Taxic homology and three-taxon statement analysis

Three-taxon statement analysis (3TA) and standard cladistic analysis (SCA) were evaluated relative to propositions of taxic homology. There are definite distinctions between complement relation homologs and paired homologs. The complement relation is discussed, relative to rooting, parsimony, and taxic propositions of homology. The complement relation, as implemented in SCA, makes sense only because SCA is a simple evolutionary model of character-state transformation. 3TA is a method for implementing complement relation data from a taxic perspective. The standard approach to cladistic analysis distinguishes taxa by rooting a tree, which means that that approach is incompatible with taxic propositions of homology, because a taxic homology is a hypothesis of relationship between taxa that possess a homolog relative to taxa that lack a homolog. It is not necessary to treat paired homologs from a transformational perspective to distinguish informative from uninformative data. 3TA yields results markedly different from those of SCA. SCA, which seeks to minimize tree length, may not maximize the relation of homology (congruence) relative to a tree.     

Taxic and Transformational Homology: Different Ways of Seeing

Hypotheses of taxic homology are hypotheses of taxa (groups). Hypotheses of transformational homology are hypotheses of transformations between character states within the context of an explicit model of character evolution. Taxic and transformational homology are discussed with respect to secondary loss and reversal in the context of three-taxon statement analysis and standard cladistic analysis. We argue that it is important to distinguish complement relation homologies from those that we term paired homologues. This distinction means that the implementation of three-taxon statement analysis needs modification if all data are to be considered potentially informative. Modified three-taxon statement analysis and standard cladistic analysis yield different results for the example of character reversal provided by Kluge (1994) for both complement relation data and paired homologues. We argue that these different results reflect the different approaches of standard cladistic analysis and modified t.t.s. analysis. In the standard cladistic approach, absence, as secondary loss, can provide evidence for a group. This is because the standard cladistic approach implements a transformational view of homology. In the t.t.s approach discussed in this paper, absence can only be interpreted as secondary loss by congruence with other data; absence alone can never provide evidence for a group. In this respect, the modified t.t.s. approach is compatible with a taxic view of homology.     

CONCEPTS AND TESTS OF HOMOLOGY IN THE CLADISTIC PARADIGM

Abstract— Logical equivalence between the notions of homology and synapomorphy is reviewed and supported. So-called transformational homology embodies two distinct logical components, one related to comparisons among different organisms and the other restricted to comparisons within the same organism. The former is essentially hierarchical in nature, thus being in fact a less obvious form of taxic homology. The latter is logically equivalent to so-called serial homology in a broad sense (including homonomy, mass homology or iterative homology). Of three tests of homology proposed to date (similarity, conjunction and congruence) only congruence serves as a test in the strict sense. Similarity stands at a basic level in homology propositions, being the source of the homology conjecture in the first place. Conjunction is unquestionably an indicator of non-homology, but it is not specific about the pairwise comparison where non-homology is present, and depends on a specific scheme of relationship in order to refute a hypothesis of homology. The congruence test has been previously seen as an application of compatibility analysis. However, congruence is more appropriately seen as an expression of strict parsimony analysis. A general theoretical solution is proposed to determine evolution of characters with ambiguous distributions, based on the notion of maximization of homology propositions. According to that notion, ambiguous character-state distributions should be resolved by an optimization that maximizes reversals relative to parallelisms. Notions of homology in morphology and molecular biology are essentially the same. The present tendency to adopt different terminologies for the two sources of data should be avoided, in order not to obscure the fundamental uniformity of the concept of homology in comparative biology. “A similar hierarchy is found both in ‘structures’ and in ‘functions’. In the last resort, structure (i.e. order of parts) and function (order of processes) may be the very same thing […].” L. von Bertalanlfy “[…] it is the fact that certain criteria enable us to match parts of things consistently which suggests that mechanisms of certain kinds must have been involved in their origin.” N. Jardine and C. Jardine     

Transformationalism,taxism, and developmental biology in systematics

Issues concerning transformational and taxic comparisons are central to understanding the impact of the recent proliferation of molecular developmental data on evolutionary biology. More importantly, an understanding of taxism and transformationalism in comparative biology is critical to assessing the impact of the recent developmental data on systematic theory and practice. We examine the philosophical and practical aspects of the transformational approach and the relevance of this approach to recent molecular-based developmental data. We also examine the theoretical basis of the taxic approach to molecular developmental data and suggest that developmental data are perfectly amenable to the taxic approach. Two recent examples from the molecular developmental biology literature--the evolution of insect wings and the evolution of dorsal ventral inversion in vertebrates and invertebrates--are used to compare the taxic and transformational approaches. We conclude that the transformational approach is entirely appropriate for ontogenetic studies and furthermore can serve as an excellent source of hypotheses about the evolution of characters. However, the taxic approach is the ultimate arbiter of these hypotheses.     

THREE STEPS OF HOMOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Abstract — In 1991 de Pinna (Cladistics 7: 367–394) coined the term primary homology as the putative homology statements prior to tree reconstruction. However, some confusion still exists regarding the conjectural nature of homology and to the analysis of DNA sequences. By dividing de Pinna's term primary homology into topographical identity and character state identity, we emphasize the sequential refinement of putative homology statements. We discuss the problem of transformational versus taxic homology and explain the application of our terms to DNA sequence data.     

Contemporary concepts of homology in biology (a theoretical review)

A brief review of the contemporary theoretical concepts of homology being developed basically in systematics and phylogenetics as well as in developmental biology is presented. Ontologically, both homology and analogy represent a kind of correspondence considered from the standpoint of nominalism, realism, and conceptualism. According to their nominalistic treatment, both are described by a set-theory approximation which makes them classes (in the logical sense). The realistic treatment provides their holistic view according to which a homologue is an anatomical or evolutionary singular while analogue remains a class. The conceptualistic treatment means that there are real (objective) correspondences existing among real (objective) entities while fixation of any of them is based on certain theoretical presumptions adopted by a researcher; homology as a natural kind (including homeostatic property cluster) seems to be most consistent with such a treatment. Realistic view of homology makes it "absolute", while two others make discrimination of homology and analogy strictly relative. Two basic general homology concepts have been developed in recent literature--taxic and transformational ones; the first considers respective correspondences as structure relations, the second as process relations. The taxic homology is nearly the same as classical typological one (Owen), while transformational homology unites all its phylogenetic, ontogenetic (developmental) and transformation-typological definitions. Process-structuralistic approach seems to unite both taxic and transformational ones. The latter makes it possible to apply general homology concept not only to structures but to processes as well. It is stressed that homology is not identical to the similarity, the latter being just the means for revealing the former. Some closer consideration is given to phylogenetic, ontogenetic and genetic treatments of homology; significant uncertainty is shown to exist between them which causes the "homology problem". Epistemologically, any homology statement has a status of hypothesis which makes such a statement theory-dependent according to the hypothetic-deductive argumentation scheme. This dependence allows to stress once more the relative nature of homology and analogy correspondences. Some questions concerning operational concepts and criteria of homology are considered. A hierarchical concept of homology seems to be the most promising prospect of future development of the "homology problem".     

ONTOGENY AND THE HIERARCHY OF TYPES

Abstract— The long history of belief in a parallelism between ontogeny and a hierarchical order of natural things is reviewed. The meaning of von Baerian recapitulation is analyzed and its implications for cladistic methodology are discussed at two levels: ontogeny and homology. The basic problem inherent in the purported parallelism is that the order of natural things (i.e., the taxic approach to homology) is part of the "world of being" of Platonic ideas, whereas ontogeny and phylogeny (i.e., the transformational approach to homology) belong to Plato's "world of becoming." These two "genera of existence," as Plato put it, being and becoming, are incompatible but complementary views of nature.     

Using genetic networks and homology to understand the evolution of phenotypic traits

Homology can have different meanings for different kinds of biologists. A phylogenetic view holds that homology, defined by common ancestry, is rigorously identified through phylogenetic analysis. Such homologies are taxic homologies (=synapomorphies). A second interpretation, "biological homology" emphasizes common ancestry through the continuity of genetic information underlying phenotypic traits, and is favored by some developmental geneticists. A third kind of homology, deep homology, was recently defined as "the sharing of the genetic regulatory apparatus used to build morphologically and phylogenetically disparate features." Here we explain the commonality among these three versions of homology. We argue that biological homology, as evidenced by a conserved gene regulatory network giving a trait its "essential identity" (a Character Identity Network or "ChIN") must also be a taxic homology. In cases where a phenotypic trait has been modified over the course of evolution such that homology (taxic) is obscured (e.g. jaws are modified gill arches), a shared underlying ChIN provides evidence of this transformation. Deep homologies, where molecular and cellular components of a phenotypic trait precede the trait itself (are phylogenetically deep relative to the trait), are also taxic homologies, undisguised. Deep homologies inspire particular interest for understanding the evolutionary assembly of phenotypic traits. Mapping these deeply homologous building blocks on a phylogeny reveals the sequential steps leading to the origin of phenotypic novelties. Finally, we discuss how new genomic technologies will revolutionize the comparative genomic study of non-model organisms in a phylogenetic context, necessary to understand the evolution of phenotypic traits.     

Evolutionary theory and systematics: relationships between process and patterns

The relevance of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis to the foundations of taxonomy (the construction of groups, both taxa and phyla) is reexamined. The nondimensional biological species concept, and not the multidimensional, taxonomic, species notion which is based on it, represents a culmination of an evolutionary understanding. It demonstrates how established evolutionary mechanisms acting on populations of sexually reproducing organisms provide the testable ontological basis of the species category. We question the ontology and epistemology of the phylogenetic or evolutionary species concept, and find it to be a fundamentally untenable one. We argue that at best, the phylogenetic species is a taxonomic species notion which is not a theoretical concept, and therefore should not serve as foundation for taxonomic theory in general, phylogenetics, and macroevolutionary reconstruction in particular. Although both evolutionary systematists and cladists are phylogeneticists, the reconstruction of the history of life is fundamentally different in these two approaches. We maintain that all method, including taxonomic ones, must fall out of well corroborated theory. In the case of taxonomic methodology the theoretical base must be evolutionary. The axiomatic assumptions that all phena, living and fossil, must be holophyletic taxa (species, and above), resulting from splitting events, and subsequently that evaluation of evolutionary change must be based on a taxic perspective codified by the Hennig ian taxonomic species notion, are not testable premises. We discuss the relationship between some biologically, and therefore taxonomically, significant patterns in nature, and the process dependence of these patterns. Process-free establishment of deductively tested “genealogies” is a contradiction in terms; it is impossible to “recover” phylogenetic patterns without the investment of causal and processual explanations of characters to establish well tested taxonomic properties of these (such as homologies, apomorphies, synapomorphies, or transformation series). Phylogenies of either characters or of taxa are historical-narrative explanations (H-N Es), based on both inductively formulated hypotheses and tested against objective, empirical evidence. We further discuss why construction of a “genealogy”, the alleged framework for “evolutionary reconstruction”, based on a taxic, cladistic outgroup comparison and a posteriori weighting of characters is circular. We define how the procedure called null-group comparison leads to the noncircular testing of the taxonomic properties of characters against which the group phylogenies must be tested. This is the only valid rooting procedure for either character or taxon evolution. While the Hennig -principle is obviously a sound deduction from the theory of descent, cladistic reconstruction of evolutionary history itself lacks a valid methodology for testing transformation hypotheses of both characters and species. We discuss why the paleontological method is part of comparative biology with a critical time dimension ana why we believe that an “ontogenetic method” is not valid. In our view, a merger of exclusive (causal and interactive, but best described as levels of organization) and inclusive (classificatory) hierarchies has not been accomplished by a taxic scheme of evolution advocated by some. Transformational change by its very nature is not classifiable in an inclusive hierarchy, and therefore no classification can fully reflect the causal and interactive chains of events constituting phylogeny, without ignoring and contradicting large areas of corroborated evolutionary theory. Attempts to equate progressive evolutionary change with taxic schemes by Haeckel were fundamentally flawed. His ideas found 19th century expression in a taxic perception of the evolutionary process (“phylogenesis”), a merger of typology, hierarchic and taxic notions of progress, all rooted in an ontogenetic view of phylogeny. The modern schemes of genealogical hierarchies, based on punctuation and a notion of “species” individuality, have yet to demonstrate that they hold promise beyond the Haeckel ian view of progressive evolution.     

The notion of homology in current comparative biology

Current notions on homology, and its recognition, causation, and explanation are reviewed in this report. The focus is primarily on concepts because the formulation of precise definitions of homology has contributed little to our understanding of the issue. Different aspects or concepts of homology have been contrasted, currently the most important ones being the distinction between systematic and biological concepts. The systematic concept of homology focuses on common ancestry and on taxa; the biological concept tries to explain patterns of conservatism in evolution by shared developmental constraints. Similarity or correspondence is generally accepted as a primary criterion in the delimitation of homologues, albeit that this criterion is not without practical and theoretical problems. Apart from similarity, the biological concept of homology also stresses developmental individuality of putative homologous structures. Structural and positional aspects of homology can be separated, with positional homology acquiring an independent status. Similarity, topographic relationships, and ontogenetic development cannot be tests of homology. Within the cladistic paradigm, the most decisive test of homology is that of congruence; proponents of the biological-homology concept have been less concerned with test implications. Adopting a hierarchical view of nature suggests that characters have to be homologized at their appropriate level of organization. A taxic or systematic approach to homology has precedence over a transformational or biological approach. Nevertheless, pattern analysis and process explanations are not independent of each other.     

Modules, kinds, and homology

Developmental modules are best conceptualized as homeostatic property cluster natural kinds. As is true in other fields of biology, an individual may instantiate properties of various natural kinds. Through their dissociability, developmental modules can be recruited to function as evolutionary modules. The proper analogy to developmental modules, atoms, or biological species depends on the scope over which specific developmental modules allow generalizations. The nature of the relationship between developmental modules, evolutionary modules, and taxic (phylogenetic) homology are explored. Similarity of gene expression patterns and developmental pathways as captured by biological homology may support hypotheses of taxic homology, but not the other way around.     

Classification or Phylogenetic Estimates?

[m]3ta is a method that seeks to implement a taxic view of homology. The method is consistent with Patterson's tests for discriminating homology from nonhomology. Contrary to the claims of Kluge and Farris, (1999, Cladistics 15, 205–212), m3ta is not a phenetic method—nor does it necessarily place the basal split in a tree between the phenetically most divergent taxa. [m]3ta does not seek to accurately recover phylogeny but rather it seeks to maximize the information content of taxic homology propositions. [m]3ta is a method of classification in which the unit of analysis is the relation of homology. [m]3ta differs from all phylogenetic methods because the units of analyses in phylogenetic methods, including sca, are transformation series.     

Homology: Homeostatic Property Cluster Kinds in Systematics and Evolution

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.     

Evo-devo and the search for homology (“sameness”) in biological systems

Developmental biology and evolutionary studies have merged into evolutionary developmental biology (“evo-devo”). This synthesis already influenced and still continues to change the conceptual framework of structural biology. One of the cornerstones of structural biology is the concept of homology. But the search for homology (“sameness”) of biological structures depends on our favourite perspectives (axioms, paradigms). Five levels of homology (“sameness”) can be identified in the literature, although they overlap to some degree: (i) serial homology (homonomy) within modular organisms, (ii) historical homology (synapomorphy), which is taken as the only acceptable homology by many biologists, (iii) underlying homology (i.e., parallelism) in closely related taxa, (iv) deep evolutionary homology due to the “same” master genes in distantly related phyla, and (v) molecular homology exclusively at gene level. The following essay gives emphasis on the heuristic advantages of seemingly opposing perspectives in structural biology, with examples mainly from comparative plant morphology. The organization of the plant body in the majority of angiosperms led to the recognition of the classical root–shoot model. In some lineages bauplan rules were transcended during evolution and development. This resulted in morphological misfits such as the Podostemaceae, peculiar eudicots adapted to submerged river rocks. Their transformed “roots” and “shoots” fit only to a limited degree into the classical model which is based on either–or thinking. It has to be widened into a continuum model by taking over elements of fuzzy logic and fractal geometry to accommodate for lineages such as the Podostemaceae.     

Taxic Homology = Overall Similarity

Modified three-taxon analysis (m3ta), a method in which three-taxon statements are produced from a nonadditive binary coding of the original data, has been proposed as a model-free way of assessing monophyly of groups, utilizing the taxic concept of homology. In fact the taxic concept amounts to a model, and, further, one that seems to conflict directly with evolution. M3ta is a type of grouping by all similarities and, like all such methods, would require a clock assumption if the tree were to be interpreted phylogenetically. Groupings based on this method, consequently, are phenetic, and they have little to do with monophyly. It has been proposed to define phylogenetic systematics in terms of grouping only by presences. While popular among advocates of 3ta, such definitions are completely inadequate, both because absences may be apomorphic and because phenetic methods can disagree with phylogenetic ones even when no absences are involved.     

Secondary structural and “active site” momologies between nerve growth factor and insulin

Secondary structural elements, α-helix, β-sheet and turns, of nerve growth factor (NGF) were predicted by the method of Chou and Fasman. Analysis of the prediction results showed the presence of domain structure in NGF; the second half of the polypeptide chain showed a secondary structural “pattern” very similar to the first half. Comparison of the secondary structure of NGF and proinsulin showed significant homology between the B-chain, which has the “active site”, and NGF^25–54 The homology is reinforced by the identification of a pentapeptide sequence in NGF which is very similar to the “active site” sequence of insluin essential for receptor binding and agonist activity. The present alignment of insulin and NGF is however different from that proposed earlier on the basis of sequence data alone.     

Homology and logical fallacy

The meaning of homology, is analyzed in a phylogenetic context. The notion of homology is unequivocal only if tied to recency of common ancestry, i.e. to the concept of monophyly. Processual analysis of the biological causes of similarity cannot provide guidance in the search for relations of homology. Instead, it is the reconstruction of the taxic hierarchy based on homology and congruence which provides guidance in the search for underlying causes of similarity. Pattern reconstruction is shown to have logical precedence over process explanations.     

Logical basis for morphological characters in phylogenetics

Systematists have questioned the distinction between characters and character states and their alignment with the traditional concept of homology. Previous definitions for character and character state show surprising variation. Here it is concluded that characters are simply features expressed as independent variables and character states the mutually exclusive conditions of a character. Together, characters and character states compose what are here termed character statements. Character statements are composed of only four fundamental functional components here identified as locator, variable, variable qualifier, and character state, and these components exist in only two patterns, neomorphic and transformational. Several controversies in character coding and the use of “absent” as a character state are understood here as a consequence of incomplete character statements and the inappropriate mixing of neomorphic and transformational character statements. Only a few logically complete patterns for morphological character data exist; their adoption promises to greatly reduce current variability in character data between analyses. © The Willi Hennig Society 2007.