Confusing homologs as homologies: a reply to “On homology”
Confusing homologs as homologies: a reply to “On homology”
复制标题
混淆同源物与同源性：对“论同源性”的答复
DOI：
10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00387.x
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
M. Ebach
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
David M. Williams;M. Ebach
就像物种概念一样，系统分类学家、分类学家、遗传学家、历史学家和生物学哲学家，也许是所有的生物学家和古生物学家，似乎从来没有厌倦过讨论、扩展和重新定义同源性概念（参见Remane，1952; Patterson，1982; De Pinna，1991; Hoßfeld and Olsson，2005）。在分支分类学被普遍接受为分类学理论之前，以及在生物学中达尔文范式之后，同源性主要是根据其进化含义进行讨论的，而不是在其最初的背景下作为“动物身体各部分的关系”（欧文，1849年，第2页）。同源性被看作是某些过程或过程的一种突现性质的产物，因此得到了大多数生物学家普遍接受的解释：同源性是由共同的祖先引起的。在20世纪70年代和80年代的分支分类范式之后，同源性的讨论主要集中在它的发现上，它的意义已经达到了一定程度的接受。麻烦开始于术语分支范式，因为它只与瓦格纳简约算法相关，而该算法本身植根于20世纪60年代和70年代的数值分类法：
Like the species concept, it seems that systematists ⁄ taxonomists ⁄phylogeneticists ⁄historians and philosophers of biology, perhaps all biologists and palaeontologists, never tire of discussing, expanding and redefining the homology concept (see Remane, 1952; Patterson, 1982; De Pinna, 1991; Hoßfeld and Olsson, 2005). Prior to the general acceptance of cladistics as a theory of taxonomy, and after the Darwinian paradigm in biology, homology has been discussed mainly in terms of its evolutionary implications rather than in its original context as ‘‘the relations of the parts of animal bodies’’ (Owen, 1849, p. 2). Seen as a product of an emergent property of some process or processes, homology gained an explanation generally acceptable to most biologists: homology is caused by common ancestry. After the cladistic paradigm of the 1970s and 1980s, discussions of homology mainly focused on its discovery, its meaning having achieved a level of acceptance. Trouble started with the term cladistic paradigm, as it was exclusively associated with the Wagner parsimony algorithm, itself rooted in the numerical taxonomy of the 1960s and 1970s: