Advances in developmental genetics and evo-devo in the last several decades have enabled the growth of novel developmental approaches to the classic theme of homology. These approaches depart from the more standard phylogenetic view by contending that homology between morphological characters depends on developmental-genetic individuation and explanation. This article provides a systematic re-examination of the relationship between developmental and phylogenetic homology in light of current evidence from developmental and evolutionary genetics and genomics. I present a qualitative model of the processes (...) that cause de-coupling of morphological and molecular evolution by developmental system drift (DSD), and hypothesize that DSD is a widespread and regular stochastic process that is predictable from parameters such as population size, pleiotropy, and regulatory redundancy. These theoretical findings support an integrative approach in which models of DSD aid in determining when developmental-genetic explanations of homology apply and when other explanations such as stabilizing selection are needed. I argue that a phylogenetic monism about the definition and criteria of homology supports the integration of different explanations into a theory of homology better than pluralism does. (shrink)

Serial homology is widespread in organismal design, but the origin and individuation of these repeated structures appears to differ with the different types of serial homologues, and remains an intriguing and exciting topic of research. Here I focus on the evolution of the serially repeated eyespots that decorate the margin of the wings of nymphalid butterflies. In this system, unresolved questions relate to the evolutionary steps that lead to the appearance of these serial homologues and how their separate identities evolved. (...) I present and discuss two alternative hypotheses. The first proposes that eyespots first appeared as a row of undifferentiated repeated modules, one per wing compartment, that later become individuated. This individuation allowed eyespots to appear and disappear from specific wing compartments and also allowed eyespots to acquire different morphologies. The second hypothesis proposes that eyespots first appeared as individuated single units, or groups of units, that over evolutionary time were co‐opted into new compartments on the wing. I discuss the merits of each of these alternate hypotheses by finding analogies to other systems and propose research avenues for addressing these issues in the future. BioEssays 30:358–366, 2008. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)