Skip to main content
Log in

Homology as a relation of correspondence between parts of individuals

  • Published:
Theory in Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recognition of correspondences has long been a fundamental activity among systematists. Advocates ofNaturphilosophie, such as Lorenz Oken, drew far-fetched analogies between taxonomic groups and all sorts of other things, including the Persons of the Trinity. They treated change through time either as analogous to an ontogeny or as the product of divinely instituted laws of nature. Darwin changed things by making the taxonomic units strictly historical, implying that they are not classes but rather individuals in a broad metaphysical sense. That means that taxa are concrete, particular things, or wholes made up of parts which are themselves individuals, and that there are no laws of nature for them. Homology is a relationship of correspondence between parts of organisms that are also parts of populations and lineages. It is not a relationship of similarity, and unlike similarity it is transitive. Analogy is a relationship of correspondence between parts of organisms that are members of classes, and is not necessarily due to function. Taxa, like other individuals, can change indefinitely, and the only thing that they must share is a common ancestor. They do not share an essence, Platonic Idea orBauplan, although “conservative characters” may be widespread in them. Iterative homology likewise is a relationship of correspondence, but the nature of that correspondence remains unclear. The difficulties of the homology concept can be overcome by treating phylogenetics and comparative biology in general as historical narrative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arthur, W., 2003. The evolutionary importance of developmental reprogramming and bias. Rend. Acad. Naz. Sci. Detta Dei XL. Mem. Sci. Fis. Nat. 27 (1), 187–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belon (du Mans), P. (1555) Histoire de la Nature des Oiseaux, avec leurs Descriptions, and Naïfs Portraicts Retirez du Naturel. Guillaume Cauellat, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breidbach, O., Ghiselin, M.T., 2002. Lorenz Oken andNaturphilosophie in Jena. Paris and London. Hist. Phil. Life Sci. 24, 219–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C., 1868. The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. 2. John Murray. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C., 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, vol. 2. John Murray, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Beer, G., 1971. Homology, an Unsolved Problem. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Pinna, M.C.C., 1991. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7, 367–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, K.G., Olsen, G.J., Lane, D.J., Giovannoni, S., Ghiselin, M.T., Raff, E.C., Pace, N.R., Raff, R.A., 1988. Molecular phylogeny of the animal kingdom. Science 239, 748–753.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fitch, W., 1970. Distinguishing homologous from analogous proteins. Syst. Zool. 19, 99–113.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fortey, R.A., Jefferies, R.P.S., 1982. Fossils and phylogeny—a compromise approach. In: Joysey, K.A., Friday, A.K. (Eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp. 197–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gegenbaur, C., 1870. Grundzüge der vergleichende Anatomie, second ed. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.T., 1974. A radical solution to the species problem. Syst. Zool. 23, 536–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.T., 1976. The nomenclature of correspondence: a new look at “homology” and “analogy”. In: Masterton, R.B., Hodos, W., Jerrison, H. (Eds.), Evolution, Brain and Behavior: Persistent Problems. Lawrence Erlbabum Associates, Hillsdale, pp. 129–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.T., 1981. Categories, life, and thinking. Behav. Brain Sci. 4, 269–313 [with commentary].

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.T., 1984. Definition, character, and other equivocal terms. Syst. Zool. 33, 104–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.T., 1989. Intellectual Compromise: the Bottom Line. Paragon House. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.T., 1997. Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. State University of New York Press, Albany.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.T., 2002. An autobiographical anatomy. Hist. Phil. Life Sci. 24, 285–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.T., 2005. Lorenz Oken. In: Bach, T., Breidbach, O. (Eds.), Naturphilosophie nach Schelling. Fromann-Holzboog, Stuttgart, pp. 433–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giribet, G., 2002. Current advances in the phylogenetic reconstruction of metazoan evolution. A new paradigm for the Cambrian Explosion. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 24, 345–357.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J., 1989. Wonderful Life: the Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S.J., 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haeckel, E., 1866. Generelle Morphologie der Organismen. Allgemeine Grundzüge der organischen Formen-Wissenschaft, mechanisch begründet durch die von Charles Darwin reformirte Descendenz-Theorie, vol. 2. Verlag von Georg Reimer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halanych, K.M., 2004. The new view of animal phylogeny. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 35, 229–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W., 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher Centralverlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindberg, D.R., Ghiselin, M.T., 2004. Fact, theory and tradition in the study of molluscan origins. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 54, 663–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKitrick, M.C., 1994. On homology and the ontological relationships of parts. Syst. Biol. 43, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minelli, A., 1992. Towards a new comparative morphology of myriapods. Ber. naturwiss.-med. Vereins Innsbruck, Suppl. 10, 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli, A., Schram, F.R., 1994. Owen revisited: a reappraisal of morphology in evolutionary biology. Bijdr. Dierk. 64, 65–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nübler-Jung, K., Arendt, D., 1994. Is ventral in insects dorsal in vertebrates? Roux’s Arch. Dev. Biol. 203, 357–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oken, L., 1807. Über die Bedeutung der Schädelknochen. J. A. Göbhardt. Bamburg, Würzburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oken, L., 1831. Lehrbuch der Naturphilosophie. second ed. Friedrich Frommann, Jena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oken, L., 1840. Idees sur la classification des Animaux. Ann. Sci. Nat. (Zool) 14 (2), 247–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C., 1982. Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey, K.A., Friday, A.E. (Eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp. 21–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrier, E., 1981. Les Colonies Animales et la Formation des Organismes. G. Masson, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, V.L., 1994. Within and between organisms: replicators, lineages, and homologues. In: Hall, B.K. (Ed.), Homology: the Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 301–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholtz, G., 2004.Baupläne versus ground patterns, phyla versus monophyla: aspects of patterns and processes in evolutionary developmental biology. In: Scholtz, G. (Ed.), Evolutionary Developmental Biology of Crustacea. A.A. Balkema, Lisse, Rotterdam, New York, pp. 3–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, P.F., 1984. Homology and phylogeny: morphology and systematics. Syst. Bot. 9, 395–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Valen, L., 1982. Homology and causes. J. Morphology 173, 305–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P., 1989a. The biological homology concept. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20, 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P., 1989b. The origin of morphological characters and the biological basis of homology. Evolution 43, 1157–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P., Misof, B.Y., 1993. How can a character be developmentally constrained despite variation in developmental pathways? J. Evol. Biol. 6, 449–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, G., 1989. Structuralism and Darwinism: concepts for the study of form. In: Goodwin, B., Sibatani, A., Webster, G. (Eds.), Dynamic Structures in Biology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp. 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael T. Ghiselin.

Additional information

From the 46th “Phylogenetisches Symposium”, Jena, Germany, November 20–21, 2004. Theme of the symposium: “Evolutionary developmental biology—new challenges to the homology concept”.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ghiselin, M.T. Homology as a relation of correspondence between parts of individuals. Theory Biosci. 124, 91–103 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02814478

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02814478

Keywords

Navigation