By linking the concepts of homology and morphological organization to evolvability, this paper attempts to (1) bridge the gap between developmental and phylogenetic approaches to homology and to (2) show that developmental constraints and natural selection are compatible and in fact complementary. I conceive of a homologue as a unit of morphological evolvability, i.e., as a part of an organism that can exhibit heritable phenotypic variation independently of the organism’s other homologues. An account of homology therefore consists in explaining how (...) an organism’s developmental constitution results in different homologues/characters as units that can evolve independently of each other. The explanans of an account of homology is developmental, yet the very explanandum is an evolutionary phenomenon: evolvability in a character-by-character fashion, which manifests itself in phylogenetic patterns as recognized by phylogenetic approaches to homology. While developmental constraints and selection have often been viewed as antagonistic forces, I argue that both are complementary as they concern different parts of the evolutionary process. Developmental constraints, conceived of as the presence of the same set of homologues across phenotypic change, pertain to how heritable variation can be generated in the first place (evolvability), while natural selection operates subsequently on the produced variation. (shrink)

The concept of homology arose from classical studies of comprative morphology, and took on a new signficance with the advent of evolutionary theory. It is currentlyl undergoing antoher metamorphosis: many developmental geneticists now dfine homology as shared patterns of gene expression. However, this ne usage conflaes difinition with criteri, and fails to recognize the meaninful asignments of homology must speify a biologcal level. We argue the although developmental genetic data can help identify homologus structures. they are niether necessary nor sufficient, (...) and do not in any case jutify a new definition of homology. (shrink)

In his recent book on Darwinism, Daniel Dennett has offered up a species of a priori selectionism that he calls algorithmic. He used this view to challenge a number of positions advocated by Stephen J. Gould. I examine his algorithmic conception, review his unqualified enthusiasm for the a priori selectionist position, challenge Dennett's main metaphors (cranes vs. skyhooks and a design space), examine ways in which his position has lead him to misunderstand or misrepresent Gould (spandrels, exaptation, punctuated equilibrium, contingency (...) and disparity), and discuss recent results in developmental biology that suggest that an a priori position does not fill the demands of an evolutionary biology. I conclude by insisting that evolutionary biology is many leveled, complicated, and is carried on an ever shifting and expanding empirical base that when disregarded results in caricature. (shrink)

Homology is the similarity between organisms due to common ancestry. Introduced by Richard Owen in 1843 in a paper entitled “Lectures on comparative anatomy and physiology of the invertebrate animals”, the concept of homology predates Darwin's “Origin of Species” and has been very influential throughout the history of evolutionary biology. Although homology is the central concept of all comparative biology and provides a logical basis for it, the definition of the term and the criteria of its application remain controversial. Here, (...) I will discuss homology in the context of the hierarchy of biological organization. I will provide insights gained from an exemplary case study in evolutionary developmental biology that indicates the uncoupling of homology at different levels of biological organization. I argue that continuity and hierarchy are separate but equally important issues of homology. BioEssays 30:653–658, 2008. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (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)

Historically, naturalists who propose theories of evolution, including Darwin and Wallace, have done so in order to explain the apparent relationship of natural classification. This book begins by exploring the intimate historical relationship between patterns of classification and patterns of phylogeny. It is a circular argument, however, to use the data for classification and the concept of homology as evidence for evolution, when evolution is the theory explaining the phenomenon of natural classification. Alec Panchen presents other evidence for evolution in (...) the form of a historically-based but rigorously logical argument. This is then followed by a history of methods of classification and phylogeny reconstruction including current mathematical and molecular techniques. The author makes the important claim that if the hierarchical pattern of classification is a real phenomenon, then biology is unique as a science in making taxonomic statements. This conclusion is reached by way of historical reviews of theories of evolutionary mechanism and the philosophy of science as applied to biology. (shrink)

Argues for the primacy of the phylogenetic system as the general reference system in biology. This book, first published in 1966, generated significant controversy and opened possibilities for evolutionary biology.