Parallelism, non-biotic data and phylogeny reconstruction in paleobiology

Webb, G.E. 1994 1015: Parallelism, non-biotic data and phylogeny reconstruction in paleobiology.
Many systematists equate parallelism and convergence. However, whereas convergence is relatively uncommon and easily recognized using divergent characters, parallelism is common but more difficult to recognize because divergent characters are less abundant. Cladists, in particular, equate homeomorphy with convergence and reject parallelism as a distinct concept. Unfortunately, cladistic parsimony analysis may not resolve most parallelism. Therefore, criteria for the a priori recognition and objective evaluation of parallelism are very significant. Non-biotic data (e.g., stratigraphic and geographic distribution) provide independent criteria for the construction of hypotheses of parallelism in cases where taxa (1) were geographically isolated during homeomorphic character-state transformations, (2) occurred with endemic faunas, and (3) evolved in similar environmental conditions as suggested by paleoecological data. Australian lithostrotionoid corals were long considered congeneric with European taxa. However, because of their geographic isolation, occurrence with endemic rugose corals and occurrence in similar depositional environments as European forms, they are now considered a homeomorphic clade, resulting from an extended sequence of parallel character-state transformations. The high degree of parallelism, combined with abundant symplesiomorphic characters, led to erroneous phylogenetic inferences when non-biotic data were excluded from analysis. Cladistics, homeomorphy, lithostrotionoid corals, parallelism, phylogeny .     

Descent with modification: the unity underlying homology and homoplasy as seen through an analysis of development and evolution

Homology is at the foundation of comparative studies in biology at all levels from genes to phenotypes. Homology is similarity because of common descent and ancestry, homoplasy is similarity arrived at via independent evolution. However, given that there is but one tree of life, all organisms, and therefore all features of organisms, share some degree of relationship and similarity one to another. That sharing may be similarity or even identity of structure and the sharing of a most recent common ancestor--as in the homology of the arms of humans and apes--or it may reflect some (often small) degree of similarity, such as that between the wings of insects and the wings of birds, groups whose shared ancestor lies deep within the evolutionary history of the Metazoa. It may reflect sharing of entire developmental pathways, partial sharing, or divergent pathways. This review compares features classified as homologous with the classes of features normally grouped as homoplastic, the latter being convergence, parallelism, reversals, rudiments, vestiges, and atavisms. On the one hand, developmental mechanisms may be conserved, even when a complete structure does not form (rudiments, vestiges), or when a structure appears only in some individuals (atavisms). On the other hand, different developmental mechanisms can produce similar (homologous) features. Joint examination of nearness of relationship and degree of shared development reveals a continuum within an expanded category of homology, extending from homology --> reversals --> rudiments --> vestiges --> atavisms --> parallelism, with convergence as the only class of homoplasy, an idea that turns out to be surprisingly old. This realignment provides a glimmer of a way to bridge phylogenetic and developmental approaches to homology and homoplasy, a bridge that should provide a key pillar for evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo). It will not, and in a practical sense cannot, alter how homoplastic features are identified in phylogenetic analyses. But seeing rudiments, reversals, vestiges, atavisms and parallelism as closer to homology than to homoplasy should guide us toward searching for the common elements underlying the formation of the phenotype (what some have called the deep homology of genetic and/or cellular mechanisms), rather than discussing features in terms of shared or independent evolution.     

On some aspects of parallel evolution in Chelicerata

A study is made of some aspects of parallel evolution in Chelicerata. Definitions are given of parallel evolution, convergence, homology and analogy. It is pointed out that the concept of parallel evolution (parallelism) is initially formed in an empirical way, and that a judgment must be based on formal criteria. Particular attention is paid to the rôle of gene regulation in parallel evolution, to the special case of convergence as a result of heterologous regulatory mechanisms, to parallel evolution in homonomous structures (and the superposition of parallelisms and divergences), and to parallelism in the evolution of characters used in higher classification.     

What is parallelism?

Although parallel and convergent evolution are discussed extensively in technical articles and textbooks, their meaning can be overlapping, imprecise, and contradictory. The meaning of parallel evolution in much of the evolutionary literature grapples with two separate hypotheses in relation to phenotype and genotype, but often these two hypotheses have been inferred from only one hypothesis, and a number of subsidiary but problematic criteria, in relation to the phenotype. However, examples of parallel evolution of genetic traits that underpin or are at least associated with convergent phenotypes are now emerging. Four criteria for distinguishing parallelism from convergence are reviewed. All are found to be incompatible with any single proposition of homoplasy. Therefore, all homoplasy is equivalent to a broad view of convergence. Based on this concept, all phenotypic homoplasy can be described as convergence and all genotypic homoplasy as parallelism, which can be viewed as the equivalent concept of convergence for molecular data. Parallel changes of molecular traits may or may not be associated with convergent phenotypes but if so describe homoplasy at two biological levels-genotype and phenotype. Parallelism is not an alternative to convergence, but rather it entails homoplastic genetics that can be associated with and potentially explain, at the molecular level, how convergent phenotypes evolve.     

Plasticity and constraints in development and evolution

Morphological similarities between organisms may be due to either homology or homoplasy. Homologous structures arise by common descent from an ancestral form, whereas homoplasious structures are independently derived in the respective lineages. The finding that similar ontogenetic mechanisms underlie the production of the similar structures in both lineages is not sufficient evidence of homology, as such similarities may also be due to parallel evolution. Parallelisms are a class of homoplasy in which the two lineages have come up with the same solution independently using the same ontogenetic mechanism. The other main class of homoplasy, convergence, is superficial similarity in morphological structures in which the underlying ontogenetic mechanisms are distinct. I argue that instances of convergence and parallelism are more common than is generally realized. Convergence suggests flexibility in underlying ontogenetic mechanisms and may be indicative of developmental processes subject to phenotypic plasticity. Parallelisms, on the other hand, may characterize developmental processes subject to constraints. Distinguishing between homology, parallelisms and convergence may clarify broader taxonomic patterns in morphological evolution.     

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.     

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。     

Hox genes, homology and axis formation—The application of morphological concepts to evolutionary developmental biology

This article focuses on the interphyletic comparison of gene expression patterns. By means of the hypothesis of the inversion of the dorsoventral axis during the evolution of the Bilateria, it is demonstrated, that evolutionary developmental biologists use similarities in spatial and temporal gene expression patterns as evidence for the formulation of hypotheses of homology concerning either developing structures or body regions. The molecular genetic and morphogenetic evidence used is discussed within the framework of a cladistic-phylogenetic analysis based on the phylogenetic tree of the Bilateria. I argue that similarity of spatial and temporal gene expression patterns is not a sufficient criterion for homology inference. Therefore, gene expression patterns should be coded as characters. Their homology should be tested in concert with other characters.

Furthermore, it is demonstrated, that spatial and temporal similar gene expression patterns, indicating similar molecular genetic mechanisms, were interpreted as an analytical criterion of homology, offering the possibility to identify similar structures. In contrast to this, the evolutionary developmental biolgists have not developed a causal-analytically extended concept of shape, from which a causal-analytical concept of homology could be deduced. Instead, the homology concept from evolutionary morphology is used.     

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.     

LONG-TERM CORRELATED RESPONSE,INTERPOPULATION COVARIATION,AND INTERSPECIFIC ALLOMETRY

A model of long-term correlated evolution of multiple quantitative characters is analyzed, which partitions selection into two components: one stabilizing and the other directional. The model assumes that the stabilizing component is less variable than the directional component among populations. The major result is that, within a population, the responses of characters to selection in the short term differ qualitatively from those in the long term. In the short term, the responses depend on genetic correlations between characters, but in the long term they are only determined by the fitness functions of stabilizing and directional selection, independent of genetic and phenotypic correlations. Treating the stabilizing component as a constant and assuming the directional component to vary among populations, I present formulas for the interpopulation covariation and interspecific allometry, which are functions of the intensity matrix of stabilizing selection. Particular attention is paid to the relationship between intra- and interpopulation correlations.     

Homology, Hox Genes, and Developmental Integration

The establishment and inheritance of individualized structuralunits is a key feature of morphological evolution, embodiedin the concept of homology. In current debates, homology isoften equated with identical genetic encoding. The empiricalevidence for this assumption is ambiguous. Genetic identitycan indicate morphological identity in some cases, but severalexamples show that gene expression patterns and regulatory systemsof development may be highly conserved while morphological charactersundergo dramatic evolutionary innovation. This indicates someindependence of structural homology from its genetic and developmentalmakeup. It is proposed that phenotypic evolution depends stronglyon the epigenetic context in which genetic redundancy becomesavailable for the control of new developmental interactions.The integrated character of developmental systems may representan important factor in the origin and identity of morphologicalcharacters and can stabilize incipient structures before theirfull genetic integration. The origin of the autopod sectionof the tetrapod limb is an example which suggests that novelhomologues can arise in evolution as a consequence of changingthe epigenetic context of conserved gene function.     

Starting from fins: parallelism in the evolution of limbs and genitalia. The fin-to-limb transition

The March/April 2002 issue of Evolution and Development focused on three presentations made at the Starting from Fins: Parallelism in the Evolution of Limbs and Genitalia symposium held as part of the 2001 Chicago meeting of the Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology. The intention of the symposium and the publication of the presentations was to extend discussion of the potential and the limits of using serial homologues to understand developmental aspects of morphological evolution. The March/April 2002 issue concentrated on unpaired fin to genitalia transitions. This issue focuses on paired fins to limbs and highlights the need for developmental data to be integrated with data from fossil materal, phylogenetic analysis, and explicitly comparative studies. Coates et al. use phylogenetic methods to explore the limb/fin characters of taxa, but their analysis departs somewhat from the usual in that the reference group for organisms includes sister group taxa not usually considered true tetrapods. They state that including finned taxa from the stem group permits an attempt to distinguish the primitive condition of the characteristics demonstrated by the crown group, that is, "limbed tetrapods." In focusing on limb characters specifically and including aspects of the appendicular girdles, Coates et al. highlight morphological details and trends within a given phylogeny. They also demonstrate the degree of relevance of limb characters during the establishment of lineages and their branching patterns by using only limb characters to generate a tree and use a direct comparison of serial versus special homologies to explore the degree of evolutionary parallelism between fore-and hindlimbs. The preliminary conclusions indicate a high level of independence between the serially homologous fore-and hindlimb. Innes et al. present outcomes from the use of cutting edge molecular genetic approaches to understand developmental aspects of limb morphology. In a manner conceptually similar to Coates et al.'s use of fossil characters, Innes et al. use the serial analysis of gene expression to sort differences from similarities in the gene expression profiles of fore-and hindlimbs of the same embryos. Although these gene expression pattems are likely to reflect the serial homology of the paired limbs, they are silent in terms of our understanding both the profound and subtle differences between fore- and hindlimbs in any given species. Innes et al. point out the volume of data generated by SAGE far exceeds our ability to interpret its biological meaning. The studies presented here and in the March/April issue are excellent examples of the need to interpret complex data in light of collective knowledge of evolutionary history. We hope the insights gained from the symposium and papers contribute to a dialogue on how to integrate different approaches and assist in moving forward the field of Evolution and Development.     

Homoplasy, character function, and nemertean systematics

We question recent claims that cladistic analysis is inapplicable in nemerteans (phylum Nemertea) due to a supposedly high degree of convergence. We further argue that terms like convergence and parallelism are historical sayings and only make sense in a phylogenetic context. Therefore, an approach aiming to produce phylogenetic hypotheses cannot be rejected on the grounds of a high degree of convergence before the actual hypothesis. Convergence is not an empirical observation, but a conclusion made after an analysis. We also discuss the view that knowledge of a character's function is a prerequisite for phylogenetic analysis and conclude that this is an invalid approach. Function, like any other way of sharpening our observations, helps in formulating non-phylogenetic hypotheses of homology, but the crucial test is congruence with other characters on a phylogeny.     

Crossroads, milestones and landmarks in insect development and evolution: implications for systematics

Our understanding of insect development and evolution has increased greatly due to recent advances in the comparative developmental approach. Modern developmental biology techniques such as in situ hybridization and molecular analysis of developmentally important genes and gene families have greatly facilitated these advances. The role of the comparative developmental approach in insect systematics is explored in this paper and we suggest two important applications of the approach to insect systematics--character dissection and morphological landmarking. Existing morphological characters can be dissected into their genetic and molecular components in some cases and this will lead to more and richer character information in systematic studies. Character landmarking will he essential to systematic studies for clarifying structures such as shapes or convergences, which are previously hard to analyze anatomical regions. Both approaches will aid greatly in expanding our understanding of homology in particular, and insect development in general.     

Phenotype ontologies: the bridge between genomics and evolution

Understanding the developmental and genetic underpinnings of particular evolutionary changes has been hindered by inadequate databases of evolutionary anatomy and by the lack of a computational approach to identify underlying candidate genes and regulators. By contrast, model organism studies have been enhanced by ontologies shared among genomic databases. Here, we suggest that evolutionary and genomics databases can be developed to exchange and use information through shared phenotype and anatomy ontologies. This would facilitate computing on evolutionary questions pertaining to the genetic basis of evolutionary change, the genetic and developmental bases of correlated characters and independent evolution, biomedical parallels to evolutionary change, and the ecological and paleontological correlates of particular types of change in genes, gene networks and developmental pathways.     

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.