↓ Skip to main content

On the hodological criterion for homology

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
On the hodological criterion for homology
Published in
Frontiers in Neuroscience, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnins.2015.00223
Pubmed ID
Authors

Macarena Faunes, João Francisco Botelho, Patricio Ahumada Galleguillos, Jorge Mpodozis

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 3%
Italy 1 3%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 27%
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 16%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 43%
Neuroscience 8 22%
Psychology 2 5%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 5 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#6,686
of 11,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,719
of 278,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neuroscience
#70
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,538 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.