Skip to main content
Log in

Homologies in phylogenetic analyses—concept and tests

  • Published:
Theory in Biosciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Analyzing morphological characters in a phylogenetic context comprises two steps, character analysis and cladistic analysis, which are equivalent to two independent tests for hypotheses on homology. The concept of homology concerns, comparable parts of the same or different organisms if their correspondences are the consequence of the same genetic or epigenetic information, and consequently of the same origin. The concept of homology is more inclusive than the character concept. Characters are seen as parts of transformation series. In the first step of morphological character analyses correspondences and non-correspondences between two characters are analyzed. A range of different examination methods and accurate study contribute to the severity of test. The hypothesis that two characters are homologous is corroborated if the correspondences outweigh the non-correspondences because the non-correspondences contradict the homology hypothesis whereas the correspondences contradict the analogy hypothesis. Complex characters, possess a higher empirical content than less complex characters because they are more severely testable. The cladistic analysis tests characters against other characters which have all passed the first test. Characters which are congruent with the most parsimonious topology are further corroborated; incongruent characters are not seen as ‘falsified’ but as not further corroborated and subject to reanalysis. To test both homologies and topologies repeatedly is consistent with Popperian testability, and it is in such cycles of research that hypotheses will be critically re-evaluated.

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

  • Ax, P., 1988. Systematik in der Biologie. UTB 1502. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechly, G., 2000. Mainstream cladistics versus Hennigian phylogenetic systematics. Stuttgarter Beitr. Naturk. Ser. A 613, 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock, W.J., 1989. The homology concept: its philosophical foundation and practical methodology. Zool. Beitr. N.F. 32, 327–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower, A.V.Z., Schawaroch, V., 1996. Three steps of homology assessment. Cladistics 12, 265–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, H.N., 1989. An evaluation of cladistic and character analyses as hypothetico-deductive procedures, and the consequences for character weighting. Syst. Zool. 38, 214–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Desutter-Grandcolas, L., Legendre, F., Grandcolas, P., Robillard, T., Murienne, J., 2005. Convergence and parallelism: is a new life ahead of old concepts? Cladistics 21, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dohle, W., 1989. Zur Frage der Homologie ontogenetischer Muster. Zool. Beitr. N.F. 32, 355–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J.S., 1983. The logical basis of phylogenetic analysis. In: Platnick, N.I., Funk, V.A., (Eds.), Advances in Cladistics: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the Willi Hennig Society, vol. 2. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 7–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farris, J.S., 1995. Conjectures and refutations. Cladistics 11, 105–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenstein, J.V., Pickett, K.M., Simmons, M.P., Wenzel, J.W., 2003. From basepairs to birdsongs: phylogenetic data in the age of genomics. Cladistics 19, 333–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.T., 1969. The distinction between similarity and homology. Syst. Zool. 18, 148–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin, M.T., 2005. Homology as a relation of correspondence between parts of individuals. Theory in Biosciences 124, 91–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, T., Kluge, A.G., 2004. Transformation series as ideographic character concept. Cladistics 20, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haszprunar, G., 1998. Parsimony, analysis as a specific kind of homology estimation and the implications for character weighting. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 9, 333–339.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J.A., Hughes, C.E., Scotland, R.W., 1997. Primary homology assessment characters and character states. Cladistics 13, 275–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W., 1943. Ein Beitrag zum Problem der «Beziehungen zwischen Larven- und Imaginalsystematik». Arb. morphol. taxon. Ent. 10, 138–144.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W., 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, W., 1984. Aufgaben und Probleme Stammesgeschichtlicher Forschung. Parey, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. London 1, 327–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenner, R.A., 2004a. Towards a phylogeny of the Metazoa: evaluating alternative phylogenetic positions of Platyhelminthes, Nemertea, and Gnathostomulida, with a critical reappraisal of cladistic characters. Contr. Zool. 73, 3–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenner, R.A., 2004b. Accepting partnership by submission? Morphological phylogenetics in a molecular millennium. Syst. Biol. 53, 333–342.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A.G., 1977. Concepts and principles of morphologic and functional studies. In: Kluge, A.G. (Ed.), Chordate Structure and Function. Collier Macmillan, London, pp. 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A.G., 1989. A concern for evidence and a phylogenetic hypothesis of relationships amongEpicrates (Boidae, Serpentes). Syst. Zool. 38, 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A.G., 1997a. Testability and the refutation and corroboration of cladistic hypotheses. Cladistics 13, 81–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A.G., 1997b. Sophisticated falsification and research cycles: consequences for differential character weighting in phylogenetic systematics. Zool. Scr. 26, 349–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A.G., 1999. The science of phylogenetic systematics: explanations, prediction, and test. Cladistics 15, 429–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A.G., 2001. Philosophical conjectures and their refutation. Syst. Biol. 50, 322–330.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kluge, A.G., 2003. The repugnant and the mature in phylogenetic inference: atemporal similarity and historical identity. Cladistics 19, 356–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I., 1993. Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In: Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A. (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press, London, pp. 91–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier, R., 1994. On the inappropriateness of presence/absence recoding for non-additive multistate characters in computerized cladistic analyses. Zool. Anz. 232, 201–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neff, N.A., 1986. A rational basis for a priori character weighting. Syst. Zool. 35, 110–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, T.H., 2003. On homology of arthropod eyes. Integr. Comp. Biol. 43, 522–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, T.H., Cunningham, C.W., 2002. Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eye. PNAS 99, 1426–1430.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Osche, G., 1973. Das Homologisieren als eine grundlegende Methode der Phylogenetik. Aufs. Red. Senckenb. Nauturf. Ges. 24, 155–165.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, C., 1988. Homology in classical and molecular biology. Mol. Biol. Evol. 5, 603–625.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Platnick, N.I., 1979. Philosophy and the transformation of cladistics. Syst. Zool. 28, 537–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pleijel, F., 1995. On character coding for phylogeny reconstruction. Cladistics 11, 309–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poe, S., Wiens, J.J., 2000. Character selection and the methodology of morphological phylogenetic. In: Wiens, J.J. (Ed.), Phylogenetic Analysis of Morphological Data. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC, pp. 20–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K.R., 1983, Realism and the Aim of Science. Routledge, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K.R., 1994. Logik der Forschung. Zehnte, verbesserte und vermehrte Auflage. Mohr, Tübingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Remane, A., 1952. Die Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems, der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, R., 1975. Die Ordnung des Lebendigen. Parey, Hamburg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl, R., 2000. Strukturen der Komplexität. Eine Morphologie des Erkennens und Erklärens. Springer, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O., 1988. Fundamentals of Comparative Biology. Birkhäuser, Basel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O., 2003. Popper and systematics Syst. Biol. 52, 259–271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O., 2004. What happens when the language of sicnece threatens to break down in systematics: a Popperian approach. In: William, D.M., Forey, P.L. (Eds.), Milestones in Systematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 57–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel, O., Kearney, M., 2002. Similarity. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 75, 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, M., 1995. The homology concept—still alive. In: Breidbach, O., Kutsch, W. (Eds.), The Nervous System of Invertebrates: An Evolutionary and Comparative Approach. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp. 425–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholtz, G., 2005. Homology and Ontogeny: pattern and process in comparative developmental biology. Theory in Biosciences 124, 121–143.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Scotland, R.W., Olmstead, R.G., Bennett, J.R., 2003. Phylogeny reconstruction: the role of morphology. Syst. Biol. 52: 539–548.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Siddall, M.E., Kluge, A.G., 1997. Probabilism and phylogenetic inference. Cladistics 13, 313–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strong, E.E., Lipscomb, D., 1999. Character coding and inapplicable data Cladistics 15, 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudhaus, W., Rehfeld, K., 1992. Einführung in die Phylogenetik und Systematik. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wägele, J.-W., 2000. Grundlagen der Phylogenetischen Systematik. Pfeil, München.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wägele, J.-W., 2004. Henning’s phylogenetic systematics brought up to date. In: William, D.M., Forey, P.L. (Eds.), Milestones in Systematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 101–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, G.P., 2001. Characters, units and natural kinds: an introduction. In: Wagner, G.P. (Ed.), The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, W.C., 1996. Optimization alignment: the end of multiple sequence alignment in phylogenetics? Cladistics 12, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, W.C., 2001. Homology and DNA sequence data. In: Wagner, G.P. (Ed.), The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp. 303–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiting, M.F., Bradler, S., Maxwell, T., 2003. Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects. Nature 421, 264–267.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wiley, E.O., 1981. Phylogenetics. The Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics. Wiley-Liss, New York.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Richter.

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

Richter, S. Homologies in phylogenetic analyses—concept and tests. Theory Biosci. 124, 105–120 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02814479

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02814479

Keywords

Navigation