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     

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.     

Convergence and parallelism: is a new life ahead of old concepts?

In comparative biology, character observations initially separate similar and dissimilar characters. Only similar characters are considered for phylogeny reconstruction; their homology is attested in a two‐step process, firstly a priori of phylogeny reconstruction by accurate similarity statements, and secondly a posteriori of phylogeny analysis by congruence with other characters. Any pattern of non‐homology is then a homoplasy, commonly, but vaguely, associated with “convergence”. In this logical scheme, there is no way to analyze characters which look similar, but cannot meet usual criteria for homology statements, i.e., false similarity detected a priori of phylogenetic analysis, even though such characters may represent evolutionarily significant patterns of character transformations. Because phylogenies are not only patterns of taxa relationships but also references for evolutionary studies, we propose to redefine the traditional concepts of parallelism and convergence to associate patterns of non‐homology with explicit theoretical contexts: homoplasy is restricted to non‐similarity detected a posteriori of phylogeny analysis and related to parallelism; non‐similarity detected a priori of phylogenetic analysis and necessarily described by different characters would then correspond to a convergence event s. str. We propose to characterize these characters as heterologous (heterology). Heterology and homoplasy correspond to different non‐similarity patterns and processes; they are also associated with different patterns of taxa relationships: homoplasy can occur only in non‐sister group taxa; no such limit exists for heterology. The usefulness of these terms and concepts is illustrated with patterns of acoustic evolution in ensiferan insects. © The Willi Hennig Society 2005.     

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

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.     

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.     

Distinguishing between convergence and parallelism is central to comparative biology: a reply to Williams and Ebach

The definitions of character similarity, homology, homoplasy, heterology, parallelism and convergence are clarified in the framework of current phylogenetic methodology. They are all associated with definite patterns of character change and can consequently be tested by phylogeny building. Their crucial significance in comparative biology is illustrated using demonstrative examples. © The Willi Hennig Society 2006.     

The Poverty of Taxonomic Characters

The theory and practice of contemporary comparative biology and phylogeny reconstruction (systematics) emphasizes algorithmic aspects but neglects a concern for the evidence. The character data used in systematics to formulate hypotheses of relationships in many ways constitute a black box, subject to uncritical assessment and social influence. Concerned that such a state of affairs leaves systematics and the phylogenetic theories it generates severely underdetermined, we investigate the nature of the criteria of homology and their application to character conceptualization in the context of transformationist and generative paradigms. Noting the potential for indeterminacy in character conceptualization, we conclude that character congruence (the coherence of character statements) relative to a hierarchy is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition for phylogeny reconstruction. Specifically, it is insufficient due to the lack of causal grounding of character hypotheses. Conceptualizing characters as homeostatic property cluster natural kinds is in accordance with the empirical practice of systematists. It also accounts for the lack of sharpness in character conceptualization, yet requires character identification and re-identification to be tied to causal processes.     

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.     

Quantitative tests of primary homology

In systematic biology homology hypotheses are typically based on points of similarity and tested using congruence, of which the two stages have come to be distinguished as “primary” versus “secondary” homology. Primary homology is often regarded as prior to logical test, being a kind of background assumption or prior knowledge. Similarity can, however, be tested by more detailed studies that corroborate or weaken previous homology hypotheses before the test of congruence is applied. Indeed testing similarity is the only way to test the homology of characters, as congruence only tests their states. Traditional homology criteria include topology, special similarity, function, ontogeny and step‐counting (for example, transformation in one step versus two via loss and gain). Here we present a method to compare quantitatively the ability of such criteria, and competing homology schema, to explain morphological observations. We apply the method to a classic and difficult problem in the homology of male spider genital sclerites. For this test case topology performed better than special similarity or function. Primary homologies founded on topology resulted in hypotheses that were globally more parsimonious than those based on other criteria, and therefore yielded a more coherent and congruent nomenclature of palpal sclerites in theridiid spiders than prior attempts. Finally, we question whether primary homology should be insulated as “prior knowledge” from the usual issues and demands that quantitative phylogenetic analyses pose, such as weighting and global versus local optima. © The Willi Hennig Society 2007.     

Conservation and co-option in developmental programmes: the importance of homology relationships

One of the surprising insights gained from research in evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) is that increasing diversity in body plans and morphology in organisms across animal phyla are not reflected in similarly dramatic changes at the level of gene composition of their genomes. For instance, simplicity at the tissue level of organization often contrasts with a high degree of genetic complexity. Also intriguing is the observation that the coding regions of several genes of invertebrates show high sequence similarity to those in humans. This lack of change (conservation) indicates that evolutionary novelties may arise more frequently through combinatorial processes, such as changes in gene regulation and the recruitment of novel genes into existing regulatory gene networks (co-option), and less often through adaptive evolutionary processes in the coding portions of a gene. As a consequence, it is of great interest to examine whether the widespread conservation of the genetic machinery implies the same developmental function in a last common ancestor, or whether homologous genes acquired new developmental roles in structures of independent phylogenetic origin. To distinguish between these two possibilities one must refer to current concepts of phylogeny reconstruction and carefully investigate homology relationships. Particularly problematic in terms of homology decisions is the use of gene expression patterns of a given structure. In the future, research on more organisms other than the typical model systems will be required since these can provide insights that are not easily obtained from comparisons among only a few distantly related model species.     

Rejecting "the given" in systematics

How morphology and systematics come together through morphological analysis, homology hypotheses and phylogenetic analysis is a topic of continuing debate. Some contemporary approaches reject biological evaluation of morphological characters and fall back on an atheoretical and putatively objective (but, in fact, phenetic) approach that defers to the test of congruence for homology assessment. We note persistent trends toward an uncritical empiricism (where evidence is believed to be immediately “given” in putatively theory‐free observation) and instrumentalism (where hypotheses of primary homology become mere instruments with little or no empirical foundation for choosing among competing phylogenetic hypotheses). We suggest that this situation is partly a consequence of the fact that the test of congruence and the related concept of total evidence have been inappropriately tied to a Popperian philosophy in modern systematics. Total evidence is a classical principle of inductive inference and does not imply a deductive test of homology. The test of congruence by itself is based philosophically on a coherence theory of truth (coherentism in epistemology), which is unconcerned with empirical foundation. We therefore argue that coherence of character statements (congruence of characters) is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to support or refute hypotheses of homology or phylogenetic relationship. There should be at least some causal grounding for homology hypotheses beyond mere congruence. Such causal grounding may be achieved, for example, through empirical investigations of comparative anatomy, developmental biology, functional morphology and secondary structure. © The Willi Hennig Society 2006.     

Deep homology: A view from systematics

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.     

Congruence of Morphological and Molecular Phylogenies

When phylogenetic trees constructed from morphological and molecular evidence disagree (i.e. are incongruent) it has been suggested that the differences are spurious or that the molecular results should be preferred a priori. Comparing trees can increase confidence (congruence), or demonstrate that at least one tree is incorrect (incongruence). Statistical analyses of 181 molecular and 49 morphological trees shows that incongruence is greater between than within the morphological and molecular partitions, and this difference is significant for the molecular partition. Because the level of incongruence between a pair of trees gives a minimum bound on how much error is present in the two trees, our results indicate that the level of error may be underestimated by congruence within partitions. Thus comparisons between morphological and molecular trees are particularly useful for detecting this incongruence (spurious or otherwise). Molecular trees have higher average congruence than morphological trees, but the difference is not significant, and both within- and between-partition incongruence is much lower than expected by chance alone. Our results suggest that both molecular and morphological trees are, in general, useful approximations of a common underlying phylogeny and thus, when molecules and morphology clash, molecular phylogenies should not be considered more reliable a priori.     

Heteroduplex Analysis of the Sequence Relationships Between the Genomes of Kirsten and Harvey Sarcoma Viruses, Their Respective Parental Murine Leukemia Viruses, and the Rat Endogenous 30S RNA

The sequence relations between Kirsten murine sarcoma virus (Ki-SV), Harvey murine sarcoma virus (Ha-SV), and a rat endogenous 30S RNA were studied by electron microscope heteroduplex analysis. The sequence relationships between the sarcoma viruses and their respective parental murine leukemia viruses (Kirsten and Moloney murine leukemia viruses), as well as between the two murine leukemia viruses, were also studied. The only observed nonhomology feature of the Kirsten murine leukemia virus/Moloney murine leukemia virus heteroduplexes was a substitution loop with two arms of equal length extending from 1.80 +/- 0.18 kilobases (kb) to 2.65 +/- 0.27 kb from the 3' end of the RNA. It is believed that this feature lies in the env gene region of the viral genomes. The Ha-SV and Moloney murine leukemia virus genomes (respective lengths, 6.0 and 9.0 kb) were homologous in a 1.0 +/- 0.05-kb region at the 3' end and possibly over a 200-nucleotide region at the 5' ends; otherwise, they were nonhomologous. Ha-SV and Ki-SV (length, 7.5 kb) were homologous in the first 4.36 +/- 0.37-kb region from the 3' end and in a 0.70 +/- 0.15-kb region at the 5' end. In between, there was a nonhomology region, possibly containing a short (0.23-kb) region of partial or total homology. The heteroduplex analysis between rat endogenous 30S RNA and Ki-SV shows that there are mixed regions of sequence homology and nonhomology at both the 5' and 3' ends. However, there is a large (4-kb) region of homology between Ki-SV and the rat 30S RNA in the center of the genomes, with only a small nonhomology hairpin feature. These studies help to define the regions of homology between the Ha-SV and Ki-SV genomes with each other and with the rat endogenous 30S RNA. These regions may be related to the sarcoma genicity of the viruses. In particular, the 0.7-kb region of homology of Ha-SV with Ki-SV at the 5' ends may be related to the formation of a 21,000-dalton phosphoprotein in cells transformed by either virus.     

Similarity

Recent debates concerning conflicting hypotheses of higher-level phylogeny such as the sister-group relationships of tetrapods, turtles, birds and snakes, serve as examples in the analysis of the nature of morphological evidence as it is currently used in phylogeny reconstruction. We note a recent shift of emphasis towards ever-larger data matrices, which may come at the cost of detailed character analysis and argumentation. Because the assessment of morphological characters necessarily entails a conceptual element of abstraction, there is also a threat that preconceived notions of phylogeny influence character analysis. Because the test of congruence does not address character analysis in itself, we argue that character hypotheses, i.e. primary conjectures of homology, need to be testable, and potentially refutable, in their own right. We demonstrate the use of classical criteria of homology (topological relations and/or connectivity, in conjunction with the subsidiary criteria of special similarity and intermediate forms) in the test, and refutation, of morphological characters. Rejection of the classical criteria of homology in the test of morphological character hypotheses requires the formulation of alternative methods of test and potential falsification of morphological characters that have so far not been proposed. © 2002 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society , 2002, 75 , 59–82.     

Parsimony Analysis as a Specific Kind of Homology Estimation and the Implications for Character Weighting

“Remane-Hennigian systematists” still reject parsimony analysis for phylogenetics, because homology or apomorphy analyses are not included. In contrast, “pattern cladists” regard homology as a deductive concept after applying a parsimony test of character congruence. However, as in molecular phylogeny, selection of “good” characters is always done on the basis of ana priorihomology analysis. The distribution criterion of homology—“homologous characters have identical or hierarchical distribution”—is the basis of parsimony analysis. Because this criterion also might fail in cases of genealogical reticulation or concerted homoplasy, character congruence is not a strict test but another probabilistic criterion of homology. A synthetic approach is proposed for phenotypic analysis with application ofa prioricriteria of homology. The resultinga prioriprobabilities of homology serve as criteria for selection and weighting of characters (very low = not selected/poor/mediocre/good/Dollo characters). After application of a parsimony algorithm the final cladogram decides homology estimations.     

Reflections on higher mammalian phylogenetics

For well over a decade, the higher-level relationships of mammals has been the focus of intensive and broad-ranging investigations. The sources of evidence drawn upon for this purpose are both traditional (e.g., paleontology, skeletal morphology) and newly sampled (e.g., comparative gene sequencing). A basic methodology, nonetheless, pervades this diversity of sampling. Issues that concern all types of data include the assumptions for recognizing homology, the techniques for building trees, the justification of parsimony and weighting, and the means of evaluating and comparing different results. In some areas (e.g., paleontology, molecular comparisons), we have been continual or even explosive expansion of the data base. In other areas (e.g., comparative behavior, physiology, or comparisons involving many aspects of nonskeletal morphology), the expansion has been far less dramatic. Codifying large arrays of characters is no substitute for penetrating studies of comparative form, function, and ontogeny or careful sampling of a diversity of genes. It is hoped that the latter emphases are maintained and nourished. The results of all this recent activity show a mixed profile of resolution for higher-level patterns of phylogeny. Particularly, the higher eutherian mammal radiation still presents many problems. Such challenges, however, have attracted an unprecedented level of synthesis and interaction.     

Conflict and congruence in a combined DNA–morphology analysis of megachiropteran bat relationships (Mammalia: Chiroptera: Pteropodidae)

The phylogeny of megabats (Mammalia: Chiroptera: Megachiroptera) has been addressed only on molecular grounds, as little effort has previously been made to describe the impressive morphological variation of the group in terms of phylogenetically informative characters. Here we provide a morphological matrix of 236 characters from the integument, dentition, cranial and post‐cranial skeleton, digestive apparatus and urogenital system. This data set covers most characters discussed previously in more restricted taxonomic contexts, as well a large number of new characters. Our aim was to generate a phylogenetic hypothesis for megabats based on a combined analysis of morphological characters and available gene sequence data from four mitochondrial and one nuclear loci. We used direct optimization under conventional equal costs, as well as under a cost ratio that maximizes homology when inapplicables (gaps) are present. Our results contradict the allegedly high level of conflict between the molecular and morphological partitions. We found that, although morphology alone recovered trees different and to some extent incompatible with those from previous molecular analyses, the combination of the two sources of evidence easily accommodated the morphological and molecular signals, yielding a resolved and relatively well‐supported phylogeny of Megachiroptera that is in reasonable agreement with the current morphology‐based taxonomy of the group. Overall congruence favored the maximization of homology by a narrow margin. In addition, partial analyses showed that implied weighting of morphology performed slightly better than equal weighting with respect to the combined analyses. © The Willi Hennig Society 2005.     

Homology among RAPD fragments in interspecific comparisons

The use of RAPDs for comparative purposes relies on the assumption that similarity of fragment size is a dependable indicator of homology. To test the validity of this assumption, homology among 220 pairs of comigrating fragments from three wild sunflower species was determined. Ninety-one per cent cross-hybridized and/or displayed congruent restriction fragment profiles suggestive of homology. However, comparative linkage mapping data indicated that 13% of the homologous loci mapped to genomic locations that were incongruent with the majority of loci, suggestive of paralogous rather than orthologous relationships. Thus, of the 220 pairwise comparisons, only 174 (79.1%) identified loci that are useful for comparative genetic studies. These problems, as well as several other factors discussed in the text, will introduce noise into RAPD data sets and thereby reduce the probability of generating accurate estimates of genetic relationships. Recommended methods for reducing noise in RAPD data sets include increasing gel resolution and/or testing fragment homology. However, implementation of these approaches will not eliminate all uncertainties, and it is also recommended that RAPD data sets be tested for structure and reliability.     

Coherence, correspondence, and the renaissance of morphology in phylogenetic systematics

The decline in morphological phylogenies has become a pronounced trend in contemporary systematics due to a disregard for theoretical, methodological, conceptual, and philosophical approaches. The role and meaning of morphology in phylogenetic reconstruction and classification have been undermined by the following: (i) the ambiguous delineation of morphological characters; (ii) the putative “objectivity” of molecular data; (iii) that morphology has not been included in data matrices; (iv) that morphology has been mapped onto molecular cladograms; and (v) a separation of a paradigmatic relationship among morphology, phylogeny, and classification. Historical/philosophical arguments including the synthesis of coherence (coherentism) and correspondence (foundationalism) theories—i.e. “foundherentism” as a theory of epistemic justification—provide support for a renaissance of morphology in phylogenetic systematics. In the language of systematics, coherence theory corresponds to the logical/operational congruence of character states translated into a hierarchical/relational system of homologues and monophyletic groups as natural kinds. Correspondence theory corresponds to the empirical/causal accommodation of homologues and monophyletic groups as natural kinds grounded in the concept of semaphoront, and in developmental biology, genetics, inheritance, ontogenesis, topology, and connectivity. The role and meaning of morphology are also discussed in the context of separate and combined analyses, palaeontology, natural kinds, character concepts, semaphoront, modularity, and taxonomy. Molecular systematics suffers from tension between coherence and correspondence theories, and fails to provide a pragmatic language for predicates in science and in everyday life. Finally, the renaissance of morphology is not only dependent on a scientific/philosophical perspective but also depends on political, economic, social, and educational reforms in contemporary systematics. © The Willi Hennig Society 2009.