Homology: Homeostatic property cluster kinds in systematics and evolution

Evolutionary Biology

Volumn 36, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 248-255

  Assis, Leandro C S ^a   Brigandt, Ingo ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Characters; Individuals; Monophyly; Natural kinds; Phylogeny; Similarity; Taxonomy; Transformational and taxic homology

Indexed keywords

EID: 69449098205     PISSN: 00713260     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11692-009-9054-y     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Assis, L. C. S. (in preparation). Coherence, correspondence, and the renaissance of morphology in phylogenetic systematics.
2. Boyd, R. (1991). Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Philosophical Studies, 61(1-2), 127-148. doi:10.1007/BF00385837.
3. Boyd, R. (1999). Homeostasis, species, and higher taxa. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 141-185). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
4. Brigandt, I. (2007). Typology now: Homology and developmental constraints explain evolvability. Biology and Philosophy, 22(5), 709-725. doi:10.1007/s10539-007-9089-3.
5. Brigandt, I. (2009). Natural kinds in evolution and systematics: Metaphysical and epistemological considerations. Acta Biotheoretica. doi:10.1007/s10441-008-9056-7.
6. Brower, A. V. Z.,& Schawaroch, V. (1996). Three steps of homology assessment. Cladistics, 12(3), 265-272.
7. Bryant, H. N. (2001). Character polarity and the rooting of cladograms. In G. P. Wagner (Ed.), The character concept in evolutionary biology (pp. 319-338). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
8. Cantino, P. D.,& de Queiroz, K. (2007). PhyloCode. International code of phylogenetic nomenclature, version 4a. Retrieved from http://www.ohiou.edu/phylocode/.
9. de Carvalho, M. R., Bockmann, F. A., Amorim, D. S.,& Brandão, C. R. F. (2008). Systematics must embrace comparative biology and evolution, not speed and automation. Evolutionary Biology, 35(2), 150-157. doi:10.1007/s11692-008-9018-7.
10. de Pinna, M. C. C. (1991). Concepts and tests of homology in the cladistic paradigm. Cladistics, 7(4), 367-394. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1991.tb00045.x.
11. Dupré, J. (1981). Natural kinds and biological taxa. The Philosophical Review, 90(1), 66-90. doi:10.2307/2184373.
12. Dupré, J. (1999). On the impossibility of a monistic account of species. In R. A. Wilson (Ed.), Species: New interdisciplinary essays (pp. 3-22). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13. Ereshesfky, M. (2007). Foundational issues concerning taxa names. Systematic Biology, 56(2), 295-301. doi:10.1080/10635150701317401.
14. Franz, N. M. (2005). Outline of an explanatory account of cladistic practice. Biology and Philosophy, 20(2-3), 489-515. doi:10.1007/s10539-004-0757-2.
15. Ghiselin, M. T. (2005). Homology as a relation of correspondence between parts of individuals. Theory in Biosciences, 124(2), 91-103.
16. Grant, T., Frost, D. R., Caldwell, J. P., Gagliardo, R., Haddad, C. F. B., Kok, J. R., et al. (2006). Phylogenetic systematics of dart-poison frogs and their relatives (Anura: Athesphatanura: Dendrobatidae). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 299(1), 1-262. doi:10.1206/0003-0090(2006)299[1:PSODFA]2.0.CO;2.
17. Grant, T.,& Kluge, A. G. (2004). Transformation series as an ideographic character concept. Cladistics, 20(1), 23-31. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2004.00003.x.
18. Hendrikse, J. L., Parsons, T. E.,& Hallgrimsson, B. (2007). Evolvability as the proper focus of evolutionary developmental biology. Evolution & Development, 9(4), 393-401.
19. Hennig, W. (1966). Phylogenetic systematics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
20. Jamniczky, H. A. (2008). Phenotypic integration patterns support an account of homology as a manifestation of evolvability. Evolutionary Biology, 35(4), 312-316. doi:10.1007/s11692-008-9039-2.
21. Kearney, M.,& Rieppel, O. (2006). Rejecting the "given" in systematics. Cladistics, 22(4), 369-377. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2006.00110.x.
22. Keller, R. A., Boyd, R. N.,& Wheeler, Q. D. (2003). The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomenclature. Botanical Review, 69(1), 93-110. doi:10.1663/0006-8101(2003)069[0093:TIBOPN]2.0.CO;2.
23. Kluge, A. G. (2003). On the deduction of species relationships: A précis. Cladistics, 19(3), 233-239.
24. LaPorte, J. (2004). Natural kinds and conceptual change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Nelson, G. (1989a). Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics, 5(3), 275-289. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.1989.tb00490.x.
26. Nelson, G. (1989b). Species and taxa: Systematics and evolution. In D. Otte & J. A. Endler (Eds.), Speciation and its consequences (pp. 60-81). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.
27. Nelson, G. (1994). Homology and systematics. In B. K. Hall (Ed.), Homology: The hierarchical basis of comparative biology (pp. 101-149). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
28. Nixon, K. C., Carpenter, J. M.,& Stevenson, D. W. (2003). The PhyloCode is fatally flawed, and the "Linnaean" system can easily be fixed. Botanical Review, 69(1), 111-120. doi:10.1663/0006-8101(2003)069[0111:TPIFFA]2.0.CO;2.
29. Patterson, C. (1982). Morphological characters and homology. In K. A. Joysey & A. E. Friday (Eds.), Problems of phylogenetic reconstruction (pp. 21-74). London: Academic Press.
30. Pleijel, F.,& Härlin, M. (2004). Phylogenetic nomenclature is compatible with diverse philosophical perspectives. Zoologica Scripta, 33(6), 587-591. doi:10.1111/j.0300-3256.2004.00164.x.
31. Rieppel, O. C. (1988). Fundamentals of comparative biology. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser Verlag.
32. Rieppel, O. (1999). Turtle origins. Science, 283(5404), 945-946. doi:10.1126/science.283.5404.945.
33. Rieppel, O. (2003). Semaphoronts, cladograms and the roots of total evidence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society of London, 80(1), 167-186. doi:10.1046/j.1095-8312.2003.00228.x.
34. Rieppel, O. (2004). The language of systematics, and the philosophy of 'total evidence'. Systematics and Biodiversity, 2(1), 9-19. doi:10.1017/S147720000400132X.
35. Rieppel, O. (2005a). Monophyly, paraphyly, and natural kinds. Biology and Philosophy, 20(2-3), 465-487. doi:10.1007/s10539-004-0679-z.
36. Rieppel, O. (2005b). Modules, kinds, and homology. Journal of Experimental Zoology. Part B. Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 304(1), 18-27. doi:10.1002/jez.b.21025.
37. Rieppel, O. (2006). The PhyloCode: A critical discussion of its theoretical foundation. Cladistics, 22(2), 186-197. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2006.00097.x.
38. Rieppel, O. (2007a). Species: Kinds of individuals or individuals of a kind. Cladistics, 23(4), 373-384. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2007.00152.x.
39. Rieppel, O. (2007b). The performance of morphological characters in broad-scale phylogenetic analyses. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. Linnean Society of London, 92(2), 297-308. doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.2007.00847.x.
40. Rieppel, O. (2008). Origins, taxa, names and meanings. Cladistics, 24(4), 598-610. doi:10.1111/j.1096-0031.2007.00195.x.
41. Rieppel, O.,& Kearney, M. (2002). Similarity. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society Linnean Society of London, 75(1), 59-82. doi:10.1046/j.1095-8312.2002.00006.x.
42. Schlosser, G.,& Wagner, G. P. (Eds.). (2004). Modularity in development and evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43. von Dassow, G.,& Munro, E. (1999). Modularity in animal development and evolution: Elements for a conceptual framework for evodevo. Journal of Experimental Zoology. Part B. Molecular Developmental Evolution, 285(4), 307-325.
44. Wagner, G. P. (1996). Homologues, natural kinds, and the evolution of modularity. American Zoologist, 36(1), 36-43.
45. Wagner, G. P. (2001). Characters, units, and natural kinds: An introduction. In G. P. Wagner (Ed.), The character concept in evolutionary biology (pp. 1-10). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
46. Wagner, G. P. (2007). The developmental genetics of homology. Nature Reviews. Genetics, 8(6), 473-479. doi:10.1038/nrg2099.
47. Wagner, G. P.,& Laubichler, M. D. (2001). Character identification: The role of the organism. In G. P. Wagner (Ed.), The character concept in evolutionary biology (pp. 141-163). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
48. Wheeler, Q. D. (2004). Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 359(1444), 571-583. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1452.
49. Wheeler, Q. D.,& Meier, R. (Eds.). (2000). Species concepts and phylogenetic theory: A debate. New York: Columbia University Press.
50. Wilson, R. A., Barker, M. A.,& Brigandt, I. (in press). When traditional essentialism fails: Biological natural kinds. Philosophical Topics, 35(1/2).
51. Yang, A. S. (2001). Modularity, evolvability, and adaptive radiations: A comparison of the hemi-holometabolous insects. Evolution & Development, 3(2), 59-72. doi:10.1046/j.1525-142x.2001.003002059.x.