Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-956mj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T16:27:56.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Function, Homology, and Character Individuation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Paul E. Griffiths
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I defend the view that many biological categories are defined by homology against a series of arguments designed to show that all biological categories are defined, at least in part, by selected function. I show that categories of homology are ‘abnormality inclusive’—something often alleged to be unique to selected function categories. I show that classifications by selected function are logically dependent on classifications by homology, but not vice-versa. Finally, I reject the view that biologists must use considerations of selected function to abstract away from variation and pathology to form a canonical description of a class of biological systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , January 2006 , pp. 1 - 25
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.)

References

Abouheif, Ehab, Akam, Michael, Dickinson, William J., Holland, Peter W. H., Meyer, Axel, Patel, Nipam H., Raff, Rudolf A., Roth, V. Louise, and Wray, Gregory A. (1997), “Homology and Developmental Genes”, Homology and Developmental Genes 13:432–433.Google ScholarPubMed
Allen, C., Bekoff, M., and Lauder, G. V., eds. (1997), Nature’s Purposes: Analyses of Function and Design in Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Amundson, Ron (2005), The Changing Rule of the Embryo in Evolutionary Biology: Structure and Synthesis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Amundson, Ron, and Lauder, G. V. (1994), “Function without Purpose: The Uses of Causal Role Function in Evolutionary Biology”, Function without Purpose: The Uses of Causal Role Function in Evolutionary Biology 9:443–470.Google Scholar
Ariew, André, Cummins, Robert, and Perlman, Mark, eds. (2002), Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brandon, R. (1981), “Biological Teleology: Questions and Explanations”, Biological Teleology: Questions and Explanations 12:91–105.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo (2002), “Homology and the Origin of Correspondence”, Homology and the Origin of Correspondence 17:389–407.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo (2003a), “Homology in Comparative, Molecular and Evolutionary Biology”, Homology in Comparative, Molecular and Evolutionary Biology 299B:9–17.Google Scholar
Brigandt, Ingo (2003b), “Species Pluralism Does Not Imply Species Eliminativism”, Species Pluralism Does Not Imply Species Eliminativism 70:1305–1316.Google Scholar
Buller, David J., ed. (1999), Function, Selection and Design. Buffalo: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Camardi, Giovanni (2001), “Richard Owen, Morphology and Evolution”, Richard Owen, Morphology and Evolution 34:481–515.Google Scholar
Craver, Carl F., and Darden, Lindley (2005), “Special Issue: Mechanisms in Biology”, Special Issue: Mechanisms in Biology 36:233–464.Google Scholar
Cummins, Richard (1975), “Functional Analysis”, Functional Analysis 72:741–765.Google Scholar
Davies, Paul Sheldon (2001), Norms of Nature: Naturalism and the Nature of Functions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenstein, John V. (2005), “Characters, States, and Homology”, Characters, States, and Homology 54:965–973.Google ScholarPubMed
Gale, Michael D., and Devos, Katrien M. (1998), “Comparative Genetics in the Grasses”, Comparative Genetics in the Grasses 95:1971–1974.Google ScholarPubMed
George, T. Neville (1956), “Biospecies, Chronospecies and Morphospecies”, in Sylvester-Bradley, P. C. (ed.), The Species Concept in Palaeontology. London: Systematics Association, 123–137.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, Peter (1994), “A Modern History Theory of Functions”, A Modern History Theory of Functions 28:344–362.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1994), “Cladistic Classification and Functional Explanation”, Cladistic Classification and Functional Explanation 61:206–227.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1996a), “Darwinism, Process Structuralism and Natural Kinds”, Darwinism, Process Structuralism and Natural Kinds 63:S1–S9.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1996b), “The Historical Turn in the Study of Adaptation”, The Historical Turn in the Study of Adaptation 47:511–532.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1997), What Emotions Really Are: The Problem of Psychological Categories. Conceptual Foundations of Science, ed. D. Hull. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (1999), “Squaring the Circle: Natural Kinds with Historical Essences”, in Wilson, Robert A. (ed.), Species: New Interdisciplinary Essays. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 208–228.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Paul E. (in preparation), “‘Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.’ Discuss”.Google Scholar
Hall, Brian K., ed. (1994), Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Brian K., ed. (1999), Homology. Novartis Foundation Symposia, ed. Gregory R. Bock and Gail Cardew, vol. 222. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.Google ScholarPubMed
Hall, Brian K. (2003), “Descent with Modification: The Unity Underlying Homology and Homoplasy as Seen Through an Analysis of Development and Evolution”, Descent with Modification: The Unity Underlying Homology and Homoplasy as Seen Through an Analysis of Development and Evolution 78:409–433.Google ScholarPubMed
Hillis, David M. (1999), “Homology in Molecular Biology”, in Hall, Brian K. (ed.), Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. San Diego: Academic Press, 339–368.Google Scholar
Hull, David L. (1987), “Genealogical Actors in Ecological Roles”, Genealogical Actors in Ecological Roles 2:168–184.Google Scholar
Huxley, Julian (1914), “The Courtship-Habits of the Great Crested Grebe (Podiceps Cristatus); with an Addition to the Theory of Sexual Selection”, The Courtship-Habits of the Great Crested Grebe (Podiceps Cristatus); with an Addition to the Theory of Sexual Selection 35:491–562.Google Scholar
Just, Walter, Rau, Wolfgang, Vogel, Walther, Akhverdian, Mikhail, Fredga, Karl, Marshall Graves, Jennifer A., and Lyapunova, Elena (1995), “Absence of Sry in Species of the Vole Ellobius”, Absence of Sry in Species of the Vole Ellobius 11:117–118.Google ScholarPubMed
Laublicher, Manfred D., and Wagner, Günter P. (2001), “How Molecular Is Molecular Developmental Biology? A Reply to Alex Rosenberg’s Reductionism Redux: Computing the Embryo”, How Molecular Is Molecular Developmental Biology? A Reply to Alex Rosenberg’s Reductionism Redux: Computing the Embryo 16:53–68.Google Scholar
Lauder, G. V. (1990), “Functional Morphology: Studying Functional Patterns in an Historical Context”, Functional Morphology: Studying Functional Patterns in an Historical Context 21:317–340.Google Scholar
Lauder, G. V. (1999), “Homology, Form and Function”, in Hall, Brian K. (ed.), Homology: The Hierachical Basis of Comparative Biology. New York: Academic Press, 151–196.Google Scholar
Lewens, Tim (2004), Organisms and Artifacts: Design in Nature and Elsewhere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, Konrad Z. (1966), On Aggression. Translated by Wilson, Marjorie Kerr. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Love, Alan (2001), “Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation, and the Synthesis of Evolution and Development”, Evolutionary Morphology, Innovation, and the Synthesis of Evolution and Development 18:309–345.Google Scholar
Love, Alan (2004), “Morphological and Paleontological Perspectives for a History of Evo-Devo”, in Maienschein, Jane and Laublicher, Manfred D. (eds.), From Embryology to Evo-Devo: A History of Embryology in the 20th Century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Love, Alan, and Raff, Rudolf A. (2003), “Knowing Your Ancestors: Themes in the History of Evo-Devo”, Knowing Your Ancestors: Themes in the History of Evo-Devo 5:327–330.Google ScholarPubMed
Mallatt, Jon (1996), “Ventilation and the Origin of Jawed Vertebrates: A New Mouth”, Ventilation and the Origin of Jawed Vertebrates: A New Mouth 117:329–404.Google Scholar
Matthen, Mohan (1998), “Biological Universals and the Nature of Fear”, Biological Universals and the Nature of Fear 95:105–132.Google Scholar
Matthen, Mohan (2000), “What Is a Hand? What Is a Mind?” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 214:653–672.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1960), “The Emergence of Evolutionary Novelties”, in Evolution after Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 349–380.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth Garrett (1984), Language, Thought and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth Garrett (1993), White Queen Psychology and Other Essays for Alice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Millikan, Ruth Garrett (2002), “Biofunctions: Two Paradigms”, in Cummins, Robert, Ariew, André, and Perlman, Mark (eds.), Functions: New Readings in the Philosophy of Psychology and Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 113–143.Google Scholar
Müller, Gerd B., and Newman, Stuart, eds. (2003), Origination of Organismal Form: Beyond the Gene in Developmental and Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gerd B., and Wagner, Günter P. (1991), “Novelty in Evolution: Restructuring the Concept”, Novelty in Evolution: Restructuring the Concept 22:229–256.Google Scholar
Müller, Gerd B., and Wagner, Günter P. (1996), “Homology, Hox Genes and Developmental Integration”, Homology, Hox Genes and Developmental Integration 36:4–13.Google Scholar
Neander, Karen (1983), Abnormal Psychobiology. PhD dissertation, LaTrobe University, Victoria, Australia.Google Scholar
Neander, Karen (1991a), “Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst’s Defense”, Functions as Selected Effects: The Conceptual Analyst’s Defense 58:168–184.Google Scholar
Neander, Karen (1991b), “The Teleological Notion of ‘Function’”, The Teleological Notion of ‘Function’ 69:454–468.Google Scholar
Neander, Karen (2002), “Types of Traits: Function, Structure and Homology in the Classification of Traits”, in Ariew, André, Cummins, Robert, and Perlman, Mark (eds.), Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of Biology and Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Owen, Richard (1843), Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Vertebrate Animals, Delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons, in 1843. London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans.Google Scholar
Pittendrigh, C. S. (1958), “Adaptation, Natural Selection and Behavior”, in Roe, Anne and Simpson, George Gaylord (eds.), Behavior and Evolution. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 390–416.Google Scholar
Raff, Rudolph A., and Love, Alan C. (2004), “Kowalevsky, Comparative Evolutionary Embryology, and the Intellectual Lineage of Evo-Devo”, Kowalevsky, Comparative Evolutionary Embryology, and the Intellectual Lineage of Evo-Devo 302B:19–34.Google Scholar
Roth, Louise V. (1999), “Within and Between Organisms: Replicators, Lineages and Homologues”, in Hall, Brian K. (ed.), Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. New York: Academic Press, 301–337.Google Scholar
Sattler, Rolf (1990), “Towards a More Dynamic Plant Morphology”, Towards a More Dynamic Plant Morphology 38:303–315.Google Scholar
Schlosser, Gerhard, and Wagner, Günter P., eds. (2004), Modularity in Development and Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shubin, Neil, Tabin, Cliff, and Carroll, Sean (1997), “Fossils, Genes and the Evolution of Animal Limbs”, Fossils, Genes and the Evolution of Animal Limbs 388:639–648.Google ScholarPubMed
Wagner, Günter P. (1989), “The Biological Homology Concept”, The Biological Homology Concept 20:51–69.Google Scholar
Wagner, Günter P. (1994), “Homology and the Mechanisms of Development”, in Hall, Brian K. (ed.), Homology: The Hierarchical Basis of Comparative Biology. New York: Academic Press, 273–299.Google Scholar
Wagner, Günter P. (2001), “Characters, Units and Natural Kinds: An Introduction”, in Wagner, Günter P. (ed.), The Character Concept in Evolutionary Biology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weber, Marcel (2004), Philosophy of Experimental Biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimsatt, William C. (1972), “Teleology and the Logical Structure of Function Statements”, Teleology and the Logical Structure of Function Statements 3:1–80.Google Scholar
Winther, Rasmus G. (2001), “Varieties of Modules: Kinds, Levels, Origins, and Behaviors”, Varieties of Modules: Kinds, Levels, Origins, and Behaviors 291B:116–129.Google Scholar
Winther, Rasmus G. (forthcoming), “Parts and Theories in Compositional Biology”, Biology and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Wouters, Arno (1995), “Viability Explanation”, Viability Explanation 10:435–457.Google Scholar
Wouters, Arno (2005a), “The Functional Perspective in Evolutionary Biology”, in Reydon, T. A. C. and Hemerik, L. (eds.), Current Themes in Theoretical Biology: A Dutch Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer, 33–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wouters, Arno (2005b), “The Functions Debate in Philosophy”, The Functions Debate in Philosophy 53:123–151.Google Scholar