A unified view of homology

Pollination syndromes and the origins of floral traits

BACKGROUND

A general view in the study of pollination syndromes is that floral traits usually represent convergent floral adaptations to specific functional pollinator groups. However, the definition of convergence is elusive and contradictory in the literature. Is convergence the independent evolution of either the same trait or similar traits with the same function? A review of the concept of convergence in developmental biology and phylogenetic systematics may shed new light in studies of pollination syndromes.

SCOPE

The aims of this article are (1) to explore the notion of convergence and other concepts (analogy, homoplasy and parallelism) within the theory and practice of developmental evolution and phylogenetic systematics; (2) to modify the definitions of syndromes in order to embrace the concepts of analogy and convergence; (3) to revisit the bat pollination syndrome in the context of angiosperm phylogeny, with focus on the showy 'petaloid' organs associated with the syndrome; (4) to revisit the genetic-developmental basis of flower colour; (5) to raise evolutionary hypotheses of floral evolution associated with the bat pollination syndrome; and (6) to highlight some of the current frontiers of research on the origin and evolution of flowers and its impact on pollination syndrome studies in the 21st century.

CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of the concepts of analogy and convergence within the concept of syndromes will constitute a new agenda of inquiry that integrates floral biology, phylogenetic systematics and developmental biology. Phyllostomid and pteropodid bat pollination syndrome traits in eudicots and monocots represent cases of analogous and convergent evolution. Pollination syndromes are a multivariate concept intrinsically related to the understanding of flower organogenesis and evolution. The formulation of hypotheses of pollination syndromes must consider the phylogenetic levels of universality for both plant and animal taxa, flower development, genetics, homology and evolution, and a clear definition of evolutionary concepts, including analogy, convergence, homoplasy and parallelism.

Against unifying homology concepts: Redirecting the debate

The term "homology" is persistently polysemous, defying the expectation that extensive scientific research should yield semantic stability. A common response has been to seek a unification of various prominent definitions. This paper proposes an alternative strategy, based on the insight that scientific concepts function as tools for research: When analyzing various conceptualizations of homology, we should preserve those distinguishing features that support particular research goals. We illustrate the fruitfulness of our strategy by application to two cases. First, we revisit Lankester's celebrated evolutionary reappraisal of homology and argue that his analysis has been distorted by assimilation to modern agendas. His "homogeny" does not mean the same thing as modern evolutionary "homology," and his "homoplasy" is no mere antonym. Instead, Lankester uses both new terms to pose a question that remains strikingly relevant-how do mechanistic and historical causes of morphological resemblance interact? Second, we examine the puzzle of avian digit homology, which exemplifies disciplinary differences in homology conceptualization and assessment. Recent progress has been fueled by the development of new tools within the relevant disciplines (paleontology and developmental biology) and especially by increasing interdisciplinary cooperation. Conceptual unification has played very little role in this work, which instead seeks concrete evolutionary scenarios that integrate all the available evidence. Together these cases indicate the complex relationship between concepts and other tools in homology research.