The writings of Joseph Henry Woodger (1894–1981) are often taken to exemplify everything that was wrongheaded, misguided, and just plain wrong with early twentieth-century philosophy of biology. Over the years, commentators have said of Woodger: (a) that he was a fervent logical empiricist who tried to impose the explanatory gold standards of physics onto biology, (b) that his philosophical work was completely disconnected from biological science, (c) that he possessed no scientific or philosophical credentials, and (d) that his work was (...) disparaged – if not altogether ignored – by the biologists and philosophers of his era. In this paper, we provide the first systematic examination of Woodger’s oeuvre, and use it to demonstrate that the four preceding claims are false. We argue that Woodger’s ideas have exerted an important influence on biology and philosophy, and submit that the current consensus on his legacy stems from a highly selective reading of his works. By rehabilitating Woodger, we hope to show that there is no good reason to continue to disregard the numerous contributions to the philosophy of biology produced in the decades prior to the professionalization of the discipline. (shrink)

Many of the current comparisons of taxic phylogenetic and biological homology in the context of morphology focus on what are seen as categorical distinctions between the two concepts. The first, it is claimed, identifies historical patterns of conservation and variation relating taxa; the second provides a causal framework for the explanation of this conservation and variation. This leads to the conclusion that the two need not be placed in conflict and are in fact compatible, having non-competing epistemic purposes or mapping (...) the same extensions in the form of monophyletic groupings (see Roth, The biological basis of homology 1–26, 1988; Sluys, J Zool Syst Evol Res 34:145–152, 1996; Abouheif, Trends Ecol Evol 12:405–408, 1997; Brigandt, J Exp Zool 299:9–17, 2003, Biol Philos 22:709–725, 2007; Assis and Brigandt, Evol Biol 36:248–255, 2009). This article argues that moves in this direction miss the essential disagreement between these concepts as they have been developed in the context of the debate concerning the best concept for evolutionary investigation. We should rather see these concepts employing a common fundamental methodological approach to homology, but disagreeing about how to apply the methodology effectively. Both concepts employ class reasoning, which pursues homologies as units of generalization—more precisely, as sources of reliable and relevant group-bound information in the form of shared underlying causes. The dispute can be better understood by two poles that structure such reasoning: the need for a reliable basis for projections about the causal history of shared structures, and the desire to identify homologous characters with more informative and specific causal information relevant to generalizing about evolutionary processes. Judgments in favor of one or the other in turn have affected the scope or extension of these competing homology concepts. (shrink)

Review by Alan Love of "Keywords & Concepts in Evolutionary Developmental Biology." Hall, Brian K. and Wendy M. Olson (Eds), Cambridge, Harvard University Press. Hb. 476+xvi pp.

Homology is among the most important comparative concepts in biology. Today, the evolutionary reinterpretation of homology is usually conceived of as the most important event in the development of the concept. This paradigmatic turning point, however important for the historical explanation of life, is not of crucial importance for the development of the concept of homology itself. In the broadest sense, homology can be understood as sameness in reference to the universal guarantor so that in this sense the different concepts (...) of homology show a certain kind of “metahomology”. This holds in the old morphological conception, as well as in the evolutionary usage of homology. Depending on what is (or was) taken as a guarantor, different types of homology may be distinguished (as idealistic, historical, developmental etc.). This study represents a historical overview of the development of the homology concept followed by some clues on how to navigate the pluralistic terminology of modern approaches to homology. (shrink)

Van der Klaauw was a professor of Descriptive Zoology in the period 1934–1958. This paper presents a concise annotated overview of his publications. In his work three main topics can be recognized: comparative anatomy of the mammalian auditory region, theoretical studies about ecology and ecological morphology, and vertebrate functional morphology. In particular van der Klaauw developed new concepts on functional morphology, based upon a holistic approach. A series of studies in functional morphology of Vertebrates by his students is added. An (...) overview of recent morphological and theoretical studies show that this new approach had a long lasting impact in studies of functional morphology. (shrink)

The present paper analyzes the use and understanding of the homology concept across different biological disciplines. It is argued that in its history, the homology concept underwent a sort of adaptive radiation. Once it migrated from comparative anatomy into new biological fields, the homology concept changed in accordance with the theoretical aims and interests of these disciplines. The paper gives a case study of the theoretical role that homology plays in comparative and evolutionary biology, in molecular biology, and in evolutionary (...) developmental biology. It is shown that the concept or variant of homology preferred by a particular biological field is used to bring about items of biological knowledge that are characteristic for this field. A particular branch of biology uses its homology concept to pursue its specific theoretical goals. (shrink)