Ideas In Theoretical Biology
Francisco Aboitiz
Neuroscience Office
73-346 Center for the Health Sciences
University of California
Los Angeles
California 90024
Ideas in Theoretical Biology
“Homology: A Comparative or a Historial Concept?”
<Acta Biotheoretica> 37: 27-29, 1988
ABSTRACT
The meaning of the word ‘homology’ has changed. From being a comparative concept in pre-Darwinian times, it became a historical concept, strictly signifying a common evolutionary origin for either anatomical structures or genes. <This historical understanding of homology is not useful in classification; therefore I propose a return to its pre-Darwinian meaning>.
- * *
The distinction between homology and analogy was used by pre-Darwinian biologists as a criterion for animal classification. There were at least two ways of establishing homology (Russell, 1916; Aboitiz, 1987). One definition stated that, in different animals, homologous structures were those who shared a set of topographic relations to other organs. According to a second definition, homology consisted of having a common embryological origin. Although there was some disagreement about what homology was (still other definitions were seldom proposed, and also different kinds of homologies were sometimes suggested), all the proposed criteria were empirically testable, and the concept was very useful for the elucidation of taxonomies (Russell, 1916). With the rise of evolutionary ideas, homologies became ‘suggestive’ of a common ancestry in different groups (Darwin, 1872).
Today, however, the word ‘homology’ is currently understood as strictly signifying a common evolutionary origin for either anatomical traits or genes or proteins (Gould, 1987, 1988; Reeck et al., 1987). In different species, two structures or genes are considered homologous only if they are derived from the same structure or gene in a (hypothetical) common ancestor. Under this definition, homology is not anymore a criterion for classification; rather, it is established after taxonomies are elucidated. There is no expression for organs sharing a relative position in body (or having the same embryological origin) in different species. If these organs happen to be originated separately in evolution, they will not be homologous anymore.
Furthermore, in molecular biology there is no place for a comparative definition of homology. As expressed above, this definition bears relation to the concept of a body plan that determines the relative position of each organ. It makes no sense today to speak either of a ‘genetic plan’ determining the ‘relative positions’ of genes, or of a common embryological origin for two genes.
A science of morphogenesis as the realization of a body plan is beginning its renaissance (Goodwin, 1982; Thom, 1972). In this approach, evolutionary considerations are considered as secondary. <What matters are the processes that realize a body plan, and not whether a shared plan implies the same ancestry. Under this perspective, perhaps a return to the pre-Darwinian concept of homology will be more useful to biologists, since the historical interpretation is not very practical in phylogenetic classification>. If this turns out to be the case, the term ‘homology’ would have to be restricted to the discipline of morphology, and should not be used in molecular biology.
REFERENCES
Aboitiz, F. (1987). ‘Homology’ in anatomy and molecular biology. <Cell> 51: 515-516.
Darwin, C. (1872). <The Origin of Species>., 6th ed. New York: Collier Eds., 1962.
Goodwin, B.C. (1982). Development and evolution. <Jl. Theor. Biol.> 97: 43-55.
Gould, S.J. (1987). <Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle>. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Gould, S.J. (1988). Conference on molecular data and systematics. Symposium on “The Impact of Molecular Analyses on Our Understanding of Evolution”. University of Southern California, March 11.
Reeck, G.R. et al. (1987). A terminology muddle and a way out of it. <Cell> 50: 667.
Russell, E.S. (1916). <Form and Function>. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1982.
Thom, R. (1972). <Structural Stability and Morphogenesis>. Mass.: W.A. Benjamin.
[ALL EMPHASES ADDED]
………………….. … .