Homology and errors

A recent review of the homology concept in cladistics is critiqued in light of the historical literature. Homology as a notion relevant to the recognition of clades remains equivalent to synapomorphy. Some symplesiomorphies are “homologies” inasmuch as they represent synapomorphies of more inclusive taxa; others are complementary character states that do not imply any shared evolutionary history among the taxa that exhibit the state. Undirected character‐state change (as characters optimized on an unrooted tree) is a necessary but not sufficient test of homology, because the addition of a root may alter parsimonious reconstructions. Primary and secondary homology are defended as realistic representations of discovery procedures in comparative biology, recognizable even in Direct Optimization. The epistemological relationship between homology as evidence and common ancestry as explanation is again emphasized. An alternative definition of homology is proposed. © The Willi Hennig Society 2012.     

Homology and synapomorphy‐symplesiomorphy—neither synonymous nor equivalent but different perspectives on the same phenomenon

In a recent debate, either synapomorphy and symplesiomorphy or only synapomorphy have been claimed to be synonymous or equivalent to homology. In my view, exactly the same relationship exists between homology supported by a congruence test on the one hand and synapomorphy as well as symplesiomorphy on the other hand. Both conditions become established at the same time with the process of rooting of an unrooted topology. I, however, do not consider the concept of homology equal or synonymous to that of synapomorphy and symplesiomorphy. In my view, they represent different perspectives on the same phenomenon, i.e. correspondence by common origin. Homology has no implication on the direction of transformation, whereas symplesiomorphy as “primitive” condition and synapomorphy as “derived” condition refer directly to phylogenesis, the real historical evolutionary process of speciation and transformation. In addition, synapomorphy and symplesiomorphy might also refer to a character state that refers to the absence of a structure/organ, which creates problems with traditional homology concepts. Hennig's terms synapomorphy and symplesiomorphy are necessary and sufficient for the evolutionary interpretation of character states. For what is corroborated in an unrooted topology as the result of a congruence test, I suggest as a new term “synmorphy” because it can well be applied also to those characters where one state represents the absence of a structure/organ. The place for homology in morphological cladistics, however, is restricted to the characterization of the relationship between different character states of one transformation series (i.e. character).     

形态性状、分子性状与同源性

“同源性（homology）”是生物学中最基本的概念之一。近年来,随着分子生物学、生物信息学、发育生物学以及进化发育遗传学等学科的快速发展,同源性一词在形态性状的比较、核苷酸和氨基酸序列的分析以及探讨形态性状进化的分子机制等方面都有广泛应用。然而,由于不同的研究者对同源性概念的理解有所不同,在实际应用中难免会出现不恰当使用“同源性”一词并得出错误结论的情况。本文从不同的角度介绍了如何对同源性进行判断以及影响同源性判断的因素。并指出正确理解同源性这一概念的含义,以及通过综合各方面的证据对同源性进行推断对于揭示基因型和表型的进化以及二者之间的关系非常重要。     

形态性状、分子性状与同源性

“同源性(homology)”是生物学中最基本的概念之一。近年来, 随着分子生物学、生物信息学、发育生物学以及进化发育遗传学等学科的快速发展, 同源性一词在形态性状的比较、核苷酸和氨基酸序列的分析以及探讨形态性状进化的分子机制等方面都有广泛应用。然而, 由于不同的研究者对同源性概念的理解有所不同, 在实际应用中难免会出现不恰当使用“同源性”一词并得出错误结论的情况。本文从不同的角度介绍了如何对同源性进行判断以及影响同源性判断的因素。并指出正确理解同源性这一概念的含义, 以及通过综合各方面的证据对同源性进行推断对于揭示基因型和表型的进化以及二者之间的关系非常重要。     

Homology of the palpebral and origin of supraorbital ossifications in ornithischian dinosaurs

Maidment, S.C.R. & Porro, L.B. 2010: Homology of the palpebral and origin of supraorbital ossifications in ornithischian dinosaurs. Lethaia , Vol. 43, pp. 95–111.
The palpebral is a small ossification that projects across the orbit in some ornithischian dinosaurs and its presence is considered a synapomorphy of the clade. By contrast, other ornithischians lack the palpebral but possess accessory ossifications, commonly termed supraorbitals, which form the dorsal margin of the orbit. The homology of the ornithischian palpebral to one or more of the supraorbitals is widely accepted in the literature, but this homology has never been explicitly tested and no hypotheses have been proposed regarding the function of the palpebral or why it was incorporated into the orbital margin. As homology is synonymous with synapomorphy, incorrect homology statements can lead to incorrect hypotheses of relationships being obtained during cladistic analysis. The primary and secondary homologies of the ornithischian palpebral and the anterior supraorbital of more derived members of the major ornithischian clades are tested and we demonstrate that these homology hypotheses can be accepted. Osteological correlates indicate that the palpebral supported a layer of connective tissue that roofed the orbit; ossification of this connective tissue resulted in the incorporation of the palpebral into the skull roof and gave rise to additional supraorbital elements, which are neomorphic ossifications. Large-scale structural changes in the ornithischian skull, including dermal ossifications associated with display or defence and the development of complex feeding mechanisms, may have led to the incorporation of the palpebral into the skull roof. □ Functional morphology , homology , Ornithischia , palpebral , supraorbital.     

Similarity,parsimony and conjectures of homology: The chelonian shoulder girdle revisited

Much has been written about the definition and recognition of biological homology. Homology is usually defined as similarity inherited from a common ancestor (e.g., papers in Hall, 1994). It is recognised through cladistic analysis: Patterson (1982) and de Pinna (1991) have cogently argued that homology can be equated with synapomorphy (a shared evolutionary novelty uniting a monophyletic group). Such identification involves two stages: first, a possible homology is proposed on the basis of morphological similarity. This similarity might be structural, topological, developmental, or any combination thereof. Next, a cladistic analysis is performed, involving the trait in question and all other informative traits identified. If the trait is congruent with the resultant phylogeny, it is accepted as homologous in all taxa which possess it. If the trait is incongruent with the phylogeny, it is interpreted as homoplasious in certain taxa. This has been termed the test of congruence (Patterson, 1982; de Pinna, 1991). Rieppel (1996) has recently suggested that the test of congruence might be circular, and that as a result certain inferences about the evolution of the chelonian shoulder girdle (Lee, 1996) are poorly substantiated. Here I argue that the test of congruence is not circular, and that the disputed conclusions about the evolution of chelonian shoulder girdle can be defended on the basis of parsimony. More generally, I suggest how considerations of parsimony can and should be used to arbitrate between conflicting conjectures of homology that are both congruent with an accepted phylogeny.     

The Science of Phylogenetic Systematics: Explanation, Prediction, and Test

When the concept of homology is operationalized with synapomorphy and tested with character congruence, homology and homoplasy are treated as a complement relation, a and not- a , respectively. This leaves homoplasy to be defined nominally, something like operational 'error' in the inference of homology. In choosing the most severely tested and least disconfirmed cladogram, those errors are minimized, and the power of that cladogram to explain synapomorphies, as inherited from the same common ancestral condition, is correspondingly maximized. Tests of predictions of homoplasy can lead to the elimination of those kinds of error. The complementary relationship between homology and homoplasy is considered one of reciprocal clarification, not epistemological dependence.     

Comparative histology of the vaginal–cloacal region in Squamata and its phylogenetic implications

We described the histology and morphology of the vaginal–cloacal region in 18 species from 12 Squamata families. This comparative study revealed a wide variation in the cloacal morphology. Fifteen morphological characters were considered to be primary homology hypotheses and were optimized over the topology derived from the parsimony analysis of the available soft morphological evidence, including the characters described in this study. The synapomorphies optimized for Squamata are bifid urodaeum, common urodaeal cavity with similar histological features of the urodaeal horns, and presence of glands in the anterior urodaeum; for Scleroglossa the synapomorphy is the lateral position of the vaginal intrusion into the anterior urodaeal chamber, for Nyctisaura + Scincomorpha the synapomorphy is the presence of a bifid posterior urodaeum; and for Xantusidae + Annulata it is the presence of simple glands in the anterior urodaeum. The central position of the vaginal intrusion into the urodaeal chamber and the intraepithelial position of the glandular unit in the anterior urodaeum behave as autapomorphies for Iguanidae. This study contributes evidence that defines the relationships within Scleroglossa. Cloacal features provide interesting information that is useful as a source of morphological characters for phylogenetic studies in Squamata.     

Homology and the origin of correspondence

Homology is a natural kind term and a precise account of what homologyis has to come out of theories about the role of homologues in evolution anddevelopment. Definitions of homology are discussed with respect to the questionas to whether they are able to give a non-circular account of thecorrespondenceor sameness referred to by homology. It is argued that standard accounts tiehomology to operational criteria or specific research projects, but are not yetable to offer a concept of homology that does not presuppose a version ofhomology or a comparable notion of sameness. This is the case for phylogeneticdefinitions that trace structures back to the common ancestor as well as fordevelopmental approaches such as Wagner's biological homology concept. Incontrast, molecular homology is able to offer a definition of homology in genesand proteins that explicates homology by reference to more basic notions.Molecular correspondence originates by means of specific features of causalprocesses. It is speculated that further understanding of morphogenesis mightenable biologists to give a theoretically deeper definition of homology alongsimilar lines: an account which makes reference to the concrete mechanisms thatoperate in organisms.     

Transformation Series as an Ideographic Character Concept

An ideographic concept of character is indispensable to phylogenetic inference. Hennig proposed that characters be conceptualized as “transformation series”, a proposal that is firmly grounded in evolutionary theory and consistent with the method of inferring transformation events as evidence of phylogenetic propinquity. Nevertheless, that concept is usually overlooked or rejected in favor of others based on similarity. Here we explicate Hennig's definition of character as an ideographic concept in the science of phylogenetic systematics. As transformation series, characters are historical individuals akin to species and clades. As such, the related concept of homology refers to a historical identity relation and is not equivalent to or synonymous with synapomorphy. The distinction between primary and secondary homology is dismissed on the grounds that it conflates the concept of homology with the discovery operations used to detect instances of that concept. Although concern for character dependence is generally valid, it is often misplaced, focusing on functional or developmental correlation (both of which are irrelevant in phylogenetic systematics but may be valid in other fields) instead of the historical/transformational independence relevant to phylogenetic inference. As an ideographic science concerned with concrete objects and events (i.e. individuals), intensionally and extensionally defined properties are inconsistent with the individuation of characters for phylogenetic analysis, the utility of properties being limited to communicating results and facilitating future rounds of testing.     

Homology assessment in parsimony and model‐based analyses: two sides of the same coin

The present paper is mainly concerned with homology assessment through phylogenetic analyses. It raises a fundamental question: What are the epistemological differences between modern parsimony and model‐based analyses in relation to homology assessment and phylogenetic inference? Although these methods usually achieve concordant topological results, they may generate discordant inferences of character evolution from the same datasets. This indicates that method selection has serious implications for evolutionary scenarios and classificatory arrangements. Notwithstanding that parsimony and model‐based approaches use the Hennigian concepts of monophyly and synapomorphy, they employ different epistemological ways of dealing with the monophyly/synapomorphy relationship. Independently of their differences, these analyses should take into account all relevant evidence in support of the phylogenetic inferences. A focus on morphological homologues means that they must be included in data matrices, evaluated as part of the phylogenetic analysis, and cannot be ignored in calculation of the tree(s) length (parsimony), maximum‐likelihood (maximum‐likelihood), and posterior probabilities (Bayes).     

Homology and a generative theory of biological form

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.     

Requirements for the formation of plasmid-transducing particles of Bacillus subtilis bacteriophage SPP1.

We had previously proposed that the production of concatemeric plasmid DNA in plasmid-transducing SPP1 particles is a consequence of phage-directed rolling-circle-type replication of plasmid DNA. The production of such DNA was greatly enhanced when DNA/DNA homology was provided between phage and plasmid DNAs (facilitation of transduction). Here we present evidence that synthesis of concatemeric plasmid DNA can proceed after phage infection under conditions non-permissive for plasmid replication. We also propose that the naturally occurring homology between plasmid and phage is sufficient to account for the frequency of transduction observed in the absence of facilitating homology. Homology of greater than 47 bp gives the maximal facilitation of plasmid transduction. Recombination is not an essential part in the synthesis of concatemeric plasmid DNA.     

Homology: a synthetic concept of evolutionary robustness of patterns

The history of the homology concept is a history of attempts to conceive the basis of sameness in biology. Since it was formulated in the middle of the 19th century, the concept has had to fit an ever growing number of scientific fields and purposes. These different demands have resulted in diverging, sometimes, incompatible definitions. The inconsistencies are mostly due to the lack of a clear separation of hypotheses of maintenance from hypotheses of transformation. A synthetic approach to define homology thus has to consider the following pivotal points: (i) hypotheses of evolutionary maintenance should be kept separate from hypotheses of evolutionary transformation; (ii) the definition of homology should provide the foundation for exact specifications of what is hypothesised to be homologous and (iii) restrictions to particular levels of observation or specific scientific purposes, and the exclusion of iterative homology should be avoided. We suggest that patterns should be delineated by characterizing components of traits, and by describing connections and interactions between these components. A shared pattern of compared traits where the characterization shows 1 : 1 correspondence may then be homologised. Homology is equivalent to a hypothesis that the pattern, starting from a single starting point, was transmitted robustly along diverging branches of a genealogical tree, that is, the homologised pattern was never changed by any transformation. The proposed definition of homology is thus, ‘A pattern corresponding in a set of compared traits is homologous, if after a common evolutionary origin, the pattern was maintained along diverging lineages by robust pattern transmission’. After justifying the terminological use in our definition, we discuss the interplay of our definition with the pivotal points mentioned above in comparison to other definitions. Since our homology definition is a concept of pattern maintenance, it is clearly demarcated from transformation hypotheses, which are covered by the character concept. Robustness is understood as evolutionary maintenance of correspondence in objects linked by genealogical relations. The characterization of the pattern suffices to provide the necessary conditional phrase by specifying what is hypothesised to be homologous. Allowing development to be conceptualised as a pattern formation process makes it easier to deal with traits that are transmitted indirectly to the next generation. Patterns can be characterized on all observational levels, but the components and the quality of connections and interactions used for the characterization may differ. The replacement of the reference to an ancestor–descendant relationship by a reference to robust pattern transmission allows for the inclusion of iterative homology into the concept. In the final part of the paper, detailed reformulations of the ‘criteria’ for the corroboration of homology hypotheses as proposed by Remane (1952 ) are given.     

Homology and the hierarchy of biological systems

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.     

Homology and misdirection

Hennig (1966) recognized symplesiomorphies as homologies, and that view is logically correct under the concept of homology (homogeny) prevalent among evolutionists since 1870. Nelson and Platnick (1981) instead wanted homology to exclude symplesiomorphies for reasons that they never made clear but which certainly included opposition to Hennig. They and some of their followers, most recently Platnick (2013) and Brower and de Pinna (2013), have continued to advocate that anti‐Hennigian position, often under the slogan “homology equals synapomorphy,” while ironically passing themselves off as cladists and often using ambiguous or falsified citations to pretend that legitimate phylogeneticists think likewise. Such authors have seldom shown much concern for accuracy or logic, with the result that a great deal of print has been wasted. Those problems can be avoided simply by maintaining a Hennigian view and so discarding the purported equivalence of homology and synapomorphy.     

The braincases of mosasaurs and Varanus, and the relationships of snakes

The braincase structure of the mosasaur Platecarpus is described in detail and compared to that of Varanus and snakes. The braincase of mosasaurs and Varanus is found to be closely similar in most respects other than the consequences of obliteration of the metakinetic axis in mosasaurs. Neither Varanus, nor mosasaurs, approach snakes in braincase structure. The hypothesis of a sister-group relationship of snakes and mosasauroids is discussed in the light of how hypotheses of homology, or synapomorphy, can be established on an empirical, i.e. testable and potentially falsifiable basis. The establishment of homology qua synapomorphy is recognized as a procedure involving at least two levels of generalization. The most basic level is the conjecture of similarity of constituent elements of two or more organisms. Such conjectures of similarity maintain their testability, and falsifiability, only if established by reference to topographical equivalence, or equivalence of connectivity.     

Determination of the amount of homology required for recombination in bacteriophage T4

Homology is an important feature of recombination. We have used the rll cistrons of bacteriophage T4 to determine the extent of homology required for recombination. We varied the amount of homologous DNA available for recombination in both marker rescue experiments and deletion-by-deletion crosses. Our results suggest that the primary pathway for recombination in T4 requires 50 bp of homology. Our finding that recombination is detectable when fewer than 50 bp of homology are available suggests that there is a second, less efficient pathway of recombination in T4. This pathway may be used during the formation of deletions.     

Are monophyly and synapomorphy the same or different? Revisiting the role of morphology in phylogenetics

Species are groups of organisms, marked out by reproductive (replicative) properties. Monophyletic taxa are groups of species, marked out by synapomorphies. In Nelson’s analysis, monophyly and synapomorphy are identical relations. Monophyly and synapomorphy, however, are not equivalent relations. Monophyly is epistemically not accessible, whereas synapomorphy is epistemically accessible through character analysis. Monophyly originates with speciation, the two sister‐species that come into being through the splitting of the ancestral species lineage forming a monophyletic taxon at the lowest level of inclusiveness. Synapomorphy provides the empirical evidence for monophyly, inferred from character analysis in the context of a three‐taxon statement. If synapomorphy and monophyly were equivalent, phylogenetic systematists should find a single tree, instead of multiple equally parsimonious trees. Understanding synapomorphy as the relevant evidence for phylogenetic inference reveals a category mistake in contemporary phylogenetics: the treatment of morphological characters mapped onto molecular trees as synapomorphies and homoplasies. The mapping of morphological characters onto nodes of a molecular tree results in an empirically empty procedure for synapomorphy discovery. Morphological synapomorphies and homoplasies can only be discovered by morphological and combined analyses. The use of morphology in phylogenetic inference in general is defended by examples from Laurales and Squamata in particular. To make empirical evidence scientifically relevant in order to search for concordance, or dis‐concordance, of phylogenetic signal, is certainly more fruitful for phylogenetics than the uncritical mapping of morphological traits on a molecular scaffold. © The Willi Hennig Society 2010.     

A method for measuring support for synapomorphy using character state distributions on phylogenetic trees

Synapomorphies are fundamental to phylogenetic systematics as they offer empirical evidence of monophyletic groups. However, no method exists to directly measure synapomorphy. Here, we propose a method that quantifies synapomorphy using the pattern of character state distribution over a cladogram separately for each character and for each clade. We define a fully synapomorphic character state as one shared by all of a clade’s terminal taxa and at the same time completely absent from all terminal taxa outside that clade. The extent to which this condition is met corresponds to the support for the character state being synapomorphic or, in short, support for synapomorphy. It is calculated as the probability of randomly selecting, by multi‐stage sampling following the topology of the tree, two terminals from inside a clade sharing the same character state and one terminal from outside the clade bearing a different character state. The method is independent of tree inference and free of transformational assumptions, and so can be applied to any tree and used for any type of discrete character. By measuring synapomorphy, the method offers a potential tool for determining diagnostic character states for taxa on different hierarchical levels, for evaluating alternative systems of character coding, and for evaluating clade support. We show how the method differs from ancestral character state reconstruction methods and goodness‐of‐fit indices. We demonstrate the behaviour of our method with several hypothetical scenarios and its potential use with two real‐life examples.