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.     

On homology

Homology in cladistics is reviewed. The definition of important terms is explicated in historical context. Homology is not synonymous with synapomorphy: it includes symplesiomorphy, and Hennig clearly included both plesiomorphy and synapomorphy as types of homology. Homoplasy is error, in coding, and is analogous to residual error in simple regression. If parallelism and convergence are to be distinguished, homoplasy would be evidence of the former and analogy evidence of the latter. We discuss whether there is a difference between molecular homology and morphological homology, character state homology, nested homology (additive characters), and serial homology. We conclude by proposing a global definition of homology. ©The Will Henning Society 2011.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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     

Rebuilding ships while at sea—Character individuality,homology, and evolutionary innovation

How novel traits originate in evolution is still one of the most perplexing questions in Evolutionary Biology. Building on a previous account of evolutionary innovation, I here propose that evolutionary novelties are those individualized characters that are not homologous to any characters in the ancestor. To clarify this definition, I here provide a detailed analysis of the concepts of “character individuality” and “homology” first, before addressing their role for our understanding of evolutionary innovation. I will argue (1) that functional as well as structural considerations are important for character individualization; and (2) that compositional (structural) and positional homology need to be clearly distinguished to properly describe the evolutionary transformations of hierarchically structured characters. My account will therefore integrate functional and structural perspectives and put forward a new multi-level view of character identity and transformation.     

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.     

A plea for ‘genealogical thinking’ in comparative biology – a rebuttal to the reply of Szucsich,Wirkner, and Pass to my article ‘Deconstructing Morphology’

Scholtz G. in press. A plea for ‘genealogical thinking’ in comparative biology – a rebuttal to the reply of Szucsich, Wirkner, and Pass to my article ‘Deconstructing Morphology’. —Acta Zoologica (Stockholm) 00 : 1–4. Szucsich et al. (in press) claim that – in contrast to my statement – morphological thinking has to be ‘cladistic.’ Based on this premise, they stress the difference between the relationships among states of characters versus those among structures assigned to the same character state as implemented in numerical cladistic reasoning. SEA claim that my approach to the homology concept only deals with the problem of the integration of various character states into the same character, whereas the necessary relationships among structures assigned to the same state are not covered. Based on this distinction, SEA also criticise the application of similarity in my definition of homology. Furthermore, they address the issue of evolutionarily independent units.     

Russian comparative embryology takes form: a conceptual metamorphosis toward “evo‐devo”

This essay recapitulates major paths followed by the Russian tradition of what we refer to today as evolutionary developmental biology (“evo‐devo”). The article addresses several questions regarding the conceptual history of evolutionary embryological thought in its particularly Russian perspective: (1) the assertion by the St. Petersburg academician Wolff regarding the possible connections between environmental modifications during morphogenesis and the “transformation” of species, (2) the discovery of shared “principles” underlying animal development by von Baer, (3) the experimental expression of Baer's principles by Kowalevsky and Mechnikoff, (4) Severtsov's theory of phylembryogenesis, (5) Filatov's approach to the study of evolution using comparative “developmental mechanics”, and (6) Shmalgausen's concept of “stabilizing” selection as an attempt to elucidate the evolution of developmental mechanisms. The focus on comparative evolutionary embryology, which was established by Kowalevsky and Mechnikoff, still continues to be popular in present‐day “evo‐devo” research in Russia.     

The repugnant and the mature in phylogenetic inference: atemporal similarity and historical identity

The significance of “being similar” in the inference of species relationships is refuted once again (see also Hennig, 1966, Phylogenetic Systematics, Univ. of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL). Without merit is Rieppel and Kearney's (Biol. J. Linn. Soc., 2002, 75, 59–82) claim that submitting the relational property of topological similarity, their preferred definition of character, to falsifying tests of similarity benefits that kind of inference. Such a priori uses of similarity, in character analysis, are consistent with observational theory, where a character is defined intensionally in terms of immutable properties. However, the induced hypotheses that follow from this theory, not the deductive test that Rieppel and Kearney wanted, remain controversial, because their predictability is a consequence of circular reasoning, and their projectabality fails empirically from incongruent observation reports. Further, a category mistake is made when the abstract, similarity‐defined, group of organisms is reified, as a part of history. In addition, Rieppel and Kearney failed to provide a special theory for similarity, which renders similarity scientifically repugnant (Quine, 1969, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia Univ. Press, New York). A return to Hennig's (1966) evolutionary concept of evidence, as transformation series, is urged, and from which a testable character hypothesis can be formulated. There is no one operation for determining character states in this system—it can be anything that leads to the testable hypothesis of synapomorphy, as an historical identity relation. Character compatibility and conjunction, but not similarity, provide a priori tests in phylogenetic character analysis. In turn, the phylogenetic system of inference leads to explanations of homology, as historical identities, which exemplifies the goal of achieving a mature state of historical knowledge (not of Quine, 1969). Such maturity obtains from attempts to falsify hypotheses of species relationships with severely tested evidence, not from induction of “the” observation statement that Rieppel and Kearney sought to justify their true belief in a hypothesis of relationships.     

About nothing

In light of recent terminological controversy, this article reviews cladistic conceptions of character states coded as absences, symplesiomorphies, and secondary losses. The first section addresses absence as a question of ontology vs. epistemology. The second and third sections address the evidentiary status of symplesiomorphy in cladistics, the fourth contrasts primitive absence with secondary loss, and the fifth clarifies the meaning of “grouping”. While secondary losses (reversals) are often synapomorphies, symplesiomorphies (“absent” or otherwise) have no evidentiary import to cladistic hypotheses of relationship. Thus, we argue that identifying symplesiomorphic character states as “homologous” is conceptually vacuous, because they are either synapomorphies (homologues) of more inclusive taxa, or complementary absences that unite no group.     

Congruence,non‐homology,and the phylogeny of basal turtles

Joyce, W.G. and Sterli J. 2010. Congruence, non‐homology, and the phylogeny of basal turtles.–Acta Zoologica (Stockholm) Modern cladistic analysis is characterized by the assembly of increasingly larger data sets coupled with the use of congruence as the final test of homology. Some critics of this development have recently called for a return to more detailed primary homology analysis while questioning the utility of congruence. This discussion appears to be central to the debate regarding the phylogenetic relationships of basal turtles, as the large data sets developed by us have been criticized recently for utilizing poorly constructed characters and including too many homoplasy‐prone characters. Our analysis of this critique reveals that (1) new information regarding poorly understood taxa has a greater impact on the outcome of turtle phylogenies than the characters under dispute; (2) most current turtle phylogenies differ in taxon sampling, not character sampling, and so it appears illogical to condemn a particular analysis for its character sampling; (3) even evolutionary taxonomists should agree that key characters utilized to resolve basal turtle relationships cannot be thought to be ‘infallible’; (4) whereas various criteria provide positive evidence for homology, only congruence provides positive evidence for non‐homology; and (5) a stalemate between conflicting camps within a congruence frame work is preferable to the ad hoc dismissal of data sets, because authoritative statements are untestable.     

Evolution of the claustrum in Cnidaria: comparative anatomy reveals that it is exclusive to some species of Staurozoa and absent in Cubozoa

The claustrum in Cnidaria is a tissue in the gastrovascular cavity delimited by a central layer of mesoglea surrounded by gastrodermis (i.e., gastrodermis-mesoglea-gastrodermis), without communication with epidermis. By dividing the gastrovascular cavity, the four claustra provide an additional level of complexity. The presence of claustra in Cubozoa and Staurozoa has been used as evidence supporting a close relationship between these two cnidarian classes. However, the detailed anatomy of the claustrum has never been comparatively analyzed, rendering the evolution of this character among Cnidaria and its homology in Staurozoa and Cubozoa uncertain. This study provides a comparative investigation of the internal anatomy of the claustrum in Staurozoa and Cubozoa, addressing its evolutionary history based on recent phylogenetic hypotheses for Cnidaria. We conclude that the claustrum is a character exclusive to some species of Staurozoa, with a homoplastic evolution in the class, and that the structure called the “claustrum” in Cubozoa corresponds to the valve of gastric ostium, a structure at the base of the manubrium, which is also present in Staurozoa with and without claustrum. Thus, the claustrum cannot be a synapomorphy of a hypothetical clade uniting Staurozoa and Cubozoa, nor can its hypothetical presence in enigmatic fossils be used to support cubozoan affinities.     

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.     

PARSIMONY, HOMOLOGY AND THE ANALYSIS OF MULTISTATE CHARACTERS

Abstract— The order of states in a transformation series describes an internested set of synapomorphies. States adjacent to each other in the transformation series thus share a degree of homology not found in the other states. Whether the level of homology is relatively apomorphic is determined by rooting the order with outgroup comparison. The analysis of state order is a homology problem and is solved with a two-step process using similarity and congruence with other characters as criteria. Other methods that have been proposed (e.g. transformation series analysis, non-additive analysis, morphocline analysis, ontogenetic analysis) fail to apply both similarity and congruence, and thus cannot be used independently for determining character state order.     

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.     

Ancestors and homology

Current issues concerning the nature of ancestry and homology are discussed with reference to the evolutionary origin of the tetrapod limb. Homologies are argued to be complex conjectural inferences dependant upon a pre-existing phylogenetic analysisand a theoretical model of the evolutionary development of ontogenetic information. Ancestral conditions are inferred primarily from character (synapomorphy/homology) distributions within phylogeny, because of the deficiencies of palaeontological data. Recent analyses of tetrapod limb ontogeny, and the diverse, earliest morphologies known from the fossil record, are inconsistent with typological concepts such as fixed ancestral patterns or bauplans, emphasising the incompatibility of these with evolutionary continuity. The evolutionary origin of the tetrapod limb is also examined in the light of its recent discussion in developmental genetics. While this field promises to reveal more of the fundamental ontogenetic content of homology (identity), at present it is concerned mostly with the abstraction of a new set of types, rather than investigating diversity and change.