[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

2 x Re: Homology and Clarifying Terminology

> [...]
> the wings of bats and birds are homologous to one another. They are both
> arm-assisted flying structures, with an internal brachial skeleton. This
> too can be used for dipnoans and chondrostean fish, which employ the
> pectoral anatomy in such a way. Thus, fish fins and birds' wings are
> homologous. But the relation and degree must be elucidated.

They are homoiologous (homoios = similar AFAIK): analogous on a homologous
base. They are analogous as wings and homologous as forelegs. Both are only
analogous to insect wings. Of course, it's all sort of intuitive and depends
a lot on the context.

> and the use of "homology" as to be
> synonymous with "synapomorphy"

And "symplesiomorphy"!

> is true, as well ... to some people. It is
> not _the_ definition.

When symplesiomorphies are added, then it is, I think.


>   William T. Blows. 2001. Dermal armor of the polacanthine dinosaurs. pg.
> 363-385 in Carpenter (ed.) _The Armored Dinosaurs_ [Indiana University
> Press (Bloomington)].
> [...]
>   Blows also introduced fancy Latin for some types of scutes and plates:

An interesting approach. His terms sound better anyway than placoderm skull
bones (postmarginale etc.).

>   Caudorbitos [pl. caudorbitosa]

Fancy or not, that's wrong, pl. of os is ossa. :-P

> ( > cauda (Lat.) tail + orbis (Lat.)
> circle + os (Lat.) bone = tail-circling bone)