J Linn Soc 1:327–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mayr E (1982) The growth of biological thought. Cambridge UP, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. McGhee G (2011) Convergent evolution: limited forms most beautiful. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. McKinney ML, McNamara KJ (1991) Heterochrony: the evolution of ontogeny. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Minelli A (1998) Molecules, developmental modules, and phenotypes: a combinatorial approach to homology. Mol Phylogenet Evol 9(3):340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Müller GB (2007) Evo-devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics 8: 943–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Müller GB, Newman SA (1999) Generation, integration, autonomy: Three steps in the evolution of homology. In: Bock, G. R. and G. Cardew. (eds.) 65–73Google Scholar
  17. Nuño de la Rosa L, Etxeberria A (2009) Pattern and process in evo-devo: descriptions and explanations. In: H. W. de Regt et al (eds) EPSA Philosophy of Science, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Patterson C (1982) Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey KA, Friday AE (eds) Problems in phylogenetic reconstruction. Academic, London, pp 21–74Google Scholar
  20. Quiring R, Walldorf U, Kloter U, Gehring WJ (1994) Homology of the eyeless gene of Drosophila to the small eye gene in mice and Aniridia in humans. Science 265(5173):785–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramsey G, Peterson AS (2012) Sameness in biology. Philos Sci 79(2):255–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Remane A (1956) Die Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems, der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Geest and Portig, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  23. Riedl R (1978) Order in living organisms: a systems analysis of evolution (trans: Jefferies RPS). Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  24. Roth VL (1984) On homology. Biol J Linn Soc 22:13–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Roth VL (1988) The biological basis of homology. In: Humphries CJ (ed) Ontogeny and systematics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  26. Roth VL (1991) Homology and hierarchies: problems solved and unresolved. J Evol Biol 4:167–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Scholtz G (2005) Homology and ontogeny: pattern and process in comparative developmental biology. Theory in Biosciences 124(2):121–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shubin N, Tabin C, Carroll S (1997) Fossils, genes, and the evolution of animal limbs. Nature 388:639–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shubin N, Tabin C, Carroll S (2009) Deep homology and the origins of evolutionary novelty. Nature 457:818–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Van Valen L (1982) Homology and causes. J Morphol 173:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wagner GPW (1989a) The origin of morphological characters and the biological basis of homology. Evolution 43(6):1157–1171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wagner GPW (1989b) The biological homology concept. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20(1):51–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wagner GPW (2014) Homology, genes, and evolutionary innovation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Wake DB (1991) Homoplasy: the result of natural selection, or evidence of design limitations? The American Naturalist 138(3):543–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wake DB (1994) Comparative terminology. Science 265:268–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wray GA, Abouheif E (1998) When is homology not homology? Curr Opin Genet Dev 8:675–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Section editors and affiliations

  • Gerd B. Müller
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.The KLI InstituteKlosterneuburgAustria
  2. 2.University of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations