Abstract
The conclusion one might draw from all this is that the criterion used to define homology – i.e., the criterion of common ancestry – is a theoretical construct. Like truth, we must approximate it as best we can, and we have no touchstone to tell whether we have found it.---Colin Patterson, 1988: 621
References
Fitch, W.M. (1970) Distinguishing homologous from analogous proteins. Systematic Zoology, 19, 99–113.
Forey, P.L., Humphries, C.J., Kitching, I.L., Scotland, R.W., Siebert, D.J. & Williams, D.M. (1992) Cladistics: A practical course in systematic. The Systematics Association Publication No. 10. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Gill, A. & Mooi, R. (2010) Character evidence for the monophyly of the Microdesminae, with comments on relationships to Schindleria (Teleostei: Gobioidei: Gobiidae). Zootaxa, 2442, 51–59.
Johnson, G.D. (1983) Niphon spinosus: A primitive epinepheline serranid, with comments on the monophyly and intrarelationships of the Serranidae. Copeia, 1983, 777–787.
Mooi, R. & Gill, A. (2010) Phylogenies without synapomorphies —a crisis in fish systematic: Time to show some character. Zootaxa, 2540, 26–40.
Owen, R. (1843) Lectures on the comparative anatomy and physiology of the invertebrate animals. Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, London.
Patterson, C. (1982) Morphological characters and homology. In: Joysey, K.A. & Friday, A.E. (Eds.), Problems in Phylogenetic Reconstruction, Academic Press, London, pp. 21–74.
Patterson, C. (1988) Homology in classical and molecular biology. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 5, 603–625.