Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Formation of the Theory of Homology in Biological Sciences

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Acta Biotheoretica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Homology is among the most important comparative concepts in biology. Today, the evolutionary reinterpretation of homology is usually conceived of as the most important event in the development of the concept. This paradigmatic turning point, however important for the historical explanation of life, is not of crucial importance for the development of the concept of homology itself. In the broadest sense, homology can be understood as sameness in reference to the universal guarantor so that in this sense the different concepts of homology show a certain kind of “metahomology”. This holds in the old morphological conception, as well as in the evolutionary usage of homology. Depending on what is (or was) taken as a guarantor, different types of homology may be distinguished (as idealistic, historical, developmental etc.). This study represents a historical overview of the development of the homology concept followed by some clues on how to navigate the pluralistic terminology of modern approaches to homology.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A similar idea (to compare the skull with vertebrae) was simultaneously developed by Oken and Duméril (Rieppel 1988, p.41).

  2. It should be mentioned, however, that the French anatomist Vicq d’Azyr found the intermaxillary bone in man in the same year (1794) as did Goethe (Russell 1916, p. 45). Another crucial idea—that of serial homology—was published even earlier (1774) by Vicq d’Azyr, who first described a serial homology comparing forelimbs to hindlimbs in quadrupeds and legs to arms in man (Owen 1848, p. 8; Appel 1987, p. 70; Rádl 1905, p. 190, 1913, p. 308).

  3. In spite of the most frequently cited passage in Lectures on the comparative anatomy of invertebrates (1843), Wood (1995) found the first distinction between the terms analogy and homology in Owen’s writings to Todd’s Cycloapedia (Owen 1836, p. 525f.).

  4. Owen’s archetype is commonly understood as a Platonic idea, but the concept of vertebrate archetype was changing even throughout Owen’s carrier. It commenced from the eternal ideal scheme and proceeded through the parental type of divergent development up to methodological instrument (Camardi 2001, p. 504).

  5. Xenology is defined as condition due to the horizontal transfer of genetic material among different species. Synology is a xenology arisen due to the fusion of formerly independent lineages (hybridization) to form one taxon (Gogarten 1994). Partial homology refers to exon shuffling and other recombination processes. Gametology relates to the origin of genetic determination of sex through lack of recombination between sex chromosomes (García-Moreno and Mindell 2000; Mindell and Meyer 2001). More such terminology can be found in the literature.

  6. “Amphioxus is a fish-like animal which still exist to-day. The Ichthyosaurus is a reptile long extinct. Nevertheless the Darwinians call Amphioxus the more primitive and Ichthyosaurus the more advanced form. The uncertainty among evolutionists as to which forms are the more and which less primitive, is very great indeed. We do not know with absolute certainty the relative position (in time) of any form—not even of man itself” (Rádl 1930, p. 176).

  7. In German original: “Nicht the Phylogenie entscheidet über die Homologie, sondern die Homologie über die Phylogenie.”

References

  • Abouheif E (1997) Developmental genetics and homology: a hierarchical approach. Trends Ecol Evol 12:405–408

    Google Scholar 

  • Abouheif E (1999) Establishing homology criteria for regulatory gene networks: prospects and challenges. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 207–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: roots of evo-devo. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Amundson R, Lauder G (1994) Function without purpose: the uses of causal role functions in evolutionary biology. Biol Philos 9:443–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Appel TA (1987) The Cuvier–Geoffroy debate: french biology in decades before Darwin. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Atz JW (1970) The application of the idea of homology to behavior. In: Aronson LR, Tobach E, Lehrman DS, Rosenblatt JS (eds) Development and evolution of behavior. Freeman, San Francisco, pp 53–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson W (1894) Materials for the study of variation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bäumer Ä (1989). Die Entstehung des modernen biologischen Analogiebegriffes im 19. Jahrhundert. Sudhoffs Archiv 73:156–175

    Google Scholar 

  • von Bertalanffy L (1934) Wesen und Geschichte des Homologiebegriffes. Unsere Welt 28:161–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Bock WJ (1989) The homology concept: its philosophical foundation and practical methodology. Zoologische Beiträge N F 32:327–353

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolker JA, Raff RA (1996) Developmental genetics and traditional homology. BioEssays 18:489–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyden A (1943) Homology and analogy: a century after the definitions of “homologue” and “analogue” of Richard Owen. Q Rev Biol 18:228–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyden A (1947) Homology and analogy. A critical review of the meaning and implications of these concepts in biology. Am Midl Nat 37:648–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Breidbach O (2003) Post-Haeckelian comparative biology—Adolf Naef’s idealistic morphology. Theory Biosci 122:174–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2003) Homology in comparative, molecular, and evolutionary developmental biology: the radiation of a concept. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 299:9–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower AVZ, Schawaroch V (1996) Three steps of homology assessment. Cladistics 12:265–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler AB, Saidel WM (2000) Defining sameness: Historical, biological and generative homology. Bioessays 22:846–853

    Google Scholar 

  • Camardi G (2001) Richard Owen, morphology and evolution. J Hist Biol 34:481–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerny R, Horáček I, Olsson L (2006) The trabecula cranii: development and homology of an enigmatic vertebrate head structure. Anim Biol 56:503–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole FJ (1944) A history of comparative anatomy from Aristotle to eighteenth century. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman W (1976) Morphology between type concept and descent theory. J Hist Med 31:149–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin Ch (1860) The origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • de Beer GR (1958) Embryos and ancestors, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • de Beer GR (1971) Homology: an unsolved problem. Oxford University Press, Oxford (Oxford Biol. Readers 11)

    Google Scholar 

  • de Pinna M (1991) Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics 7:367–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Dohle W (1976) Zur Frage des Nachweises von Homologien durch die komplexen Zell- und Teilungsmuster in der embryonalen Entwicklung höherer Krebse (Crustacea, Malacostraca, Peracarida). Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde N F 16:125–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Donoghue MJ, Sanderson MJ (1994) Complexity and homology in plants. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 393–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckardt T (1964) Das Homologieproblem und Fälle strittiger Homologien. Phytomorphology 14:79–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch WM (1970) Distinguishing homologous from analogous proteins. Syst Zool 19:99–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitch WM (2000) Homology: a personal view on some of the problems. Trends Genet 16:227–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadow HF (1913) Old and new aims and methods of morphology. Science 38:455–466

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Moreno J, Mindell DP (2000) Using homologous genes on opposite sex chromosomes “gametologs” in phylogenetic analysis: a case study with avian CHD. Mol Biol Evol 17:1826–1832

    Google Scholar 

  • Gegenbaur C (1898) Vergleichende Anatomie der Wirbelthiere mit Berücksichtigung der Wirbellosen I. Engelmann, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire E (1818) Philosophie anatomique (vol. 1) des organes respiratoires sous le rapport de la determination et de l’identité de leurs pièces osseusses. Baillière, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire E (1828). Sur le principe de l’unite de composition organique. Pichon et Didier, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire E (1830) Principes de philosophie zoologique. Pichon et Didier, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin MT (1976) The nomenclature of correspondence: a new look at “homology” and “analogy”. In: Masterton RB, Hodos W, Jerison H (eds) Evolution, brain, and behavior: persistent problems. Wiley, New York, pp 129–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert SF, Bolker JA (2001) Homologies of process and modular elements of embryonic construction. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 291:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Goethe JW (1999) Schriften zur Naturwissenschaft. Reclam, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogarten JP (1994) Which is the most conserved group of proteins? Homology-orthology, paralogy, xenology and the fusion of independent lineages. J Mol Evol 39:5441–5443

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin B (1994) Homology, development, and heredity. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego CA, pp 229–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant T, Kluge AG (2004) Transformation series as an ideographic character concept. Cladistics 20:23–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall BK (1995) Homology and embryonic development. Evol Biol 28:1–37

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig W (1950) Grundzüge einer Theorie der phylogenetichen Systematik. Deutscher Verlag, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig W (1966) Phylogenetic systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig O (1916) Das werden der organismen. Eine widerlegung von Darwin’s Zufallstheorie. Fischer, Jena

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoßfeld U, Olsson L (2003) The road from Haeckel: the Jena tradition in evolutionary morphology and the origins of “evo-devo”. Biol Philos 18:285–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoßfeld U, Olsson L (2005) The history of the homology concept and the “Phylogenetisches Symposium”. Theory Biosci 124:243–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbs CL (1944) Concepts of homology and analogy. Am Nat 78:289–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglis WG (1966) The observational basis of homology. Syst Zool 15:219–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobshagen E (1924) Begriff und Formen der morphologischen Homologie. Verhandlungen der Deutschen zoologischen Gesellschaft 58:257–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanaev II (1963) Ocherki iz istoriji sravnitelnoj anatomiji do Darwina: Razvitije problemy morfologicheskogo tipa v zoologiji. Izdatelstvo akademiji nauk CCCP, Leningrad

  • Kaplan DR (1984). The concept of homology and its central role in the elucidation of plant systematic relationships. In: Duncan T, Stuessy TF (eds) Cladistics: perspectives on the reconstruction of evolutionary history. Columbia University Press, Oxford, pp 51–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby W (1823) A description of some insects, which appear to exemplify Mr. William S. MacLeay’s doctrine of affinity and analogy. Trans Linn Soc Lond 14:93–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirk GS, Raven JE, Schoefield M (1984) Presocratic philosophers. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner K (2004) Idealistic morphology and correlations in Rádl’s biology. In: Hermann T, Markoš A (eds) Emanuel Rádl—scientist and philosopher. Oykomenh, Praha, pp 143–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleisner K, Markoš M (2005) Semetic rings: towards the new concept of mimetic resemblances. Theory Biosci 123:209–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Komárek S (2003) Mimicry, aposematism and related phenomena. Mimetism in nature and the history of its study. München, Lincom Europa

    Google Scholar 

  • Lankester ER (1870) On the use of the term homology in modern zoology, and the distinction between homogenetic and homoplastic agreements. Ann Mag Nat Hist 6:34–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Laubichler MD (2000) Homology in development and the development of the homology concept. Am Zool 40:777–788

    Google Scholar 

  • Laubichler MD, Maienschein J (2003) Ontogeny, anatomy, and the problem of homology: Carl Gegenbaur and American tradition of cell lineage studies. Theory Biosci 122:194–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauder GV (1994) Homology, form, and function. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 151–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenoir T (1982) The strategy of life: teleology and mechanics in ninetieth century German biology. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Levit GS, Meister K (2006) The history of essentialism vs. Ernst Mayr’s “Essentialism Story”: A case study of German idealistic morphology. Theory Biosci 124:243–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Levit GS, Hoßfeld U, Olsson L (2004) The integration of Darwinism and evolutionary morphology: Alexej Nikolajevich Sewertzoff (1866–1936), and the Developmental Basis of Evolutionary Change. J Exp Zool 302:343–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz KZ (1941) Vergleichende Bewegungsstudien an Anatiden. Suppl J für Ornithol 89:194–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz KZ (1950) The comparative method in studying innate behavior patterns. Symp Soc Exp Biol 4:221–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz KZ (1982) The foundations of ethology: the principal ideas and discoveries in animal behavior. Touchstone, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Love AC, Raff R (2006) Larval ectoderm, organizational homology, and the origins of evolutionary novelty. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 306:18–34

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeay WS (1823) Remarks on the identity of certain general laws which have been observed to regulate the natural distribution of insects and fungi. Trans Linn Soc Lond 14:43–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Markoš A, Grygar F, Kleisner K, Neubauer Z (2007) Towards a Darwinian biosemiotics. Life as mutual understanding. In: Barbieri M (ed) Introduction to biosemiotics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 235–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason HL (1957) The concept of the flower and the theory of homology. Madroño 14:81–95

    Google Scholar 

  • McKitrick MC (1994). On homology and ontological relationship of parts. Syst Biol 43:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer A (1999) Homology and homoplasy: the retention of genetic programmes. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 141–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaux B (1989) Homology. A question of form or a product of genealogy? Rivista di Biologia 82:217–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Mindell DP, Meyer A (2001) Homology evolving. Trends Ecol Evol 16:434–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A (1996) Some thoughts on homology 150 years after Owen’s definition. Memorie della Società italiana di Scienze naturali e del Museo civico di Storia naturale di Milano 27:71–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A (1998) Molecules, developmental modules, and phenotypes: a combinatorial approach to homology. Mol Phylogenet Evol 9:340–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A (2000) Limbs and tail as evolutionarily diverging duplicates of the main body axis. Evol Dev 2:157–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A (2002) Homology, limbs, and genitalia. Evol Dev 4:127–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Minelli A, Peruffo B (1991) Developmental pathways, homology and homonomy in metameric animals. J Evol Biol 4:429–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller GB (2003) Homology: the evolution of morphological organization. In: Müller GB, Newman SA (eds) Origination of organismal form: beyond the gene in developmental and evolutionary biology. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp 52–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller GB, Wagner GP (1996) Homology, Hox genes and developmental integration. Am Zool 36:4–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller GB, Newman SA (1999) Generation, integration, autonomy: three steps in the evolution of homology. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 65–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Naef A (1926) Zur Discussion des Homologiebegriffes und seiner Anwendung in der Morphologie. Biologisches Zentralblatt 46:405–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Naef A (1927) Die Definition des Homologiebegriffes. Biologisches Zentralblatt 47:187–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson G (1989) Cladistic and evolutionary models. Cladistics 5:275–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen C, Martinez P (2003) Patterns of gene expression: homology or homocracy? Dev Genes Evol 213:149–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowikoff MM (1930) Das Princip der Analogie und die vergleichende Anatomie. Eine Studie über eine Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Biologie. Fischer, Jena

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyhart LK (1995) Biology takes form. Animal morphology and the German universities, 1800–1900. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley TH (2003) The eye as a replicating and diverging, modular developmental unit. Trends Ecol Evol 18:623–627

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson L (2005) Alternatives to darwinism in Sweden: lamarckism and idealistic morphology, disbelief in mutations and the poverty of selection. Jahrbuch für Europäische Wissenschaftskultur 1:47–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Osche G (1973) Das Homolologisieren als eine grundlegende Methode der Phylogenetik. Aufsätze und Reden der Senckenbergischen naturforschenden Gesellschaft 24:155–166

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen R (1836) Cephalopoda. In: Todd RB (ed) Cycloapedia of anatomy and physiology I. Gilbert and Piper, London, pp 517–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen R (1843) Lectures on the comparative anatomy and physiology of the invertebrate animals. Longmann Brown Green & Longmans, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen R (1848) On the archetype and homologies of the vertebrate skeleton. J. van Voorst, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Panchen AL (1992) Classification, evolution and the nature of biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Panchen AL (1999) Homology—history of a concept. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 5–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson C (1982) Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey KA, Friday AE (eds) Problems in phylogenetics reconstruction. Academic Press, London, pp 21–74

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus HF (1989) Das Homologisieren in der Feinstrukturforschung: Das Bolwig-Organ der höheren Dipteren und seine Homologisierung mit Stemmata und Ommatidien eines ursprünglichen Fazetenauges der Mandibulata. Zoologische Beiträge N F 32:437–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter K (1922) Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Begriffs “Homologie” und seine Anwendung in der Embryologie. Biologisches Zentralblatt 42:308–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Rádl E (1905) Geschichte der biologischen Theorien seit dem Ende des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts. Engelmann, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Rádl E (1913) Geschichte der biologischen Theorien in der Neuzeit I. (zweite gänzlich umgearbeitete Auflage). Engelmann, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Rádl E (1930) The history of biological theories. Oxford University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Reif WE (2004) Problematic issues of cladistics: 3. Homology and apomorphy; ontology versus operationalism. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Palaontologie-Abhandlungen 231:395–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Remane A (1952) Die Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems, der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik, Koeltz, Königsstein

  • Remane A (1955) Morphologie als Homologienforschung, Verhandlungen der Deutschen zoologischen Gesellschaft (1954):159–183

  • Remane A (1956) Die Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems, der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik, 2nd edn. Geest & Portig K.-G., Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Remane J (1989) Die Entwicklung des Homologie-Begrifffs seit Adolf Remane. Zoologische Beiträge N F 32:497–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl R (1975) Die Ordnung des Lebendigen. Systembedingungen der Evolution. Parey, Hamburg, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Riedl R (1980) Homologien; ihre Grunde und Erkentnissgrunde. Verhandlungen der Deutschen zoologischen Gesellschaft 73:164–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieger R, Tyler S (1979). The homology theorem in ultrastructural research. Am Zool 19:655–664

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O (1994) Homology, topology, and typology: the history of modern debates. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego CA, pp 63–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O (1988) Fundamentals of comparative biology. Birkhäuser, Basel

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O (1996) Testing homology by congruence: the pectoral girdle of turtles. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:1395–1398

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa-Molinar E, Burke AC (2002) Starting from fins: parallelism in the evolution of limbs and genitalia: the fin-to-genitalia transition. Evol Dev 4:124–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth VL (1984) On homology. Biol J Linn Soc 22:13–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth VL (1988) The biological basis of homology. In: Humphries CJ (ed) Ontogeny and systematics. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupke NA (1993) Richard Owen’s vertebrate archetype. Isis 84:231–251

    Google Scholar 

  • Rupke NA (1994) Richard Owen: Victorian naturalist. Yale University Press, New Haven/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppert EE (1982) Homology recognition as a basis for comparative biology. In: Nelson DR (ed) Proceedings of the third international symposium on the Tardigrada. East Tennessee State University Press, Johnson City, pp 32–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell ES (1916) Form and function: a contribution to the history of animal morphology. Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutishauser R, Moline P (2005) Evo-devo and the search for homology (“sameness”) in biological systems. Theory Biosci 124:213–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Sander K (1989) Zum Geleit: Homologie und Ontogenese. Zoologische Beiträge N F 32:323–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler R (1984) Homology—a continuing challenge. Syst Botany 9:382–394

    Google Scholar 

  • Sattler R (1994) Homology, homeosis, and process morphology in plants. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego CA, pp 423–475

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt M (1989) Das Homologie-Konzept in Morphologie und Phylogenetik. Zoologische Beiträge N F 32:505–512

    Google Scholar 

  • Skála Z, Zrzavý J (1994) Phylogentics reticulations and cladistics: discussion of methodological concepts. Cladistics 10:305–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Sluys R (1996) The notion of homology in current comparative biology. J Zool Syst Evol Res 34:145–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spemann H (1915) Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Begriffs der Homologie. In: Chun C, Johannsen W (eds) Die Kulturen der Gegenwart I. Teubner, Leipzig, pp 63–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Strickland HE (1846) On the structural relations of organized beeings. Philos Mag J Sci 28:354–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Striedter GF, Northcutt RG (1991) Biological hierarchies and the concept of homology. Brain Behav Evol 38:177–189

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudhaus W (1980) Problembereiche der Homologienforschung. Verhandlungen der Deutschen zoologischen Gesellschaft 73:177–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Szarski H (1949) The concept of homology in the light of the comparative anatomy of vertebrates. Q Rev Biol 24:124–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Szucsich NU, Wirkner CHS (2007) Homology: a synthetic concept of evolutionary robustness of patterns. Zool Scr 36:281–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Tait J (1928) Homology, analogy and plesis. Q Rev Biol 3:151–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson PB (1984) Homology: an empirical view. Syst Botany 9:374–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Trevarrow B (1998) Developmental homologues: lineages and analysis. Brain Behav Evol 52:243–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Valen L (1982) Homology and causes. Syst Botany 173:305–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP (1989b) The origin of morphological characters and the biological basis of homology. Evolution 43:1157–1171

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP (1989a) The biological homology concept. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 20:51–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP (1994) Homology and the mechanisms of development. In: Hall BK (ed) Homology: the hierarchical basis of comparative biology. Academic Press, San Diego CA, pp 273–299

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP (1995) The biological role of homologues: a building block hypothesis. Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Palaontologie-Abhandlungen 195:279–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP (1996) Homologues, natural kinds and the evolution of modularity. Am Zool 36:36–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP (1999) A research programme for testing the biological homology concept. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 125–134

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP, Stadler PF (2003) Quasi-independence, homology and the unity of type: A topological theory of characters. J Theor Biol 220:505–527

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel GW (1992) Behavioral homology and phylogeny. Ann Rev Ecol Syst 23:261–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiting MF, Bradler S, Taylor M (2003) Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects. Nature 421:264–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood SW (1995) The first use of the terms “homology” and “analogy” in the writings of Richard Owen. Arch Nat Hist 22:255–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wray GA (1999) Evolutionary dissociations between homologous genes and homologous structures. In: Bock GR, Cardew G (eds) Homology. Willey, Chichester, pp 189–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Wray GA, Abouheif E (1998) When homology is not homology. Curr Opin Genet Dev 8:675–680

    Google Scholar 

  • Young BA (1993) On the necessity of an archetypal concept in morphology: with special reference to the concepts of “structure” and “homology”. Biol Philos 8:225–248

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank to Anton Markoš, Alexander Nemec, and anonymous reviewers for worthy comments on various versions of the text. This work has been supported by the Research Program CTS MSM 0021620845 and the GPSS Major Awards Program, a joint program of the Interdisciplinary University of Paris and Elon University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, Prague, 128 44, Czech Republic

    Karel Kleisner

Authors
  1. Karel Kleisner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karel Kleisner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kleisner, K. The Formation of the Theory of Homology in Biological Sciences. Acta Biotheor 55, 317–340 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-007-9023-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10441-007-9023-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation