Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:08:26.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biological Pluralism and Homology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Heather A. Jamniczky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study of similarity is fundamental to biological inquiry. Many homology concepts have been formulated that function successfully to explain similarity in their native domains, but fail to provide an overarching account applicable to variably interconnected and independent areas of biological research despite the monistic standpoint from which they originate. The use of multiple, explicitly articulated homology concepts, applicable at different levels of the biological hierarchy, allows a more thorough investigation of the nature of biological similarity. Responsible epistemological pluralism as advocated herein is generative of fruitful and innovative biological research, and is appropriate given the metaphysical pluralism that underpins all of biology.

Type
Topics in Philosophy of Biology
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 72 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2004 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2005 , pp. 687 - 698
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Thanks to Marc Ereshefsky and Anthony Russell for many helpful discussions and encouragement, and to Ingo Brigandt for insightful comments on an earlier draft.

References

Abouheif, Ehab (1997), “Developmental Genetics and Homology: A Hierarchical Approach”, Developmental Genetics and Homology: A Hierarchical Approach 12:405–408.Google ScholarPubMed
Bock, Walter J. (1989), “The Homology Concept: Its Philosophical Foundation and Practical Methodology”, The Homology Concept: Its Philosophical Foundation and Practical Methodology 32:327–353.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo (2002), “Homology and the Origin of Correspondence”, Homology and the Origin of Correspondence 17:389–407.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo (2003), “Homology in Comparative, Molecular, and Evolutionary Developmental Biology: The Radiation of a Concept”, Homology in Comparative, Molecular, and Evolutionary Developmental Biology: The Radiation of a Concept 299B:9–17.Google Scholar
Cartwright, Nancy D. (1999), The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwin, Charles R. (1859), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Donoghue, Michael J. (1992), “Homology”, in Keller, Evelyn Fox, and Lloyd, Elisabeth A. (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 170–179.Google Scholar
Dupré, John (1993), The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, Marc (1998), “Eliminative Pluralism”, in Hull, David L., and Ruse, Michael (eds.), The Philosophy of Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, 348–368.Google Scholar
Ghiselin, Michael T. (1987), “Species Concepts, Individuality, and Objectivity”, Species Concepts, Individuality, and Objectivity 2:127–143.Google Scholar
Gould, Steven J., and Lewontin, Richard C. (1979), “The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme”, The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme B 205:581–598.Google Scholar
Haszprunar, Gerhard (1992), “The Types of Homology and Their Significance for Evolutionary Biology and Phylogenetics”, The Types of Homology and Their Significance for Evolutionary Biology and Phylogenetics 5:13–24.Google Scholar
Hull, David L. (1987), “Genealogical Actors in Ecological Roles”, Genealogical Actors in Ecological Roles 2:168–183.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Antone G., and Sater, Amy K. (1988), “Features of Embryonic Induction”, Features of Embryonic Induction 104:341–359.Google ScholarPubMed
Kitcher, Philip (1987), “Ghostly Whispers: Mayr, Ghiselin and the ‘Philosophers’ on the Ontological Status of Species”, Ghostly Whispers: Mayr, Ghiselin and the ‘Philosophers’ on the Ontological Status of Species 2:184–192.Google Scholar
Kitching, Ian J., Forey, Peter L., Humphries, Christopher J., and Williams, David M. (1998), Cladistics: The Theory and Practice of Parsimony Analysis, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lankester, E. Ray (1870), “On the Use of the Term Homology in Modern Zoology, and the Distinction between Homogenetic and Homoplastic Agreements”, Annals and Magazine of Natural History (Zoology, Botany, Geology), 4th series, 6:34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longino, Helen E. (2002), The Fate of Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minelli, Alessandro (1998), “Molecules, Developmental Modules, and Phenotypes: A Combinatorial Approach to Homology”, Molecules, Developmental Modules, and Phenotypes: A Combinatorial Approach to Homology 9:340–347.Google ScholarPubMed
Mishler, Brent D., and Brandon, Robert N. (1998), “Individuality, Pluralism and the Phylogenetic Species Concept”, in Hull, David L., and Ruse, Michael (eds.), The Philosophy of Biology. New York: Oxford University Press, 300–318.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Sandra D. (2003), Biological Complexity and Integrative Pluralism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Gareth (1994), “Homology and Systematics”, in Hall, Brian K. (ed.), Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. San Diego: Academic Press, 101–149.Google Scholar
Panchen, Alec L. (1994), “Richard Owen and the Concept of Homology”, in Hall, Brian K. (ed.), Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. San Diego: Academic Press, 21–62.Google Scholar
Patterson, Colin (1982), “Morphological Characters and Homology”, in Joysey, Keith A. and Friday, Adrian E. (eds.), Problems of Phylogenetic Reconstruction. London: Academic Press, 21–74.Google Scholar
Roth, V. Louise (1988), “The Biological Basis of Homology”, in Humphries, Christopher J. (ed.), Ontogeny and Systematics. New York: Columbia University Press, 1–26.Google Scholar
Roth, V. Louise (1994), “Within and Between Organisms: Replicators, Lineages, and Homologues”, in Hall, Brian K. (ed.), Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. San Diego: Academic Press, 301–337.Google Scholar
Ruddle, Frank H., Bartels, Janet L., Bentley, Kevin L., Kappen, Claudia, Murtha, Michael T., and Pendleton, John W. (1994), “Evolution of Hox Genes”, Evolution of Hox Genes 28:423–433.Google ScholarPubMed
Sluys, Ronald (1996), “The Notion of Homology in Current Comparative Biology”, The Notion of Homology in Current Comparative Biology 34:145–152.Google Scholar
Spemann, Hans (1901), “Über Korrelationen in der Entwicklung des Auges”, Über Korrelationen in der Entwicklung des Auges 15:61–79.Google Scholar
Striedter, Georg, and Northcutt, R. Glenn (1991), “Biological Hierarchies and the Concept of Homology”, Biological Hierarchies and the Concept of Homology 38:177–189.Google ScholarPubMed
van Valen, Leigh M. (1982), “Homology and Causes”, Homology and Causes 173:305–312.Google ScholarPubMed
Wagner, Günther P. (1989), “The Biological Homology Concept”, The Biological Homology Concept 20:51–69.Google Scholar
Wagner, Günther P. (2000), “What Is the Promise of Developmental Evolution? Part I: Why Is Developmental Biology Necessary to Explain Evolutionary Innovations?”, What Is the Promise of Developmental Evolution? Part I: Why Is Developmental Biology Necessary to Explain Evolutionary Innovations? 288:95–98.Google ScholarPubMed
Wagner, Günther P., and Misof, Bernhard Y. (1993), “How Can a Character Be Developmentally Constrained Despite Variation in Developmental Pathways?”, How Can a Character Be Developmentally Constrained Despite Variation in Developmental Pathways? 6:449–455.Google Scholar
Wake, David B. (1999), “Homoplasy, Homology, and the Problem of ‘Sameness’ in Biology”, in Bock, Gregory R. and Cardew, Gail (eds.), Novartis Foundation Symposium 222: Homology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 25–46.Google ScholarPubMed
Young, Bruce A. (1993), “On the Necessity of an Archetypal Concept in Morphology: With Special Reference to the Concepts of ‘Structure’ and ‘Homology’”, On the Necessity of an Archetypal Concept in Morphology: With Special Reference to the Concepts of ‘Structure’ and ‘Homology’ 8:225–248.Google Scholar