ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2015
On the hodological criterion for homology.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Organization of Central Retinal Projections in Anna's Hummingbirds (Calypte anna) and Zebra Finches (Taeniopygia castanotis).The Journal of comparative neurology · 2025Article
- Integrated Behavioral, Genetic and Brain Circuit Visualization Methods to Unravel Functional Anatomy of Zebrafish Amygdala.Frontiers in neuroanatomy · 2022Review
- Spatial cognition and the avian hippocampus: Research in domestic chicks.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
- Connectome topology of mammalian brains and its relationship to taxonomy and phylogeny.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Evolution of cognitive and neural solutions enabling numerosity judgements: lessons from primates and corvids.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2017Review
- Evolving perceptual biases for antisynchrony: a form of temporal coordination beyond synchrony.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Owen's pre-evolutionary definition of a homolog as "the same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function" and its redefinition after Darwin as "the same trait in different lineages due to common ancestry" entail the same heuristic problem: how to establish "sameness."Although different criteria for homology often conflict, there is currently a generalized acceptance of gene expression as the best criterion. This gene-centered view of homology results from a reductionist and preformationist concept of living beings. Here, we adopt an alternative organismic-epigenetic viewpoint, and conceive living beings as systems whose identity is given by the dynamic interactions between their components at their multiple levels of composition. We posit that there cannot be an absolute homology criterion, and instead, homology should be inferred from comparisons at the levels and developmental stages where the delimitation of the compared trait lies. In this line, we argue that neural connectivity, i.e., the hodological criterion, should prevail in the determination of homologies between brain supra-cellular structures, such as the vertebrate pallium.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.