Molecular Biology and Evolution, Vol 5, 603-625, Copyright © 1988 by Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution
C Patterson
Hypotheses of homology are the basis of comparative morphology and
comparative molecular biology. The kinds of homologous and nonhomologous
relations in classical and molecular biology are explored through the three
tests that may be applied to a hypothesis of homology: congruence,
conjunction, and similarity. The same three tests apply in molecular
comparisons and in morphology, and in each field they differentiate eight
kinds of relation. These various relations are discussed and compared. The
unit or standard of comparison differs in morphology and in molecular
biology; in morphology it is the adult or life cycle, but with molecules it
is the haploid genome. In morphology the congruence test is decisive in
separating homology and nonhomology, whereas with molecular sequence data
similarity is the decisive test. Consequences of this difference are that
the boundary between homology and nonhomology is not the same in molecular
biology as in morphology, that homology and synapomorphy can be equated in
morphology but not in all molecular comparisons, and that there is no
detected molecular equivalent of convergence. Since molecular homology may
reflect either species phylogeny or gene phylogeny, there are more kinds of
homologous relation between molecular sequences than in morphology. The
terms paraxenology and plerology are proposed for two of these kinds--
respectively, the consequence of multiple xenology and of gene conversion.
REVIEW ARTICLE
Homology in classical and molecular biology
Department of Palaeontology, British Museum (Natural History), London, England.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  R. S. Feranec Growth differences in the saber-tooth of three felid species Palaios, August 1, 2008; 23(8): 566 - 569. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. D. Bailey, M. A. Koch, M. Mayer, K. Mummenhoff, S. L. O'Kane Jr, S. I. Warwick, M. D. Windham, and I. A. Al-Shehbaz Toward a Global Phylogeny of the Brassicaceae Mol. Biol. Evol., November 1, 2006; 23(11): 2142 - 2160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. M. Bateman, J. Hilton, and P. J. Rudall Morphological and molecular phylogenetic context of the angiosperms: contrasting the 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approaches used to infer the likely characteristics of the first flowers J. Exp. Bot., October 1, 2006; 57(13): 3471 - 3503. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. McMahon and L. Hufford Phylogeny of Amorpheae (Fabaceae: Papilionoideae) Am. J. Botany, August 1, 2004; 91(8): 1219 - 1230. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Geeta Variation and diversification in plant evo-devo Am. J. Botany, August 1, 2003; 90(8): 1257 - 1261. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. McMahon and L. Hufford Developmental morphology and structural homology of corolla-androecium synorganization in the tribe Amorpheae (Fabaceae: Papilionoideae) Am. J. Botany, December 1, 2002; 89(12): 1884 - 1898. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. W. Chang and D. A. Julin Structure and Function of the Escherichia coli RecE Protein, a Member of the RecB Nuclease Domain Family J. Biol. Chem., November 30, 2001; 276(49): 46004 - 46010. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Petersen and O. Seberg Phylogenetic Evidence for Excision of Stowaway Miniature Inverted-Repeat Transposable Elements in Triticeae (Poaceae) Mol. Biol. Evol., November 1, 2000; 17(11): 1589 - 1596. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|