Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Homology thinking reconciles the conceptual conflict between typological and population thinking

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper attempts to reconcile the conceptual conflict between typological and population thinking to provide a philosophical foundation for extended evolutionary synthesis (EES). Typological thinking has been considered a pre-Darwinian, essentialist dogma incompatible with population thinking, which is the core notion of Darwinism. More recent philosophical and historical studies suggest that a non-essentialist form of typology (i.e., representational typology) has some advantages in the study of evolutionary biology. However, even if we adopt such an epistemological interpretation of typological thinking, there still remains an epistemological and methodological conflict between these two styles of thinking. How can we relate typological thinking with population thinking in pursuit of more integrated or interconnected research into evolutionary biology? I propose that homology thinking, which is another style of thinking that recognizes homologous characters, provides a common basis for typological representations of character states and for character dynamics in an evolving population. Good examples of this bridging role are found in teratology and breeding, where variation and novelty are recognized in developmental and morphological traits, gene expression patterns, and so on. Essentialism-free, dynamic views of homology have great potential to reconcile typological and population thinking and to set the stage for the EES.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. Here “the gap is bridged” does not mean that the gap is completely filled or closed but that the two areas separated by the gap can be interrelated, although the gap remains.

  2. Note that these “grounds” do not necessarily provide certain criteria for the identification of homologs. We can recognize homologs, even if neither their historical continuity nor developmental mechanism is clear. See Remane (1952) for the most prominent operational criteria of homology (summarized in Griffiths 2007, p. 648).

  3. It is notable that Simpson (1944, p. 98) argued that “the paleontologist has more reason to believe in a qualitative distinction between macro-evolution and mega-evolution than in one between micro-evolution and macro-evolution.”.

  4. For other problems of this theory in the context of homology, see Suzuki and Tanaka (2017).

  5. The relationship and compatibility between PRM and causal model views is worthy of further discussion. As this issue strays from the main topic in the current paper, however, it is left for future work.

  6. The processual philosophy of biology (Dupré and Nicholson 2018) is an ontological theory that has some affinity to a dynamic view of homology. According to the PRM view, for example, homologs are considered neither members of a natural kind nor parts of an individual but as subprocesses (each homolog) of a process (homologs as a whole) that exhibit coherence (modularity of each homolog) and persistence (persistent reproductivity of homologs). For a detailed discussion of coherence and persistence of biological processes, see DiFrisco (2018). Also, dispositionalism in the processual philosophy of biology might provide a better framework for understanding causation in biology, ontologically, and epistemically (Anjum and Mumford 2018).

References

  • Abe G, Lee SH, Chang M, Liu SC, Tsai HY, Ota KG (2014) The origin of the bifurcated axial skeletal system in the twin-tail goldfish. Nat Commun 5:3360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberch P (1985) Developmental constraints: why St. Bernards often have an extra digit and poodles never do. Am Nat 126:430–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alberch P, Gale EA (1983) Size dependence during the development of the amphibian foot. Cochicine-induced digital loss and reduction. J Embryol Exp Morphol 76:177–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Alberch P, Gale EA (1985) A developmental analysis of an evolutionary trend: digital reduction in amphibians. Evolution 39:8–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amundson R (2005) The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: roots of Evo-Devo. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ankeny RA, Leonelli S (2011) What’s so special about model organisms? Stud Hist Philos Sci 42:313–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anjum RL, Mumford S (2018) Dispositionalism: a dynamic theory of causation. In: Nicholson DJ, Dupré J (eds) Everything flows: towards a processual philosophy of biology. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 61–75

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Assis LCS, Brigandt I (2009) Homology: homeostatic property cluster kinds in systematics and evolution. Evol Biol 36:248–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod HR (1988) Koi varieties: Japanese colored carp-Nishikigoi. TFH Publications, Neptune

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonnett BN, Egenvall A, Olson P, Hedhammar A (1997) Mortality in insured Swedish dogs: rates and causes of death in various breeds. Vet Rec 141:40–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2007) Typology now: homology and developmental constraints explain ecolvability. Biol Philos 22:709–725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2009) Natural kinds in evolution and systematics: metaphysical and epistemological considerations. Acta Biotheor 57:77–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brigandt I (2017) Typology and natural kinds in evo-devo. In: De La Rosa LN, Müller G (eds) Evolutionary developmental biology: a reference guide. Springer, Cham, pp 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill FB (1980) The modern evolutionary synthesis and the biogenetic law. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 97–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung C (2003) On the origin of the typological/population distinction in Ernst Mayr’s changing views of species, 1942–1959. Stud Hist Philos Sci C 34(2):277–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman W (1980) Morphology in the evolutionary synthesis. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 174–180

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Conway Morris S, Caron J-B (2014) A primitive fish from the Cambrian of North America. Nature 512(7515):419–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crick AP, Babbs C, Brown JM, Morriss-kay GM (2003) Developmental mechanisms underlying polydactyly in the mouse mutant doublefoot. J Anat 202(1):21–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species by means of natural selection, or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life, 1st ed. J Murray, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • DiFrisco J (2018) Biological processes. In: Nicholson DJ, Dupré J (eds) Everything flows: towards a processual philosophy of biology. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 76–95

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dobzhansky T (1937) Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré J, Nicholson DJ (2018) A manifesto for a processual philosophy of biology. In: Nicholson DJ, Dupré J (eds) Everything flows: towards a processual philosophy of biology. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, pp 3–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eguchi G, Eguchi Y, Nakamura K, Yadav MC, Millán JL, Tonis PA (2011) Regenerative capacity in newts is not altered by repeated regeneration and ageing. Nat Commun 2:384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ereshefsky M (2007) Foundational issues concerning taxa and taxon names. Syst Biol 56:295–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ereshefsky M (2009) Homology: integrating phylogeny and development. Biol Theor 4:225–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ereshefsky M (2010a) Species. In: Zalta EN (ed) The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2010 edition). http://plato.stan-ford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/species/

  • Ereshefsky M (2010) What’s wrong with the new biological essentialism. Philos Sci 77:674–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ereshefsky M (2012) Homology thinking. Biol Philos 27:381–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrezi M (2001) A survey of prepollex and prehallux variation in anuran limbs. Zool J Linnean Soc 131:227–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrugia MC, Calleja-Agius J (2016) Polydactyly: a review. Neonatal Netw 35(3):135–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futuyma D (1998) Evolutionary biology, 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland

    Google Scholar 

  • Galis F, van Alphen J, Metz J (2001) Why five fingers? evolutionary constraints on digit numbers. Trends Ecol Evol 16(11):637–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gayon J (1998) Darwinism’s struggle for survival: heredity and the hypothesis of natural selection. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin MT (1980) The failure of morphology to assimilate Darwinism. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 180–193

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin MT (2005) Homology as a relation of correspondence between parts of individuals. Theor Biosci 124:91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghiselin MT (2006) The failure of morphology to contribute to the modern synthesis. Theor Biosci 124(3–4):309–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant PR, Grant BR (2002) Unpredictable evolution in a 30-year study of Darwin’s finches. Science 296(5568):707–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths PE (2007) The phenomena of homology. Biol Philos 22:643–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinard G (2012) Evolutionary concepts meet the neck of penguins (Aves: Sphenisciformes), towards a “survival strategy” for evo-devo. Theory Biosci 131(4):231–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guinard G (2015) Introduction to evolutionary teratology, with the example of forelimbs of Tyrannosauridae and Carnotaurinae (Dinosauria: Theropoda). Evol Biol 42:20–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haag ES, True JR (2018) Developmental system drift. In: de la Rosa LN, Müller G (eds) Evolutionary developmental biology. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger V (1980) Embryology and the modern synthesis in evolutionary theory. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 97–112

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi S, Kobayashi T, Yano T, Kamiyama N, Egawa S, Seki R, Takizawa K, Okabe M, Yokoyama H, Tamura K (2015) Evidence for an amphibian sixth digit. Zool Lett 1:17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kropatsch R, Melis C, Stronen AV, Jensen H, Epplen JT (2015) Molecular genetics of sex identification, breed ancestry and polydactyly in the Norwegian Lundehund breed. J Hered 106(4):403–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laland KN, Uller T, Feldman MW, Sterelny K, Müller GB, Moczek A, Jablonka E, Odling-Smee J (2015) The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions. Proc Biol Sci 282(1813):20151019

    Google Scholar 

  • Laubichler M, Maienschein J (2007) From embryology to evo-devo: a history of developmental evolution. MIT Press, Cambridge and London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levinton J (2001) Genetics, paleontology and macroevolution, 2nd edn. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levit GS, Meister K (2006) The history of essentialism vs. Ernst Mayr’s ‘essentialism story’: a case study of German idealistic morphology. Theor Biosci 124:281–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewens T (2009) Evo-devo and “typological thinking”: an exculpation. J Exp Zool B 312(8):789–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewens T (2009) What is wrong with typological thinking? Philos Sci 76:355–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love AC (2009) Typology reconfigured: from the metaphysics of essentialism to the epistemology of representation. Acta Biotheor 57:51–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1959) Darwin and the evolutionary theory in biology. In: Meggers J (ed) Evolution and anthropology: a centennial appraisal. The Anthroplogical Society of Washington, Washington, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1959) Typological and population thinking. In: Meggers BJ (ed) Evolution and anthropology: a centennial appraisal. The Anthroplogical Society of Washington, Washington, pp 409–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1980) Prologue: some thoughts on the history of the evolutionary synthesis. In: Mayr E, Provine WB (eds) The evolutionary synthesis: perspectives on the unification of biology. Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, pp 1–48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCoy VE, Saupe EE, Lamsdell JC, Lidya G, Tarhan LG, McMahon S, Lidgard S, Mayer P, Whalen CD, Soriano C, Finney L, Vogt S, Clark EG, Anderson RP, Petermann H, Locatelli ER, Briggs DE (2016) The ‘Tully monster’ is a vertebrate. Nature 532(7600):496–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’hara RJ (1997) Population thinking and tree thinking in systematics. Zool Scr 26(4):323–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ota KG, Abe G (2016) Goldfish morphology as a model for evolutionary developmental biology. WIREs Dev Biol 5:272–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otsuka J (2017) The causal homology concept. Phil Sci 84(5):1128–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen R (1848) On the archetype and homologies of the vertebrate skeleton. Jon Van Voorst, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci M, Müller GB (2010) Evolution: the extended synthesis. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prentis CW (1906) Extra digits and digital reductions. Pop Sci Mon 68:335–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Remane A (1952) Die Grundlagen des natürlichen Systems, der vergleichenden Anatomie und der Phylogenetik. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieppel O (2005) Modules, kinds and homology. J Exp Zool B 304:18–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saccheri I, Hanski I (2008) Natural selection and population dynamics. Trends Ecol Evol 21(6):341–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shu DG, Conway Morris S, Han J, Zhang ZF, Yasui K, Janvier P, Chen L, Zhang XL, Liu JN, Li Y, Liu H-Q (2003) Head and backbone of the Early Cambrian vertebrate Haikouichthys. Nature 421(6922):526–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson GG (1944) Tempo and mode in evolution. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober E (1980) Evolution, population thinking, and essentialism. Phil Sci 47(3):350–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solounias N, Danowitz M, Stachtiaris E, Khurana A, Araim M, Sadegh M, Natale J (2018) The evolution and anatomy of the horse manus with an emphasis on digit reduction. R Soc Open Sci 2018:5

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterrett SG (2002) Darwin’s analogy between artificial and natural selection: how does it go? Stud Hist Philos Sci C 33(1):151–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzuki DG, Tanaka S (2017) A phenomenological and dynamic view of homology: homologs as persistently reproducible modules. Biol Theor 12(3):169–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tokita M, Iwai N (2010) Development of the pseudothumb in frogs. Biol Lett 6:517–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • True JR, Haag ES (2001) Developmental system drift and exibility in evolutionary trajectories. Evol Dev 3:109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vervoort M (2011) Regeneration and development in animals. Biol Theor 6:25–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP (2014) Homology, genes, and evolutionary innovation. Princeton Univ Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner GP (2016) What is “homology thinking” and what is it for? J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol 326(1):3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsor MP (2006) The creation of the essentialism story: an exercise in metahistory. Hist Philos Life Sci 28:149–174

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I thank Yusaku Ohkubo, Senji Tanaka, and Yoshinari Yoshida and two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Funding

A part of this work is financially supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), Grant Number 18J00045 and 20K00275.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Exploratory Research Center on Life and Living Systems (ExCELLS), National Institutes of Natural Sciences, Okazaki, Japan

    Daichi G. Suzuki

  2. Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Japan

    Daichi G. Suzuki

Authors
  1. Daichi G. Suzuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daichi G. Suzuki.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suzuki, D.G. Homology thinking reconciles the conceptual conflict between typological and population thinking. Biol Philos 36, 23 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-021-09800-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-021-09800-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation