Author:
Stegmann Ulrich E.,Schmidt Filipp
Abstract
AbstractMany biological homologies were discovered before Darwin and without agreed criteria. Paradigmatic examples include the phylogenetic homology of mammalian forelimb bones and the serial homology of floral organs in waterlilies. It is generally assumed that perceiving similarities intuitively was the first step towards establishing morphological homologies. However, this assumption has never been tested. We hypothesize that pre-evolutionary naturalists relied on the well-established ability of humans to find visual correspondences between differently shaped objects. By using images of homologous organs and applying an experimental paradigm from cognitive psychology, we found that (1) naïve participants utilised this ability when identifying “corresponding” locations. In addition, (2) these locations were statistically indistinguishable from the locations that pre-evolutionary naturalists and contemporary experts considered homologous. Furthermore, (3) presenting naïve participants with images of intermediate organs influenced their correspondence judgements. This influence was in line with historical reports according to which intermediate organs facilitated the pre-evolutionary recognition of homologies.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference48 articles.
1. Ochoterena, H. et al. The search for common origin: Homology revisited. Syst. Biol. 68, 767–780. https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syz013 (2019).
2. Polly, P. D. Limbs in mammalian evolution. In Fins into Limbs: Evolution, Development, and Transformation (ed. Hall, B. K.) 245–268 (University of Chicago Press, 2006).
3. DiFrisco, J. Developmental Homology. In Evolutionary Developmental Biology (eds NuñodelaRosa, L. & Müller, G. B.) 85–97 (Springer, 2021).
4. Johnston, T. D. The pre-Darwinian history of the comparative method, 1555–1855. Hist. Philos. Life Sci. 43, 118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-021-00474-8 (2021).
5. Claßen-Bockhoff, R. The shoot concept of the flower: Still up to date?. Flora 221, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.flora.2015.11.012 (2016).