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.
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.
Belon (du Mans), P. (1555) Histoire de la Nature des Oiseaux, avec leurs Descriptions, and Naïfs Portraicts Retirez du Naturel. Guillaume Cauellat, Paris.
Breidbach, O., Ghiselin, M.T., 2002. Lorenz Oken andNaturphilosophie in Jena. Paris and London. Hist. Phil. Life Sci. 24, 219–247.
Darwin, C., 1868. The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, vol. 2. John Murray. London.
Darwin, C., 1871. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, vol. 2. John Murray, London.
De Beer, G., 1971. Homology, an Unsolved Problem. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
De Pinna, M.C.C., 1991. Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7, 367–394.
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.
Fitch, W., 1970. Distinguishing homologous from analogous proteins. Syst. Zool. 19, 99–113.
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.
Gegenbaur, C., 1870. Grundzüge der vergleichende Anatomie, second ed. Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig.
Ghiselin, M.T., 1974. A radical solution to the species problem. Syst. Zool. 23, 536–544.
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.
Ghiselin, M.T., 1981. Categories, life, and thinking. Behav. Brain Sci. 4, 269–313 [with commentary].
Ghiselin, M.T., 1984. Definition, character, and other equivocal terms. Syst. Zool. 33, 104–110.
Ghiselin, M.T., 1989. Intellectual Compromise: the Bottom Line. Paragon House. New York.
Ghiselin, M.T., 1997. Metaphysics and the Origin of Species. State University of New York Press, Albany.
Ghiselin, M.T., 2002. An autobiographical anatomy. Hist. Phil. Life Sci. 24, 285–291.
Ghiselin, M.T., 2005. Lorenz Oken. In: Bach, T., Breidbach, O. (Eds.), Naturphilosophie nach Schelling. Fromann-Holzboog, Stuttgart, pp. 433–457.
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.
Gould, S.J., 1989. Wonderful Life: the Burgess Shale and the Nature of History. Norton, New York.
Gould, S.J., 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
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.
Halanych, K.M., 2004. The new view of animal phylogeny. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 35, 229–256.
Hennig, W., 1950. Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetischen Systematik. Deutscher Centralverlag, Berlin.
Lindberg, D.R., Ghiselin, M.T., 2004. Fact, theory and tradition in the study of molluscan origins. Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 54, 663–686.
McKitrick, M.C., 1994. On homology and the ontological relationships of parts. Syst. Biol. 43, 1–10.
Minelli, A., 1992. Towards a new comparative morphology of myriapods. Ber. naturwiss.-med. Vereins Innsbruck, Suppl. 10, 37–46.
Minelli, A., Schram, F.R., 1994. Owen revisited: a reappraisal of morphology in evolutionary biology. Bijdr. Dierk. 64, 65–74.
Nübler-Jung, K., Arendt, D., 1994. Is ventral in insects dorsal in vertebrates? Roux’s Arch. Dev. Biol. 203, 357–366.
Oken, L., 1807. Über die Bedeutung der Schädelknochen. J. A. Göbhardt. Bamburg, Würzburg.
Oken, L., 1831. Lehrbuch der Naturphilosophie. second ed. Friedrich Frommann, Jena.
Oken, L., 1840. Idees sur la classification des Animaux. Ann. Sci. Nat. (Zool) 14 (2), 247–268.
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.
Perrier, E., 1981. Les Colonies Animales et la Formation des Organismes. G. Masson, Paris.
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.
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.
Stevens, P.F., 1984. Homology and phylogeny: morphology and systematics. Syst. Bot. 9, 395–409.
Van Valen, L., 1982. Homology and causes. J. Morphology 173, 305–312.
Wagner, G.P., 1989a. The biological homology concept. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 20, 51–69.
Wagner, G.P., 1989b. The origin of morphological characters and the biological basis of homology. Evolution 43, 1157–1161.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
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
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
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02814478