Homology is a natural kind concept, but one that has been notoriously elusive to pin down. There has been sustained debate over the nature of correspondence and the units of comparison. But this continued debate over its meaning has focused on defining homology rather than on its use in practice. The aim of this chapter is to concentrate on the practices of homologizing. I define “homologizing” to be a concept-in-use. Practices of homologizing are kinds of rule following, the (...) satisfaction of which demarcates a category—that of being a homologue. Identifying, explaining, discovering, and understanding are exchanges that connect practice to concept through the performance of a rule by practitioners. These practices are constitutive of natural kinding activities. If homologizing is a kind of kinding, consideration of these practices of discovery, tracking, and identification not only clarifies the meaning, use, and progression of the concept of homology, but provides further understanding of the processes and progression of natural kinds and kinding practices in general. (shrink)

Recent work on inheritance systems can be divided into inclusive conceptions, according to which genetic and non-genetic inheritance are both involved in the development and transmission of nearly all animal behavioral traits, and more demanding conceptions of what it takes for non-genetic resources involved in development to qualify as a distinct inheritance system. It might be thought that, if a more stringent conception is adopted, homologies could not subsist across two distinct inheritance systems. Indeed, it is commonly assumed that (...) class='Hi'>homology relations cannot survive a shift between genetic and cultural inheritance systems, and substantial reliance has been placed on that assumption in debates over the phylogenetic origins of hominin behavioral traits, such as male-initiated intergroup aggression. However, in the homology literature it is widely accepted that a trait can be homologous—that is, inherited continuously in two different lineages from a single common ancestor—despite divergence in the mechanisms involved in the trait’s development in the two lineages. In this paper, we argue that even on an extremely stringent understanding of what it takes for developmental resources to form a separate inheritance system, homologies can nonetheless subsist across shifts between distinct inheritance systems. We argue that this result is a merit of this way of characterizing what it is to be an inheritance system, that it has implications for adjudicating between alternative accounts of homology, and that it offers an important cautionary lesson about how to reason with the homology concept, particularly in the context of cultural species. (shrink)

Non‐homologous end‐joining (NHEJ) is the dominant means of repairing chromosomal DNA double strand breaks (DSBs), and is essential in human cells. Fifteen or more proteins can be involved in the detection, signalling, synapsis, end‐processing and ligation events required to repair a DSB, and must be assembled in the confined space around the DNA ends. We review here a number of interaction points between the core NHEJ components (Ku70, Ku80, DNA‐PKcs, XRCC4 and Ligase IV) and accessory factors such as kinases, phosphatases, (...) polymerases and structural proteins. Conserved protein‐protein interaction sites such as Ku‐binding motifs (KBMs), XLF‐like motifs (XLMs), FHA and BRCT domains illustrate that different proteins compete for the same binding sites on the core machinery, and must be spatially and temporally regulated. We discuss how post‐translational modifications such as phosphorylation, ADP‐ribosylation and ubiquitinylation may regulate sequential steps in the NHEJ pathway or control repair at different types of DNA breaks. (shrink)

Homology is a natural kind term and a precise account of what homology is has to come out of theories about the role of homologues in evolution and development. Definitions of homology are discussed with respect to the question as to whether they are able to give a non-circular account of the correspondence or sameness referred to by homology. It is argued that standard accounts tie homology to operational criteria or specific research projects, but are (...) not yet able to offer a concept of homology that does not presuppose a version of homology or a comparable notion of sameness. This is the case for phylogenetic definitions that trace structures back to the common ancestor as well as for developmental approaches such as Wagner's biological homology concept. In contrast, molecular homology is able to offer a definition of homology in genes and proteins that explicates homology by reference to more basic notions. Molecular correspondence originates by means of specific features of causal processes. It is speculated that further understanding of morphogenesis might enable biologists to give a theoretically deeper definition of homology along similar lines: an account which makes reference to the concrete mechanisms that operate in organisms. (shrink)

Taxa and homologues can in our view be construed both as kinds and as individuals. However, the conceptualization of taxa as natural kinds in the sense of homeostatic property cluster kinds has been criticized by some systematists, as it seems that even such kinds cannot evolve due to their being homeostatic. We reply by arguing that the treatment of transformational and taxic homologies, respectively, as dynamic and static aspects of the same homeostatic property cluster kind represents a good perspective for (...) supporting the conceptualization of taxa as kinds. The focus on a phenomenon of homology based on causal processes (e.g., connectivity, activity-function, genetics, inheritance, and modularity) and implying relationship with modification yields a notion of natural kinds conforming to the phylogenetic-evolutionary framework. Nevertheless, homeostatic property cluster kinds in taxonomic and evolutionary practice must be rooted in the primacy of epistemological classification (homology as observational properties) over metaphysical generalization (series of transformation and common ancestry as unobservational processes). The perspective of individuating characters exclusively by historical-transformational independence instead of their developmental, structural, and functional independence fails to yield a sufficient practical interplay between theory and observation. Purely ontological and ostensional perspectives in evolution and phylogeny (e.g., an ideographic character concept and PhyloCode’s ‘individualism’ of clades) may be pragmatically contested in the case of urgent issues in biodiversity research, conservation, and systematics. (shrink)

“Functional homology” appears regularly in different areas of biological research and yet it is apparently a contradiction in terms—homology concerns identity of structure regardless of form and function. I argue that despite this conceptual tension there is a legitimate conception of ‘homology of function’, which can be recovered by utilizing a distinction from pre-Darwinian physiology (use versus activity) to identify an appropriate meaning of ‘function’. This account is directly applicable to molecular developmental biology and shares a connection (...) to the theme of hierarchy in homology. I situate ‘homology of function’ within existing definitions and criteria for structural assessments of homology, and introduce a criterion of ‘organization’ for judging function homologues, which focuses on hierarchically interconnected interdependencies (similar to relative position and connection for skeletal elements in structural homology). This analysis of biological concepts has at least three broad philosophical consequences: (1) it provides the grounds for the study of behavior and psychological categories as homologues; (2) it demonstrates that philosophers who take selected effect function as primary effectively ignore large portions of comparative, structural, and experimental research, thereby misconstruing biological reasoning and knowledge; and, (3) it underwrites causal generalizations, which illuminates inferences made from model organisms in experimental biology. (shrink)

I defend the view that many biological categories are defined by homology against a series of arguments designed to show that all biological categories are defined, at least in part, by selected function. I show that categories of homology are `abnormality inclusive'—something often alleged to be unique to selected function categories. I show that classifications by selected function are logically dependent on classifications by homology, but not vice-versa. Finally, I reject the view that biologists must use considerations (...) of selected function to abstract away from variation and pathology to form a canonical description of a class of biological systems. (shrink)

Over the past decade, it has been discovered that disparate aspects of morphology – often of distantly related groups of organisms – are regulated by the same genetic regulatory mechanisms. Those discoveries provide a new perspective on morphological evolutionary change. A conceptual framework for exploring these research findings is termed ‘deep homology’. A comparative framework for morphological relations of homology is provided that distinguishes analogy, homoplasy, plesiomorphy and synapomorphy. Four examples – three from plants and one from animals (...) – demonstrate that homologous developmental mechanisms can regulate a range of morphological relations including analogy, homoplasy and examples of uncertain homology. Deep homology is part of a much wider range of phenomena in which biological (genes, regulatory mechanisms, morphological traits) and phylogenetic levels of homology can both be disassociated. Therefore, to understand homology, precise, comparative, independent statements of both biological and phylogenetic levels of homology are necessary. (shrink)

Serial homology, i.e., homology between repetitive structures in the same individual organism, is a debated concept in evolutionary developmental biology. The central question is the evolutionary interpretation of “sameness” in the context of the same body. This essay provides a synthetic analysis of the main issues involved in the debate, connecting conceptual problems with current experimental research. It is argued that a concept of serial homology that is not of the all-or-nothing kind can smooth several theoretical inconsistencies, (...) while being more in line with what we know about evolutionary change and the way we investigate it. (shrink)

This article argues that at least very many judgments of homology rest on prior attributions of selected‐effect (SE) function, and that many of the “parts” of biological systems that are rightly classified as homologous are constituted by (are so classified in virtue of) their consequence etiologies. We claim that SE functions are often used in the prior identification of the parts deemed to be homologous and are often used to differentiate more restricted homologous kinds within less restricted ones. In (...) doing so, we discuss recent criticism of this view that has been offered (especially that offered by Paul Griffiths). *Received July 2007; revised November 2008. †To contact the authors, please write to: Department of Philosophy, 201 West Duke Building, Box 90743, Durham, NC 27708; e‐mail: [email protected] or [email protected]. (shrink)

This paper explores an important type of biological explanation called ‘homology thinking.’ Homology thinking explains the properties of a homologue by citing the history of a homologue. Homology thinking is significant in several ways. First, it offers more detailed explanations of biological phenomena than corresponding analogy explanations. Second, it provides an important explanation of character similarity and difference. Third, homology thinking offers a promising account of multiple realizability in biology.

In this article, I examine the issue of the alleged circularity in the determination of homologies within cladistic analysis. More specifically, I focus on the claims made by the proponents of the dynamic homology approach, regarding the distinction (sometimes made in the literature) between primary and secondary homology. This distinction is sometimes invoked to dissolve the circularity issue, by upholding that characters in a cladistic data matrix have to be only primarily homologous, and thus can be determined independently (...) of phylogenetic hypotheses, by using the classical Owenian criteria (for morphological characters) or via multiple sequence alignment (for sequence data). However, since in the dynamic approach, sequence data can be analyzed without being pre-aligned, proponents have claimed that the distinction between primary and secondary homology has no place within cladistics. I will argue that this is not the case, since cladistic practice within the dynamic framework does presuppose primary homology statements at a higher level. (shrink)

This paper responds to the essay reviews by David Haig, Alan Love and Rachel Brown of my recently published book “Homology, Genes and Evolutionary Innovation”. The issues addressed here relate to: the notion of classes and individuals, issues of explanatory value of adaptive and structuralist explanations in evolutionary biology, the role of homology in evolutionary theory, the limits of a pluralist stance vis a vis alternative explanations of homology, as well as the question whether and to what (...) extend the perspective laid out in HGEI can be or should be transferred to other branches of study, like comparative behavioral biology. (shrink)

Homology is the similarity between organisms due to common ancestry. Introduced by Richard Owen in 1843 in a paper entitled “Lectures on comparative anatomy and physiology of the invertebrate animals”, the concept of homology predates Darwin's “Origin of Species” and has been very influential throughout the history of evolutionary biology. Although homology is the central concept of all comparative biology and provides a logical basis for it, the definition of the term and the criteria of its application (...) remain controversial. Here, I will discuss homology in the context of the hierarchy of biological organization. I will provide insights gained from an exemplary case study in evolutionary developmental biology that indicates the uncoupling of homology at different levels of biological organization. I argue that continuity and hierarchy are separate but equally important issues of homology. BioEssays 30:653–658, 2008. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

The present paper analyzes the use and understanding of the homology concept across different biological disciplines. It is argued that in its history, the homology concept underwent a sort of adaptive radiation. Once it migrated from comparative anatomy into new biological fields, the homology concept changed in accordance with the theoretical aims and interests of these disciplines. The paper gives a case study of the theoretical role that homology plays in comparative and evolutionary biology, in molecular (...) biology, and in evolutionary developmental biology. It is shown that the concept or variant of homology preferred by a particular biological field is used to bring about items of biological knowledge that are characteristic for this field. A particular branch of biology uses its homology concept to pursue its specific theoretical goals. (shrink)

The ‘byproduct account’ of female orgasm, a subject of renewed debate since Lloyd (The case of the female orgasm, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2005), is universally attributed to Symons (The evolution of human sexuality, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979). While this is correct to the extent that he linked it to the adaptive value of male orgasm, I argue that the attribution of the theory as we understand it to Symons is based on a serious and hitherto unrecognised misinterpretation. Symons (...) had a different explanation of why women can orgasm, and beneath this explanation lies an obscure line of argument, including a particularly obscure use of the word ‘homologous’. (shrink)

The concept of homology is the most solid theoretical basis elaborated by the morphological thinking during its history. The enucleation of some general criteria for the interpretation of homology is today a fundamental tool for life sciences, and for restoring their own opening to the question of qualitative innovation that arose so powerfully in the original Darwinian project. The aim of this paper is to verify the possible uses of the concept of compositional homology in order to (...) provide of an adequate understanding of the dynamics of creative thinking. (shrink)

A un secolo e mezzo dalla pubblicazione dell'Origine delle specie, la nozione di omologia di Owen, che implica che due organi o due funzioni a confronto possono essere riconosciuti come “la stessa cosa” continua a dominare gli attuali approcci al problema dell’omologia. L'idea che i caratteri possano “rimanere se stessi” attraverso un numero indefinito (anche se finito) di stati alternativi che si susseguono nel corso dell'evoluzione è probabilmente basato su un'interpretazione idealistica di come gli organismi si evolvono. Se si dà (...) per scontata l'esistenza di caratteristiche del corpo che conservano la loro identità nel cambiamento, l'esistenza di omologhi può essere spiegata (i) in termini di leggi universali della forma, magari nella forma moderna dello strutturalismo di processo, o (ii) come il prodotto di discendenza comune, o (iii) in termini di cause prossime responsabili della comparsa di moduli di sviluppo conservati. Tuttavia, leggendo la storia della vita attraverso la lente dell’evoluzione, appare molto problematico descrivere un organismo come una somma di caratteri che, una volta apparsi come novità evolutive, rimangono poi come unità costruttive essenzialmente immutabili tra le quali possiamo predicare (o negare) omologia. Tutti i tratti sono meglio interpretati come incroci complessi e mutevoli di un numero indeterminato di elementi e dei processi che li modellano nel corso dell’ontogenesi e della filogenesi. Di conseguenza, appare raccomandabile un approccio fattoriale, o combinatorio, all’omologia. (shrink)

This paper attempts to reconcile the conceptual conflict between typological and population thinking to provide a philosophical foundation for extended evolutionary synthesis. Typological thinking has been considered a pre-Darwinian, essentialist dogma incompatible with population thinking, which is the core notion of Darwinism. More recent philosophical and historical studies suggest that a non-essentialist form of typology has some advantages in the study of evolutionary biology. However, even if we adopt such an epistemological interpretation of typological thinking, there still remains an epistemological (...) and methodological conflict between these two styles of thinking. How can we relate typological thinking with population thinking in pursuit of more integrated or interconnected research into evolutionary biology? I propose that homology thinking, which is another style of thinking that recognizes homologous characters, provides a common basis for typological representations of character states and for character dynamics in an evolving population. Good examples of this bridging role are found in teratology and breeding, where variation and novelty are recognized in developmental and morphological traits, gene expression patterns, and so on. Essentialism-free, dynamic views of homology have great potential to reconcile typological and population thinking and to set the stage for the EES. (shrink)

The Mind-Brain Identity Theory lived a short life as a respectable philosophical position in the late 1950s, until Hilary Putnam developed his famous argument on the multiple realizability of mental states. The argument was, and still is, taken as the definitive demonstration of the falsity of Identity Theory and the foundation on which contemporary functionalist computational cognitive science was to be grounded. In this paper, in the wake of some contemporary philosophers, we reopen the case for Identity Theory and offer (...) a solution to the problem of multiple realizabilty. The solution is based on the necessity, at the time of establishing identity relations, of appealing to the notions of “homology” and “analogy” developed in the nineteenth century by Richard Owen. We also suggest that these notions are useful in order to correct certain shortcomings of some recent attempts at rebutting the Multiple Realizability argument. (shrink)

The meaning of the word homology has changed. From being a comparative concept in pre-Darwinian times, it became a historical concept, strictly signifying a common evolutionary origin for either anatomical structures or genes. This historical understanding of homology is not useful in classification; therefore I propose a return to its pre-Darwinian meaning.

The evolutionary embryologist Gavin Rylands de Beer can be viewed as one of the forerunners of modern evolutionary developmental biology in that he posed crucial questions and proposed relevant answers about the causal relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny. In his developmental approach to the phylogenetic phenomenon of homology, he emphasized that homology of morphological structures is to be identified neither with the sameness of the underlying developmental processes nor with the homology of the genes that are in (...) involved in the development of the structures. De Beer’s work on developmental evolution focused on the notion of heterochrony, arguing that paedomorphosis increases morphological evolvability and is thereby an important mode of evolution that accounts for the origin of many taxa, including higher taxa. (shrink)

Most cognitive scientists nowadays tend to think that at least some of the mind’s capacities are the product of biological evolution, yet important conceptual problems remain for all scientists in order to be able to speak coherently of mental or cognitive systems as having evolved naturally. Two of these important problems concern the articulation of adequate, interesting, and empirically useful concepts of homology and variation as applied to cognitive systems. However, systems in cognitive science are usually understood as functional (...) systems of some sort. Thus, to be able to talk about functional systems being homologous requires having a solid, adequate, and empirically articulated concept of functional homology—and the same is true about functional variation. Here I construct an original concept of functional homology that, in my view, adequately systematizes a number of actual uses of the word “functional homology” in a variety of biological disciplines and in ethology. I also propose a number of criteria for the empirical application of the concept that are analogous to the criteria that are currently used in comparative biology, ethology, and molecular developmental genetics. Then I construct a concept of functional variation on the basis of this concept of homology. (shrink)

Classical mutations at the mouse Brachyury (T) locus were discovered because they lead to shortened tails in heterozygous newborns. no tail (ntl) mutants in the zebrafish, as their name suggests, show a similar phenotype. In Drosophila, mutants in the brachyenteron (byn) gene disrupt hindgut formation. These genes all encode T-box proteins, a class of sequence-specific DNA binding proteins and transcription factors. Mutations in the C. elegans mab-9 gene cause massive defects in the male tail because of failed fate decisions in (...) two tail progenitor cells. In a recent paper, Woollard and Hodgkin1 have cloned the mab-9 gene and found that it too encodes a T-box protein, similar to Brachyury in vertebrates and brachyenteron in Drosophila. The authors suggest that their results support models for an evolutionarily ancient role for these genes in hindgut formation. We will discuss this proposal and try to decide whether the gene sequences, gene interactions and gene expression patterns allow any conclusions to be made about the rear end of the ancestral metazoan. BioEssays 22:781–785, 2000. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (shrink)

Comparative biology builds up systematic knowledge of the diversity of life, across evolutionary lineages and levels of organization, starting with evidence from a sparse sample of model organisms. In developmental biology, a key obstacle to the growth of comparative approaches is that the concept of homology is not very well defined for levels of organization that are intermediate between individual genes and morphological characters. In this paper, we investigate what it means for ontogenetic processes to be homologous, focusing specifically (...) on the examples of insect segmentation and vertebrate somitogenesis. These processes can be homologous without homology of the underlying genes or gene networks, since the latter can diverge over evolutionary time, while the dynamics of the process remain the same. Ontogenetic processes like these therefore constitute a dissociable level and distinctive unit of comparison requiring their own specific criteria of homology. In addition, such processes are typically complex and nonlinear, such that their rigorous description and comparison not only requires observation and experimentation, but also dynamical modeling. We propose six criteria of process homology, combining recognized indicators with novel ones derived from dynamical systems modeling. We show how these criteria apply to animal segmentation and other ontogenetic processes. We conclude by situating our proposed dynamical framework for homology of process in relation to similar research programs, such as process structuralism and developmental approaches to morphological homology. (shrink)

Homology is a central concept of comparative and evolutionary biology, referring to the presence of the same bodily parts (e.g., morphological structures) in different species. The existence of homologies is explained by common ancestry, and according to modern definitions of homology, two structures in different species are homologous if they are derived from the same structure in the common ancestor. Homology has traditionally been contrasted with analogy, the presence of similar traits in different species not necessarily due (...) to common ancestry but due to a similar function or convergent evolution resulting from similar selective pressure in different species. (A more recent contrastive notion is homoplasy, the presence of similar traits in different species without common ancestry, i.e., as an instance of parallel evolution.) This sounds straightforward, but in fact the homology concept has a rich history and currently is the subject of extensive theoretical reflection, resulting in different contemporary approaches to homology. (shrink)

The metaphysical nature of homologies has been variously characterized as natural kind, individualist, and pluralist-pragmatic. In this essay, I aim to build on the work of proponents of a natural kinds ontology for homologies using Richard Boyd’s influential HPC account of natural kinds. I aim to advance this position by showing the unique fit of extending the HPC account to homologies, deflecting individualist critiques, as well as the pluralist-pragmatic alternative, showing that homologies have a determinate metaphysical character as kinds. As (...) an important extension of this position, I attempt to explain away how the mistaken metaphysics of the individualist, and derivatively the pluralist-pragmatic approach that contextually embraces it, can facilitate certain elements of biological practice. (shrink)

By linking the concepts of homology and morphological organization to evolvability, this paper attempts to (1) bridge the gap between developmental and phylogenetic approaches to homology and to (2) show that developmental constraints and natural selection are compatible and in fact complementary. I conceive of a homologue as a unit of morphological evolvability, i.e., as a part of an organism that can exhibit heritable phenotypic variation independently of the organism’s other homologues. An account of homology therefore consists (...) in explaining how an organism’s developmental constitution results in different homologues/characters as units that can evolve independently of each other. The explanans of an account of homology is developmental, yet the very explanandum is an evolutionary phenomenon: evolvability in a character-by-character fashion, which manifests itself in phylogenetic patterns as recognized by phylogenetic approaches to homology. While developmental constraints and selection have often been viewed as antagonistic forces, I argue that both are complementary as they concern different parts of the evolutionary process. Developmental constraints, conceived of as the presence of the same set of homologues across phenotypic change, pertain to how heritable variation can be generated in the first place (evolvability), while natural selection operates subsequently on the produced variation. (shrink)

Chi sites are examples of special sites enhancing homologous recombination in their region of the chromosome. Chi, 5′ G‐C‐T‐G‐G‐T‐G‐G3′, is a recognition site for the RecBC enzyme, which nicks DNA near Chi as it unwinds DNA. A molecular model of genetic recombination incorporating these features is reviewed.

Homology continues to be a concept of central importance in the study of phylogenetic relations, but its relation to ontogenetic processes remains problematical. A definition of homology in terms of equivalent morphogenetic processes is defined and applied to the comparative study of tetrapod limbs. This allows for a consistent treatment of relations of similarity and difference of appendage structure in vertebrates, and the distinction between fishes fins and tetrapod limbs in terms of the concept of equivalence is described. (...) The role of genes can also be clarified in this context, in particular the influence of the Hox 4 complex in determining digit character and the homeotic transformations that arise from changes in their expression patterns. It is argued that these observations are not compatible with the notion of homology between individual digits (I, II, III, etc.) across the tetrapods, and that homology cannot be consistently identified with gene action. The relations between homology and the properties of the morphogenetic limb field are discussed. (shrink)

This work defines homology groups for proof-structures in multiplicative linear logic (see [Gir1], [Gir2], [Dan]). We will show that these groups characterize proof-nets among arbitrary proof-structures, thus obtaining a new correctness criterion and of course a new polynomial algorithm for testing correctness. This homology also bears information on sequentialization. An unexpected geometrical interpretation of the linear connectives is given in the last section. This paper exclusively focuses onabstract proof-structures, i.e. paired-graphs. The relation with actual proofs is investigated in (...) [Gir1], [Gir2], [Dan], [Ret] and [Tro]. (shrink)

This paper examines the middle ear of fossil living animals in terms of the homologies which have been drawn between its parts in different vertebrate groups. Seven homologies are considered: 1, the middle ear cavity/spiracular pouch; 2, the stapes/hyomandibula; 3, the stapedial/hyomandibular processes; 4 the tympanic membrane; 5, the otic notch; 6, the fenestra ovalis; 7, and the stapedial/hyomandibular foramen. The reasons leading to assessments of homology are reviewed. Homologies 1 and 2, based largely on embryological evidence, are fairly (...) robust, though there are arguments about the details. Homologies 3, 4 and 5 stem from ideas about early tetrapod evolution, and were influenced by contingent factors including the order and time of discovery of early fossil taxa, and perceptions of their phylogeny which resulted from this. They were also influenced by ideas of the evolution of terrestriality among tetrapods. Most of the conceptions have been overturned in recent years by new fossil discoveries and new ways of looking at old data. Homology 6 has been little considered. One possible hypothesis, placed in a strictly archetypal theoretical framework has been ignored but deserves consideration on other grounds. Homology 7 depends on how tetrapods are characterised, not a question which has posed difficulties until recently, but which is likely to with the discovery of intermediate fossil forms. (shrink)

Freud’s late works established the schema of a more or less inexorable civilizational course built around one drive—the death drive—despite his emphatic insistence on a dual structure of two drives. This schema became influential for Critical Theory and in a more subterranean way, also for decolonial thought, and has been widely invoked during the pandemic. It indicates the extent to which drive, destruction, and mastery have consolidated into a, which not only fails to be dislodged by but even informs Derrida’s (...) readings of Freud. Instead, we have to be attentive to the play of homology in Freud as of life, psyche, and civilization, as archaic inheritance. Freudian homology distinguishes itself from what Derrida called “genealogical drive.” The Freudian assumptions in this regard need to be addressed in a step beyond which works with a concept of origin—as its own interruption—that can neither comprehend nor deconstruct the concept of origin as a single and perpetually active homological power as is to be found in Freud. (shrink)

The concept of homology arose from classical studies of comprative morphology, and took on a new signficance with the advent of evolutionary theory. It is currentlyl undergoing antoher metamorphosis: many developmental geneticists now dfine homology as shared patterns of gene expression. However, this ne usage conflaes difinition with criteri, and fails to recognize the meaninful asignments of homology must speify a biologcal level. We argue the although developmental genetic data can help identify homologus structures. they are niether (...) necessary nor sufficient, and do not in any case jutify a new definition of homology. (shrink)

There is long-standing conflict between genealogical and developmental accounts of homology. This paper provides a general framework that shows that these accounts are compatible and clarifies precisely how they are related. According to this framework, understanding homology requires both an abstract genealogical account that unifies the application of the term to all types of characters used in phylogenetic systematics and locally enriched accounts that apply only to specific types of characters. The genealogical account serves this unifying role by (...) relying on abstract notions of ‘descent’ and ‘character’. As a result, it takes for granted the existence of such characters. This requires theoretical justification that is provided by enriched accounts, which incorporate the details by which characters are inherited. These enriched accounts apply to limited domains, providing the needed theoretical justification for recognizing characters within that domain. Though connected to the genealogical account of homology in this way, enriched accounts include phenomena that fall outside the scope of the genealogical account. They therefore overlap, but are not nested within, the genealogical account. Developmental accounts of homology are to be understood as enriched accounts of body part homology. Once they are seen in this light, the conflict with the genealogical account vanishes. It is only by understanding the fine conceptual structure undergirding the many uses of the term ‘homology’ that we can understand how these uses hang together. (shrink)

Editors' introduction to the special issue on homology (Biology and Philosophy Vol. 22, Issue 5, 2007).

Neural reuse theories suggest that, in the course of evolution, a brain structure may acquire or lose a number of cognitive uses while maintaining its cognitive workings (or low-level operations) fixed. This, in turn, suggests that homologous structures may have very different cognitive uses, while sharing the same workings. And this, essentially, is homology thinking applied to brain function.

Philosophical discussions of biological classification have failed to recognise the central role of homology in the classification of biological parts and processes. One reason for this is a misunderstanding of the relationship between judgments of homology and the core explanatory theories of biology. The textbook characterisation of homology as identity by descent is commonly regarded as a definition. I suggest instead that it is one of several attempts to explain the phenomena of homology. Twenty years ago (...) the ‘new experimentalist’ movement in philosophy of science drew attention to the fact that many experimental phenomena have a ‘life of their own’: the conviction that they are real is not dependent on the theories used to characterise and explain them. I suggest that something similar can be true of descriptive phenomena, and that many homologies are phenomena of this kind. As a result the descriptive biology of form and function has a life of its own—a degree of epistemological independence from the theories that explain form and function. I also suggest that the two major ‘homology concepts’ in contemporary biology, usually seen as two competing definitions, are in reality complementary elements of the biological explanation of homology. (shrink)

The term ‘homology’ is persistently polysemous, defying the expectation that extensive scientific research should yield semantic stability. A common response has been to seek a unification of various prominent definitions. This paper proposes an alternative strategy, based on the insight that scientific concepts function as tools for research: When analyzing various conceptualizations of homology, we should preserve those distinguishing features that support particular research goals. We illustrate the fruitfulness of our strategy by application to two cases. First, we (...) revisit E. Ray Lankester’s celebrated (1870) evolutionary reappraisal of homology and argue that his analysis has been distorted by assimilation to modern agendas. His ‘homogeny’ does not mean the same thing as modern evolutionary ‘homology,’ and his ‘homoplasy’ is no mere antonym. Instead, Lankester uses both new terms to pose a question that remains strikingly relevant—how do mechanistic and historical causes of morphological resemblance interact? Second, we examine the puzzle of avian digit homology, which exemplifies disciplinary differences in homology conceptualization and assessment. Recent progress has been fueled by the development of new tools within the relevant disciplines (paleontology and developmental biology) and especially by increasing interdisciplinary cooperation. Conceptual unification has played very little role in this work, which instead seeks concrete evolutionary scenarios that integrate all the available evidence. Together these cases indicate the complex relationship between concepts and other tools in homology research. (shrink)