In article <61hpsj$m2j at net.bio.net>
Jerry Learn <learn at u.washington.edu> writes:
>In article <61h4rc$g5e at net.bio.net>, Brian Foley <btf at t10.lanl.gov> wrote:
>> First of all, the word "homologous" is supposed to mean
>> "derived from a common ancestor". And this is usually a yes or
>> no answer. There are not supposed to be differeing levels of
>> "homology". However, people mis-use these terms in place of
>> "similar" and and "similarity" so much, that I suppose we need
>> to give up on the orignal definition.
>Here I go being orthodox again, but I have to disagree. I don't think we
>should give up on the evolutionary definition of "homologous," just
>because people misuse the word. There is a useful distinction between the
>two, as you point out. I guess I will continue to try gently to correct
>people (mainly molecular biologists) when they misuse the words homology
>and homologous.
I agree with Jerry Learn - we should make the effort to inform our
colleagues. But you'd be surprised how angry they can get when you point
out the correct usage of "homology" and "similarity". I had a long and
pleasant discussion with one of our graduate students who was presenting a
poster at our Departmental poster day. The student was very receptive and
he asked for more information. I gave him a stack of articles that
discuss the proper use of "homology".
His supervisor phoned me the next day. Apparantly I had no right to
correct the poster or to make the supervisor look bad in the eyes of the
student. Besides, I was wrong - everybody uses "homology" to mean
"similarity". (No, the supervisor had not bothered to read the articles
that I had given the student. Still hasn't.)
Larry Moran
