Homology in Character Evolution

Staton, Joseph L.

doi:10.1002/9780470015902.a0001776.pub2

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of these ideas can even be found in “Linnaeus'” categories of quantity of observed entities, their basic geometrical form, their spatiotemporal distribution and their relative size—categories which Linnaeus applied in his sexual system for the classification of plants (Linnaeus, , ; for a discussion see Vogt, ). Some notion of homology therefore obviously arose prior to the mid‐nineteenth century and thus even prior to Owen's () widely cited non‐evolutionary definition of homology (Staton, ).…”

Section: The Non‐evolutionary Comparative Account Of Homology: Comparmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing similarity: on homology, characters and the need for a semantic approach to non‐evolutionary comparative homology

Vogt

2016

Cladistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The problem of homology has been a consistent source of controversy at the heart of systematic biology, as has the step of morphological character analysis in phylogenetics. Based on a clear epistemic framework and a characterization of “characters” as diagnostic evidence units for the recognition of not directly identifiable entities, I discuss the ontological definition and empirical recognition criteria of phylogenetic, developmental and comparative homology, and how these three accounts of homology each contribute to an understanding of the overall phenomenon of homology. I argue that phylogenetic homologies are individuals or historical kinds that require comparative homology for identification. Developmental homologies are natural kinds that ultimately rest on phylogenetic homologies and also require comparative homology for identification. Comparative homologies on the other hand are anatomical structural kinds that are directly identifiable. I discuss pre‐Darwinian comparative homology concepts and their problem of invoking non‐material forces and involving the a priori assumption of a stable positional reference system. Based on Young's concept of comparative homology, I suggest a procedure for recognizing comparative homologues that lacks these problems and that utilizes a semantic framework. This formal conceptual framework provides the much needed semantic transparency and computer‐parsability for documenting, communicating and analysing similarity propositions. It provides an essential methodological framework for generalizing over individual organisms and identifying and demarcating anatomical structural kinds, and it provides the missing link to the logical chain of identifying phylogenetic homology. The approach substantially increases the analytical accessibility of comparative research and thus represents an important contribution to the theoretical and methodological foundation of morphology and comparative biology.

show abstract

Section: The Non‐evolutionary Comparative Account Of Homology: Comparmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing similarity: on homology, characters and the need for a semantic approach to non‐evolutionary comparative homology

Vogt

2016

Cladistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The earliest English reference to homology is attributed to William Sharp MacLeay in 1821 (Strickland, 1846;Panchen, 1994). Some notion of homology therefore obviously arose prior to the mid-nineteenth century and thus even prior to Owen's (1843) widely cited non-evolutionary definition of homology (Staton, 2011).…”

Section: The Historical Relation Between Non-evolutionary Homology Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing similarity: a semantic approach to non-evolutionary comparative homology

Vogt

2015

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of phylogenetic homology has been criticized of involving circular argumentation resulting from a methodological gap between its ontological definition and its empirical recognition criteria. Based on the role of similarity for the recognition of phylogenetic homologues I argue that phylogenetic homology presupposes non-evolutionary comparative homology. Due to their use of Platonic ideals, archetypes and the requirement of the a priori assumption of a stable positional reference system, pre-Darwinian notions of homology cannot be used in this context. Based on Young's concept of comparative homology, I suggest a similarity-based procedure for recognizing comparative homologues that utilizes a semantic framework. This approach circumvents the problems of the pre-Darwinian notions of comparative homology and provides the so far lacking conceptual basis for the application of recognition criteria of phylogenetic homology, adding the missing link to the logical chain for assessing phylogenetic homology and closing the methodological gap between its ontological definition and its epistemological recognition criteria. This approach to comparative homology provides an essential methodological framework for generalizing over individual organisms and identifying and demarcating anatomical structural kinds. It thus represents an important contribution to the theoretical and methodological foundation of both morphology and comparative biology.

show abstract

Morphological Variation in the Seahorse Vertebral System

Bruner¹,

Bartolino

2008

Int. J. Morphol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The vertebral system in Hippocampus hippocampus is highly specialised because of the vertical locomotion and tail prehensility. The vertebral elements represent a special case of morphological changes, being the metameric structures organised along a natural functional series. We investigated the shape changes along the vertebral spine in H. hippocampus through geometric morphometrics, in order to describe functional and structural patterns. Actually, the dorso-ventral tail bending ability in the genus Hippocampus is one of the most impressive morphological modifications in the evolutionary history of fishes. Vertebrae were analysed using a 2D configuration from the left lateral view. The variation along the vertebral series suggests the identification of cervical, abdominal, dorsal, and caudal groups. The first three (cervical) elements and the 10 th (supra-dorsal) structure show peculiar morphologies and local adaptations, associated with neck angulation and dorsal fin muscles, respectively. The vertebral size decreases from the anteriormost element backward, with some local variation at the dorsal area. Major changes are related to allometric variation at the neural region. The caudal elements are characterised by a marked size decrease, with consequent allometric shape changes involving the rotation of the posterior vertebral opening. This allometric trajectory leads to a natural ventral bending of the tail, promoting its prehensile function. This morphological survey suggests an interesting structural network between posture, locomotion, and vertebral anatomy, underlying the main functional changes in the Hippocampus biomechanics. Geometric morphometrics is rather suitable to approach metameric studies in terms of serial variation and functional adaptations.

show abstract

Homology in Character Evolution

Cited by 3 publications

References 27 publications

Assessing similarity: on homology, characters and the need for a semantic approach to non‐evolutionary comparative homology

Assessing similarity: on homology, characters and the need for a semantic approach to non‐evolutionary comparative homology

Assessing similarity: a semantic approach to non-evolutionary comparative homology

Morphological Variation in the Seahorse Vertebral System

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About