Striedter G F, Northcutt R G
Department of Neurosciences, School of Medicine, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Brain Behav Evol. 1991;38(4-5):177-89. doi: 10.1159/000114387.
Although most biologists agree that homology must be defined in terms of common ancestry, the details of this definition remain controversial. We review briefly the disagreements concerning the formal definition of homology and the methodology used to establish specific cases of homology. Our principal focus, however, is a third area of disagreement: whether morphological characters can be homologous even if their developmental and genetic bases are not homologous, and whether behavioral characters can be homologous even if their morphological substrates are not homologous. We contend that attempts to reduce behavioral homology to morphological homologies, and morphological homology to genetic and developmental homologies, are misguided and based on a failure to recognize the hierarchical nature of biological organization. Genes, developmental processes, morphological structures, physiological functions and behaviors all constitute different levels of biological organization. These levels are causally interrelated, but there is no one-to-one correspondence between characters at different levels. Furthermore, the causal relationships between characters at different levels may change during the course of evolution. As a result, higher level characters may be homologous, even though some of their constituent lower level characters are not homologous. In support of this assertion, we provide several examples of homologous morphological characters that are based on non-homologous developmental precursors and processes, and of homologous behavioral characters that are based on non-homologous morphological structures. In allowing one to recognize homologies at any level of organization, independently of homologies at other levels, the hierarchical concept of homology also allows one to ask important questions about how evolutionary changes at the various levels of organization are related to one another.
尽管大多数生物学家都认同同源性必须依据共同祖先来定义,但该定义的细节仍存在争议。我们简要回顾了关于同源性形式定义以及用于确定同源性具体实例的方法学方面的分歧。然而,我们主要关注的是第三个分歧领域:即便形态特征的发育和遗传基础并非同源,这些形态特征是否仍可具有同源性;即便行为特征的形态基础并非同源,这些行为特征是否仍可具有同源性。我们认为,试图将行为同源性简化为形态同源性,以及将形态同源性简化为遗传和发育同源性的做法是错误的,并且是基于未能认识到生物组织的层级性质。基因、发育过程、形态结构、生理功能和行为均构成生物组织的不同层次。这些层次存在因果关联,但不同层次的特征之间并非一一对应。此外,不同层次特征之间的因果关系在进化过程中可能会发生变化。因此,即便某些构成更高层次特征的较低层次特征并非同源,更高层次的特征仍可能具有同源性。为支持这一论断,我们提供了几个基于非同源发育前体和过程的同源形态特征实例,以及基于非同源形态结构的同源行为特征实例。同源性的层级概念不仅使人们能够在组织的任何层次识别同源性,而无需考虑其他层次的同源性,还使人们能够提出关于组织各层次的进化变化如何相互关联的重要问题。