Hubbry Logo
Homology (biology)Homology (biology)Main
Open search
Homology (biology)
Community hub
Homology (biology)
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Homology (biology)
Homology (biology)
Homology (biology)
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The principle of homology: The biological relationships (shown by colours) of the bones in the forelimbs of vertebrates were used by Charles Darwin as an argument in favor of evolution.

In biology, homology is similarity in anatomical structures or genes between organisms of different taxa due to shared ancestry, regardless of current functional differences. Evolutionary biology explains homologous structures as retained heredity from a common ancestor after having been subjected to adaptive modifications for different purposes as the result of natural selection.

The term was first applied to biology in a non-evolutionary context by the anatomist Richard Owen in 1843. Homology was later explained by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution in 1859, but had been observed before this from Aristotle's biology onwards, and it was explicitly analysed by Pierre Belon in 1555. A common example of homologous structures is the forelimbs of vertebrates, where the wings of bats and birds, the arms of primates, the front flippers of whales, and the forelegs of four-legged vertebrates like horses and crocodilians are all derived from the same ancestral tetrapod structure.

In developmental biology, organs that developed in the embryo in the same manner and from similar origins, such as from matching primordia in successive segments of the same animal, are serially homologous. Examples include the legs of a centipede, the maxillary and labial palps of an insect, and the spinous processes of successive vertebrae in a vertebrate's backbone.

Sequence homology between protein or DNA sequences is similarly defined in terms of shared ancestry. Two segments of DNA can have shared ancestry because of either a speciation event (orthologs) or a duplication event (paralogs). Homology among proteins or DNA is inferred from their sequence similarity. Significant similarity is strong evidence that two sequences are related by divergent evolution from a common ancestor. Alignments of multiple sequences are used to discover the homologous regions.

Homology remains controversial in animal behaviour, but there is suggestive evidence that, for example, dominance hierarchies are homologous across the primates.

History

[edit]
Pierre Belon systematically compared the skeletons of birds and humans in his Book of Birds (1555).[1]

Homology was noticed by Aristotle (c. 350 BC),[1] and was explicitly analysed by Pierre Belon in his 1555 Book of Birds, where he systematically compared the skeletons of birds and humans. The pattern of similarity was interpreted as part of the static great chain of being through the mediaeval and early modern periods: it was not then seen as implying evolutionary change. In the German Naturphilosophie tradition, homology was of special interest as demonstrating unity in nature.[1][2] In 1790, Goethe stated his foliar theory in his essay "Metamorphosis of Plants", showing that flower parts are derived from leaves.[3] The serial homology of limbs was described late in the 18th century. The French zoologist Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire showed in 1818 in his theorie d'analogue ("theory of homologues") that structures were shared between fishes, reptiles, birds and mammals.[4] When Geoffroy went further and sought homologies between Georges Cuvier's embranchements, such as vertebrates and molluscs, his claims triggered the 1830 Cuvier–Geoffroy debate. Geoffroy stated the principle of connections, namely that what is important is the relative position of different structures and their connections to each other.[2]

The embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer stated what are now called von Baer's laws in 1828, noting that related animals begin their development as similar embryos and then diverge: thus, animals in the same family are more closely related and diverge later than animals which are only in the same order and have fewer homologies. Von Baer's theory recognises that each taxon (such as a family) has distinctive shared features, and that embryonic development parallels the taxonomic hierarchy: not the same as recapitulation theory.[2] The term "homology" was first used in biology by the anatomist Richard Owen in 1843 when studying the similarities of vertebrate fins and limbs, defining it as the "same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function",[5] and contrasting it with the matching term "analogy" which he used to describe different structures with the same function. Owen codified three main criteria for determining if features were homologous: position, development and composition. In 1859, Charles Darwin explained homologous structures as meaning that the organisms concerned shared a body plan from a common ancestor, and that taxa were branches of a single tree of life.[1][2][6]

Definition

[edit]
The front wings of beetles have evolved into elytra, hard wing-cases.
Dragonflies have the ancient insect body plan with two pairs of wings.
The hind wings of flies such as this cranefly have evolved divergently to form small club-like halteres.
The two pairs of wings of ancestral insects are represented by homologous structures in modern insects—elytra, wings and halteres.

The word homology, coined in about 1656, is derived from the Greek ὁμόλογος homologos from ὁμός homos 'same' and λόγος logos 'relation'.[7][8][a]

Similar biological structures or sequences in different taxa are homologous if they are derived from a common ancestor. Homology thus implies divergent evolution. For example, many insects (such as dragonflies) possess two pairs of flying wings. In beetles, the first pair of wings has evolved into a pair of hard wing covers,[11] while in Dipteran flies the second pair of wings has evolved into small halteres used for balance.[b][12]

Similarly, the forelimbs of ancestral vertebrates have evolved into the front flippers of whales, the wings of birds, the running forelegs of dogs, deer and horses, the short forelegs of frogs and lizards, and the grasping hands of primates including humans. The same major forearm bones (humerus, radius and ulna[c]) are found in fossils of lobe-finned fish such as Eusthenopteron.[13]

Homology vs. analogy

[edit]
Sycamore maple fruits have wings analogous but not homologous to an insect's wings.
Further information: Convergent evolution

The opposite of homologous organs are analogous organs which do similar jobs in two taxa that were not present in their most recent common ancestor but, rather, evolved separately. For example, the wings of insects and birds evolved independently in widely separated groups, and converged functionally to support powered flight, so they are analogous. Similarly, the wings of a sycamore maple seed and the wings of a bird are analogous but not homologous, as they develop from quite different structures.[14][15] A structure can be homologous at one level, but only analogous at another. Pterosaur, bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, but homologous as forelimbs because the organ served as a forearm (not a wing) in the last common ancestor of tetrapods, and evolved in different ways in the three groups. Thus, in the pterosaurs, the "wing" involves both the forelimb and the hindlimb.[16] Analogy is called homoplasy in cladistics, and convergent or parallel evolution in evolutionary biology.[17][18]

In cladistics

[edit]
Further information: Cladistics

Specialised terms are used in taxonomic research. Primary homology is a researcher's initial hypothesis based on similar structure or anatomical connections, suggesting that a character state in two or more taxa share is shared due to common ancestry. Primary homology may be conceptually broken down further: we may consider all of the states of the same character as "homologous" parts of a single, unspecified, transformation series. This has been referred to as topographical correspondence. For example, in an aligned DNA sequence matrix, all of the A, G, C, T or implied gaps at a given nucleotide site are homologous in this way. Character state identity is the hypothesis that the particular condition in two or more taxa is "the same" as far as our character coding scheme is concerned. Thus, two Adenines at the same aligned nucleotide site are hypothesized to be homologous unless that hypothesis is subsequently contradicted by other evidence. Secondary homology is implied by parsimony analysis, where a character state that arises only once on a tree is taken to be homologous.[19][20] As implied in this definition, many cladists consider secondary homology to be synonymous with synapomorphy, a shared derived character or trait state that distinguishes a clade from other organisms.[21][22][23]

Shared ancestral character states, symplesiomorphies, represent either synapomorphies of a more inclusive group, or complementary states (often absences) that unite no natural group of organisms. For example, the presence of wings is a synapomorphy for pterygote insects, but a symplesiomorphy for holometabolous insects. Absence of wings in non-pterygote insects and other organisms is a complementary symplesiomorphy that unites no group (for example, absence of wings provides no evidence of common ancestry of silverfish, spiders and annelid worms). On the other hand, absence (or secondary loss) of wings is a synapomorphy for fleas. Patterns such as these lead many cladists to consider the concept of homology and the concept of synapomorphy to be equivalent.[23][24] Some cladists follow the pre-cladistic definition of homology of Haas and Simpson,[25] and view both synapomorphies and symplesiomorphies as homologous character states.[26]

In different taxa

[edit]
pax6 alterations result in similar changes to eye morphology and function across a wide range of taxa.

Homologies provide the fundamental basis for all biological classification, although some may be highly counter-intuitive. For example, deep homologies like the pax6 genes that control the development of the eyes of vertebrates and arthropods were unexpected, as the organs are anatomically dissimilar and appeared to have evolved entirely independently.[27][28]

In arthropods

[edit]
Further information: Arthropod leg

The embryonic body segments (somites) of different arthropod taxa have diverged from a simple body plan with many similar appendages which are serially homologous, into a variety of body plans with fewer segments equipped with specialised appendages.[29] The homologies between these have been discovered by comparing genes in evolutionary developmental biology.[27]

Hox genes in arthropod segmentation
Somite
(body
segment) 		Trilobite
(Trilobitomorpha)
 Spider
(Chelicerata)
 Centipede
(Myriapoda)
 Insect
(Hexapoda)
 Shrimp
(Crustacea)
1 antennae chelicerae (jaws and fangs) antennae antennae 1st antennae
2 1st legs pedipalps - - 2nd antennae
3 2nd legs 1st legs mandibles mandibles mandibles (jaws)
4 3rd legs 2nd legs 1st maxillae 1st maxillae 1st maxillae
5 4th legs 3rd legs 2nd maxillae 2nd maxillae 2nd maxillae
6 5th legs 4th legs collum (no legs) 1st legs 1st legs
7 6th legs - 1st legs 2nd legs 2nd legs
8 7th legs - 2nd legs 3rd legs 3rd legs
9 8th legs - 3rd legs - 4th legs
10 9th legs - 4th legs - 5th legs

Among insects, the stinger of the female honey bee is a modified ovipositor, homologous with ovipositors in other insects such as the Orthoptera, Hemiptera and those Hymenoptera without stingers.[30]

In mammals

[edit]
Further information: Comparative anatomy

The three small bones in the middle ear of mammals including humans, the malleus, incus and stapes, are today used to transmit sound from the eardrum to the inner ear. The malleus and incus develop in the embryo from structures that form jaw bones (the quadrate and the articular) in lizards, and in fossils of lizard-like ancestors of mammals. Both lines of evidence show that these bones are homologous, sharing a common ancestor.[31]

Among the many homologies in mammal reproductive systems, ovaries and testicles are homologous.[32]

Rudimentary organs such as the human tailbone, now much reduced from their functional state, are readily understood as signs of evolution, the explanation being that they were cut down by natural selection from functioning organs when their functions were no longer needed, but make no sense at all if species are considered to be fixed. The tailbone is homologous to the tails of other primates.[33]

In plants

[edit]

Leaves, stems and roots

[edit]

In many plants, defensive or storage structures are made by modifications of the development of primary leaves, stems and roots. Leaves are variously modified from photosynthetic structures to form the insect-trapping pitchers of pitcher plants, the insect-trapping jaws of the Venus flytrap, and the spines of cacti, all homologous.[34]

Primary organs Defensive structures Storage structures
Leaves Spines Swollen leaves (e.g. succulents)
Stems Thorns Tubers (e.g. potato), rhizomes (e.g. ginger), fleshy stems (e.g. cacti)
Roots - Root tubers (e.g. sweet potato), taproot (e.g. carrot)

Certain compound leaves of flowering plants are partially homologous both to leaves and shoots, because their development has evolved from a genetic mosaic of leaf and shoot development.[35][36]

Flower parts

[edit]
The ABC model of flower development. Class A genes affect sepals and petals, class B genes affect petals and stamens, class C genes affect stamens and carpels. In two specific whorls of the floral meristem, each class of organ identity genes is switched on.
Further information: ABC model of flower development

The four types of flower parts, namely carpels, stamens, petals and sepals, are homologous with and derived from leaves, as Goethe correctly noted in 1790. The development of these parts through a pattern of gene expression in the growing zones (meristems) is described by the ABC model of flower development. Each of the four types of flower parts is serially repeated in concentric whorls, controlled by a small number of genes acting in various combinations. Thus, A genes working alone result in sepal formation; A and B together produce petals; B and C together create stamens; C alone produces carpels. When none of the genes are active, leaves are formed. Two more groups of genes, D to form ovules and E for the floral whorls, complete the model. The genes are evidently ancient, as old as the flowering plants themselves.[3]

Developmental biology

[edit]
The Cretaceous snake Eupodophis had hind legs (circled).

Developmental biology can identify homologous structures that arose from the same tissue in embryogenesis. For example, adult snakes have no legs, but their early embryos have limb-buds for hind legs, which are soon lost as the embryos develop. The implication that the ancestors of snakes had hind legs is confirmed by fossil evidence: the Cretaceous snake Pachyrhachis problematicus had hind legs complete with hip bones (ilium, pubis, ischium), thigh bone (femur), leg bones (tibia, fibula) and foot bones (calcaneum, astragalus) as in tetrapods with legs today.[37]

Sequence homology

[edit]
Main article: Sequence homology
Further information: Deep homology and Evolutionary developmental biology
A multiple sequence alignment of mammalian histone H1 proteins. Alignment positions conserved across all five species analysed are highlighted in grey. Positions with conservative, semi-conservative and non-conservative amino acid replacements are indicated.[38]

As with anatomical structures, sequence homology between protein or DNA sequences is defined in terms of shared ancestry. Two segments of DNA can have shared ancestry because of either a speciation event (orthologs) or a duplication event (paralogs). Homology among proteins or DNA is typically inferred from their sequence similarity. Significant similarity is strong evidence that two sequences are related by divergent evolution of a common ancestor. Alignments of multiple sequences are used to indicate which regions of each sequence are homologous.[39]

Homologous sequences are orthologous if they are descended from the same ancestral sequence separated by a speciation event: when a species diverges into two separate species, the copies of a single gene in the two resulting species are said to be orthologous. The term "ortholog" was coined in 1970 by the molecular evolutionist Walter Fitch.[40]

Homologous sequences are paralogous if they were created by a duplication event within the genome. For gene duplication events, if a gene in an organism is duplicated, the two copies are paralogous. They can shape the structure of whole genomes and thus explain genome evolution to a large extent. Examples include the Homeobox (Hox) genes in animals. These genes not only underwent gene duplications within chromosomes but also whole genome duplications. As a result, Hox genes in most vertebrates are spread across multiple chromosomes: the HoxA–D clusters are the best studied.[41]

Some sequences are homologous, but they have diverged so much that their sequence similarity is not sufficient to establish homology. However, many proteins have retained very similar structures, and structural alignment can be used to demonstrate their homology.[42]

In behaviour

[edit]
Main article: Homology (psychology)

It has been suggested that some behaviours might be homologous, based either on sharing across related taxa or on common origins of the behaviour in an individual's development; however, the notion of homologous behavior remains controversial,[43] largely because behavior is more prone to multiple realizability than other biological traits. For example, D. W. Rajecki and Randall C. Flanery, using data on humans and on nonhuman primates, argue that patterns of behaviour in dominance hierarchies are homologous across the primates.[44]

Dominance hierarchy behaviour, as in these weeper capuchin monkeys, may be homologous across the primates.

As with morphological features or DNA, shared similarity in behavior provides evidence for common ancestry.[45] The hypothesis that a behavioral character is not homologous should be based on an incongruent distribution of that character with respect to other features that are presumed to reflect the true pattern of relationships. This is an application of Willi Hennig's[46] auxiliary principle.

Notes

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Homology (biology)

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In biology, homology refers to the similarity between biological structures, genes, or other features in different organisms that arises from shared evolutionary ancestry, even if their forms or functions have diverged over time. This concept distinguishes homologous traits from analogous ones, which result from rather than . Homology serves as a foundational principle in comparative , enabling scientists to trace evolutionary relationships and reconstruct phylogenetic trees. The term "homology" was first introduced by anatomist in 1843 to describe corresponding structures in different animals, initially without an explicit evolutionary context, but it later became central to Darwin's theory of descent with modification. By the late , biologists refined the definition to emphasize common ancestry as the primary criterion, distinguishing it from superficial resemblances due to . Today, homology encompasses a hierarchical framework, where features at various biological levels—from organs to DNA sequences—are evaluated based on their shared origins in a common ancestor. Homologies manifest in multiple forms, including anatomical homologies, such as the forelimbs of vertebrates like humans, bats, and whales, which share a common structure despite serving different functions (manipulation, flight, and swimming, respectively). Molecular homologies involve shared genetic codes and proteins across all life forms, reflecting a universal inheritance from early cellular ancestors. Vestigial structures, like the reduced hind limbs in whales or the appendix in humans, represent homologous remnants of functional traits in ancestors, providing direct evidence of ary change. At the genetic level, homologies include orthologs (genes in different species derived from a common ancestral gene, often retaining similar functions) and paralogs (genes duplicated within a species, diverging in function). Homology underpins much of modern by revealing nested patterns of similarity that align with phylogenetic classifications, offering robust evidence against alternative explanations like independent creation. In fields like and , identifying homologies helps elucidate how conserved genetic toolkits, such as , direct body plan formation across diverse taxa. Challenges in recognizing homology arise in cases of rapid or convergence, but criteria like positional correspondence and developmental origins aid in verification. Overall, the study of homology continues to integrate , anatomical, and molecular data to refine our understanding of life's history.

Historical Background

Pre-Evolutionary Concepts

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, comparative anatomists began systematically recognizing structural similarities across diverse organisms, laying the groundwork for understanding homology without reference to evolutionary descent. , a prominent French zoologist, advanced these ideas through his observations of correspondences between and . For instance, he proposed that the cranium of vertebrates exhibited structural analogies to components of the head, suggesting a underlying unity of composition despite apparent differences in form. These insights were part of Geoffroy's broader "théorie des analogues," outlined in his 1818 work Philosophie anatomique, where he emphasized positional and compositional resemblances across animal groups, guided by his principe des connexions. A pivotal clash in these pre-evolutionary discussions occurred during the 1830 debate at the French Academy of Sciences between Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and Georges Cuvier. Cuvier, a leading advocate of functionalism, argued that anatomical structures were primarily shaped by their roles in specific environments, dividing animals into four distinct embranchements with fixed, non-overlapping plans adapted for survival; he viewed similarities as coincidental adaptations rather than indications of a shared blueprint. In contrast, Geoffroy championed transcendental anatomy, positing a single archetypal plan underlying all animal forms, where variations arose from modifications of this ideal type rather than functional necessities alone. This exchange highlighted tensions between empirical, function-oriented analysis and a more philosophical search for universal patterns, influencing subsequent morphological studies. Richard Owen, a British anatomist, further refined these concepts in his 1843 Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Invertebrate Animals, where he coined the term "homology" to describe "the same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function." Owen distinguished homology from "analogy," which referred to structures performing similar functions but derived from different origins, and "affinity," denoting overall resemblances indicative of close relationships among species. His framework drew on archetypal ideals, interpreting homologous structures as expressions of a divine or platonic blueprint rather than historical descent. Pre-Darwinian anatomists often debated whether such similarities reflected an imposed ideal archetype—echoing transcendentalist views—or direct manifestations of divine design, as in natural theology, where organs were seen as purposefully varied creations of a creator. These interpretations provided a typological lens for homology that anticipated its later adaptation in evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary Formulation

Charles Darwin introduced the evolutionary interpretation of homology in his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, where he used homologous structures as key evidence for with modification. He argued that similarities in the basic plan of organs across species, despite differences in function, indicated descent from a shared rather than independent creation. A prominent example is the forelimbs of mammals, such as the human arm for manipulation, the wing for flight, and the flipper for swimming, all sharing the same underlying bone structure (, , , and digits) adapted for diverse purposes. Following Darwin, Ernst Haeckel advanced the concept in 1866 with his Generelle Morphologie der Organismen, formalizing morphological homology within an evolutionary framework and linking it to development through his biogenetic law: "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." This law posited that the embryonic stages of an organism pass through forms resembling adult ancestors, thereby connecting homologous structures to phylogenetic history and providing a mechanism to trace evolutionary lineages via developmental similarities. Haeckel's work emphasized homology as a tool for reconstructing evolutionary trees, integrating morphology with descent. In the , the understanding of homology shifted from typological thinking—viewing species as fixed archetypes—to thinking, which emphasized variation and shared inheritance among populations over time. This transition, highlighted by in works like Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942), redefined homology as historical similarity due to common ancestry rather than ideal types, aligning it with genetic inheritance and . Debates in during the 1910s, such as those involving early cladistic ideas in Tschulok's 1910 , further refined homology's role in phylogenetic reconstruction, stressing its criterion for inferring evolutionary relationships amid growing integration of and .

Core Concepts and Distinctions

Definition of Homology

In , homology refers to the similarity among biological structures, genetic sequences, or behaviors in different organisms that arises from shared evolutionary ancestry tracing back to a common ancestor. This encompasses traits such as anatomical features, like the forelimbs of vertebrates, or molecular elements, like homologous genes, where the similarity reflects descent with modification rather than independent origins. The term applies broadly across levels of , from gross morphology to subcellular components, provided the shared origin can be inferred. While homology typically refers to similarities between different due to , a related concept is serial homology, which refers to repeated structures within a single organism that share a developmental or evolutionary origin, such as the segmented body parts in arthropods. Vertical homology highlights phylogenetic relationships across taxa, while serial homology underscores iterative patterns in , like the multiple vertebrae in a spine. Establishing homology relies on specific criteria to distinguish it from other forms of similarity. These include positional criteria, where homologous features maintain consistent topological relationships relative to surrounding structures; compositional criteria, assessing similarity in the materials, parts, or substructures involved; and developmental criteria, evaluating shared embryonic origins or pathways. In modern contexts, genetic criteria are also applied, such as sequence similarity or conserved regulatory elements that indicate descent from a common ancestral gene. Philosophically, homology is understood as a relational concept that defines sameness through historical correspondence rather than absolute or superficial similarity, emphasizing the interconnectedness of biological entities via evolutionary processes. This relational view positions homology as a foundational tool for comparative biology, bridging empirical observations with theoretical explanations of descent.

Homology versus Analogy

In biology, analogy refers to structural or functional similarities between traits in different organisms that arise from or parallel adaptation, rather than from shared ancestry. Unlike homologous structures, which are inherited from a common ancestor, analogous traits evolve independently in response to similar environmental pressures, leading to superficial resemblances without underlying genetic or developmental commonality. A classic example is the wings of bats and : bat wings consist of elongated finger bones supporting a of , while insect wings are chitinous extensions of the , both adapted for flight but originating separately in mammals and arthropods, respectively. Distinguishing homology from analogy relies on established criteria, such as those proposed by Adolf Remane, which provide a framework for assessing potential shared ancestry. Remane's three primary criteria for homology are: (1) position, where similar structures occupy corresponding locations in the relative to other features; (2) special quality, where the structures share complex, distinctive details that are unlikely to arise independently; and (3) continuity through intermediates, where a series of transitional forms in related taxa links the structures evolutionarily. If these criteria are not met—such as when structures lack positional correspondence, unique shared qualities, or connecting intermediates—the similarity is typically classified as analogous, indicating independent evolutionary origins. These distinctions are illustrated by the eyes of and cephalopods. eyes, such as those in humans and , are homologous across taxa due to their shared developmental origin from optic vesicles in the and conserved genetic pathways like expression. In contrast, the camera-type eyes of cephalopods (e.g., octopuses and squids) are analogous, having evolved independently despite functional similarities; cephalopod retinas are inverted (with photoreceptors facing away from light) and develop from different embryonic tissues, without the positional or continuity criteria linking them to eyes. Misidentifying analogous traits as homologous can lead to erroneous inferences in , such as constructing polyphyletic groupings that unite distantly related organisms based on convergent adaptations rather than true ancestry, thereby distorting phylogenetic relationships.

Homology in Cladistics

In , the foundational approach to phylogenetic developed by Willi Hennig in the mid-20th century, homology plays a central role in reconstructing evolutionary relationships by focusing on shared derived characters rather than overall similarity. Hennig's work, detailed in his 1966 book Phylogenetic Systematics, represented a from —a method emphasizing total phenotypic resemblance regardless of evolutionary origin—to , which prioritizes synapomorphies (shared derived traits) as indicators of common ancestry. This transition, gaining prominence in the , emphasized that only homologous features inherited from a recent common provide reliable evidence for monophyletic groups (s), which include an ancestor and all its descendants. The identification of synapomorphies operationalizes homology in cladistic analysis, serving as the primary evidence for and the branching structure of phylogenetic trees (cladograms). Synapomorphies are distinguished from symplesiomorphies (shared ancestral traits), as only the former support sister-group relationships within a . To polarize traits as derived (apomorphic) versus ancestral (plesiomorphic), cladists employ outgroup comparison, selecting a closely related outside the ingroup (the taxa under study) to determine the primitive state; if the outgroup lacks the trait, it is inferred as derived in the ingroup./Chapter_7:_The_History_of_Life_Systematics_and_Phylogeny/7.7:_Phylogeny_and_Cladistics) This method tests initial hypotheses of homology by assessing congruence across characters, ensuring that proposed synapomorphies align with the overall tree topology. Phylogenetic trees are constructed using parsimony, an optimality criterion that selects the topology requiring the minimal number of evolutionary changes (steps) among alternative hypotheses, thereby minimizing —the occurrence of similar traits without shared ancestry. Parsimony assumes that homology is more parsimonious than independent origins or losses, but it indirectly supports homology by penalizing excess changes that indicate . Challenges in this framework stem from , which includes parallelism (independent evolution of similar traits in related lineages), convergence (similar traits in unrelated lineages due to similar selective pressures), and (loss of a derived trait, reverting to an ancestral state), all of which can mimic true synapomorphies and lead to erroneous groupings. To address these issues, cladistic methods rely on the analysis of multiple independent characters, where congruence among them strengthens hypotheses of homology and reduces the impact of .

Homology in Animals

In Arthropods

In arthropods, serial homology is evident in the repeated body segments that form the fundamental unit of their , a feature shared across major lineages including , crustaceans, and arachnids, tracing back to a common ancestor. These segments, each bearing paired appendages, arise through conserved developmental mechanisms that generate periodic patterns along the anterior-posterior axis. For instance, expression of the segment polarity gene engrailed in the posterior compartment of each segment supports the homology of segmentation processes throughout Arthropoda, indicating a unified evolutionary origin despite variations in segment number and specialization. This serial repetition allows for functional diversification while maintaining structural correspondence between segments. Appendage homology among arthropods further illustrates evolutionary conservation, particularly in the transition from biramous (two-branched) limbs in primitive forms like crustaceans to uniramous (single-branched) limbs in and other mandibulates. Biramous appendages are proposed to have originated from the basal fusion of adjacent pairs of ancestrally uniramous limbs, a modification that facilitated diverse locomotor and sensory functions. Over evolutionary time, these appendages underwent tagmosis, the fusion and regional specialization of segments into tagmata such as the head (cephalo-), (thoraco-), and (abdomino-), which optimized body organization for specific lifestyles; for example, the thoracic tagma in integrates walking legs derived from homologous segmental primordia. Specific examples highlight these homologies across subgroups. In chelicerates, such as spiders and scorpions, the —pincer-like feeding appendages—are homologous to the antennal segments in mandibulates (crustaceans and ), as evidenced by shared expression domains of genes like Deformed and Sex combs reduced in corresponding head regions. Similarly, antennal glands in crustaceans, which function in excretion and , are homologous to coxal glands in arachnids and other arthropods, representing a conserved nephridial system adapted from segmental origins. These structures underscore the deep evolutionary ties within Arthropoda. Hox genes play a crucial role in patterning segmental identity, directing the specification of homologous segments into distinct morphological units across arthropod diversity. By regulating downstream targets that control formation and tagmosis, Hox clusters ensure that serial homologies are maintained while allowing adaptive modifications, such as the differentiation of anterior segments for sensory roles versus posterior ones for locomotion.

In Mammals

Mammals exhibit numerous homologous structures that trace back to a common therian ancestor, approximately 160 million years ago, reflecting shared developmental and genetic blueprints adapted to diverse ecological niches. These structures demonstrate how conserved anatomical plans have been modified through while retaining core similarities in bone arrangement, muscle attachments, and embryonic origins. Key examples include the pentadactyl limb, cranial features, sensory systems, and internal organs, all of which underscore the unity of mammalian form despite superficial differences. The pentadactyl limb, characterized by a single proximal or , two distal elements (/ or /), and a series of carpals/tarsals followed by five digits, is homologous across mammalian fore- and hindlimbs, originating from the ancestor's fin-to-limb transition around 375 million years ago. In mammals, this structure has been adapted for varied functions: the of whales forms a flipper for aquatic , with elongated phalanges and reduced digits for streamlining; in bats, it supports flight via an elongated finger framework forming the wing membrane; and in humans, it enables manipulation through opposable thumbs. Variations in phalangeal count and proportions arise from differential growth regulation by , yet the underlying skeletal homology persists, evidencing descent from a shared therian precursor. Cranial and dental homologies in mammals derive from synapsid ancestors with reptilian-like jaw structures, evolving greater complexity for efficient mastication. The mammalian jaw, formed by a single dentary bone articulating with the squamosal, contrasts with the multi-boned reptilian but retains homologous elements in its overall architecture. Heterodont dentition—featuring differentiated incisors for nipping, canines for piercing, and molars for grinding—emerged progressively in cynodont synapsids around 250 million years ago, allowing specialized absent in homodont reptilian teeth. This pattern is conserved across therian mammals, with variations like the enlarged canines in carnivores or reduced molars in herbivores, but unified by shared developmental cues from epithelial-mesenchymal interactions. Sensory organs provide striking examples of homology through repurposing, particularly in the mammalian . The three —, , and —are homologous to reptilian bones (articular, quadrate, and hyoid elements, respectively), which detached from the during the era to form an impedance-matching chain for airborne sound transmission. This evolutionary shift, completed in therian mammals by the around 125 million years ago, enhanced auditory sensitivity while freeing the for chewing, a dual innovation absent in sauropsid reptiles. Fossil evidence from cynodonts illustrates intermediate stages where these bones served both functions. Internal organs like the mammary glands exemplify homology unique to mammals, derived from specialized apocrine sweat glands in synapsid ancestors akin to those in modern reptiles. Emerging around 190 million years ago in early mammals, these glands evolved from epidermal invaginations that secreted nutrient-rich fluids for offspring nourishment, transitioning from watery sweat-like secretions to milk production via hormonal regulation. In therians, paired ventral glands support viviparity, contrasting with the more diffuse monotreme arrangement, yet all share conserved genetic pathways involving Wnt signaling for gland formation. This adaptation underscores mammals' divergence from reptilian forebears while building on ancestral skin appendage homology.

Homology in Plants

Vegetative Structures

In vascular plants, known as tracheophytes, the evolution of vegetative structures traces back to green algal ancestors, where the development of specialized conducting tissues—xylem for water and mineral transport and for nutrient distribution—represents a foundational homology that enabled terrestrial adaptation and upright growth. These vascular tissues are conserved across all tracheophyte lineages, from early lycophytes to modern angiosperms, facilitating the structural complexity of stems, , and leaves while distinguishing them from non-vascular bryophytes. Stems in vascular plants, often referred to as cauline structures, share homologous features in their primary organization, including a central vascular cylinder () that supports axial growth and branching. This homology is evident in the protostele, a primitive concentric arrangement of and , which persists in basal tracheophytes like ferns and lycophytes, and evolves into more complex siphonosteles or eusteles in seed plants. similarly exhibit homology through their endodermal and cortical layers, with primary roots originating from the embryonic and adventitious roots arising from stem or tissues, yet both sharing identical developmental pathways involving meristematic initiation and vascular connection to the shoot. Leaves in seed plants demonstrate homology with sporophylls, the spore-bearing foliar organs of ancestral vascular plants, as both derive from lateral appendages with similar vascular traces and laminar expansions adapted for or . This relationship underscores how foliage leaves in gymnosperms and angiosperms evolved from sporophyll-like precursors, retaining shared developmental genes for flattening and venation. Modifications of leaves further illustrate this homology; for instance, tendrils in plants like peas (Pisum sativum) represent coiled leaflets or stipules derived from leaf primordia, aiding climbing, while spines in cacti (e.g., spp.) are reduced, hardened leaves that deter herbivores and minimize . In angiosperms, phyllodes exemplify vegetative homology through structural modification, where flattened, leaf-like petioles or rachides in species like assume photosynthetic roles akin to true leaves, sharing vascular and epidermal homologies despite their petiolar origin. Similarly, root nodules in such as soybeans (Glycine max) are modified lateral roots, initiated from cortical or pericycle cells and homologous to primary roots in their meristematic organization and symbiotic vascular interfaces, enabling without altering core root identity. These adaptations highlight how homologous vegetative frameworks in allow functional diversification while preserving evolutionary continuity across lineages.

Reproductive Structures

In angiosperms, the floral organs—sepals, petals, stamens, and carpels—are considered homologous to modified leaves, a concept rooted in Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's foliar theory proposed in 1790, which posits that all floral parts represent variations of a leaf-like archetype through metamorphic processes. This homology is supported by comparative morphology, where sepals and petals derive from sterile bracts or perianth leaves, while stamens and carpels function as sporophylls bearing microspores and megaspores, respectively. Goethe's framework emphasized that these structures arise from the same fundamental plan as vegetative leaves, differing only in form and function due to evolutionary modifications for reproduction. Across seed plants, ovules exhibit deep homology as the defining reproductive structure, originating from a common ancestral megasporangium enclosed by integuments, which upon fertilization develops into the seed in both gymnosperms and angiosperms. In angiosperms, fruits are homologous to modified ovaries that enclose and protect the developing seeds post-fertilization, representing an evolutionary innovation that enhances seed dispersal compared to the exposed ovules in gymnosperms. This ovarian derivation underscores the continuity of reproductive architecture, where the carpel walls thicken to form the pericarp of the fruit. Gymnosperm cones provide a key example of homology to angiosperm flowers, as their microsporophylls and megasporophylls are structurally and developmentally akin to stamens and carpels, respectively, both arising from condensed reproductive axes. Although double fertilization is unique to angiosperms— involving one sperm fusing with the egg and another with the central cell to form endosperm—it builds upon a shared ovule structure inherited from gymnosperm ancestors, where simpler pollen tube delivery systems prefigure the dual fertilization event. Extending further, the strobili of ferns, which are aggregated clusters of sporophylls bearing sporangia, share a broad homology with flowers and cones in seed plants as axially condensed reproductive units that evolved iteratively from simpler fern-like ancestors.

Developmental Aspects

Embryological Evidence

Embryological evidence for homology arises from the observation that developing embryos of related exhibit striking similarities in their early stages, which often become obscured in the adult forms due to divergent evolutionary adaptations. This approach, rooted in classical comparative , posits that shared developmental patterns reveal underlying structural correspondences that define homology. Pioneering work in the established that such embryonic resemblances provide criteria for identifying homologous structures, independent of their final adult morphology. Karl Ernst von Baer, in his seminal 1828 treatise Über Entwickelungsgeschichte der Thiere, articulated a set of laws describing embryonic development that underscored these homologies. Von Baer's first law states that embryos of a given species are more similar to embryos of related species in their early developmental stages than their respective adults are to one another. His second law elaborates that general features of the embryonic type appear before specific differences emerge, leading to a common plan that diverges later. For instance, von Baer compared embryos of mammals and birds, noting their shared early configurations, such as the formation of germ layers and axial structures, which he used to infer positional homologies. These laws provided a framework for recognizing that embryonic development follows a hierarchical pattern, where closer relatives retain more prolonged similarities. A key example of shared developmental stages is the pharyngeal arches, which appear in all embryos and exhibit homology across chordates. In early embryos, these transient structures resemble arches, forming a series of segmental pouches and arches that develop from similar ectodermal and mesodermal tissues. This pattern is conserved from invertebrate chordates like amphioxus to jawed vertebrates, where the arches give rise to diverse adult structures—such as jaws, hyoid bones, and Eustachian tubes—while retaining their positional correspondence. briefly referenced this embryological conservation in his evolutionary framework, noting that such similarities in embryonic form support descent with modification. While influential, the embryological approach has limitations, particularly in relation to Ernst Haeckel's later , which von Baer himself critiqued. Recapitulation suggested a literal reenactment of ancestral adult forms in , but empirical observations showed this is not accurate; instead, embryos reflect a common developmental type without passing through complete adult stages of ancestors. Nonetheless, these early similarities remain valuable for establishing positional homologies, as they highlight conserved blueprints that adaptive modifications in adulthood can mask.

Evolutionary Developmental Biology

Evolutionary developmental biology, or evo-devo, examines how changes in developmental processes contribute to the conservation and modification of homologous structures across species, revealing the genetic mechanisms underlying evolutionary transformations. By integrating developmental genetics with evolutionary theory, evo-devo demonstrates that homologous traits often arise from shared regulatory networks that have been conserved or repurposed over , rather than de novo inventions. This approach highlights how subtle alterations in timing, location, or level can generate morphological diversity while preserving underlying homologies. A prime example of such conservation is the clusters, which are organized in a collinear manner and regulate anterior-posterior patterning in all bilaterian animals, facilitating the homology of body segments and appendages. These clusters, consisting of up to 14 genes in vertebrates, direct positional identity along the body axis through sequential expression that mirrors their genomic order, a pattern retained from a common bilaterian ancestor over 550 million years ago. This shared toolkit enables comparable segmentation in diverse taxa, such as the vertebral column in vertebrates and tagmata in arthropods, underscoring ' role in maintaining structural homologies despite divergent morphologies. Deep homologies extend beyond to a broader developmental-genetic toolkit, including transcription factors like Pax and signaling pathways such as Wnt, which underpin the formation of diverse structures from a common ancestral repertoire. These "toolkit" genes, present in the last common ancestor of bilaterians, provide modular components that can be co-opted to generate homologous traits across phyla; for instance, homologs specify in and vertebrates, while Wnt signaling patterns limb axes in both arthropods and chordates. Such deep homologies reveal that apparent morphological novelties often reflect regulatory redeployments of ancient genetic modules rather than entirely new inventions. In vertebrates, the fin-to-limb transition exemplifies how evo-devo mechanisms modify homologies through conserved signaling. The evolution of limbs from fins involved a heterochronic shift in the expression of Sonic hedgehog (Shh), a key that patterns the posterior limb margin and digit formation; in basal sarcopterygians, delayed Shh activation in the fin bud extended the outgrowth phase, enabling the emergence of autopodal structures homologous to modern digits. This regulatory change, without altering the core Shh pathway, transformed homologous fin radials into limb elements, illustrating evo-devo's emphasis on timing alterations in development. Similarly, in , the ABC model elucidates homologous floral organ identities through combinatorial gene action. Proposed in the late 1980s and refined in subsequent decades, the model posits that transcription factors—class A (e.g., APETALA1), B (e.g., APETALA3), and C (e.g., AGAMOUS)—specify sepals, petals, stamens, and carpels in whorls via overlapping expression; for example, A+B activity yields petals, while B+C produces stamens. Conserved across angiosperms, this regulatory logic traces floral homologies to cone structures, where similar genes pattern ovuliferous and microsporangiate scales, demonstrating how evo-devo uncovers shared developmental grammars for reproductive homologies. The foundations of these evo-devo insights emerged prominently in the , following the discovery and cross-species of homeobox-containing genes like Hox, which revealed their astonishing conservation in patterning embryonic axes from flies to humans. This era's breakthroughs, including the identification of regulatory elements controlling collinear expression, shifted paradigms by showing that evolutionary changes often occur via cis-regulatory modifications rather than coding sequence alterations. Complementing earlier embryological observations of shared developmental stages, these genetic findings emphasized how —shifts in the timing or rate of developmental events—alters homologous processes to drive ; for instance, paedomorphic retention of juvenile traits in salamanders or accelerated maturation in repurposes conserved networks to yield novel adult forms.

Molecular Homology

Sequence Homology

Sequence homology refers to the similarity between DNA or RNA sequences that indicates shared evolutionary ancestry, distinguished from similarity arising by chance through statistical measures such as those provided by alignment algorithms. This inference is based on the principle that sequences derived from a common ancestor retain detectable similarities despite mutations over time, allowing biologists to trace evolutionary relationships at the molecular level. Detection of sequence homology primarily involves alignment methods to compare nucleotide sequences and quantify similarity. Pairwise alignment tools, such as BLASTn for nucleotide searches, identify regions of local similarity by aligning query sequences against databases and computing scores based on matches, mismatches, and gaps. Multiple sequence alignment extends this to align several sequences simultaneously, revealing conserved motifs across species using programs like Omega or MAFFT. Significance is assessed via the E-value, which estimates the number of alignments with equal or better scores expected by chance in a database of a given size; low E-values (typically below 10^{-5}) indicate homology unlikely to occur randomly. Homologous sequences are classified into orthologs and paralogs based on the evolutionary events leading to their divergence. Orthologs arise from events, retaining similar functions in different , while paralogs result from within a , potentially evolving new functions. This distinction, originally proposed by Fitch, aids in functional annotation and phylogenetic reconstruction. Detection often relies on reciprocal best hits in BLAST searches combined with phylogenetic analysis to differentiate the two. For distant homologs, percent identity thresholds are used cautiously; nucleotide sequences sharing over 70% identity over significant lengths suggest close homology, but for more divergent cases, alignments with identities as low as 25-30% in protein-coding regions can indicate ancestry when supported by low E-values. Representative examples illustrate sequence homology's role in . Mitochondrial genes, such as cytochrome c oxidase subunit 1 (cox1), exhibit high conservation across eukaryotes, with nucleotide identities often exceeding 50% between distant taxa like animals and fungi, reflecting their bacterial endosymbiotic origin. The globin gene family demonstrates paralogous evolution, where alpha- and beta-globin genes in vertebrates share 40-60% identity within clusters, arising from ancient duplications that enabled functional diversification in oxygen transport. Such patterns, including brief references to conserved developmental genes like Hox clusters, underscore homology's utility in reconstructing genomic histories.

Protein Structure Homology

Protein structural homology refers to the similarity in three-dimensional folds and architectures among proteins that share a common evolutionary origin, even when their amino acid sequences have diverged significantly. This type of homology is particularly valuable for detecting distant relationships, as protein structures are more conserved than sequences over evolutionary time, allowing inference of ancestry from shared folds like alpha/beta barrels or Rossmann motifs. For instance, proteins classified into superfamilies in structural databases often exhibit similar topologies and functional sites, supporting their homologous descent despite low sequence similarity. Detection of protein structural homology relies on specialized alignment methods that compare 3D coordinates rather than linear sequences. The DALI algorithm, for example, uses distance-matrix comparisons to identify significant structural similarities by maximizing intramolecular distance alignments between protein pairs, enabling the discovery of remote homologs. Similarly, TM-align optimizes alignments based on the template modeling (TM)-score, a scale-independent metric that prioritizes topological equivalence and rewards full-length structural matches, outperforming sequence-based approaches for low-identity pairs. These tools are essential for scanning databases like the (PDB) to reveal evolutionary connections not apparent from sequence alone. Structural classification databases such as and CATH systematically organize protein domains into based on fold similarity, providing a framework for homology assessment. In , folds represent the highest level of structural resemblance without implying homology, while superfamilies group domains with evidence of common ancestry through shared cores and functions; this has classified over 2,000 folds from known structures. CATH employs a complementary —class, , , and homologous superfamily—to delineate evolutionary relationships, emphasizing manual curation for superfamilies where structural and functional conservation indicates descent. These resources have been instrumental in unifying diverse proteins under shared evolutionary histories. Illustrative examples of structural homology include the fold, a (β/α)₈ architecture prevalent in ~10% of enzymes, where divergent sequences across metabolic pathways retain the barrel's core for catalytic efficiency, suggesting ancient common ancestry. The Rossmann fold, characterized by alternating β-strands and α-helices that bind cofactors, unites dehydrogenases and related enzymes from to eukaryotes, with conserved motifs like the GXGXXG -binding loop indicating shared evolutionary origins despite functional diversification. In serine proteases, the (Ser-His-Asp) is preserved within homologous clans such as PA (trypsin-like), enabling hydrolysis in diverse biological roles; similar triads in unrelated clans like SB (subtilisin-like) with distinct folds represent rather than homology. The "twilight zone" of protein sequence identity, typically below 20-25%, poses challenges for homology detection via sequences alone, as alignments become unreliable and may miss true relatives. However, structural comparisons thrive in this regime, identifying homologs with <15% identity through conserved folds and active sites, which often preserve function and reveal evolutionary divergence driven by neutral mutations or functional shifts. This structural resilience underscores why 3D analysis is crucial for understanding deep evolutionary relationships and functional implications in protein families. Advances in computational structure prediction, notably (as of 2024), have dramatically increased the number of available protein structures, enhancing the ability to detect remote structural homologies through comparison of predicted models.

Behavioral Homology

Conceptual Framework

Behavioral homology extends the concept of homology from morphological and molecular traits to behavioral patterns, defining it as similarities in actions, neural circuits, or instinctual responses that arise from common evolutionary ancestry rather than , environmental learning, or independent origins. In this framework, homologous behaviors are those that trace their origin to a shared and exhibit similarity due to descent with modification, paralleling the principles applied to anatomical structures. This approach emphasizes that behavioral traits, like physical ones, can serve as phylogenetic markers when they reflect inherited neural or physiological mechanisms rather than adaptive responses to similar ecological pressures. However, identifying behavioral homology remains debated due to potential confounds like convergence and learning, requiring multidisciplinary approaches including . Key criteria for identifying behavioral homology include innateness, where behaviors manifest as instinctive, species-typical without extensive learning; developmental origins, tracing how the behavior emerges from conserved embryonic or genetic processes; and phylogenetic distribution, observing the trait's presence across related taxa in a pattern consistent with evolutionary branching. Fixed action patterns, such as stereotyped motor sequences triggered by specific stimuli, exemplify these criteria, as they are often rigidly programmed and shared among descendants of a common ancestor. Historically, ethologists like established this basis in the mid-20th century, arguing that behaviors, including elaborate displays in birds, exhibit homologous traits analogous to bodily structures, with similarities in ' mating rituals revealing shared phylogenetic . Lorenz's work highlighted how such displays function as "social releasers," inherited from ancestral forms and modified over time. Studying behavioral homology presents unique challenges, primarily because behaviors do not fossilize, limiting direct evidence to observations of extant and requiring indirect inference from comparative data. This reliance on living organisms necessitates rigorous methods from and , such as controlled experiments and phylogenetic reconstructions, to distinguish homology from or cultural transmission. Despite these difficulties, advancements in cladistic analysis have affirmed that behavioral characters can be homologized as effectively as morphological ones, provided criteria are applied consistently.

Key Examples

One key example of behavioral homology is found in the courtship rituals of birds, particularly the elaborate bower constructions performed by male bowerbirds to attract females. This behavior, characterized by the building of species-specific structures decorated with colorful objects, is inherited from a common ancestor within the family Ptilonorhynchidae, demonstrating a shared evolutionary origin across all 20 species. For instance, the (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus) creates a U-shaped avenue bower framed by twigs and adorned with blue feathers and berries, while the golden bowerbird (Prionodura newtoniana) constructs a more open platform with yellow ornaments; these variations reflect divergence from the ancestral ritual but retain the core sequence of construction and display. Alarm calls in primates provide another illustration of homologous behaviors, where vocalizations convey specific information about predators to conspecifics. In vervet monkeys (Chlorocebus pygerythrus), distinct call types—such as low grunts for leopards, high trills for eagles, and chutters for snakes—elicit targeted anti-predator responses, like climbing trees or scanning the sky, a system refined through experience but rooted in innate structures. This referential signaling is homologous across primates, appearing in closely related species like green monkeys (Chlorocebus sabaeus) and sooty mangabeys (Cercocebus atys), where similar acoustic distinctions for threat types indicate descent from a common cercopithecoid approximately 15-20 million years ago.

References

  1. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/lines-of-evidence/homologies/
  2. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/the-history-of-life-looking-at-the-patterns/homologies-and-analogies/
  3. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18536034/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6701455/
  5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1663811/
  6. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/lines-of-evidence/homologies/homologies-anatomical-evidence/
  7. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/lines-of-evidence/homologies/homologies-cellular-molecular-evidence/
  8. https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/General_Biology_(Boundless)/18%3A_Evolution_and_the_Origin_of_Species/18.05%3A_Evidence_of_Evolution/18.5H%3A_Vestigial_Structures
  9. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/hox-genes/
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8086918/
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5569646/
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12077031_Etienne_Geoffroy_St-Hilaire_Father_of_evo-devo
  13. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolution-before-darwin/
  14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4477164/
  15. https://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
  16. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/origin-species-chapter-thirteen-mutual-affinities-organic-beings-morphology-embryology
  17. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ernst-haeckels-biogenetic-law-1866
  18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10049/
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6001556/
  20. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2009.00274.x
  21. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(04)00287-8
  22. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/essay-homology
  23. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/69/2/345/5584267
  24. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13752-021-00395-6
  25. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0035
  26. https://sites.ualberta.ca/~brigandt/The_importance_of_homology.pdf
  27. https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/General_Biology_%28Boundless%29/18%253A_Evolution_and_the_Origin_of_Species/18.05%253A_Evidence_of_Evolution/18.5G%253A_Convergent_Evolution
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286873458_Adolf_Remane_1898-1976_and_his_views_on_systematics_homology_and_the_Modern_Synthesis
  29. https://academic.oup.com/icb/article/40/5/777/157228
  30. https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-11-180
  31. https://www2.gwu.edu/~clade/faculty/lipscomb/Cladistics.pdf
  32. https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article/63/3/452/2848668
  33. https://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/bio1b/evolutionfall06/pdfs/Mishler4_Cladistics.pdf
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631068307001686
  35. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.97.9.4438
  36. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.250.4981.667
  37. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.95.18.10665
  38. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30332860/
  39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(06)00321-6
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5182414/
  41. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5558051/
  42. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2018.1792
  43. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj7912
  44. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joa.14034
  45. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42606-7
  46. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aay9220
  47. https://repository.si.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/de56838b-8a00-448c-93ee-653aab8fae49/content
  48. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1991.tb00290.x
  49. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1912470117
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9434249/
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3315019/
  52. https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Botany/Inanimate_Life_%28Briggs%29/01%253A_Chapters/1.08%253A_Vascular_plant_anatomy-_primary_growth
  53. https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/8/7/240
  54. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.6.2415
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3761161/
  56. https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/94903/bitstreams/307026/data.pdf
  57. https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.1537-2197.1973.tb05939.x
  58. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07352689709701954
  59. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.614072/full
  60. https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/57/13/3471/477539
  61. https://nickrentlab.siu.edu/PlantAnatomyWeb/LecturesDLN/Lecture22_Flower.html
  62. https://philarchive.org/archive/KELQPM
  63. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04091.x
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8672599/
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3012471/
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2838262/
  67. https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/karl-ernst-von-baers-laws-embryology
  68. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9974/
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4199908/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3564725/
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3130370/
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5054442/
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9680502/
  74. https://www.nature.com/articles/28618
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5328949/
  76. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005121
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982217303433
  78. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11062442/
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4877300/
  80. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-012-0418-x
  81. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-012-0420-3
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3820096/
  83. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20255/
  84. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20257/
  85. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62051/
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC138949/
  87. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11346449/
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3543078/
  89. https://www.cell.com/structure/pdf/S0969-2126%2899%2980177-4.pdf
  90. https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/50/W1/W210/6591528
  91. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15849316/
  92. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC102479/
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969212697002608
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4709378/
  95. https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002396
  96. https://www.embopress.org/doi/10.1093/emboj/20.12.3036
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0969212696001190
  98. https://academic.oup.com/peds/article/12/2/85/1550637
  99. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2
  100. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/dev.21039
  101. https://www.philsci-archive.pitt.edu/3512/1/3_Ereshefsky_Psychological_categories_as_homologies.pdf
  102. http://klha.at/papers/1958-EvolOfBehavior.pdf
  103. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24944850
  104. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248407000371
  105. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234150622_Behavioral_homology_and_phylogeny_Annu_Rev_Ecol_Syst
  106. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/examples-of-homology/an-architectural-inheritance/
  107. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341451871_Parallel_Evolution_of_Bower-Building_Behavior_in_Two_Groups_of_Bowerbirds_Suggested_by_Phylogenomics
  108. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7433999/
  109. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10205891/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.